The discussion of qualitative or quantitative approaches has been going on for many years. One way to reduce the most dogmatic standings is to use mixed methods consisting of combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches. In this paper, we have analysed usage experiences from combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in different ways. We refer to these combinations as method configurations. Our findings point out that a researcher should commence with a qualitative approach when: 1) the researcher has a lower pre‑knowledge of phenomenon to be studied, 2) the phenomenon to be studied is abstract and 3) there is an uncertainty if the questions asked are the right questions. On the contrary, there is a tendency in our results that the researcher should start with a quantitative study when 1) the researcher has a good pre‑knowledge of the phenomenon or 2) the phenomenon is more concrete.

Balancing stakeholder expectations and requirements is frequently a challenge for the ethical researcher contracted to evaluate government‑funded community projects. Invariably these projects involve people from diverse backgrounds with their own agenda and expectations for the project. This was the scenario for adopting a mixed‑method evaluation of Wellington's Smart Newtown community computing project where free Internet access as well as some computer skills training was made available at the newly‑established computing centres. The four‑year, multiple stakeholder evaluation project involved qualitative and quantitative approaches, situated within a five‑purpose conceptual framework of: triangulation, complementarily, development, initiation, and expansion. The framework provided a robust platform that ensured a systematic and thorough approach in both collection and analysis of data. In this paper we describe the application of each "purpose" of the framework to the different data sets that resulted in an objective, impartial evaluation which was subsequently used for deciding future directions of publicly‑funded community computing centres.

As part of an on‑going doctoral study, a constructivist approach to grounded theory is being used to develop an integrated model of knowledge management (KM) for the leading Irish construction organisations. Using multiple data collection methods; employees in a number of these organisations have participated, from recent graduates through to senior managers. While the need to effectively manage knowledge within large construction organisations is well recognised, a gap exists between the theory of KM and its implementation in practice. This paper considers the research in terms of its philosophical position, the use of grounded theory and the research methods utilised, from theoretical and practical perspectives. Progress in the study thus far is presented and future directions considered in achieving theoretical saturation and a well developed model. It is anticipated that the study will contribute to the field of construction management where further empirical research into KM is required. Much previous research in the area of KM in construction has focussed solely on technological, cultural or strategic issues in the development of KM models. The developed integrated model will form the basis of education and guidance resources on KM for the leading Irish construction organisations. As a traditional and pragmatic industry, the rationale for using grounded theory is provided from the viewpoint that it requires researchers to focus upon developing theory which produces explanations that are recognisable to the subjects of the research. In order to ensure the credibility of the developed model, it will be evaluated by industry as part of a pilot KM education programme, with further refinement if necessary.

One of greatest pitfalls in conducting research successfully is the inability to obtain access to the research field. Obtaining access to the research field can vary to a considerable extent, depending on the kind of cases being investigated. In fact, researchers often spend considerable amount of time on this task. However, many researchers do not even describe their access to the research field in their research reports. The main aim of this paper is to share the experiences of two researchers in gaining access to fieldwork practice. We believe that the issues we discuss based on our experiences in gaining access would benefit other qualitative researchers. We also hope that comparing the experiences of two different researchers in two very different research fields would help highlight issues which are often neglected in doing qualitative research. In this paper, we present our comparison of the different approaches we used in the various stages in gaining access. We discuss our strategies in gaining access using a four stage model: pre‑entry, during fieldwork, after fieldwork and getting back. Finally, we present a basic framework for gaining access successfully which other researchers can use, and also critically analyze our experiences in using the two different approaches, formal and personal, in gaining access in our respective research projects.

The article depicts a mixed methodology case which uses a qualitative‑quantitative‑qualitative approach. The research described used qualitative work with expert interviews for data collection, a quantitative analysis of the interviews and then a qualitative method of final scenario development for analysing and presenting the results. The case is offered to demonstrate that the introduction of the quantitative step of a cross‑impact‑analysis, which gives a mixed methodology, was beneficial for the overall research leading to surprising results that could not have been achieved with only a qualitative approach. Having a quantitative analysis step in‑between, which demonstrated the most frequent and consistent results out of a wide range of overall possibilities, helped reduce researcher bias, thereby increasing the credibility of the findings. The paper concludes that judiciously used mixed methodology in general, and this approach in particular, will give researchers using qualitative data collection a much stronger foundation in terms of the analysis and display of data.

The paper addresses the methodological commonalities linking quantitative and qualitative methodologies. It offers a three dimensional framework of research methodology that spans the assumed divide and shows that quantitative and qualitative research app

Information Systems (IS) design science literature offers a plethora of findings on various aspects, such as the general steps in design science, problem identification, objectives of solutions, and evaluation of the artefacts. However, there appears to b

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to apply a quality framework for mixed methods studies referred to as the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) framework which was developed by OCathain, Murphy & Nicholl (2008). Mixed methods research i s an emerging methodological movement and one which is gaining in popularity across business and management fields. Those who have studied the use of mixed methods research in business have noted that a common criticism of mixed methods studies reported i n academic journals is the lack of a justification or rationale for the use of mixed methods and how the study has integrated the data or findings from the study. The aim of this paper is to apply and therefore demonstrate what needs to be documented when reporting a mixed methods study. To do this we have applied the GRAMMS to a piece of field research already reported to a community based audience. The study utilised an exploratory mixed methods research design over three sequential phases and involved a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data combinations throughout the three phases. The research and its findings are now being prepared for academic publication through the process of applying the GRAMMS framework. We have documented this p rocess as a means of assisting novice mixed methodologists who may be struggling with how they might report this new and emergent approach to research. The GRAMMS framework consists of six main points which address the rationale for utilising mixed method s as well as issues relating to the methodological choices attached to data collection methods, sequencing, sampling, priority of data, points of integration and data analysis techniques. The value of the paper lies firmly in the documenting of the GRAMMS application process and therefore how to best write up community based mixed methods field research for an academic outlet and audience.