Abstract
The objectives of this chapter are as follows:
- CO1: To provide a historical account of the utility of MMR across accounting, business,
economics, finance, and management disciplines and associated sub-disciplines.
- CO2: Compare the trends in published MMR across the broad disciplines of accounting, business, economics, finance, and management and compare these with other broad-based discipline areas (e.g., health and medicine; social sciences and psychology).
We aim to bring together the key extant accounts of the development of MMR as a third methodological movement, to present a timeline of what we synthesize to be some of the key publications and associated developments that signpost the evolution of MMR. This includes the establishment of key academic professional bodies and associated research-related activities, or what Timans et al. (2019) refer to as indicators of the “institutionalization” of MMR within the field of the social sciences. One way to establish this institutionalization is through forging a common disciplinary identity by providing a narrative about its history. This involves the identification of precursors and pioneers as well as an interpretation of the process that gave rise to a distinctive set of ideas and practices (Timans et al., 2019, p. 197). This chapter will give an overview these historic accounts, which will illuminate the multiple disciplinary origins of the MMR movement
- CO1: To provide a historical account of the utility of MMR across accounting, business,
economics, finance, and management disciplines and associated sub-disciplines.
- CO2: Compare the trends in published MMR across the broad disciplines of accounting, business, economics, finance, and management and compare these with other broad-based discipline areas (e.g., health and medicine; social sciences and psychology).
We aim to bring together the key extant accounts of the development of MMR as a third methodological movement, to present a timeline of what we synthesize to be some of the key publications and associated developments that signpost the evolution of MMR. This includes the establishment of key academic professional bodies and associated research-related activities, or what Timans et al. (2019) refer to as indicators of the “institutionalization” of MMR within the field of the social sciences. One way to establish this institutionalization is through forging a common disciplinary identity by providing a narrative about its history. This involves the identification of precursors and pioneers as well as an interpretation of the process that gave rise to a distinctive set of ideas and practices (Timans et al., 2019, p. 197). This chapter will give an overview these historic accounts, which will illuminate the multiple disciplinary origins of the MMR movement
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Handbook of Mixed Methods Research in Business and Management |
| Editors | Roslyn Cameron, Xanthe Golenko |
| Publisher | Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. |
| Pages | 11-26 |
| Publication status | Published - 2023 |
