Week 1 – Assignment: Apply the Qualitative Method and the Research Problem

Order now Get a quote

Home
Blog
Week 1 – Assignment: Apply the Qualitative Method and the Research Problem

The focus of this week’s assignment is on applying the qualitative method to the research problem. Begin with a one-page introduction about the circumstances that led to the development of the problem; do not state the problem in this section. Establish the existence of your research problem using three to four scholarly articles published within the last five years. Remember that the problem must have a business administration focus, and must relate to your degree specialization. Keep your research focus and problem simple for this assignment.

NOTE: this framework must be used for your assignment response.

Use one sentence for each of the following:

Hook: An attention-grabbing statement that is supported by the literature.
Anchor: An evidence of the problem statement that includes a statistic and is supported by primary research.
A statement of the general business problem.
A statement of the specific business problem.

This script is helpful to (a) frame the problem, (b) validate that it exists with verifiable data, and (c) identify why and for whom the problem matters (Bakari 2018).

Next, rationalize the use of the qualitative method for your research inquiry. Explain the features. Give examples of the intended research outcomes. Formulate a purpose statement using the framework.

NOTE: this framework must be used for your assignment response.

The purpose of this qualitative study is _________________ [content aim of the study]. A qualitative study design will be used in which narrative data will be collected and analyzed to _________. These data will represent ____________ [the bounding or description of the study]. Qualitative data will be gathered exploring _____________ [the central phenomenon] from _________ [participants] at _________ [the research site]. The reasons for using this form of data to ________ [support or generate] data, is to develop an in-depth understanding of ____________________. [Include scholarly sources to support these research decisions.]

Create two research questions that will generate information for later analysis.

Tip: Remember that this is qualitative research. This is a qualitative research method course and you will use a qualitative research method approach for this assignment.

Length: 3-4 pages

References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

You should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts that are presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect graduate-level writing and APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button.

Reference:

Problem statement script. Personal communication Bakari, M. (2018).

Due DateJan 8, 2023 11:59 PM

Qualitative Business Research Design and Methodology

(3 credits)

Course Description:

During this course, you will examine qualitative methods for studying human behavior including case studies, ethnography, grounded theory, mixed methods, narrative analysis, and phenomenology. You will explore designs and methodologies to use with your envisioned dissertation research study.

Number of Activities: 9

Learning Outcomes:

1. Examine various qualitative research designs.

2. Determine the relationship between qualitative research and contributions to relevant theory.

3. Critique the use of qualitative design and methodology of prior research.

4. Formulate research questions and protocols appropriate for qualitative studies.

5. Design qualitative research studies.

Course Concepts:

1. Qualitative Research Method and the Research Problem

2. Qualitative Research Designs

3. Case Study and Phenomenology

4. Ethnography, Grounded Theory, and Other Designs

5. Qualitative Research Procedures and Participant Selection

6. Research Ethics and Qualitative Analysis

Primary Resource/textbook:

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

NCU School of Business Best Practice Guide for Qualitative Research Design and Methods in Dissertations

Course Overview

Section 1: The Qualitative Method and Research Designs

Week 1: The Qualitative Research Method and the Research Problem

Week 1 Assignment: Apply the Qualitative Method and the Research Problem (10 Points)

Week 2: Qualitative Research Methodology

Week 2 Assignment: Appraise the Merits of Using the Qualitative Method (10 Points)

Week 3: Determining the Value of Qualitative Designs

Designs Part I: Case Study and Phenomenology

Week 3 Assignment: Justify the Use of Qualitative Designs: Case Study or Phenomenology (10 Points)

Week 4: Determining the Value of Qualitative Designs

Designs Part II: Ethnography, Grounded Theory, and More

Week 4 Assignment: Create an Instructor’s Presentation to Teach Students about Qualitative Research Designs (10 Points)

Section 2: Qualitative Research Processes

Week 5: Qualitative Research Procedures and Participant Selection

Week 5 Assignment: Formulate a Strategy for Data Collection (10 Points)

Week 6: Research Processes for Qualitative Analysis

Week 6 Assignment: Analyze Qualitative Data (10 Points)

Section 3: Designing a Qualitative Study

Week 7: Designing a Qualitative Study

Week 7 Assignment: Signature Assignment: Design a Qualitative Study (25 Points)

Week 8: Research Ethics and Article Critique

Week 8 Assignment 1: Critique a Qualitative Article (10 Points)

Week 8 Assignment 2: Complete CITI Certification (5 Points)

Welcome Video for BUS-7380 – Qualitative Business Research Design and Methodology

Qualitative Business Research Design & Methodology – BUS-7380

Welcome to the course. Here’s an overview of what you will learn.

In Section 1 of this course, you will learn about the qualitative methodology and some of its many designs. In Section 2 you will learn about the processes, procedures, and elements of data analysis. Finally, in Section 3 you will use your accumulated knowledge to develop your Signature Assignment, qualitative research plan. This is a course that takes you methodically through the features of qualitative research so that you will become comfortable with applying this method appropriately to your research problem.

Let’s look at the research plan a little more closely. As indicated earlier, you are here in this course to learn how to apply the qualitative method to solve a business problem. Depending on your degree type you may be looking to add to the body of knowledge in your field, or your goal maybe to find practical solutions that could be implemented in the workplace now. As you learn about the features of qualitative methodology and design, you will see how each of the elements in this list contribute to the development of knowledge or practice solutions.

By the end of this course you will acquire the necessary certification to conduct research here at Northcentral University. You will also have a better understanding of the foundations of qualitative inquiry. You will have a roadmap that shows how you how to apply the qualitative methodology to solving a problem when you write your dissertation.

Surely you may have many questions right now. There are many things you will have to consider when building a qualitative research plan. While the research plan may seem confusing, by the time you reach the end of this course, you will have answers to all of these questions.

As you know, NCU uses a unique one-to-one model. If you would like to connect with other students in this same course, your degree program, or just others with similar interests, you should check out NCU’s internal social network, the Commons. You may already be connected; if not, take some time to check it out.

Remember that your instructor is here to support your success, as is an entire team on the other side of your screen. Let us know how we can help. There is a lot to do, so once again, Welcome to Qualitative Business Research Design and Methodology.

2-15-18 cd/jk/bf

image1

image2

r Academy of Management Journal
2018, Vol. 61, No. 4, 1189–1195.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004

FROM THE EDITORS

NEW WAYS OF SEEING THROUGH QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research offers critical tools that ad-
vance our editorial team’s ambition to foster ‘new
ways of seeing’ (see Shaw, Bansal, & Gruber, 2017).
By building theory inductively, research based on
qualitative data offers insights that challenge taken-
for-granted theories and expose new theoretical di-
rections. As we face more wicked problems in our
world, scholars are increasingly adopting qualitative
methods to unpack these complex challenges. In the
last year, qualitative papers hit an all-time high of
20% of submissions to Academy of Management
Journal (AMJ).

Yet, effectively unpacking new theory requires
scholars to take advantage of the breadth and variety
of approaches to qualitative research. In2011, Bansal
and Corley lamented that qualitative research was
norming around a single approach—often, case-
based positivist research with systematically coded
data—and called for more methodological diversity.
As editors, we are now seeing more papers sub-
mitted with varied qualitative methods, but these
more novel approaches remain in the minority nev-
ertheless. In this editorial, we underscore Bansal
and Corley’s (2011) argument that such diversity in
qualitative research is critical to advancing our cur-
rent AMJ editorial team’s desire to foster “new ways
of seeing.” By exposing the breadth of approaches
covered by the single label of “qualitative research,”
we hope to motivate researchers to more fully em-
brace opportunities that advance theory through
qualitative methods. In so doing, we believe that
the theoretical insights will contribute to our col-
lective understanding of tackling someof theworld’s
most intractable management and organizational
challenges (Eisenhardt, Graebner, and Sonenshein,
2016).

In this editorial, we describe different qualitative
methods as genres—distinct approaches with their
own internally coherent epistemology, historical
roots, and assumptions. Similar to different works of
literature, music, or film, a genre emphasizes vari-
ety across types of qualitative research, as well as

alignment of logics within each type. Examples of
qualitative genres include case study research, pro-
cess studies, engaged scholarship, historical studies,
discourse studies, paradox as a method, dialectical
inquiry, and fuzzy set qualitative comparative anal-
ysis. Just as the label of ‘qualitative research’ con-
tains within it a variety of genres, these genres often
contain within them gradations and subgenres,
which may form their own genre. Indeed, we antic-
ipate that the diversity of methodologies will only
expand in scope as the qualitative field continues to
mature, but only as long as we remain vigilant in
ensuring that the field does not institutionalize
around a few norms too quickly.

In this editorial, we first outline the broad cate-
gory of qualitative research and highlight its value
for new ways of seeing. We then expand upon some
exemplary genres of qualitative research, noting
their internally aligned assumptions as well as their
distinctions from other genres. We conclude this
editorial byhighlighting four core principles that can
help both authors and reviewers alike adopt and as-
sess the quality of research that aims to see in new
ways.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AS A MEANS
TO SEE IN NEW WAYS

By ‘qualitative research,’ we mean scholarship
that primarily relies on qualitative data and induc-
tive theorizing. Quantitative data are numerical, and
can be added, manipulated, and transformed into
efficient data displays. Qualitative data, on the other
hand, are nonreduceable text, including words and
visuals delivered in static (e.g., paper) or dynamic
form (e.g., theater). Although these qualitative data
can be digitized, synthesized, and even counted,
doing so first requires interpretation of the data to
discern patterns and insights. Given the broad forms
in which qualitative data may appear, a researcher’s
onto-epistemological assumptions often shape his/
her approaches to this analytical process.

Inductive theorizing is a cornerstone of qualitative
research.Whereas quantitativemethodsdeducenew
knowledge that relies heavily on logical reasoning
based on prior insights and expands understanding

All authors contributed equally and are listed in alpha-
betical order.

1189

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004

along existing or adjacent paths, qualitative research
surfaces new insights that can often introduce theory
in completely new directions. When adopting qual-
itative methods, scholars draw on the observations
from the data to introduce abstracted knowledge that
can generalize beyond the specific contexts. Induc-
tive theorizing grounded in data can broaden the
researchers’ epistemological framewith longer leaps
thanhypo-deductive logic basedonquantitative data,
thereby yielding completely novel ideas.

Such inductive theorizing based on qualitative data
are particularly appropriate in new or understudied
empirical contexts where there is relatively little prior
work, as in the case of complex, messy grand chal-
lenges (Nadkarniet al., 2018).AsBambergerandPratt’s
(2010) AMJ editorial advocated, unconventional con-
texts serve to break our assumed theoretical frames. By
starting with the phenomena, researchers can some-
times discern perspectives inaccessible through
hypothetico-deductive logic. By enabling lateral shifts
in knowledge that are often difficult to observe using
deductive methods, qualitative research advances
critical thinking and scholarship.

EXAMPLES OF MORE-ESTABLISHED AND
LESS-ESTABLISHED GENRES

Qualitative research includes many genres, each
offering a different lens with which to view phe-
nomena.Wedescribe several examples of qualitative
research, seeking to highlight the rich breadth of
insights through different qualitative genres drawn
from management research and from scholarly tra-
ditions developed in other fields of social sciences
and the humanities. The connection to these other
traditions helps researchers see the links to other
onto-epistemological assumptions, recognizing the
origins of the ideas and their related traditions. Our
examples are meant to be illustrative not compre-
hensive;we invite scholars to recognize anddeploy a
full range of genres that fits their research endeavor,
alignswith their data, and reflects their ownpersonal
research preferences.

Variance-Based Case Studies

Variance-based case studies build an understand-
ing of the relationships between well-defined con-
structs, so that the proposed relationships transcend
a specific context (Eisenhardt, 1989). These studies
often aim to unpack “what causes what,” as re-
searchers seek to understand the factors that can ex-
plain different outcomes.

Multiple case studies use a replication-and-
comparison logic to see patterns in a data set. Cases
with outcomes that vary (e.g. success and failure) are
useful in eliciting different explanatory variables;
multiple cases with the same outcomes (e.g. success
or failure) strengthen the reliability of the theory.
Even single case studies can be used to support
variance-based theorizing, comparing the current
data against insights from received theory. These
variance-based approaches tend to follow a positivist
paradigm, so that other researchers can assess the
validityof the theoryandconstructsby applying them
to different empirical settings.

More than any other qualitative method, this
positivist genre dovetails most closely with deduc-
tive, quantitative research. Whereas a hypothetico-
deductive approach to theorizing starts with prior
theory, an inductive approach starts with the data
or context-specific problem (Weick, 1992).However,
the propositions derived in this type of positivist
analysis can extend prior work and stimulate future
deductivework (Eisenhardt &Graebner, 2007), though
doing so in ways that offer potential leapfrogs in the-
orizing.Forexample,Plowman,Baker,Beck,Kulkarni,
Solansky, and Travis (2007) used a single case study
to observe how a series of small events—specifically,
offering hot breakfasts— ultimately contributed to
radical changes in a church. To understand this phe-
nomenon, the authors applied complexity theory to
theorize how such small triggers could result in such
radical changes. Complexity theory had previously
received little attention in mainstream management
journals. By applying this theory, the authors ex-
panded our field’s engagement with it.

Process Studies

Process studies explore change, emergence, ad-
aptation, and transformation. Whereas variance ap-
proachesprioritize static entities, unpack their stable
structures and constitutive features, and identify the
factors that lead to specific outcomes, process on-
tology shifts the focus to the ongoing, dynamic, and
shifting experiences. Early process studies consid-
ered how entities changed from one time period to
the next (Mintzberg, 1978; Pettigrew; 1990). Starting
in the late 1990s, however, scholars argued for
a ‘strong’ process approach that diminishes entities
altogether and explores phenomena as always
changing (for an overview, see Langley & Tsoukas,
2010, 2017). For example, Tushman andRomanelli’s
(1985) work on punctuated equilibrium represents
an early approach to process studies, highlighting

1190 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

the adaptive states of “variation and selection” that
stimulate organizational innovation and change
between more stable states of “retention.” In con-
trast, Weick and Quinn (1999) proffered a strong
process model, suggesting that change is not epi-
sodically occurring betweenmore static periods, but
continuous and ongoing, such that there are no static
periods.

Process studiesdraw fromrichphilosophical roots
(i.e., Dewey, 1938; James, 1952; Whitehead, 1978),
relying on a dynamic, relational, and antidualistic
ontology. This ontology describes a world that is in
constant flux, where individuals and environments
are mutually constitutive. The nature of these flow-
ing relationships take primacy, such that, in the ex-
treme, the dualistic distinctions we make between
the individual and the environment, the self and the
other, themind and the bodyabsolve to focus only on
their dynamic interactions.

Adopting a process view then invites us to observe
flows, changes, and relationality. For example,
a more variance-oriented study might identify rou-
tines and ask how particular routines lead tomore or
less impact on organizational outcomes. A strong
process view, in contrast, explores the underlying
motor of routines, and how routines themselves are
in constant flux and change informing as well as
informed by the users that adopt them (Feldman
& Pentland, 2003). Similarly, a more variance-
oriented study of hybridity might hold constant
competing logics, goals, and identities and explore
organizational factors that lead to increased or de-
creased conflict between these competing demands
(Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013).
A process-oriented view might explore the morph-
ing and changing of competing logics, goals, and
identities in relation to one another over time
(Ashforth & Reingen, 2014; Jay, 2013; Smith &
Besharov, 2017).

Engaged Scholarship

In most positivist research, we expect the people
conducting the research to distance themselves from
the ‘thing’ they are observing. Doing so protects
the researchers’ objectivity and ensures that their
biases do not influence scholarly outcomes. ‘En-
gaged scholarship’ challenges this assumption of
distance and objectivity. According to this genre,
qualitative researchers cannot be disentangled from
their context; the very presence of a researcher in the
context will ultimately influence the research con-
text such that ultimately the two may be mutually

constituted (Van de Ven, 2007). Instead, these
connections between the researcher and the
researched can be considered a strength for insights,
as the people being studied are often seen as collab-
orators in the research process.

Although scientific knowledge and practical
knowledge are different, they can inform each other
and the greater embeddedness of the researcher
in his or her context will favor deeper insights
and empathy for those that he or she is research-
ing. Engaged scholarship, then, offers new ways
of seeing, as the insights not only incorporate
the perspective of managers, but also benefit from
the creative abrasion of the two different types of
knowledge systems to givemeaning to the research
context. Further, one of the greatest strengths of
engaged scholarship is that it can help to mobilize
the insights in real time, which means that re-
searchers can sometimes even assess the efficacy
of their findings in real time (Rynes, Bartunek, &
Daft, 2001).

Relatively few research articles based on engaged
scholarship or action researchmake it into the pages
of AMJ, because authors have difficulty describing
their experience and describing their role. How-
ever, given that many qualitative researchers are
engaged scholars, it is important for researchers to
be forthright about their role. Jay’s (2013) article on
the transformation of the Cambridge Energy Alli-
ance from a client-oriented business to a public
service nonprofit offers a good exemplar of engaged
scholarship. During his two-year ethnography as an
organizational historian, he shared with his in-
formants his insights about the context, actions, and
outcomes, which he recognized likely shaped the
views of his informants.He countered the criticisms
for such close engagement by being transparent and
reflexive,while also keeping a ‘fourth notebook.’He
also recognizes that he gained deep, first-hand in-
sights into the conflicts that his informants experi-
enced in the change process, which gave him
an emic perspective of the organization’s transition
process.

Historical Studies

Although longitudinal case studies or process stud-
ies often analyze historical data, we are witnessing
a ‘historical turn’ in management and orga-
nization studies (Godfrey, Hassard, O’Connor,
Rowlinson, & Ruef, 2016; Kipping & Üsdiken,
2014; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). This
turn is shifting attention from the simple use of

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1191

historical data to the value of these analyses in
making us see the social, cultural, and institu-
tional construction of organizational and mana-
gerial phenomena in historical context. Whereas
hypothetico-deductive logic seeks universal laws
or mechanisms, historical analysis recognizes the
temporal and spatial historical embeddedness of
organizational phenomena. Such analysis requires
access to or ability to gather appropriate data, as
well as the key principles of historical analysis:
a preference for authentic archival data over ret-
rospective material, comprehensive source criti-
cism, and researchers’ reflexivity in constructing
the narrative.

Although few in number, we have increasingly
seen more historical papers published in leading
journals such as AMJ. For instance, Cattani, Dunbar,
andShapira (2013) provided anexemplaryhistorical
analysis of value creation and knowledge loss by
studying how value has been attributed to Cremon-
ese stringed instruments from the 16th to the 19th
centuries. Hampel and Tracey (2017) offered an il-
luminating institutional analysis of how Thomas
Cook’s travel agency moved from stigmatization to
legitimacy among the elite of Victorian Britain. Such
studies successfully highlight historically embed-
ded processes and practices and their changes over
time.

There are, however, many ways of conducting
historical work, and these can be understood as
subgenres. For instance, Vaara and Lamberg (2016)
distinguished between realist, interpretative, and
poststructuralist approaches to using historical
methods and conducting historically oriented strat-
egy research. Each of these approaches can elucidate
particular aspects of historical phenomena, but they
also imply very different kinds of perspectives on
empiricalmaterial,methods of analysis, and theways
in which research findings are articulated in papers.
For instance, as in the studies mentioned above,
realist historical analysis can uncover the process
dynamics and help to elucidate the historically em-
bedded agency of decision-makers or managers, im-
plying a need to focus on as accurate a reconstruction
of historical events and trajectories as possible. More
interpretative studies, such as microhistorical ana-
lyses, can instead illuminate the roleof specific events
and practices and how they exemplify typical char-
acteristics of a particular time period from the per-
spective of the key actors involved. Poststructuralist
historical studies can in turn problematize typically
held historical interpretations, requiring a special
emphasis on reflexivity and criticality.

Discourse Studies

There are many discursive approaches to analyz-
ing organizational data, such as content analysis,
conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis,
Foucauldian discourse analysis, and narrative stud-
ies (Phillips & Oswick, 2012; Vaara, Sonenshein, &
Boje, 2016). Although it is somewhat problematic to
lump these approaches together, they share some
common elements that can be described under one
heading. Specifically, this genre assumes a socially
constructed or poststructuralist understanding of
social reality that seeks to uncover and deconstruct
meanings, rather than seek to discover causal con-
nections (Fairclough, 2003; Foucault, 1977). Thus,
this genre offers a unique way of seeing the con-
struction of organizational and managerial phe-
nomena through discursive practices. By so doing,
discourse analysis not only emphasizes the role of
languageor communicationper se, it also offersways
to problematize commonly held conceptions and to
conduct critical research. This approach, however,
requires an ability to combine detailed linguistic
analysis with critical analysis of specific organiza-
tional phenomena.

An early example of discourse studies is Boje’s
(1995) poststructuralist narrative analysis of Disney,
which focused on the stories used to construct the
history of the company. This analysis revealed the
alternative stories and marginalized voices in this
historical construction. More recently, Maguire and
Hardy (2013) have studied the discursive processes
and practices through which products “become”
seen as risky, considering the implications for iden-
tity andpower. Such studies have elucidated the role
of discourse and discursive practices and also paved
the way for other types of analysis, such as conver-
sation analysis or themoredetailed critical discourse
analysis.

PUBLISHING ACROSS QUALITATIVE GENRES

While qualitative research uses data and analyses
that can flex to fit the researchers’ preferences,
scholars must still ensure rigor and fit. We offer four
core principles to help scholars more effectively
write, review, and read qualitative papers across the
broad range of qualitative genres.

Principle #1: Know Your Epistemology

Specific genres reflect particular onto-epistemological
assumptions that should be taken seriously through
the research process and writing the paper. The

1192 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

majority of papers submitted to and published in
journals such as AMJ tend to subscribe to the para-
digm of normal science that aims to find relation-
ships among valid constructs that can be replicated
by anyone. In such cases, researchers may not need
to explicitly elaborate on onto-epistemological is-
sues, which is the case with variance-based case
studies. However, genres that deviate from normal
science require researchers to often explicitly state
their onto-epistemological assumptions. For in-
stance, process studies need to state their relational
and temporal ontology in order to discriminate them-
selves from more variance-based approaches to
change. Similarly, poststructuralist forms of dis-
course studies must make their epistemological as-
sumptions explicit to differentiate them from other
types of studies and to help others see the value in
this kind of critical work.

Principle #2: Ensure that the Research Questions,
Data, and Analysis are Internally Consistent

Effective scholarship requires alignment between
one’s research questions, data, and analysis.Whereas
quantitative scholars often make decisions at the
start of a project to ensure that the data collection
and analysis fit with the research question, qualita-
tive, inductive approaches often require rethinking
these questions throughout the project. Insights
emerging while collecting data often reveal new
ideas that might inspire new data collection, alter-
native analytical processes, and even a modified re-
search question. While this process enables more
flexibility, the final scholarship still requires align-
ment across the research question, data collected,
and analytical processes—as well as alignment be-
tween these design choices and the overall genre’s
epistemology. Therefore, scholars must be open and
transparent about their assumptions and maintain
internal consistency throughout the paper. More-
over, scholars engaged in inductive inquiry must
often be familiar with a variety of genres to be able
to deliberately and purposely make choices that
align the research question, data, and analytical
methods in the final manuscript. Although we
appreciate and encourage scholars to boldly dis-
cover and follow new theories and methods, this
should be done in a careful manner that is mindful
about the differences between various genres and
subgenres. For instance, when engaging in dis-
course analysis, the tradition of conversation anal-
ysis is very different from Foucauldian discourse
analysis.

Principle #3: Be Authentic, Detailed, and Clear in
Argumentation and Style of Writing

The writing up of qualitative papers should be
detailed and authentic in terms of the genre fol-
lowed. In particular, the methods sections should
be as complete as possible, and researchers must
be able to defend the decisions they make to their
specific context. For example, almost all re-
searchers impact their organizational context, es-
pecially when they are deeply embedded in their
research context, as in the case of ethnographic re-
search. We encourage researchers to not only ex-
plicitly report their impact on their context, but also
to be reflexive in their data collection, so they rec-
ognize the role they play in shaping the organiza-
tional outcomes or their own implicit biases in
interpreting the result(s). Similarly, we advise re-
searchers to be authentic in the way they write up
their findings sections and conclusions. This is not,
however, always easy, as there is a need to apply
and adjust the original ideas in new contexts. Thus,
for instance, historical analysis can rarely be re-
ported in as detailed a way as historians ideally
would want to have it because that would require
more space than we usually have and leave less
room for theoretical contributions than is needed in
our own field. Similarly, discourse analysis should
focus attention on the linguistic micro processes
and practices, but this should not eat up all the
space needed to make specific points about the role
discourse in the managerial or organizational phe-
nomena one is studying.

Principle #4: Use Exemplary Papers, but Do Not
Force Fit Your Scholarshipwith Existing Templates

We applaud the increasing scholarship advancing
clear prescriptions and developing exemplary pa-
pers, which collectively advance methodological
rigor and ensure the value of our insights. We en-
courage scholars using new genres to continue to
find exemplars and templates to help ensure such
rigor. However, given that most genres are context
specific, following prior work too closely can result
in force fitting analysis that does not cohere with
one’s own approach. Authors must see their work as
unique and seek to continue to innovate and develop
the qualitative methods to avoid orthodoxies. We
also maintain that juxtaposing methodological ap-
proaches against one another can help inspire in-
novation within and across genres (see Gehman,
Glaser, Eisenhardt, Gioia, Langley, & Corley, 2018).

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1193

Adopting qualitative, inductive methods allows
scholars to surface new insights and enable new
ways of seeing. The types of qualitative methods are
rich and varied. By focusing on a narrow set of
qualitative methods, we limit the types of insight we
surface as qualitative scholars. Our hope is to inspire
more scholarship that adopts these broader genres
and extends newways of seeing in management and
organizational research.

Pratima (Tima) Bansal
Ivey Business School, Western University

Wendy K. Smith
University of Delaware

Eero Vaara
Aalto University School of Business

EMLYON Business School
Lancaster University

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dys-
function:Managing the dynamics of an organizational
duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 59: 474–516.

Bamberger, P. A., & Pratt, M. G. 2010. From the
editors—Moving forward by looking back: Reclaiming
unconventional research contexts and samples in or-
ganizational scholarship. Academy of Management
Journal, 53: 665–671.

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2011. From the editors—The
coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the
diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 54: 233–238.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable
hybrid organizations: The case of commercial micro-
finance organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 53: 1419–1440.

Boje, D. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization: A
postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-land.”
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.

Cattani, G., Dunbar, R., & Shapira, Z. 2013. Value creation
and knowledge loss: The case of Cremonese stringed
instruments. Organization Science, 24: 813–830.

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York,
NY: Holt.

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

Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Sonenshein, S. 2016.
Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor

without rigor mortis. Academy of Management
Journal, 59: 1113–1123.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study re-
search.AcademyofManagement Review, 14: 532–550.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual anal-
ysis for social research. London, England: Psychol-
ogy Press.

Feldman,M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing
organizational routines as a source of flexibility and
change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–
118.

Foucault,M. 1977.Disciplineandpunish: Thebirth of the
prison. London, England: Random House.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V., Eisenhardt, M., Gioia, D., Langley,
A., & Corley, K. G. 2018. Finding theory–method fit:
A comparison of three qualitative approaches to
theory building. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 27:
284–300.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E., Rowlinson, M., &
Ruef, M. 2016. What is organizational history? To-
wards a creative synthesis of history and organization
studies. Academy of Management Review, 41: 590–
608.

Hampel, C. E., & Tracey, P. 2017. How organizations move
from stigma to legitimacy: The case of Cook’s travel
agency in Victorian Britain. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 60: 2175–2207.

James,W. 1952.Theprinciples of psychology. Chicago, IL:
Encyclopedia Britannica.

Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change
and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 56: 137–159.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. 2014. History in organization
and management theory: More than meets the eye.
The Academy of Management Annals, 8: 535–588.

Langley, A., Tsoukas, H. 2010. Perspectives on process
organization studies. In T. Hernes, & S. Maitlis (Eds.),
Process, sensemaking and organizing: 1–27. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2017. Introduction: Process
thinking, process theorizing and process researching.
In A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE hand-
book of process organizational studies: 1–26. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2013. Organizing processes
and the construction of risk: A discursive approach.
Academy of Management Journal, 56: 231–255.

Mintzberg, H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Man-
agement Science, 24: 934–948.

Nadkarni, S., Gruber, M., DeCelles, K., Connolly, B., and
Baer, M. 2018. New Ways of Seeing: Radical

1194 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

Theorizing. Academy of Management Journal, 61:
371–377.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organi-
zation: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting
institutional logics. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 56: 972–1001.

Pettigrew, A. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change:
Theoryandpractice.OrganizationScience, 1: 267–292.

Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. 2012. Organizational discourse:
Domains, debates, and directions. The Academy of
Management Annals, 6: 435–481.

Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M.,
Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. 2007. Radical change
accidentally: The emergence and amplification of
small change.Academy of Management Journal, 50:
515–543.

Rowlinson,M.,Hassard, J., &Decker, S. 2014. Strategies for
organizational history: A dialogue between historical
theory and organization theory. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 39: 250–274.

Rynes, S., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across the
great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer be-
tween practitioners and academics. Academy of
Management Journal, 44: 340–355.

Shaw, J. D., Bansal, P., & Gruber, M. 2017. From the
editors—Newways of seeing: Elaboration on a theme.
Academy of Management Journal, 60: 397–401.

Smith,W.K., &Besharov,M. 2017. Bowing before dual gods:
How structured flexibility sustains organizational hy-
bridity. Administrative Science Quarterly. Published
online ahead of print. doi:10.1177/0001839217750826.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational
evolution:Ametamorphosismodel of convergence and
reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior,
7: 171–222.

Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J.-A. 2016. Taking historical
embeddedness seriously: Three approaches to ad-
vance strategy process and practice research. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 41: 633–657.

Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. 2016. Narratives as
sources of stability and change in organizations:
approaches and directions for future research. The
Academy of Management Annals, 10: 495–560.

Van deVen,A.H. 2007.Engaged scholarship: A guide for
organizational and social research. Oxford, En-
gland: Oxford University Press.

Weick, K. E. 1992. Agenda setting in organizational be-
havior: A theory-focused approach. Journal of Man-
agement Inquiry, 1: 171–182.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change
and development.Annual Review of Psychology, 50:
361–386.

Whitehead, A. N. 1978. Process and reality: An essay in
cosmology. New York, NY: Free Press.

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1195

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.