O diálogo de abordagens para uma melhor compreensão investigativa

  • Alexandre Cappellozza

Resumen

A existência de múltiplos paradigmas de pesquisa, determinados por técnicas quantitativas e qualitativas de análise, faz com que muitos pesquisadores assumam suas preferências metodológicas de forma dicotômica. No entanto, o fato de haver diferenças nessas técnicas não impede a existência de um diálogo harmonioso entre as abordagens. Assim, o método misto, de que trata este ensaio, surge como uma possibilidade que une diferentes perspectivas de análise. No texto, apresentam-se conceitos introdutórios, aplicações e obstáculos do método. Conclui-se que a adoção de uma postura dicotômica, associada a preferências metodológicas, não se constitui como única opção. O método misto representa uma saída possível para o problema, bem como uma ferramenta de compreensão para o estudo de fenômenos comunicacionais.
|Resumen
= 78 veces | PDF
= 27 veces|

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Biografía del autor/a

Alexandre Cappellozza

Doutor em Administração de Empresas pela Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)
Docente do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação Social da Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (Umesp)

Citas

ANNANSINGH, Fenio; KERRY, Howell. 2016. Using phenomenological constructivism to discuss a mixed method approach in information systems research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Sonning Common (Reino Unido), v. 14, n. 1, p. 39-49.

BAZELEY, Pat. 2003. Teaching mixed methods. Qualitative Research Journal, v. 3, p. 117-126.

BAZELEY, Pat. 2015. Mixed methods in management research: implications for the field. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, v.13, n. 1, p. 27-35.

BERGMAN, Caroline; DELLVE, Lotta; SKAGERT, Katrin. 2016. Exploring communication processes in workplace meetings: a mixed methods study in a Swedish healthcare organization. Work, v. 54, n. 3, p. 533-541.

BRANNEN, Julia. 1992. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an overview. En: Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 3–37.

CARINS, Julia E.; RUNDLE-THIELE, Sharyn R.; FIDOCK, Justin J. T. 2016. Seeing through a glass onion: broadening and deepening formative research in social marketing through a mixed methods approach. Journal of Marketing Management, v. 32, n. 11-12, p. 1083-102.

CRESWELL, John W.; CLARK, Vicki L. P. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications..

DE LISLE, Jerome. 2011. The benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies: lessons learnt from implementing qualitatively led mixed methods research designs in Trinidad and Tobago, Caribbean Curriculum, v. 18, p. 87-120.

DESCOMBE, Martyn. 2010. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.

HALCOMB, Elizabeth J.; ANDREW, Sharon. 2009. Practical considerations for higher degree research students undertaking mixed methods projects. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, v. 3, n. 2, p. 153-162.

HERZ Marc; BRUNK, Katja. 2017. Conceptual Advances in Consumers’ Semantic and Episodic Brand Memories: A Mixed Methods Exploration. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 70-91.

HESSE-BIBER, Sharlene. 2015. The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 18, n. 5, p. 463-77.

JOHNSON, Burke; ONWUEGBUZIE, Anthony J. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigma whose time has come. Educational Researcher, v. 33, n. 7, p. 14-26.

JOHNSON, Burke; ONWUEGBUZIE, Anthony J.; TURNER, Lisa A. 2007. Toward definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, v. 1, n. 2, p. 112-133.

LEE, Jean S. K. 1992. Quantitative versus qualitative research methods: two approaches to organisation studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, v. 9, n. 1, p. 87-94.

MOLINA-AZORÍN, José F.; LÓPEZ-GAMERO, María D. 2016. Mixed methods studies in environmental management research: prevalence, purposes and designs. Business Strategy & the Environment, v. 25, n. 2, p. 134-48.

O’CATHAIN, Alicia; MURPHY, Elizabeth; NICHOLL, Jon. 2008. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, v. 13, n. 2, p. 92-98.

PARK, Jeongeun; PARK, Minhye. 2016. Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: discovery or justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-7.

POVEE, Kate; ROBERTS, Lynne D. 2015. Attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology: the best of both worlds? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 41-57.

SAUNDERS, Mark N. K.; LEWIS, Philip; THORNHILL, Adrian. 2012. Research methods for business students. 6 ed. Harlow: Pearson.

SHOCKLEY, Kristen M.; UREKSOY, Heather; RODOPMAN, Ozgun Burcu; POTEAT, Laura F.; DULLAGHAN, Timothy Ryan. 2016. Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, v. 37, n. 1, p. 128-53.

STOCKMAN, Caroline. 2015. Achieving a doctorate through mixed methods research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, v. 13, n. 2, p. 74-84.

STOEL, Dale M.; BALLOU, Brian; HEITGER, Dan L. 2017. The impact of quantitative versus qualitative risk reporting on risk professionals’ strategic and operational risk judgments. Accounting Horizons, v. 31, n. 4, p. 53-69.

TEDDLIE, Charles; TASHAKKORI, Abbas. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

TEDDLIE, Charles; JOHNSON, Burke. 2009. Methodological thought since the 20th century. En: Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 40-61.

VENKATESH, Viswanath; BROWN, Susan A.; SULLIVAN, Yulia W. 2016. Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, v. 17, n. 7, p. 435-95.

ZACHARIADIS, Markos; SCOTT, Susan; BARRETT, Michael. 2013. Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, v. 37, p. 855- 79.

ZAMBALDI, Felipe; COSTA, Francisco José; PONCHIO, Mateus Canniatti. 2014. Mensuração em Marketing: Estado atual, recomendações e desafios. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2).

Publicado
2019-05-11
Número
Sección
Artículos