Qualitative Research in Organization Studies

  • Dariusz Jemielniak
  • Malgorzata Ciesielska


This chapter provides an introduction to the qualitative methods and their use in the organization studies. It also provides an overview of the book and particular chapters within it.


Qualitative methods Organization studies 


  1. Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing Work Back In. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowden, A., & Ciesielska, M. (2016). Accretion, Angst and Antidote: The Transition from Knowledge Worker to Manager in the UK Heritage Sector in an Era of Austerity. In The Laws of the Knowledge Workplace: Changing Roles and the Meaning of Work in Knowledge-Intensive Environments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ciesielska, M. (2008). From Rags to Riches – A Fairy Tale Or A Living Ethos? Stories of Polish Entrepreneurship During and After the Transformation of 1989. In M. Kostera (Ed.), Organizational Olympians: Heroes and Heroines of Organizational Myths (pp. 59–70). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciesielska, M., & Petersen, G. (2013). Boundary Object As a Trust Buffer. The Study Of an Open Source Code Repository. Tamara Journal of Critical Organisation Inquiry, 11(3), 5.Google Scholar
  5. Czarniawska, B. (2001). Having Hope in Paralogy. Human Relations, 54(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Czarniawska, B. (2017). Organization Studies As Symmetrical Ethnology. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 6(1), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1999). Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary Genre. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaggiotti, H., Kostera, M., & Krzyworzeka, P. (2016). More than a Method? Organisational Ethnography as a Way of Imagining the Social. Culture and Organization, 23(5), 325–340.Google Scholar
  10. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Jemielniak, D. (2002). Kultura – odkrywana czy konstruowana? Master of Business Administration, 2(55), 28–30.Google Scholar
  12. Jemielniak, D. (2005). Kultura – zawody i profesje. Prace i Materialy Instytutu Studiów Miedzynarodowych SGH, 32, 7–22.Google Scholar
  13. Jemielniak, D. (2013). Netnografia, czyli etnografia wirtualna – nowa forma badań etnograficznych. Prakseologia, 154, 97–116.Google Scholar
  14. Jemielniak, D. (2015). Naturally Emerging Regulation and the Danger of Delegitimizing Conventional Leadership: Drawing on the Example of Wikipedia. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. London/New Delhi/Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Jemielniak, D., & Aibar, E. (2016). Bridging the Gap Between Wikipedia and Academia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1773–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jemielniak, D., & Greenwood, D. J. (2015). Wake Up or Perish: Neo-Liberalism, the Social Sciences, and Salvaging the Public University. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 15(1), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jemielniak, D., & Kostera, M. (2010). Narratives of Irony and Failure in Ethnographic Work. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27(4), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Konecki, K. (1990). Dependency and Worker Flirting. In B. A. Turner (Ed.), Organizational Symbolism (pp. 55–66). Berlin/New York: Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Konecki, K. (2008a). Grounded Theory and Serendipity. Natural History of a Research. Qualitative Sociology Review, 4(1), 171–188.Google Scholar
  20. Konecki, K. (2008b). Triangulation and Dealing with the Realness of Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology Review, 4(3), 7–28.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (1986). The Powers of Association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief – A New Sociology of Knowledge? London/Boston/Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  22. Latusek-Jurczak, D., & Prystupa, K. (2014). Collaboration and Trust-Building in Open Innovation Community. Journal of Economics & Management, 17, 47.Google Scholar
  23. Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory. Organization Science, 6(6), 681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Przegalinska, A. (2015). Embodiment, Engagement and The Strength Virtual Communities: Avatars of Second Life in Decay. Tamara, 13, 48–62.Google Scholar
  25. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflexive Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Strumińska-Kutra, M. (2016). Engaged Scholarship: Steering Between the Risks of Paternalism, Opportunism, and Paralysis. Organization, 23(6), 864–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Maanen, J. (1995). Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies. Organization Science, 6(6), 687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Whyte, W. F., & Whyte, K. K. (1984). Learning from the Field: A Guide from Experience. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dariusz Jemielniak
    • 1
  • Malgorzata Ciesielska
    • 2
  1. 1.Kozminski UniversityWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Teesside University Business SchoolMiddlesbroughUK

Personalised recommendations