Within this paper we outline the political and institutional structures that work to formulate operating norms that govern what is considered to be "acceptable" qualitative organizational research, and the quality indicators attached to foundational, quasi-foundational, and, non-foundational research orientations. We argue that encouraging a plurality of methods and representations will better position the field of organizational studies to address the most significant questions of our time. Located within this position, we call for a democratization of what 'counts' in organizational research: a more considered, and central, space for non-hegemonic approaches to qualitative work. In so doing, we champion a moral-sacred epistemology that foregrounds ethical and moral concerns as underpinning both the purpose and the quality of the research. The Philosophy and Politics of Quality in Qualitative Organizational ResearchWithin this paper, we argue that considerations of 'quality' in qualitative research cannot be divorced from the political, axiological, ontological and epistemological orientations of the scholarship. As such, we contend that traditional and still dominant methods of assessing research quality, founded on a positivistic

No abstract

Within this paper we offer what is hopefully both a suggestive (as opposed to definitive) and generative (as opposed to suppressive) signposting of the ontological, epistemological, and methodological boundaries framing the putative intellectual project that is Physical Cultural Studies (PCS). Ground in a commitment toward engaging varied dimensions or expressions of active physicality, we deliberate on an understanding of, and approach to, the corporeal practices, discourses, and subjectivities through which active bodies become organized, represented, and experienced in relation to the operations of social power. Further, drawing on Toby Miller, we suggest that this approach requires a motivation toward progressive social change. We consider the political and axiological contingencies of PCS, how it is differentiated from the “sociology of sport,” and how we may produce the type of knowledge that is able to intervene into the broader social world and make a difference. We are sure many will disagree—perhaps with good reason—with our assumptions. Indeed, such differences are welcomed for we feel that there is greater progressive potential in a field in tension, in healthy contestation, and, in which debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, political intent, method, interpretation, expression, and impact flow freely.

No abstract

Studies that have engaged parasport broadcasting, particularly through a narrative lens, have almost exclusively relied on textual and/or content analysis of the Paralympic Games as the source of cultural critique. We know far less about the decisions taken inside Paralympic broadcasters that have led to such representations. In this study – based on interviews with senior production and promotion staff at the United Kingdom’s Paralympic broadcaster, Channel 4 – we provide the first detailed examination of mediated parasport from this vantage point. We explore the use of promotional devices such as athletes’ backstories – the ‘Hollywood treatment’ – to both hook audiences and serve as a vehicle for achieving its social enterprise mandate to change public attitudes towards disability. In so doing, we reveal myriad tensions that coalesce around representing the Paralympics, with respect to the efforts made to balance the competing goals of key stakeholders and a stated desire to make the Paralympics both a commercial and socially progressive success.