{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015255905511811024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015255905511811024, 'mean_word_length': 5.413249211356467, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A retrospection of methodological pluralism in the Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction (2005-2020)


Purpose
This paper presents a review of research methodologies used in addressing problems in the financial management of property and construction journals from 2005 to 2020.


Design/methodology/approach
Content analysis of 258 research papers published in the Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction was carried out, enabling the exploration of research approaches, epistemology, strategies, data collection and data analysis methods used in addressing problems researched in the area of financial management of property and construction


Findings
The findings show that quantitative approaches and methods dominate, whereas qualitative and mixed methods were prominent in-depth understanding of a topics were needed. Interestingly, almost a third of the publications did not adopt quantitative approaches. In some journal issues, there was relatively high use of qualitative and multi-method approaches and up to 12% of the articles published over the past 16 years could be described as based on pragmatism.


Research limitations/implications
An important implication of this paper is that a conventionally number-based area of research does not preclude the use of qualitative and mixed approaches. The findings are only generalisable to the Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction.


Practical implications
Financial management researchers could benefit greatly by considering pluralistic approaches more in the design of their studies.


Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is an original synthesis of the articles published between 2005 and 2020. It provides new insight into the use of research methodologies by authors and how they have been combined to address their research problems. It further investigates an old issue or question about methodological choice-making using new evidence and original empirical work.
