European Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 1450-2267 Vol.28 No.1 (2012), pp. 128-137
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012
http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com
Linking Philosophy, Methodology, and Methods: Toward Mixed
Model Design in the Hospitality Industry
Mousa A. Masadeh
Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, College of Archaeology
Tourism & Hotel Management, Petra, Jordan
E-mail: jordantourism@hotmail.com
Tel: +962 7775620356
Abstract
This paper discusses some of the unique philosophical and methodological problems facing
research in the hospitality industry, and argues that a mixed methodological approach,
based on a foundation of pragmatism, can offer distinctive advantages for researchers in
this field. Mixed methods approaches, combining the strengths and minimizing the
weaknesses of positivist and phenomenological paradigms, are discussed. Though
traditionally qualitative and quantitative approaches were seen as being in opposition,
increasingly they are being used in combination in various fields. However, this mixed
methodological approach remains relatively rare in literature investigating the hospitality
industry. In order to understand the potential benefits for this field, the philosophical and
institutional context of mixed methods approaches are described, along with a review of
recent literature supporting mixed methods research design in general, and in hospitality
research in particular.
Keywords: Methodology, mixed model design, qualitative approach, quantitative
approach, hospitality industry
1. Introduction
Choosing the right methodology for a given research project can be an enormous challenge. The
selection of appropriate research tools requires careful consideration at each stage of the process, and
must be tailored to various factors, including the objects of investigation and the type of research
problems involved (Creswell, 1994; Newman and Benz, 1998). In some cases, the questions at hand
may call for a combination of different methodologies (Yin, 1993; Newman and Benz, 1998;
Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998)—all of which will be dictated to some extent by the larger research
paradigm, which in turn may be influenced by the research process itself.
Ultimately, as Burrell and Morgan (1979) have observed, subscribing to a given research
paradigm can be seen, to some extent, as an act of faith. While the positivist paradigm has tended to
dominate in tourism and hospitality research, there is an increasing recognition of the value of
phenomenological or more subjectively-based investigation. This is perhaps especially so in an
industry where success depends upon the ‘human factor’: employees’ emotional labour and customers’
affective investment in the services offered. This paper summarizes some of the issues at stake in
positivist and phenomenological research paradigms, and argues that a mixed-methods approach,
combining the strengths of both paradigms, is especially appropriate to research in the hospitality and
tourism industry.
128
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
2. Research and Philosophical Paradigms
A researcher’s paradigm or worldview necessarily exerts a certain force on the choice of research
methods (Ben Letaifa, 2006).As Pansiri (2005) notes, while hospitality research depends on such a
philosophical orientation and the assumptions that flow from it, this aspect of research often remains
under-articulated in the existing literature. In this light, it is worth reviewing some of the philosophical
questions entailed by the research process.
At the heart of the discourse surrounding social science research methods lie the most profound
ontological and epistemological questions, with implications for our attitudes and beliefs about human
nature itself (Ben Letaifa, 2006). First and foremost, a research philosophy reflects certain guiding
assumptions about the nature of the world, along with our own access to, or knowledge of, that world
(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991; Blaikie, 1993; Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
The philosophy of science can be divided into two major areas. Ontology, or the science of
being, poses questions about ‘what is’—that is, questions involving the nature and content of existence,
including social and political reality, and the kinds of interactions that shape that reality (Blaikie,
1993). Also known as ‘first philosophy’, ontology encompasses essential questions about reality and
existence and their functioning. Epistemology, the science of knowledge, is concerned with ‘how we
know’, and probes the nature and limits of human knowledge. As Guisepi (2007) observes, the answers
to such questions are vital for determining the credibility of scientific inquiry, because the answers
provide the foundations for all possible knowledge. Ben Letaifa (2006) points out that such
epistemological questions correspond, necessarily, to our ontological assumptions about the reality
under investigation. In other words, questions of how we know intersect with questions concerning
what sorts of things there are to know about.
Epistemological approaches vary widely, and have split in different directions over the past
half-century in the work of philosophical schools like post-positivism (critical realism) (see Manicas
and Secord, 1982; Denzin, 1989; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), pragmatism (see Howe, 1988; Tashakkori
and Teddlie, 1998, Creswell, 2003) and postmodernism (see Lyotard, 1984; Rosenau, 1992; Denzin,
1993).
The two major paradigms adopted in research, positivist and phenomenological approaches,
both encompass a range of ontological and epistemological assumptions. In order to better understand
the philosophical stakes for researchers, it is worth looking at these two approaches in greater depth.
3. Positivist and Phenomenological Research Paradigms
‘The key idea of the positivist paradigm is that the social world exists externally, and that its properties
should be measured through objective methods, rather than being inferred through sensations,
reflections or intuition’
(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991: 22).
Positivism, which emerged from the work of 19th century French philosopher Auguste Comte,
defines knowledge in terms of empirically verifiable observation. This paradigm, at the heart of the
scientific method, has traditionally dominated in research in social, behavioural (Tashakkori and
Teddlie, 2003) and organisational sciences (Ben Letaifa, 2006). In this view, ontologically speaking,
the world is considered an external object of investigation, separate from the subjective experiences of
the researcher—that is, it entails a realist position, in which the researcher’s goal is to gain knowledge
of an external reality. Hence positivism favours methodologies such as statistical investigation that
eschew a strong subjective inflection (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991). The epistemological
corollary to this world view that knowledge, for positivism, is limited to only those phenomena that
can be observed, measured, recorded, etc (Blaikie, 1993; Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
Phenomenology takes more or less the opposite approach, positing a view of reality as wholly
constructed, subjective and social in nature. With an ontology based in the notion of social
construction—that is, that the nature of reality and existence is determined by one’s subjective actions
129
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
and viewpoint, and not (or not only) the other way around—this approach entails an epistemology that
seeks knowledge through the social ‘meaning’ of phenomena, rather than their measurement (EasterbySmith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991; Blaikie, 1993; Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
In 20th century philosophy, the split between ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ scholarly traditions—
which hew to more positivist and phenomenological priorities, respectively—reflects these same
anxieties about the nature of the world and of human knowledge. As we shall see below, an attempt to
bridge the gap can be found in the philosophical school of pragmatism.
Table 1: The Key Features of the Positivist and Phenomenological Paradigms (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and
Lowe, 1991).
Basic Beliefs: Researcher
should: Preferred methods
Positivist paradigm
The world is external and objective
Observer is independent Science is valuefree Focus on facts
Look for causality and fundamental laws
Reduce phenomena to simplest elements
Formulate hypotheses and test them
Operationalising concepts so that they can
be measured
Taking large samples
include:
Phenomenological paradigm
The world is socially constructed and
subjective
Observer is part of what is observed
Science is driven by human interests
Focus on meanings
Try to understand what is happening
Look at the totality of the situation
Develop ideas from induction from data
Using multiple methods to establish
different views of phenomena
Small samples investigated in depth or
over time
Although the two approaches appear to be mutually exclusive in principle, in practice even the
most staunchly positivist research is bound, to some extent, by subjectivity and ‘intersubjectivity’ or
the ethics of dealing with others (Ben Letaifa, 2006). There has long been disagreement among
researchers over the most appropriate paradigm, and even within one or the other paradigm,
philosophers’ opinions can vary widely and continue to change and evolve (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe
and Lowe, 1991). Increasingly, however, the opposition between the two can be seen as a false
dichotomy, representing two sides of the same coin rather than an intractable conflict. In this spirit,
many researchers today adopt a hybrid approach that seeks to benefit from the strengths and minimize
the weaknesses of each methodological approach.
4. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Qualitative research methods normally entail reasoning from induction (Neuman, 1997), gathering data
and drawing conclusions from a multiplicity of interpretations and perceptions, beginning with
observation, rather than a single, objective truth or rationality. It is normally associated with qualitative
methods of research (Neuman, 1997). Quantitative approaches are generally based on the logic of
deduction, beginning from accepted theories or premises and testing them rationally. Science in
quantitative approaches is associated with objective truth, while qualitative research tends to focus on
subjective experience (Neuman, 1997; Newman and Benz, 1998).
As the term ‘qualitative’ suggests, such research is thus bound up with the quality of various
people’s (subjective) experiences—and hence it often incorporates anecdotes and comparisons to shed
light on people and scenarios under investigation. It is normally seen as seeking deeper understanding
of a given phenomenon, whereas quantitative methods are more concerned with relationships of
causation between phenomena (Ben Aissa, 2001). Quantitative methods are thus distinguished by
numbers, statistics, and abstracting from data on sample populations to understand vastly larger groups
(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).
The distinction has been neatly summarized as follows:
130
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
‘Qualitative researchers use ethnographic prose, historical narratives, first-person accounts,
still photographs, life histories, fictionalized facts, and biographical and autobiographical materials,
among others. Quantitative researchers use mathematical models, statistical tables, and graphs’
(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 6)
The difference between qualitative and quantitative can also be understood in terms of internal
and external validity, respectively. It has been argued that development and validation are generally
easier in the case of quantitative research, while their more generalisable nature and strict limits of
inquiry afford greater external validity to these types of studies (Ben Letaifa, 2006; Newman and Benz,
1998). Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, grant far more flexibility to the researcher, while the
in-depth focus of research implies a greater internal validity (Newman and Benz, 1998; Ben Letaifa,
2006). For a comparison of the approaches associated with each style of research, see Table 2
(Neuman, 1997: 329).
Table 1: Distinctions between qualitative and quantitative approaches (Neuman, 1997: 329)
Quantitative style
Measure objective facts
Focus on variables
Reliability is key
Value free
Independent of context
Many cases, subjects
Statistical analysis
Researcher is detached
Qualitative style
Construct social reality, cultural meaning
Focus on interactive processes, events
Authenticity is key
Values are present and explicit
Situationally constrained
Few cases, subjects
Thematic analysis
Researcher is involved
5. The Paradigm Wars and Social Sciences Research
For most of the past century, quantitative methods have widely been considered dominant (Tashakkori
and Teddlie, 2003). In tourism and hospitality research, quantitative approaches remain at the forefront,
in part because a management research perspective is normally adopted, favouring a ‘natural scientific
approach to organizational life’ and normally entailing large sample statistical studies (Pansiri 2005:
192). Fields like business and management studies (Werner, 2002) and psychology (Smith and Brain,
2000), in which tourism research has roots, also tend to retain an emphasis on quantitative methods.
Nevertheless, as Ben Aissa (2001) has noted, qualitative approaches have been gaining ground in
recent years, as an alternative to research based on solely on statistical and causal correlations, and
addressing some of the limits of such tools for understanding increasingly complex organisational
structures.
The social and behavioural sciences are still, in some sense, emerging from what Tashakkori &
Teddlie (1998: 4) have dubbed the ‘paradigm wars’—a perennial and often heated dispute among
researchers over qualitative and quantitative methods and their relative assets and drawbacks in
different applications. The growing consensus among researchers seems to acknowledge the
complementary, rather than oppositional, nature of these two types of research, with the ultimate
decision on methods to be dictated by the tools available for, and most appropriate to, a given study
(Trochim, 2006).
‘Each data-gathering method has its own distinct advantages as well as disadvantages;
however, when used in conjunction with another, the disadvantages of one method can generally be
offset by the advantages of the other(s).’
(McClelland, 1994: 7)
In the social and behavioural sciences, including tourism and hospitality research, field studies
are invaluable for probing the human needs and motivations behind the numbers. There has been much
recent work emphasizing the pointlessness of the qualitative-quantitative controversy for field
researchers, emphasizing instead the diversity of tools available to collect and analyze data (for
131
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
example, Creswell, 2003; Creswell et al, 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell, Trout and Barbuto ,2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2008; Bergman,
2008; Plano Clark et al, 2008; Hesse-Biber, 2009).
Today, in the aftermath of the paradigm wars, there has arisen what Tashakkori & Teddlie term
a ‘third methodological movement’, a ‘pragmatic way of using the strengths of two approaches’
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003: ix). Such an approach has gone by different names, including ‘mixed
methods’, ‘combined’, ‘integrated’, and ‘multimethod’ research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003: ix). In
all cases, this highly pragmatic approach to research favours drawing upon all the tools suited the job at
hand.
As we have seen, the philosophical paradigms underpinning qualitative and quantitative
research—the positivist and phenomenological worldviews described above—at first appear
incompatible. In this light, a growing number of scholars (e.g., Pansiri, 2005; Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004) have argued that an orientation based in philosophical pragmatism offers a solid
ontological and epistemological basis for mixed methods research, combining the benefits of each
approach in a single study. Before looking at this philosophical orientation in greater depth, it bears
outlining some of the strengths and weaknesses of mixed model research design.
6. Toward Mixed Model Design as an Approach
Mixed methods research encompasses a range of approaches in which qualitative and quantitative tools
are combined, either sequentially or in tandem (Creswell et al, 2003, Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), and
indeed, the two are often integrated throughout the process of research (Creswell et al, 2003,
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). In the past ten years, there has been an increasing push to formalise the
combination under the rubric of ‘mixed methods’ research design. Such research points to the
complementary roles each style of research can play.
An understanding of this approach may be considered indispensible to contemporary
investigators:
‘Regardless of the field of study, researchers should begin by securing for themselves a good
introduction to the issues of mixed methods research’
(Creswell, Trout, and Barbuto, 2007: 20).
Consider the following definition of mixed-methods research:
‘A mixed methods study involves the collection or analysis of both quantitative and/or
qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are
given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of
research.’
(Creswell et al, 2003: 212)
Simply put, combining qualitative and quantitative methods can yield more useful and valid
results, offering different perspectives on the same phenomenon and offering a greater overall
understanding of the topic. Two practical reasons can be put forward to support the use of combined
methods:
‘The first is to achieve cross-validation or triangulation – combining two or more theories or
sources of data to study the same phenomenon in order to gain a more complete understanding of it.
The second is to achieve complementary results by using the strengths of one method to enhance the
other.’
(Sale et al, 2002: 47)
Along the same lines, mixed methods have been embraced because:
• ‘can answer research questions that the other methodologies cannot.
• provides better (stronger) inferences.
• provides the opportunity for presenting a greater diversity of divergent views’
(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003: 14-15).
132
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
In other words, the effect of combining research methods can be not only additive, but
transformative, such that the results yielded by both methods can be ‘greater than the sum of their
parts.’ This is especially so when the two are used in a complementary way, and in combinations that
minimize the weaknesses or limitations of a given method (Creswell, 1994, Morgan, 1998; Tashakkori
& Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003; Creswell et al, 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Such an
approach can guarantee greater validity of the research results (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Threlfall,
1999; Sale et al, 2002; Nakkash et al, 2003; Ben Letaifa, 2006).
Table 2: Mixed Methods Design types (Creswell et al, 2003: 224).
Design Type
Sequential explanatory
Sequential exploratory
Sequential transformative
Concurrent triangulation
Concurrent nested
Concurrent transformative
Implementation
Quantitative followed by
qualitative
Qualitative followed by
quantitative
Either qualitative followed
by quantitative or
qualitative followed by
quantitative
Concurrent collection of
quantitative and qualitative
data
Concurrent collection of
quantitative and qualitative
data
Concurrent collection of
quantitative and qualitative
data
Priority
Usually quantitative; can be
qualitative or equal Usually
qualitative; can be
quantitative or equal
Quantitative, qualitative, or
equal
Preferably equal; can be
quantitative or qualitative
Quantitative or qualitative
Quantitative, qualitative, or
equal
Stage of Integration
Interpretation phase
Interpretation phase
Interpretation phase
Interpretation phase or
analysis phase
Analysis phase
Usually analysis phase; can
be during interpretation
phase
Though mixed methods research is admittedly an approach ‘still in its adolescence’ (Tashakkori
& Teddlie, 2003; x), it offers intriguing possibilities that make it:
‘a rich frontier that will allow science to explain a significant percentage of a given
phenomenon, while also remaining open to discovering critical issues embedded in or surrounding that
phenomenon’
(Creswell, Trout, and Barbuto, 2007: 19)
As noted, the umbrella term ‘mixed methods’ encompasses a range of approaches. Perhaps
most common in the social sciences is research encompassing multiple stages, also known as
‘sequential’ or ‘two-phase’ studies. Because phenomenological or qualitative research is most effective
as a mode of ‘theory building’ (Newman and Benz, 1998: 20) or ‘theory generation’ (Punch, 1998: 16),
such an approach is commonly used in an initial or exploratory phase, to explore the problem at hand
and formulate questions to be addressed in the next stage (see Table 1). Other approaches include
‘dominant/less dominant’ research design, later termed ‘priority’ (Morgan, 1998) or ‘nested’ (Creswell
et al 2003) research, in which overall research is conducted using one method primarily, with the
alternative methodology employed for a smaller element of the study. Finally, ‘mixed methodology’
denotes research design that integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches during the entire process
of research. Creswell et al (2003) further elaborate a typology of mixed methods research, based on
factors like data collection sequence, the weight accorded to each methodological approach, and the
stage(s) of research at which the two are integrated. For an overview of various types of mixed
methods research design, see Table 3.
133
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
Table 3: Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Research (Adapted from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 21).
Strengths
•
Words, pictures, and narrative can be used to add
meaning to numbers.
•
Numbers can be used to add precision to words,
pictures, and narrative.
•
Can provide quantitative and qualitative research
strengths.
•
•
Researcher can generate and test a grounded theory.
Can answer a broader and more complete range of
research questions because the researcher is not
confined to a single method or approach.
•
A researcher can use the strengths of an additional
method to overcome the weaknesses in another
method by using both in a research study.
•
Can provide stronger evidence for a conclusion
through convergence and corroboration of findings.
Can add insights and understanding that might be
missed when only a single method is used.
Can be used to increase the generalizability of the
results.
Qualitative and quantitative research used together
produce more complete knowledge necessary to
inform theory and practice.
•
•
•
Weaknesses
• Can be difficult for a single researcher to carry out both
qualitative and quantitative research, especially if two
or more approaches are expected to be used
concurrently; it may require a research team.
• Researcher has to learn about multiple methods and
approaches and understand how to mix them
appropriately.
• Methodological purists contend that one should always
work within either a qualitative or a quantitative
paradigm.
• More expensive.
•
More time consuming.
•
Some of the details of mixed research remain to be
worked out fully by research methodologists (e.g.,
problems of paradigm mixing, how to qualitatively
analyze quantitative data, how to interpret conflicting
results).
Unfortunately, the popularity of mixed methods research ‘has been retarded to date by the
vestige of the paradigm war's (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; x).Such studies can also be very labourintensive, placing a high demand on the researcher—who requires expertise in both types of method—
and their lengthy nature generally makes them unsuitable for publication in journals (Creswell, 1994).
Nevertheless, there is evidence that mixed methods will eventually become the standard
methodological approach in the social and behavioural sciences (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003), with
leading researchers calling for greater use of mixed methodologies in organisational and management
studies in particular (Creswell, Trout and Barbuto, 2007). A quarterly SAGE publication entitled
‘Journal of Mixed Methods Research,’ in which mixed methods research studies are take centre stage,
testifies to the growing relevance of this approach.
7. Implications for the Hospitality Industry
As noted, quantitative research has tended to dominate in the literature on the hospitality industry. This
is due in part to the management research perspective that dominates the field. A study by Mendenhall
et al (1993) found that, from 1984 to 1990, only 14 percent of articles in the International Journal of
Management used qualitative approaches, and just 4 percent used combined methodologies. Sandiford
and Seymour (2007: 725) also bemoan the relative dearth of qualitative approach in hospitality
research; they note that ‘most hospitality sector-specific journals carry few examples of this approach,’
despite the fact that ‘other academic publications have reported ethnographic investigations of various
aspects of hospitality’ —that is, researchers from other fields have emphasized such an approach in
134
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
investigating hospitality-specific problems, with examples ranging from pub workers’ emotional
labour to older restaurant patrons’ usage patterns. In this light, the authors warn that a continued
emphasis on quantitative investigation within hospitality literature risks isolating the field from the
wider discourse community of social sciences researchers. ‘If such work is not equally valued by
hospitality journals,’ they note, ‘there is a danger that researchers could be discouraged from sharing
their work with the hospitality community, and that hospitality research could be marginalized’ (725).
In this light, according to Pansiri, ‘discussion of research philosophies as they apply to tourism
research can no longer be neglected’ (2005: 192). Fortunately, today there is increasing diversity of
methodologies in tourism research as investigators recognize the benefits of ‘soft’ or qualitative
approaches in understanding the human relations at the heart of this industry.
The author’s own recent research study (Masadeh, 2009) used a two-stage mixed methods
research approach—a sequential exploratory strategy—to complete a unique investigation of middle
management training in international hotel chains in Jordan. In this case, because the research topic
was largely unexplored, an initial qualitative (focus group) phase proved extremely productive for
gathering initial data and formulating items for the second, quantitative, phase (a questionnaire). This
experience supported the notion of mixed methods as a means for producing a comprehensive
perspective of an unexplored topic (Tashakkori & Teddlie 1998).
Because a field like tourism studies is so interdisciplinary in scope—with its origins cobbled
together from psychology, geography, political science, law, and so on—it tends to lack philosophical
cohesion or even, often, a well-articulated philosophical perspective. ‘While the issue of mixing
methods is emerging in tourism,’ Pansiri (2005: 198) notes, ‘very few authors have attempted to link
the debate to philosophical issues’. Intriguingly, the author develops the argument that a pragmatist
philosophical orientation offers the ideal perspective from which to approach the problems of tourism
research, providing a strong ontological and epistemological foundation for a mixed-methods approach
in this field, just as it has begun to be recognized as such in other areas of research. Similarly, ,
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) make the case that pragmatism, despite some of its philosophical
limitations, offers a bridge between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, or quantitative and qualitative,
philosophical orientations, precisely because it does not allow for any notion of their incompatibility.
That is, pragmatism rejects ontological or epistemological abstractions in favour of ‘what works.’
Pragmatism has been hailed as the best paradigm for justifying the use of mixed-methods
research (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003; Rallis and Rossman, 2003)
since it considers the research question to be more important than either the method used or the
paradigm that underlies the method (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003).
At the core of pragmatism is a rejection of the dichotomy between positivist scientism and antipositivist subjectivism (or ‘positivist/functional’ and ‘interpretive’ positions), positing instead a version
of ‘truth’ that is measured by its effectiveness, on the ground, in solving actual human problems—that
is, the ‘truth’ is that which works. Truth is thus seen as socially constructed to a large extent, yet it may
still be investigated empirically to the extent that these results prove of practical use.
In hospitality industry research, mixed methods approaches are gaining ground, and may prove
especially appropriate because of the way they allow the researcher to probe the ‘soft’ aspects of
organisational development without sacrificing scientific rigour.
8. Conclusion
Mixed methods research, drawing on the benefits of qualitative and quantitative approaches, is
becoming increasingly popular among researchers in a wide variety of fields. Although the approach is
relatively new, mixed method research design—in its many current forms, and those yet to be
explored—holds enormous promise as an antidote to the paradigm wars. Although positivism remains
dominant in some areas, this approach stands to benefit from the insights of a more phenomenological
perspective. This is especially pertinent in a field like the hospitality industry, where positivist
135
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
approaches have dominated, often at the expense of understanding the crucial human factors at play in
an organisation’s success. Ultimately, mixed methods research provides intriguing possibilities for
tailoring research design to the problem under investigation. In this light, mixed-methods research can
also offer researchers an often-overlooked opportunity to examine the ontological and epistemological
premises underpinning their work.
References
[I]
Ben Aissa, H (June 2001) "Quelle méthodologie de recherche appropriée pour une construction
de la recherché en gestion ?" XIème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique.
Held June 13-15 2001 at Laval Univeristy. Laval: Laval University Press: 27 p
[2]
Ben Letaifa, S. (2006) Compatibilité et incompatibilité des paradigmes et méthodes [online]
available from < http://www.strategie-aims.com/actesateliers/Quali06/BenLetaifa.pdf > [14
April 2011] [3]
Bergman, M.M. (2008) Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and
Applications.
Sage publications: London [4]
Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge:
Polity Press [5]
Brannen, J. (1992) "Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an
overview." In
Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Brannen, J (ed.) Aldershot: Avebury:
3-37 [6]
Burrell, G., Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis.
Heinemann Educational Books: London [7]
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann,
M. L., and Hanson, W. E. (2003) "Advanced
mixed methods research designs." In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C (ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 209-240 [8]
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [9]
Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design:
qualitative & quantitative approaches. California: Sage [10] Creswell, J.W., Trout, s., and Barbuto, J.
(2007) A Decade of Mixed Methods Writings: a
Retrospective [online] available from the Academy of Management Online website
<http://division.aomonline.org/rm/2002forum/retrospect.pdf> [14 May 2007]
[II] Denzin, N. (1989) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 3rd
edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
[12] Denzin, N. (1993) "Where has postmodernism gone?" Cultural Studies 7, (3) 507-14
[13] Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln,Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research (ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage [14] Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe A. (1991) Management Research:
an Introduction.
London: Sage [15] Fortier, D. (2002) entre l’humain et la réalité: Comment distinguer le vrai
du faux? [online]
available from <http://aladin.clg.qc.ca/~fortid/index.html> [11 March 2011] [16] Guisepi, R
(2007) Philosophy: An analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing
fundamental beliefs[online] available from <http://history-world.org/philosophy.htm> [12
March 2011] [17] Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2009) Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with
Practice. Guilford
Publications: New York [18] Howe, K.R. (1988) "Against the quantitative-qualitative
incompatibility thesis or dogmas die
hard" Educational Researcher 17, 10-16 [19] Hussy, J. and Hussy, R. (1997) Business
Research: a Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students. Basingstock: Macmillan Business
136
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 28, Number 1 (2012)
[20] Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) "Mixed Methods Research: A Research
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come." Educational Researcher 33, (7) 14–26 [21] Lyotard, J.F.
(1984) The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press [22] Manicas, P. and Secord, P. (1982) "Implications for psychology of the new
philosophy of
Science." American Psychologist 38, 390-413 [23] Masadeh, M. (2009) Human Resources in
international hotel chains in Jordan: “Out-of-country” training determinants. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Coventry University [24] McClelland, S. B. (1994) "Training Needs Assessment Data-gathering
Methods: Part 4, On-site
Observations." Journal of European Industrial Training 18, (5) 4-7 [25] Mendenhall, M.,
Beaty, D. and Oddou, G. (1993) "Where have all the theorists gone? An
archival review of the international management literature." International Journal of
Management, 10, (2) 146–53 [26] Morgan, D. (1998) "Practical strategies for combining
qualitative and quantitative methods:
Applications to health research." Qualitative Health Research 8, (3) 362-376 [27] Neuman,
W. L. (1997) Social Research Methods - Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Allyn and Bacon: Needham Heights. [28] Newman, I., and Benz, C. R. (1998) Qualitativequantitative research methodology: Exploring
the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press [29] Pansiri, J.
(2005) "Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in
tourism." Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 2, (3) 191-206 [30] Punch, K.F.
(1998) Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [31] Plano Clark, V.L., Creswell, J.W., O’Neil Green, D., and
Shope, R.J. (2008) "Mixing
Quantitive and Qualitative Approaches: An Introduction to Emergent Mixed Methods
Research" in Handbook of emergent methods. Hesse-Biber, S.N, and Leavy, P. (ed.) Guilford
Press: New York [32] Rosenau, P. (1992) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
University Press [33] Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., and Brazil, K (2002) "Revisiting the
Quantitative-Qualitative
Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research." Quality & Quantity 36, 43-53 [34]
Sandiford, P.J. & Seymour, D. (2007) "A Discussion of Qualitative Data Analysis Hospitality
Research with Examples from an Ethnography of English Public Houses." International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, (3) 724 -742 [35] Smith, P.K., and Brain, P. (2000)
"Bullying in Schools: Lessons from two decades of research."
Aggressive Behavoiur 26, (1) 1-9 [36] Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [37] Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed
methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [38] Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C
(2008) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating
Quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage
publications: London [39] Threlfall, K. D. (1999) "Using focus groups as a consumer
research tool." Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science 5, (4) 102-105 [40] Trochim, M.K. (2006) The
Qualitative-Quantitative Debate [online] available from
<http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/contents.php> [13 May 2010] [41] Werner, S.
(2002) "Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20
top management journals." Journal of Management 28, (3) 277-305 [42] Yin, R.
K. (1993) Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
137