Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper
Overview
Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.
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.
For nearly 70 years scholars have been discussing the characteristics of action research and it is apparent that there is an increasingly wide range of forms that action research takes in practice. Here we argue that such diversity is not haphazard and that we must be cautious about developing all-embracing standards to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’. Rather this diversity is inspired by different philosophical stances, which usually remain tacit in published accounts thereby fuelling ambiguity and controversy about what action research should entail in practice and as to its ‘scientific’ status. The aim of this article is to explain the apparent diversity of action research in the organization studies domain, by clarifying how variable philosophical assumptions systematically lead to the constitution of distinctive forms of action research with their attendant conceptions of social science. This diversity is illustrated, with examples from the relevant literature, in terms of variation in: the aims of action research; its conception of social science; the role of the action researcher and their relations with members; the validity criteria deployed and the internal tensions that arise.
The goal of this study is to develop a theoretical framework in order to illuminate the cues involved in real life work-family conflict resolution within dual-earner couples. We draw on episodic and longitudinal data from qualitative diaries kept for a one month period by both members of 24 dual-earner couples (48 participants) with child dependants, as well as from introductory and subsequent in-depth qualitative interviews with the couples, both together and apart. Two distinct types of work-family decision-making: a) anchoring decisions and b) daily decisions were revealed, each of which were differentially impacted by enabling and constraining cues, considerations of fairness and equity, and beliefs, values and preferences. The findings suggest that the decision-making process engaged in by couples in incidents of work-family conflict does not progress in a logical sequence, but instead involves numerous complex negotiations and interactions. A decision-making framework encapsulating these findings is reported, highlighting the cues considered when making both types of workfamily conflict decisions, and the relationships between them.
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.