Skip to main content

Implication studies: a methodological framework

Abstract

This article introduces a new label, “a methodological framework for studying implications of a philosophy, a framework, a theory, a model, or an idea for other disciplines or other knowledge areas.” This methodology falls into the category of unobtrusive methodologies. Generally, “implication refers to the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.” This framework is proposed to answer this question: what methodology should a researcher adopt to study the “consequences of,” “influences of,” “applications of, “or “implications of “old and new philosophies, theories, models, or theoretical ideas for his or her field of study? For example, what is the appropriate methodology to answer the following question? What are the “implications of critical realism philosophy” for organization studies? There is a shortfall of methodology to answer the above questions. The author has proposed a methodological framework for such studies. Thus, the author has called this type of study “implication eliciting studies” and marked their methodology as “implication eliciting methodology.” Given the interdisciplinary nature of all fields in social science and humanities, this methodology can play an essential role in producing knowledge underlying those areas. This paper aims to introduce the methodology and discuss philosophical assumptions and stances, inquiry logics, guidelines for practice, and sociopolitical commitments in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abdelkader Benmansour, N.: Citizens and expatriates satisfaction with public services in Qatar: evidence from a survey. Int. J. Social. Econ. 46(3), 326–337 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2018-0118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abutabenjeh, S., Jaradat, R.: Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology. Teach. Public. Admin. 36(2), 237–258 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418775787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ackroyd, S., Fleetwood, S. (eds.): Critical Realist Applications in Organization and Management Studies. Routledge, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alise, M.A., Teddlie, C.: A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. J. Mix. Methods. Res. 4(2), 103–126 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689893060805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alvesson, M., Wilmott, H. (eds.): Studying Management Critically. Sage, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amis, J.M., Silk, M.L.: The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Org. Res. Methods. 11(3), 456–480 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Avramidis, E., Smith, B.: An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research. Emo. Bahav. Differ. 4(3), 27–36 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/1363275990040306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ball, T.: From paradigms to research programs: toward a post-Kuhnian political science. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 20(1), 151–157 (1976). https://doi.org/10.2307/2110515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bass, A.E., Milosevic, I.: The Ethnographic method in CSR research: the role and importance of methodological fit. Bus. Soc. 57(1), 174–215 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316648666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Becker, H.S.: On methodology. In: Becker, H.S. (ed.) Sociological Work: Method and Substance, pp. 3–24. New York, Transaction Books (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beissel-Durrant, G: A Typology of Research Methods within the Social Sciences. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM), Southampton (2004). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/34817.

  12. Bell, E.: Rethinking quality in qualitative research. Aust. J. Rural Health 22(3), 90–91 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bereiter, C.: Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educ. Psychol. 29(1), 3–12 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2901_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhaskar, R.: The Possibility of Naturalism. The Harvester Press, Brighton (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bhaskar, R.: A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd edn. The Harvester Press, Brighton (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bierschenk, T., Olivier de Sardan, J.-P.: How to study bureaucracies ethnographically? Crit. Anthr. 39(2), 1–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X19842918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bleicher, J.: Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as a Method, Philosophy and Critique. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Boaz, A., & Ashby, D.: Fit for Purpose? Assessing Research Quality for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, London (2003)

  19. Bogason, P.: Postmodernism and American public administration in the 1990s. Admin. Soc. 33(2), 165–193 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Boje, D. M., & Dennehy, R. F.: Managing in a Postmodern World. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA (1994)

  21. Brante, T.: Consequences of realism for sociological theory-building. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 31(2), 167–194 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brennan, L.J., Voros, J., Brady, E.: Paradigms at play and its implications for validity in social marketing research. J. Soc. Mark. 1(2), 100–119 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bryman, A.: Of methods and methodology. Qual. Res. Org. Manag. Int. J. 3(2), 159–168 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bunnis, S., Kelly, D.R.: Research paradigms in medical education research. Med. Edu. 44(4), 358–366 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burrell, G., Morgan, G.: Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Heinemann Educational, London (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Calvert-Minor, C.: The inescapability of theorizing practices within epistemology. Kritike 6(1), 85–94 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C.: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In: N. L. Gage (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 171–246). Rand McNally: Chicago (1963)

  28. Campbell, S.: Perspectives: method and methodology in nursing research. J. Res. Nurs. 21(8), 656–659 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116679583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cassell, C., Close, P., Duberley, J., Johnson, P.: Surfacing embedded assumptions: using repertory grid methodology to facilitate organizational change. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 9(4), 561–573 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chapin, F.S.: The experimental method and sociology. II. Sci. Mon. 4(3), 238–247 (1917)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coats, A.W.: Is there a structure of scientific revolutions in economics? Kykos 22, 289–296 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1969.tb02533.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L.: Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Pract. 39(3), 124–131 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach, 2nd edn. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Creswell, J.: Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, Evaluating. Pearson Education Inc, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cronbach, L.J.: The two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am. Psychol. 12, 671–684 (1957)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Danaeefard, H.: Research paradigms in public administration. Int. J. Hum. 19(4), 55–108 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., Karlsson, J.C.: Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. Routledge, London (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Davies, D., Dodd, J.: Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qual. Health. Res. 12(2), 279–289 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129119793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dye, T.R.: Understanding Public Policy, 9th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dyer, J.: Hermeneutics. International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition), pp. 63–68 (2010)

  43. Eagle, M. N.: Postmodern influences on contemporary psychoanalysis. In R. Frie and D. Orange (Eds.) Beyond Postmodernism: New Dimensions in Clinical Theory and Practice (pp. 27–51). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2009).

  44. Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., Locke, K.: Working with pluralism. Organ. Res Methods 11(3), 419–429 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108315858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Emden, C., Hancock, H., Schubert, S., Darbyshire, P.: A web of intrigue: the search for quality in qualitative research. Nurs. Educ. Practice 1(4), 204–211 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1054/nepr.2001.0034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Exner, D.V.: Emphasizing quality in qualitative research: Devices to control arrhythmias. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophsiol. 16(4), 391–393 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-8167.2005.50053.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fredericksen, N.: Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem-solving. Rev. Educ. Res. 54(3), 363–407 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1983.tb00019.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gadamer, H.-G.: Philosophical Hermeneutics. Trans. David E. Linge. University of California, Berkeley (1976)

  49. Garrison, J.: Pragmatism and public administration. Admin. Soc. 32(4), 458–477 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/00953990022019524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Geertz, C.: The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L.: Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organ. Res. Methods 16(1), 15–31 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Greene, J.C.: Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res Schools 13(1), 93–98 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Greenspan, S., Granfield, J.M.: Reconsidering the construct of mental retardation: Implications of a model of social competence. Am. J. Mental. Retard. 96(4), 442–453 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Grey, C., Willmott, H. (eds.): Critical Management Studies: A Reader. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Grønmo, S.: Social Research Methods: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley, New Jersey (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S.: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (105–117) (1994)

  59. Habermas, J.: Knowledge and Human Interest. Heinemann, London (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Harworth, G.O.: Social work research, practice, and paradigms. Soc. Serv. Rev. 58(3), 43–357 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hatch, M.J.: Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hatch, M.J., Canliffe, A.L.: Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic-Interpretive, and Postmodern. Oxford University Press, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Healy, M., Perry, C.: Comprehensive criteria to judge the validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qual. Market. Res. 3(3), 118–126 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750010333861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hildebrand, D.L.: Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and public administration. Admin Soc. 37(3), 345–359 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705276114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hodgson, G.M.: Some claims made for critical realism in economics: two case studies. J. Econ. Methodol. 11(1), 53–73 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178042000178003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hood, C., Jackson, M.: Administrative Argument. Dartmouth, Aldershot (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Howell, K.E.: Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. Sage Publications, London (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. Hu, X.: Methodological implications of critical realism for entrepreneurship research. J. Crit. Realism 17, 118–139 (2018a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hu, X.: Methodological implications of critical realism for entrepreneurship research. J. Crit. Real. 17(2), 118–139 (2018b). https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2018.1454705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ilac, E.J.D.: Exploring social enterprise leadership development through phenomenological analysis. Soc. Enter. J. 14(3), 268–288 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2017-0065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Jacoby, P.N.: Organizational photography as a research method: what, how, and why. Paper presented at The Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2003, Seattle, USA (2003)

  72. Jashari, A., Kutllovci, E.: The impact of human resource management practices on organizational performance case study: manufacturing enterprises in Kosovo, Business. Theory. Pract. 21(1), 222–229 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Jehanzeb, K., Mohanty, J.: The mediating role of organizational commitment between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: power distance as moderator. Pers. Rev. 49(2), 445–468 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kaplan, D.W.: The Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for Social Sciences. Sage, London (2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  75. Kast, R.E., Rosenweig, J.E.: General systems theory: applications for organization and management. Acad. Manag. J. 15, 447–465 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-198107000-00006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kelly, G.A.: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York (1955)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Kiel, L.D., Elliott, E. (eds): Chaos theory in the social sciences: Foundations and applications. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI (1996)

  78. Kim, S.: Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: competing modes of inquiry. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 2(1), 9–18 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Knight, J., Johnson, J.: The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  80. Kramer, S.P.: How to Think Like a Scientist. Thomas Crowell, New York (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Kumar, R.: Research methodology. Sage, London (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lastrucci, C.L.: The Scientific Approach. Schenkman, Cambridge (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Laudan, L.: Science and Hypothesis: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. Lawson, T.: Theorizing ontology. Fem. Econ. 9(1), 161 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Lincoln, Y.S.: Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual. Inquiry. 1(3), 275–289 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Lohr, K.N.: Rating the strength of scientific evidence: Relevance for quality improvement programs. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 16(1), 9–18 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Luff, R., Byatt, D., & Martin, D.: Review of the Typology of Research Methods within the Social Sciences. Southampton, UK: Economic & Social Research Council, National Centre for Research Methods (2015). Retrieved 17 May 2018 from: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3721/1/research_methods_typology_2015.pdf

  89. Makombe, G.: An Expose of the relationship between paradigm, method, and design in research. Qual. Rep. 22(12), 3363–3382 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Mann, C., Parkins, J.R., Isaac, M.E., Sherren, K.: Do practitioners of holistic management exhibit systems think? Ecol. Soc. 24(3), 19 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. McGregor, S.L.T., Murnane, J.A.: Paradigm, methodology, and method: intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 4(4), 419–427 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00883.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. McTavish, D.G., Cleary, J.D., Brent, E.E., Perman, L., Knudsen, K.R.: Assessing research methodology. Sociol. Methods Res. 6(1), 3–44 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Meltzoff, J.: Critical Thinking About Research. American Psychological Association, Washington (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Miller, L.P.: Social-psychological implications of Weber’s model of bureaucracy: relations among expertise, control, authority, and legitimacy. Soc. Forces. 49(1), 91–102 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/49.1.91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Mingers, J., Mutch, A., Willcocks, L.: Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quart. 37(3): 795–802. (2013). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:3.3

  96. Mintzberg, H.: Developing theory about the development of theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, pp. 355–372. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)

  97. Morçöl, G.: A Complexity Theory for Public Policy. Routledge, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  98. Morgan, G.: Diversity Paradigm in Organizational Research. In: J. Hassard, D. Pym (eds) Theory and Philosophy of Organizations. (pp. 13–30). Routledge, London (1996)

  99. Morrow, S.L.: Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J. Couns. Psychol. 52(2), 250–260 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Murray, J.B., Evers, D.J.: Theory borrowing and reflectivity in interdisciplinary fields. Adv. Consum. Res. 16(1), 647–652 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Neuman, W.L.: Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Allyn and Bacon, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  102. Nind, M., Lewthwaite, S.: A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Res. Pap. Educ. 35, 467–487 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1601756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Noreen, E., Smith, D., Mackey, J.: The Theory of Constraints and its Implications for Management Accounting. North River Press, MA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  104. Oliver, D.P.: Rigor in qualitative research. Res Aging 33(4), 359–360 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027511410022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Oswick, C., Fleming, P., Hanlon, G.: From borrowing to blending rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36(2), 318–337 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Pearson, K.: On a new method of determining a correlation between a measured character A, and a character B, of which only the percentage of cases wherein B exceeds (or Falls Short of) a given intensity is recorded for each grade of A. Biometrika, 7(1/2), 96 (1909)

  107. Piele, C.: Research paradigms in social work: From stalemate to creative synthesis. Soc. Serv. Rev. 62(1), 1–19 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1086/603658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Piano Clark, V.L., Creswell, J.W.: Understanding Research: A Consumer’s Guide. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Ploeg, J.: Identifying the best research design to fit the question. Part 2: qualitative designs. Evid.-Based. Nurs. 2(2), 36–37 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.2.2.36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Poortman, C.L., Schildkamp, K.: Alternative quality standards in qualitative research? Qual. Quant. 46(6), 1727–1751 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Prion, S., Adamson, K.A.: Making sense of methods and measurement: rigor in qualitative research. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 10(2), e107–e108 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Rapoport, A.: Various meanings of `theory’. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 52, 972–988 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Raven, G.: Methodological reflexivity: towards evolving methodological frameworks through critical and reflexive deliberations. Environ. Educ. Res 12, 559–569 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Reed, D.: What do corporations have to do with Fair Trade? Positive and normative analysis from a value chain perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 86(S1), 3–26 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9757-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Rutgers, M. R.: Theory and Scope of Public Administration: An Introduction to the Study’s Epistemology (Foundations of Public Administration Series). Public Admin. Rev., 1–45 (2010)

  116. Saks, M., Allsop, J.: Researching Health. Sage, London (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  117. Sandelowski, M.: The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 8(3), 27–37 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Schneider, M., Somers, M.: Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. Lead. Quart. 17(4), 351–365 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Seale, C.: Quality in qualitative research. Qual. Inquiry. 5(4), 465–478 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Sharts-Hopko, N.C.: Assessing rigor in qualitative research. J. Assoc. Nurs. AIDS Care 13(4), 84–86 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1055-3290(06)60374-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (eds): Scientific Research in Education. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2002)

  122. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Dillon, L.: Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. National Centre for Social Research, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  123. Sroufe, L.A., Carlson, E.A., Levy, A.K., Egeland, B.: Implications of attachment theory for developmental psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 11(1), 1–13 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Stenbacka, C.: Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Manag. Decis. 39(7), 551–555 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Stephenson, W.: The Tech of factor. Anal. Nature 136, 297 (1935)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Stockdale, M.S., Crosby, F.J.: The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  127. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)

  128. Svenaeus, F.: Hermeneutics, health and medicine. In: Malpas, J., Gander, H.H. (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics, pp. 551–560. Routledge, London (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  129. Swanborn, P.G.: A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Qual. Quan. 30(1), 19–35 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C.: Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Sciences. Sage, London (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  131. Thomas, E., Magilvy, J.K.: Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. J. Spec. Pediat. Nurs. 16(2), 151–155 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Thorndike, R.M.: Correlational Procedures for Research Correlational Procedures for Research. Gardner Press, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  133. Toniolo, K., Masiero, E., Massaro, M., Bagnoli, C.: A grounded theory study for digital academic entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrepr. Behav. Res., Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-06-2019-0402

  134. Tsoukas, H., Chia, R.: Philosophy and Theory of Organization. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  135. Tsoukas, H., Knudsen, C.: Introduction: The need for meta-theoretical reflection in organization theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford University Press, pp 1–36 (2003)

  136. Tsoukas, H., Knudsen, C.: The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  137. Vermeulen, H.F.: Ethnography and empire: G. F. Müller and the description of Siberian peoples. In: Vermeulen H. F. (ed), Before Boas: The genesis of ethnography and ethnology in the German enlightenment. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, London (2018)

  138. Warner, C.M., Walker, S.G.: Thinking about the role of religion in foreign policy: a framework for analysis. Foreign. Policy. Anal. 7(1), 113–135 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-8594.2010.00125.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., Sechrest, L.: Unobtrusive Measures. Rand McNally, Chicago (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  140. Weick, K.E.: Theory Construction as a Disciplined Imagination. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 516–531 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Whetsell, T.A., Shields, P.M.: The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: a brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Admin. Soc. 47(4), 416–446 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713490157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Whetten, D.A., Felin, T., King, B.G.: The practice of theory borrowing in organizational studies: current issues and future directions. J. Manag. 5(3), 537–563 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Willig, C.: Ontological and epistemological reflexivity: a core skill for therapists. Couns. Psychother. Res. 19(3), 186–194 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Winter, G.: A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research. Qual. Rep. 4(3&4) (2000). Retrieved February 25, 1998, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html

  145. Wynn, D., Williams, C.K.: Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Q 36(3), 787–810 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Woolcock, M., Narayan, D.: Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res. Observer 15(2), 225–250 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hassan Danaeefard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danaeefard, H. Implication studies: a methodological framework. Qual Quant (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01257-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Implication eliciting methodology
  • Implication eliciting studies
  • Methodology
  • Implication