Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2015

Vol. 35, No. 4, 334–3354 45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2015.1016953

Broadening the application of mixed methods in sales research

Jeff S. Johnson*
Henry W. Bloch School of Management, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 5110 Cherry Street, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
(Received 11 August 2014; accepted 24 January 2015)

Mixed method research designs can be extremely useful in extending knowledge in the sales domain. A bevy of mixed
method designs are at the disposal of sales researchers seeking to reap the benefits of this combination of research
approaches. However, application of mixed methods in sales research has been rather limited, focusing primarily on
exploratory sequential designs. The purpose of this article is to provide an exposition of mixed method research in the sales
domain and offer avenues of extension that employ underutilized mixed methodological approaches. Accordingly, a
definition of mixed methods along with its benefits and drawbacks is espoused followed by guidance in conducting mixed
method research. A review of sales-related mixed method studies is then provided and articles containing both quantitative
and qualitative methods are analyzed to glean insight on the state of mixed methods research in sales. Future avenues for
mixed method research are then provided focusing on best practices and techniques that have yet to be embraced by sales
researchers. This article aims to be a resource for sales scholars in expanding the mixed method research paradigm.
Keywords: mixed methods; sequential design; concurrent design; salesperson; sales management

The primary mechanisms by which sales researchers
generate knowledge are quantitative and qualitative meth-
ods. Quantitative methods are generally used to empiric-
ally test theory-based hypotheses in a deductive manner
with various forms of statistical analysis, whereas qualit-
ative methods are generally employed to generate insight
and theory in an inductive manner through various non-
statistical approaches (Creswell 2007). Notably, both
quantitative and qualitative methods are imbued with
many benefits and drawbacks (Stake 2010). In the over-
whelming majority of published sales-related research,
sales scholars select one of these approaches to theoretical
advancement and utilize it in their knowledge generation
pursuit. However, the methodological decision need not
be conceptualized as an either-or proposition. Rather, sales
scholars can mix methods and utilize both qualitative and
quantitative methods in a given inquiry.
Mixed methods refer to “research in which the
investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the
findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and
quantitative approaches or methods in a single study”
(Tashakkori and Creswell 2007, 4). Mixed method
research has seen increased scholarly attention in recent
years. In 2007, the Journal of Mixed Methods Research
was introduced to specifically focus on “empirical, meth-
odological, and theoretical articles about mixed methods
research” across domains of inquiry (Mertens and Fresh-
water 2014).
The increasing focus on this approach to conducting
research is likely a function of the advantages inherent to
mixed method designs. Mixed methodological approaches
can be quite beneficial in certain contexts where one data
approach may be insufficient to fully understand a
phenomenon (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). A key
benefit of mixed method research is that the combination
of qualitative and quantitative analyses can lead to a more
robust understanding than that which can be gleaned using
either approach in isolation. Accordingly, mixed method
approaches are well-suited for highly complex research
topics. There are many examples of how mixed methods
can provide synergy and yield greater understanding than
the sum of its qualitative and quantitative component parts
across domains of inquiry. Some exemplars are as follows:
. Exploring consumers’ attachment to celebrities.
Leveraging both quantitative and qualitative
data sources helps the researcher to “richly describe
the focal variable while statistically establishing
the linkages among variables” to understand the
complex phenomenon of human brands (Thomson
2006, 111).
. Investigating the resilience of families with a
member with chronic pain. Researchers quantified
a pain impact score on the family using a survey;
however, to understand both the significant impact
having a family member with chronic pain has on
the family and also coping mechanisms for dealing
with this issue, qualitative data and analysis aug-
ment the quantitative findings to provide a complete
understanding to the reader (West et al. 2012).

*Email: johnsonjs@umkc.edu

© 2015 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

335 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
. Understanding women’s social capital. Quantitative
and qualitative data were combined to understand
not only the incidence of women’s social capital-
building activities, but also thoroughly describe
them and understand their nuanced drivers (Hodg-
kin 2008).
. Studying consumers’ creative experiences and the
effect of constraints on these experiences. Research-
ers provide a robust understanding of why con-
sumers engage in creative tasks and what impact
constraints have on those experiences then conduct
a series of experiments to illustrate the counter-
intuitive effect of constraints on creative consumer
tasks (Dahl and Moreau 2007).
As these examples illustrate, synthesis of the qualitative
and quantitative components allows the reader to experi-
ence and contextualize findings to better understand these
phenomena.
Another important benefit of mixed methods is trian-
gulation: convergence and corroboration of qualitative and
quantitative methods (Bryman 2006). Quantitative results
may be used to support and generalize insights generated
from qualitative inquiry and conversely, qualitative insight
may be used to support results obtained from quantitative
methods. The convergence of findings across the different
methodologies ascribes greater validity to the obtained
results. Mixed method designs also allow researchers to
overcome deficiencies quantitative methods (e.g., lack of
nuanced detail, lack of voice of the participant) and
qualitative methods (e.g., lack of objectivity, lack of
generalizability) possess when used in isolation, providing
a more complete understanding of sales-related topics.
Despite these benefits, there is an undeniable paucity
of sales research that incorporates both qualitative and
quantitative inquiries. A driving factor to this paucity may
be researchers’ objection to its usage on epistemological
grounds. Mixed method researchers contend that mixed
method’s “central premise is that the use of quantitative
and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a
better understanding of research problems than either
approach alone” (Creswell and Clark 2007, 5). Research-
ers possessing strongly positivistic (objective reality) or
constructivist (subjective reality) worldviews (Denzin and
Lincoln 2005) may disagree with this expressed suprem-
acy of mixed methods and both camps may decide to
avoid this approach to research. This potential conflict
with epistemological orientations can also be particularly
impactful in the review process of publishing. Authors
may find it difficult to balance the requirements of editors
and reviewers with disparate orientations. As mixed
methods utilization has evolved in recent years, research-
ers are increasing accepting this premise of value in the
synthesis of these two approaches. However, sales
researchers have been less amenable to its incorporation
in comparison to other realms of inquiry such as consumer
behavior (see Harrison and Reilly 2011 for applicable
exemplars). This may be in part a function of the sales
domain’s highly quantitative orientation as only 5.87% of
sales examinations from 1980 to 2008 are classified as
qualitative (Asare, Yang, and Brashear-Alejandro 2012).
This paucity may also be a function of issues in
conducting mixed method research such as complexity
(Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). In addition to mastery of
qualitative and quantitative techniques in isolation, mixed
method researchers must also understand the intricacies
involved in combining these approaches. Additionally,
authors often find it difficult to keep manuscripts below
journal-specified page limits (e.g. 50 pages, 30 pages)
when using a single method and may find it even more
difficult when mixing methods. As such, authors may be
splitting up mixed method research projects into multiple
papers. For example, authors may submit a separate paper
proposing relationships based on the qualitative analysis
and a separate paper based on the quantitative analysis of
an exploratory sequential design mixed method study.
Notably, however, this approach negates the significant
benefits readers gain from seeing triangulation between
methods and providing a complete understanding of
complex topics.
Another factor potentially constraining the widespread
adoption of mixed method designs by sales researchers is its
relatively narrow application in the published sales literat-
ure. While a vast array of mixed methodological options are
available to sales researchers, the subsequent review shows
a reliance on a singular approach. Specifically, sales
researchers are applying mixed methods primarily as
exploratory sequential designs with qualitative analyses
followed by quantitative, survey-based examinations.
While sales researchers have undeniably made valu-
able contributions to theory and practice mixing methodo-
logies in this manner, a need exists to expand the
perspective of mixed method designs and incorporate
other underutilized approaches into the sales literature. To
facilitate this end, guidelines for conducting mixed
methods research are provided followed by a review of
published, sales-related mixed method research. This
review and analysis highlights the need for sales research-
ers to expand their conceptualization of mixed method
designs to forms other than the exploratory sequential
approach and incorporate best practices in mixed meth-
odological research. These extensions are then espoused
with the intent of providing sales researchers a broader
base of knowledge in integrating qualitative and quantit-
ative analyses.
Conducting mixed method research
In addition to understanding the benefits and drawbacks of
mixed methods research, it is important to understand the
 J.S. Johnson
key components in its operationalization. The first, and
arguably most important, task is to clearly define the
research questions the study seeks to answer (Schiffer-
decker and Reed 2009). Based on the research questions,
researchers should decide if a mixed method approach is
appropriate or if a singular approach is warranted.
Specifically, are both qualitative and quantitative analyses
necessary to answer the research questions? If a mixed
methods approach is desirable, researchers must then
match the appropriate mixed methods design to the
research questions.
In this pursuit, several mixed method designs exist,
but they can be largely categorized into two classifications
based on their timing: concurrent and sequential (Creswell
and Plano Clark 2011). Concurrent mixed method designs
are those in which the quantitative and qualitative
components occur simultaneously. For example, research-
ers can create survey instruments with both open-ended,
qualitative-oriented questions and closed-ended, quantit-
ative-oriented questions. This can allow researchers to
synthesize both qualitative and quantitative insight simul-
taneously to provide deeper insight into a phenomenon.
Sequential mixed method designs, on the other hand,
consist of temporally separated collection of the qualitat-
ive and quantitative elements. For example, researchers
may conduct interviews with participants, generate a
conceptual model based on emergent themes, and then
empirically test the conceptual model with survey data.
Within sequential mixed method designs, researchers
may choose from one of two main derivations: explorat-
ory or explanatory (Harrison and Reilly 2011). Explorat-
ory sequential designs employ a qualitative-then-
quantitative approach. Researchers utilize the qualitative
data obtained from participants to inform the subsequent
quantitative phase. Explanatory sequential designs, how-
ever, consist of a quantitative-then-qualitative process. In
explanatory sequential designs, researchers often look to
explain findings obtained in a quantitative analysis with
the voices of the participants through qualitative analysis.
To help researchers decide which design variant is
most amenable, they must juxtapose the designs with their
research need. Is the need to simultaneously analyze both
qualitative and quantitative data to triangulate and better
understand a phenomenon (concurrent)? Generate and test
a conceptual model (exploratory sequential)? Provide an
explanation and corroboration of obtained statistical data
(explanatory sequential)? The answer to this question will
dictate the design variant chosen.
Researchers must then decide how the qualitative and
quantitative elements should be weighted and utilized in
their examination (Kettles, Creswell, and Zhang 2011).
Specifically, they must decide if the qualitative or quant-
itative component should receive greater consideration or
if equal weighting should be provided to both. For
example, researchers may choose to embed qualitative
336
data in a primarily quantitative approach or quantitative
data in a primarily qualitative approach. After these
determinations have been made, researchers can then
articulate the sampling parameters for both the qualitative
and quantitative components and implement the collection
(Schifferdecker and Reed 2009).
Review of mixed method examinations in sales
research
A review of the literature was conducted to identify and
examine mixed method research conducted in the sales
domain. Best practices in the gathering of applicable
studies for review purposes were employed (e.g., Webster
and Watson 2002; Brocke et al. 2009; Alderman 2014).
Many queries were performed using a combination of
topical (e.g., salesperson, sales manager, etc.) and meth-
odological (e.g., mixed method, multiple methods, etc.)
designations and were conducted in many different
academic search engines. The use of different engines is
important as article access and search algorithms vary by
engine. The timeframe searched was 1981–2014 consist-
ent with the inception of the field’s premier sales-focused
journal, the Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage-
ment (JPSSM). Both backward (searching references cited
in the retrieved manuscripts) and forward (searching
subsequent articles that have cited retrieved manuscripts)
searches were used (Webster and Watson 2002). A manual
search of JPSSM was also performed to find applicable
studies. Included articles were required to use both
qualitative and quantitative approaches and either involve
salespeople/sales managers or be published in JPSSM to
warrant inclusion in the study. The latter criterion was
used to identify potential studies germane to sales
research, but not involving salespeople (e.g., consumers’
perceptions of salespeople). Studies that merely quantify
qualitative data collection in a singular application or use
interviews to pretest survey instruments were excluded.
Notably, this collection of articles is limited in that it only
includes published work using multiple methods in the
same article. Mixed method studies that are broken into
separate papers would be indistinguishable from purely
qualitative or quantitative examinations and thus are
excluded from the collection.
Table 1 provides an overview of the topics of inquiry,
as well as how both the qualitative and quantitative
components were operationalized and analyzed. In each
of these two columns, the collection information is
provided first followed by the type of analysis in italics.
Also included are study descriptions detailing these mixed
method inquiries. In sum, Table 1 provides a concise
reference source for sales scholars interested in under-
standing mixed methodological research conducted in the
sales domain.
Table 1. Mixed methods sales research exemplars.
337

Author(s) Topic area Qualitative sample/analysis Quantitative sample/analysis Study description

Pourhosseini and Marketing strategy . 23 interviews with sales and . Survey of 66 sales and The authors endeavored to understand how the various facets of
Shahrokh and salesperson marketing managers marketing managers marketing strategy impact the behavioral and outcome performance of
(2013)–WASJ performance . Content analysis . Partial least squares salespeople. They use the interviews to generate survey items as well as
propose contingent relationships. They then test these hypotheses with a
small sample of sales and marketing managers. Results show that the
relationship between marketing strategy elements and salesperson
performance are moderated by leadership and environmental variables.
Üstüner and Salesperson . 44 interviews with salespeo- . Survey of salespeople in The authors sought to provide insight into the effect of the salesperson’s
Iacobucci network ple and senior executives 12 offices (average 24.6 network embeddedness within their own organization on their
(2012)–PSSM embeddedness . Field observations per office) performance. Interviews were first conducted to propose a contingency
. Not stated . Hierarchical regression model with the hypothesized relationships. Subsequently, salespeople in
12 office networks were surveyed. Results show a nuanced impact of
networks on performance with social networks aiding opportunity
identification, work networks aiding solution creation, and both aiding
deal closing.
Eggert and Salesperson . 7 interviews with sales direc- . Survey of 244 salespeo- By combining insight gained from qualitative interviews and field
Serdaroglu technology usage tors and SFA managers ple (82%)a observations of salespeople, the authors are able to advance a conceptual
(2011)–JMTP . Field observation of 2 sales . Partial least squares model of the drivers, mediators, behaviors, and outcomes associated
people with the usage of SFA technology by the salesperson. They then test
. Content analysis their conceptual model using survey data and find support for nearly all
hypothesized relationships.
Huang et al. Network effects . 25 interviews with retail . Survey of 99 retail buying To gain understanding of the phenomenon of Guanxi (reciprocal
(2011)–JMC between buying managers managers (43%) interpersonal social exchanges), which is common in Chinese culture,
salespeople and . 2 interviews with salespeople . Hierarchical regression the authors first interview buying managers and salespeople to better
buyers . Not stated understand the impact of Guanxi in this context. Based on this
understanding, they develop a series of hypotheses, which they test by
collecting a survey of retail buying managers. Results support a more
nuanced understanding of Guanxi in salesperson/buyer interactions.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Storbacka,Polsa, Managerial . 5 interviews with experts . Survey of 135 (65%) The authors take a novel approach to mixed methods research by
and Saaksjarvi practices in . Case studies including salespeople and other employing a multiphase design. In this approach, they started by
(2011)–JPSSM solutions selling 9 senior-level executives organizational members interviewing experts and executives regarding the role of management in
. Observation and documenta- . EFA and partial least solutions selling applications. Based on these initial interviews, they
tion of 2 full-day workshops squares developed an initial framework and measures of the phenomenon. They
. Not stated then presented these to a case workshop and incorporated their insight.
Subsequently, they conducted a web-based survey. They then took these
findings back to another workshop to gain their insight on the initial
quantitative findings. They then conclude with a full quantitative
analysis.
Table 1 (Continued)

Author(s) Topic area Qualitative sample/analysis Quantitative sample/analysis Study description

Berente, Ivanov, Salesperson . Case analysis with 28 inter- . Survey of 141 salespeo- To provide knowledge pertaining to process gatekeepers and process
and Vandenbosch technology usage views (15 salespeople, 3 sales ple (70.5%) compliance in enterprise resource planning applications, the authors first
(2010)–BPMJ managers, 10 other) . SEM structural model interview salespeople and managers to generate survey items and build a
. Constant comparison conceptual model. Subsequently, they test the model by analyzing a
survey of salespeople and find support for the majority of hypotheses
advanced.
Barrutia, Salesperson . 28 interviews with salespeo- . Survey of 301 sellers To explore the nuanced nature and impact of salesperson empowerment
Charterina, and empowerment ple and executives . SEM structural model on performance, the authors first conduct interviews with top
Gilsanz . Not stated management and salespeople and advance-related propositions. They
(2009)–JFSM then test these propositions using data collected from retail bank account
managers. Results support the propositions with differential effects from
different types of salesperson empowerment.
Ahearne, Hughes, Salesperson . 6 interviews with Customer . Survey of 187 pharma- In their quest to understand the effect of salesperson IT acceptance on
and Schillewaert technology usage Relationship Management ceutical sales reps (83%) their performance, the authors first interview experts in CRM/SFA and
(2007)–IJRM (CRM)/sales automation . Survey of 112 CPG sales also conduct a field study of a pharmaceutical sales company. Insights
experts reps (92%) gleaned are used to help support a conceptual model that is subsequently
. Field study of a pharmaceut- . SEM structural model tested using survey data from two companies. Results show IT
ical company acceptance does in fact increase salesperson performance by increasing
. Thematic content analysis their knowledge and call productivity.
Ahearne, Jelinek, Salesperson service . 75 interviews with various . Survey of 358 physi- The authors conducted a series of exploratory interviews with many
and Jones behaviors medical salespeople and ser- cians (12.6%) different salespeople familiar with heterogeneous selling situations to
J.S. Johnson

(2007)–JAMS vice providers . SEM structural model uncover salesperson service behaviors. Short verbal protocols were used
. Thematic content analysis to get respondents to talk through their thoughts when performing a task.
Five dimensions (diligence, information communication, inducements,
empathy, and sportsmanship) emerged from the analysis. A subsequent
quantitative inquiry confirms these behaviors affect the customer’s
satisfaction and trust of the salesperson.
Guenzi and Troilo Sales/marketing . 45 interviews with sales and . Survey of 396 sales To shed light on how the interface between sales and marketing can
(2007)–JBR interface marketing executives and marketing produce superior value with customers, the authors first interview sales
. Not stated managers (46%) and marketing executives to generate insight. Based on the knowledge
. Multiple regression gained from these interviews, they conduct and analyze a survey that
supports all but one of the hypotheses advanced.
Senecal, Pullins, Salesperson . 12 interviews with salespeo- . Survey of 130 industrial The authors conduct interviews to glean insight into salespeople’s
and Buehrer technology usage ple and managers salespeople (59.6%) perceptions and usage of sales-related technologies. To provide a validity
(2007)–JBIM . 12 salesperson open-ended . ANCOVA check of the themes discovered in the interviews, they also analyzed 12
questionnaires open-ended surveys provided by salespeople. Based on these data, they
. Not stated advance a series of propositions predicting the drivers and outcomes of
338
Table 1 (Continued)
339

Author(s) Topic area Qualitative sample/analysis Quantitative sample/analysis Study description

technology usage by the salesperson. Survey data is then used to test and
ultimately lends support to some of the propositions.
Wang and Salesperson . 6 interviews with salespeople . Survey of 157 real estate The authors utilize a qualitative inquiry of six salespeople to define and
Netemeyer creative problem- from a diverse set of agents (16.6%) elaborate upon the nature of creative performance by salespeople. These
(2004)–JBR solving industries . EFA and Cronbach’s interviews were used as the basis for defining salesperson creative
. Not stated alpha performance. Based on this definition, the authors develop measurement
. Survey of 201 salespeo- items for this construct and provide empirical validation. They use a first
ple (60.0%) sample of real estate agents to purify their scales, followed by a sample
. SEM measurement model of advertising salespeople to assess scale convergent, discriminant, and
nomological validity.
Bean, Boles, and Salesperson . 7 interviews with sales . Survey of 107 B2B The authors recognize the changing face of salesperson/customer
Cano technology usage executives salespeople and communication and seek to assess the impact of electronic mail. They
(2003)–JBIM . Grounded theory 103 buyers (70.5%) interview several sales executives to identify themes pertinent to this
. % Respondents answers phenomenon. They also assess the prevalence of these themes using
salesperson and buyer survey data. These data are used to assess the
prevalence of themes reported by participants.
Pullig, Maxham, Salesperson . Open-ended survey responses . Close-ended survey Using a concurrent mixed method design, the authors survey sales and
and Hair technology usage from 23 sales and marketing responses from 23 sales marketing managers regarding the use SFA systems by salespeople and
(2002)–JBR managers and marketing managers include both open and close-ended questions for analysis. The
. Content analysis . Ranking of importance qualitative data were used to provide a richer understanding of SFA
usage, whereas the quantitative data were used to rank impacting factors
as identified a priori in the literature.
Hawes, Rao, and Salesperson . 20 interviews with retail . Survey of 506 retail con- The authors employ a variety of qualitative techniques such as
Baker (1993)– attributes salespeople sumers (84.3%) interviews, observations, and focus groups to identify positive attributes
JPSSM . Observation of 40 sales . EFA and ranking possessed by business-to-consumer salespeople. They then survey
interactions consumers and subject these items to an EFA and find the 25 items load
. Four focus groups of 5–6 on seven distinct factors of salesperson attributes. They also included a
consumers measure of importance of each attribute and rank the new constructs in
. Not stated order of importance.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Sutton and Rafaeli Salesperson . 4 case studies
(1988)–AMJ emotional display . 4 interviews with salespeople
. 1 immersion experience
. Informal conversations with
salespeople and executives
. Observation at a 2-hour cus-
tomer service workshop
. Not stated
. Participant observation at
576 convenience stores
. Multiple regression
To understand the impact of positive emotional displays by retail
salespeople on sales, the authors first conducted a quantitative,
observational analysis by viewing 11,805 transactions between
customers and retail salespeople. Results showed a highly surprising
negative relationship between positive emotional displays and sales
performance. To investigate this aberrant finding, the authors conducted
an intensive qualitative inquiry incorporating many methods of
collection. The qualitative data broadened their insight and prompted
them to reframe their perspective on this phenomenon and refine their
understanding to a more complete and nuanced level.
 J.S. Johnson 340

AMJ = Academy of Management Journal; BPMJ = Business Process Management Journal; ; CPG = Consumer Packaged Goods; CRM = Customer Relationship Management; IJRM = International Journal
of Research in Marketing; JAMS = Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science; JBIM = Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing; JBR = Journal of Business Research; JFSM = Journal of Financial
To provide a robust understanding of the state of mixed

In his effort to create a taxonomy reflecting the activities of salespeople

survey data related to the performance of these activities. Results show

at the time, the author first conducts interviews and focuses groups to
method research in sales, the identified articles were each

identify the many activities salespeople engage in, and then collects
examined for important characteristics germane to mixed
method research (Harrison 2013). In this pursuit, the mixed
method designs and the operationalizations of the qualitat-
ive and quantitative collections and analyses were analyzed.
Specifically, the method sections of obtained articles were
six types of sales jobs based on the tasks involved.
thoroughly examined and all facets pertaining to the mixed
method design and qualitative/quantitative collections/ana-
Study description

lyses were recorded. In addition to proffering an under-

Services Marketing; JMC = Journal of Marketing Channels; JPSSM = Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management; WASJ = World Applied Sciences Journal.
standing of the current state of mixed methods in sales
research, this identified gaps in the application of mixed
method techniques. Based on these gaps, several recom-
mendations for sales scholars in expanding the paradigm of
sales-related mixed method research are advanced.

Mixed method approaches in sales research

Topics explored
While many different topics have been examined using
mixed methods in sales research, the overwhelming share
leader is salesperson usage of technology. Over one-third
of mixed method articles were on this topic. As mixed
Quantitative sample/analysis

methods are most amenable to complex topics, it is not

surprising technology is most prevalent. The second most
. 1393 salespeople

. Cluster analysis

prevalent topic, network effects in sales, also fits the high-

. Factor analysis

complexity criterion.

Mixed method designs

Analysis of the extant sales literature reveals a nearly
universal propensity of sales scholars to use some form of
a sequential mixed method design, with all but two of the
Qualitative sample/analysis

identified articles using this design variant. Of the

sequential designs used, the dominant design is the
. 4 focus groups with
. 18 interviews with

exploratory sequential design. All but one of the sequen-

tial mixed method examinations uses this approach. Sales
scholars are using the qualitative data to generate potential
salespeople

salespeople
. Not stated

quantitative scale items and/or advance conceptual models

and hypotheses and then testing them with a quantitative
approach.
position taxonomy
Sales activity and

Qualitative data sources and analyses

Topic area

Sales scholars have used many different types of qualit-

Response rate in parentheses if given.

ative data in their mixed method research endeavors. The

analysis of the mixed method sales examinations reveals
that interviews (e.g., Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007),
case studies (e.g., Storbacka, Polsa, and Saaksjarvi 2011),
observations (e.g., Eggert and Serdaroglu 2011), focus
Table 1 (Continued)

Moncrief (1986)–

groups (e.g., Hawes, Rao, and Baker 1993), open-ended

survey questions (e.g., Senecal, Pullins, and Buehrer
Author(s)

JPSSM

2007), and researcher immersion experiences (e.g., Sutton

and Rafaeli 1988) have all been utilized to generate
qualitative insight. Further, many scholars are embracing
a
341 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
triangulation in the qualitative collection efforts. As
Denzin (1978) notes, there are multiple types of triangu-
lation including in-method and between-method triangu-
lation. In-method triangulation refers to multiple inquiries
made with the same type of method, whereas between-
method triangulation refers to multiple inquires made with
different methods. As it pertains to this topic, in-method
triangulation refers to multiple efforts to obtain data using
the same type of qualitative approach. As such, in-method
triangulation refers to instances of researchers using, for
example, participant interviews conducted with sales-
people and customers or salespeople and marketers to
provide a more complete understanding. Sales researchers
employ in-method qualitative triangulation frequently in
the qualitative portion with all but five of the articles
reporting some form of in-method triangulation. Between-
method triangulation refers to instances where researchers
used multiple, but different qualitative approaches. For
example, sales researchers may augment interviews by
also conducting observations, focus groups, or open-ended
questionnaires (e.g., Senecal, Pullins, and Buehrer 2007;
Storbacka, Polsa, and Saaksjarvi 2011). Over one-third of
the examinations identified used between-method triangu-
lation. By utilizing these types of triangulation, sales
scholars are able to develop a more informed and
complete understanding of the phenomena of interest.
To analyze the qualitative data collected, sales scholars
often report utilization of content analysis with five
studies employing this approach. Content analysis is a
useful way in which qualitative data can be systematically
analyzed. While content analyses can be applied in
different manners, the most common application in sales
mixed method research is inductive category develop-
ment-type content analysis. In the inductive category
development variant, themes and categories are allowed
to emerge from the data to better understand the
perspectives of the participants in contrast to deductive
category development where qualitative data are classified
into a priori categories (Mayring 2000). This is consistent
with the exploratory sequential design as sales researchers
are employing content analyses to generate previously
unknown insight into their phenomena of interest. As
such, a deductive approach would not be feasible.
Notably, the intent of these examinations is not to present
a quantification of the qualitative data, but rather to
generate qualitative insight for subsequent empirical
examination (e.g., Ahearne, Hughes, and Schillewaert
2007; Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007; Eggert and
Serdaroglu 2011). All but two of the studies reporting on
qualitative analysis type used a content-analytic approach.
Quantitative data sources and analyses
Survey collections are the dominant form of quantitative
data sourcing in mixed method studies performed by sales
scholars. All but one of the examinations utilized survey
procedures to provide the data necessary for quantitative
analysis. Unlike the qualitative portion, between-method
triangulation was non-existent and in-method triangulation
(e.g., conducting more than one survey) was only done in
only two instances.
Regarding the quantitative analyses performed, sales
scholars did an excellent job reporting the types of
analyses undertook in all instances. There were three
primary objectives of the quantitative portion: ranking,
scale purification, and model testing. Studies interested
simply in ranking were uncommon and sought to show the
importance or prevalence of phenomena of interest within
their given population. These analyses consisted of simple
averages across different items. For scale purification,
sales researchers sought to examine the empirical proper-
ties of the items generated from their qualitative findings.
In this pursuit, they conducted analyses such as explorat-
ory factor analyses (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha calculations,
and structural equation modeling (SEM) measurement
models. The quantitative analyses allowed them to assess
scale attributes such as reliability, cross-loadings, average
variance extracted, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity. The other type of quantitative analysis was
testing models advanced based on the qualitative findings
of the study. In this pursuit, sales scholars used quantit-
ative analyses such as partial least squares, multiple
regression, hierarchical regression, analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA), and SEM structural models. These analyses
allowed researchers to assess the significance of hypothe-
sized relationships between constructs. Model testing was
the most prevalent approach with the majority of studies
tailored to this pursuit.
Guide to action for mixed method sales research
Sales scholars have done a commendable job applying
mixed methods in sales research. The prevalence of mixed
methods usage by sales researchers has increased in recent
years. Of the mixed method studies identified in this
examination, 82% occurred in only the last 12 years
(35%) of the examination. However, mixed method
utilization to date has been rather constrained considering
the abundance of other approaches sales researchers could
employ. The following section espouses eight best prac-
tices and underutilized ways scholars can incorporate to
expand the paradigm of mixed methods research in sales
and sales management.
(1) Justify utilization of mixed methods. As previously
espoused, mixed methodological work has the potential to
alienate researchers, reviewers, and editors possessing
strong quantitative or qualitative orientations. Accord-
ingly, it is vital for sales researchers to clearly define and
defend the usage of this technique. Surprisingly, however,
only three of the identified studies mention mixed
 J.S. Johnson
methods at all and only two discuss its application to the
study at hand. In other domains of inquiry, this practice is
the rule rather than the exception with scholars noting the
need to combine both types of data to fully understand a
phenomenon (e.g., Ivankova 2013), provide insight in
underdeveloped research areas (e.g., Pinto, Wall, and
Spector 2014), and discuss statistical results (e.g., Ferdous
and Plake 2005). Moving forward, explicit discussion
regarding the need to use a mixed methodological
approach should help authors overcome barriers to
acceptance.
(2) Embrace concurrent approaches. While sales
scholars have certainly adopted sequential mixed method
designs, they have all but ignored concurrent designs.
Only one instance of a concurrent design was evidenced
among all the articles. In their examination of sales-
people’s usage of sales force automation (SFA) techno-
logy, Pullig, Maxham, and Hair (2002) include both open
and closed-ended questions in their collection and ana-
lysis. Sales researchers should consider similar practices in
their collections where applicable. A concurrent approach
such as this is highly economical in that the researcher can
conduct both qualitative and quantitative analyses from a
singular collection. Further, and arguably more impor-
tantly, the qualitative and quantitative data can be
analyzed simultaneously. Nested concurrent collections
can leverage both qualitative and quantitative information
from the same source (e.g., Sosulski and Lawrence 2008).
For example, divergent qualitative themes may be uncov-
ered from individuals with high or low values on a given
construct. This type of analysis is precluded in sequential
mixed method designs as the qualitative and quantitative
components are temporally disconnected and, in most
cases, involve data from different participants. The ability
to connect these two forms of data may yield exciting
insights for sales researchers.
(3) Utilize explanatory sequential designs. Within
sequential designs, sales researchers employ a near
universal focus on qualitative–quantitative, exploratory
sequential approaches. Exploratory sequential mixed
method designs are highly valuable and provide an
excellent means by which researchers can generate and
subsequently empirically test insights provided by partici-
pants. However, sales researchers should not limit their
conceptualization to this approach. Explanatory sequential
mixed method approaches using a quantitative–qualitative
ordering can also be highly impactful in generating
enhanced understanding of sales-related phenomena. For
example, counterintuitive findings in sales research are
usually addressed with researcher speculation as to their
meaning and causes. While this approach is the norm in
sales research, researchers could provide a more robust
understanding of surprising findings through discussion
with members of the relevant population. Only one
examination utilizing an explanatory sequential design
342
was found involving salespeople. In their examination of
positive emotional displays by retail salespeople, Sutton
and Rafaeli (1988) were shocked to discover in their
quantitative inquiry that such displays had a negative
relationship with sales performance. To gain insight into
the reason for this highly unusual finding, they conducted
an intensive qualitative examination using interviews, case
studies, observation, and even direct immersion experi-
ence by taking the role of a retail salesperson. The
qualitative insight prompted them to reframe their per-
spective on this phenomenon and refine their understand-
ing to a more complete and nuanced level. In their
discussion of their approach, the authors expound upon
the benefits of undertaking an explanatory sequential
approach relative to simply discussing the findings:
Scholarly knowledge is developed through alternating
phases of induction and deduction. When empirical
observations do not confirm a theory, investigators should
embark on a new phase of theory building so that they can
revise or reject the inadequate framework and replace it
with a new framework (Merton 1957; Wallace 1971). As a
result, our paper does not end with the usual discussion of
quantitative findings. Instead, we conducted a qualitative
and inductive study to help explain the unexpected
negative relationship between the expression of positive
emotion and store sales (471).
(4) Use mixed methods over three or more phases.
Sales researchers wishing to employ mixed method
designs in their research can also use more complex
approaches such as multiphase designs. Multiphase
designs are utilized to explore a topic with “an iteration
of connected quantitative and qualitative studies that are
sequentially aligned, with each new approach building on
what was learned previously to address a central program
objective” (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011, 100). The
only identified exemplar of a multiphase approach in sales
research is a recent examination by Storbacka, Polsa, and
Saaksjarvi (2011). In their endeavor to better understand
how managerial practices affect solutions selling, the
authors initially focused on qualitative insight provided
from case studies, interviews, observation, and combined
it with insight gained from the extant literature. Based on
these insights, they developed an initial conceptual
framework as well as measures to capture their phenom-
ena of interest. They then took the measures and frame-
work back to participants to understand and incorporate
their perspectives. Subsequently, they conducted a survey
providing an initial test of the measures and model. They
then took these initial quantitative findings back to
participants and solicited further qualitative data from
them. Last, they took this feedback and incorporated it in
conducting their final quantitative analysis. Multiphase
designs such as these are complex and may be difficult
and time-consuming for researchers to administer, how-
ever, especially in the examination of highly complex
phenomena, the benefits may outweigh the costs.
343 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
(5) Incorporate secondary qualitative data. Sales
researchers have done an excellent job of using various
types of qualitative data collection methods. However,
there are other data sources that could potentially be
tapped to aid sales researchers and potentially triangulate
findings. The data to date collected for qualitative mixed
method analyses in sales research have thus far been
restricted to that collected through primary means. A
wealth of secondary qualitative data germane to a given
inquiry, however, may also be available to sales research-
ers. For example, salespeople are often instructed to report
the contents of their sales call interactions into a form of
SFA software (Moutot and Bascoul 2008). In addition to
interviewing salespeople about their interactions with
salespeople, researchers could also review the salesper-
son’s written account of the interaction. Other potential
secondary qualitative data that could be tapped by sales
researchers are sources such as recordings of sales calls
that occur virtually and analysis of social media content
between salespeople and customers.
(6) Expand qualitative analyses. Regarding qualitative
analysis, room for improvement exists in mixed method
research in the sales domain. Sales researchers have
shown a tendency to focus to a greater extent on the
quantitative portion than the qualitative portion in mixed
method analyses. Pages of description are often provided
for the quantitative component, however, at times, the
qualitative analysis is discussed in a sentence. Unfortu-
nately, this has resulted in scant information regarding the
qualitative analysis. First, the articles are evenly split on
whether or not they provide the reader any indication of
the type of qualitative analysis used. This is problematic
as in order to properly interpret the findings, the reader
should be apprised as to how they were obtained. Second,
the sample sizes of some of the qualitative inquiries are
very low. Notably, while there is no concrete rule dictating
a minimal sample size in qualitative inquiry, a general
guideline for theoretical saturation (the point at which no
new insights emerge) when conducting interviews is 20–
30 participants (Creswell 2007). Accordingly, studies
reporting qualitative sampling in the single digits may
have been able to gain a more comprehensive understand-
ing of the topic of inquiry with additional interviews.
Third, the usage of participant quotations is the exception
rather than the norm in sales-related mixed method studies
that incorporate participant interviews. This is unfortunate
as gaining the voice of the participant is a key benefit of
the use of this type of qualitative approach. Finally, there
is no requirement that the qualitative and quantitative
portions of the examination should be in balance and, in
fact, prioritization of one versus the other is beneficial in
certain cases. However, in some of the identified articles,
the qualitative portion consisted of a single paragraph. It is
difficult for the reader to gain any insight into the
collection, analysis, and findings in such a short space.
(7) Gather other types of quantitative data. Surveys
are the primary approach used by sales researchers to
collect quantitative data. Survey data yields a bevy of
advantages to researchers and may in many instances be
the best form of quantitative data to collect. However,
other types of quantitative data may also be useful for
sales researchers for a variety of reasons. First, researchers
have long noted that the actions and survey responses of
participants are often not in alignment (Cote, McCullough,
and Reilly 1985). This can be due to several reasons such
as social desirability bias (King and Bruner 2000), implicit
attitudes (Maison, Greenwald, and Bruin 2004), or inac-
curate recall (Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski 2000).
Observation is a means sales researchers may be able to
use to overcome these issues because it captures the actual
behavior rather than accounts of it. Scholars in other
domains of inquiry have effectively utilized quantitative,
observational data in their mixed methods research (e.g.,
Vrkljan 2009). Another option for sales researchers is to
apply quantitative analyses to secondary data related to
salesperson behavior. Other research areas have effec-
tively combined secondary quantitative data with qualit-
ative data to advance insight on important topics (e.g.,
Sosulski and Lawrence 2008). In sales, in examinations of
SFA usage, sales researchers can assess the actual usage of
SFA instead of salespeople’s account of usage (e.g.,
Moutot and Bascoul 2008) and combine this with qualit-
ative data.
(8) Experiment. There is room for sales scholars to
expand quantitative inquiries outside of rankings, scale
development, and model testing. Mixed method designs
do not preclude the inclusion of experiments; in fact,
experiments are particularly amenable to mixed method
research. For example, sales researchers conducting
experiments may obtain results contrary to their hypothe-
sized predictions (e.g., Yang et al. 2013). To better
understand the rationale for unsupported experimental
findings, researchers in other domains of inquiry have
employed explanatory sequential mixed method designs
(e.g., Igo, Kiewra, and Bruning 2008). Experiments can
also be used in exploratory sequential mixed method
designs. For example, qualitative interviews or observa-
tional data may prompt researchers to advance research
questions regarding the causal nature of various phenom-
ena (e.g., Dahl and Moreau 2007). Researchers could test
the hypothesized main and contingent effects gleaned
from the qualitative insight. Finally, experiments can also
be utilized in concurrent mixed method designs. For
example, in addition to having participants fill out
quantitative-type information related to an experiment,
open-ended qualitative questions can also be used (Wig-
gins et al. 2013). This can provide sales researchers with
enhanced understanding regarding subjects with varying
levels of reaction to the manipulation.
 J.S. Johnson
Conclusion
Mixed method designs offer sales researchers great
potential in instances where qualitative or quantitative
data in isolation are insufficient to understand a phenom-
enon. Despite this fact, mixed method adoption has been
limited in the sales domain. Part of this issue may be due
to the fact there is no unified understanding of mixed
methods in sales research. To overcome this issue, this
article expounds upon mixed research, provides consid-
erations in its application, reviews sales-related mixed
method examinations, and advances numerous potential
future directions to broaden the application of mixed
methods in sales research.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank and acknowledge Dr Nick Lee
and the anonymous JPSSM reviewers for their numerous helpful
comments and constructive feedback.
References
Ahearne, Michael, Douglas E. Hughes, and Niels Schillewaert.
2007. “Why Sales Reps Should Welcome Information
Technology: Measuring the Impact of CRM-Based IT on
Sales Effectiveness.” International Journal of Research in
Marketing 24: 336–349. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.09.003.
Ahearne, Michael, Ronald Jelinek, and Eli Jones. 2007. “Exam-
ining the Effect of Salesperson Service Behavior in a
Competitive Context.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 35: 603–616. doi:10.1007/s11747-006-0013-1.
Alderman, Jim. 2014. “Conducting a Literature Review.” Begin-
ning Library & Information Systems Strategies. Paper 16.
Accessed July 10. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/bliss/16.
Asare, Anthony K., Jing Yang, and Thomas G. Brashear-
Alejandro. 2012. “The State of Research Methods in
Personal Selling and Sales Management Literature.” Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 32: 473–490.
doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320405.
Barrutia, José M., Jon Charterina, and Ainhize Gilsanz. 2009.
“Salesperson Empowerment in Spanish Banks: A Perform-
ance-driven View.” Journal of Financial Services Marketing
14 (1): 40–55. doi:10.1057/fsm.2009.6.
Bean, Cynthia J., James S. Boles, and Cynthia Rodriguez Cano.
2003. “Electronic Mail Appraisal: A Buyer and Seller
Survey.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 18:
419–434.
Berente, Nicholas, Danail Ivanov, and Betty Vandenbosch. 2010.
“Process Gatekeepers and Compliance with Enterprise
Processes.” Business Process Management Journal 16:
394–419. doi:10.1108/14637151011049421.
Brocke, Jan vom, Alexander Simons, Bjoern Niehaves, Bjorn
Niehaves, Kai Reimer, Ralf Plattfaut, and Anne Cleven.
2009. “Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of
Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process.”
European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy.
Bryman, Alan. 2006. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research: How Is It Done?” Qualitative Research 6 (1): 97–
113. doi:10.1177/1468794106058877.
Cote, Joseph A., James McCullough, and Michael Reilly. 1985.
“Effects of Unexpected Situations on Behavior-intention
Differences: A Garbology Analysis.” Journal of Consumer
Research 12 (2): 188–194. doi:10.1086/208507.
344
Creswell, John. W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry & Research
Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2007. Designing
and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing
and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahl, Darren W., and C. Page Moreau. 2007. “Thinking inside
the Box: Why Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative
Experiences.” Journal of Marketing Research 44: 357–369.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.3.357.
Denzin, Norman K. 1978. The Research Act in Sociology: A
Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Method. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Eggert, Andreas, and Murat Serdaroglu. 2011. “Exploring
the Impact of Sales Technology on Salesperson Performance:
A Task-Based Approach.” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice 19 (2): 169–186. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190204.
Ferdous, Abdullah A., and Barbara S. Plake. 2005. “Understand-
ing the Factors that Influence Decisions of Panelists in a
Standard-setting Study.” Applied Measurement in Education
18: 257–267. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1803_4.
Guenzi, Paolo, and Gabriele Troilo. 2007. “The Joint Contribu-
tion of Marketing and Sales to the Creation of Superior
Customer Value.” Journal of Business Research 60 (2): 98–
107. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.007.
Harrison, Robert L. 2013. “Using Mixed Methods Designs in the
Journal of Business Research, 1990–2010.” Journal of
Business Research 66: 2153–2162. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2012.01.006.
Harrison, Robert L., and Timothy M. Reilly. 2011. “Mixed
Methods Designs in Marketing Research.” Qualitative Mar-
ket Research: An International Journal 14 (1): 7–26.
doi:10.1108/13522751111099300.
Hawes, Jon M., C. P. Rao, and Thomas L. Baker. 1993. “Retail
Salesperson Attributes and the Role of Dependability in the
Selection of Durable Goods.” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 13 (4): 61–71.
Hodgkin, Suzanne. 2008. “Telling It All: A Story of Women’s
Social Capital Using a Mixed Methods Approach.” Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 2: 296–316. doi:10.1177/
1558689808321641.
Huang, Ying, Brenda Sternquist, Chun Zhang, and Roger
Calantone. 2011. “A Mixed Method Study of the Effects of
Guanxi between Salespersons and Buyers on Retailer–
Supplier Relationships in China.” Journal of Marketing
Channels 18 (3): 189–215.
Igo, L. Brent, Kenneth A. Kiewra, and Roger Bruning. 2008.
“Individual Differences and Intervention Flaws a Sequential
Explanatory Study of College Students’ Copy-and-Paste
Note Taking.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (2):
149–168. doi:10.1177/1558689807313161.
Ivankova, Nataliya V. 2013. “Implementing Quality Criteria in
Designing and Conducting a Sequential Quan→ Qual Mixed
Methods Study of Student Engagement with Learning Applied
Research Methods Online.” Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 8 (1): 25–51. doi:10.1177/1558689813487945.
Kettles, A. M., John W. Creswell, and W. Zhang. 2011. “Mixed
Methods Research in Mental Health Nursing.” Journal of
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 18: 535–542.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01701.x.
345 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
King, Maryon F., and Gordon C. Bruner. 2000. “Social Desirab-
ility Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing.” Psycho-
logy & Marketing 17 (2): 79–103. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0.
Maison, Dominika, Anthony G. Greenwald, and Ralph H. Bruin.
2004. “Predictive Validity of the Implicit Association Test in
Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 14: 405–415. doi:10.1207/
s15327663jcp1404_9.
Mayring, Philipp. 2000. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” Forum:
Qualitative Social Research. Accessed 2, 1. http://nbn-
resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204.
Mertens, Donna M., and Dawn Freshwater. 2014. “Journal of
Mixed Methods Research.” Accessed March 26. http://intl-
mmr.sagepub.com/.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moncrief III, William C. 1986. “Selling Activity and Sales
Position Taxonomies for Industrial Salesforces.” Journal of
Marketing Research 23: 261–270.
Moutot, Jean-Michel, and Ganael Bascoul. 2008. “Effects of
Sales Force Automation Use on Sales Force Activities and
Customer Relationship Management Processes.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 28 (2): 167–184.
doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134280205.
Pinto, Rogério M., Melanie M. Wall, and Anya Y. Spector. 2014.
“Modeling the Structure of Partnership between Researchers
and Front-line Service Providers Strengthening Collaborative
Public Health Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 8 (1): 83–106. doi:10.1177/1558689813490835.
Pourhosseini, Amirhosein, and Zohre Dehdashti Shahrokh.
2013. “The Effect of Marketing Strategy on Sales Perform-
ance: The Moderating Effects of Internal and External
Environment.” World Applied Sciences Journal 26 (1):
28–33.
Pullig, Chris, James G. Maxham III, and Joseph F. Hair Jr. 2002.
“Salesforce Automation Systems: An Exploratory Examina-
tion of Organizational Factors Associated with Effective
Implementation and Salesforce Productivity.” Journal of
Business Research 55: 401–415. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963
(00)00159-4.
Schifferdecker, Karen E., and Virginia A. Reed. 2009. “Using
Mixed Methods Research in Medical Education: Basic
Guidelines for Researchers.” Medical Education 43: 637–
644. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03386.x.
Senecal, Sylvain, Ellen Bolman Pullins, and Richard E. Buehrer.
2007. “The Extent of Technology Usage and Salespeople: An
Exploratory Investigation.” Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 22 (1): 52–61. doi:10.1108/08858620710722824.
Sosulski, Marya R., and Catherine Lawrence. 2008. “Mixing
Methods for Full-strength Results Two Welfare Studies.”
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (2): 121–148. doi:10.
1177/1558689807312375.
Stake, Robert. E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How
Things Work. New York: The Guilford Press.
Storbacka Kaj, Pia Polsa, and Maria Saaksjarvi. 2011. “Man-
agement Practices in Solution Sales – A Multilevel and
Cross-Functional Framework.” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 31 (1): 35–54. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-
3134310103.
Sutton, Robert I., and Anat Rafaeli. 1988. “Untangling the
Relationship between Displayed Emotions and Organiza-
tional Sales: The Case of Convenience Stores.” Academy of
Management Journal 31: 461–487. doi:10.2307/256456.
Tashakkori, Abbas, and John W. Creswell. 2007. “Editorial: The
New Era of Mixed Methods.” Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 1 (1): 3–7. doi:10.1177/2345678906293042.
Thomson, Matthew. 2006. “Human Brands: Investigating Ante-
cedents to Consumers’ Strong Attachments to Celebrities.”
Journal of Marketing 70: 104–119. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.
3.104.
Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000.
The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Üstüner, Tuba, and Dawn Iacobucci. 2012. “Does Intraorganiza-
tional Network Embeddedness Improve Salespeople’s Effec-
tiveness? A Task Contingency Perspective.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 32 (2): 187–205.
Vrkljan, Brenda H. 2009. “Constructing a Mixed Methods
Design to Explore the Older Driver—Copilot Relationship.”
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3: 371–385. doi:10.
1177/1558689809336843.
Wallace, Walter L. 1971. The Logic of Science in Sociology. New
York: Transaction.
Wang, Guangping, and Richard G. Netemeyer. 2004. “Salesper-
son Creative Performance: Conceptualization, Measurement,
and Nomological Validity.” Journal of Business Research 57:
805–812. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00483-6.
Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. “Analyzing the Past
to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.”
Management Information Systems Quarterly 26 (2): 3.
West, Caryn, Petra Buettner, Lee Stewart, Kim Foster, and Kim
Usher. 2012. “Resilience in Families with a Member with
Chronic Pain: A Mixed Methods Study.” Journal of Clinical
Nursing 21: 3532–3545.
Wiggins, Noelle, Adele Hughes, Adriana Rodriguez, Catherine
Potter, and Teresa Rios-Campos. 2013. “La Palabra Es Salud
(the Word Is Health) Combining Mixed Methods and CBPR
to Understand the Comparative Effectiveness of Popular and
Conventional Education.” Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Online Pre-Print.
Yang, Linyun W., Jared M. Hansen, Tanya L. Chartrand, and
Gavan J. Fitzsimons. 2013. “Stereotyping, Affiliation, and
Self-Stereotyping of Underrepresented Groups in the Sales
Force.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
33 (1): 105–116. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134330109.
Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.