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.
AbutabenjehS., & JaradatR. (2018). Clarification of research design, and research methodology: A guide for public administration researchers and practitioners. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), 237–258.
2.
AllwoodC. M. (2012). Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 46(5), 1417–1429.
3.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
5.
CuradoC. (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.
6.
DewasiriN. J., WerakoonY. K. B., & AzeekA. A. (2018). Mixed methods in finance research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–13.
7.
EvansB. C., & CoonD. 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.
8.
FabreguesS., HongQ. A., Escalante-BorrisGuetterman, T. C., MenesesJ., & FettersM. 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.
9.
FettersM. D., & Molina-AzorineJ. 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.
FettersM. D., CurryL., & CreswellJ. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods design: Principles and practices. Health Research, 48(6, Pt. 2), 2131–2156.
11.
GatesS. (2008). Mixing it up: The role of theory in mixed—Methods research. Qualitative Methods, 6(1), 27–29.
12.
GerringJ., & ThomasC. W. (2011). Qualitative and quantitative: A question of compatibility. In BadieB., Berg-schlosserD. & MarlinoL. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Political Science (pp. 2189–2196). SAGE Publications.
13.
GhiaraV. (2019). Disambiguating the role of paradigms in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Research Methods, 14(1), 11–25.
14.
GreeneJ. C., CaracelliV. J., & GrahamW. F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
JohnsonR. B., & OmwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
18.
KothariC. R. (2014). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (3rd ed.). New Age International.
19.
LongH., & RodgersC. R. (2017). Reconceptualise mixed methods research: Introducing a new conceptual framework. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2813–2829.
20.
MabilaT. 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.
MakombeG. (2017). An expose of the relationship between paradigm, method and design in research. Qualitative Report, 22(12), 3363–3382.
22.
McChesneyK., & AldridgeJ. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist research stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research and Methods Research, 42(3), 225–238.
23.
Molina-AzorineJ. F. (2010). Mixed methods research in strategic management: Impact and applications. Organisational Research Methods, 15(1), 33–56.
24.
MoseholmE., & FettersM. D. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1–11.
25.
MutuaM. (2020). Handbook for research methodology: Quantitative, mixed and qualitative methodologies. Aura Books.
26.
NiglasK. (1999). Quantitative and qualitative inquiry in educational research: Is there a paradigmatic difference between them? In JohannaL., SabineM. & Jan MartinS. (Eds.), Paper presented at European conference on education research, Lahti. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htm
27.
O’CathainA.MurphyE., & NichollJ. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92–98.
28.
OmwuegbuzieA. J., & CorriganJ. 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.
OmwuegbuzieA. J., JohnsonR. B., & CollinsK. 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.
PeluchaM., KvetonV., & PotlukaO. (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.
PhamN. T., TukovaZ., JoseC., & JabbourC. (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.
PluyeP., & HongQ. 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.
RahamanA. A., & ShiddikeM. O. (2020). Mixed methods in human resource development: Reviewing research literature. International Journal of Business and Research, 15(3), 25–36.
34.
SaundersM., LewisP., & ThornhillA. (2014). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
35.
SchindlerL. A., & BurkholderG. 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.
ShoonenboomJ., & JohnsonR. B. (2017). How to construct mixed methods research design. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131.
37.
TashakkhoriA., & TeddlieC. (2010). Putting the human back in ‘Human Research’: The researcher in mixed research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 271–277.
38.
TeddlieC., & YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A Typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.
39.
TuliF. (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.
