discuss the importance of adhering to a convention such as APA format when writing and researching. What do you like about it

Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Journal of Management & Organization (2011) 17: 245–267.

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 245

Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the

‘fi rst generation’

ROSLYN CAMERON School of Commerce and Management, Central Queensland University, Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia

A B S T R A C T Mixed methods is a youthful but increasingly robust methodological movement characterised by: a growing body of trans-disciplinary literature; prominent research methodologists/authorities; the emergence of mixed method specifi c journals, research texts, and courses; a growth in popularity amongst research funding bodies. Mixed methods is being utilised and reported within business and management fi elds, despite the quantitative traditions attached to certain business and manage- ment disciplines. This paper has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design to undertake a retrospective content analysis of refereed papers (n = 281) from the 21st Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference 2007. The aim of the study is to provide a methodological map of the management research reported at the conference, and in par- ticular the use, quality and acceptance level of mixed methods research within business and manage- ment fi elds. Implications for further research are discussed along with a call to the ‘fi rst generation’ of business and management mixed method researchers to instigate mixed methods research training and capacity building within their respective business schools, relevant academies and associated professional forums and publications.

Keywords: mixed methods, research training, management research, research design, data integration, multistrand conversion mixed model

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports fi ndings from a content analysis of refereed conference papers from the annual ANZAM conference held in Sydney, 2007. ANZAM was founded in 1985 to advance management education, scholarship, research, and practice in Australia and New Zealand. The Academy is the primary professional body for management educators, researchers, and prac- titioners in Australia and New Zealand, with approximately 600 individual members and 50 institutional members (representing mostly

Australian and New Zealand universities) as well as members from other countries. The main objective of ANZAM is: • To facilitate the consideration and dissemina-

tion of management knowledge; • To provide a range of services for the ongoing

development of members; • To provide an authoritative voice to advance

the interests of the management discipline; and

• To promote greater collaboration between stakeholders. (www.anzam.org)

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011246

analysis. This is followed by a qualitative analysis of the mixed methods papers using a set of mixed method quality criteria.

It is hoped that the paper itself acts as an exem- plar for the reporting of a mixed methods study and has aimed to achieve this through following the good reporting of a mixed methods study (GRAMMS) framework for quality reporting of mixed methods studies developed by O’Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholl (2008). The GRAMMS framework was developed by the authors to assist and encourage quality reporting of mixed meth- ods research in the fi eld of health and related sci- ences. This six-item guidance framework includes prompts about the ‘success of the study, the mixed methods design, the individual qualitative and quantitative components, the integration between

methods and the inferences drawn from com- pleted studies’ (O’Cathain et al., 2008, p. 92).

Creswell, Tashakkori, Jensen, and Shapley (2003, p. 629) acknowledge the many dilemmas and challenges faced by what they refer to as the ‘fi rst generation’ of faculty that master and teach mixed methods research. The paper concludes by proposing further research in this area and by discussing the implications for building mixed methods research capacity in business and man- agement fi elds, the implications of new technol- ogy and mixed methods and the need to educate monomethod researchers on the growing theo- retical and methodological developments within mixed methods research.

MIXED METHODS AS A THIRD METHODOLOGICAL MOVEMENT Mixed method research is a growing area of methodological choice for many academics and researchers from across a variety of discipline areas. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) offer the following defi nition of mixed methods: ‘Mixed methods research is formally defi ned here as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study’. Creswell and Plano

The papers at ANZAM are classifi ed across a wide variety of business and management dis- ciplines (16 streams) and contain many inter- national submissions. Other studies that have investigated the use of mixed methods in busi- ness and management disciplines have tended to do this with a single discipline focus and have used academic discipline-based journals as the data sources. This study is unique in this respect as it has analysed conference papers from within a multidisciplinary forum.

The paper will briefl y outline the rise of mixed methods as a third methodological movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. x) and discuss studies of the use of mixed methods across busi- ness and management disciplines before intro- ducing the concept of acceptance levels of mixed methods within research fi elds. The importance of quality frameworks in reporting mixed meth- ods studies is explained before detailing the aims, research design, methodology, and fi ndings of the research study being reported. The study has taken an exploratory approach aimed at provid- ing a methodological map of recent business and management research as represented by papers from the 2007 ANZAM conference. The over- arching research question guiding this research is: What evidence exists to gauge the use, quality and acceptance levels of mixed methods research within management based research? The research has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design with an overarching research ques- tion and separate quantitative and qualitative sub- questions. The content analysis provides a broad based scan of methodological use of the 2007 ANZAM conference papers using the following paper categories: conceptual; qualitative; quanti- tative; and mixed methods. The study reviewed the research methods employed in papers from each of the 16 conference themes and concluded that the number of single method studies (86% of empirical studies) exceeded those utilising mixed methods (14% of empirical studies). The study then classifi ed those papers identifi ed as mixed methods in terms of data collection and

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 247

p. x). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 14) state very clearly that mixed methods research is a ‘research paradigm whose time has come’. Mingers (2003) refers to the ceasefi re of the para- digm wars being announced while Cameron and Miller (2007) use the metaphor of the phoenix to illustrate the emergence of mixed methods as the third methodological movement, arising from the ashes of the paradigm wars.

Several authorities have been emerging as mixed methodologist researchers and theorists and an interest in mixed methods has seen the recent emergence of several publications includ- ing academic journals, chapters within research texts (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006) and research texts themselves that are dedicated to mixed methods. The most comprehensive pub- lication of mixed methods to date has been the edited Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). A second edition of the Handbook is due for publication in 2010. In January 2007 the fi rst issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research was published and this was followed by the fi rst issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches in October 2007. A very practical guide to the design and conduct of mixed methods research was published in the same year (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) fol- lowed by other texts focused solely on mixed methods (Bergman, 2008; Greene, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The movement has gained momentum in the last 5 years to the point where there are now discipline specifi c research texts. Creswell (2009, p. 106) in a recent editorial for the Journal of Mixed Methods noted: ‘Generic books about mixed methods will no longer be needed; instead, we will have discipline-based books, such as the recently issued book on mixed methods for nursing and the health sciences (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009)’.

Mixed methods research as a third method- ological movement is developing and evolving with recent studies of the use of mixed methods providing empirical evidence of the extent of

Clark (2007, p. 5) defi ne mixed methods as follows:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quanti- tative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantita- tive and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems that either approach alone.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) have also mapped a brief history of mixed methods research and its evolution to date and have posited four, often overlapping, time periods in the evolution of mixed methods. These four time periods are the Formative period (1950s–1980s); Paradigm debate period (1970s–late 1990s); Procedural development period (late 1980s–2000); and the Advocacy as a separate design period (2000+). It is interesting to note the language that has been expressed around this evolution of mixed meth- ods. For example Buchanan and Bryman (2007, p. 486) in reference to organisational research, conclude that:

The paradigm wars of the 1980s have thus turned to paradigm soup, and organisational research today refl ects the paradigm diver- sity of the social sciences in general. It is not surprising that this epistemological eclecti- cism has involved the development of novel terminology; innovative research methods; non traditional forms of evidence; and fresh approaches to conceptualization, analysis, and theory building.

Based on a historical analysis Tashakkori and Teddlie refer to mixed methods as the ‘third methodological movement’ (2003, p. x). They see the evolution of mixed methods as a ‘separate type of methodology that is clearly distinct from quantitative and qualitative approaches (2003,

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011248

psychology, political science) and lastly, the research involves different levels of analysis (indi- vidual, dyad, team/group, organisational units, organisations).

A major premise behind the use of mixed methods is that a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches provides added perspec- tives and a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem or phenomenon being stud- ied than either approach alone could provide. The strengths and weaknesses of either approach can be offset against the other and encourages collabora- tive and trans-disciplinary research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 9). Greene et al. (1989) defi ned fi ve major purposes for utilising mixed methods in research studies: • Development: to inform the development of

one method from another, using the methods sequentially for the purposes of increasing con- struct validity;

• Complementing: to explore areas of overlap and uniqueness within a phenomenon through the use of different methods for the purposes of enhancing, elaborating, illustrating or clarifying results, and to aid in the description or applica- tion of research fi ndings;

• Triangulation: to cross-check and corroborate results by the use of different types of data;

• Expansion: to increase the range or scope of inquiry by appropriately matching the method- ology to various components of the question of interest; and

• Initiation: to specifi cally discover inconsisten- cies and new perspectives that may be uncov- ered as a result of employing both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Many of the characteristics and contexts of business and management research contribute to the impetus and utilisation of mixed methods. These include: multiple theoretical foundations; the frequent trans-disciplinary nature of man- agement and organisational research; the scope, range and complexity of business and manage- ment research; and the need to ensure validity,

utilisation of mixed methods in contemporary research. Systematic reviews of the use of mixed methods have been conducted in the fi elds of: counselling (Hanson, Creswell, Clark, Petska, & Creswell., 2005); psychology (Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008); health and nursing research (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007); medical education research (Schifferdecker, 2007); social and human sciences (Bryman, 2008; Plano Clark, 2005); and evaluation research (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). In the fi eld of management research, Mingers (1997) and Mingers and Gill (1997) have been strong advocates for multimethodology or pluralism. The next section of the paper will discuss the use of mixed methods in management fi elds in detail. Creswell and Plano Clark have concluded that ‘today, we see cross-cultural international interest, interdisciplinary interest, publication possibili- ties, and public and private funding opportuni- ties for mixed methods research’ (2007, p. 18). An aim of this paper is to gauge the use, quality, and acceptance of mixed methods research within the management research community, as represented by ANZAM.

STUDIES INVESTIGATING THE USE OF MIXED METHODS IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Management is a diverse fi eld with many disci- plines represented which draw upon an array of theoretical foundations and frameworks. This range and diversity is refl ected in a similar diver- sity of research approaches employed within management research. Currall and Towler (2003) document three major advantages to the diversity of qualitative and quantitative methods utilised in management and organisational research. The fi rst advantage being that the methodological vari- ety mirrors the variety of research questions posed by management and organisational researchers. Secondly, the heterogeneity of research methods is needed because of the number of theoretical paradigms that management and organisational research draws from (i.e., sociology, economics,

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 249

(genuinely multimethod) were 13%. This group represented 1.1% of all the articles within the larger sample (n = 1195) (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 66). The authors conclude that the continued dominance of quantitative research in marketing is linked to historical, social, and practical arguments. Some of these historical and social arguments are explained in more detail in the next section of the paper that looks at disci- pline acceptance levels of mixed methods.

Bazeley (2008, p. 135) reviewed 16 research articles in Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ: June 2005–March 2006) and 19 from the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ: February and April, 2006). Of these 35 articles, six utilised a pure qualitative approach. Eight of the 35 used mixed methods (although the most common approach in these was to quantify qualitative data for sta- tistical analysis with little or no further reference to the qualitative material). In others, qualita- tive interview data was gathered for the purpose of designing or to supplementing quantitative measures and was only referred to minimally, if at all, in elaborating the results or discussion of the statistical analyses. Bazeley (2008) concluded that this confi rmed the continuing predominance of quantitatively based, statistical, hypothesis testing approaches in management studies.

Three similar pieces of research have directly informed the study reported in this paper. All three studies aim to discover the extent and cur- rent role mixed methods plays in the business/ management fi elds through a process of system- atic review of empirical studies. The fi rst is a study undertaken by Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, and Pérez- Prado (2003) who reviewed 16 online articles from 1999 to 2001 in the Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal. The second study was conducted by Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) and involved the review of articles from four major journals in interna- tional business between 2000 and 2003. The third study involved a methodological scan of the Strategic Management Journal from 1997 to 2006 by Molina-Azorin (2009).

credibility, transferability, and generalisability. A major advantage behind the use of mixed methods is that mixed methods can provide more insight and a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied than a single monomethod. ‘Mixed methods are typically employed in applied set- tings where it is necessary to draw on multiple data sources to understand complex phenomena, and where there is little opportunity for experi- mentation’ (Bazeley, 2008, p. 135).

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) in their study on the use of mixed methods in international business research concluded there is clear value-added benefi ts when compared to traditional mono method approaches. They also found that ‘it was not only the combination of data and analysis but also the timing of the com- bination that varied, and this again created differ- ent types of value-added’ (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela, 2006, p. 452).

There is a growing body of research that is investigating the incidence and usage of mixed methods in management research. Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, and Pérez-Prado (2002) explored how mixed methods was approached in the fi elds of human resource development (HRD) and adult education and Mingers (2003) reviewed the information systems literature in reference to the use of multimethod research. Hanson and Grimmer (2005) undertook a content analysis of 1195 journal articles from three prominent mar- keting journals from 1993 to 2002. The purpose of this study was to determine the mix of quali- tative and quantitative research published in the fi eld of marketing. The authors identifi ed 105 mixed quantitative/qualitative articles and coded these further to determine the primary orienta- tion of the research as either: quantitative; quali- tative; or triangulated. They found 74% of these articles were primarily quantitative (qualitative data not reported but used in design of the quan- titative component). The articles coded as pri- marily qualitative represented 12% (quantitative data represented in a secondary manner) of the articles and those articles coded as triangulated

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011250

empirical studies utilised a mixed method. These 68 studies were then further categorised/coded according to a classifi cation tool inspired by mixed methods typologies designed by Creswell (2003) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998). The classifi cation tool developed is a 2 × 2 matrix (see Figure 2). Both the classifi cations and codes used by the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) study have been replicated in the study being reported in this paper and are detailed in the methodology section. The authors focused on the extent of mixed methods in international business (IB) research and the potential of mixed methods to add value. The authors describe the fi eld of international business as a ‘multi-fac- eted area of research, crossing national, cultural, organisational and personal boundaries, and inspiring complicated research questions’ (2006, p. 440). They argue that narrow methodological approaches would reveal only a small piece of the reality within this complex fi eld.

The third study by Molina-Azorin (2009) stud- ied the use of mixed methods in strategy research as represented in articles from all issues of the Strategic Management Journal from 1984 to 2006. A total of 676 journal articles were reviewed and of these 570 (84%) were categorised as empiri- cal. Of these empirical articles the majority were quantitative (77%; n = 441), 17% (n = 99) of arti- cles were mixed methods and 5% (n = 30) were qualitative. The majority of mixed methods arti- cles were dominated by the quantitative aspect of the research with the qualitative methods playing a supportive role (Molina-Azorin, 2009, p. 51). Nonetheless, this studied illustrates that there is a level of usage and acceptance of mixed methods within the strategic management fi eld.

These studies indicate that mixed methods is being used and reported within certain manage- ment fi elds. Business and management research is a sphere of research activity that has a multidisci- plinary and pragmatically applied focus and must cater to a diverse consumer base. Bazeley (2008) makes the assertion that business and management research needs to meet the needs of its audiences:

The Rocco et al. (2003) study reviewed 16 online articles from 1999 to 2001 in the Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal. The authors screened the abstracts, methods, and fi ndings sections of the articles and found that no authors explicitly stated the use of mixed methods in the abstracts. However, three articles were identifi ed as using mixed methods through closer examination of the methods sec- tion of the articles. Nonetheless these authors ‘did not explicitly state their commitment to using mixed methods’ (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 24) but took a pragmatic approach justifying the use as an issue of suitability their particular study. Rocco et al. (2003) explore these three studies in greater depth and concluded that ‘little explicit discussion of research design decision-making or theoretical support for mixing design compo- nents was observed in the examples used’ (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 27). This is supported by previous research undertaken by the authors in the fi eld of human resource development and adult education (Rocco et al., 2002). The authors call for research courses that specifi cally deal with instruction on how to mix qualitative and quantitative methods in the stages of research design. They also call for appropriate journals to encourage the inclusion of such discussions in research (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 27).

The purpose of the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) study was to investigate the implementation and impact of mixed meth- ods research in IB research. As a consequence the authors decide to focus on articles published in four major IB journals between 2000 and 2003: (1) International Business Review, (2) Journal of International Business Studies, (3) Journal of World Business, (4) Management International Review. The articles were classifi ed under four main cat- egories: conceptual articles; qualitative studies; quantitative studies; and mixed method studies. The researchers screened 484 articles and found 394 articles contained empirical research designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method). The study found that 68 (17%) of the 394

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 251

comparison or integration of qualitative and quantitative data; and

3. the diffi culties encountered in publishing mixed methods studies, given word limits and the amount of data such studies present.

Despite these challenges the authors go on to conclude that mixed methods is worthy of greater utility and recognition within their specifi c fi eld of medical education research. This, they argue, is due to the superior ability of mixed methods to increase integrity and applicability of fi ndings of new and complex research issues (Schifferdecker & Reed, 2009, p. 637).

Studies that utilise mixed methods approaches may face problems in being published due to domi- nant paradigmatic views expressed within discipline fi elds (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki & Nummela, 2006; Welch & Welch, 2004). Some journals explicitly exclude certain methodological approaches, whereas others imply methodological preferences. In a lot of respects decisions about where to submit literature for publication is determined by the level of accep- tance within disciplines and specifi c paradigmatic preferences of the publications themselves.

Hanson and Grimmer (2005) in their analysis of methods employed in marketing journals con- cluded that the continued dominance of quanti- tative research in marketing is linked to historical, social, and practical arguments. Historically, aca- demic marketing fi nds its philosophical roots in economics and the positivist traditions of infl uen- tial centres (German Historical School of econom- ics and the Harvard University Graduate School of Business) and along with economics and psychol- ogy are ‘quantitative and sternly positivist in ori- entation’ (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 66). The social arguments referred to by the authors relate to the legitimation and socialisation of academic mar- keters to the Kuhnian philosophy of paradigm:

In such a community, status and promotion are based on practicing, or at least understand- ing, the dominant techniques. There is also the issue of disciplinary status within the academic

funding bodies; industry partners; thesis examin- ers; journal editors; and readers (Bazeley, 2008). The landscape of research resourcing and activity has undergone recent changes that have created more opportunities for mixed methods research. Brannen (2009, p. 9) identifi es a number of trends that have given impetus to mixed methods over the last two decades. These include: a growth in research that serves strategic goals as opposed to theory driven research; the adoption of external market mechanism for commissioning research with a corresponding emphasis on effi ciency and competence in delivering research with direct relevance to the funders; research questions and problems to complex policy issues are not typi- cally elegant, linear and theoretically driven; the slow and steady rise and acceptance of qualita- tive research; the increasingly defi ned skills-based economy which relies on continual training and capacity building also applies to research train- ing and capacity building and lastly; those that research and work in fi elds that draw from a range of theoretical perspectives are more likely to pro- mote the use of mixed methods than those in more strongly bounded disciplines.

DISCIPLINE ACCEPTANCE LEVELS IN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH Employing a mixed methods approach is not without its challenges and has been noted by Molina-Azorin (2009) and other contributors to the Special Issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches on ‘Mixed Methods for Novice Researchers’ (2009). Schifferdecker and Reed (2009, p. 641) identifi ed three gen- eral challenges for conducting mixed methods research:

1. the availability of resources with which to conduct the research, including time, money and personnel with strengths in both qualitative and quantitative methods;

2. access to tools and programmes with which to store and arrange data to promote

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011252

quantitative methods used in integrated studies so that readers can adequately evaluate, appreciate, replicate, and stimulate innovative approaches to combined studies.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, pp. 178–180) provide a checklist for evaluating the level of acceptance of mixed methods research within dis- ciplines. They categorise three types of acceptance levels: minimal; moderate; and major. Minimal discipline acceptance is categorised by: awareness of qualitative research within the discipline; publi- cation of mixed method studies in discipline-based journals; graduate students using mixed methods in dissertation research; discussion in journals about the need for mixed methods; and mixed methods discussed at professional conferences. Major acceptance is characterised by: special issues of a journal on the use of mixed methods within the discipline; publication of mixed methods stud- ies in top discipline-based journals; and courses on mixed methods research as part of graduate research training programmes. These three accep- tance levels could be considered as a type of con- tinuum for gauging acceptance levels for specifi c disciplines. An example of major acceptance levels can be found in the discipline fi elds of evaluation, health and nursing, psychology, family medicine, education and organisational studies. These dis- ciplines fi elds discuss and utilise mixed methods extensively. Journals from the fi elds of family med- icine, counselling psychology and school based education have published special issues on qualita- tive and mixed methods. The International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches is publishing spe- cial issues on mixed methods in specifi c discipline fi elds (health sciences, education and business) in 2011. One of the aims of this paper is to gauge the acceptance levels of mixed methods in business and management fi elds.

QUALITY ISSUES IN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH The continued development and evolution of mixed methods has seen an increasing interest and attention to the issue of quality in mixed methods

community and this too means that quantita- tive research is dominant: well-established social sciences such as psychology and economics … are quantitative and so too must be marketing. In addition, status issues between academic departments/schools which involve signifi cant funding implications are globally common in the university sector; … The more quantitative a marketing department seems, the more auto- matically respectable it becomes: the paradigm is strong. (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 67)

For certain disciplines within business and management research the quantitative paradigm is very entrenched. This may lead researchers and academics wishing to have their research published in journals, more likely to report only quantita- tive research and fi ndings. Brannen (2005, p. 26) makes the s

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

Need help with this assignment?

Order it here claim 25% discount

Discount Code: SAVE25