Organizational access in qualitative research

Abstract

Purpose While organizational access is central to much qualitative research, little is known about how researchers secure it. The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic assessment of this critical methodological step. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review was conducted to establish how researchers gained access to organizations for qualitative research. Access type was identified and explanatory indicators were inductively developed to illuminate how access was obtained in a sample of 216 qualitative articles published in Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Journal between 1986 and 2013. A supplemental review of 306 articles published in Organization Studies over the same period augmented the primary analysis with a broader view of published accounts of access. Findings Learning prior to entering organizations, researchers’ backgrounds, organizational insiders, and outside contacts facilitated access. The role of these factors, which served as indicators of legitimacy, varied with the type of access. In addition, the authors found that many articles provide little information about how the researchers gained access, regardless of a publication’s domicile. Originality/value This study furthers the understanding of how researchers gain access to organizations to conduct qualitative research and discusses the implications of the limited access accounts in published studies. In addition, this research provides practical guidance for authors, editors, and reviewers.

Rediscovering Abductive Reasoning in Organization Development and Change Research

“…In addition to training researchers to leverage abductive reasoning, researchers, reviewers, and editors should attend to how abductive reasoning is documented in published research. Just as methodological descriptions of other areas often lack detail (e.g., Alexander & Smith, 2019), we speculate that insights are often obscured within what researchers perceive to be a more rigorous or at least a more publishable narrative. Given the central role of abductive reasoning in knowledge creation, clearly characterizing when and how it occurs is essential to both a careful representation of the research and efforts to better understand the production of knowledge.…”

Strategic Sensemaking and Political Connections in Unstable Institutional Contexts

“…Furthermore, it is challenging to integrate these informalities into disciplinary research, as well as gather and present inconvenient facts about politics, business, economy, and society (Ledeneva, 2012; Michailova & Liuhto, 2000). Moreover, the absence of and inconsistencies in data, and extreme difficulty in gaining access to organizations in emerging economies, contribute further to preventing a thorough investigation (Alexander & Smith, 2018; Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000). Nonetheless, we attempt to provide in-depth detail of the mechanics of organizational sensemaking and political connections of a Russian pharmaceutical firm and an Indian telecommunications corporation to demonstrate their paths of achieving competitiveness.…”

“Your westernized habits”: contextual nuances of qualitative research in Russia

“…When planning to conduct research in Russia, it could be beneficial to invest time in developing relationships with the secretaries of Russian MNEs and/or other gatekeepers in the field, as the first tactic. My reflection on my fieldwork and in particular to access to the field supports the proposition of Alexander and Smith (2019) that researchers need to consider the gatekeepers very seriously when accessing the field, because they may prove detrimental in legitimizing the research process. Although the issue of confidentiality is often breached by secretaries, their experience on network encounters is not seen as unethical.…”