IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/qrampp/v8y2011i1p39-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Threats to validity and reliability in mixed methods accounting research

Author

Listed:
  • Eeva‐Mari Ihantola
  • Lili‐Anne Kihn

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the threats to quality in mixed methods accounting research, wherein quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in data collection, analysis and interpretation. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is framed according to three perspectives. The authors first synthesize the threats to validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative parts of mixed methods research using the quality standards of each; they then introduce an integrative framework of mixed methods research quality by Teddlie and Tashakkori. Thereafter, they address the specific threats to quality that come to the fore when inferences from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study are combined to form meta‐inferences using a legitimation framework by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson. Findings - The authors' analysis not only indicates a wide range of threats to the validity and reliability of mixed methods research in a range of categories, but also clarifies how the three perspectives described in this paper are linked and supplement each other. Research limitations/implications - Methodological research published in English over the last decade is emphasized to create an approach to assess mixed methods accounting research. The frameworks analyzed could still be studied in greater detail. Additional perspectives on the validity and reliability of mixed methods research could also be studied and developed. Practical implications - This paper furthers our understanding of such new developments in methodological research, which may be of great importance to those conducting or evaluating empirical research. Originality/value - Based on a comprehensive synthesis, this paper presents and analyzes theoretical frameworks potentially useful for scholars, students and practitioners. It focuses on both traditional and novel areas of validity and reliability in mixed methods research.

Suggested Citation

  • Eeva‐Mari Ihantola & Lili‐Anne Kihn, 2011. "Threats to validity and reliability in mixed methods accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(1), pages 39-58, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:39-58
    DOI: 10.1108/11766091111124694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/11766091111124694/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/11766091111124694/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/11766091111124694?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabelle Huault & V. Perret & S. Charreire-Petit, 2007. "Management," Post-Print halshs-00337676, HAL.
    2. Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
    3. Norman Blaikie, 1991. "A critique of the use of triangulation in social research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 115-136, May.
    4. Anthony Onwuegbuzie & Nancy Leech, 2007. "Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 233-249, April.
    5. Lukka, Kari & Modell, Sven, 2010. "Validation in interpretive management accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 462-477, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adzor Ibiamke & Clement C. M. Ajekwe, 2017. "On Ensuring Rigour in Accounting Research," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 7(3), pages 157-170, July.
    2. Sergi Fàbregues & José F. Molina-Azorín, 2017. "Addressing quality in mixed methods research: a review and recommendations for a future agenda," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2847-2863, November.
    3. MOHAJAN, Haradhan Kumar, 2017. "Two Criteria For Good Measurements In Research: Validity And Reliability," Annals of Spiru Haret University, Economic Series, Universitatea Spiru Haret, vol. 17(4), pages 59-82.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walid Cheffi, 2008. "Etude Des Roles De La Comptabilite De Gestion Pour Les Managers : Le Cas D'Un Grand Groupe Automobile," Post-Print halshs-00522472, HAL.
    2. Goretzki, Lukas & Messner, Martin, 2019. "Backstage and frontstage interactions in management accountants' identity work," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-20.
    3. Jørgensen, Brian & Messner, Martin, 2010. "Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 184-204, February.
    4. Ghio, Alessandro & Verona, Roberto, 2022. "Unfolding institutional plurality in hybrid organizations through practices: The case of a cooperative bank," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(4).
    5. Lukka, Kari & Modell, Sven, 2010. "Validation in interpretive management accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 462-477, May.
    6. Aziza Laguecir & Anja Kern & Cécile Kharoubi, 2020. "Management accounting systems in institutional complexity: Hysteresis and boundaries of practices in social housing," Post-Print hal-03134361, HAL.
    7. Ivo De Loo & Alan Lowe, 2011. "Mixed methods research: don't – “just do it”," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 8(1), pages 22-38, April.
    8. Norio Sawabe, 2015. "Value-driven responsibility accounting - dynamic tensions generated by competing values embedded in the management control system," Discussion papers e-14-020, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    9. Norio Sawabe & Kohji Yoshikawa & Kosuma Shinohara, 2010. "Accounting and Emotion:A Case Study of a Financial Institution," Discussion papers e-09-008, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    10. Lukas Goretzki, 2013. "Management accounting and the construction of the legitimate manager," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 319-344, February.
    11. Meidell, Anita & Kaarbøe, Katarina, 2017. "How the enterprise risk management function influences decision-making in the organization – A field study of a large, global oil and gas company," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 39-55.
    12. Chenhall, Robert H. & Hall, Matthew & Smith, David, 2013. "Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51294, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Goretzki, Lukas & Reuter, Marek & Sandberg, Joanna & Thulin, Gabriella, 2022. "Making sense of employee satisfaction measurement – A technological frames of reference perspective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    14. Martin R. W. Hiebl & Barbara Mayrleitner, 2019. "Professionalization of management accounting in family firms: the impact of family members," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 1037-1068, November.
    15. Kornberger, Martin & Carter, Chris & Ross-Smith, Anne, 2010. "Changing gender domination in a Big Four accounting firm: Flexibility, performance and client service in practice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 775-791, November.
    16. Parker, Lee D., 2012. "Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 54-70.
    17. Covaleski, Mark A. & Dirsmith, Mark W. & Weiss, Jane M., 2013. "The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 333-364.
    18. Muhammad Kaleem Zahir-ul-Hassan & Reinald A. Minnaar & Ed Vosselman, 2016. "Governance and control as mediating instruments in an inter-firm relationship: towards collaboration or transactions?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 365-389, June.
    19. O’Sullivan, Niamh & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2015. "The structuration of issue-based fields: Social accountability, social movements and the Equator Principles issue-based field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 33-55.
    20. Kelum Jayasinghe & Dennis Thomas, 2009. "The preservation of indigenous accounting systems in a subaltern community," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(3), pages 351-378, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accounting research; Research methods;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:39-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.