Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: application of “mixed” research approach

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractBuilt environment research consists of cognitive and affective, as well as behavioural, components. Existing built environment research utilises either strong qualitative or, more often, strong quantitative methodologies. Aims to discuss some of the philosophical issues that would be considered when undertaking academic research into the built environment. Considers the available research options or paradigms and suggests ways in which a researcher can make an informed and sensible decision as to how to proceed. The main dimensions of the debate about the relative characteristics and merits of quantitative and qualitative methodology are outlined, developing the argument that the use of a single methodology often fails to explore all of these components. The use of a mixed methods approach is suggested to counteract this weakness and to enhance research into the built environment. Electronic accessThe research register for this journal is available at

Information and Knowledge Leakage in Supply Chain

“…A survey shows there is a trend to increase internet outsourcing (Amaratunga et al, 2002), thus affirming the claim made by Faisal et al (2007). Nevertheless, there are several risks associated with IT outsourcing e.g., information security and loss of control.…”

Using Contextual Constructs Model to Frame Doctoral Research Methodology

“…This concept is embraced philosophically by pluralism and methodologically by triangulation. Essentially, triangulation is the act of combining various methodologies from both positivist and interpretivist epistemologies (Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar & Newton, 2002;Modell, 2005) and is advocated by researchers who believe that deductive and inductive research are not necessarily opposed but, rather, can be used to focus on different dimensions of the same phenomenon (Das, 1983;Mathison, 1998;Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Using this frame of reference, Lee (1991) suggests that positivist and interpretivist approaches are neither opposed nor irreconcilable.…”

“…An interpretivist approach, by comparison, begins with the researcher adopting a methodology designed to more closely observe and analyse the phenomena and develop possible explanations regarding its characteristics. Epistemological pluralism embraces both quantitative/deductive and qualitative/inductive research approaches by supposing that both approaches have degrees of the other inherent within them (Amaratunga et al, 2002).…”

Rural Entrepreneurship in African Countries: A Synthesis of Related Literature

“…In their guidelines on research choices, McNeill and Chapman (2005) take the position that there are no perfect solutions to any research approach, only a series of compromises. Because there are various research choices, the researcher must justify the approach chosen since each technique is associated with distinctive means of collecting and analysing data and specific advantages and disadvantages (Amaratunga et al 2002, Yin 1994. Laughlin (1995) provided three key benchmarks for choosing a research methodology.…”