首页> 外文期刊>European journal of information systems >Embracing diversity through mixed methods research
【24h】

Embracing diversity through mixed methods research

机译:通过混合方法研究拥抱多样性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Mixed methods research - 'the third methodological movement' (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) - appears to be one of those phenomena that attracts considerable interest but is rarely brought into practice, at least judging by the publications in major information systems (IS) outlets, where mixed methods studies represent only 3% of the published articles (Venkatesh etal, 2013). It is refreshing, however, to now see some increasing activity and acceptance of the approach vindicated by recent submissions to journals and conferences, in addition to recent publications (e.g. Venkatesh et al, 2013; Zachariadis et al, forthcoming). Mixed methods research is characterized by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) define mixed methods research as 'the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study'. The use of, and emphasis on, each of the two components may vary, although one often dominates. In the literature, a distinction is sometimes made between mixed methods research, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods, and multimethod research, which combines methods that may or may not share the same world-view (Venkatesh et al, 2013). A mixed method is therefore always a multimethod, but a multimethod is not necessarily a mixed method. The real strength of mixed methods is the possibility of developing meta-inferences based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative data and analysis (Venkatesh et al, 2013) -that is, developing an understanding of a phenomenon for which either approach in isolation would be insufficient. For example, a study of 'opensourcing' as a global sourcing strategy (Agerfalk & Fitzgerald, 2008) developed a framework through a grounded analysis (based on qualitative interviews) followed by factor analysis (based on a quantitative survey). The framework comprised grounded categories corresponding to principal components. Parts of this framework could not be explained by the quantitative data alone but, by revisiting the qualitative analysis, a more complete understanding could be achieved. In the following, I outline an argument for mixed methods being potentially very useful in IS research, and indicate why you should consider sending your best mixed methods research to the European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS). In doing so, I will touch upon some of the philosophical and practical issues related to mixed methods and to our discipline. However, I do not go into detail about designing or conducting mixed methods studies; an up-to-date overview of and guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in IS are available elsewhere
机译:混合方法研究-“第三种方法论运动”(Teddlie&Tashakkori,2009年)似乎是引起广泛关注但很少付诸实践的现象之一,至少从主要信息系统(IS)发行机构的出版物来看,其中混合方法研究仅占已发表文章的3%(Venkatesh等,2013)。然而,令人耳目一新的是,除了最近的出版物之外(例如Venkatesh等人,2013年; Zachariadis等人,即将出版),现在看到越来越多的活动和对该方法的认可被最近提交给期刊和会议的证据所证明。混合方法研究的特点是在单个研究中结合了定量和定性方法。 Johnson&Onwuegbuzie(2004,p。17)将混合方法研究定义为“研究人员,其中研究人员将定量和定性研究技术,方法,方法,概念或语言混合或组合到单个研究中”。尽管这两个组成部分经常占主导地位,但它们的使用和强调程度可能有所不同。在文献中,有时将混合方法研究(定性和定量方法相结合)与多方法研究(将可能共享或不具有相同世界观的方法相结合)区分开(Venkatesh等,2013)。因此,混合方法始终是多方法,但多方法不一定是混合方法。混合方法的真正优势在于,可以基于定性和定量数据以及分析的组合来进行元推断(Venkatesh等,2013)-也就是说,对一种现象的理解应为隔离的任何一种方法都可以。不足。例如,一项关于“开放采购”作为全球采购战略的研究(Agerfalk&Fitzgerald,2008年)通过扎根分析(基于定性访谈)和因素分析(基于定量调查)建立了一个框架。该框架包括与主要组成部分相对应的基础类别。该框架的某些部分不能仅通过定量数据来解释,而通过重新进行定性分析,可以实现更全面的理解。在下文中,我概述了一种关于混合方法在IS研究中可能非常有用的论点,并指出为什么您应该考虑将最佳的混合方法研究发送给《欧洲信息系统杂志》(EJIS)。在此过程中,我将涉及与混合方法和我们的学科有关的一些哲学和实践问题。但是,我没有详细介绍设计或进行混合方法的研究。在IS中进行混合方法研究的最新概述和指南可在其他地方找到

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号