Principles for Designing Mixed-Methods Research

Creswell and Clark (2011) suggest key principles for designing mixed-methods research. First, the level of interaction between the quantitative and qualitative methods is an important principle. There are two levels of interaction: (i) the independent level; and (ii) the interactive level. The independent level relies on separating the quantitative and qualitative research questions and the processes of data collection and data analysis. The independent approach mixes the two methods in the study’s conclusion. The interactive approach happens at different stages during the study, usually before the final interpretation of the results. Thus, one research method depends on the other, or follows the other, during the data collection and analysis processes.

Second, the researcher has to make sure that the methods used are appropriate for meeting the research objectives and research questions of the study (Morgan, 1998). The researcher needs to determine explicitly which method is more important (Greene et al., 1989; Morgan, 1998). Creswell and Clark (2011) suggest three possible options to weight mixed-methods designs: equal priority, quantitative priority and qualitative priority. Third, the timescale of the research is another key principle. Timing within the mixed-methods design can be in one of three forms: concurrent, sequential or a multiphase combination.

The current study initially focuses on the quantitative method because of the nature of the research problem, objectives and questions. This approach is desirable in examining the effect of issuing the Saudi governance code on voluntary corporate governance disclosure and financial performance. Also, the study employs the two methods separately at the independent level, initiating the quantitative method and drawing insight from the qualitative method later. In doing so, the study uses sequential timing by collecting and analysing quantitative data first.

The importance of mixed-methods design was fundamental in designing the framework for this study. Creswell and Clark (2011) point out that there are four main mixed-methods designs: (i) the convergent parallel design; (ii) the explanatory sequential design; (iii) the exploratory sequential design; and (iv) the embedded design (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Prototypical versions of the four major research designs

(a) The convergent parallel design

(b) The explanatory sequential design

(c) The exploratory sequential design

(d) The embedded design

Source: Creswell and Clark (2011, p.69).

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Interpretation Compare or relate Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Interpretation Follow up with Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Interpretatio n Builds to Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative (or Quantitative) Data Collection and Analysis

(before, during or after)

Quantitative (or Qualitative) Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative (or Quantitative) Data Collection and Analysis

(before, during, or after)

First, the convergent parallel design relies on conducting quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously (see Figure 4.1.a). In this design, the researcher processes the methods equally and keeps them independent throughout data analysis, and then mixes the results to interpret them overall. Second, the explanatory sequential design depends on two distinct interaction phases (see Figure 4.1.b). Researchers use sequential timing, starting with the quantitative design, to collect and analyse data. Then, the qualitative method follows the empirical results to interpret the initial findings; for example, if a researcher conducts interviews to gain in-depth insights from quantitative results (e.g., Haniffa and Hudaib, 2007; Johl et al., 2012).

Third, the exploratory sequential design is the opposite of the explanatory sequential design. It starts with qualitative data in the first phase (see Figure 4.1.c). Fourth, the embedded design occurs when the researcher collects and analyses quantitative and qualitative data within a traditional quantitative or qualitative design (see Figure 4.1.d). For example, the researcher may add a quantitative method to a qualitative one, such as a case study, or add a qualitative method within a quantitative one, such as an experiment.

This study employs the explanatory sequential design. The rationale for using this design (two sequential stages) is summarised as follows. First, the qualitative method (interviews) provides additional analysis to explore the effect of corporate governance reforms on actual practices (Boyd et al., 2012; Molina-Azorin, 2012). Second, it seeks to increase the robustness of the empirical findings (Mengoli et al., 2009). Third, it aims to shed light on corporate governance reforms that are not developed in the quantitative analysis (Mengoli et al., 2009).

The explanatory sequential design is considered the most straightforward mixed- methods design (Creswell and Clark, 2011). As discussed above, this design is conducted in two phases. In the current study, the first phase started with the quantitative method, through collecting and analysing quantitative data. In the second phase, some of the quantitative findings needed additional explanation (see Mengoli et al., 2009; Johl et al., 2012). Therefore, these results were used to develop the qualitative method. More precisely, the quantitative results were used to develop some of the qualitative research questions, interview process and data collection procedures.

To sum up, although the literature on mixed-methods research on corporate governance is limited, this study offers new insights into corporate governance research. Thus, the mixed-methods approach is desirable in achieving the research objectives and examining the research questions, as discussed in the following section.

Table 4.4: Association of research methods with research objective and questions Research Objectives Research Questions Methods

1- Exploring the level of compliance with the SCGC among Saudi listed firms

1- What is the level of compliance with the 2006 SCGC?

Quantitative data obtained from firms’ annual reports

2- Investigating whether the introduction of the SCGC has improved corporate governance practices

2- Has the introduction of the 2006 SCGC improving corporate governance practices?

Quantitative data obtained from firms’ annual reports

3- Attempting to explore the factors affecting voluntary corporate governance disclosure

3- What are the factors that influence the level of compliance with the 2006 SCGC?

Quantitative data obtained from firms’ annual reports 4- Estimating the link between a

number of individual corporate governance mechanisms and firm financial performance using equilibrium-variable model

4- What is the association between individual corporate governance mechanisms and firm financial performance?

Quantitative data obtained from firms’ annual reports

5- Investigating the relationship between the level of compliance with the SCGC and firm financial

performance using compliance-index model

5- What is the relationship between compliance with the 2006 SCGC and firm financial

performance?

Quantitative data obtained from firms’ annual

6-Examining the level of awareness and appreciation of good corporate governance practices among key internal and external stakeholders of firms in Saudi Arabia by employing a qualitative research design. In addition, using a qualitative research design provides a unique opportunity to further understand and explain the quantitative findings

6- What is the level of awareness and appreciation of importance of good corporate governance practices in Saudi Arabia among key stakeholders following corporate governance reforms?

Qualitative data obtained from

Semi-structured interviews

Source: Chapter One of the thesis.