Abstract: This article presents a mixed methodological approach in project management research and details the terms and the conditions of its design and implementation. Assuming, on the one hand, that qualitative methods allow the study of complex proces ses and phenomena in their idiosyncrasy, and, on the other hand that quantitative methods produce a nomothetic science based on statistical regularities (Miles, Huberman and Saldana 2013). We argue that mixed methods research allows, under certain condi tions and trade‑offs in the design and the implementation, the achievement of these two objectives. Mixed methods research remains underutilised in the management sciences despite the advantages in comparison to mono methods (Molina‑Azorin and Cameron, 2 010). This underutilization is linked to the tendency of certain discipline traditions and preferences for quantitative approaches as opposed to qualitative approaches. This opposition is also linked to the incompatibility thesis of the epistemological p aradigms combined with the exclusive links between paradigms and methods. The theoretical foundations of mixed methods is relatively young and there remains many questions relative to the process of design, implementation and integration of qualitative an d quantitative research to which researchers new to mixed methods may be confronted with. This article presents research which was carried out in two stages and focuses on the comprehension and the explanation of the diversity and the evolution of project manager⠒s roles. The paper discusses and demonstrates the objectives of a research strategy based on a mixed methodological approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods and specifies the type of mixed method research according to the impleme ntation order, the degree of combination of the two methods and the relative weight of the qualitative and quantitative methods. We propose a practical application of the theory of mixed methods that can assist and inspire project management researchers i n the design and the implementation of their own 

Abstract: How might policy instruments contribute to indigenous firm growth and how can the effects of these instruments be evaluated at both firm and policy level? This paper illustrates how a mixed methods research design and data analysis strategy can pragmatically address the research questions outlined above. The advantages and challenges of employing quantitative research methods (what happened?) followed by confirmatory qualitative research methods (how and why did it happen?) in a multiphase s equential explanatory design is explored. The data analysis strategy is firstly to analyse the data generated from a before and after quasi‑experiment (with statistical controls), then data from the confirmatory qualitative techniques (in…depth desc riptive case studies) and cross‑case analysis are added. The proposed research design and analysis approach is applicable to complex research settings where a study is unable, for a variety of reasons, to meet the exacting requirements of a true experime ntal design e.g. random assignment, establishment of counterfactuals, valid control groups etc. This sequential multiphase approach can deliver findings on the relative contribution of the myriad factors influencing a result showing whether the policy intervention in this study made a contribution to an observed result and in what way? The findings from the Phase 1: Quasi…experiment, Phase 2: Case studies and Phase 3: Cross‑case analysis collectively demonstrates that the policy instrument evaluated i n this study made a marginal contribution at best to individual firm performance. Overall the state received a negative return on its investment (despite selecting the cohort of firms to invest in). The study concludes that, in the analysis period, the salient factors influencing value creation in the firms (and conversely the barriers to firm growth) were internal to the firm. 

Abstract: Mixed methods approaches to research have been widely adopted in social sciences and professional studies disciplines. Using a combination of methods is assumed to offer the promise of greater flexibility in undertaking research, of generating b etter supported arguments from research data, and of increased relevance to a wider circle of stakeholders, claims that are at least partially supported by evidence of higher journal citation rates for mixed than monomethod articles. A review of eighty‑th ree articles published eight years apart in the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) and Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) suggests that organizational and management researchers have been slow to adopt mixed methods approaches to research. Articl es for both periods and in both journals were clearly dominated by studies that employed statistical analyses of archival, database, experimental or survey data, with little change over the period. These results reflect those found in other studies. This review of articles raised wider issues. 1) Difficulty was experienced in classifying studies, leading to a refinement in emphasis for a definition of mixed methods. 2) Management researchers as a whole, as reflected in the style and referencing of thes e articles, have thorough training in the fine details of statistical methods of analysis; understanding of qualitative analysis is weaker and restricted to a few; and none appears to have any awareness of a growing literature on mixed methods, nor did an y discuss the kinds of issues typically covered in qualitative and mixed methods articles in other journals. The results of this review have implications for the training of management and organization studies researchers who currently appear to have a qu ite limited repertoire of non‑statistical methods on which to draw when undertaking research. 

Abstract: Undertaking a mixed methods research study requires competencies and technical skills in both or all methods being utilised. This is made even more complex with a multi‑disciplinary research team and a culturally sensitive research context that researchers need to take into account when making methodological choices around research design and data collection approaches and techniques. The paper expands on these issues whilst taking the reader through the research process and the culturally sensi tive issues that the research team faced. The multidisciplinarity of the research team is described followed by the decision to use a mixed method approach. An explanatory sequential mixed methods research design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011) was util ised which involved quantitative followed by qualitative data. Literature on culturally sensitive research approaches is presented as a forerunner to the methodological decisions made by the research team in terms of actual data collection and associated data collection instruments and processes. The paper provides some valuable insights and techniques on methodological choices and approaches taken by a multi‑disciplinary team in a culturally sensitive context. Actual empirical data from the study is the refore not presented. We utilise a mixed methods research design where the weakness of one type of data collection instrument is off set by the strengths of the other and where the skills and cultural mix of the research team is leveraged to achieve a mor e robust and rigorous study. The paper makes a contribution to research methodology in several ways, through providing ideas about how to best leverage the diversity from within a multidisciplinary research team, the strengths of using mixed methods as op posed to mono methods and the application of culturally sensitive techniques in both quantitative data collection and qualitative data collection. 

Abstract: This paper examines the design, implementation, benefits and challenges of employing a mixed methods research approach with the aim to provide an emergent, integrative and multi‑layered perspective on Business‑IT alignment influences and maturit y measurement. The application of mixed methods is underutilised in this domain and it is opined that it can serve to elucidate this perennial, but often elusive, core objective of senior management. It also begins to redress the predominance of quantitat ive studies and the frequent application of tools and techniques in isolation, not combination. The case of a leading UK Communications Service Provider in a two year period of joint venture integration provides a transformational context for examination, with a methodological focus. It is argued that mixed methods can achieve a mutually supporting depth and breadth of coverage that is appropriate to complex and multifaceted phenomena such as Business‑IT alignment and facilitates consideration of both pr ocess and outcomes. A transparently presented two phased, sequential exploratory and emergent design is adopted, with embedded integration. This is underpinned by a reflexive and intelligent‑action orientated pragmatic lens. Innovative use of observation, photography, interviews, focus groups and survey data are synthesised to unfold the Business‑IT alignment relationship, whilst the Strategic Alignment Maturity Model supports incremental maturity evaluation. The approach facilitates a responsive, integr ative, pluralistic and holistic evaluation of alignment and maturity measurement, moving beyond traditional snapshot techniques. It encourages reflexive, in situ surfacing of core themes and builds cumulative insight into the fluctuating impact of events, interventions and culture. The design benefits data richness, elaboration, validation, illustration and the identification of situated knowledge regarding enablers, inhibitors and interdependencies. Further, a robust and repeatable assessment of maturity can be achieved to support benchmarking and