Quality in Mixed Human Resource Management Research: Evidence from Published Literature

Abstract

The study focuses on several issues that affect methodological rigour of mixed research. The article aims at providing illumination and clarity on continued use of terminologies in mixed research in a confusing manner. Research paradigms should conduct from time-to-time inward introspection to ascertain quality of research papers. This article attempts to ascertain quality of published mixed research. The article investigates several dimensions of quality in mixed Human Resource Management (HRM) research and then gives recommendations to improve research practice. It dwells on ignored issues in quality of mixed research such as conceptual and theoretical framework, catapulting them to the high table of quality discourse in mixed research. As a pivotal divergence from previous studies, traceability as an integral mixed research quality dimension is given prominence. This article utilises quantitative and qualitative document review guides to collect data from published journal papers in HRM. The study found that there are areas of improvement in the conduct of mixed HRM studies and proposes a framework that can act as a guide in evaluating quality criteria. Mixed research is marginalised in HRM literature owing to the small percentage of published papers.

Keywords

HRM research mixed research mixed designs mixed research quality conceptual frameworks

Introduction

Mixed research is gaining currency as one of the novel and increasingly used ways to study phenomena in pure and social sciences. Transcending disciplines, this philosophy is gaining foothold in academia. The polarising debate between qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) approaches (Allwood, 2012; Gerring & Thomas, 2011; Niglas, 1999; Tuli, 2010) seems to have obscured the rise and potency of mixed research. Mixed research is a specific classification of research that integrates QUAL and QUAN research. It goes beyond integrating data to integrating QUAL methods and philosophies. Some authors (Fabregues et al., 2020) have focused on methods, while others focused on data integration (Fetters & Molina-Azorine, 2017; O’Cathain, et al., 2008) as key aspect in mixed research definitions. Others (Dewasiri, et al., 2018; Halcomb & Hickman, 2015) have taken a more holistic view. Several authors have noted areas of improvements in the conduct of mixed researches. Halcomb and Hickman (2015) identifies mixed methods issues that must be addressed to ensure rigour of design and methodological approach. These issues include rationale, mixed methods design and integration of both QUAL and QUAN strands of data. With almost striking similarity, Dewasiri et al. (2018) notes mixed research gaps as poor identification of mixed methods and design, lack of identification of rationale and poorly formulated or non-formulated questions. Mabila (2017) did a study on post graduate students in South Africa and found out that many studies have conflicting and divergent interpretation of mixed research, gave no philosophical foundation for choosing mixed research and had insufficient mixed research designs. On top of the identified issues, this article investigates traceability of both QUAL and QUAN strands from the point of integration of these strands as well as the entire research process. O’Cathain et al. (2008) noted that studies ignored mixed designs used and only described the separate QUAL and QUANT components of the studies. Fabregues et al. (2020) did a study and analysed papers using Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) framework and concluded that reporting of mixed research needed improvements. Omwuegbuzie and Corrigan (2014) observe that there are extremely few mixed research papers in published literature and gave a possible explanation that the prevailing situation may be as a result poor quality. Thus, mixed research should be encouraged in line with Johnson and Omwuegbuzie (2004) contention that it is a paradigm whose time has arrived. Thus, slow adoption of mixed research in HRM often leads to missing out critical knowledge insights. Consequently, there are few papers evaluating the usage and application of mixed research in HRM literature. HRM lags behind other fields in usage of mixed research. There are different frameworks that guide researchers in ensuring quality of mixed research. These frameworks are key in methodological advances of mixed research. Fetters and Molina-Azorine (2017) illustrate the mixed research trilogy that can guide how mixed research can combine QUAL and QUAN researches. The trilogy has philosophical, methods and methodological designs as components. Though mixed research is highly associated with pragmatism, it can still utilise other paradigms such as positivism and interpretivism. Mabila (2017) citing Creswell (2014) outline core features of mixed research as collection of both QUAL and QUAN strands of data, integration of the strands of data, analysis of both the strands of data, persuasive and rigorous procedures for both strands of data, use mixed design and approach to research with sound philosophical foundation. A number of papers and theses document and discuss mixed research usage in sketchy lines under the research methodology section. However, mixed research protocols implementation is not prominence in formulation of hypotheses and research questions, sampling, data analysis, recommendations and conclusions. Several authors have outlined designs that can be used in integrating QUAN and QUAL approaches in data analysis and reporting of mixed research results. This article also presents a criterion that introduces traceability as a key quality criterion that can be used to evaluate mixed research quality. Mixed research is not by no means a solution to the feuding QUAN and QUAL paradigms. It is not a panacea to paradigmatic wars. It is a paradigm on its own curving its existence and future in the world of research. This article is guided by the following research objectives.

Research Objectives

To investigate appropriateness in usage of terminologies in mixed HRM research.

To investigate the prevalence of conceptual and theoretical adoption in mixed HRM research.

To investigate the adoption of specific quality criteria in mixed HRM research.

To propose a criteria that can be used to ensure mixed HRM research meets quality objectives.

Literature Review

O’Cathain et al. (2008) proposed the GRAMMS criteria. There are many variants of terms that refer to mixed research. In some instances some authors (Rahaman & Shiddike, 2020) use the term mixed methods research designs, others use the term mixed methods research (Fabregues et al., 2020; Molina-Azorine, 2010; O’Cathain et al., 2008; Schindler & Burkholder, 2014), while other authors use mixed research. Yet, others (Curado, 2018) use the term mixed approach. Further, others (Pham et al., 2019) have embraced the use of mixed methodology. Finally, some other authors (Pelucha et al., 2019) have adopted the use of mixed method approach. While pluralism of terms is not a bad idea, care must be taken not to export research methodology terminology confusion to mixed research. For instance, the terminology mixed methods research design would have different connotations and propagate the idea that there is a specific research design or mixed design known as mixed methods design. The term mixed methods approach is also narrow and not appropriate. Fetters and Molina-Azorine (2017) discourage the use of the term mixed methods research. Several authors have noted confusion on how research terms regarding to research methodology are used (Abutabenjeh & Jaradat, 2018; Makombe, 2017). Foremost, the terms research methodology and methods are used as synonyms although they are distinct (Abutabenjeh & Jaradat, 2018; Kothari, 2014; Mutua, 2020). Makombe (2017) opines that many researchers fail to mention the paradigm of their study. The researcher further notes that the terms paradigm, research methods and research designs are used in loose and confusing manner.

Quality Issues in Mixed Research

Research parlance has not made research terminologies clear. The term methodology has various connotations as used in research. It is wrongly used as a synonym to the term method. It is also used interchangeably with research methodology. Mixed research just like other types of research should always indicate if multi-methodology or mono methodology was adopted. Researchers should indicate the type of methodology used for QUAL and QUAN strands of the research process. Teddlie and Yu (2007) proposed sampling designs that can be used in mixed research as basic mixed methods sampling, concurrent mixed methods sampling, sequential mixed methods sampling, concurrent mixed methods sampling and combining mixed methods sampling techniques. Stratified purposive and purposive random sampling were identified as basic mixed methods sampling. Creswell (2014) identified mixed designs in mixed research as exploratory design, embedded design, explanatory and triangulation. Omwuegbuzie et al. (2015) outline mixed research analysis strategies as sequential, parallel, concurrent and cross over. Bryman (2016) argues that QUAL and QUAN integration can occur in different stages such as formulation of research questions, sampling, data collection and data analysis. Integration should be extended to discussion of research results and writing conclusions and recommendations. Several researchers argue that mixed research should have in addition to the research design, mixed designs that help in integration of QUAL and QUAN strands (Creswell, 2014; Fetters et al., 2013; Fetters & Molina-Azorine, 2017; Moseholm & Fetters, 2017; Shoonenboom & Johnson, 2017; Tashakkhori & Teddlie, 2010). Traceability as a quality criterion can be used to ensure both QUAL and QUAN can be discerned in stages across the research process. Traceability should extend to recommendations and conclusions, whereby specific conclusions and recommendations can be attributed to either each strand or as an outcome of merging both QUAL and QUAN strands of data. Several authors have observed that mixed research can use different worldviews across studies or within one study (Ghiara, 2019; McChesney & Aldridge, 2019). McChesney and Aldridge (2019) used interpretivist mixed research. Ghiara (2019) contents that mixed research can apply positivism, pragmatism and interpretivism. The author also supports epistemological and ontological pluralism within the same study. Fetters and Molina-Azorine (2017) note that integration in mixed research need to be made explicit across the stages of the research. They also proposed a list of integration dimensions that can guide researchers. Researchers need to note that merely collecting, analysing and reporting QUAL and QUAN strands of data does not amount to good mixed research practice. Researchers further need to integrate the two strands in the various stages of research. There seems to be a confusion in usage of the terms in reference to mixed designs. While some others use the more appropriate term of mixed designs, others have adopted the term mixed research design. For mixed research to be done effectively, the rationale of choosing it should be explained explicitly (Dewasiri et al., 2018; Halcomb & Hickman, 2015). Several researchers have given a list detailing rationale for mixed research (Creswell, 2014; Saunders et al., 2014). Bryman (2016) provide a set of rationale for mixed research such as triangulation, facilitation, complementarity, to aid in interpretation, study different aspects to solve a puzzle and generality. Often glossed over is the role and potential of software in achieving integration in mixed research. There are specialised software for mixed research that can make integration a reality. These software include MAXDA, QDA miner among others.

Conceptualisation and Theoretical Frameworks in Mixed Research

Just like QUAL and QUAN researches, mixed research requires conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Evans and Coon (2011) note that few mixed studies report conceptual and theoretical frameworks in health sciences. The authors recommended with justification the use of frameworks in mixed research. Greene et al. (1989) note that mixed research should be grounded in theory. Long and Rodgers (2017) observe that there is absence of conceptual framework that guides aspects of conducting mixed research. Gates (2008) advocates the fact that theory must be prioritised over method and mixed research does not negate the need for theory.

Mixed Research in HRM

Curado (2018) did a mixed research on HRM contribution to innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises, and recommended that managers should pay attention to implementation of human resource management systems in order to innovate. Schindler and Burkholder (2014) used a mixed study and found a relationship between dimensions of support and technology transfer. Molina-Azorine (2010) found that mixed research papers receive higher citations on average per year than those exclusively using QUAL or QUAN research. Fetters and Molina-Azorine (2017) illustrate the mixed research trilogy that can guide how HRM researchers can combine QUAL and QUANT strands of data.

Research Methodology

This article is based on mixed research where both QUAL and QUAN data were collected. The rationale for using mixed research was for complementarity. This article adopts convergent parallel mixed design where QUAL and QUAN data was collected at the same time then related after analysis. The sample size for both QUAL and QUAN strands was 60 papers that used mixed research. The sample was relatively smaller because of extremely few mixed research papers published in HRM. Purposive sampling was used for both QUAL and QUAN strands. Statements that acted as a guide in reviewing quality of mixed research are contained in Appendix A. Broad mixed research quality issues as captured by the statements were partially informed by previous studies including the ones by Fabregues et al. (2020). This research relied on QUAL and QUAN document review as data collection method. This research is based on pragmatism philosophy and archival methodology. It was extremely difficult to get enough papers by targeting specific journal publishers. Thus, the initial strategy of searching within journal publishers was abandoned. Search was repeated on search engines. This new strategy yielded more papers using mixed research. Only papers in HRM and the ones that used mixed research were selected for analysis. The papers reviewed were from the year 2007 to 2020. For QUAN strand, 21 question items were coded in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and then used to review downloaded mixed research papers. QUAN data from the papers was keyed in and later analysed using tables and charts. QUAL document review was used to review the papers in the study, collecting QUAL data where possible, after being guided by the 21 question items. QUAL data was analysed using content analysis, and the results were used to complement QUAN results. Objectives 1 and 3 were pursued using QUAL and QUAN strands while Objective 2 was pursued exclusively using QUAL strand. Integration of both QUAL and QUAN strands of data was done at objectives/research questions stage and during presentations of study results.

Findings and Discussions

Mixed research is extremely neglected in HRM research based on how hard it was to generate a sample of 60 papers that adopted mixed research. This view is supported by Omwuegbuzie and Corrigan (2014). Partly, this can be explained by the fact that HRM is a young field of study. On a general note, a number of papers indicated that they used mixed research. However, tracing the QUAL data analysis and QUAL results was not possible. Additionally, mixed research papers do not report how and at what stage QUAL and QUAN strands were integrated. This view is supported by Fabregues et al. (2020) who notes that studies provide little detail on QUAL and QUAN integration. Further, papers do not indicate mixed designs used in sampling, data collection and data analysis. As shown in Table B1, a high percentage of papers that had both QUAL and QUAN strands play an equal role in mixed research study (80%), while around 16% had QUAN strand as primary. These results contradict Hesse-Biber (2020) who found that quantitative strand dominates in mixed research, while QUAL strand plays a second role to quantitative research in mixed studies. Lastly, from Table B1, approximately 3% adopted QUAL strand as primary. From Table B2, overwhelming number of research studies never reported research design used (91%). Table B3 indicates that apart from researchers confusing research designs and mixed designs, there is adoption of plethora of terms in reference to mixed research as used in mixed studies. This fact is collaborated by quoted phrases from the mixed research papers sampled. From Table B3, there were several terms used to refer to mixed research. A number of papers (20 %) used several terms within same paper to refer to mixed research as the type of research. Others (21%) adopted the term mixed methods study. Further, mixed methods approach (16.7%), qualitative and quantitative (13.3%) and mixed methods (16%) as phrases were utilised in papers sampled. Interestingly, only 1% of sampled papers adopted the term mixed research. Quotes from a number of papers indicated that mixed design was being referred to using many terms as shown next:

‘This study used a mixed-methods design’.

‘A mixed methods approach was used to conduct this research, this method encompasses both the qualitative and quantitative techniques’.

‘The design of the mixed methodology was carried out carefully to ensure its correct application, and we chose the adequate use of measures in the survey to address the CEO’s perception of KS for a Sustainability-oriented Performance at organizational level’.

‘For credible results, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods is employed’.

‘Selecting talent using social networks: A mixed-methods study’.

‘The conducted study was formed in four stages, where the mixed methods design was applied’.

‘Mixed method research designs encompass collecting, analysing, and integrating quantitative and qualitative data and their analyses and interpretations’.

Some studies confused the type of mixed design with research design as shown below:

‘The research design employs a qualitative-driven explanatory sequential mixed methods strategy’.

‘A two-stage, sequential, equal status mixed method research design was used to investigate compassionate leadership behaviour’.

‘We employed a convergent, parallel mixed methods research design’.

‘A mixed methods research design is adopted in this study, in which we combine both qualitative and quantitative methods into a single study’.

‘The study adopted mixed methods approach and thus applied descriptive research design’.

‘The study used mixed methods research design which included exploratory, correlational and survey research designs’.

‘This study adopted a mixed research design’.

‘Mixed method research designs encompass collecting, analysing, and integrating quantitative and qualitative data and their analyses and interpretations’.

‘A two-stage, sequential, equal status mixed method research design’.

‘We employed a convergent, parallel mixed methods research design’.

Table B4 demonstrates that very few papers (10 %) reported the rationale of using mixed research. Thus, several authors advice that mixed studies should make rationale explicit (Dewasiri et al., 2018; Halcomb & Hickman, 2015). From the same table, most papers (71%) achieved integration of both QUAL and QUAN strands. Still in Table B4, mixed sampling techniques were only evident in very few papers (6%). Other sampling designs as recommended by Teddlie and Yu (2007) such as sequential mixed sampling, multilevel mixed sampling and concurrent mixed sampling are ignored. From QUAL document analysis, most studies lacked clarity on sampling techniques for each strand of data, as shown next:

‘Convenience sampling (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) was adopted and hospitals from city, rural, and remote areas were selected’.

‘They were chosen through purposive random sampling with the following criteria’.

‘Purposive sampling was used to select 30 informants, 6 of whom were government sector policymakers and SME academic scholars and 24 of whom were business owners, executives and employees’.

‘Snowball sampling technique was used as a means to construct a sample of nurses as the survey asked for sensitive personal and organizational information (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981)’.

‘Two snowballing sampling strategies were used’.

‘Through purposive stratified and simple random sampling technique, 252 study participants were selected’.

‘In the case of this research, stratified sampling was employed’.

However, there were papers that documented sampling technique for both QUAL and QUAN strands as indicated in the quotations below:

‘The first study consisted of a questionnaire-based survey of hiring professionals with the intent to describe various aspects of current practice (n = 429). Survey data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The second study comprised semi-structured interviews with hiring professionals to provide a more in depth, richer analysis (n = 24)’.

‘The CEOs, operations managers, and HR managers were purposely selected from each bank. Other employees were selected using stratified random sampling because this method enables the researcher to achieve the desired representation from the various subgroups in the population’.

‘Purposive sampling method was used for sampling Human Resource Officers and student leaders while stratified random sampling was used for sampling teaching and administrative staff. Sample size for teaching and administrative staff was determined using the formula below’.

‘The quantitative strand used a convenience sample of NPs who met the inclusion criteria. The qualitative strand included a purposive sample of 13 participants selected from 50 volunteers self-identified on completion of the survey’.

‘A random sample of 12 firms from the “A to Z” directory was successfully contacted via telephone, letter, or fax requesting their participation. Stratified sampling was used to select the people surveyed. This stage of research involved the selection of a quota sub-sample of 12 firms for in-depth interviews’.

According to Table B4, both QUAN and QUAL analysis was evident in very many papers (83%). Methodology or research strategy was not reported in many papers (78%). Additionally, 91% of papers failed to report research philosophy that they adopted. Sample sizes for both strands were reported in 66% of the papers and unreported in 34% of the remaining papers. From the QUAL document analysis, some papers reported sample sizes for both QUAL and QUAN as indicated in the following quotations from the papers:

‘We administered the tool to 137 MNHWs and collected qualitative data from 78 MNHWs, and district and central level stakeholders to explore definitions of job satisfaction and factors that affected it’.

‘Altogether, a total of 450 questionnaires were distributed while a total of 306 responses were returned’.

‘In 2007, a questionnaire was distributed to 2602 of the 12,097 Ministry employees, resulting in 1170 respondents. In total, we interviewed 4 HR managers and 4 line managers and conducted focus-group discussions involving 31 male employees’.

‘A questionnaire was sent to all employees in the NGO (N = 294). The response rate was high at 69%, which gives a sample size of n = 203. More than one quarter (28%) of the employees were interviewed over a period of 3 months (82/294)’.

‘The first sampling strategy involved contacting 18 individuals who were diverse in terms of age (25–50 years), gender (50% male), education level (high school diploma to PhD), and type of employing organisation (e.g., casino, hospital, law enforcement, package delivery, consulting and financial advising). These individuals were asked to complete the survey if they met the study criteria (discussed below) and to forward the e-mail on to 5–10 personal contacts that might fit the study criteria. A second sampling strategy involved contacting 125 doctoral students in a large and diverse psychology department. These individuals were not asked to complete the survey themselves but rather to forward the solicitation e-mail to 5–10 personal contacts who were full-time employees’.

‘In total, 6 participants for brainstorming, 11 in focus group session and 6 individual interviews respectively were conducted in the qualitative study. In terms of the quantitative study, the researchers initially sampled between 900 and 1,100 individuals among the various nine public and private universities in Queensland’.

‘For this aim, a total of 440 EFL male and female teachers were selected using stratified random sampling from state schools and private language schools in Tehran, Isfahan, Arak, and Lorestan Provinces. To triangulate the data gathered from the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews were administered with 40 participants’.

‘For phase one of the research, data were collected by the help of 25 in depth interviews with human resource personnel in 11 CCs in April 2003 and January 2005. For the second phase of the investigation, a questionnaire survey was conducted with 204 “on-floor” agents across the 11 CCs’.

In other papers, it was not possible to identify the sample sizes for each strand of data as shown in citations from document review analysis.

‘This study used a simple random sampling method to collect data from 50 respondents comprising 38 males and 12 females. Also, 31 respondents were junior/secretarial staff, while 12 respondents were managers, 6 of them were senior staff, while 1 respondent was a senior manager of the company’.

‘The chosen sample size for this research is 120. Sample size is selected using random sampling method’.

‘Mixed data analysis was used to analyse teacher responses from two archival questionnaires (Year 1, n = 368; Year 2, n = 649)’.

‘The sample included workers from 202 voluntary agencies in a large northeastern city. All workers and supervisors in the preventive service programs under contract with the city at that time (N = 1624) were asked to respond to an anonymous survey’.

‘To obtain the desired sample size for the study with the population of 274, Nassiuma (2000) formula was used, and the sample was found to be 103’.

‘The size of sample population was drawn 75 out of 1200 total permanent employees of NAC based on sample random sampling technique’.

‘The study also employed the mixed research method to collect data for the study. Sample size for this study was 92’.

As shown in Table B4, almost half of the papers reported the type of mixed design used. The other half never reported the mixed design used. On a positive note, and as Table B5, indicates, traceability of QUAL and QUAN strand was very high in data collection (90%), data analysis (78 %) and discussion of results (71%). Sampling had high traceability for both strands (61%). Extremely low traceability was noted in objective/research objective/hypotheses formulation stage of research. Table B6 shows that 20% of mixed papers never achieved integration of QUAL and QUANT strand. Most integration (38%) occurred at presentation of result rarely at research objectives/questions/hypotheses generation. Very few papers (15 %) achieved QUAL and QUAN integration at multiples stages of the research process as documented in sampled papers. Table B7 reports that most papers never adopted conceptual framework (66%), and theoretical framework (78%). These results are supported by several authors who have advocated for mainstreaming of theoretical and conceptual frameworks in mixed research (Gates, 2008; Greene et al., 1989; Long & Rodgers, 2017). Evans and Coon (2011) also noted that few papers report conceptual and theoretical frameworks in mixed studies. From Table B8, more than half of the papers (58%) never indicated the sampling technique that was adopted. Stratified sampling (11%), purposive (8%) and simple random (8%) are the mostly used sampling techniques in mixed research. From Table B9, more than half of papers do indicate explicitly the mixed design used. Explanatory sequential (13%) and convergent parallel were the most used mixed designs in mixed research papers.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, several conclusions can be made. A number of papers do not use a consistent mixed terminology to denote the type of research. Documentation of mixed research and attendant components is not done in an elaborate and detailed manner. A number of papers just note the type of research as mixed research and rarely do they describe other components of mixed research as it should be, as shown in Figures B1 and B2. Methodology or research strategy is just mentioned alongside data collection methods but not discussed. Mixed designs are not exclusively discussed in mixed studies. Mixed research studies use a plethora of terms to refer to the type of research used. While many might be synonyms within research parlance, others like mixed research design and mixed approach may have different connotations and should be avoided. Confusion also stems from use of mixed designs and mixed research designs in research papers. On a positive note, most papers balance both QUAN and QUAL strands in mixed research. Findings also indicate poor integration of QUAL and QUAN. Integration is often achieved at one stage though in mixed research, it is possible to achieve multistage integration. Just one paper documented integration of QUAL and QUAN at the objective, research question or research hypotheses stage. Findings indicate also that there is poor traceability of both QUAL and QUAN strands. There is poor documentation of sampling technique, sampling process and sample size for both QUAL and QUAN strands. HRM mixed research has ignored theoretical framework and conceptual frameworks. Mixed studies rarely achieve integration of QUAN and QUAL during formulation of objectives, research questions and hypotheses. Methodologies or research strategies and research philosophies are rarely reported in mixed research papers. Mixed research is marginalised in HRM research. There seem to be an unwritten fallacious rule that mixed research does not use conceptualisation of variables, either diagrammatic or in narrative form. Additionally, theoretical frameworks and conceptual frameworks are neglected in mixed research. Quality of mixed research should not be confined to mixed designs as applied in sampling, data collection, data analysis, presentations of results, conclusions and recommendations. Mixed designs are in most cases reported for the overall paper, and not for the stages of the research process. Mixed studies use only basic mixed sampling designs.

Research Implications

This paper recommends that research methodology and not methodology should be adopted as the heading of section where research philosophy, methodology, methodological choices and methods are discussed. This will differenti- ate it from methodology as a component of the section. Methodology as a research strategy should be discussed extensively and not just used as a term in the title page. The choice of methodology should be defended and it is fit with current research discussed. This article recommends that researchers should exhaustively discuss mixed research and all the components as shown in Figures B1 and B2. To differentiate between the various sections of research methodology section, the article recommends a hierarchy with examples and inform of a diagram to guide decisions as shown in Figure B2. Mixed research papers should seek to achieve integration at research questions and hypotheses stage by explaining whether all questions and hypotheses will be pursued using QUAL and QUAN strand, or the ones that will be pursued using either QUAN or QUAL. Researchers should prioritise training on mixed research software especially how they can achieve integration. Software such as MAXDA and QDA miner among others have tools that can enable implementation of mixed design. Although mixed designs are usually reported for the entire research paper in mixed research, researchers should also report the designs adopted for each stage of the mixed research process. Mixed research studies should report methodologies and philosophies that they have utilised in research. The appropriateness of a term in mixed research is not seen in its usage but in reference to mixed research aspect as shown in Figure B1. A call is made to utilise other philosophies alongside pragmatism in mixed research. It is possible to have terms such as positivist mixed research and interpretivist mixed research. Mixed researchers should aim to integrate QUAL and QUAN strand at multiple stages, not just one. To improve traceability in sampling, mixed studies should indicate sampling method, sample size and sampling process for both QUAL and QUAN strand. The article proposes, a new criteria, quality of mixed research criteria as contained in Appendix A and explained in Table B10, with elements such as rationale, mixed design, traceability, sampling, integration, terminology, theoretical frameworks and conceptualisation criteria. The article also proposes diagrams (Figures B1 and B2) that can illuminate clarity across mixed research literature. Mixed research clarity as far as usage of terminology is concerned must be maintained in published papers. To ensure clarity and making reference to Figure B1, researchers should be aware of the aspect they are referring to, either mixed research as a classification, pluralism or monism of mixed research, or mixed designs in mixed research. The three aspects are critical components of mixed research. Thus, the overarching term is mixed research, not mixed methods research, multi-method(s) research, mixed designs or mixed research designs. As shown in Figure B1, if researchers are making reference to pluralism or monism of mixed research, then terms such as multi-methods and mono methods are appropriate. Lastly, as shown in Figure B1, mixed designs refer to specific designs as used in sampling, data collection, data analysis and reporting of conclusions and recommendations. Figure B2 shows research methodology choices. The terms research approach and research strategies as used in Figure B2 are informed by Saunders et al. (2014) research onion metaphor. A number of authors use the term multi-methods as a synonym to mixed research and mono method as the antonym. The term multi method is not a synonym of mixed method. If researchers are not using mixed research, they are probably utilising QUAL research or QUAN research as alternative types of research. The term mixed designs and not mixed research designs should be adopted in literature in reference to the designs used in integration. Researchers need also to understand that there are no philosophies and methodologies that are exclusive to mixed research. Thus, terms such as mixed research philosophy and mixed research methodology refer not to exclusive methodologies and philosophies used in mixed research, but the specific choices made to be used in mixed research from a variety. Traceability of QUAL and QUAN data and methods should be possible in sampling, data collection, data analysis and presentation of results and reporting of conclusions and recommendations. Traceability also pertains to if reporting of integration is explicit. Integration can be achieved implicitly but should be explicit in published papers. Mixed research should conceptualise conceptual frameworks and base studies on sound theoretical frameworks. There are no specific philosophies, methodologies, research designs and methods for mixed research. Thus, this article adopts a refusal stance to adopt terms within mixed research parlance such as mixed philosophies, mixed methodologies, mixed research designs and mixed methods. The article adopts mixed designs and mixed research as cornerstone terminology in mixed research in reference to integration and type of research respectively.

Limitations of the Study

This study was based on papers that have adopted and documented mixed research. Owing to the fact that such papers are few and far between, a sample of 60 papers was adopted. For better generalisation, future studies should have a bigger sample since it is expected that more papers will be able to adopt mixed study. The research paper wanted to focus on the big journal publishers in HRM as the sample, but this strategy as reported was shelved because of the limited number of papers. It is expected that future researchers will also organise their sample based on journal publishers for comparison purposes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendices

References

Abutabenjeh

, & Jaradat

(2018). Clarification of research design, and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237–258.

Allwood

C. M.

(2012). Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 46(5), 1417–1429.

Bryman

(2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Curado

(2018). Human resource management contribution to innovation in small and medium sized enterprises: A mixed methods approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 79–90.

Dewasiri

N. J.

, Werakoon

Y. K. B.

, & Azeek

A. A.

(2018). Mixed methods in finance research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–13.

Evans

B. C.

, & Coon

D. W.

(2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as paradigmatic guide for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 276–292.

Fabregues

, Hong

Q. A.

, Escalante-Borris

Guetterman, T. C.

, Meneses

, & Fetters

M. D.

(2020). A methodological review of mixed methods research in palliative and end of life care (2014–2019). International Journal of Environmental Research in Palliative and End of Life Care, 17, 3853.

Fetters

M. D.

, & Molina-Azorine

J. F.

(2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291–307.

10.

Fetters

M. D.

, Curry

, & Creswell

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods design: Principles and practices. Health Research, 48(6, Pt. 2), 2131–2156.

11.

Gates

(2008). Mixing it up: The role of theory in mixed—Methods research. Qualitative Methods, 6(1), 27–29.

12.

Gerring

, & Thomas

C. W.

(2011). Qualitative and quantitative: A question of compatibility. In Badie

, Berg-schlosser

& Marlino

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Political Science (pp. 2189–2196). SAGE Publications.

13.

Ghiara

(2019). Disambiguating the role of paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Research Methods, 14(1), 11–25.

14.

Greene

J. C.

, Caracelli

V. J.

, & Graham

W. F.

(1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.

15.

Halcomb

E. J.

, & Hickman

(2015). Mixed methods research. Nursing Standard, 29(32), 42–48.

16.

Hesse-Biber

(2020). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468.

17.

Johnson

R. B.

, & Omwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

18.

Kothari

C. R.

(2014). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (3rd ed.). New Age International.

19.

Long

, & Rodgers

C. R.

(2017). Reconceptualise mixed methods research: Introducing a new conceptual framework. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2813–2829.

20.

Mabila

T. E.

(2017). Post graduate students’ understanding of mixed methods research design at the proposal stage. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5), 136–153.

21.

Makombe

(2017). An expose of the relationship between paradigm, method and design in research. Qualitative Report, 22(12), 3363–3382.

22.

McChesney

, & Aldridge

(2019). Weaving an interpretivist research stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research and Methods Research, 42(3), 225–238.

23.

Molina-Azorine

J. F.

(2010). Mixed methods research in strategic management: Impact and applications. Organisational Research Methods, 15(1), 33–56.

24.

Moseholm

, & Fetters

M. D.

(2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1–11.

25.

Mutua

(2020). Handbook for research methodology: Quantitative, mixed and qualitative methodologies. Aura Books.

26.

Niglas

(1999). Quantitative and qualitative inquiry in educational research: Is there a paradigmatic difference between them? In Johanna

, Sabine

& Jan Martin

(Eds.), Paper presented at European conference on education research, Lahti. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htm

27.

O’Cathain

Murphy

, & Nicholl

(2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92–98.

28.

Omwuegbuzie

A. J.

, & Corrigan

J. A.

(2004). Improving the quality of mixed research reports in the field of human resource development and beyond: A call for rigor as an ethical practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 273–299.

29.

Omwuegbuzie

A. J.

, Johnson

R. B.

, & Collins

K. M.

(2015). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(2), 114–139.

30.

Pelucha

, Kveton

, & Potluka

(2019). Using mixed methods approach in measuring effects of training in firms: Case study of the European social fund support. Evaluation and Program Planning, 73, 146–155.

31.

Pham

N. T.

, Tukova

, Jose

, & Jabbour

(2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organisational citizenship behaviour in hotels? A mixed methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399.

32.

Pluye

, & Hong

Q. N.

(2013). Combining power of stories and power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies review. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29–45.

33.

Rahaman

A. A.

, & Shiddike

M. O.

(2020). Mixed methods in human resource development: Reviewing research literature. International Journal of Business and Research, 15(3), 25–36.

34.

Saunders

, Lewis

, & Thornhill

(2014). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

35.

Schindler

L. A.

, & Burkholder

G. J.

(2014). A mixed methods examination of the influence of dimensions of support on training transfer. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 292–310.

36.

Shoonenboom

, & Johnson

R. B.

(2017). How to construct mixed methods research design. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131.

37.

Tashakkhori

, & Teddlie

(2010). Putting the human back in ‘Human Research’: The researcher in mixed research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 271–277.

38.

Teddlie

, & Yu

(2007). Mixed methods sampling: A Typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.

39.

Tuli

(2010). The basis of distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in social science: Reflection on entomological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Science, 6(1), 97–108.