Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Progressive Focusing and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

The Enabling Role of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • The business and management community increasingly recognises that qualitative research is a ‘messy’, non-linear and often unpredictable undertaking. Yet, a considerable proportion of the qualitative research published in top journals is still presented as the result of a linear, predictable research process, thus wrongly suggesting deductive reasoning.

  • In this paper, we focus on a particular type of ‘messiness’ where during fieldwork, the research context is revealed to be more complex than anticipated, forcing the researcher to gradually refine/shift their focus to reflect ‘what really matters’. We adopt Stake’s notion of progressive focusing for this gradual approach.

  • Progressive focusing is well-suited to qualitative research in international business requiring complex iteration between theory and data, and the truthful yet coherent presentation of the research process. We propose that this dual challenge of complexity and trustworthiness may be addressed by using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS).

  • We present conceptual considerations and guidelines and offer a view on a ‘messy’, non-linear doctoral research project conducted using a progressive focusing approach, to demonstrate how CAQDAS can help to develop and re-negotiate insights from theory and interview data, as well as enhance trustworthiness, transparency and publication potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although content analysis has been used as a label for a variety of methods and analytical techniques, we regard it as occupying a very specific theoretical space within the more general domain of qualitative research. We view content analysis as ‘a class of methods at the intersection of the qualitative and quantitative traditions’ (Duriau et al. 2007, p. 5), which places much emphasis on inter-rater reliability (Neuendorf 2002; Strijbos et al. 2006; see also Welch et al. 2011) or the idea that ‘different people should code the same text in the same way’ (Weber 1990, p. 12). In contrast, the type of qualitative research that we focus on in this paper is more generalised. More specifically, our concept of progressive focusing is perhaps closest to the domain of qualitative research that Welch et al. (2011) term ‘interpretive sensemaking’. Nonetheless, parts of our discussion may be useful for researchers using other types of qualitative research such as content analysis and grounded theory, or mixed-methods research.

  2. Sinkovics et al. (2008) point out that reliability and validity have a somewhat uncertain place in the repertoire of a qualitative methodologist (Armstrong et al. 1997), as these dimensions are grounded on a different paradigmatic view and therefore not directly applicable to qualitative research. This is why alternative terms and ways of assessing qualitative research have been proposed, such as credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Denzin and Lincoln 1994; Guba and Lincoln 1989; Kirk and Miller 1986; LeCompte and Goetz 1982).

  3. For similar concepts, see also cycles of deliberation (McGaughey 2004, 2007), systematic combining/abductive approach (Dubois and Gadde 2002), zipping (Orton 1997) and evolution of perspective (Peshkin 1985).

  4. A preferable method would be to import the entire document where possible, which allows the coding of content as well as the recording of key attributes. Whilst this can easily be done in the case of Word files, the majority of journal articles are accessed online as PDF documents, which in our experience often poses practical problems. In principle, newer versions of NVivo (8 and 9) can handle PDF files, however, many PDF documents (especially older ones) tend to be very large files or lack text recognition, and as yet, NVivo does not appear to have sufficient processing power to manage these efficiently. Nonetheless, given that many PDF texts can already be highlighted and annotated in freely available software such as Adobe Reader X, we believe that this limitation is likely to diminish in the future as more powerful versions of NVivo are developed.

  5. In particular, the development of visual models based on coding templates is facilitated by the modelling function in software such as NVivo: the researcher can work on a dynamic version of their model in a continuous manner, whilst also saving static versions of the model at different points in time, thus tracking the evolution of the research model.

References

  • Andersen, P. H., & Skaates, M. A. (2004). Ensuring validity in qualitative international business research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 464–485). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M. M. (2011). The politics, fashions, and conventions of research methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(6), 721–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. (1996). How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 467–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. (2004). Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing transparency in a doctoral thesis: The complexities of writing about the use of qsr*nvivo within a grounded theory study. Qualitative Research, 4(2), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Chapman, M. (1997). The use of native categories in management research. British Journal of Management, 8(4), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catterall, M. (1998). Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research. Qualitative Market Research, 1(2), 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catterall, M., & Maclaran, P. (1998). Using computer software for the analysis of qualitative market research data. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(3), 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C. S., & Douglas, S. P. (2005). International marketing research (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A. R., Jaccard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1976). Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (1999). The rise and rise of evidence in health care. Public Money & Management, 19(1), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(4), 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N. (2007). Abduction: A pre-condition for the intelligent design of strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicken, P. (2007). Global shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (5th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, T. (2009). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling? Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality and Quantity, 43(6), 875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiGregorio, S. (2000). Using nvivo for your literature review. In Strategies in qualitative research: Issues and results from analysis using QSR NVivo and NUD*IST. London: Institute of Education.

  • Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (1997). The changing dynamic of consumer behavior: Implications for cross-cultural research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(4), 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duriau, V., Reger, R., & Pfarrer, M. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N., & Lee, R. M. (1991). Using computers in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghauri, P. N., & Firth, R. (2009). The formalization of case study research in international business. Der Markt, 48(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghauri, P. N., & Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson/Financial Times Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, L. S. (2002). Going the distance: ‘Closeness’ in qualitative data analysis software. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. D. (2007). Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W., & Langmaid, R. (1988). Qualitative market research: A practitioner’s and buyers guide. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, M. (2010). Mixed methods research beyond paradigm wars: How pragmatics has neutralized the neutrality of epistemology and furthered the dualism between the human and the natural sciences. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 80(4), 77–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2008). Questioning qualitative inquiry. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., & Harris, M. (Eds.). (1990). Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S. (1996). Unleashing frankenstein’s monster? In R. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology: Computing and qualitative research (Vol. 5, pp. 25–41). London: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., & Churchill, G. A. (2010). Marketing research: Methodological foundations (10th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1986). Cross-cultural methods for the study of behavioral decision making. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, G., & Westwood, R. (2006). Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 46(4), 481–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R., & Noble, G. (2007). Grounded theory and management research: A lack of integrity? Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 2(2), 84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U. (1997). Theory building in qualitative research and computer programs for the management of textual data. Social Research Online, 2(2), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/1.html. Accessed 19 June 2012.

  • Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. (Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, no. 01). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. (Organizational research methods series). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, M., & Asakawa, K. (1999). Unbundling european operations: Regional management and corporate flexibility in american and japanese mncs. Journal of World Business, 34(3), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1984). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 205–216). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, V. J. (2004). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis: Application in an export study. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 468–506). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. D. C. (2004). Comments on “models and managers: The concept of a decision calculus”: Managerial models for practice. Management Science, 50(12), 1841–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective-making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclaran, P., & Catterall, M. (2002). Analysing qualitative data: Computer software and the market research practitioner. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(1), 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä, K., & Seppälä, T. (2005). Knowledge sharing in interpersonal cross-border relationships within the mnc: in 32nd AIB UK Chapter Conference. Bath.

  • Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaughey, S. L. (2004). Writing it up: The challenges of representation in qualitative research. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 529–550). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaughey, S. L. (2007). Narratives on internationalisation: Legitimacy, standards and portfolio entrepreneurs. Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, P.-B. (2008). Showdown at kykuit: Field-configuring events as loci for conventionalizing accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6), 1089–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, N. (2001). Messy method: The unfolding story. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, N. C., & Luthans, F. (1984). An emic perspective and ethnoscience methods for organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mott-Stenerson, B. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative theoretical perspectives in applied advertising research. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 431–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe, A. (1993). ‘Messy’ research, methodological predispositions, and theory. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs: in Occasional paper, Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers of charles sanders peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshkin, A. (1985). From title to title: The evolution of perspective in naturalistic inquiry. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 16(3), 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2006). Guest editors’ introduction to the focused issue: Qualitative research methods in international business. Management International Review, 46(4), 391–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K. L. (1966). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, T., & Richards, L. (1991). The nudist qualitative data analysis system. Qualitative Sociology, 14(4), 307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. (Introducing qualitative methods). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Séror, J. (2005). Computers and qualitative data analysis: Paper, pens, and highlighters vs. Screen, mouse, and keyboard. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Sharda, R., & Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2005). Instances or sequences? Improving the state of the art of qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/6/13. Accessed 19 June 2012.

  • Sinkovics, R. R., Penz, E., & Ghauri, P. N. (2005). Analysing textual data in international marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(1), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkovics, R. R., Penz, E., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 48(6), 689–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1981). The art of progressive focusing. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Los Angeles.

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I. (1997). The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8(1), 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teagarden, M. B., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1997). Human resource management in cross-cultural contexts: Emic practices versus etic philosophies. Management International Review, 37(1), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., & Starkey, K. (1998). The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management, 9(4), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (1998). Different strokes: Qualitative research in the administrative science quarterly from 1956–1996. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. ix–xxxiii). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, E. A. (2003). Software and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 310–339). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, J. W. M. (1954). The cross-cultural method. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 523–531). Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, M., & Woods, M. (2005). Reflecting on the strategic use of caqdas to manage and report on the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 687–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S.-S., DeSanctis, G., & Staudenmayer, N. (2007). The relationship between task interdependency and role stress: A revisit of the job demands-control model. The Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 284–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (Applied social research methods series) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (Applied social research methods series) (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Gillian Symon and Catherine Cassell for their helpful comments and constructive suggestions on earlier drafts. We also acknowledge insightful comments received from anonymous conference reviewers and in research presentations, especially Sara McGaughey, Rebecca Piekkari and Catherine Welch, whose suggestions helped in fleshing out the International Business perspective. We also appreciate the constructive comments from two anonymous MIR reviewers and conversations with Brandon Charleston, who triggered the idea of using NVivo for literature reviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Comparative & International Business Group, Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Rudolf R. Sinkovics & Eva A. Alfoldi

Authors
  1. Rudolf R. Sinkovics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva A. Alfoldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rudolf R. Sinkovics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sinkovics, R.R., Alfoldi, E.A. Progressive Focusing and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Manag Int Rev 52, 817–845 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-012-0140-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-012-0140-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation