The typology in figure 1.1 is a top-down process-oriented model. As a process-oriented typology, the workflow can be in any direction, but it normally starts at the top with ideology. All layers should be considered, but there is not an exact correlation between topics down the layers (otherwise I could have used a table matrix). Some layers may require multiple processes in the same study, such as with techniques, while an ideology is generally a specific philosophical position on the continuum for the duration of the research project. In addition to being a process-oriented workflow, the typology is a construct for communicating between researchers and stakeholders. This model has been tested in practice by a sample of doctoral students and myself.

The continuum in figure 1.1 is not linked directly in a left versus right section with any of the other levels. This is what makes it unique. For example, a researcher using the case study method could have a post-positivistic ideology, with hypotheses, and use nonparametric statistical techniques. At the other extreme, a researcher with a constructivist ideology may use a multiple case study method, along with a survey technique to collect qualitative data, and then use thematic text analysis to summarize, compare, and contrast the results in tables.

The remainder of this introductory chapter develops the scholarly rationale for the handbook, that is, the rest of this chapter demonstrates the gap in the existing body of knowledge that warrants this new contribution to the community of practice. Readers interested in exploring the details of the research design typology may skip to the next chapter.

Researchers and students need holistic research design guidelines with applied examples that accommodate multiple learning styles and sociocultural diversity (Strang, 2008b, 2009d, 2010e, 2012k, 2009g). Research practitioners need a single comprehensive resource of alternative approaches for designing research, formulating strategies, as well as selecting appropriate method and technique combination designs (Goodwin & Strang, 2012).

Stakeholders in universities, organizations, and communities of practice need a contemporary high-quality, peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary, and multicultural edited research design book to serve as a foundation to help faculty, staff, and clients navigate the complex paradigms of applied research (Creswell, 2012; Gill, Johnson & Clark, 2010; Gomes, Moshkovich & Torres, 2010; Mero-Jaffe, 2011; Silverman, 2010; Vogt, Gardner & Haeffele, 2012; Yin, 2009).

In fact, industry practitioners were in need of better research design guidance. I concluded this from many of my own studies on project managers and business analysts (Goodwin & Strang, 2012; Strang, 2003, 2005a, 2006, 2008a, 2009a, 2010a, 2010b, 2010h, 2011a, 2011b, 2011f, 2011g, 2011h, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, 2012e, 2012f, 2012g, 2012h, 2012i, 2013; Strang & Chan, 2010; Strang & Symonds, 2012).

Research methodology thought leaders acknowledge that current textbooks provide overwhelming, sometimes conflicting information due to the numerous approaches and terminology differences across disciplines (Babbie, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009, 2012; Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007; Ellingson, 2009; Freedman, 2006; Gill et al., 2010; Greene, 2008; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Hammersley, 2006; Kline, 2004; Maxwell, 2005; Neuman, 2000; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005; Richards, 2009; Yin, 2009). A modern cross-disciplinary multiple-method research design handbook was needed for the business and management disciplines, which needed to focus on design rather than on methods or techniques.

Additionally, being a supervisor of business and management doctoral students, I wanted to help them navigate the complex landscape of research design. The premise was that a fatally flawed study with an invalid or obscure design has very little chance of being published even if it is well written. On the other hand, a well-designed study that reveals innovative practices or new models but with a few grammatical errors can be easily revised to make a significant contribution to the global community of practice. Ironically, as a triangulation of this hypothesis, several of our authors read portions of this handbook and specifically commented that doctoral students, researchers and industry practitioners need a better research design guidebook.

There was a demonstrated scientific need for better research guidelines from the practitioner community of practice. I published a recursive regression technique manuscript several years ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation [PARE] (Strang, 2009f). The article critically discussed quantitative research methods and techniques with an applied example of recursive regression and cluster analysis applied to a multicultural education study (Strang, 2008b). As I understood it, that article was reprinted as a supplement in a higher education textbook by Pearson due to practitioner interest (Strang, 2010j). The PARE Internet site tracks manuscript access, so when I checked the statistics I was curious why this particular article received so much attention (more than 14,000 downloads at the time of writing). Another peer manuscript in the same issue (Randolph, 2009) garnered 13 times more interest (over 180,000 downloads at the time of writing). I believe his article was popular due to the topic of providing guidance for doctorate students to write a dissertation proposal. In fact Randolph’s manuscript was the most popular in the entire journal at least at the time of writing (which started publishing ca. 1996).

I discovered that English-second-language doctorate students preferred diagrammatic frameworks with action research examples due to their predominately visual and sequential learning styles (Strang, 2009c, 2009e). As supplemental evidence that international university students needed visual and sequenced pedagogy, I had completed numerous learning-style-related studies with diverse multicultural samples in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and North America (Strang, 2005b, 2007, 2008b, 2009b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2010g, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e, 2012j, 2012k, 2010i).

I then collected perceptional feedback data from 33 organizational and academic researchers on their research design needs using the Delphi technique through email. I asked questions to help refine the research design framework, and I included a draft of this handbook chapter. I used the feedback, observations of doctoral students, along with an extensive literature review to develop the typology as a paradigm, which informed the structure and content of this handbook.

The research design used for developing this typology was grounded in pragmatic ideology. The strategy consisted of research questions focused on the problem explained above, with a process improvement unit of analysis and a community of practice level of analysis. I used mixed methods (Delphi with critical analysis). My techniques included thematic analysis, literature reviews, and operations research general analytics (workflow process analysis).

The full research design typology model developed through the above processes is shown below in figure 1.2—this model will be fully explained in the following chapters.

One of our authors, Dr. Peter Sandiford, made an excellent point that exemplifies the significance of this handbook. “I do think the difference between this text and other broad based and often simplistic research methods textbooks is that they [latter] are authored by a smaller number of academics” (Sandiford, 2014, June 2, personal communication). This handbook shares the collective work of over 40 practitioner-scholars or subject-matter experts, from their respective discipline, located in different regions or countries (socialized in distinct cultures).

We have provided high-quality signposts as references from recognized thought leaders cited ...