Improving the Quality of Mixed Research Reports in the Field of Human Resource Development and Beyond: A Call for Rigor as an Ethical Practice

Abstract

Since 2000, only 13% of the total number of empirical research articles (n = 230) published in Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) have represented mixed research studies. Plausible explanations for why the HRDQ prevalence rate is not more than 13% include the possibility that a high proportion of mixed research studies that are being submitted to HDRQ are not of sufficient quality to be accepted. Thus, in this editorial, we provide evidence‐based guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research that are framed around Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Sutton's (2006) 13‐step model of the mixed research process. Further, we divide our reporting standards into four general areas—research formulation, research planning, research implementation, and research dissemination—that we itemize via a taxonomy that contains more than 60 elements.

The applications of neuro‐linguistic programming in organizational settings: A systematic review of psychological outcomes

“…Consequently, we recommend that NLP researchers ensure their reporting provides sufficient information and transparency (American Educational Research Association, ) as a means of improving the credibility and methodological rigor of NLP research. Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan () highlight the following five factors that contribute to methodologically robust research: (a) comprehensive, (b) systematic, (c) evaluative, (d) defensible, and (e) transparent. By satisfying these five factors, NLP research will more closely adhere to research protocols and reporting guidelines that have been advocated within the wider HRD field (Nimon, ).…”

Publishing Mixed Methods Research: Thoughts and Recommendations Concerning Rigor

“…The recommendations from Creswell and Tashakkori (), as well as the four that we have offered, add to our knowledge concerning how to develop and report publishable, rigorous mixed methods research. We see Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan's () research‐based steps and guidelines especially beneficial for formulating, planning, implementing, and disseminating the results of a mixed methods study because the steps and associated guidelines are clear, precise, and well reasoned. To clarify, when submitting mixed methods research to HRDQ , the Creswell and Tashakkori recommendations are a strong starting point; if these guidelines are followed, the article will provide initial, substantive evidence of the rigor we hope to see in HRDQ submissions.…”

“…To clarify, when submitting mixed methods research to HRDQ , the Creswell and Tashakkori recommendations are a strong starting point; if these guidelines are followed, the article will provide initial, substantive evidence of the rigor we hope to see in HRDQ submissions. In addition, because the Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan () steps and guidelines add considerable precision to Creswell and Tashakkori's general guidelines, we encourage prospective mixed methods authors to consult them closely to refine the thinking that goes behind the study, implement the study, and report findings that delineate how the research contributes to our understanding of HRD theory, research, and practice.…”

“…Indeed, the utility of mixed methods research designs is in its adaptability to meeting the nuanced, constantly emerging demands for conducting complex social science research. While mixed methods research studies seem to be on the ascendancy, there remains healthy debate about how this should be defined, its advantages and disadvantages, how to write up the results of mixed methods research, and its relative contribution to moving social science fields like HRD forward theoretically, conceptually, empirically, and practically (Creswell, ; Onwuegbuzie & Corrigan, ).…”

“…Finally, we would like to address Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan's () recommendations for handling mixed methods article manuscript length. As part of Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan's disseminate stage, where reporting must be accurate and complete to be considered rigorous, they questioned prevailing research journal page length limitations, including HRDQ , because they found page limit requirements especially restrictive to presenting mixed methods research as thoroughly as required.…”