publishing mixed-method research: a case example · indeed, we deliberately chose mixed-method...

Turku School of Economics

Publishing mixed-method

research: A case exampleLeila Hurmerinta & Niina Nummela

Turun kauppakorkeakoulu Turku School of Economics

Aim of this presentation

To discuss the challenges of publishing mixed-

method research with the help of an illustrative

case example


Mixed-method research

• Controversy of terms

• Blended/multiple/combined/integrated methods

• Methodological mix

• Multi-method research

• Triangulation

• Mixed-method study is

• a study which involves the collection and/or analysis of both quantitative and/or

qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or

sequentially and are combined at one or more stages in the research process (Hurmerinta-Peltomäki & Nummela 2006)


Mixed-method vs. QN & QL tradition

Source: Johnson et al. (2007, 124)


The case example – a mixed-method

study in International Business (1)

• Opening and closing doors: The role of language in international opportunity recognition and

exploitation

• RQ: What role does language play in company internationalisation?

• Four key findings:

• the decision-maker’s linguistic knowledge is related to how s/he recognises and exploits

international opportunities

• the linguistic knowledge may create a ‘knowledge corridor’, which either encourages or prevents

the decision-maker from seeing a greater number of international opportunities

• a construct (i.e. matching linguistic knowledge) was developed to analyse the relationship

between linguistic knowledge and opportunity recognition and exploitation

• matching linguistic knowledge particularly helps managers recognise international opportunities,

especially if it is accompanied by language diversity and culture-specific knowledge, but the

importance of the knowledge corridor has diluted with the emergence of Business English

• Target journal: International Business Review

• JUFO2, ABS 3, publisher: Elsevier


The case example – a mixed-method

study in International Business (2)

• Mixed-method research design in the study

• Choice: to answer both confirmatory and exploratory research questions in a

single study (cf. Teddlie & Tashakkori 2013)

• Sequential data collection: first quantitative data, then qualitative

• Web-based survey among Finnish exporters in food industry (n= 160) to

investigate whether the propositions found support

• Telephone interviews among Finnish exporters in food industry (n=16) to

obtain a deeper understanding of the underlying microprocesses

• Equal role of both types of data

• First analysis of both types of data separately, then the findings were integrated

• Cyclical iteration rounds between the different data sets followed

• End result: merged findings of both data sets


Publishing process for the case

• Submitted to the journal June, 2013

• Revise & resubmit January, 2014

• 1st revision submitted April, 2014

• Revise & resubmit August, 2014

• 2nd revision submitted November, 2014

• Revise & resubmit December, 2014

• 3rd revision submitted March, 2015

• Accepted April, 2015


1st reviews

• R1: ”Please continue with this line of research but in my opinion your study should be redone. As it

stands the low response rate, the questionable measures will make this a study that could have limited

acceptance if published as is and given the importance of the topic doing the study right should be first

and foremost in your mind. … Even your analysis methods are problematic. Simple ANOVA? Surely

there are causal mapping and testing approaches that would have been more appropriate given the

nature of your hypothesis. No R Squares?”

• R2: ”Regarding the methodological part of the paper, one must observe an interesting proposal of

combining qualitative and quantitative research. I was a bit surprised as the sequence of this research

was quantitative and afterwards qualitative, whilst the most common thing is the reverse order in search

of a generalization of a relationship.

• R3: In section 3.3 the author(s) specify (rather implicitly) an empirical model, i.e. a relationship between

their 'target' variables ('international opportunity recognition' and 'international opportunity exploitation')

and a series of independent variables. Unfortunately, they do not proceed to the next logical step, a

multivariate analysis of this model (either an econometric analysis, probit or ordered probit estimation, or

structural modelling, if the author(s) prefer less rigorous methods). … It remains unclear to me the

relevance of the qualitative part of the study (section 3.2.2) and the contribution of the 16 interviews, for

which at least some more information in needed with respect to characteristics of the interviewed

persons' firms.”


1st response to reviewers

• Constructive education of the reviewers, length of response letter 26 pages!

• Separate section explaining the nature and setting of the study for all reviewers• “In terms of research design, the combination of quantitative and qualitative data was found as an interesting

approach. Indeed, we deliberately chose mixed-method research design – which is a distinct research tradition from

quantitative or qualitative research design. The main reason for this important decision was rooted in our research

questions. One of the advantages of mixed-method approach is that it enables addressing both confirmatory and

exploratory research questions in one study (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2003), which makes it very suitable for our study. In

a mixed-method study quantitative (QN) and qualitative (QL) data and methods may take different roles: either QN or

QL data may dominate or they may take equal roles in solving the research questions. In our study the two types of

data and methods are equal, thus our study could be labelled as “a pure mixed-method study” (cf. Johnson et al.

2007). Combination of methods improved not only the validity and reliability of the findings, but it also allowed us to

capture a more holistic and contextual view (cf. Jick 1979), and thus allowed us to create novel knowledge and deeper

understanding of the phenomenon under study (Hurmerinta-Peltomäki & Nummela 2006). However, although the

complementarities of the combination of methods are noticeable, there are also some challenges. In particular, it is

typical for mixed-method studies that the findings of the quantitative and qualitative parts of the study are sometimes

contradictory (Jick 1979, Brannen 1996). In our study we have tried our best to clarify how we sought explanations for

the partly complementary, partly divergent results, thus making the research process as transparent and justified as

possible.”

• The methods section on MM needed to be shortened considerably

QUANTITATIVE DATA

FROM THE WEB-BASED SURVEY

QUALITATIVE DATA FROM

THE TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS

Knowledge corridor Matching linguistic knowledge

in minority

Language diversity Language diversity

Language as means of

communication

Language as a source of cultural

knowledge

Language as means of

communication

Swedish as a mother

tongueThe importance of mother tongue

©Hurmerinta & Nummela 2015


2nd reviews

• R1: ”Overall some great things in the revision. … Responding to reviewers

concerns. This one is very mixed, you have provided a lot of explanation and added

an appendix of responses to reviewers but you need to put more of this in the

article. We ask questions because we feel that the reader (not just us) needs

explanation. In fact there are many elements in what you have said in the

responses that are at odds with the manuscript. … A few comments as well on

analysis and methodology. Choice of country … Non-response analysis …

Measures … Selection of interviewees …Go more into the 44 company

observations (that really is not a lot) and see if you can make more sense out of the

country and corridor concept. ”

• R2: ?

• R3: ”The authors have tried to improve their paper. They achieved this with respect

to conceptual issues but not in terms of empirical analysis because the data

restrictions do not allow them to pursu a satisfactory empirical strategy.”


2nd response to reviewers

• 2nd response letter 6 pages

• “Thank you for this comment. After re-reading the paper we realize that we did not

include all the arguments which we pointed out in the response letter and we have

now tried to include them in the paper as well as remove the inconsistencies.”

• “We are very sorry of not communicating the choice of country and industry better

in the paper. In this version we have tried to improve our argumentation concerning

the strategic choices.”

• “We have carefully examined all the 44 observations and checked all the variables

as well as other information related to them. This careful examination did not

provide any novel insights, although through this we found a good number of

examples of language-related ‘corridor’ behaviour in these companies. In the

revised version we have tried to highlight these as much as possible.”


3rd reviews

• R1: “Significantly improved, well explained and definitely an important study. One that I hope

is published soon in the Journal. …. As you can see, compared to my other reviews of your

paper I have far fewer comments and most are designed to further amplify the contribution

of the paper. Thank you for doing such a good job on my earlier comments.”

• R2: ?

• R3: ”I have read carefully the answer of the author(s) to the first round of comments and

recommendations of the referees. The author (s) provide now in the revised version of the

paper an extract of interview answers (not the questions) and a correlation matrix of some

variables. So the reader still does not know what questions were posed, i.e. which

information is available. Only on the basis of the entire available information gained by the

survey it is possible to assess the quantitative part of the paper. In this sense, my critique

with respect to the use of multivariate methods to investigate the relationship between the

relevant variables remains valid. … As a consequence, I still find the quantitative part of the

paper not satisfactory.”


Challenges in publishing

• Strong legacy of single-method research design, particularly

qualitative

• Research training

• Experience and competence of reviewers (and editors)

• Length restrictions


The use of mixed-method in IB

research (Hurmerinta-Peltomäki & Nummela 2006)

• most common type features mixed data collection, both quantitative

and qualitative

• both types of data are analysed within methods of their own tradition,

i.e. quantitative with quantitative methods and qualitative with

qualitative methods

• the data are collected sequentially – first the qualitative and then the

quantitative

• qualitative data most often used during the initiation phase in

formulating the research problem, finding a suitable sample,

selecting the most appropriate data-collection method and

operationalising the key constructs


Recommended literature

• Caracelli, V.J. & Greene, J.C. (1993) Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation

designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol.15 No.2, 195-207.

• Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research,

Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.

• Edmonson, A.C. & McManus, S.E. (2007) Methodological fit in management field research,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No.4, 1155–1179.

• Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2003) Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie,

C. (eds.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

• Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, Leila – Nummela, Niina (2006) Mixed methods in international business

research. A value added perspective, Management International Review, Vol.46 No.4, 439-459

• Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, Leila – Nummela, Niina (2004) First put in the sugar, and then add the

eggs … or is it the other way round? Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in international

business research, In: Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in International Business, eds.

Marschan-Piekkari, R. – Welch, C., Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 162-180.


Thanks!

publishing mixed-method research: a case example · indeed, we deliberately chose mixed-method...

Documents