Mixed Methods Research in Knowledge Management Studies (2009–2014): A Content Analysis of Journal Articles

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to investigate the adoption and utilisation of mixed methods research (MMR) in an emerging field, such as knowledge management (KM). Methodologies used by researchers have a bearing on the reliability and validity of the knowledge they produce. There is need to explore the prevalence in use of various methodologies over time. Such studies provide researchers time to reflect on their research practices. It is important to reflect on how researchers are adopting and utilising MMR approaches and what can be done to improve methodological approaches in research. A qualitative content analysis of articles from five leading KM-centric journals published between 2009 and 2014 was conducted for the research purpose. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the utilisation of MMR in KM and provide guidance for those seeking to learn about and apply MMR approaches in research in context. Only 1.1% of the studies were classified as representing some form of MMR. Of the eight articles that were sampled, five of them did not explicitly identify themselves as MMR studies. Two of the articles did not give reasons for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. None of the studies that were examined identified the MMR approach that was employed. Four of the MMR studies were exploratory, three were explanatory and one was convergent. All the articles were partially mixed studies. Few researchers indicated how they prioritised qualitative and quantitative strands. A handful of sampled studies used MMR and employed basic design typologies in contrast to complex typologies. It is recommended that KM research should embrace MMR and use complex design typologies in order to enhance their understanding of the complex problems that KM scholars encounter. Methodological pluralism has the potential of contributing to the growth in knowledge and development of many perspectives in the field: an appreciation of the advantages of using MMR and its potential to provide a holistic, innovative and robust perspective of research phenomena. The selection criteria in this study excluded other journals that cover KM research. Further research may uncover whether the prevalence rates reported in this study are consistent with those journals which were excluded in this study. Methodologies used by researchers for different kinds of research may be different. The research method employed in this study does not have the ability to establish that. Future studies may employ interviews and other data collection techniques in order to triangulate methods to determine why MMR was not prevalent. The future research directions should consider the extent to which personal, interpersonal and social contexts influence researchers to use MMR.