Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,363

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

Venkatesh, Viswanath, Brown, Susan A., Bala, Hillol·2013·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

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
DOI
10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
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

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.