Alan Bryman’s research while affiliated with University of Leicester and other places

Julia Brannen is very much a pioneer of mixed methods research having organised one of the first conferences on the subject in June 1989. In this paper, I assess her contribution to the field of mixed methods research. I examine both her methodological writings on the principles of doing mixed methods research and some of her research which derives from the approach. Through this examination of the two strands of her mixed methods work, I tease out the distinctiveness of her approach to the field and the contribution she has made. In so doing, I address quality issues in mixed methods research, something Julia Brannen touched on in her early writings, how these might be developed, and how they relate to her work.

In spite of the increased interest in the role of situational factors as moderators of leader orientation-performance relationships, the possible role of organizational transience as a mediating variable has been ignored. The authors used Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale in a study of 39 construction site managers. It was found that these managers have a stronger task orientation than other occupational groups who are typically located in relatively permanent organizations. The degree of transience of construction sites (i.e. the length of projects) moderated the LPC-performance relationship.

A brief review of the literature notes that two styles of organizational analysis—the ‘neo-human relations’ and ‘organismic’ approaches—criticize bureaucracy and advocate the construction of organizations in which structure is less prominent. Evidence is cited which indicates that a certain degree of structure may in fact be beneficial to organizations and their members. This is in turn linked to a discussion of three social science approaches, each of which points to the possibility that structure may not be the bête noire that it is frequently taken to be in the neo-human relations and organismic orientations.

Taking its lead from a growing literature dealing with the research methods employed in management and adjacent disciplines and from the editors’ goal of encouraging a diversity of methodological positions in the pages of Leadership, this article reports the findings of a content analysis of the research methods employed in empirical articles during the journal’s first five years of publication. Particularly in comparison with a comparable study of the North American journal, The Leadership Quarterly, the content analysis findings reveal a greater tendency to employ a qualitative than a quantitative research approach and for qualitative interviewing and the qualitative analysis of documents to be predominant methods of data collection. At the same time, the findings also reveal similarities with traditional journals in terms of the methods employed, such as a relatively low take up of mixed-methods research.

The involvement of service users in the research process is becomingly increasingly required by many funders of research and is being seen as an indicator of quality in its own right. This paper provides original data from a study of social policy researchers’ views of service user involvement in research. It shows a diversity of stances which have been categorised here as belonging to Advocates, Agnostics and Adversaries of user involvement. The views of Agnostics and Adversaries pose serious challenges that need to be addressed if service user involvement is to be more widely accepted and valued by some researchers and academics in social policy.

This article reports the findings of a study in which leadership researchers were interviewed regarding their experiences and perceptions of leadership in higher education institutions. In particular, the research was concerned with the types of leadership associated with effectiveness, particularly at the Head of Department level. While several forms of leadership were identified as likely to be effective and ineffective, no single type of leadership stood out. The authors consider the implications of the findings for the development of leadership competency frameworks, noting in particular that interviewees tended to be sceptical about them because the frameworks tend to underestimate the significance of contextual factors. The authors also consider why it may be that many of the issues identified from the interview transcripts relate to well-known established themes.

Author's draft version; post-print. Final version available on Sage Journals Online

Research ethics committees (RECs) are charged with adjudicating the ethical status of research projects, and determining the conditions necessary for such projects to proceed. Both because of their position in the research process and because of the controversial nature of ethical judgements, RECs' views and decisions need to be accountable. In this paper we use techniques of discourse analysis to show how REC decision letters 'do' accountability. Using a sample of 260 letters from three datasets, we identify a range of discursive devices used in letters written by RECs. These include drawing attention to: the process behind the decision, including its collaborative nature; holding the applicants accountable, by implying that any decision made by the REC can be attributed to the performance of the applicants; referring to specialist expertise; and calling upon external authorities. These tactics 'do' accountability by showing that routines of ethical assessment have been enacted, by establishing the factuality of claims, and by managing questions of fault and blame attribution. They may, however, also risk undermining legitimacy by failing to acknowledge the inherent contestability of ethical decision making or the limited nature of the cultural authority accorded to RECs, and thus may appear as an illegitimate exercise of power.