The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies

Raza Mir, Sanjay Jain, Raza Mir, Sanjay Jain, Raza Mir, Sanjay Jain

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317414131
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This comprehensive book collects contributions from leading international scholars to highlight the diverse qualitative approaches available to organizational researchers, each grounded in its own philosophy. The editors provide a cutting edge, globally oriented resource on the state of qualitative research methodologies, helping readers to grasp the theories, practices, and future of the field.

Beginning with an overview of qualitative methodologies, the book examines ways in which research employing these techniques is conducted in a variety of disciplines, including entrepreneurship, innovation, strategy, information systems, and organizational behavior. It offers timely updates on how traditions like case studies, ethnographies, historical methods, narrative approaches, and critical research are practiced today and how emerging trends, including increasing legitimacy and feminization, are impacting the domain. The final chapters provide templates for engaging with the future as well as essays that critically assess how qualitative inquiry has evolved within organization studies. Readers will become acquainted with contemporary tools for conducting qualitative studies, learning to appreciate the emerging domains of qualitative inquiry within a dynamic and complex organizational world.

Doctoral students and early-career researchers in organizational studies, especially those engaged with general management, organizational behavior, human resource management, innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy, will benefit from reading this relevant and inclusive handbook.

1
EMBRACING A CONSTRUCTED BOUNDARY

Mapping Qualitative Research in Organizational Studies

Raza Mir and Sanjay Jain

Imagine, if you will, Charles Darwin sitting at a desk in Cambridge in December 1836. Having returned from his voyage on the HMS Beagle, he was busy cataloging his notes and his species collections, and developing a theory of natural selection. His work ran afoul of religious and scientific authority, but Darwin remained undeterred. Two decades of analysis and exploration would eventually lead to the 1859 publication of his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species, which would revolutionize our thinking about the transformation of lifeforms over time, and give rise to a new understanding of evolutionary biology that endures till today.

As Darwin’s work was creating a sensation in the world of the natural sciences, an unknown political theorist named Karl Marx was poring through the records at assorted libraries in London and Manchester, pulling up details about worker compensation in emerging industries, and theorizing ways in which a new regime called capitalism was emerging from the ruins of feudal relations of production. Capitalism was premised on the ways in which money would be transformed into capital, and Marx audaciously predicted that it would become the dominant techno-economic paradigm of the late nineteenth and the twentieth century. The publication of his Das Kapital in 1867 gave us the concept of labor theory of value, which was to transform the way we looked at economics and social justice.

Likewise, Sigmund Freud, a practicing doctor, was systematizing his patient research in the field of psychology and developing a theory of the unconscious. He worked with individual cases, but believed that he had hit upon certain elements of the basic human condition. Based on his findings, Freud began to develop generalized therapeutic techniques, which he collectively termed “psychoanalysis.” This included the use of free association, the recasting of sexuality as a phenomenon that emerged in infancy, and the act of defining new constructs such as the Oedipus complex. His work, which was formalized in 1899 through his book The Interpretation of Dreams, forever changed the way we understood human neuroses, and endures as an important psychotherapeutic regimen till today.

It might have surprised these eminent thinkers to know that by the standards of the academic nomenclature of the twenty-first century, their work could be considered qualitative research. Much like Molière’s bourgeois gentleman who, when told about the distinction between prose and poetry, exclaimed “par ma foi, il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose, sans que j’en susse rien” (Good lord, for over 40 years I have been speaking prose and I did not know it), Darwin, Marx and Freud may have exclaimed, “Good lord, for over forty years (give or take), we have been conducting qualitative research and we did not know it!”

We present the above set of examples to highlight that the boundary between qualitative and quantitative research is a spurious construct, that good theory-building or theory-confirming research charts a continuous arc, and to break that continuity into a binary taxonomy is an act of social construction that is neither helpful nor productive. Qualitative researchers continuously deploy numerical data in their analysis, just as quantitative researchers utilize constructs derived from non-numerical analysis in their work. The “statistical turn” in social sciences, as developed by the logical empiricists of the Vienna Circle in the early twentieth century, privileged statistical analysis over observational data, creating a schism between verstehen (the interpretive understanding of phenomena) and erklären (the search for a causal explanation for things), that doomed many of the social sciences, including the emerging field of management studies, into a series of paradigm wars. For the longest time, qualitative approaches were deemed nothing more than “storytelling,” unworthy of rigorous empirical scrutiny. Of course the landscape was dynamic, and slowly began to change. In many social sciences, qualitative research is back with a bang, demanding its share at the table of legitimacy.

Spurious though the qualitative/quantitative divide may be, we inherit a theoretical and methodological landscape where this binary is an accepted feature of our professional nomenclature. For the moment perhaps, it is necessary to engage in an act of strategic essentialism, or to embrace the category in order to transcend it. To that extent, this volume is presented as a way to clarify the multiplicity of research traditions that populate the qualitative end of the spectrum. It is accepted shorthand in our field that qualitative research works best in the theory-building realm, while quantitative research is better suited for theory confirmation. Qualitative research is more associated with the philosophical traditions of induction, while quantitative research is often deductive, moving from the general to the specific. More controversially, qualitative research seeks to associate itself with an interpretive epistemology, while quantitative studies are more associated with a positivist or functionalist paradigm. As many chapters in this volume show, these binaries are subject to vigorous contestation; there are positivist qualitative researchers and inductive statisticians galore. But the orthodoxies of our field have moved us in the direction of water-tight compartments, where a mutual suspicion characterizes the interaction between the two camps.

Another attendant side effect of this binary has been the relative feminization of qualitative research. There is an unspoken machismo associated with quantitative research, whereby qualitative methods are often consigned to the periphery of academic research. The metaphor that occurs to us is one of an army on the march, where quantitative researchers arrogate to themselves the role of soldiers, while qualitative researchers function as cooks, serving the army.

But times change, and metaphors can be re-appropriated. An army after all, marches on its stomach. And over time, especially in the past decade, qualitative research has begun to see a flowering. Dissertations that exclusively use qualitative methods are grudgingly being passed by Ph.D. committees. Influential journals are beginning to add qualitative experts to editorial boards. And of course, books like the one in your hand (or on your screen) are being commissioned by academic presses. The qualitative turn, it appears, has well and truly reached the reluctant shores of management theory.

To re-appropriate the metaphor of cooking and qualitative research further, let us visualize it as a succession of tasks. Well before the cooking process begins, ingredients have to be assembled and prepped. This may include clarifying the philosophical conundrums associated with inquiry, finding appropriate sites, negotiating access and developing a contingent roadmap of data collection. Fires have to be lit and temperatures managed. This includes the actual act of fieldwork, be it participant observation, interviewing, and transcribing, or the cataloging of secondary data. Diverse cooking techniques (think ethnography, grounded theory, process analysis, case studies, or qualitative comparative analysis) transform ingredients in different ways. A good dish needs to be simmered, stewed, and spiced to be deemed ready. That of course constitutes data analysis, be it through concept cards, linguistic analysis, content analysis performed either through tabulation or through computer programs, the extraction of recurring themes, or the emergence of “theory” from “story.” Finally, a dish must be plated and presented to look appetizing and inviting. This final act involves the transformation of the research into journal articles, books, or book chapters that are deemed publish-worthy by one’s peers. Researchers often talk of methodological toolkits that help them in their research. We could instead talk pots and pans, stoves and ovens. To that end, the diverse approaches to qualitative research are discussed at great length in this book. The mosaic of techniques, experiences, foundations, and traditions that this book represents will hopefully appeal to a variety of readers, for which we have our esteemed contributors to thank.

Motivations

In 2000, as newly minted assistant professors in organizational studies, we were invited to conduct a Professional Development Workshop by the Research Methods Division of the Academy of Management (AOM). Needless to say, we were not the experts here; our job was to curate a workshop where well-recognized scholars would help new faculty and doctoral students negotiate the terrain of qualitative research. As an aside, this particular workshop then constituted one of only two sessions devoted to qualitative research in the entire research methods division, an exemplar of the dominance of quantitative research in the corridors of the AOM. We put the workshop together, without knowing what to expect. Imagine our astonishment when the hall that was allotted to us quickly filled to capacity with a bunch of participants, whose age indicated that many of them were new doctoral students. The atmosphere in the workshop was electric. Participants engaged with the experts, spoke among themselves, developed networks, and stayed in touch with each other and with the presenters. It was clear that we had hit upon a lack in the AOM meetings.

Over time of course, the terrain has changed. Many more sessions are now devoted to qualitative research, papers using qualitative techniques have been presented routinely at the conference in a variety of divisions, and the space for discussing qualitative research has increased considerably. However, energized by our first experience, we have conducted this workshop continuously over the past nearly two decades. The experts have changed and varied; we have used ethnographers and case study experts, Marxists and functionalists, people who work with traditional firms and those who use social media and visual technologies. The participant base has shifted a bit too, with some more senior scholars in attendance as well. Each time, the feedback we have received from the participants has been similar, though certain shifts have been apparent over time. We may briefly catalogue our initial experiences and our current experiences as follows:

1 New scholars were very interested in qualitative techniques, but had very little idea how to go about putting projects together. A similar confusion remains, though it has been much alleviated by the variety of research that has been produced and consumed.

2 The general perception was that dissertations based solely on qualitative methodologies would not find favor with committees, and even if passed, would constitute the “kiss of death” in the job market for freshly minted Ph.D.s. This perception has unfortunately withstood the test of time, to an extent that we are reluctantly forced to accept it as a truism. The job market for new researchers is fickle, and often, the use of cutting-edge statistical methods is seen by recruiters as a sign of interesting and promising research, while interesting qualitative research sometimes gets shorter shrift. Top schools are sometimes an exception to this rule, though even that is subject to scrutiny.

3 The best possible course for a dissertation was seen as a mixed-method approach, involving a quantitative component that augmented some qualitative work. Perhaps a few interviews could lead to a questionnaire, or an analysis of documents such as annual reports of companies could yield to constructs that could be studies through computational analysis of databases. This led to a distressing lack of understanding about how qualitative research gets conducted. Some clarity appears to have emerged about how the philosophy of science and its attendant metaphors impact the actual doing of research, but it is still slow and unclear. It is our experience that good research involves a process whereby the questions determine the choice of method, but insecurity in younger scholars often leads them in a direction where a dissertation is presented as a “report of effort” rather than an act of inquiry. To that end, the “mixed-methods” approach still rears its head, despite our words of caution.

4 Qualitative research was seen as too time-consuming and resource-intensive, and not suitable for people seeking swift completion of dissertations, or on the tenure clock. Ethnographies were especially considered avoidable. A greater number of younger researchers seem ready to commit to the longue durée of some qualitative projects. Also, quality ethnographic work has been published in management journals, demystifying the process somewhat. Other longer projects have included textual analysis of large quantities of written data, longitudinal analysis of single cases, and multi-case approaches.

5 Despite the odds, most participants felt that qualitative research was more interesting to read and more inspirational as a technique to follow. Happily, this feeling has endured, though the self-selection of participants of course makes us suspect that this does not reflect the way in which qualitative research is viewed in management academia as a whole.

6 Participants were often concerned with issues that were more affiliated with quantitative techniques (such as reliability and validity), which tended to put them on the defensive when they attempted to explain their research to their peers and to anonymous reviewers of journals. This condition persists, and the main value added by the experts in workshop panels was to explain ways in which they got their work published in mainstream journals despite facing similar obstacles. It does remain a problem in the peer-review process, which is an action item for those of us who are on journal editorial boards; we need to choose reviewers who are conversant with the methodology deployed by submitters in their papers.

We could go on, but perhaps the overall understanding of the problems faced by interested researchers has been made clear. Qualitative research is seen as hard labor, relatively unrewarded, high risk, and uncertain, but simultaneously as satisfying, creative, and stimulating. To that extent, we felt motivated to continue with the workshop, and over time, developed the idea of formalizing our insights in the form of this book.

Of late, the terrain of publication has also shifted, making room for qualitative research. Not only do we see a greater number of papers in prestigious journals that use qualitative techniques, there have been many good books published on qualitative research. These include edited anthologies such as ours, books written by single authors, books that seek to explicate one particular technique (such as content analysis or ethnography), and collections of published articles on qualitative research. We see our book as joining the chaotic discussion, as just another rainbow that is formed by the emerging waterfall that is qualitative research in organizational studies. We have curated this book with an eye to diversity of approaches. In effect, it is a printed version of “Ask the Experts.” The authors that have contributed to this volume represent veritable experts in the sub-field that they have addressed, but they most certainly do not share any paradigmatic singularity. To that extent, each chapter is designed to be consumed on a stand-alone basis, though some thematic congruity has emerged, as we discuss later in the introduction. The chapters here include personal reflections, analyses of specific projects, explications of particular techniques, discussion of unique forms of data analysis, and occasional critiques of the field from a variety of subaltern perspectives. One thing that characterizes all chapters however, is currency. The chapters in this book are located in the here and now, and focus on doing qualitative research in the twenty-first century. They update methodologies, connect our field to other social sciences and technological traditions, and offer ways forward for a methodological terrain that is in danger of being hijacked by tired templates and recycled insights. Our hope is that the book will emerge as a contingent sourcebook for qualitative methodologies in organization studies, which will primarily serve graduate students and newly minted faculty but will also acquaint seasoned scholars with methodologies and approaches with which they are only peripherally acquainted.

The Underpinnings of Qualitative Research

While an explicit discussion of the philosophical foundations of qualitative research is performed very well in one of the chapters in this book, we would like to make a few observations about certain concepts that animate discussions of qualitative research, and research in general.

It is by now an accepted truism that the clarification of ontological and epistemological assumptions is very important in qualitative research. Ontological and epistemological positions tend to be correlated; to that extent, when an approach is classified as being positivist, realist, criticalrealist or constructivist, we are in essence referring to closely banded ontological and epistemological assumptions. Positivists (and to some extent realists) may be visualized as holding a flashlight in a dark room. They illuminate different aspects of existing reality, while throwing others into the shadows. Enough flashlights, and the entire room becomes visible and mappable. Constructivists, on the other hand, see reality as a lump of clay that the researcher then fashions into a shape, and the reader interprets. Both the researcher and the reader engage in independent acts of creation, producing constructs that derive their legitimacy through construction (return on equity is accepted as a measure of firm performance because enough management academics agree that it is; to an environmental activist, it may be a pointless artifact, and to a labor organizer, it may even be a symbol of poor performance).

Researchers must also analyze the much used but rarely understood concept of methodology. The term methodology is much broader than mere method. A method is a tool or a technique that is used in the process of inquiry. However, methodology needs to be used specifically as a way to express an “intricate set of ontological and epistemological assumptions that a researcher brings to his or her work” (Prasad, 1997: 2). Methodological approaches are closely associated therefore with ontological and epistemological positions, as well as ways in which researchers plan to bring rigor to th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Embracing a Constructed Boundary: Mapping Qualitative Research in Organizational Studies
• Part I Theories
• Part II Traditions
• Part III Contexts
• Part IV Journeys
• Part V Frontiers and Reflections
• Index