A Design Approach to Studying CEOs

  • Stephen C. Clark
  • Theodora Valvi
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)


The objective of this chapter is to present the reader with a design approach or framework to studying chief executive officers (CEOs) within the context of knowledge management. More specifically the authors aim to present a robust design in an effort to research and address how and why CEOs use wireless mobile communication devices and what is their perceived usefulness. The sequential mix method design was the direct result of a 2009 qualitative pilot study which was conducted by the authors. In order to approach the design in a robust, collaborative manner, triangulation was a necessity; hence, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Case studies became a dominant theme while leveraging qualitative in-depth interviews within the context of the case.


  1. Anderson, L., Bond, D., & Cohen, R. (1995). Experience based learning: Contemporary issues. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (2nd ed., pp. 225–239). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Barclay, J. (1996). Learning from experience with learning logs. The Journal of Management Development, 15(6), 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implications for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt-on-Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. New York: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: A tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 3–37). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  9. Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruner, J. (1987). Life as narrative. Social Research, 54(1), 11–32.Google Scholar
  13. Bryman, A. E. (2003). Triangulation. Retrieved from
  14. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carayannis, E. G., & Clark, S. C. (2011). Do smartphones make for smarter business? The smartphone CEO study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(2), 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carayannis, E. G., Clark, S. C., & Valvi, D. E. (2013). Smartphone affordance: Achieving better business through innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(4), 444–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung, M., & Smith, W. (2008). The dual technique within case study approaches to cross-cultural management research in China. Presented at Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program.Google Scholar
  19. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Alejandro, M. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 236–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004, April). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. Proceedings of CHI 2004, ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna.Google Scholar
  25. Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Info Systems Journal, 8, 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised ed.). Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  28. Elliott, H. (1997). The use of diaries in sociological research on health experience. Sociological Research Online, 2(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ertzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 457–488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  31. Friesner, T., & Hart, M. (2005a, April 21–22). Learning log analysis: Analysis data that record reflection, experience and learning. Paper delivered to 4th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies. Universite’ Paris-DauphineGoogle Scholar
  32. Friesner, T., & Hart, M. (2005b). Learning logs: Assessment or research method. The Electronic Journal of Research Methodology, 3(2), 117–122.Google Scholar
  33. Gerring, J. (2004). What is case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heffernan, C. (2010). Focus groups. Retrieved from
  39. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. In L. M. English & M. A. Gillen (Eds.), Promoting journal writing in adult education, New directions for adult and continuing education (Vol. 90, pp. 19–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Holly, M. L. (1989). Reflective writing and the spirit of inquiry. Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoover, L. A. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teachers’ thought processes. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577–594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Janesick, V. J. (1999). Journal writing as a qualitative research technique: History issues, and reflections. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jauch, L. R., Osborn, R. N., & Martin, T. N. (1980). Structured content analysis of cases: A complementary method for organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 5, 517–525.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones, F., & Fletcher, B. (1996). Taking work home: A study of daily fluctuations in work stressors, effects on moods and impacts on marital partners. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Qualitative Research Methods Overview. Family Heath International. FIA; USAID: North Carolina.Google Scholar
  56. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  57. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual understanding. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  58. Mears, C. L. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research: The gateway approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  60. Milena, Z. R., Dainora, G., & Alin, S. (2008). Qualitative research methods: A comparison between focus group and in-depth interview. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 4(1), 1279–1283.Google Scholar
  61. Milliken, J. (2001). Qualitative research and marketing management. Management Decision, 39(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morse, J. M. (2005). Beyond the clinical trial: Expanding criteria for evidence [editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nachmais, C. F., & Nachmais, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences (7th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G. M. P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 11. Retrieved from
  66. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roulston, K., deMarrais, K., & Lewis, J. B. (2003). Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4), 643–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality & Quantity, 38, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  74. Shakir, M. (2002). The selection of case studies: Strategies and their applications to IS implementation cases studies. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 191–198.Google Scholar
  75. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  76. Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tverksy, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. Research methods. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Verschuren, P. J. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. Social Science Methodology, 6(2), 121–139.Google Scholar
  80. Vissak, T. (2010). Recommendations for using the case study method in international business research. The Qualitative Report, 15(2), 370–388.Google Scholar
  81. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5, 4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods of questions in information and library science (pp. 308–319). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Clark
    • 1
  • Theodora Valvi
    • 2
  1. 1.California State University, SacramentoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Independent ResearcherAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations