Organizational communication processes are complex, but all too often, researchers oversimplify the study of these processes by relying on a single method. Particularly when scholars and practitioners partner together to solve organizational problems, meaningful results require methodological flexibility and diversity. As an exemplar of the fit between mixed methods research and engaged scholarship, the present project used surveys, observations, and interviews to study the process of dissent in two organizations. Results emphasized that each organization’s mission was a key factor in how employees expressed disagreement and how others responded. Emergent research questions and sequential data collection revealed insights that would have been missed in single method studies and provided more complete insights for the nonacademic practitioners involved in the study.
AntonacopoulouE. P. (2011). Advancing practice relevant scholarship. In CassellC.LeeB. (Eds.), Challenges and controversies in management research (pp. 314-331). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AvtgisT. A.Thomas-MaddoxC.TaylorE.PattersonB. R. (2007). The influence of employee burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication Research Reports, 24, 97-102.
3.
BargeJ. K.Shockley-ZalabakP. (2008). Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 251-265.
4.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BrownW. A.YoshiokaC. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 5-18.
6.
BrymanA.BellE. (2007). Business research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
CanaryD. J.SpitzbergB. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
8.
CastroF. G.KellisonJ. G.BoydS. J.KopakA. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342-360.
9.
ChristT. W. (2007). A recursive approach to mixed methods research in a longitudinal study of postsecondary education disability support services. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 226-241.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
De DreuC. K. W.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.
12.
EdmondsonV. C.MunchusG. (2007). Managing the unwanted truth: A framework for dissent strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 747-760.
13.
EschenfelderB. (2011). Lessons about engaged communication scholarship: I heard it through the grapevine. Florida Communication Journal, 39, 37-54.
14.
FeilzerM. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.
15.
GarnerJ. T. (2009). When things go wrong at work: An exploration of organizational dissent messages. Communication Studies, 60, 197-218.
16.
GarnerJ. T. (2012). Making waves at work: Perceived effectiveness and appropriateness of organizational dissent messages. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 224-241.
17.
GarnerJ. T. (in press). Open Doors and Iron Cages: Management Responses to Employee Dissent. Journal of Business Communication.
18.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
19.
GrahamJ. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
20.
GulatiR. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 775-782.
21.
HegstromT. G. (1999). Reasons for “rocking the boat”: Principles and personal problems. In GeissnerH. K.HerbigA. F.WesselaE. (Eds.), Business communication in Europe (pp. 179-194). Tostedt, Germany: Attikon Verlag.
22.
Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109.
23.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
24.
JehnK. A.JonsenK. (2010). A multimethod approach to the study of sensitive organizational issues. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 313-341.
25.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
26.
KassingJ. W. (2005). Speaking up competently: A comparison of perceived competence in upward dissent strategies. Communication Research Reports, 22, 227-234.
27.
KassingJ. W. (2007). Going around the boss: Exploring the consequences of circumvention. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 55-74.
28.
KassingJ. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge, England: Polity.
29.
KorsgaardM. A.RobersonL. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
30.
LandierA.SraerD.ThesmarD. (2009). Optimal dissent in organizations. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 761-794.
31.
Lutgen-SandvikP.RiforgiateS.FletcherC. (2011). Work as a source of positive emotional experiences and the discourses informing positive assessment. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 2-27.
32.
MarkidesC. (2007). In search of ambidextrous professors. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 762-768.
33.
McGahanA. M. (2007). Academic research that matters to managers: On zebras, dogs, lemmings, hammers, and turnips. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 748-753.
34.
MillikenF. J.MorrisonE. W.HewlinP. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.
35.
MitchellR.NicholasS.BoyleB. (2009). The role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation. Small Group Research, 40, 535-554.
36.
Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2011). The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 7-24.
37.
MorseJ. M. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design: Maintaining control, rigor, and complexity. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research (2nd ed., pp. 339-352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
MyersK. (2010). Mixed methods. In MillerV. D.PooleM. S.SeiboldD. R., and Associates, Advancing research in organizational communication through quantitative methodology, Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1), 4-58.
39.
Plano ClarkV. L.BadieeM. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research (2nd ed., pp. 275-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-220). New York, NY: Academic Press.
41.
SaundersM. N. K. (2011). The management researcher as practitioner: Issues from the interface. In CassellC.LeeB. (Eds.), Challenges and controversies in management research (pp. 243-257). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
Schulz-HardtS.BrodbeckF. C.MojzischA.KerschreiterR.FreyD. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080-1093.
43.
SimpsonJ. L.SeiboldD. R. (2008). Practical engagements and co-created research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 266-280.
44.
SpencerD. G. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 488-502.
45.
SuddabyR. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633-642.
46.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods Series, No. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavior research (2nd ed., pp. 1-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
TeoH.CasperszD. (2011). Dissenting discourse: Exploring alternatives to the whistleblowing/silence dichotomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 237-249.
50.
TushmanM.O’ReillyC. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 769-774.
51.
Van de VenA. H.JohnsonP. E. (2006). Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 31, 802-821.
52.
WaldronV. R. (2007). Public scholarship, relational practice: A reflection on “virtuous” partnerships. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 118-125.
53.
WensleyR. (2011). Seeking relevance in management research. In CassellC.LeeB. (Eds.), Challenges and controversies in management research (pp. 258-274). New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
YinR. (2006, April). Mixed methods research: Are methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
