Mixed methods: a reflection of its adoption in environmental reporting

Abstract

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the adoption of mixed methods in voluntary environmental reporting research. Design/methodology/approach – The costs and benefits of mixed methods are outlined, and the use of mixed methods in prior voluntary environmental reporting research is discussed. A reflection of the author's experience and the practical issues of adopting a QUAN→qual sequential mixed methods research design to examine voluntary environmental reporting practices and processes are presented. Findings – Adopting mixed methods research involves costs to the researcher and the research, including the extra time and energy needed to collect, analyse, interpret, integrate and write up the data, and the need to consider potential biases and trade‐offs affecting design choices. However, these costs are outweighed by the opportunity mixed methods research presents to develop greater research skills and provide a fuller and richer picture of voluntary environmental reporting. Research limitations/implications – The specific costs and benefits of adopting mixed methods research discussed in this paper are primarily limited to research designs involving content analysis and interviews due to the use of these research methods in the focal study and in most prior mixed methods research examining voluntary environmental reporting. Originality/value – This paper is one of few to reflect on the adoption of mixed methods research to examine voluntary environmental reporting. It highlights to other researchers the research design considerations that should be made, the costs involved (both to the research and the researcher), and the improved contribution to knowledge achievable when adopting mixed methods research over alternative approaches.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.