Advertisement

Qualitative Research: An Overview

  • Yanto Chandra
  • Liang Shang
Chapter

Abstract

Qualitative research is one of the most commonly used types of research and methodology in the social sciences. Unfortunately, qualitative research is commonly misunderstood. In this chapter, we describe and explain the misconceptions surrounding qualitative research enterprise, why researchers need to care about when using qualitative research, the characteristics of qualitative research, and review the paradigms in qualitative research.

Keywords

Qualitative research Gioia approach Yin-Eisenhardt approach Langley approach Interpretivism Positivism 

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2015). Qualitative research: It just keeps getting more interesting! In Handbook of qualitative organizational research (pp. 41–55). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brinkmann, S. (2018). Philosophies of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bucher, S., & Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra, Y. (2017a). A time-based process model of international entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(4), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandra, Y. (2017b). Social entrepreneurship as emancipatory work. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(6), 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.Google Scholar
  8. Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809–837.Google Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.Google Scholar
  16. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friese, S. (2011). Using ATLAS.ti for analyzing the financial crisis data [67 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art. 39. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101397
  19. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2017). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 284–300. in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gioia, D. A. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gioia, D. A. (2007). Individual epistemology – Interpretive wisdom. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), The handbook of organizational and managerial wisdom (pp. 277–294). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gioia, D. (2019). If I had a magic wand: Reflections on developing a systematic approach to qualitative research. In B. Boyd, R. Crook, J. Le, & A. Smith (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management. https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/Standing-on-the-Shoulders-of-Giants/?k=9781787563360
  25. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 366–403.Google Scholar
  30. Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. (2000). Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable possessions: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunt, S. D. (1991). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: Toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langley, A. (1988). The roles of formal strategic planning. Long Range Planning, 21(3), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. In Building methodological bridges (pp. 201–235). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Langley, A., Golden-Biddle, K., Reay, T., Denis, J. L., Hébert, Y., Lamothe, L., & Gervais, J. (2012). Identity struggles in merging organizations: Renegotiating the sameness–difference dialectic. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48(2), 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Langley, A. N. N., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 821–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 246–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prasad, P. (2018). Crafting qualitative research: Beyond positivist traditions. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  44. Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sanders, P. (1982). Phenomenology: A new way of viewing organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sobh, R., & Perry, C. (2006). Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal of Marketing, 40(11/12), 1194–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Vaccaro, A., & Palazzo, G. (2015). Values against violence: Institutional change in societies dominated by organized crime. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1075–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Welch, C. L., Welch, D. E., & Hewerdine, L. (2008). Gender and export behaviour: Evidence from women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Yin, R. K. (1981). Life histories of innovations: How new practices become routinized. Public Administration Review, 41, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanto Chandra
    • 1
  • Liang Shang
    • 2
  1. 1.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.City University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations