The Conduct of Qualitative Research in Organizational Settings

R esearch methodologies are important but they should always be thought of as means and not ends in themselves. An influential scholarly contribution is rarely explained by methodological appropriateness alone. Scholarly outputs which have a sustained impact normally tackle issues and theoretical problems of substance. They may also challenge or confirm a dominant theory or perspective; create a new lens or conversation; cross boundaries and effect a conceptual transfer; and deliver novel empirical findings in a high attention context. Scholarly impact can also arise from risk taking. Because most scholars are risk averse, the odds favor the risk taker (Pettigrew, 2012). Having tried to put methodology in its place, may I also assert that research methodology is too important to be left to methodologists? There have been many valuable texts on qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lee, 1999), but as a practitioner myself, I am more persuaded by ardent research practitioners who reflect on the compromises in their practice as they struggle for impact. It is this emphasis on research practice which has encouraged me to focus on the conduct of qualitative research. This task has been made considerably easier by the increased desire for qualitative researchers to write reflective practitioner articles on their research practice (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Langley, 1999; Mintzberg, 2007; Pettigrew, 1990, 1997a), and for journal editors to share their experience of trends in the assessment of qualitative articles (Gephardt, 2004; Pratt, 2008; Suddaby, 2006). I have always been uncomfortable with the label qualitative research. Labels perform many functions in social life. They can offer zones of identity and comfort. They can be used as terms of reproach and abuse. They may also be genuine attempts to codify and explain. The problem with the term qualitative research has been its very indefiniteness as a construct and label and its unhappy juxtaposition with the term quantitative research. The problem with dichotomies is that they conceal as much as they reveal. I have always been much more convinced by the power of dualities and much more comfortable with framing qualitative and quantitative research as a duality rather than a dichotomy. There is no space in this paper for a comprehensive review of the varieties of research practice in qualitative methods. I have a more limited aim, to selectively acknowledge some of the main contributors to the field; to give emphasis to the codification of standards in qualitative research; and to highlight some of those standards by focusing on the scholarship of Kathy Eisenhardt, who I believe to be one of the exemplary practitioners of qualitative research approaches. But let me start by signaling the mobilizing importance of a special issue of a prestigious journal. In 1979 John Van Maanen, himself a distinguished ethnographer and evocative writer, edited a special issue of the Administrative Science Quarterly on Qualitative Methods. At that time the Administrative Science Quarterly was the most important scholarly journal in the field of organization and management. Subsequently this position has been challenged, but the Administrative Science Quarterly still remains near the top of journal hierarchies in management. The frontispiece for the special issue has an imaginary seminar exchange between a qualitative and quantitative researcher. The tone and content of this exchange is still instructive and I repeat it here: