Mixed methods research is increasingly being used in business and management disciplines, in spite of positivist traditions. The aim of the study is twofold: (1) to examine the types of mixed methods approaches being used, and (2) to determine the quality of the reporting of mixed methods studies published in the field of project management. A retrospective content analysis of articles from three ranked project management journals was undertaken for a sample period of 2004 to 2010. Our findings suggest the field of project management is in need of capacity building in relation to the good reporting of mixed methods studies.
AliseM. A., & TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103–126.
2.
AnbariF. T., BredilletC. N., & TurnerJ.R. (2008). Perspectives on research in project management. Paper presented in the Best papers proceedings, Academy of Management 2008 meeting [CD], Anaheim, CA: Academy of Management.
3.
BiedenbachT., & MüllerR. (2011). Paradigms in project management research: Examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.4(1), 82–104.
4.
BredilletC.N. (2004, July). Understanding the very nature of project management: A praxiological approach, in Proceedings of Project Management International Research Conference, London, England.
5.
BredilletC.N. (2007a). Exploring research in project management—Nine schools of project management research (Part 3). Project Management Journal, 38(4), 2–4.
6.
BredilletC.N. (2007b). Exploring research in project management—Nine schools of project management research (Part 4). Project Management Journal, 39(1), 2–6.
7.
BredilletC.N. (2007c). Exploring research in project management—Nine schools of project management research (Part 5). Project Management Journal39(2), 2–4.
8.
BrymanA., & BellE. (2007). Business research methods.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
CameronR. (2009). Changing the paradigm-emerging research designs in professional doctoral research in Australia: Commentary and case studies. In MillerP., & MarchantT. (Eds.), Business, Education and Indigenous Studies (p. 60). Lismore, New South Wales, Australia: SCU Press.
10.
CameronR., & Molina-AzorinJ.F. (2010, July 8–10). The use of mixed methods across seven business and management fields, justice and sustainability in the global economy: 10th International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM 2010), Paris, France, IFSAM.
11.
CameronR., & Molina-AzorinJ.F. (2011). The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 19(3), 256–271.
12.
CameronR., & SankaranS. (2013). Mixed methods research design: Well beyond the notion of triangulation. In DrouinN., MüllerR., & SankaranS. (Eds.), Novel approaches to organizational project management research: Translational and transformational, Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
13.
ChaiK-H., & XinY. (2006). The application of new product development tools in industry: The case of Singapore. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(4), 435–554.
14.
CicmilS., WilliamsT., ThomasJ., & HodgsonD. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–686.
15.
CreswellJ., & Plano ClarkV.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
CreswellJ. W., & Plano ClarkV.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
HansonD., & GrimmerM. (2005). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals, 1993–2002. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1-2), 58–70.
19.
Hurmerinta-PeltomäkiL., & NummelaN. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4), 439–459.
20.
JohnsonR. B., & OnwugebuzieA. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14.
21.
KoskelaL., & HowellG. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference Project Management Institute, Seattle, WA, pp. 293–301.
22.
KutschE., & HallM. (2009). The rational choice of not applying project risk management in information technology projects. Project Management Journal, 40(3), 72–81.
23.
KwakY. H., & AnbariF.T. (2009). Analyzing project management research: perspectives from top management journals. International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 435–446.
24.
LechlerT. G., & CohenM. (2009). Exploring the role of steering committees in realizing the value from project management. Project Management Journal, 40(10), 42–54.
25.
Lee-KelleyL. (2006). Locus of control and attitudes to working in virtual teams, International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 234–243.
26.
LeechN. L., & OnwugebuzieA.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43(2), 265–275.
27.
LuuV. T., KimA-Y., & HuynhT-A (2008). Improving project performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach, International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 758–769.
28.
MalgratiA., & DamianiM. (2002). Rethinking the new project management framework: New epistemology, new insights. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference Seattle 2002, (pp. 371–380). Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA.
MilosevicD., & PatanakulP. (2005). Standardized project management may increase development project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 181–192.
31.
Molina-AzorinJ.F. (2009). Understanding how mixed methods research is undertaken within a specific research community: The case of business studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 47–57.
32.
Molina-AzorínJ.F. (2008). Mixed methods research in business management: A comparison of the use of mixed methods in three specific areas. Paper presented at the IV Mixed Methods Conference, Cambridge, England.
33.
Molina-AzorinJ. F., & Lopez-FernandezO. (2009). Mixed methods research in behavioural sciences: a comparison of mixed methods studies in two specific fields. Paper presented at the V Mixed Methods Conference, Harrogate, England.
34.
MorrisP. W. G., & JamiesonA. (2005). Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 5–18.
35.
MorrisP. W. G., JamiesonA., & ShepherdM.M. (2006). Research updating the APM knowledge (4th ed.). International Journal of Project Management, 24, 461–473.
36.
MorseJ., & NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
37.
MüllerR., & TurnerJ.R. (2007). Matching the project managers “leadership style” to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
38.
MüllerR., SankaranS., & DroiunN. (2013). Introduction. In DroiunN., MüllerR., & SankaranS. (Eds.), Novel approaches to organisational project management research, (pp. 19–30). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
O'CathainA., MurphyE., & NichollJ. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92–98.
41.
SaleJ. E. M., & BrazilK. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351–365.
42.
SchifferdeckerK., & ReedV. (2009). Using mixed methods research in medical education: Basic guidelines for researchers. Medical Education, 43(7), 637–644.
43.
SmythH. J., & MorrisP. W. G. (2007). An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues, International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 423–436.
44.
SöderlundJ. (2004). Building theories of project management: Past research, questions for the future. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 183–191.
45.
SöderlundJ. (2011). Pluralism in project management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 153–176.
46.
StangeK. C., CrabtreeB. F., & MillerW.L. (2006). Publishing multimethod research. Annals of Family Medicine, 4(4), 292–294.
47.
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (2010). Epilogue: Current developments and emerging trends in integrated research methodology. In TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, (pp. 803–826). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
TeddlieC., & TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
TurnerR., PintoJ. K., & BredilletC. (2011). The evolution of project management research. In MorrisPeter W. G., & PintoJeffrey K. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of project management, (pp. 65–106). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
51.
WilliamsT. (2004, July 11–14). Assessing and building on the underlying theory of project management in the light of badly over-run projects. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, London, England.
52.
WinterM., SmithC., MorrisP., & CicmilS. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 638–649.
