Mixed methods in management research: from juxtaposition to explanatory integration in the study of organizational behavior

Journal title CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Author/s Ousman Razafimamonjy Andrianimbahoaka
Publishing Year 2026 Issue 2026/1
Language English Pages 30 P. 27-56 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/cgrds1-2026oa23325
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Contemporary organizations increasingly confront multi-generational complexity that single-method designs struggle to capture, yet mixed methods studies remain more often juxtaposed than genuinely integrated, particularly in underdocumented African contexts. This article addresses that gap by documenting a reproducible explanatory sequential mixed methods protocol, in which a quantitative survey phase (137 participants across thirty companies in Madagascar) identified statistical patterns requiring explanation, which then guided a purposively sampled qualitative phase of interviews and focus groups, with triangulation matrices classifying each quantitative-qualitative pairing as convergent, complementary, or divergent. Divergent pairings revealed three behavioral paradoxes concerning loyalty, recognition, and autonomy. The study’s principal contribution is methodological rather than empirical: a documented, transferable procedure for converting statistical divergence into theoretically grounded meta-inferences that neither method could produce alone. This procedure in turn equips organizations and researchers with a replicable diagnostic for identifying generational misunderstandings that conventional single-method approaches would leave undetected.

Keywords: Mixed methods; Triangulation; Organizational behavior; Methodological validation; Paradoxes.

  1. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4): 385-396. DOI: 10.2307/2136404
  2. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
  3. Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.
  4. Barbour, R.S. (1998). Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire? Qualitative Health Research, 8(3): 352-361. DOI: 10.1177/104973239800800306
  5. Bazeley, P. (2016). Mixed or merged? Integration as the real challenge for mixed methods. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 11(3): 189-194. DOI: 10.1108/QROM-04-2016-1373
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Brun, J.-P., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4): 716-730. DOI: 10.1080/09585190801953723
  8. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1): 97-113. DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058877
  9. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1): 8-22. DOI: 10.1177/2345678906290531
  10. Cameron, R., & Golenko, X. (2023). Mapping mixed methods research in business and management research: Charting the future course. In R. Cameron & X. Golenko (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research in business and management (pp. 412-425). Edward Elgar.
  11. Chatman, J.A., Caldwell, D.F., O’Reilly, C.A., & Doerr, B. (2014). Parsing organizational culture: How the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and financial performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6): 785-808. DOI: 10.1002/job.1928
  12. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
  13. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  14. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
  15. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Ashforth, B.E. (2004). Employability: A psychosocial construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1): 14-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005
  16. Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7): 4-10. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X018007004
  17. Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 219-247.
  18. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3): 255-274. DOI: 10.3102/01623737011003255
  19. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage.
  20. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
  21. Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W., & Stick, S.L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1): 3-20. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05282260
  22. Jackson, T. (2004). Management and change in Africa: A cross-cultural perspective. Routledge.
  23. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14-26. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
  24. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  25. Maxwell, J.A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Sage.
  26. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3): 412-433.
  27. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, L.J., & Parfyonova, N.M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1): 1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002
  28. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.
  29. Molina-Azorin, J.F. (2012). Mixed methods research in strategic management: Impact and applications. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1): 33-56. DOI: 10.1177/1094428110393023
  30. Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V.D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1): 45-59. DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058870
  31. Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1): 48-76. DOI: 10.1177/2345678906292462
  32. Morse, J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Sage.
  33. Ng, E.S., & Parry, E. (2016). Multigenerational research in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 34: 1-41. DOI: 10.1108/S0742-730120160000034008
  34. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  35. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2): 92-98. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
  36. Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
  37. Rasoamparany, J.-M. H. (2015). De l’influence culturelle sur les outils de la gestion des hommes: Le cas du "Fihavanana" dans quelques entreprises de Madagascar. Editions Universitaires Europeennes.
  38. Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage.
  39. Smith, J.K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1): 4-12. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X015001004
  40. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage.
  41. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
  42. Twenge, J.M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2): 201-210. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6
  43. Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
  44. Zoogah, D.B., Peng, M.W., & Woldu, H. (2015). Institutions, resources, and organizational effectiveness in Africa. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 7-31. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2012.0033

Ousman Razafimamonjy Andrianimbahoaka, Mixed methods in management research: from juxtaposition to explanatory integration in the study of organizational behavior in "CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES" 1/2026, pp 27-56, DOI: 10.3280/cgrds1-2026oa23325