The term qualitative management research embraces an array of non-statistical research practices. Here it is argued that this diversity is an outcome of competing philosophical assumptions which produce distinctive research perspectives and legitimate the appropriation of different sets of evaluation criteria. Some confusion can arise when evaluation criteria constituted by particular philosophical conventions are universally applied to this heterogeneous management field. In order to avoid such misappropriation, this paper presents a first step towards a contingent criteriology located in a metatheoretical analysis of three modes of qualitative management research which are compared with the positivist mainstream to elaborate different forms of evaluation. It is argued that once armed with criteria that vary accordingly, evaluation can reflexively focus upon the extent to which any management research consistently embraces the particular methodological principles that are sanctioned by its a priori philosophical commitments.
Conducting management research underpins management learning and education-therefore how the management researcher or practitioner learns research skills is an important issue to be addressed. This paper focuses upon the skills, knowledge and practices required to conduct qualitative management research, and the learning processes that go into their development. A total of 45 in-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in the fi eld. From an analysis of the interview data, the types of skills and knowledge required for the production of good qualitative research were identifi ed, and the learning processes and practices associated with those skills were critiqued. It is argued that the processes by which we learn to do qualitative research, and become effective qualitative researchers, involve both the learning of appropriate skills and knowledge and their use and conceptualization through three types of research practice: refl ection, refl exivity and phronesis. The implications of the analysis for management learning are presented.
The focus of this paper is on the 'institutional work' (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006) of disrupting institutions, examining the rhetorical strategies employed to construct and justify meanings and interpretations. This work is explored in the context of the contemporary academic labour process; specifically, research approaches within the management discipline. A total of 45 individuals involved in funding, conducting, publishing and using qualitative management research were interviewed. From our analysis of their arguments, we focus specifically on the discursive positioning of quantitative research as illegitimate institutionalization of academic working practices and of qualitative research as legitimate resistance to this institutionalization. We identify a number of rhetorical strategies which construct and justify these discursive positions including: the undermining of success criteria; the legitimizing of interests (through claims of institutionalized discrimination) and actors (through identity claims); attributions of political action (including the construction of counter-institutions); claims to agency; and the invocation of alternative institutional logics. We argue that examining institutional work as rhetoric adds to our theoretical understanding of the discursive disruption of institutions, particularly with respect to the manipulation of contradictory meanings and the functions of agency-structure discourse; and contributes a political dimension to our understanding of the qualitative-quantitative 'divide' within management research.
2006),"The role and status of qualitative methods in management research: an empirical account", Management Decision, Vol. 44 Iss 2 pp. 290 -303 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.
Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of research which explores how the concept qualitative management research is variably constructed and defined by those who have a direct interest in, and influence upon, important aspects of qualitative management research. Design/methodology/approach-Information was gathered through the use of semi-structured interviews conducted with 44 individuals who were drawn from four observer-identified types of "expert" informant who were taken to generally represent key groups of stakeholders in the conduct, evaluation and dissemination of qualitative management research. Interview data from these individuals were analysed though an iterative process using the NVivo software package to inductively generate definitional categories and explore aspects of their interrelationships. Findings-From data analysis it was apparent that there are eight different, but often interrelated, ways in which interviewees define qualitative management research. The philosophical dimensions of each of these variable definitions are outlined and their relationships to the methodological literature are explored. The variety identified amongst informants, indicates how there is a potential dissensus possible regarding what qualitative management research might entail, as well as regarding its provenance and its academic status. This dissensus potentially can create problems with regard to its evaluation. Originality/value-So whist there is little evidence to suggest any systematic relationship between the variable institutional backgrounds of informants and how they variably define and perceive qualitative management research, philosophical influences upon this contested terrain are explored and the implications of the identified dissensus for how qualitative management research is perceived and evaluated is discussed. The implications of this evidently contested terrain are discussed with particular reference to the future constitution of qualitative management research and its evaluation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.