The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods provides perspectives on topics relevant to research in the field of business and management
For general enquiries email
Click here to see other Scholarly Electronic Journals published by API
For a range of research text books on this and complimentary topics visit the Academic Bookshop
Information about The European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies is available here







Journal Article

Student Research in a Web 2 world: Learning to use new Technology to Gather Primary Data  pp78-86

Martin Rich

© Jan 2011 Volume 9 Issue 1, ECRM 2010 Special issue Part 2/Jan 2011, Editor: Ann Brown, David Douglas, Marian Carcary and Jose Esteves, pp1 - 87

Look inside Download PDF (free)


In recent years there has been rapid growth in the number of resources available to conduct scholarly research with the assistance of the Internet. While the British Library’s (2009) survey revealed a reluctance among doctoral and post‑doctoral researchers to engage with new technologies, masters‑level students and final‑year undergraduates are often much more open to technological innovation, They are familiar with interactive tools in the classroom (King and Robinson, 2009), and used to the characteristics associated with Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005), but could often benefit from guidance as to how to exploit these tools in their independent work. This paper discusses four general types of tool which can be used to gather primary data in research: Electronic web‑based surveys. These can be set up very simply using software such as ‘Surveymonkey’, Qualtrics, or the Bristol Online Surveys system developed specifically for the UK higher education sector. As a result they are popular with students, but their very ease of use often means that little attention is paid to sampling, or to interpreting the results with caution. Blogs. Again, these are easy to set up, but it is less clear to students how they can be used as a data gathering tool. However the current author has encountered a number of instances where a student has set up a blog to invite comments on a topic, and to gather opinions from readers that might contribute to the students’ work. Personal response systems or ‘clickers’ which are available as a computer peripheral and can be used to gather data from a group of people very rapidly. Conferencing systems which could be used in effect to conduct more or less structured interviews electronically. A simple exchange of emails would be a primitive way of achieving this, and would be asynchronous, in that the interviewee does not need to respond instantly. A synchronous equivalent could be provided using chat or instant messaging software. All four of these have the benefit of being instantly self‑documenting in that any data provided is stored electronically. This is a particularly attractive attribute for masters level students, or final year undergraduates, who may be under pressure to produce some independent and original work with very limited resources. As a general observation these tools offer enhanced scope for students to carry out original and distinctive work, and to place their own stamp on their findings. If nothing else, the use of unique primary data can differentiate one student’s work from that of others. But this needs to be tempered with an appreciation of the limitations of primary data and an understanding of how to use it realistically.


Keywords: Web 2, research training, primary data


Share |

Journal Article

Mixed Methods in Management Research: Implications for the Field  pp27-35

Pat Bazeley

© Dec 2015 Volume 13 Issue 1, Mixed Methods, Editor: Ros Cameron, pp1 - 61

Look inside Download PDF (free)


Abstract: Mixed methods approaches to research have been widely adopted in social sciences and professional studies disciplines. Using a combination of methods is assumed to offer the promise of greater flexibility in undertaking research, of generating b etter supported arguments from research data, and of increased relevance to a wider circle of stakeholders, claims that are at least partially supported by evidence of higher journal citation rates for mixed than monomethod articles. A review of eighty‑th ree articles published eight years apart in the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) and Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) suggests that organizational and management researchers have been slow to adopt mixed methods approaches to research. Articl es for both periods and in both journals were clearly dominated by studies that employed statistical analyses of archival, database, experimental or survey data, with little change over the period. These results reflect those found in other studies. This review of articles raised wider issues. 1) Difficulty was experienced in classifying studies, leading to a refinement in emphasis for a definition of mixed methods. 2) Management researchers as a whole, as reflected in the style and referencing of thes e articles, have thorough training in the fine details of statistical methods of analysis; understanding of qualitative analysis is weaker and restricted to a few; and none appears to have any awareness of a growing literature on mixed methods, nor did an y discuss the kinds of issues typically covered in qualitative and mixed methods articles in other journals. The results of this review have implications for the training of management and organization studies researchers who currently appear to have a qu ite limited repertoire of non‑statistical methods on which to draw when undertaking research.


Keywords: Keywords: methodology, methods, mixed methods, quantitative, qualitative, research training, management, organization studies


Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 9 Issue 1, ECRM 2010 Special issue Part 2/Jan 2011 / Jan 2011  pp1‑87

Editor: Ann Brown, David Douglas, Marian Carcary, Jose Esteves

View Contents Download PDF (free)


These papers dealt with the problems facing management researchers in a variety of ways. The keynote paper by Eileen Trauth discusses the issues that gender research raise for business. Three papers offer advice on qualitative data analysis, of which the paper by Carcary deals with methods of collection using IT, Ryan and Ogilvie identify an unusual data source and the third (Reiter et al) deals with the problem of choosing the appropriate research method. The two papers on research methodology address entirely different types of issue. The paper by Knowles and Michielsens gives all a fascinating insight into research methods that top journals apparently prefer. Iacono et al demonstrate how effective case study methods can be in developing theory. The two final papers address the subject of teaching research methods but again offer widely different views.


Keywords: autodriving, building theory from case studies, CAQDAS, case study research, categorisation, coding, critical theory, diversity, epistemology, feminism, gender and IT, gender differences, grounded theory, individual differences, interpretive research, interpretivist research, interviews, iterative process, marking rubrics, memos, N-vivo, phenomenology, photoelicitation, positivist research, primary data, projective prompts, qualitative, qualitative data analysis, qualitative research, quantitative, RAE 2008, REF 2013, research audit trail, research in large classes, research mentors, research method selection, research methodology, research methods, research outcomes, research training, social inclusion, teaching quantitative research, theory, theory of gender , Web 2, women and IT workforce,


Share |