Mixed Methods Utilisation in Innovation Management Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Summary

Abstract

The main purpose of this article is to explore the application of mixed methods research in the innovation management sub-discipline utilizing a systematic literature review and meta-summary analysis. Regardless of the growing number of studies in innovation management there is still a lack of research that integrates and synthesizes this body of knowledge. Our review of 93 articles from Web of Science and Scopus databases, including content analysis, presents trends and research background in innovation management that use the mixed methods approach. This study addresses the inconsistencies in the literature and presents a holistic picture of what existing empirical studies have found to date. In addition, we have developed an innovation management model based on selected theoretical lenses to enable future researchers in a given area to choose the appropriate method. The results of the meta-summary show that 50.54% articles from our dataset are related to partially mixed dominant sequential methods, 12.90% fully mixed dominant sequential methods and 11.83% fully mixed dominant concurrent methods. We identified several research gaps and provided a future research avenue in the context of innovation management. The article analyzes empirical papers, enables identification of problems in the current research and identifies trends in the area of the studied phenomenon. The results on the topic of mixed methods in innovation management and used tools have indicated that this issue is still in a premature phase but with an upward trend of research development.

Entrepreneurial Resilience: A Case Study on University Students

“…This research is a multi-case study [ 66 , 67 ] that was developed through a mixed methodology [ 68 ] using quantitative (RS-14 test) and qualitative (interviews) instruments. Bibliometric research [ 69 , 70 ] reveals that mixed research methods are widely used in entrepreneurship studies and corroborates their methodological effectiveness, irrespective of the research sequences implemented [ 71 , 72 ], as they enable: (1) a more comprehensive view of processes and results, (2) an increase in validity, (3) an improvement in the interpretation of results and (4) the generation and integration of more detailed and explanatory knowledge [ 73 , 74 , 75 ]. The research design was based on the principles of priority and sequentiality, with the qualitative method being primary (QL) and the quantitative method secondary (qt).…”

“…The participants in the quantitative phase gave their written informed consent. Once the data from the RS-14 scale had been collected, the data were emptied and the subjects were classified according to the level of resilience of the total scores obtained on the RS-14 scale into: very high (90-99), high (80)(81)(82)(83)(84)(85)(86)(87)(88)(89), normal (70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79), low (60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69) and very low (50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59). In the qualitative phase, the 25 participants with the highest scores on the RS-14 scale were selected.…”