The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems1
Abstract
Mixed methods research is an approach that combines quantitative and qualitative research methods in the same research inquiry. Such work can help develop rich insights into various phenomena of interest that cannot be fully understood using only a quantitative or a qualitative method. Notwithstanding the benefits and repeated calls for such work, there is a dearth of mixed methods research in information systems. Building on the literature on recent methodological advances in mixed methods research, we develop a set of guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in IS. We particularly elaborate on three important aspects of conducting mixed methods research: (1) appropriateness of a mixed methods approach; (2) development of meta-inferences (i.e., substantive theory) from mixed methods research; and (3) assessment of the quality of meta-inferences (i.e., validation of mixed methods research). The applicability of these guidelines is illustrated using two published IS papers that used mixed methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citationHandbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707 · cited 4×
“…case study, interpretive case study, design science, and action research) have been widely available in the IS literature (e.g., Dubé and Paré 2003; Hevner et al. 2004; Klein and Myers 1999; Lee 1989; Mingers 2001; Myers and Klein 2011; Straub et al. 2004), guidelines for conducting and evaluating…”
BackgroundInfluentialTrust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“Others have called for a combination of research methods, particularly triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data, to develop a deeper understanding of a phenomenon (Denzin 1978; Jick 1979; Mingers 1997, 2001; Reichardt and Rallis 1994).”
MethodToward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research
Maxwell, J. (1992) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826 · Cited by 2,951 · cited 8×
“Some researchers have even suggested that the notion of validation, such as reliability and validity, should not even be considered a criterion for evaluating qualitative research (Guba and Lincoln 2005; Maxwell 1992; Stenbacka 2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Cited by
How ‘big data’ can make big impact: findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study
Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031 · Cited by 1,905
Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World
Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12241 · Cited by 960
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., & de Reuver, M. (2019) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101828 · Cited by 653
Merhi, M., Hone, K., & Tarhini, A. (2019) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101151 · Cited by 555
Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., & Esteves, J. (2022) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2022.103590 · Cited by 537
Metadata
- Authors
- Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2013-03-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-54
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2166886466
- Cited by
- 2,363
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 467.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
- The paper
- Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
