Forym__frspectiveCommunication_researchers_concerned_with

Forym ~ f^rspective

Communication researchers, concerned with gathering complete, valid, and reproducible results, are being encouraged to use a group of qualitative research methods for studying business communication. The question that intuitively arises, then, is whether qualitative methods are increasingly utilized in pub- lished business communication research. This paper addresses the call for qualitative research m business communication, describes qualitative research methods with examples of business communication articles in which qualitative and qualitative/quantitative methods were used effectively, and presents an analysis of research methods used in articles published m three business com- munication journals during the last four years. The paper concludes with recommendations for business communication research.

Qualitative Hesearch in Business Communication: A Review and Analysis Mary L. Tucker Karen Sterkel Powell Colorado State University

G. Dale Meyer Universiiy of Cotorado at Boulder

/"lommunication has been studied for over 2,500 years and has \^ been recognized as increasingly more important during the last 30 years (Hickson & Jennings, 1993). In fact. Tucker, Meyer, and Westerman (1994) propose that effective business communication should be researched as the key strategic advantage in today's suc- cessful firms.

Communication researchers, concerned with gathering complete, valid, and reproducible results, are being encouraged to use a group of qualitative research methods for studying business communication (Kreps, Herndon, & Arneson, 1993). According to Kreps, et al., "Qual- itative research in the field of communications has emerged since the 1970s as a legitimate and widely recognized phenomenon in two ways: 1. it has produced a growing body of literature, and 2. it has developed a significant group of methods by which to study

the process of communication" (p. 1).

Tlie question that intuitively arises, then, is whether these signif- icant qualitative methods are increasingly used in published business communication research.

This paper will (1) address the call for qualitative research in busi- ness communication, (2) describe qualitative research methods and

383

3 8 4 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 Oaober 1995

provide examples of business communication articles in which qual- itative and qualitative/quantitative methods were used effectively, and (3) present an analysis of research methods used in articles pub- lished in three business communication journals during the last four years. The paper concludes with recommendations for business com- munication research.

Call for Qualitative Research in Business Communication A decade ago, Cochran and Dolan (1984) challenged business com-

munication researchers to seek new approaches to their research, stressing the need for research that is diverse and uses multiple sources of data. They proposed that the use of limited and conventional research methodologies has led to studies that generally support specific, narrow research paradigms on repetitive topics. To generate new research topics, they suggested that researchers conduct more qual- itative research to focus on the context of discovery rather than the context of justification.

Likewise, Moran and Moran (1985) criticized the redundancy in busi- ness communication research topics from 1960 to 1985. As recently as 1993, Yates stated that researchers have continued to examine repet- itive questions that can be answered by using quantitative methods, hindering the research efforts in business communications.

According to Halpern (1988), the business communication litera- ture does not lack empirical research as a whole, but it lacks research that discovers what and how students and business professionals write. Halpern believes that the neglect of qualitative research by business communication professionals has limited the kinds of questions that are asked and answered, hindered the discovery of sound theoretical approaches to teaching and practicing business communication, and encouraged researchers from related disciplines to explore the field and use strong qualitative methods to answer questions that are not being addressed. Halpern believes business communication researchers need to commit themselves to learning and using qualitative research methods so that they learn more about their discipline and grow pro- fessionally. Likewise, Forman (1991) believes qualitative field work should be the first phase of research in the 1990s for the many unex- plained communication issues, such as collaborative writing.

Smeltzer (1993) reiterates Halpern's and Forman's recommendation to use both quantitative and qualitative research methods, stating that little is known about the true nature of business communication and the needs of business practitioners. Smeltzer urges communication academicians to understand and to "feel" the needs of business prac- titioners, and to understand the context of the "real world" and the problems people face in it (p. 192).

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker. Powell, Meyer 3 8 5

Not only have researchers been encouraged to perform more qual- itative studies, but editors also have been encouraged to publish more qualitative studies. Cochran and Dolan (1984) challenged the edi- tors of The Journal of Business Communication to publish more qual- itative studies, noting that the choice of topics studied and research methods used in a study are influenced by the probability of its pub- lication.

The call for qualitative research in business communication is clear and strong. However, before embarking on a qualitative research project, researchers must understand qualitative methods, including their advantages and disadvantages.

A n Overview of Qualitative Methods According to Yin (1984), qualitative methods assist researchers who

desire to understand complex social phenomena. They are appropri- ate when seeking knowledge about the fundamental characteristics of a phenomenon being studied before theorizing about it. This knowl- edge often surfaces through close contact with subjects of a study, allow- ing the researcher to understand their points of view about and experiences with the phenomenon.

However, the potential of qualitative methodologies in providing answers to questions about phenomena related to management and organization science has been hindered by the confusion about the nature of qualitative research. Van Maanen (1983) puts this confusion in context:

The label qualitative methods has no precise meaning in any of the social scieBces. It is at best an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive tech- niques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world.

lb operate in a qualitative mode is to trade in linguistic symbols and, by so doing, attempt to reduce the distance between indicated and indicator, between theory and data, between context and action (p. 9).

Researchers even disagree on the definition of "qualitative." For example, some researchers use terms such as naturalistic and descrip- tive, as well as field, product, and case study. Perhaps the best way to clear up some ofthe confusion about qualitative research is to exam- ine some its most accepted methodologies and characteristics.

Qualitative Research Methodologies Wolcott (1992) proposes that there are but three general types of

data-gathering techniques in qualitative studies: experiencing, enquir- ing, and examining (p. 19). These three techniques are used, Wolcott argues, m such diverse qualitative approaches as case studies, non-

3 8 6 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

participant observed studies, interviews, participant observation, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, enography, and ethnology.

As Wolcott notes, most qualitative research is based on a case study that uses one or several of these qualitative techniques, enabling researchers to immerse themselves within a culture or a context, producing questions to pursue for further research and understand- ing of phenomena. A review of qualitative articles published from 1990- 1994 in three journals of business communication, as presented in Tkble 1, shows that business communication researchers perform eth- nomethodology studies more often than other types of qualitative studies.

As an extension of the qualitative technique of interviewing, Byers and Wilcox (1991) propose that focus groups offer business commu- nication researchers a rich source in which to gather genuine infor- mation about participants' perceptions, experiences, and attitudes which provide a basis from which to build theory. Another variation of interviewing techniques proposed by Martin and Chaney (1992) is the Delphi technique, which can be valuable in gathering data on a subject from a panel of experts.

For researchers who want to learn how to conduct qualitative research, numerous sources are available. Herndon and Kreps (1993) present essays on interviews, focus groups, narrative analysis, criti- cal incidents, and ethnographic analysis; Anderson (1987) offers good procedures for participant observations; Smith (1988) describes con- versation, narrative, and content analysis; Krueger (1988) and Mor- gan (1988) provide guidelines for focus groups; McCracken (1988) discusses interviews; and Pfaffenberger (1988) explores microcomputer applications in qualitative research. Other useful sources on qualitative methodology are cited throughout this article and appear in the Ref- erence section.

Qualitative Research Characteristics The value of qualitative research can best be understood by exam-

ining its characteristics. One of the primary advantages of qualitative research is that it is more open to the adjusting and refining of research ideas as an inquiry proceeds. Also, the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the research setting, as in an experimental study, but rather seeks to imderstand naturally occurring phenomena in their naturally occurring states. Inductive reasoning, as opposed to deduc- tive reasoning, is common in qualitative research, along with content or holistic analysis in place of statistical analysis.

Miles and Huberman (1984) believe that the data of qualitative research are particiilarly attractive because they provide: 1. well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations;

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Powell, Meyer 387

Table 1 Examples of Qualitative Methods in Business Communication Studies

Genre

Participant observation study

Interview study

Ethnomethodology (conversational, narrative, and content analysis)

Noaparticipant observation

Ethnography (cultural description/ interpretation)

Topic

Ownership in observation corporate texts study

Evaluating a performance appraisal instrument

Teamwork and communication

Writing tasks m four departments of an insurance company

Communication practices of a company experiencing a disaster

Framing devices used m implementing total quality

Compliance gaining features m management memos

Strategic ambiguity m the birth of an organization

Appeals to ethos in business speeches

Significance of narratives m research interviews

Value of formal conventions in disciplinary writing

Shift from orality to textuality m Enghsh accounting and its books

Computer network collaboration

Dana Corporation's Code

How managers handle performance problems

Gender differences in written business communications

Asking ihe right questions about the Challenger

Strategies for multiple-audience adaption

Managerial communication practices in Chinese factories

Shared meaning as a sales inducement strategy

Function of OK-leave m videos in the corporation's rites and ceremonials

Roles of written texts m an insurance company's media communications

Proposal writing at Atherton Jordan, Inc

Author and Date

Winsor, 1993

Williams & Hummert, 1990

Glaser, 1994

Pomerenke, 1992

lyier, 1992

Fairhurst, 1993

David & Baker, 1994

Contractor & Ehrhch, 1993

Beason, 1991

Ledwell-Brown & Dias, 1994

Hagge, 1994

Tebeaux, 1993

Mabnto, 1992

Rogers & Swales, 1990

Morris, Gaveras, Baker, & Coursey, 1990

Tebeaux, 1990

Winsor, 1990

Spilka, 1990

Krone, Garrett, & Chen, 1992

DiSanza, 1993

Thralls, 1992

Cross, 1994

Mclsaac & Aachauer, 1990

3 8 8 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

2. preservations of time flows, chronologies, causality; 3. serendipitous findings for new theory construction; and 4. a quality of "undeniability."

However, the contextual and subjective nature of qualitative data can be a concern for a researcher who seeks to generalize the findings. What is true in one situation or context may not be true for another. To overcome this concern, data need to be gathered in a variety of con- texts, which takes considerable time and effort. Therefore, researchers under pressure to publish may not view a qualitative study as a fea- sible research paradigm.

To ensure that qualitative research is rigorous, Howe and Eisen- hart (1990) propose five standards: 1. Appropriate data collection and analysis techniques to fit and pro-

vide answers to the research questions asked. The research ques- tions should lead the data collection and analysis techniques rather than vice versa.

2. Competent, technically correct data collection and analysis (e.g. design of instruments, conduct of interviews, sampling, data reduc- tion and display, proper inferences, and justifiable generaliza- tions).

3. Complete literature review and theory identification as basis for research questions (including making as explicit as possible the researcher's own subjectivity).

4. Useful balancing of present research with broader knowledge bases from other bodies of knowledge.

5. Cogent assessment of the value of the research findings (External: "So what?"; Internal: Confidentiality, privacy, and truth-telling).

Another solution to the subjectivity of qualitative research data is triangulation. According to Patton (1989), there are four tYiies of tri- angulation: 1. Data Triangulation: the use of a variety of data sources in a study,

such as different times, places, and subjects; 2. Investigator Triangulation: the use of one or more researchers or

evaluators; 3. Theory Triangulation: the use of multiple perspectives or compet-

ing theories to interpret a single set of data; and 4. Methodological Triangulation: the use of multiple data collection

methods to study a single problem.

As an illustration, Flynn, Savage, Penti, Brown, and Watke (1991) incorporated all four triangulation methods in their study on the effect of gender on modes of collaboration. The study was based on gender and collaborative writing'theories (theory triangulation) and was

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Powell, Meyer 389

conducted in a design and laboratory course over a period of four years (data triangulation). All of the authors (investigator triangulation) par- ticipated in data gathering, which consisted of observations and interviews (methodological triangulation).

While the above study used only qualitative methods, method- ological triangulation often results in a research study that combines qualitative and quantitative (qual-quant) techniques. Patton (1989) states that this type of triangulation can be achieved by a variety of qual-quant mixes in a study's design (experimental/naturalistic), data measurement (quantitative/qualitative), and analysis methods (sta- tistical/content) .

Qualitative, quantitative, and qual-quant research techniques can all generate data that explain and predict phenomena, as shown in Figure 1.

INDUCTIVE RESEARCH (Qualitative)

(A) Qualitative

(B) laws, theories,

research models

DEDUCTIVE RESEARCH (Qualitative, Quantitative,

or Qual-Quant)

^ IP (C)

prediction and explanations

Figure 1. A Model for Qualitative, Quantitive, and Qual-Quant Methods Source Meyer, G D , and Tucker, M L., 1993.

Path A^B indicates that inductive research (qualitative) tech- niques can lead to establishing laws, theories, and models. This path can be by-passed by researchers who simply adopt an existing theory for a research study or by researchers who, through their creative minds, propose a theory to test. Subsequently, deductive research, including qualitative, quantitative, or qual-quant designs, can confirm theories, leading to prediction and explanations, as shown in Path B->C. If hypotheses were rejected at point C, the researcher might use qualitative techniques to re-evaluate the hypotheses, as represented in Path C^A. Path Â >-C represents studies that use qualitative tech- niques to draw conclusions about a phenomenon without developing a law, theory, or model.

3 9 0 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

A study by Fairhurst (1993) illustrates how qualitative research can lead to theory building (Path A-^B). Using discourse analysis, Fairhurst studied framing devices used to implement a total quality (TQ) pro- gram at a large multinational manufacturing company in order to iden- tify framing devices that are effective in implementing a TQ vision and, thus, can be considered effective in any vision implementation situ- ation. Five such framing devices were identified in the study.

Similarly, lyier (1992) studied Exxon's communication efforts dur- ing the Valdez crisis by reading books and newspaper and magazine articles, as well as by viewing or reading transcripts of news and doc- umentary programs. Eleven communication practices were identified that damaged the corporation's credibility and antagonized the public, thus contributing valuable knowledge to crisis communication theory.

While quantitative research appears to be the preferred method of confirming theory (Path B--»-C), qualitative research can also test the- ory, as illustrated in the study by Contractor and Ehrlich (1993). Draw- ing from theoretical perspectives on organizational birth and the role of communication in the creation of organizations. Contractor and Ehrlich proposed that strategically ambiguous messages that foster multiple messages play a key role in the birth of organizations. Their case study confirmed their hj^othesis.

Meyer (1992) has argued that qualitative research techniques are better for theory building, but quantitative research techniques are more effective and efficient for theory testing. Whether or not one agrees that qualitative techniques have potential in theory testing along with quantitative techniques (Path B^C), qualitative approaches are a common first step in quantitative studies.

Even some well-known quantitative researchers have proposed more of a qual-quant fusion in research studies. Miles and Huberman (1984) argue that the dichotomy of a quantitative-qualitative separa- tion is an archaic distinction:

In fact, it is getting harder to find any methodologists solidly encamped in one epistemology or the other. More and more "quantitative" methodologists, operating from a logical positivist stance, are using naturalistic and phe- nomenological approaches to complement tests, sun^eys, and structured inter- views. On the other side, an increasing number of ethnographers and qualitative researchers are using predesigned conceptual frameworks and prestructured instrumentation, especially when dealing with more than one institution or community (p. 20). Thus, Miles and Huherman mdicate a shift m the "social research paradigms" to a more "ecumenical" condition.

Considering the attention being given qualitative research in busi- ness communication, a review of what research methods are being pub- lished is important and interesting. The following section presents an

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Powell, Meyer 3 9 1

analysis of research methods published within the past four years in three business commmunication journals.

Analysis of Business Communication Journal i?esearch Methods

Methodology lb provide a "glimpse" of research methods currently being pubLished

in selected business communication journals, an inductive search of the three journals was conducted, followed by a simple quantitative analysis. The journals included in this survey were The Journal of Busi- ness Communication (JBC), Management Communication Quarterly (MCQ), and the Journal of Business and Technical Communication (JBTC). Editorials, book reviews, news and notes, commentaries, and research instrument articles appearing in these three joimnals were not considered in this study. We reviewed the research studies pub- lished in these three journals and divided them into four categories: Qualitative, Quantitative, Qual-Quant, or Other.

The first step was to create a set of guidelines for the categorizing of each journal article. For this analysis, Patton's (1989) interpreta- tion of qualitative and quantitative measurement was used:

Qualitative measurements consist of detailed descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions, and observed behaviors; direct quotations from people about their experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts; and excerpts or entire passages from documents, correspondence, records, and case histories. These studies involved no statistical analysis. Quantitative measurement relies upon the use of instruments that provide a standard- ized framework in order to limit data collection to certain predetermined response or analysis categories. The experiences of people in programs and the important variables that describe program settings are fit into these stan- dardized categories to which numerical values are then attached (p. 22).

Qual-Quant research is a combination of both qualitative and quan- titative research. The last category is "Other" and includes articles such as literature reviews, instructional articles, theory-building essays and opinion pieces. In other words, in this study we are look- ing at published research studies, dividing them into four categories: Qualitative, Quantitative, Qual-Quant, or Other.

Findings A total of 247 articles appeared in these three business communi-

cation journals (JBC, MCQ, and JBTC) from 1990 to 1994 and were categorized by two independent raters, one outside reviewer (gradu- ate student) and one of the authors. The first review was conducted by a graduate student after being instructed on the specific charac- teristics of each category. Both reviewers looked at each article and

3 9 2 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

categorized each into one of the four categories: Qualitative, Quan- titative, Qual-Quant, or Other. Raters agreed in their separate ratings with 93 percent accuracy. As illustrated in Table 2, the majority of the 247 articles were placed in the Quantitative (89) and Other (97) cat-

Table 2 Breakdown of Research Methods by Journal

Journal

The Journal of Business Communication

Management Communication Quarterly

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Total

Qual

2 (10%)

2 (12%)

1 (6%)

2 (11%)

2 (13%)

0 (0%)

3 (23%)

32 (5%)

3 (33%)

1 (5%)

5 (25%)

4 (19%)

6 (32%)

35 (14%)

Quant

9 (45%0

8 (47%)

10 (59%)

10 (47%)

8 (44%)

7 (47%)

9 (60%)

10 (83%)

5 (38%)

4 (33%)

0 (0%)

3 (14%)

5 (25%)

0 (0%)

3 (16%)

89 (36%)

Qual-Quant

1 (5%)

1 (6%)

4 (24%)

4 (12%)

1 (6%)

2 (13%)

1 (8%)

5 (38%)

1 (8%)

0 (0%)

3 (14%)

0 (0%)

1 (5%)

2 (11%)

26 (11%)

Other

8 (40%)

6 (35%)

2 (12%)

2 (35%)

7 (39%)

4 (27%)

1 (8%)

0 (0%)

4 (33%)

6 (67%)

15 (68%)

10 (50%)

16 (76%)

8 (42%)

97 (39%)

Total

247

egories, accounting for 75 percent of published research in these 3 jour- nals.

Over one-third (39 percent) were categorized as "Other" works: lit- erature reviews, instructional pieces, theory-building works, or opin-

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Powell. Meyer 3 9 3

ion papers. Quantitative articles were the second most frequent, con- sisting of over one-third (36 percent) of the total articles. Thirty-five (14 percent) ofthe articles were classified as Qualitative studies and only 26 (11 percent) were Qual-Quant.

When totals for each journal are reviewed in Table 3, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication has both the largest num- ber (19) and the highest percentage (21 percent) of Qualitative arti- cles. The Journal of Business Communication and Management Communication Quarterly tie with 8 qualitative articles each for the four years studied.

Table 3 Total and Percentages of Analysis Method by Journal

Journal

The Journal of Business Commumeation

Management Communication. Quarterly

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Qual

8 (9.0%)

8 (119%)

19 (209%)

Quant

43 (43.3%)

35 (52 2%)

11 (121%)

Qual-Quant

9 (10.1%)

11 (16.4%)

6 (66%)

Other

29 (32.6%)

13 (19.4%)

55 (60.4%)

Tbtal

The Journal of Business Communication published mostly Quan- titative (43 articles, or 48 percent) and Other (29 articles, or 33 per- cent) articles. In fact, this journal published the greatest number of quantitative studies of all three journals; although, when considering the percentage of total articles. Management Communication Quar- terly ranks first with over one-half (35 articles, or 52 percent) of total articles being Quantitative.

Management Communication Quarterly has both the highest num- ber (11) and highest percentage (16 percent) of published articles considered Qual-Quant in nature. The Journal of Business Commu- nication ranks second with 9 articles for 10 percent of 89 total Qual- Quant articles.

Research methods used in these three business communication jour- nals are visually displayed in Figure 2, recapitulating in a pie chart the total percentages of articles making up Qualitative, Quantitative, Qual-Quant, or Other categories of journal articles. The "Other" cat- egory, consisting of literature reviews, instructional articles, theory- building essays and opinion pieces, account for 39 percent of the 247 articles reviewed. However, Quantitative articles were only 3 percent less at 36 percent of total articles in these three journals over a four- year period. Qualitative studies (14 percent) and Qual-Quant articles (11 percent) together only amount to 25 percent ofthe published arti- cles in these journals.

394 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

Figure 2. Percentage of Articles Using Each Research Method that Were Published in Three Business Communication Journals Between 1990 and 1994

When the data are put into a line chart to show research methods used in these business communication journals over time, an inter- esting indication is visually displayed in Figure 3. Although trends can- not be established with data from only four years, this chart graphs a steady increase in published Qualitative research over the last three years. Interestingly, Qual-Quant studies declined rapidly between 1993 and 1994. Even though Quantitative articles are much greater in volume than Qualitative or Qual-Quant publications, there is a dip between 1992 and 1993 in Quantitative research that only slightly increases again from 1993 to 1994.

- • - Q U A L - • - QUANT - ^ QUAL-QUANT - * - QTHER

1990 1991 1992

YEAR

1993 1994

Figure 3. Research Methods Used in Articles Published by Three Business Com- munication Journals Between 1990 and 1994

These results show that all three business communication journals analyzed published considerably more quantitative than either qual- itative or combined qualitative-quantitative research between the

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Povi/ell, Meyer 3 9 5

years of 1990 and 1994. Combined, they published more than twice as much quantitative research (36 percent) than either of these other two categories individually (14 and 11 percent respectively), and almost one and one half times as much as these two categories com- bined (totaling 25 percent). This may indicate that more quantitative than qualitative business communication research is performed by researchers, or that quantitative research is more readily publishable because of characteristics in the reviewing process, procedures, or peo- ple. The present research cannot answer that question. A longitudi- nal study of research methods used in business communication Journals over time might add some insight. Additional research doc- umenting research methods of articles submitted to these journals, along with acceptance data, could also add to these findings and would be enlightening to other researchers when deciding upon appropriate research methods for undertaking a publishable study.

Questions Raised for Business Communication Researcli Qualitative studies are being called for in business communication

research, but the number of published qualitative studies has not increased significantly in the last four years. Qualitative research meth- ods can answer numerous questions about the who, what, when, where, why, and how of communication; however, apparently, few busi- ness communication researchers are publishing articles using these methods to understand the real needs and problems business people face. The lack of qualitative research in the field may account for some of the disagreement reported by Smeltzer (1993) as occurring between business practitioners and academicians on the areas of business communication that need additional research.

Given the desirability of using qualitative methods to add to our knowledge about business communication and to investigate toipics that business professionals would like to see researched, why are we not publishing more qualitative research? • Are we untrained in qualitative methods? • Is qualitative research too time consuming? • Are we concerned about getting it published? • Are the rewards higher for publishing quantitative research?

TMs paper has suggested some sources that will add to our knowl- edge of and skills in qualitative research techniques, as well as ways that we can make our qualitative studies more rigorous and, thus, hope- fully more publishable. Business communication researchers who are not familiar with qualitative techniques should team up with more experienced researchers who can mentor ttem in the use of these techniques. In addition, researching with academicians across busi-

3 9 6 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 October 1995

ness and non-business disciplines would bring more theoretical knowl- edge to a research project, thus enhancing the study's contribution to theory building.

Since a qualitative study may take years to gather adequate data and interpret the findings, researchers should consider publishing por- tions ofthe study over time. A qualitative study requires a significant commitment from the researcher. However, the opportunity it provides to get in touch with the feelings, concerns, and needs of the business community makes its undertaking important to business communi- cation research.

NOTES

Mary L. Tucker is an Assistant Professor of Management and Business Com- munication at Colorado State University. Dr. IVicker researches, presents, publishes and consults in leadership, communications, and customer satisfaction. Mary L. Tlicker can be reached at the Department of Management, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523,- Internet: [email protected].

Karen Sterkel Powell is Assistant Professor of Management and Business Com- mimication in the College of Business at Colorado State University. Dr. Powell serves as Co-Coordinator ofthe Communication-Across-the-Curriculum program in the College and provides consulting and training services for business organizations. Karen Powell can be reached at the Department of Management, College of Busi- ness, Fort Collins, CO 80523; Internet: [email protected].

G. Dale Meyer is Chair ofthe Management Division, Executive Director ofthe Center for Entrepreneurship, Professor of Strategic Management, and Anderson Professor of Entrepreneurial Development in the College of Business and Admin- istration at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Meyer's research includes interests in new venture creation and failure in both small and large firms, devel- opment in new market economies, strategy making and behavior of entrepreneurial teams, the founder/entrepreneur "executive limit," qualitative research design, and financial performance results of communication-based new organizational struc- tures. G. Dale Meyer can be reached at Campus Box 419, College of Business and Administration, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309- 0419.

This article is an adaptation of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, Track 9, New Orleans, November 3,1994, and published in Southern Management Association Proceedings. The authors wish to thank Tony Dimas, Don Bacon, Karen Roybal, and John C. Sherblom for their helpful insights in this article revision.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. A. (1987). Communication research: Issues and methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Beason, L. (1991). Strategies for establishing an effective persona: An analysis of appeals to ethos in business speeches. The Journal of Business Communica- tion, 28, 326-346.

Byers, P. Y., & Wilcox, J. R. (1991). Focus groups: A qualitative opportunity for researchers. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 63-78.

Qualitative Research in Business Communication / Tucker, Powell, Meyer 3 9 7

Cochran, D. S., & Dolan, J. A. (1984). Qualitative research: An alternative to quan- titative research in communication. The Journal of Business Communication, 21, 25-32.

Contractor, N. S., & Ehrlich, M. C. (1993). Strategic ambiguity in the birth of a loosely coupled organization: The case of a $50-million experiment. Manage- ment Communication Quarterly, 6, 251-281.

Cross, G. A. (1994). Recontextualizing writing: Roles of written texts in multiple media communications. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, <S(2), 212-230.

David, C, & Baker, M. A. (1994). Rereading bad news: Compliance-gaining fea- tures in management memos. The Journal of Business Communication, 31,267- 290.

DiSanza, J. R. (1993). Shared meaning as a sales inducement strategy: Bank teller responses to frames, reinforcements, and quotas. The Journal of Business Communication, 30, 133-160.

Fairhuxst, G. T. (1993). Echoes of the vision: Wlien the rest of the organization talks total quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 331-371.

Flyim, E. A., Savage, G., Penti, M., Brown, C, & Watke, S. (1991). Gender and modes of collaboration in a chemical engineering design course. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5(4), 444-462.

Pormaii, J. (1991). Collaborative business writing: A Burkean perspective for future research The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 233-257.

Glaser, S R. (1994). Teamwork and communication: A 3-year case study of change. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 282-296.

Hagge, J. (1994). The value of formal conventions in disciplinary writing: An axi- ological analysis of professional style manuals. Journal of Business and Tech- nical Communication, 8{4), 408-461.

Halpern, J. W. (1988). Getting m deep- Using qualitative research in business and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2(2), 22-43.

Herndon, S. L., & Kreps, G. L. (1993). Qualitative research: Applications in orga- nizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Pi'-ess.

Hickson, M., Ill, & Jennings, R. W. (1993). Compatible theory and applied research: Systems theory and triangulation. In S. L. Herndon & G. L. Kreps (Eds.), Qual- itative research: Applications m organizational communication (pp. 139-157). Creeskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9.

Kreps, G. L., Herndon, S. L., & Arneson, P. (1993). Introduction: The power of qual- itative research to address orgamzational issues. In 8. L. Herndon & G. L. Kreps (Eds.), Qualitative research: Applications in organizationai communication (pp. 1-18). Creeskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Krone, K., Garrett, M., & Chen, L. (1992). Managerial communication practices m Chinese factories' A preliminary investigation. The Journal of Business Com- munication, 29, 229-252.

Krueger, B. A. (1988). Focus groups- A practical guide for applied research. New- hxay Park, CA: Sage.

Ledweli-Bro\̂ m, J., & Dias, P. X. (1994, April). The way we do things here: The sig- nificance of narratives in research interviews. Journal of Business and Tech- nical Communication, 8(2), 165-185.

3 9 8 The Journal of Business Communication 32 4 Ortober 1995

Mabrito, M. (1992). Real-time computer network coUahoration: Case studies of husi- ness writing students. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, ff(3), 316-336.

Martin, J. S., & Chaney, L. H. (1992). Determination of content for a collegiate course in intercultural husiness communication hy three delphi panels. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 267-283.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newhury Park, CA: Sage.

Mclsaac, C. M., & Aschauer, M. A. (1990). Proposal writing at Atherton Jordan, Inc.: An ethnographic study. Management Commumcation Quarterly, 3(4), 527-559.

Meyer, G. D. (1992). Datahase dances versus deep knowledge in strategic manage- ment. In D. Sumicrest (Ed.), Proceedings of Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 452-455). San Francisco: Decision Sciences Institute.

Meyer, G. D., & Tucker, M. L. (1993, August). Entrepreneurial studies as a search for suchness: A qual-quant fusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Entrepreneurship Division Preconference, Atlanta, GA.

Miles, M. B., & Huherman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mintzherg, H. (1983). An emerging strategy of "direct" research. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 105-116). Newhury Park, CA: Sage.

Moran, M. H., & Moran, M. G. (1985). Business letters, memoranda, and resumes. In M.G. Moran & D. Journet (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 313-349). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newhury Park, CA: Sage.

Morris, G. H., Gaveras, S. C , Baker, W. L., & Coursey, M. L. (1990). Aligning actions at work: How managers coiifront problems of employee performance. Man- agement Communication Quarterly, 3, 303-333.

Patton, M. Q. (1989). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newhury Park: Sage.

Pfaffenherger, B. (1988). Microcomputer applications m qualitative research. New- hury Park, CA: Sage.

Pomerenke, P. J. (1992). Writers at work: Seventeen writers at a major insurance corporation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6(2), 172-186.

Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1993). Why don't we do better research? The Journal of Busi- ness Communication, 30, 200-202.

Rogers, P. S., & Swales, J. M. (1990). We the people? An analysis of the Dana Cor- poration policies document. The Journal of Business Communication, 27, 293- 313.

Smeltzer, L. R. (1993). Emerging questions and research paradigms in business com- munication research. The Journal of Business Communication, 30, 181-197.

Smith, M. J. (1988). Contemporary communication research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Spilka, R. (1990). Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process- and text-hased strategies for multiple-audience adaptation. Journal of Business and Techni- cal Communication, 4(1), 44-67.

Tebeaux, E. (1990). Toward an understanding of gender differences in written husi- ness communications: A suggested perspective for future research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4(1), 25-48.

Qualitative Research m Business Communication / Tucker, Powell, Meyer 3 9 9

Tfebeaux, E. (1993). Prom orality to textuality to English accounting and its books, 1553-1680: The power of visual presentation. Journal of Business and Techni- cal Communication, 7(3), 322-359.

Thralls, C. (1992). Rites and ceremonials: Corporate video and the construction of social realities in modem organizations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6(4), 381-402.

Tlicker, M. L., Meyer, G. D., & Westerman, J. W. (1994, August). A resource-based view of barrier reducing communicated knowledge as a source of competitive advantage. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Organizational Communications and Information Systems Division, Dallas, TX.

lyier, L (1992). Ecological disaster and rhetorical response: Exxon's communications in the wake of the Valdez spill. Journal of Business and Technical Communi- cation, 6{2), 149-171.

Van Maanen, J. (Ed.). (1983). Qualitative methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Williams, S. L., & Hummert, M. L. (1990). Evaluating performance appraisal inven-

tory dimensions using construct analysis. The Journal of Business Communi- cation, 27,117-133.

Winsor, D. A. (1990). The construction of knowledge m organizations: Asking the right questions about the challenger. Journal of Business and Technical Com- munication, 4(2), 7-19.

Winsor, D. A. (1993). Owning corporate texts. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(2), 179-195

Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M. LeCompte, W. D. Mill- roy, & J. Freissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 3-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yates, J. (1993). The opportunity cf qualitative research. The Journal of Business Communication. 30, 199-206.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research- Design and methods. Beverly HiUs, CA: Sage.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011290

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction: Some innovative

methods for business and management research

BRANKA KRIVOKAPIC-SKOKO AND GRANT O’NEILL School of Business, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT Focusing upon a number of increasingly popular approaches to mixed methods research, this paper provides a brief overview of fully integrated research methods that transcend the quantitative– qualitative divide. Introducing a range of sophisticated mixed method designs that have been successfully applied in business and management research, it provides insight into the potential benefi ts of mixed methods. In addressing integrated mixed methods, and applications in business and management research, the discussion signposts how these methods allow for qualitative analysis that is systematic, formal, rigorous and procedurally replicable. Further, it identifi es how integrated mixed methods can make it possible to achieve intensity and richness associated with qualitative research when dealing with more than a handful of cases. As such, the paper has particular relevance to qualitative researchers with an interest in exploring innovative and productive mixed methods.

Keywords: qualitative and quantitative research, quantifi cation

INTRODUCTION

Mixed methods research has the potential to provide new insights into, and enhanced understanding of, phenomena being investigated. As an intellectual and practical synthesis of quali- tative and quantitative research, mixed meth- ods research can be a powerful means of gaining highly informative, exhaustive, balanced and use- ful research results (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). It can provide rich data, lead to new lines of thinking, and by intentionally engaging multiple perspectives and present- ing a greater diversity of views, mixed methods research can be inclusive, pluralistic and comple- mentary (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). Further, as

argued by many in the mixed methods research movement, it offers a means by which one can act more ethically in research by mixing meth- ods in order to represent a plurality of interests, voices and perspectives (Greene & Caracelli, 1997). As a research approach, mixed methods is most strongly underpinned by the philosophical approach known as pragmatism which advocates a practical and outcome-oriented method of inquiry and a need-based approach to research methods and concept selection (Bazeley, 2003; Denscombe, 2008; Maxcy, 2003). That noted, there is growing debate around the view that epistemological and ontological issues associated with mixed methods need to be reconsidered in light of an appreciation

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction

Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 291

While we do not wish to revisit ‘the para- digm wars’ or write at any length on a dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research, we do wish to note that we do not accept the incom- patibility thesis, nor do we accept the assumption that qualitative research has secondary status in mixed methods inquiry. Additionally, following Fielding and Schreier (2001), we accepted that there are different levels of integrating qualita- tive and quantitative research methods, from the data gathering and data analysis through to the entire research process. In our view Fielding and Schreier (2001) offer a useful framework for thinking about mixed methods research in their categorization of two main approaches to mixed methods: basic approaches of blending of quali- tative and quantitative data analysis; and, more sophisticated approaches that integrate quantita- tive and qualitative dimensions.

This paper does not discuss of the relative importance of quantitative and qualitative compo- nents, or how they are sequenced in the context of mixed research methods (for such a discussion, see, for example: Morse, 2003; Onwuegbuzie, Slate, Leech, & Collins, 2009), rather, it focuses on the full integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Such integration can occur on a num- ber of levels and can allow for both hermeneutic and statistical analyses. At this point, it should also be noted that this paper is written for the qualitative researcher seeking to explore some innovative and stimulating ways of combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. We have developed this article as a straightforward and condensed over- view of some fully integrated research methods that transcend the quantitative– qualitative divide. The aim is to introduce the reader to complex and sophisticated mixed methods research designs and their application in business and management research. We strongly believe there is a need to draw greater attention to the merits and variety of fully intergraded research methods and provide a brief account of some key methods.

The discussion commences by outlining two approaches of integrating quantitative and

of the complexity and variability of qualitative and quantitative methods and reductive philosophical thinking (Bergman, 2008).

While there are many advocates of mixed meth- ods research, others such as Denzin and Lincoln (2005), and even more so Howe (2004), are rather critical of mixed methods approaches argu- ing that qualitative and quantitative paradigms cannot and should not be mixed. Differences in grounding philosophical knowledge assumptions are held up as key reasons for incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. This incompatibility thesis is partly based on claims that mixed methods designs are direct descendants of classical experimentalism, and that there is a presumed methodological hier- archy with quantitative methods at the top. Even the practice of doing mixed research has been seen by some authors (for example, Giddings, 2006, p. 195) as a cover for the continuing hegemony of positivism, or at least postpositivism.

According to Hesse-Biber (2010, p. 457) the practice of mixed methods research ‘has leaned towards a more positivistic methodological orien- tation’. In analysing more than 200 articles using mixed methods, Bryman (2006) noted the domi- nance of the quantitative approaches within the mixed method research designs. Similarly Molina- Azorin (2011) reported that in a sample of 130 mixed method articles in management research, and in around 80% of the mixed methods designs the quantitative elements dominated. It is, perhaps, not surprising then that some authors publishing in Qualitative Inquiry and Qualitative Research, such as Mason (2006) and Bryman (2006), as well as Creswell, Shope, Plano Crark, and O’Green (2006), called for a more prominent role for quali- tative research in mixed methods research. They have argued that qualitative research can valu- ably extend the logic of quantitative explanation and give voice to different perspectives. Further, this ‘qualitatively driven’ mixed method research design is seen to hold strong potential for enhanc- ing our capacity for social explanation and gener- alisation (Mason, 2006, p. 10).

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011292

Some developments in qualitative research methods outlined below, such as Ragin’s (1987) QCA, and Heise’s (1991) and Griffi n’s (1993) ESA, further support these ‘quantifying’ tenden- cies. Such approaches can allow for qualitative analysis that is systematic, formal, rigorous and procedurally replicable, and, very importantly, it becomes possible to achieve a richness and inten- sity commonly associated with qualitative research while dealing with more than a handful of cases.

Figure 1 shows several approaches to the full integration of research methods and data analysis used in business and management research. The fi gure points the reader to scholars/authorities in a particular method and its applications.

Case-oriented quantifi cation The case-oriented quantifi cation method, devel- oped by Udo Kuckartz and associates from Humboldt University in Berlin (Kuckartz, 1995), and recently further clarifi ed in terms of its theoreti- cal background (Colins, Broekaert, Vandevelde, & van Hove, 2008), is appropriate for qualitative research dealing with a large number of individual cases and using semi-structured interviews. The basic idea is to integrate quantitative techniques within the analysis of the qualitative data. Generally, within the social sciences the case study approach refers to an intensive analysis of an issue being investigated (Yin, 2003) where many features of a few cases are thoroughly examined. Case-oriented quantifi cation allows one to achieve that intensity of analysis while examining a much larger number of cases. It combines qualitative and quantitative approaches during the evaluation of qualitative research data. The case-oriented method includes a specifi c mathematical procedure for analysing qualitative data and this can be used to classify the cases and construct a typology. The process starts with qualitative research where the goal is to unpack the subjective meaning of textual data and identify the relevant dimensions of whole cases. The dimen- sions developed from the data are then transformed into case-oriented variable and case-specifi c vari- able values. In the next stage of the data analysis,

qualitative methods of data analysis, Kuckartz’s (1995) case-oriented quantifi cation and hermeneu- tic-classifi catory content analysis (Roller, Mathes, & Eckert, 1995). Initially, these two methods started from the integration of quantitative techniques into the analysis of qualitative data. However some authors like Bos and Tarnai (1999), Kern, Sachs, and Rühli (2007), identify these as the methods which fully combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to data gathering and analysis, and the logic of inquiry, and integration of the data. This perspective is also strongly articulated by several authors from German and Dutch speaking areas who publish in FQS: Sozialforschung (see Fielding & Schreier, 2001). The paper then moves on to pres- ent some fully integrated research methods where ‘qualitative and quantitative aspects are intermin- gled at almost every point’ (Ellingsen, Størksen, & Stephens, 2010, p. 406). These are: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), even structure analysis (ESA); and, Q methodology. We describe the main features of these methods and their application to management and business research.

QUALITATIVELY DRIVEN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH There is an increasing tendency among research- ers to include a much larger volume of unstruc- tured data than has traditionally been used in qualitative analysis (Bazeley, 2004, p. 146). There is also a growing trend around what can be seen as the quantifi cation of qualitative research (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002). The ‘quantitizing’ of data (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) frequently involves converting qualitative data into numerical codes that can be counted and analysed statistically. Others, such as Mason (2006), have noted a ‘mixing [of ] methods in a qualitatively driven way’ where hermeneutic methods that aim at understanding the meaning of texts are combined with techniques for the reduc- tion and standardisation of information contained in large amounts of textual data through qualita- tive coding being converted into quantitative vari- ables which can be further analysed statistically.

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction

Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 293

p. 167) consider hermeneutic-classifi catory con- tent analysis to be a synthetic method combining principles of quantitative and qualitative research. Being embedded within a hermeneutic tradi- tion (Schwandt, 2001), the focus is on detailed study of the text and connections among its parts, and requires detailed reading or examination of text so that the researcher may discover meaning embedded within the text. While ‘getting inside’ the text, the researcher attempts to fi rst under- stand it as a whole and only then seeks to develop a deep understanding of how its parts relate to the whole. In using this method, a large amount of information that is embedded within texts is reduced through a process of formal coding and the creation of a conceptual network of categories. Relevant information contained in text segments is transformed into a quantitative data matrix which is then statistically analysed to determine the frequency distribution of certain codes or code patterns. As such, this approach allows for the analysis of large amount of text without over- looking their inherent complexity.

formalised methods of comparison, such as cluster analysis and correspondence analysis, are applied to generate an empirically-based typology of the phe- nomenon explored.

Hermeneutic-classifi catory content analysis Recent developments in mixed forms of content analysis that allow for quantifi cation and statistical analysis of qualitative data have been summarised by Bos and Tarnai (1999). However, given that most of the authors working in this area continue to publish only in German, most of these empiri- cal content analyses combining quantitative and qualitative approaches are unknown to the wider (non-German speaking) academic audience. Roller et al. (1995) from the Free University in Berlin are an exception and their hermeneutic- classifi catory content analysis is more widely known and has been applied in business research projects such as Kern et al.’s (2007) comparative case study of corporate responsibility in the Swiss telecommunications industry. Roller et al. (1995,

FIGURE 1: SOME APPROACHES TO FULL INTEGRATION OF DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH METHODS USED IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

CASE-ORIENTED QUANTIFICATION Scholar: Kuckartz (1995) Applications: exploring individuals’ attitudes- non- profit sector, IT management

HERMENEUTIC- CLASSIFICATORY ANALYSIS Scholar: Roller et al. (1995) Applications: corporate responsibility

Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis

Causal explanation Quantification of subjective perceptions

QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (QCA)– BOOLEAN METHOD; FUZZY SET LOGIC Scholar: Ragin (1987; 2001) Applications: labour, forestry, resources public and organisational management; entrepreneurship; international business studies

EVENT-STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (ESA) Scholar: Heise (1991) Applications: organisational formation; management of non-profit sector ; entrepreneurial growth

Q-METHOD Scholar: Brown (1980) Applications: landscape and tourism research; management science; rural management

A qualitative model of quantitative research’/formal analysis of qualitative data

A qualitative model of complex systems - ‘qualiquantology’

FYZZY COGNITIVE MAPPING Scholar: Özesmi and Özesmi (2004) Applications: environmental management; farm management; organisational behaviour; marketing; business; tourism management

FOCUS

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011294

applying QCA, each case remains contextualised as a whole – a meaningful, interpretable and spe- cifi c confi guration of causal conditions/attributes and outcome variables (Krivokapic-Skoko, 2003).

Qualitative comparative analysis appears to be of substantial utility in research sites with contex- tual and multiple causal relations. The method assumes that causal variables are effective only when operating in conjunction with each other, consequently the impact of each causal variable should be discussed only in a particular context. QCA also accepts that more than one confi gu- ration of causal variables may generate the same outcome. Accordingly, QCA locates different paths to the emergence of an outcome and there- fore enables the analyst to classify the outcomes based on different confi gurations of the causal variables. Apart from deriving the patterns of causal factors leading towards the emergence of outcomes, QCA also identifi es the causal condi- tions related to the ‘negative outcomes’, that is, to the absence of the phenomena of interest.

Being based on Boolean algebra, the algebra of logic and sets, the QCA method systematises and transforms empirical evidence into algebraic forms suitable for a data reduction process and represents the attributes of the cases into presence–absence dichotomies. These dichotomies are then included in a truth table, a raw data matrix which comprises causal conditions and outcomes across the cases, thereby providing a tool for data reduction while maintaining the integrity of each case. Each row in a truth table represents either a logically possible, or an empirically observed, confi guration of attri- butes (i.e., causal and outcome conditions). The truth table is completed when all the cases and codes on the causal and outcome conditions are displayed using binary mathematical forms. This matrix of binary data is then subjected to a pro- cedure of Boolean minimisation. The procedure involves comparing groups of cases based on the presence/absence of the outcome conditions and the presence/absence of the selected causal condi- tions. These logical combinations, as represented in Boolean primitive equations, are compared

Qualitative comparative analysis: Boolean algebra and fuzzy-sets Qualitative comparative analysis, and fuzzy-sets as developed by Ragin (1987, 2000), build on case study approaches to provide a basis for rig- orous causal analysis which identifi es the neces- sary and suffi cient conditions for an outcome to occur. Ragin (1987) proposed a relatively new method for the formalisation and extension of the comparative case-study approach and con- ceptualised it as ‘a middle road’ between qualita- tive and quantitative research (Ragin, 1987). As a ‘synthetic strategy’, this method extends quali- tative and quantitative analyses by providing a more complex approach than most quantitative research methods, and it is more ‘systematic’ than most qualitative research methods. QCA also brings a rigour and quantitative methods to qualitative ones. Additionally, if offers some of the causal complexity and in-depth analysis of quali- tative methods to quantitative research methods.

Qualitative comparative analysis is essentially case-oriented comparative research that provides a ‘systematic’ and holistic analysis of a moderate number of cases. Indeed, most applications have included between 15 and 70 cases (Krivokapic- Skoko, 2001; Marx, 2010). The method builds on the strengths of explanatory and interpretive research by primarily bringing the complexity and intensity of in-depth investigation to a moderate number of cases, while maintaining rigour, repli- cable procedures and the use of formal logic. In terms of technical procedure, QCA systematises and transforms empirical evidence into algebraic forms, and then uses Boolean algebra to gener- ate comparisons. Here the dialogue between theory and evidence is well structured. Starting from theoretical arguments that determine the minimum set of case attributes, QCA proceeds by simplifying the complexity of the evidence in a sys- tematic, stepwise manner. In using QCA, cases are transformed into unique combinations of selected causal conditions and associated outcomes, and these are then compared and interpreted holisti- cally focusing on their attributes. Therefore, in

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction

Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 295

(2000) has recently incorporated ideas from fuzzy-set logic into QCA and the new method has become quite popular (Kvist, 2003; Pajunen, 2008). The fuzzy-sets allow for continuous cod- ing of variables according to the degree of their association with the qualitative categories of inter- est. With fuzzy-sets, the values of both indepen- dent and dependent variables are not restricted to the binary values of 0 and 1, but may instead be defi ned using membership scores ranging from ordinal up to continuous values. As such, fuzzy- sets allow the researcher to introduce greater vari- ety into the analysis.

Some of the fuzzy-set approaches to QCA have proven to be highly illuminating, such as compar- ison of international approaches to resource man- agement (Stokke, 2007) and comparative analysis of the national competitive advantages of Turkish and Greek economies using Porter’s well-known model of competitiveness (Özlem, 2004).

Event structure analysis Event structure analysis, or ‘a qualitative model of quantitative research’ as Heise (1991) referred to it, is a formal and replicable technique of qualita- tive data research that is used for analysing and interpreting events. ESA is a formal technique of narrative analysis and tracks the temporal order- ing and sequencing of actions in order to explain a singular event (Griffi n, 1993). This method is considered more rigorous than a case-study approach and focuses on the temporal order and sequencing of actions. It provides narrative expla- nation, goes inside singular events, and systemati- cally organises information about events so as to explain how something happens. The method is formal as it uses a set of logical rules to analyse cases. The formal rules produce results that can be replicated and generalised to other cases. The method is qualitative in the sense that it draws on some subjective criteria and the understanding of the researcher, and it seeks to preserve the context of circumstances in which events take place. ESA is considered appropriate for causal analysis with an emphasis on process and contingency, and it

with each other and are then logically simplifi ed (Ragin, 1987). The comparison concludes with a logically minimal Boolean expression as an output of the analysis. This provides logically minimal confi gurations, the most parsimonious descrip- tion of the combinations of causal conditions, that produce a given outcome.

Qualitative comparative analysis has become increasingly popular among social science researchers, and in the area of business and man- agement research it has been applied to topics including organisational management (Romme, 1995), labour management (Coverdill, Finlay, & Martin, 1994) public management (Kithenerm, Beynon, & Harrington, 2002), forestry man- agement (Hellström, 1998), and entrepreneur- ship (Fairweather & Krivokapic-Skoko, 1998; Krivokapic-Skoko, 2001). QCA was also used in policy analyses such as labour policy analysis (Biggert, 1997) and social policy analysis (Amenta & Poulsen, 1996). Romme (1995) developed a model of self-organising processes among top man- agement teams and then used QCA to capture the dynamic complexity of processes at this top level of management within an organisation. As QCA allows for consideration of both systematic and ideographic elements in a single analysis, Coverdill et al. (1994) applied it to the analysis of labour management in an effort to defi ne and compare different labour management strategies in a particu- lar industry. QCA was also used to analyse multiple case-study evidence of 22 land based industries in order to identify necessary and suffi cient condi- tions associated with success and failure of new land based industries in New Zealand (Fairweather & Krivokapic-Skoko, 1998). Finally, QCA has been applied to a study of ethnic entrepreneurship in New Zealand agriculture, more specifi cally the causes of the emergence of ethnic business networks in agricultural settings (Krivokapic-Skoko, 2001).

A common concern with the employment of QCA and Boolean algebra is that they require dichotomous variables, and they do not allow for fi ne-grained measures of the attributes in ques- tion. In order to overcome that limitation, Ragin

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011296

as described by respondents recounting how their organisations closed. Through ESA mapping, Krivokapic-Skoko (2007) identifi ed key patterns and processes of co-operative development and their generative causal mechanisms. In this latter research, ESA helped pinpoint critical actions and steps in organisational developmental processes.

Q methodology Q methodology has been used by a number of qualitative researchers for eliciting, evaluating, and comparing human subjectivity. It has been conceptualised as a hybrid approach, an approach that Stenner and Stainton Rogers (2004) have labelled ‘qualiquantology’ to refl ect its qualitative and quantitative features. Originally developing within a positivist tradition, Q methodology is increasingly proving to be an innovative approach to qualitative analysis. Interestingly, articles on Q methodology have been published in both quantitative and qualitative oriented scholarly journals, and is described as being ‘neither entirely quantitative nor qualitative in nature, but a suc- cessful combination of the two differing styles of research’ (Ray and Montgomery, 2006, p. 3).

The Q method strengthens conceptual catego- rization through the quantifi cation of patterned subjectivities using Q-sorts. These Q-sorts are statements that are broadly representative of the discourse on the topic being researched and they enable participants to respond to issues based on their individual experience (Previte, Pini, & Mc-Kenzie, 2007). Individual responses captured by Q-sorts are then factor-analysed to identify pat- terns of subjective perspectives across individuals. Application of Q methodology can be found in psychology (Shemmings, 2006), landscape and tourism research (Fairweather & Swaffi eld, 2002), management science (Steelman & Maguire, 1999) and political science (Brown, 1980). Q method- ology was used very successfully in identifying farm management styles (Fairweather & Keating, 1994), and was recently advocated as having con- siderable potential and benefi t within rural research (Previte et al., 2007). The use of Q methodology

can be used to interpret cases or events holistically (Griffi n & Ragin, 1994). Therefore, ESA is con- sidered highly appropriate for developing a frame- work for the analysis of the formation processes and organisational changes in general.

Even structure analysis offers deterministic rather that probabilistic explanations and gener- ally expresses causal relations as complex conjec- tures of factors and conditions (Griffi n & Ragin, 1994). It focuses on a single culturally or histori- cally specifi c event and, more specifi cally, a nar- rative of the event. Here, narrative is understood as an analytic construct that is used to identify a group of events and incorporate them into a single story (Stevenson & Greenberg, 1998). Narratives have a specifi c beginning, a series of intervening actions, and an end point, which can be based upon a number of paths and intercon- nection between the actors. In effect, ESA is a for- mal technique of narrative analysis, and it tracks the temporal ordering and sequencing of actions in order to explain a singular event (Brown, 2000; Griffi n, 1993; Griffi n & Ragin, 1994).

While ESA was originally developed to study cultural routines (Corsaro & Heise, 1990), it has, for example, since been applied to a study of racial confl icts in the USA (Griffi n, 1993) and to labour strikes and the consequences of labour union campaigns (Brown, 2000). ESA is deemed to be very appropriate for analysing com- plex social processes and collaborative actions (Stevenson, Zinzow, & Sridharan, 2003) as well as examining the processes of organisational for- mation (Hager & Galaskiewicz, 2002a, 2002b). Morse (1998) used ESA to explain the temporal dynamics of an entrepreneurial fi rm. Hager and Galaskiewicz (2002a, 2002b) used ESA to anal- yse the closure of non-profi t organisations based on narratives provided by former board mem- bers and administrators. Their approach was to use the narratives to study closure as a process or sequences of events and identify how precipitat- ing events eventually lead to closure of non-profi t organisations. They analysed empirical evidence on key events within the broader web of events

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction

Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 297

The research question, and the appropriateness of particular fully integrated mixed methods to the research question and objectives, are of primary importance when contemplating the use of mixed methods research. A researcher may consider using QCA for providing causal explanations about the emergence of an outcome, and this method appears to be of a substantial utility in research sites with contextual and multiple causal relations. QCA is also suitable for evaluating theoretical propositions, par- ticularly those derived from the composite models. Generally speaking, QCA is considered appropriate for studies where a great deal of information is accu- mulated relating to a moderate number of cases. In terms of comparative method, QCA identifi es simi- larities among the cases with the same outcome, and differences between cases conforming to different outcomes. If, however, the focus of research is a sin- gle, culturally or historically specifi c event, or more specifi cally a narrative of the event, ESA can provide very powerful casual explanations focusing on the temporal ordering and sequencing of actions. In contrast to QCA, ESA is more historical than com- parative in its approach to causal explanations, and it tends to equate a temporal order of actions with a causal explanation. Alternatively, Q method can be very helpful in exploring the subjective experience of participants, particularly if there is a range of percep- tions and experiences across the target population. Researchers interested in inherently such mixed methods can use a range of software applications for data analysis such as the winMAX software program designed to facilitate case- oriented quantifi cation, ETHNO for ESA, FS/QCA for QCA or PCQ soft- ware for Q methodology.

Critical assessment of the methods outlined in this paper has not been provided as the aim has been to provide a brief overview of methods that are sophisticated and complex. Such an assessment was beyond the scope of the discussion presented. Indeed, we actually believe that such a discus- sion of the advantages and limitations of research methods is best undertaken in the context of a specifi c empirically-based research design. Finally, we acknowledged that the list of hybrid methods

to investigate the customer relationship in the context of Dutch banking (de Graaf, 2001) is a rather interesting and innovative application as it focuses on discourse analysis. Another inspiring application has seen the use of photographs in Q methodology to study perceptions of the envi- ronment and tourists’ experiences in New Zealand (Fairweather & Swaffi eld, 2002).

Q methodology has been also combined with fuzzy cognitive mapping (Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004) in environmental and farm management studies (Fairweather, 2010). The use of fuzzy cog- nitive mapping allows for the development of a qualitative model of a system, something that is especially useful for modelling complex relation- ships between variables.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS Mixed methods research can be a highly useful and appropriate means of accessing and interpreting the social world and the problems and issues that con- front researchers. Mixed methods can allow for the generation of knowledge that it is rich and nuanced, as researchers can variously apply methods that may offer opportunities to achieve greater insight and understanding than would be the case pursu- ing solely qualitative or quantitative methods. The focus of this paper was on outlining key qualities of several mixed methods approaches and identify- ing their applications to business and management research. To date, students and researchers have gained their knowledge of these methods from mul- tiple text books or journal articles. This paper has sought to provide a straightforward, and we trust useful, introduction into a range of these methods for researchers contemplating business and man- agement research. As we have noted, the popular- ity of these integrated methods can be explained by the fact that they are designed to achieve both generalisation and in-depth analysis. They tend to blend the interpretive and the formal analytical approaches, and allow a researcher to gain some- thing ‘additional’ from the use of these methods that is over and above that which would result from using either qualitative or quantitative approaches.

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011298

In C. Clogg, (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 1–57). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Coverdill, J. E., Finlay, W., & Martin, J. K. (1994). Labour management in the southern textile industry: Comparing qualitative, quantitative, and qualitative comparative analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 23(1), 54–85.

Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Crark, V., and O’Green, D. (2006). How interpretive qualita- tive research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1–11.

de Graaf, G. (2001). Discourse theory and business ethics: The bankers’ conceptualisation of cus- tomers. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 299–319.

Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A researcher paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellingsen, I. T., Størksen, I., & Stephens, P. (2010). Q methodology in social work research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(5), 395–409.

Fairweather, J. (2010). Farmer models of socio- ecological systems: Application of causal mapping across multiple locations. Ecological Modelling, 221, 555–562.

Fairweather, J., & Keating C. (1994). Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agricultural Systems, 44(2), 181–200.

Fairweather, J., & Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (1998). Success factors in new land-based industries: Literature review and the QCA method (Research Report, AERU). Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.

Fairweather, J., & Swaffi eld, S. (2002). Visitors’ and locals’ experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: An interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 283–297.

Fielding, N., & Schreier, M. (2001). Introduction: On compatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Sozialforschung, 2(1).

outlined above is far from exhaustive, but as noted above, our goal was to speak to a number of methods which have been successfully utilized by business and management scholars.

References Amenta, E., & Poulsen, J. D. (1996). Social poli-

tics in context: The institutional politics theory and social spending at the end of the New Deal, Social Forces, 75(1), 33–61.

Bazeley, P. (2003). Computerized data analysis for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 385–422). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141–156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bergman, M. M. (2008). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their infl u- ence on mixed methods research. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 11–21). London: Sage.

Biggert, R. (1997). Why labour wins, why labour loses: A test of two theories. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(1), 205–224.

Bos, W., & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 659–671.

Brown, C. (2000). The role of employers in split labour market: An event-structure analysis of racial confl ict and AFL organizing, 1917-1919. Social Forces, 79(2), 653–681.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Application of Q-methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

Colins, O., Broekaert, E., Vandevelde, S., & van Hove, G. (2008). The theoretical and meth- odological background of the case-oriented quantifi cation approach behind winMAX. Social Science Computer Review, 26(3), 369–378.

Corsaro, W. A., & Heise, D. R. (1990). Event structure models from ethnographic data.

Beyond the qualitative–quantitative distinction

Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES 299

Kern, I., Sachs, S., & Rühli, E. (2007). Corporate responsibility from an industry structure per- spective: Stakeholder relations and maintaining the licence to cooperate: A comparative case study of the Swiss telecommunications industry. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 446–454.

Kithenerm, M., Beynon, M., & Harrington, C. (2002). Qualitative comparative analysis and public services research. Public Management Review, 4(2), 485–504.

Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2001). Understanding ethnic entrepreneurship in agricultural settings: Qualitative comparative analysis of ethnic groups in New Zealand agriculture (PhD thesis). Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2003, June). Boolean algebra and the comparative method: Features and applica- tions to social sciences. Paper presented at the Second Workshop on Research Methodology RM 2003 – Conference Proceedings, Institute for research in extramural medicine, VU University, Amsterdam, pp. 77–87.

Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2007, July). Formal methods of qualitative analysis as a tool for understanding the formation of co-operative enterprises. Paper published in the proceedings from the 6th European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management (ECRM07), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Kuckartz, U. (1995). Case-oriented quantifi cation. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp. 158–166). London: Sage.

Kvist, J. (2003). Conceptualisation, confi guration, and categorisation. Diversity, ideal types and fuzzy sets in comparative welfare state research. COMPASSS WP2003 -15 (Working Papers No. 15). Accessed September 19, 2009 from http://www.ompass. org/WP.htm

Marx, A. (2010). Crips-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA) and model specifi cation: Bench marks for future csQCA applications. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(2), 138–158.

Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25.

Maxcy, S. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed meth- ods research in the social sciences: The search

Accessed September 19, 2009 from, http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 195–203.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defying and describing the paradigm issue in mixed methods evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed methods evaluation. The challenges and benefi ts of integrating diverse para- digms (pp. 5–18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Griffi n, L. J. (1993). Narrative, event-structure analysis, and causal interpretation in historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 98(5), 1094–1134.

Griffi n, L. J., & Ragin, C. (1994). Some observa- tions on formal methods of qualitative analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 23(1), 4–21.

Hager, M., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2002a, June). Studying closure among non-profi t organisations using Event Structure Analysis and network meth- ods. Paper presented at Health Care Organisation Conference (HCOC4), Berkeley, CA.

Hager, M., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2002b). How nonprofi ts close: A qualitative study of 31 twin cities nonprofi t organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, PNP, A1–A6.

Heise, D. R. (1991). Event structure analysis: A qualitative model of quantitative research. In N. G. Fielding & R. M. Lee (Eds.), Using computers in qualitative research (pp. 136–163). London: Sage.

Hellström, E. (1998). Qualitative comparative analysis: A useful tool for research into forest policy and forestry confl icts. Forest Science, 44(2), 254–265.

Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Emerging methodologies and method practices in the fi eld of mixed meth- ods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 415–418.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 42–61.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a defi nition of mixed meth- ods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

Johnson, R. N., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Branka Krivokapic-Skoko and Grant O’Neill

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2011300

for character development of college students. Journal of College & Character, 7(5), 1–15.

Roller, E., Mathes, R., & Eckert, T. (1995). Hermeneutic-classifi catory content analysis. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualita- tive data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp. 167–177). London: Sage.

Romme, A. G. (1995). Self-organising processes in top management teams: A Boolean comparative approach. Journal of Business Research, 34, 11–34.

Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53.

Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA. Sage.

Shemmings, D. (2006). ‘Quantifying’ qualitative data: An illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychosocial research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 147–165.

Steelman, T., & Maguire, L. (1999). Understanding participants perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361–388.

Stenner, P., & Stainton Rogers, R. (2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology: The example of discriminating between emotions. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology (pp. 57–189). New York: Psychology Press.

Stevenson, W., Zinzow, H., & Sridharan, S. (2003). Using event structure analysis to understand planned social change. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2). Retrieved from http:// www.ualberta.ca/∼iigm/backissues/2_2/pdf/ stevensonetal.pdf

Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. N. (1998). The formal analysis of narratives of organizational change. Journal of Management, 24(6), 741–762.

Stokke, O. S. (2007). Qualitative comparative analy- sis, shaming and international regime effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 60, 501–511.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behav- ioural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Received 01 December 2010 Accepted 22 November 2011

for multiple models of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 51–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 241–273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 7–24.

Morse, E. A. (1998). The temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial growth: An event structure analysis in entrepreneurial fi rm (Dissertation in Business Administration). Texas Tech University, Austin, TX.

Morse, L. (2003). Principles in mixed methods and multi-method research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N., & Collins, K. M. (2009). Mixed data analysis: Advanced integration techniques. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 13–33.

Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176, 43–64.

Özlem, Ö. (2004). Using Boolean and fuzzy-logic based methods to analysis multiple case study evidence in management research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 166–179.

Pajunen, K. (2008). Institutions and infl ows of for- eign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 652–669.

Previte, J., Pini, B., & Mc-Kenzie, F. H. (2007). Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis, 47, 135–147.

Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ray, C. M., & Montgomery, D. M. (2006). View in higher education towards methods and approaches

Pty. Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

individual use.

blog11

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.