Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Using mixed methods designs in the Journal of Business Research,

19902010
Robert L. Harrison III
Marketing Department in the Haworth College of Business at Western Michigan University, 3169 Schneider Hall, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this article is to examine the uses of mixed method research designs published in the Journal of
Received 1 May 2011 Business Research. This study involves a content analysis of 2072 articles published between 1990 and 2010 in
Received in revised form 1 November 2011 the Journal of Business Research. Seventeen mixed method studies implemented data collection procedures se-
Accepted 1 January 2012
quentially (68%), six implemented them concurrently (24%), and two combined both sequential and concurrent
Available online 10 February 2012
procedures (8%). On the whole, priority skews more toward quantitative strands with ten articles prioritizing
Keywords:
quantitative data (40%), three articles prioritizing qualitative data (12%), and twelve articles prioritizing both
Mixed methods research equally (48%). Business scholars recognize the benet of mixing qualitative and quantitative research; however,
Multiple methods research as a discipline, we are not demonstrating knowledge of the mixed method literature or procedures; none of the
Multimethod research articles recognized or mentioned knowledge of mixed method procedures or cited mixed method research. This
Research methods study provides guidance for researchers in identifying design types appropriate for various research objectives as
Marketing research well as the models of different design types appearing in the Journal of Business Research.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction studies, and mixed research. In business, multimethod and mixed

For decades, scholars in the social sciences have made use of mixed
method researchthat is, combining both qualitative and quantitative
data in a single study. However, despite the call for its use in business
research (Currall & Towler, 2003; Edmondson & McManus, 2007;
Woodside, 2004, 2010), discussion about this distinct methodological
approach by business scholars is scarce. While the mixing of qualitative
and quantitative data is not new to business scholars, the use of mixed
methods principles and design types is. Mixed methods researchers
have suggested a need for understanding these principles and distin-
guishing between studies that utilize the two types of data without se-
rious integration and studies that mix the data sets effectively
(Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). That is to say, a study that includes
both data types without integration is merely a collection of methods.
Strong mixed methods studies, however, address the decision of how
to integrate the data as well as timing and priority (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011). Thus, there is a need for guidance in conducting mixed
method research and for assessing the rigor of data collection and anal-
ysis of both data types in business research. This study highlights these
issues, regarding the tenets of mixed methods research and the use of
mixed methods design types.
The mixing of research methods has been given many names includ-
ing multiple methods, blended research, multimethod, triangulated
The author thanks John Creswell in the Ofce of Qualitative and Mixed Method
Research, University of NebraskaLincoln for his training, support, and guidance with
this project, and James W. Gentry, Ann Veeck, and Timothy M. Reilly.
Tel.: + 1 269 387 5261; fax: +1 269 387 5710.
E-mail address: robert.harrison@wmich.edu.
method research are the most commonly used labels. In the Handbook
of Mixed Methods research, distinctions are made between these two
terms (Morse, 2003). That is, multimethod research involves multiple
types of qualitative inquiry (e.g. interviews and observations) or multi-
ple types of quantitative inquiry (e.g. surveys and experiments) and
(2) mixed methods which involve the mixing of the two types of data.
Mixed methods research has become the most popular term for
mixing qualitative and quantitative data in a single study (Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007) and the denition below, based on an
analysis of denitions used by leaders in the eld of mixed methods
research, is used henceforth.
Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher
or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quanti-
tative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative
viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the
broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corrobo-
ration (Johnson et al., 2007, pp. 123).
To be clear, this study specically investigates the use of both qualita-
tive and quantitative components in a single study or project, (i.e. mixed
methods) and not multiple methods that can include two different quan-
titative component types or two different qualitative component types.
In addition to denitional issues, scholars expressed concern in the
1980s about the mixing of quantitative and qualitative data without ar-
ticulating defensible reasons for doing so (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,
1989), resulting in the development of a number of rationales for com-
bining data collection methods and research questions particular to dif-
ferent mixed method research designs. Bryman (2006) identies 16

0148-2963/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.01.006
2154 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162

rationales for conducting mixed method research, to which Harrison
and Reilly (2011) add the appropriate mixed method design type for
each rationale (see Table 1). Table 1 displays the use of different design
types and descriptions of each design type and prescribed recommen-
dations for employing each type are outlined in more detail in the nd-
ings section.
The existing marketing and management literature has taken the be-
ginning steps towards understanding this methodological approach by
rst discussing the philosophical assumptions of such research (Bahl &
Milne, 2006; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, & Prez-Prado, 2003), and identify-
ing trends as far as the numbers of studies employing the approach (e.g.
Hanson & Grimmer, 2007; Hurmerinta-Peltomki & Nummela, 2006).
Bahl and Milne (2006) highlight the philosophical assumptions that
guide qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research approaches.
That is, traditional assumptions guiding post-positivist research mandate
an objective view of reality, in which research is aimed to measure or ex-
plain, creating knowledge that is generalizable across different people,
time, and place. Traditional assumptions guiding interpretive research
assume the existence of socially-constructed, multiple realities and
focus on understanding behavior rather than predicting it. Paradigmati-
cally, mixed method research is linked to pragmatism as a system of phi-
losophy (see Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004 for a full description). The
logic of pragmatic inquiry includes the use of induction (or discovery of
patterns), deduction (testing of theories and hypotheses), and abduction
(uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for under-
standing one's results) (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007).
Further, the basic pragmatic maxim translated to mixed methods re-
search is to choose the mixture of methods and procedures that work
best for answering research questions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Hanson and Grimmer (2007) and Hurmerinta-Peltomki and
Nummela (2006) consider the use of mixed methods research by busi-
ness scholars, in terms of sheer number of studies. Molina-Azorin
(2011) adds to the methodological conversation by discussing preva-
lence rate and characteristics of mixed methods management research.
What remains unclear is the use of mixed method designs by business
scholars; that is, what types of mixed methods designs are being used
and how are they being used in business research? Harrison and
Reilly (2011) take a step in answering this question by updating the re-
cent trends in the use of mixed methods research and identifying trends
in terms of the types of mixed methods designs being employed in mar-
keting research. The present study extends the discussion to the Journal
of Business Research audience, posing similar questions. What types of
mixed method designs appear in the Journal of Business Research?
How do trends in JBR compare to the marketing journals previously ex-
amined? How are scholars incorporating mixed methods techniques to
achieve business research objectives?
While growing, the relative use of mixed methods research is com-
paratively scarce in business disciplines. The general absence of mixed
method research designs may be due to a number of factors including
the historical precedent of favoring quantitative research in business
(Hunt, 1994), the general lack of attention to interpretative methods
in graduate education and training, and the difculty in learning both
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Another explanation might
be the tendency for scholars to be guilty of the law of the instru-
mentone uses the tool one has even if in context the tool's use is
highly inappropriate (Woodside, 2010, p. 66). Weick (1996) recog-
nizes difculties in learning to drop one's tools and pick-up tools
more useful to the task-at-hand, such as maintenance of the status
quo with regard to methodological preferences in certain disciplines.
In sum, scholars must be able to assess the appropriateness of the dif-
ferent mixed method design choices and anticipate challenges with each
choice. The study here addresses this issue by providing an overview of
mixed method design types and an examination of how these designs
are successfully in-use in the pages of the Journal of Business Research.
This study provides a guide for future researchers conducting mixed
method research.
To provide business scholars a resource for which to guide those in-
terested in mixing qualitative and quantitative data, published business
research will be evaluated on four tenets of mixed methods research,
particularly addressing the use of two strands of data (i.e., qualitative
and quantitative), the timing (i.e., sequential or concurrent), the priority
given to each data type, and the integration (or mixing) of the data. In ad-
dition, recommendations will be made for researchers interested in
employing different mixed method design types.

Table 1
Rationale for mixed methods research and design types.

Rationalea Descriptiona Design Typeb

Triangulation Quantitative and qualitative combined to triangulate ndings to be mutually Convergent

corroborated.
Offset Combining strands offsets their weaknesses to draw on the strengths of both. Convergent
Completeness Bringing together a more comprehensive account if both quantitative and qualitative Exploratory, Explanatory, or Convergent
research is employed.
Process Quantitative provides an account of structures in social life but qualitative provides Exploratory or Explanatory
sense of process.
Different Research Questions Quantitative and qualitative each answers different research questions. Convergent
Explanation One is used to help explain ndings generated by the other. Explanatory
Unexpected Results When one strand generates surprising results that can be understood by employing Explanatory, or Embedded
the other.
Instrument Development Qualitative is employed to develop questionnaire and scale items. Exploratory
Sampling One approach is used to facilitate the sampling of respondents or cases. Exploratory or Explanatory
Credibility Employing both approaches enhances the integrity of ndings. Exploratory, Explanatory, or Convergent
Context Qualitative providing contextual understanding coupled with either generalizable, Exploratory or Explanatory
externally valid ndings or broad relationships among variables uncovered
through a survey.
Illustration Qualitative to illustrate quantitative ndings (putting meat on the bones of dry Explanatory
quantitative ndings).
Utility Among articles with an applied focus, the combining the two approaches will be Exploratory, Explanatory, Convergent,
more useful to practitioners and others. or Embedded
Conrm and Discover This entails using qualitative data to generate hypotheses and using quantitative Exploratory
research to test them within a single project.
Diversity of View Combining researchers' and participants' perspectives through quantitative and Convergent or Embedded
qualitative research respectively, and uncovering relationships between variables
through quantitative research while also revealing meanings among research
participants through qualitative research.
a
From Bryman (2006).
b
From Harrison and Reilly (2011).
 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162 2155

Table 2 symbols, etc.) and quantitative research centered on data collection in

Mixed method scoring scheme.
X Quantitative rigor X Qualitative rigor
Use of theory Emerging design + type of design
mentioned (e.g., case study,
ethnography)
Good sampling procedure Good sampling procedure
Good sample size Good sample size
Identication of instruments Questions for data collection
Validity and reliability of scores Procedures for data collection
Detailed procedures of data collection Coding/thematic development
Level of sophistication of data analysis Advanced level of use themes
(e.g., taxonomy, chronology)
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the ratio-
nales for conducting mixed methods research. Section 3 then pre-
sents a content analysis of the mixed method research including
outlines of the four major mixed method designs and recommenda-
tions for when each design is best employed. The paper concludes
with a comparison of our ndings with a previous study, a discussion
of the methodological implications, and a summary of recommenda-
tions for employing mixed methods designs.
2. Content analysis and data collection procedures
A study in Qualitative Market Research reviews mixed method arti-
cles across nine major journals from 2003 to 2009 (Harrison & Reilly,
2011). This study may be the rst systematic evaluation of the mixed
method designs in the marketing discipline. The present study is a
follow-up to those ndings, adding and comparing those results to re-
search published in the Journal of Business Researcha multidisciplinary
business journal. More specically, the author will conduct a content
analysis of mixed methods designs used in JBR from 1990 to 2010.
Content analysis is an observational technique which allows for a
systematic evaluation of recorded communications (Kolbe and
Burnett, 1991). In the current investigation the recorded communica-
tions of interest is the Journal of Business Research. For the purpose of
coding, articles are required to contain qualitative research centered
on primary data collection in non-numerical form (words, images,
numerical form (Harrison & Reilly, 2011). To identify mixed method re-
search studies, the author uses a coding scheme developed by the
founding editor of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, who used
these criteria when judging article t with that journal (see Table 2).
Consistent with this scheme and other (Bryman, 2006; Harrison &
Reilly, 2011), studies that describe the use of both qualitative and
quantitative data, but either report just the quantitative or qualitative
data, are not included in the study. Further, the mere use of inter-
views during data collection did not result in a mixed method distinc-
tion, as reporting rigorous analysis of both data types source is
required. Also as part of our inclusion criteria, content analyses or
studies that quantied qualitative data are coded as quantitative if
the results of the content analysis are reported numerically
(Harrison & Reilly, 2011), and were excluded. The process of quanti-
fying qualitative data (also called quantitizing), and the transform-
ing of quantitative data in qualitative data (also called qualitizing)
are the topic of debate among mixed methods scholars in terms of
mixed method distinction and to prevent obscuring the central
focus of the paper these studies were omitted.
To identify mixed method studies the author manually searched
all 2072 articles published in the Journal of Business Research from
1990 to 2010 and from this search 106 articles were identied that
mention the use of both qualitative and quantitative data. These arti-
cles were then limited to include studies that report both qualitative
and quantitative results, rather than merely mentioning that such
data were collected, per our inclusion criterion. From this search, 25
articles met the denition of mixed methods research and are includ-
ed in the purposive sample. These articles were then sorted to identi-
fy examples of research employing different mixed method design
types (presented in Table 3).
The design features of each study, including the priority given to
the different data strands, are highlighted in Table 3. A procedural no-
tation system developed by Morse (1991; 2003) that uses plus (+)
symbols and arrows (), and capital and lowercase letters to repre-
sent different mixed method procedures, is also featured in Table 3. A
plus sign indicates that both data strands were collected concurrently
and an arrow indicates that the data were collected sequentially. Capital
letters are used to indicate higher priority for a particular method, with

Table 3
Design features of mixed methods studies published in JBR (N = 25).

Study Design Variant Priority

Thakor et al. (2004) Sequential exploratory Instrument development qual QUAN

Guenzi and Troilo (2007) Sequential exploratory Instrument development qual QUAN
Piercy et al. (2002) Sequential exploratory Theory development qual QUAN
Frazer and Winzar (2005) Sequential exploratory Theory development QUAL QUAN
Sargeant et al. (2006) Sequential exploratory Theory development qual QUAN
Rosenbaum and Montoya (2007) Sequential exploratory Theory development QUAL QUAN
Ridgway et al. (2008) Sequential exploratory Theory development qual QUAN
Wu et al. (2010) Sequential exploratory Theory development qual QUAN
Barczak et al. (1997) Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development QUAL QUAN
Gruner and Homburg (2000) Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development qual QUAN
Bruhn et al. (2008) Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development QUAL QUAN
Gomez and Ranft (2003) Concurrent convergent Parallel databases QUAL + QUAN
Adobor (2005) Concurrent convergent Parallel databases QUAL + QUAN
Schelfhaudt and Crittenden (2005) Concurrent convergent Parallel databases qual + quan
Luomala (2007) Concurrent convergent Parallel databases QUAL + QUAN
Money (2004) Embedded Embedded experiment QUAN (qual)
Fong and Burton (2008) Embedded Embedded methodology QUAL (quan)
Chan and Li (2010) Embedded Embedded methodology QUAL (QUAN)
Lai and Cheng (2005) Sequential explanatory Follow-up explanations QUAN qual
Vandecasteele and Geuens (2009) Sequential explanatory Follow-up explanations QUAN qual
O'Connor et al. (2001) Hybrid Instrument development and parallel databases (qual quan) (QUAL + quan)
LaTour et al. (2010) Hybrid Parallel databases and theory development (QUAL + quan) (qual quan)
Koerner (1996, 2000)a Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development QUAL QUAN
Doherty et al. (1999, 2003)a Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development QUAL QUAN
Gould et al. (1993, 1997)a Sequential exploratory Instrument and theory development QUAL QUAN
a
Indicate multiple publication mixed method projects.
2156 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162

Table 4
Research approach rationales and design plan structure.

When to employ a mixed method approacha Rationale description a

Design plan b

When one data source may be insufcient One data type may not tell complete story. Post-hoc
Researchers lack condence that one data type addresses the research question. Predetermined
Results from qualitative and quantitative results are contradictory, which could Post-hoc
not be known collecting one data type.
Type of evidence from one level of an organization (or population) may differ from Predetermined
other levels, requiring different perspectives (i.e. generalizability at one level and
in-depth understanding at another)
When a need exists to explain initial results Second database needed to explain primary results. Predetermined or post-hoc
When a need exists to generalize exploratory ndings Researchers seeking generalizability do not know the questions needed to be asks, Predetermined or post-hoc
the variables or constructs they need to measure, or theories that may guide the study
When a study needs enhancement by a second method Provide in-depth understanding to phase in overall quantitative design Predetermined or post-hoc
(e.g. experiment or correlation)
Provide quantiable results enhance phase in overall qualitative design Predetermined or post-hoc
(e.g. ethnography or case study)
a
From Creswell and Plano Clark (2011).
b
Added classication.

lowercase indicating lower priority. For example, QUAL quan indi-
cates a sequential study where qualitative data were collected prior to
the quantitative data, and that top priority is given to the qualitative
data. QUAL + QUAN indicates that both data strands were collected at
the same time and were given equal priority.
Research questions best suited for mixed method inquiry include
those in which one data source may be insufcient, results need to be
explained, exploratory ndings need to be generalized, a second meth-
od is needed to enhance a primary method, and an overall objective can
be best addressed with multiple phases or projects. These research de-
sign concerns may emerge post-hoc, i.e. during the research process, or
as a predetermined design (see Table 4). Further, the decision to employ
a mixed method design may include salvaging intelligible results from
the primary data strand, or adding a data strand at the behest of re-
viewers. While one can speculate as to whether or not a systematic de-
sign is employed prior to data collection, a predetermined design plan
forces researchers to consider what can be learned by mixing data
strands, improves an author's rhetoric as to why specic designs are
used to address research problems, and reduces the overall time and
resources expended in a post-hoc projects (Tables 5).
3. Findings
The timing, or sequence, in mixed method designs refers to the
order in which researchers use the two data strands. Timing procedures
vary by design type, with convergent designs employing concurrent
data collection procedures, explanatory and exploratory designs
employing sequential data collection, and embedded designs
employing either sequential or concurrent data collection procedures.
In this study, sixteen mixed method studies implement data collection
procedures sequentially (68%), four implement them concurrently
(24%), and two combine both sequential and concurrent procedures
(8%). On the whole, priority is skewed more toward quantitative
strands, with ten articles prioritizing quantitative data (40%), three arti-
cles prioritizing qualitative data (12%), and twelve articles prioritizing
both equally (48%). This is not surprising as it has been suggested that
most articles employing mixed methods in business literature have a
positivist orientation (Currall & Towler, 2003).
Five mixed methods design types appear in the Journal of Business
Research during the designated time period. These design types in-
clude exploratory designs, explanatory designs, embedded designs,
convergent designs, and hybrid designs.
3.1. Exploratory designs
In exploratory designs, researchers rst collect qualitative data,
analyze the qualitative data, and then build on the qualitative data
for the quantitative follow-up. The building process can involve iden-
tifying the types of questions that might be asked, determining the
items/variables/scales for instrument design, and generating theories,
typologies, or classications (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Explor-
atory designs are the most common type of design used (56%,
n = 14). Exploratory designs are useful for exploring relationships
when study variables are unknown; developing new instruments,
based on initial qualitative analysis; generalizing qualitative ndings;
and rening or testing a developing theory (Creswell & Plano Clark,

Table 5
Major mixed methods design types.

Design type Variants Timing Weighting Mixing Notation

Convergent Parallel database Concurrent: quantitative and qualitative Usually equal Merging the data during the interpretation or analysis QUAN + QUAL
at the same time
Embedded Embedded Concurrent or sequential Unequal Embed one type of data within a larger design using QUAN (qual) or
experimental the other type of data QUAL (quan)
Embedded
correlation
Embedded
methodology
Explanatory Follow-up Sequential: quantitative followed by a Usually Connect the data between the two phases QUAN qual
explanations qualitative quantitative
Exploratory Instrument Sequential: qualitative followed by a Usually Connect the data between the two phases QUAL quan
development quantitative qualitative
Theory
development

From Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, 2011).

Added variant from Harrison and Reilly (2011).
 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
2011). The two common variants of this design type are the instru-
ment design model and the theory development model. In instru-
ment development designs, qualitative ndings are used to develop
scale items for a quantitative survey instrument. In this variant, the
qualitative data plays a secondary role (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011). In theory development designs, qualitative results play a
more primary role and are used to develop hypotheses or proposi-
tions, or taxonomies (or classications systems), and the secondary,
quantitative phase tests or develops the emergent theory, or tests or
studies the quantitative results in more detail (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011).
Two studies employ the instrument development variant, both of
which use interview data to generate specic items for the scale devel-
opment process (see Guenzi & Troilo, 2007; Thakor, Borsuk, & Kalamas,
2004). In addition, each article also uses the qualitative data to validate
propositions, or constructs, which developed from the literature. This
process of proposition, or hypothesis, validation represents a sub-
category of the theory development variant. Whereas the studies
highlighted in the theory development section above use qualitative
data to generate propositions, these two studies use qualitative data
to validate propositions. Thus, the theory development variant can re-
ect exploratory or validating qualitative goals, respectively.
Though JBR scholars rarely discuss rationales for mixed method
procedures, Guenzi and Troilo (2007, pp. 101) describe explicitly
their reasons for using both types of data:
Due to the lack of robust conceptual and empirical foundations for
the topic under investigation, this study started with a qualitative
step toward the goal to gain better insightsbefore running the
quantitative survey.
As expected, the qualitative phase, in both studies, played a sec-
ondary role in the development of a web-based survey (Thakor et
al., 2004) and a traditional questionnaire (Guenzi & Troilo, 2007).
Six studies employ the theory development variant; however, var-
iability exists as to how the authors develop theory. For example,
Piercy, Harris, and Lane (2002) develop a qualitative case study in
order to develop propositions. Rosenbaum and Montoya (2007) and
Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney, Monroe, and Chamberlin (2008) both use
thematic analysis of the qualitative data to generate propositions
and hypotheses, respectively. Frazer and Winzar (2005) use qualita-
tive data to develop a causal model and hypotheses that they then
generalize and test with a survey. Wu, Steward, and Hartley (2010)
use qualitative data to develop a taxonomy and use survey data to
test hypothesized relationships among taxonomic classications.
Sargeant, Ford, and West (2006) develop two models, one from ex-
tant literature and one from focus groups. The two models are com-
pared via structural equation modeling to determine which model
has the best t. While the aim of all of the studies is to use the qual-
itative data to develop theory in the form of theoretical models, prop-
ositions, or hypotheses, in four of the six studies the qualitative data
does not play a primary role.
Three studies incorporate both theory development and item gener-
ation in their sequential exploratory designs; however, each set of au-
thors utilize different techniques for doing so. For example, in Bruhn,
Georgi, and Hadwich's (2008) study aimed at developing a formative,
second-order construct to measure customer equity management
(CEM), the authors use qualitative data to (1) conrm a proposed de-
nition, developed from the literature, (2) develop items for a question-
naire, and (3) unpack the CEM construct to uncover its underlying
dimensions. In the Barczak, Ellen, and Pilling (1997) study, the qualita-
tive section is separated into two stages. The rst stage develops a ty-
pology of consumer motivations and the second stage develops
survey items for the identied consumer motivation groups. To gener-
alize the qualitative results to a larger population, a questionnaire is
deployed and analyzed. In the Gruner and Homburg (2000) study, the
2157
qualitative data are used to develop measures for relevant constructs
and to develop a model for which the quantitative stage would then
test. Of these three studies, only the Gruner and Homburg study does
not heavily weight the qualitative portion of the study.
As in the Harrison and Reilly (2011) study, the exploratory design
is the dominant design type used by business scholars. However, in
the JBR there is a much broader usage of this design type in terms of
its functioning. That is, the Harrison and Reilly study was dominated
by designs aimed at the development of surveys or scales. The studies
identied in JBR offer more variety in purposes, including creation of
indices, taxonomies, typologies, and model exploration. While the
mixed method literature suggests that sequential exploratory designs
most often incorporate a single variant type (i.e. either theory devel-
opment or instrument development) (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011),
JBR scholars are incorporating equal-weighted multi-variant sequen-
tial exploratory designs expressed by studies aimed at both theory
and instrument development.
Of the articles excluded from this study, most do not fully develop or
analyze the qualitative strand of the study. The benet of mixing meth-
odologies is utilizing the strengths of each approach. Many of the stud-
ies merely discuss conducting interviews to develop scales. The
strength of qualitative research is the depth of knowledge gained
from analyzing the experience of participants. Interviewing respon-
dents only indicates a surface level of understanding a phenomenon.
The multi-layered analytic approach used in qualitative methodologies
allows for a much deeper understanding of a phenomenon and in turn
should lead to the development of more specic and focused questions
to be asked in the quantitative follow-up phase.
The exemplars of exploratory designs found in this review lead to
some general recommendations when employing exploratory de-
signs. Exploratory designs are most effectively utilized under follow-
ing conditions: when research questions are more qualitatively
oriented (i.e. discovering patterns and themes), when researchers
do not know what constructs are important to study, and relevant
quantitative instruments are not available, and when researchers
identify new emergent research questions based on qualitative re-
sults that cannot be answered with qualitative data (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2011).
3.2. Explanatory designs
In explanatory designs, researchers rst collect and analyze quan-
titative data, then build on those ndings in a qualitative follow up,
which seeks to provide a better understanding of the quantitative re-
sults. Building can involve either using the quantitative data to select
cases or to identify questions that need further explorations in the
qualitative phase (Creswell et al., 2003). In explanatory designs,
unequal priority is given to the quantitative data and as the label
implies, the explanatory design is useful in explaining relationships
or study ndings. Explanatory designs are most often conducted
when qualitative data are needed to help explain or build on initial
quantitative data. Two variants of explanatory designs include
follow-up explanations and participant selection models (Creswell,
Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). In follow-up explanation
models, specic qualitative results are used to explain or expand
on quantitative results. For example, statistical differences among
groups, individuals who scored at extreme levels, or unexpected
results are explored qualitatively. A research question employing
this design-type might read, How do qualitative data explain the
quantitative results? In both exploratory and explanatory designs
the data sets, or strands, are usually connected, or mixed, during the
interpretation stage and in the discussion section. Two articles were
found that employed explanatory designs (8%), both incorporating
the follow-up explanation variant.
Vandecasteele and Geuens (2009) use an explanatory design to
investigate whether homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in terms
2158 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
of consumer innovativeness. The results of their MANOVA, using sur-
vey data suggests that gays and lesbians react completely different as
compared to the heterosexual counterparts. To nd a plausible ex-
planation for remarkable resultsand to better understand the re-
sults, three focus group discussions were organized and conducted
(Vandecasteele & Geuens, 2009, pp. 139). Illustrative quotes from
focus group data highlight the existence of an important subcultural
inuence, that of family situation, as a viable explanation for the
quantitative results.
Using survey data from organizations, Lai and Cheng (2005) test a
structural equation model examining hypothesized relationships be-
tween quality orientation, market orientation, and organizational
performance. The quantitative results are then supplemented with
qualitative data collected from in-depth interviews with selected re-
spondent organizations. Four qualitative case studies are developed
and, while the authors do not provide extensive individual qualitative
case study ndings, they present summaries of a cross-case analysis,
designed to enhance the output of the survey researchby provid-
ing [additional] support for the ndings (Lai & Cheng, 2005, pp. 452).
As expected, in both studies the quantitative strand plays a prima-
ry role and the qualitative strand is secondary. An overall trend in the
business literature is an increasing tendency to question the validity
of surveys on account of concerns with subjective collection and in-
terpretation of data. The explanatory design is an alternative that
may potentially address these concerns. The strength in survey
research is to uncover generalizable trends in specic populations,
and qualitative follow-up can be used to address gaps that result
from unique ndings (Harrison & Reilly, 2011). Thus, the explanatory
design has the potential to illuminate the strengths of survey data.
The exemplars of explanatory designs found in this review lead to
some general recommendations that might be followed when
employing exploratory designs. Explanatory designs are most effec-
tively utilized under following conditions: when research questions
are more quantitatively oriented (i.e. testing theory/hypotheses),
when researchers have the ability to return to participants for a sec-
ond round of qualitative data collection, or when researchers develop
new questions based on quantitative results, that cannot be answered
with quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
3.3. Embedded designs
In embedded designs, researchers collect both quantitative and
qualitative data either sequentially or concurrently with one form of
data playing a supporting role, or both forms of data playing a sup-
porting role in a larger design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In the
former design, the qualitative data may play a supporting role within
an experiment or correlational study. In the latter, the qualitative and
quantitative data may play a supportive role in a case study, ethnog-
raphy, narrative, or other qualitative research design. This latter
variant is identied as embedded methodology in Table 1. A key ele-
ment in identifying embedded designs is whether the secondary data
type is playing a supplemental role; that is, would the results of the
secondary data type be meaningful if it were not embedded within
the other data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)? Embedded designs
are most often conducted when there are different questions requir-
ing different data. For example, a research question employing this
design-type might read, How do the qualitative ndings enhance
the interpretation of the experiments, or correlational outcomes?
Three studies employ embedded designs (12%). Two embedded
design examples are embedded methodology studies and one is an
embedded experimental model.
With roots in the ethnographic methodology, netnography is a
qualitative methodology that adapts ethnography to the internet en-
vironment (Kozinets, 2002). Fong and Burton (2008) and Chan and Li
(2010) both employ an embedded method design in a study that em-
ploys netnography as the overarching qualitative design and included
embedded quantitative components in the analysis. In both studies,
the data from both strands were collected simultaneously, then ana-
lyzed and mixed in the results section. The difference between the
two studies is that the Chan and Li study offers somewhat equal
weighting to both data strands and thus could be considered a con-
current convergent design (however, the study appears to be slightly
netnographically-dominant), whereas Fong and Burton (2008) have a
much more distinctive qualitative balance. Ethnography has a history
of including a variety of data collection methods including surveys
(Wolcott, 1999); thus, netnography is a design ripe for incorporation
into a mixed method approach.
Money (2004) employs an embedded experimental design by
using qualitative data to explore aspects of the phenomenon to deter-
mine participant selection for the primary experiment. The qualita-
tive data was presented and mixed in the results and discussion
section.
The exemplars of embedded designs found in this review lead to
some general recommendations that might be followed when
employing exploratory designs. Embedded designs are most effective
when utilized under the following conditions: when researchers have
little prior experience with the supplemental method, or when re-
searchers do not have adequate resources to place equal priority on
both types of data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
3.4. Convergent designs
In convergent designs, researchers collect both qualitative and
quantitative data simultaneously, analyze both data strands separate-
ly, and then mix the databases by merging the data (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011). Four articles were found employing concurrent designs
(12%). Convergent designs are most often conducted to bring togeth-
er the strengths of both data strands to compare results or to validate,
conrm, or corroborate quantitative results with qualitative ndings.
In convergence design models, qualitative and quantitative data are
analyzed separately and the different results are integrated during
the interpretation (Creswell et al., 2003). A research question
employing this design-type might read, To what extent do the qual-
itative results conrm the quantitative results?
Two studies employ concurrent convergent designs asking similar
questions qualitatively and quantitatively, but obtain different perspec-
tives from different sample populations. For example, Gomez and Ranft
(2003) conduct qualitative interviews with top managers and human
resources managers, while the quantitative questionnaire is distributed
to employees. Schelfhaudt and Crittenden (2005) also use this ap-
proach, collecting qualitative data from business professionals and
business school faculty members and quantitative data from business
school students. The ndings from the interviews and the survey
data were separated into three areas based upon the sample source
and [were] discussed independently (Schelfhaudt & Crittenden,
2005, pp. 950). The ndings are then mixed in the conclusion section.
The other convergent design studies ask different, but related re-
search questions in each data strand to the same population. For ex-
ample Adobor (2005), describes the qualitative study as providing a
deeper understanding of different aspects of the phenomenon than
the quantitative study that is employed to test research hypotheses.
The data in this study is collected simultaneously and the results for
each data strand are presented separately and mixed in the research
implications section. Similarly, Luomala (2007) conducts both focus
groups and an experiment to investigate meanings and behaviors,
respectively, from the same sample population. In discussing
the research methodology, the author describes what amounts to a
textbook rationale for conducting a convergent design:
This study contains two separate but related studies: the rst is on
the creation in the minds of consumers of meanings related to the
origin of food, and the second is on the effects of food as a
 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
determinant of consumers actual food choices. This combines both
qualitative and quantitative methodology in order to investigate dif-
ferent aspects of the same phenomenon (Luomala, 2007, pp. 128).
The results of each data strand is presented separately and mixed
in the discussion section.
The nature of the convergent design, with its equal weighting, lends
itself to rigorous collection and analysis in both data strands. Unlike the
previous study (Harrison & Reilly, 2011), wherein convergent designs
often contained weak qualitative sections, or unequal balance, most
all of the convergent studies in the JBR provide equal weighting.
The exemplars of convergent designs found in this review lead to
some general recommendations that might be followed when employ-
ing convergent designs. Convergent designs are most effectively utilized
under following conditions: when researchers have limited time for col-
lecting data and must collect both types of data in one visit to the eld,
when researchers feel that there is equal value for collecting and analyz-
ing both quantitative and qualitative data to understand the problem, or
when researchers have skills in both quantitative and qualitative
methods of research and can manage extensive data collection and anal-
ysis activities (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
3.5. Hybrid design
Two studies incorporate aspects of multiple design types (i.e. hybrid
designs (8%)). LaTour, LaTour, and Zinkhan (2010) conduct what
amounts to a concurrent convergent design, with a sequential explor-
atory follow-up. The authors collect both qualitative memory stories
and quantitative survey data from 50 participants. Both data strands
are presented separately and mixed in a discussion section. The authors
then conduct a two-phase follow-up to investigate whether the memo-
ry study method is better than more traditional methods (i.e., focus
groups). Thus, a focus group is conducted and a summary of the results
are provided. A survey (n= 106) is then conducted to determine what
experiences brought back the most memoriesthose surfaced in the
childhood memory sessionthe focus groupor recent advertising ef-
forts (LaTour et al., 2010, p. 334). The results for all forms and phases
are presented separately and mixed in their entirety in another discus-
sion section.
O'Connor, Luo, and Lee (2001) conduct what amounts to a sequen-
tial exploratory-embedded design. The rst phase of data collection
includes qualitative interviews, specically collected to assist in de-
veloping a survey. The survey is then administered to participants;
however, embedded in the survey development process are post-
survey interviews, designed to provide construct validity. Both
strands of data are presented separately; however, no clear mixing
discussion appears.
3.6. Multiple publications
Identifying mixed method studies is complicated by mixed
methods projects published in multiple outletsthat is the qualitative
or quantitative results are published in different journals or, alterna-
tively, only one strand of the results is published. By requiring both
data types be present, studies that employ mixed methods designs,
but present ndings in different journal outlets, may have been
missed. Three multiple publication mixed method projects are identi-
ed in our search. All three are sequential exploratory designs build-
ing on published qualitative studies. In addition, in all of these
publications, the authors include statements highlighting the
multiple-phase, multiple-outlet strategy. For example, Doherty,
Ellis-Chadwick, and Hart (2003, p. 888) frame their study as building
upon their previous exploratory, qualitative research that identied
a number of critical factors affecting Internet adoption, published
in another journal (see Doherty, Ellis-Chadwick, & Hart, 1999).
2159
Another example from Koerner (2000, p. 269) states, In phase
one, qualitative research methods were used to explore the conceptu-
al domain of service quality and clarify the service quality dimensions
used by patients to evaluate an inpatient nursing experience. The
qualitative ndings of the study have been reported in detail previ-
ously (Koerner, 1996) and, therefore, are summarized only briey
here. In phase two of the study, scale development and testing, quan-
titative methods were used to develop an instrument to measure the
dimensions identied in phase one.
Gould, Considine, and Oakes (1993) and Gould, Oakes, and
Considine (1997) also conduct a mixed method project wherein the
results are published in separate journal outlets. While these authors
specically discuss this issue of multiple publications, other authors
using similar strategies without explicit identication could not be
identied in the search.
4. Discussion
Until recently, the extent to which marketing research uses mixed
methods designs was unknown (see Harrison & Reilly, 2011). This
follow-up investigation of the delineation of the major forms in
mixed method designs in the JBR extends that framework for looking
at such design types to a broader business context, providing exam-
ples of research designs that are substantially different than single
strand studies. The framework also helps advance a common lan-
guage for business scholars using mixed methods techniques.
Bryman (2006) nds that mixed methods scholars have a difcult
time identifying exemplary mixed methods research and an absence
of best practice templates from which to draw upon when it
comes to combining ndings. This study addresses this issue by pro-
viding guidance and direction for researchers to design mixed
methods studies, offering recommendations and examples of re-
search employing different design types. An understanding of mixed
method design types equips researchers with knowledge to decide
and choose the appropriate design to address particular research
questions, provides a methodological foundation for which to con-
duct mixed method research, and helps anticipate and resolve chal-
lenging issues. This study nds that business scholars do not
demonstrate much knowledge of the mixed method literature or pro-
cedures, as none of the studies recognize or mention an understand-
ing of mixed method procedures, or cite mixed method research.
Further, having a mixed methods design plan improves an author's
rhetoric as to why specic designs were used to address research
problems and force them to consider what can be learned by using
both qualitative and quantitative data. As mixed method research is
a growing methodological approach in several disciplines (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2011), another goal of this study is also to explore
how business scholars are incorporating mixed method techniques
to best t business research objectives. The study here examines the
extent to which mixed method designs types are in use, and identies
what trends, or patterns, can be found through an analysis of studies
published in the JBR. An evaluation of studies asking similar questions
in other disciplines suggests that dominant mixed method design
types vary across disciplines. For example, other disciplines have
been found to use predominantly convergent designs (Hanson,
Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005), or an evenly distrib-
uted combination of the concurrent and sequential designs (Plano
Clark, Huddleston-Casas, Churchill, O'Neil Green, & Garrett, 2008).
In marketing, Harrison and Reilly (2011) found that an overwhelming
majority of the design types employed were sequential designs
(Harrison & Reilly, 2011). The present study adds evidence that the
trend in business research is to use qualitative data to develop quan-
titative follow-ups. Explanations for this trend could be the inuence
of commercial business research with its focus on preliminary
focus groups that lead to empirical quantitative investigations and
2160 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
Table 6
Journal comparisons by design type.
QMR Results (Nine marketing journalsa) (20032009b)
Design type # of studies Percentage
Sequential exploratory 22 51.1
Sequential explanatory 10 23.3
Embedded 6 14
Convergent parallel 4 9.3
Hybrid 1 2.3
Total 43 100
a
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Marketing Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, and European Journal of Marketing.
b
Corresponding with the publishing of the Handbook of Mixed Method Research (2003).
textbooks that suggest that the purpose of qualitative research is to
develop hypothesis that can then be quantied (Tables 6).
Another trend suggests that business scholars, particularly in mar-
keting, are incorporating mixed methods techniques with traditional
marketing approaches. For example, the CIT (Critical Incident Tech-
nique) and netnography represent traditional qualitative approaches
that were augmented in Journal of Business Research studies to t re-
search questions requiring a mixed method evaluation. Though root-
ed in psychology, the CIT method was made popular in business (see
Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990) as a method of collecting direct ob-
servations of human behavior that have critical signicance. Netno-
graphy is a method used to explore and understand online behavior
that was developed by business scholars (see Kozinets, 2002). Both
of these methods represent popular, traditional business research
techniques that are being augmented to better t and answer re-
search questions that require the mixing of data types. In addition,
as sequential exploratory designs were found to be the dominant de-
sign used by business scholars, it was not surprising to discovery aug-
mented variants that extend the boundaries of the sequential
exploratory approach in JBR. Specically, scholars are using qualita-
tive data to develop theory and generate survey items in the same
study. In addition, scholars may use the qualitative data to validate
propositions developed from the literature, or develop propositions
from the data.
A previous study nds that marketing scholars may not be maxi-
mizing the extent to which they are using mixed method research
(Harrison & Reilly, 2011) and this follow-up investigation suggests
that similar concerns extend to a broader interdisciplinary context.
For example, several authors mention collecting interview data
prior to a quantitative follow-up; however, the presentation and
method of qualitative data analysis is often not used, undened, or
unreported. In addition, a few mixed method articles present weak
quantitative strands (e.g., simple percentages) and, though we do
not suggest that these are weak studies, they merely are not strong
mixed methods studies. With that being said, a potential weakness
of the inclusion criteria could also involve quantitative studies where-
in rigorous qualitative research is conducted as, for example, part of a
scale development process, yet not reported. It is important to note,
however, that pretesting instruments with informal focus groups and
interviews to member check quantitative results, is not a quality
mixed method study, due to lack of rigorous qualitative analysis. For ex-
ample, if a researcher is employing an explanatory design, whereby
qualitative data will explain quantitative ndings, the qualitative data
analysis should include textual coding, thematic development, and de-
scriptions based on these codes. For designs more heavily qualitatively
weighted, an analysis that includes more specied analytical outputs,
such as an epoche, developed from a phenomenological approach, a
theory of a process, developed from a grounded theory, or case study
summary descriptions, would represent the most sound mixing of
methods and most rigorous qualitative analysis. Further, most of the
ndings and analyses found in this study do not represent rigorous
qualitative analysis, offering a single layer of abstraction, rather than
JBR Results (19902010)
Design type # of studies Percentage
Sequential exploratory 14 56
Sequential explanatory 2 8
Embedded 3 12
Concurrent convergent 4 16
Hybrid 2 8
Total 25 100
the multiple-layered analytical approach required for a deeper under-
standing of meanings or behaviors, or particular phenomena. One ex-
planation for this trend may be the lack of training in both methods.
The tools required to conduct strong mixed methods research may re-
quire the use of research teams that include experts in the different
methodological approaches. Thus, a weakness in the inclusion criteria
is the primary focus on reported data, rather than analysis. As the recog-
nition and use of mixed methods procedures increases in business re-
search, future research should also further scrutinize analytical rigor
in both data strands.
The subjective nature of our selection criteria is acknowledged;
however, the author believes this presentation of the state of mixed
methods research design usage at the Journal of Business Research of-
fers scholars a comprehensive review of the literature. It is important
to note an additional weakness of the selection criteria involves the
nature of the review process that may have resulted in the removal
of qualitative or quantitative content, due to space limitations and
resulting manuscript streamlining. Thus, the traditional journal arti-
cle format in addition to the corresponding review process does not
necessarily lend itself to the successful publishing of the weaving to-
gether of multiple strands of research.
Freshwater (2007) criticizes mixed methods research because of
its desire for certainty, suggesting that the inherent aw in mixed
methods text (and tenets of pragmatism) is the supposition that
there be no gaps. This is based on the apparent goal of grasping the
whole through mixed methods inquiry, with little critical reection
in the assumption that the whole is always partial in itself. Johnson
and Onwuegbuzie (2004 p. 23) suggest correctly that qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed method are all superior under different
circumstances and researchers must determine how to use different
approaches.
Quantitative research is more apt for answering questions about re-
lationships between specic variables, and questions of who, where,
how many, and how much. Qualitative research is more apt for answer-
ing why and how questions. Understanding meanings attached to expe-
riences of individuals and organizations is the hallmark of good
qualitative research. Further, when researchers quantitatively examine
many individuals, the voice of the individuals is diminished, and when
researchers qualitatively examine a few individuals, the ability to gen-
eralize the results to many is lost (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011).
Mixed method research provides strengths that offset both weaknesses.
However, it is not the answer to every research problem, nor does it
diminish the value of research conducted entirely quantitatively or
qualitatively.
In sum, for scholars interested in mixing data types this paper high-
lights and offers the following recommendations. First, understand the
denition of mixed method research. Mixed methods research gathers
and analyzes both data strands. As was mentioned, several studies
were found that mentioned the use of qualitative data to develop an
instrument without rigorous qualitative analysis. Understanding the
tenets of both quantitative and qualitative analysis ensures the develop-
ment of good mixed methods research.
 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
Second, identify the appropriate design type. In general terms, ex-
ploratory designs are employed when researchers want to test or
generalize qualitative results to a larger population, or when new
emergent research questions based on qualitative results cannot be
answered with qualitative data. Explanatory designs are employed
when researchers want to investigate trends and relationships with
quantitative data and explain reasons behind the quantitative results,
or the researcher develops new questions based on quantitative re-
sults, that cannot be answered with quantitative data. Embedded de-
signs are employed when researchers have different questions that
require different types of data in order to enhance the application of
a primary quantitative or qualitative design, or researchers do not
have adequate skills or resources to place equal priority on both
types of data. Concurrent designs are employed when researchers
feel that there is equal value for collecting and analyzing both quanti-
tative and qualitative data to understand the problem and have skills
in both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Third, incorporate mixed methods design procedures. Scholars
should recognize, dene, utilize, and cite mixed method principles.
The classication of design types highlights the basic procedures for dif-
ferentiating the designs. Specically, scholars should determine the pri-
ority of the different data strands, the timing of each data type (i.e.,
sequential or concurrent), and the integration (or mixing) of both
data strands. Fourth, integrate both data strands. Scholars should devel-
op mixed methods research questions (highlighted in the results sec-
tion above) to aid in the synthesizing of the two data strands. Data
strand integration is assured when answering mixed methods research
questions. Fifth, recognize the challenges of incorporating mixed
methods. Mixed methods research requires an investment in time, re-
sources, and skills that may hinder the research process. However, for
certain research questions it offers an advantage over other methodo-
logical approaches.
References
Adobor, H. (2005). Trust as sensemaking: The microdynamics of trust in interrm alli-
ances. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 330337.
Bahl, S., & Milne, G. R. (2006). Mixed methods in interpretive research: An application
to the study of self concept. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research
methods in marketing (pp. 198218). Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc.
Barczak, G., Ellen, P. S., & Pilling, B. K. (1997). Developing typologies of consumer mo-
tives for use of technologically based banking services. Journal of Business Research,
38(2), 131140.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing
favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 7184 Vol.
Bruhn, M., Georgi, D., & Hadwich, K. (2008). Customer equity management as forma-
tive second-order construct. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 12921301.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?
Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97113.
Chan, K. W., & Li, S. Y. (2010). Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in
virtual communities: The salience of reciprocity. Journal of Business Research, 63,
10331040.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Creswell, W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. B. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209240). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in management and organiza-
tional research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In
T. Addie, & T. Charles (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Science &
Behaviorial Research (Thousand Oaks, CA).
Doherty, N. F., Ellis-Chadwick, F., & Hart, C. A. (1999). Cyber retailing in the UK: The potential
of the internet as a retail channel. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ment, 27(1), 2236.
Doherty, N., Ellis-Chadwick, F., & Hart, C. (2003). An analysis of the factors affecting the
adoption of the internet in the UK retail sector. Journal of Business Research, 56(11),
887897.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological t in management eld
research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 11551179.
Fong, J., & Burton, S. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth
and country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 233242.
2161
Frazer, L., & Winzar, H. (2005). Exits and expectations: Why disappointed franchisees
leave. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 15341542.
Freshwater, D. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 134146.
Gomez, C., & Ranft, A. L. (2003). The inuence of organizational variables on the trans-
ferability of management practices: An examination of traditional and learning
manufacturing environments in Mexico. Journal of Business Research, 56(12),
989997.
Gould, S. J., Considine, J. M., & Oakes, L. S. (1993). Consumer illness careers: An inves-
tigation of allergy sufferers and their universe of medical choices. Journal of Health
Care Marketing, 13(2), 3448.
Gould, S. J., Oakes, L. S., & Considine, J. M. (1997). Proling pharmaceutical allergy
medications by symptoms and their relief: A study of consumer perceptions.
Journal of Business Research, 40(3), 199206.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11(3), 255274.
Gruner, K. E., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product
success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 114.
Guenzi, P., & Troilo, G. (2007). The joint contribution of marketing and sales to
the creation of superior customer value. Journal of Business Research, 60(2),
98107.
Hanson, W. B., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, D. (2005).
Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(2), 224235.
Hanson, D., & Grimmer, M. (2007). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in
major marketing journals, 19932002. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2),
5870.
Harrison, R. L., & Reilly, T. M. (2011). Mixed methods designs in marketing research.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(1), 726.
Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 1325.
Hurmerinta-Peltomki, L., & Nummela, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international
business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review,
46(4), 439459.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 1426.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a denition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112133.
Koerner, M. M. [1996]. A reconceptualization of serice quality and development of an
instrument for inpatient nursing services, Doctoral dissertation (University of
Utah, David Eccles School of Business).
Koerner, M. M. (2000). The conceptual domain of service quality for inpatient nursing
service. Journal of Business Research, 48(3), 267283.
Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of
Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 243250.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The eld behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 6172.
Lai, K. -h, & Cheng, T. C. E. (2005). Effects of quality management and marketing on
organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58(No. 4), 446456.
LaTour, K., LaTour, M. S., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2010). Coke is it: How stories in childhood
memories illuminate an icon. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 328336.
Luomala, H. T. (2007). Exploring the role of food origin as a source of meanings for con-
sumers and as a determinant of consumers' actual food choices. Journal of Business
Research, 60(2), 122129.
Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use and added value of mixed methods in management
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 724.
Money, R. B. (2004). Word-of-mouth promotion and switching behavior in Japanese
and American business-to-business service clients. Journal of Business Research,
57(3), 297305.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological impli-
cations of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1), 4876.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitativequantitative methodological triangula-
tion. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120123.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In
A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 189208). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
O'Connor, N. G., Luo, Y., & Lee, D. K. Y. (2001). Self-selection, socialization and budget
control in the PRC: A study of a US-Sino joint venture and Chinese state-owned en-
terprise. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 135148.
Piercy, N. F., Harris, L. C., & Lane, N. (2002). Market orientation and retail operatives'
expectations. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 261273.
Plano Clark, V. L., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., O'Neil Green, D., & Garrett, A.
L. (2008). Mixed methods approaches in family science research. Journal of Family
Issues, 29(11), 15431566.
Ridgway, N. M., Kukar-Kinney, M., Monroe, K. B., & Chamberlin, E. (2008). Does exces-
sive buying for self relate to spending on pets? Journal of Business Research, 61(5),
392396.
Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Prez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step:
Mixed methods taking the next step: Mixed methods research in organizational
systems research in organizational systems. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 21(1), 1929.
Rosenbaum, M. S., & Montoya, D. Y. (2007). Am I welcome here? Exploring how ethnic
consumers assess their place identity. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 206214.
2162 R.L. Harrison III / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 21532162
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprot
giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155165.
Schelfhaudt, K., & Crittenden, V. L. (2005). Specialist or generalist: Views from acade-
mia and industry. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 946954.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 37.
Thakor, M. V., Borsuk, W., & Kalamas, M. (2004). Hotlists and web browsing
behaviorAn empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 57(7),
776786.
Vandecasteele, B., & Geuens, M. (2009). Revising the myth of gay consumer innovative-
ness. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 134144.
Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(2), 301313.
Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Woodside, A. G. (2004). Advancing from subjective to conrmatory personal
introspection in consumer research. Psychology and Marketing, 21(12), 9871010.
Woodside, A. G. (2010). Bridging the chasm between survey and case study research:
Research methods for achieving generalization, accuracy, and complexity. Industrial
Marketing Management, 39(1), 6475.
Wu, Z., Steward, M. D., & Hartley, J. L. (2010). Wearing many hats: Supply managers'
behavioral complexity and its impact on supplier relationships. Journal of Business
Research, 63(8), 817823.