qualitative research in business studies

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Qualitative designs and methodologies for business, management, and organizational research.

• Robert P. Gephart Robert P. Gephart Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta
•  and  Rohny Saylors Rohny Saylors Carson College of Business, Washington State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.230
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Qualitative research designs provide future-oriented plans for undertaking research. Designs should describe how to effectively address and answer a specific research question using qualitative data and qualitative analysis techniques. Designs connect research objectives to observations, data, methods, interpretations, and research outcomes. Qualitative research designs focus initially on collecting data to provide a naturalistic view of social phenomena and understand the meaning the social world holds from the point of view of social actors in real settings. The outcomes of qualitative research designs are situated narratives of peoples’ activities in real settings, reasoned explanations of behavior, discoveries of new phenomena, and creating and testing of theories.

A three-level framework can be used to describe the layers of qualitative research design and conceptualize its multifaceted nature. Note, however, that qualitative research is a flexible and not fixed process, unlike conventional positivist research designs that are unchanged after data collection commences. Flexibility provides qualitative research with the capacity to alter foci during the research process and make new and emerging discoveries.

The first or methods layer of the research design process uses social science methods to rigorously describe organizational phenomena and provide evidence that is useful for explaining phenomena and developing theory. Description is done using empirical research methods for data collection including case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and collection of texts, records, and documents.

The second or methodological layer of research design offers three formal logical strategies to analyze data and address research questions: (a) induction to answer descriptive “what” questions; (b) deduction and hypothesis testing to address theory oriented “why” questions; and (c) abduction to understand questions about what, how, and why phenomena occur.

The third or social science paradigm layer of research design is formed by broad social science traditions and approaches that reflect distinct theoretical epistemologies—theories of knowledge—and diverse empirical research practices. These perspectives include positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction (interpretive science). There are also scholarly research perspectives that reflect on and challenge or seek to change management thinking and practice, rather than producing rigorous empirical research or evidence based findings. These perspectives include critical research, postmodern research, and organization development.

Three additional issues are important to future qualitative research designs. First, there is renewed interest in the value of covert research undertaken without the informed consent of participants. Second, there is an ongoing discussion of the best style to use for reporting qualitative research. Third, there are new ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. These are needed to better address the interplay of qualitative and quantitative phenomena that are both found in everyday discourse, a phenomenon that has been overlooked.

• qualitative methods
• research design
• methods and methodologies
• interpretive induction
• interpretive science
• critical theory
• postmodernism
• organization development

Introduction

Qualitative research uses linguistic symbols and stories to describe and understand actual behavior in real settings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 ). Understanding requires describing “specific instances of social phenomena” (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xi) to determine what this behavior means to lay participants and to scientific researchers. This process produces “narratives-non-fiction division that link events to events in storied or dramatic fashion” to uncover broad social science principles at work in specific cases (p. xii).

A research design and/or proposal is often created at the outset of research to act as a guide. But qualitative research is not a rule-governed process and “no one knows” the rules to write memorable and publishable qualitative research (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xxv). Thus qualitative research “is anything but standardized, or, more tellingly, impersonal” (p. xi). Design is emergent and is often created as it is being done.

Qualitative research is also complex. This complexity is addressed by providing a framework with three distinct layers of knowledge creation resources that are assembled during qualitative research: the methods layer, the logic layer, and the paradigmatic layer. Research methods are addressed first because “there is no necessary connection between research strategies and methods of data collection and analysis” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 227). Research methods (e.g., interviews) must be adapted for use with the specific logical strategies and paradigmatic assumptions in mind.

The first, or methods, layer uses qualitative methods to “collect data.” That is, to observe phenomena and record written descriptions of observations, often through field notes. Established methods for description include participant and non-participant observation, ethnography, focus groups, individual interviews, and collection of documentary data. The article explains how established methods have been adapted and used to answer a range of qualitative research questions.

The second, or logic, layer involves selecting a research strategy—a “logic, or set of procedures, for answering research questions” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 18). Research strategies link research objectives, data collection methods, and logics of analysis. The three logical strategies used in qualitative organizational research are inductive logic, deductive logic and abductive logic (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 79). 1 Each logical strategy makes distinct assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology), the nature of being (ontology), and how logical strategies and assumptions are used in data collection and analysis. The task is to describe important methods suitable for each logical strategy, factors to consider when selecting methods (Blaikie, 2010 ), and illustrates how data collection and analysis methods are adapted to ensure for consistency with specific logics and paradigms.

The third, or paradigms, layer of research design addresses broad frameworks and scholarly traditions for understanding research findings. Commitment to a paradigm or research tradition entails commitments to theories, research strategies, and methods. Three paradigms that do empirical research and seek scientific knowledge are addressed first: positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction. Then, three scholarly and humanist approaches that critique conventional research and practice to encourage organizational change are discussed: critical theory and research, postmodern perspectives, and organization development (OD). Paradigms or traditions provide broad scholarly contexts that make specific studies comprehensible and meaningful. Lack of grounding in an intellectual tradition limits the ability of research to contribute: contributions always relate to advancing the state of knowledge in specific unfolding research traditions that also set norms for assessing research quality. The six research designs are explained to show how consistency in design levels can be achieved for each of the different paradigms. Further, qualitative research designs must balance the need for a clear plan to achieve goals with the need for adaptability and flexibility to incorporate insights and overcome obstacles that emerge during research.

Our general goal has been to provide a practical guide to inspire and assist readers to better understand, design, implement, and publish qualitative research. We conclude by addressing future challenges and trends in qualitative research.

The Substance of Research Design

A research design is a written text that can be prepared prior to the start of a research project (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 4) and shared or used as “a private working document.” Figure 1 depicts the elements of a qualitative research design and research process. Interest in a topic or problem leads researchers to pose questions and select relevant research methods to fulfill research purposes. Implementation of the methods requires use of logical strategies in conjunction with paradigms of research to specify concepts, theories, and models. The outcomes, depending on decisions made during research, are scientific knowledge, scholarly (non-scientific) knowledge, or applied knowledge useful for practice.

Figure 1. Elements of qualitative research design.

Research designs describe a problem or research question and explain how to use specific qualitative methods to collect and analyze qualitative data that answer a research question. The purposes of design are to describe and justify the decisions made during the research process and to explain how the research outcomes can be produced. Designs are thus future-oriented plans that specify research activities, connect activities to research goals and objectives, and explain how to interpret the research outcomes using paradigms and theories.

In contrast, a research proposal is “a public document that is used to obtain necessary approvals for a research proposal to proceed” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 4). Research designs are often prepared prior to creating a research proposal, and research proposals often require the inclusion of research designs. Proposals also require greater formality when they are the basis for a legal contract between a researcher and a funding agency. Thus, designs and proposals are mutually relevant and have considerable overlap but are addressed to different audiences. Table 1 provides the specific features of designs and proposals. This discussion focuses on designs.

Table 1. Decisions Necessitated by Research Designs and Proposals

Source: Based on Blaikie ( 2010 ), pp. 12–34.

The “real starting point” for a research design (or proposal) is “the formulation of the research question” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 17). There are three types of research questions: “what” questions seek descriptions; “why” questions seek answers and understanding; and “how” questions address conditions where certain events occur, underlying mechanisms, and conditions necessary for change interventions (p. 17). It is useful to start with research questions rather than goals, and to explain what the research is intended to achieve (p. 17) in a technical way.

The process of finding a topic and formulating a useful research question requires several considerations (Silverman, 2014 , pp. 31–33, 34–40). Researchers must avoid settings where data collection will be difficult (pp. 31–32); specify an appropriate scope for the topic—neither too wide or too narrow—that can be addressed (pp. 35–36); fit research questions into a relevant theory (p. 39); find the appropriate level of theory to address (p. 42); select appropriate designs and research methods (pp. 42–44); ensure the volume of data can be handled (p. 48); and do an effective literature review (p. 48).

A literature review is an important way to link the proposed research to current knowledge in the field, and to explain what was previously known or what theory suggests to be the case (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 17). Research questions can used to bound and frame the literature review while the literature review often inspires research questions. The review may also provide bases for creating new hypotheses and for answering some of the initial research questions (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 18).

Layers of Research Design

There are three layers of research design. The first layer focuses on research methods for collecting data. The second layer focuses on the logical frameworks used for analyzing data. The third layer focuses on the paradigm used to create a coherent worldview from research methods and logical frameworks.

Layer One: Design as Research Methods

Qualitative research addresses the meanings people have for phenomena. It collects narratives of organizational activity, uses analytical induction to create coherent representations of the truths and meanings in organizational contexts, and then creates explanations of this conduct and its prevalence (Van Maanan, 1998 , pp. xi–xii). Thus qualitative research involves “doing research with words” (Gephart, 2013 , title) in order to describe the linguistic symbols and stories that members use in specific settings.

There are four general methods for collecting qualitative data and creating qualitative descriptions (see Table 2 ). The in-depth case study approach provides a history of an event or phenomenon over time using multiple data sources. Observational strategies use the researcher to observe and describe behavior in actual settings. Interview strategies use a format where a researcher asks questions of an informant. And documentary research collects texts, documents, official records, photographs, and videos as data—formally written or visually recorded evidence that can be replayed and reviewed (Creswell, 2014 , p. 190). These methods are adapted to fit the needs of specific projects.

Table 2. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

The In-Depth Case Study Method

The in-depth case study is a key strategy for qualitative research (Piekkari & Welch, 2012 ). It was the most common qualitative method used during the formative years of the field, from 1956 to 1965 , when 48% of qualitative papers published in the Administrative Science Quarterly used the case study method (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xix). The case design uses one or more data collection strategies to describe in detail how a single event or phenomenon, selected by a researcher, has changed over time. This provides an understanding of the processes that underlie changes to the phenomenon. In-depth case study methods use observations, documents, records, and interviews that describe the events in the case unfolded and their implications. Case studies contextualize phenomena by studying them in actual situations. They provide rich insights into multiple dimensions of a single phenomenon (Campbell, 1975 ); offer empirical insights into what, how, and why questions related to phenomena; and assist in the creation of robust theory by providing diverse data collected over time (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 36).

Maniha and Perrow ( 1965 ) provide an example of a case study concerned with organizational goal displacement, an important issue in early organizational theorizing that proposed organizations emerge from rational goals. Organizational rationality was becoming questioned at the time that the authors studied a Youth Commission with nine members in a city of 70,000 persons (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ). The organization’s activities were reconstructed from interviews with principals and stakeholders of the organization, minutes from Youth Commission meetings, documents, letters, and newspaper accounts (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ).

The account that emerged from the data analysis is a history of how a “reluctant organization” with “no goals to guide it” was used by other aggressive organizations for their own ends. It ultimately created its own mission (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ). Thus, an organization that initially lacked rational goals developed a mission through the irrational process of goal slippage or displacement. This finding challenged prevailing thinking at the time.

Observational Strategies

Observational strategies involve a researcher present in a situation who observes and records, the activities and conversations that occur in the setting, usually in written field notes. The three observational strategies in Table 2 —participant observation, ethnography, and systematic self-observation—differ in terms of the role of the researcher and in the data collection approach.

Participant observation . This is one of the earliest qualitative methods (McCall & Simmons, 1969 ). One gains access to a setting and an informant holding an appropriate social role, for example, client, customer, volunteer, or researcher. One then observes and records what occurs in the setting using field notes. Many features or topics in a setting can become a focus for participant observers. And observations can be conducted using continuum of different roles from the complete participant, observer as participant, and participant observer, to the complete observer who observes without participation (Creswell, 2014 , Table 9.2, p. 191).

Ethnography . An ethnography is “a written representation of culture” (Van Maanen, 1988 ) produced after extended participation in a culture. Ethnography is a form of participant observation that focuses on the cultural aspects of the group or organization under study (Van Maanen, 1988 , 2010 ). It involves prolonged and close contact with group members in a role where the observer becomes an apprentice to an informant to learn about a culture (Agar, 1980 ; McCurdy, Spradley, & Shandy, 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

Ethnography produces fine-grained descriptions of a micro-culture, based on in-depth cultural participation (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 , 2016 ). Ethnographic observations seek to capture cultural members’ worldviews (see Perlow, 1997 ; Van Maanen, 1988 ; Watson, 1994 ). Ethnographic techniques for interviewing informants have been refined into an integrated developmental research strategy—“the ethno-semantic method”—for undertaking qualitative research (Spradley, 1979 , 2016 ; Van Maanen, 1981 ). The ethnosemantic method uses a structured approach to uncover and confirm key cultural features, themes, and cultural reasoning processes (McCurdy et al., 2005 , Table 3 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

Systematic Self-Observation . Systematic self-observation (SSO) involves “training informants to observe and record a selected feature of their own everyday experience” (Rodrigues & Ryave, 2002 , p. 2; Rodriguez, Ryave, & Tracewell, 1998 ). Once aware that they are experiencing the target phenomenon, informants “immediately write a field report on their observation” (Rodrigues & Ryave, 2002 , p. 2) describing what was said and done, and providing background information on the context, thoughts, emotions, and relationships of people involved. SSO generates high-quality field notes that provide accurate descriptions of informants’ experiences (pp. 4–5). SSO allows informants to directly provide descriptions of their personal experiences including difficult to capture emotions.

Interview Strategies

Interviews are conversations between researchers and research participants—termed “subjects” in positivist research and informants in “interpretive research.” Interviews can be conducted as individual face-to-face interactions (Creswell, 2014 , p. 190) or by telephone, email, or through computer-based media. Two broad types of interview strategies are (a) the individual interview and (b) the group interview or focus group (Morgan, 1997 ). Interviews elicit informants’ insights into their culture and background information, and obtain answers and opinions. Interviews typically address topics and issues that occur outside the interview setting and at previous times. Interview data are thus reconstructions or undocumented descriptions of action in past settings (Creswell, 2014 , p. 191) that provide descriptions that are less accurate and valid descriptions than direct, real-time observations of settings.

Structured and unstructured interviews. Structured interviews pose a standardized set of fixed, closed-ended questions (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2012 ) to respondents whose responses are recorded as factual information. Responses may be forced choice or open ended. However, most qualitative research uses unstructured or partially structured interviews that pose open-ended questions in a flexible order that can be adapted. Unstructured interviews allow for detailed responses and clarification of statements (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012 ; McLeod, 2014 )and the content and format can be tailored to the needs and assumptions of specific research projects (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 40).

The informant interview (Spradley, 1979 ) poses questions to informants to elicit and clarify background information about their culture, and to validate ethnographic observations. In interviews, informants teach the researcher their culture (Spradley, 1979 , pp. 24–39). The informant interview is part of a developmental research sequence (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ) that begins with broad “grand tour” questions that ask an informant to describe an important domain in their culture. The questions later narrow to focus on details of cultural domains and members’ folk concepts. This process uncovers semantic relationships among concepts of members and deeper cultural themes (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

The long interview (McCracken, 1988 ) involves a lengthy, quasi-structured interview sessions with informants to acquire rapid and efficient access to cultural themes and issues in a group. Long interviews differ ethnographic interviews by using a “more efficient and less obtrusive format” (p. 7). This creates a “sharply focused, rapid and highly intense interview process” that avoids indeterminate and redundant questions and pre-empts the need for observation or involvement in a culture. There are four stages in the long interview: (a) review literature to uncover analytical categories and design the interview; (b) review cultural categories to prepare the interview guide; (c) construct the questionnaire; and (d) analyze data to discover analytical categories (p. 30, fig. 1 ).

The active interview is a dynamic process where the researcher and informant co-construct and negotiate interview responses (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995 ). The goal is to uncover the subjective meanings that informants hold for phenomenon, and to understand how meaning is produced through communication. The active approach is common in interpretive, critical, and postmodern research that assumes a negotiated order. For example, Richardson and McKenna ( 2000 ) explored how ex-patriate British faculty members themselves interpreted and explained their expatriate experience. The researchers viewed the interview setting as one where the researchers and informants negotiated meanings between themselves, rather than a setting where prepared questions and answers were shared.

Documentary, Photographic, and Video Records as Data

Documents, records, artifacts, photographs, and video recordings are physically enduring forms of data that are separable from their producers and provide mute evidence with no inherent meaning until they are read, written about, and discussed (Hodder, 1994 , p. 393). Records (e.g., marriage certificate) attest to a formal transaction, are associated with formal governmental institutions, and may have legally restricted access. In contrast, documents are texts prepared for personal reasons with fewer legal restrictions but greater need for contextual interpretation. Several approaches to documentary and textual data analysis have been developed (see Table 3 ). Documents that researchers have found useful to collect include public documents and minutes of meetings; detailed transcripts of public hearings; corporate and government press releases; annual reports and financial documents; private documents such as diaries of informants; and news media reports.

Photographs and videos are useful for capturing “accurate” visual images of physical phenomena (Ray & Smith, 2012 ) that can be repeatedly reexamined and used as evidence to substantiate research claims (LeBaron, Jarzabkowski, Pratt, & Fetzer, 2018 ). Photos taken from different positions in space may also reveal different features of phenomena. Videos show movement and reveal activities as processes unfolding over time and space. Both photos and videos integrate and display the spatiotemporal contexts of action.

Layer Two: Design as Logical Frameworks

The second research design layer links data collection and analysis methods (Tables 2 and 3 ) to three logics of enquiry that answer specific questions: inductive, deductive, and abductive logical strategies (see Table 4 ). Each logical strategy focuses on producing different types of knowledge using distinctive research principles, processes, and types of research questions they can address.

Table 3. Data Analysis and Integrated Data Collection and Analysis Strategies

Table 4. Logical Strategies for Answering Qualitative Research Questions with Evidence

Based in part on Blaikie ( 1993 ), ch. 5 & 6; Blaikie ( 2010 ), p. 84, table 4.1

The Inductive Strategy

Induction is the scientific method for many scholars (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 134), and an essential logic for qualitative management research (Pratt, 2009 , p. 856). Inductive strategies ask “what” questions to explore a domain to discover unknown features of a phenomenon (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 83). There are four stages to the inductive strategy: (a) observe and record all facts without selection or anticipating their importance; (b) analyze, compare, and classify facts without employing hypotheses; (c) develop generalizations inductively based on the analyses; and (d) subject generalizations to further testing (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 137).

Inductive research assumes a real world outside human thought that can be directly sensed and described (Blaikie, 2010 ). Principles of inductive research reflect a realist and objectivist ontology. The selection, definition, and measurement of characteristics to be studied are developed from an objective, scientific point of view. Facts about organizational features need to be obtained using unbiased measurement. Further, the elimination method is used to find “the characteristics present in all the positive cases, which are absent in all the negative cases, and which vary in appropriate degrees” (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 135). This requires data collection methods that provide unbiased evidence of the objective facts without pre-supposing their importance.

Induction can establish limited generalizations about phenomena based solely on the observations collected. Generalizations need to be based on the entire sample of data, not on selected observations from large data sets, to establish their validity. The scope of generalization is limited to the sample of data itself. Induction creates evidence to increase our confidence in a conclusion, but the conclusions do not logically follow from premises (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 164). Indeed, inferences from induction cannot be extended beyond the original set of observations and no logical or formal process exists to establish the universality of inferences.

Key data collection methods for inductive designs include observational strategies that allow the researcher to view behavior without making a priori hypotheses, to describe behavior that occurs “naturally” in settings, and to record non-impressionistic descriptions of behavior. Interviews can also elicit descriptions of settings and behavior for inductive qualitative research. Data analysis methods need to describe actual interactions in real settings including discourse among members. These methods include ethnosemantic analysis to uncover key terms and validate actual meanings used by members; analyses of conversational practices that show how meaning is negotiated through sequential turn taking in discourse; and grounded theory-based concept coding and theory development that use the constant comparative method.

Facts or descriptions of events can be compared to one another and generalizations can be made about the world using induction (Blaikie, 2010 ). Outcomes from inductive analysis include descriptions of features in a limited domain of social action that are inferred to exist in other similar settings. Propositions and broader insights can be developed inductively from these descriptions.

The Deductive Strategy

Deductive logic (Blaikie, 1993 , 2010 ) addresses “why” questions to explain associations between concepts that represent phenomena of interest. Researchers can use induction, abduction, or any means, to develop then test the hypotheses to see if they are valid. Hypotheses that are not rejected are temporarily corroborated. The outcomes from deduction are tested hypotheses. Researchers can thus be very creative in hypothesis construction but they cannot discover new phenomena with deduction that is based only on phenomena known in advance (Blaikie, 2010 ). And there is also no purely logical or mechanical process to establish “the validity of [inductively constructed] universal statements from a set of singular statements” from which deductive hypotheses were formed (Hempel, 1966 , p. 15 cited in Blaikie, 1993 , p. 140).

The deductive strategy uses a realist and objectivist ontology and imitates natural science methods. Useful data collection methods include observation, interviewing, and collection of documents that contain facts. Deduction addresses the assumedly objective features of settings and interactions. Appropriate data analysis methods include content coding to identify different types, features, and frequencies of observed phenomena; grounded theory coding and analytical induction to create categories in data, determine how categories are interrelated, and induce theory from observations; and pattern recognition to compare current data to prior models and samples. Content analysis and non-parametric statistics can be used to quantify qualitative data and make it more amenable to analysis, although quantitative analysis of qualitative data is not, strictly speaking, qualitative research (Gephart, 2004 ).

The Abductive Strategy

Abduction is “the process used to produce social scientific accounts of social life by drawing on the concepts and meanings used by social actors, and the activities in which they engage” (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 176). Abductive reasoning assumes that the socially meaningful world is the world experienced by members. The first abductive task is to discover the insider view that is basic to the actions of social actors (p. 176) by uncovering the subjective meanings held by social actors. Subjective meaning (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ) refers to the meaning that actions hold for the actors themselves and that they can express verbally. Subjective meaning is not inexpressible ideas locked in one’s mind. Abduction starts with lay descriptions of social life, then moves to technical, scientific descriptions of social life (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 177) (see Table 4 ). Abduction answers “what” questions with induction, why questions with deduction, and “how” questions with hypothesized processes that explain how, and under what conditions, phenomena occur. Abduction involves making a logical leap that infers an explanatory process to explain an outcome in an oscillating logic. Deductive, inductive, and inferential processes move recursively from actors’ accounts to social science accounts and back again in abduction (Gephart, 2018 ). This process enables all theory and second-order scientific concepts to be grounded in actors’ first-order meanings.

The abductive strategy contains four layers: (a) everyday concepts and meanings of actors, used for (b) social interaction, from which (c) actors provide accounts, from which (d) social scientific descriptions are made, or theories are generated and applied, to interpret phenomena (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 177). The multifaceted research process, described in Table 4 , requires locating and comprehending members’ important everyday concepts and theories before observing or creating disruptions that force members to explain the unstated knowledge behind their action. The researcher then integrates members’ first-order concepts into a general, second-order scientific theory that makes first-order understandings recoverable.

Abduction emerged from Weber’s interpretive sociology ( 1978 ) and Peirce’s ( 1936 ) philosophy. But Alfred Schutz ( 1973a , 1973b ) is the contemporary scholar who did the most to extend our understanding of abduction, although he never used the term “abduction” (Blaikie, 1993 , 2010 ; Gephart, 2018 ). Schutz conceived abduction as an approach to verifiable interpretive knowledge that is scientific and rigorous (Blaikie, 1993 ; Gephart, 2018 ). Abduction is appropriate for research that seeks to go beyond description to explanation and prediction (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 163) and discovery (Gephart, 2018 ). It employs an interpretive ontology (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ) and social constructionist epistemology (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ), using qualitative methods to discover “why people do what they do” (Blaikie, 1993 ).

Dynamic data collection methods are needed for abductive research to capture descriptions of interactions in actual settings and their meanings to members. Observational and interview approaches that elicit members’ concepts and theories are particularly relevant to abductive understanding (see Table 2 ). Data analysis methods must analyze situated, first-order (common sense) discourse as it unfolds in real settings and then systematically develop second-order concepts or theories from data. Relevant approaches to produce and validate findings include ethnography, ethnomethodology, and grounded theorizing (see Table 3 ). The combination of what, why, and how questions used in abduction produces a broader understanding of phenomena than do what and why deductive and inductive questions.

Layer Three: Paradigms of Research

Scholarly paradigms integrate methods, logics, and intellectual worldviews into coherent theoretical perspectives and form the most abstract level of research design. Six paradigms are widely used in management research (Burrell & Morgan, 1979 ; Cunliffe, 2011 ; Gephart, 2004 , 2013 ; Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ; Hassard, 1993 ). The first three perspectives—positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction—build on logics of design and seek to produce rigorous empirical research that constitutes evidence (see Table 5 ). Three additional perspectives pursue philosophical, critical, and practical knowledge: critical theory, postmodernism, and organization development (see Table 6 ). Tables 5 and 6 describe important features of each research design to show similarities and differences in the processes through which theoretical meaning is bestowed on research results in management and organization studies.

Table 5. Paradigms, Logical Strategies, and Methodologies for Empirical Research

Sources: Based on and adapted and extended from Blaikie ( 1993 , pp. 137, 145, & 152); Blaikie ( 2010 , Table 4.1, p. 84); Gephart ( 2013 , Table 9.1, p. 291) and Gephart ( 2018 , Table 3.1, pp. 38–39).

Table 6. Alternative Paradigms, Logical Strategies, and Methodologies

Based in part on Gephart ( 2004 , 2013 , 2018 ).

The Positivist Approach

The qualitative positivist approach makes assumptions equivalent to those of quantitative research (Gephart, 2004 , 2018 ). It assumes the world is objectively describable and comprehensible using inductive and deductive logics. And rigor is important and achieved by reliability, validity, and generalizability of findings (Kirk & Miller, 1986 ; Malterud, 2001 ). Qualitative positivism mimics natural science logics and methods using data recorded as words and talk rather than numerals.

Positivist research (Bitektine, 2008 ; Su, 2018 ) starts with a hypothesis. This can, but need not, be based in data or inductive theory. The research process, aimed at publication in peer-reviewed journals, requires researchers to (a) identify variables to measure, (b) develop operational definitions of the variables, (c) measure (describe) the variables and their inter-relationships, (d) pose hypotheses to test relationships among variables, then (e) compare observations to hypotheses for testing (Blaikie, 2010 ). When data are consistent with theory, theory passes the test. Otherwise the theory fails. This theory is also assessed for its logical correctness and value for knowledge. The positivist approach can assess deductive and inductive generalizations and provide evidence concerning why something occurs—if proposed hypotheses are not rejected.

Positivists view qualitative research as highly subject to biases that must be prevented to ensure rigor, and 23 methodological steps are recommended to enhance rigor and prevent bias (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010 , p. 720). Replicability is another concern because methodology descriptions in qualitative publications “insufficiently describe” how methods are used (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999 , p. 182) and thereby prevent replication. To ensure replicability, a qualitative “article’s description of the method must be sufficiently detailed to allow a reader . . . to replicate that reported study either in a hypothetical or actual manner.”

Qualitative research allows positivists to observe naturally unfolding behavior in real settings and allow “the real world” of work to inform research and theory (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 2004 ). Encounters with the actual world provide insights into meaning construction by members that cannot be captured with outsider (etic) approaches. For example, past quantitative research provided inconsistent findings on the importance of pre- and post-recruitment screening interviews for job choices of recruits. A deeper investigation was thus designed to examine how recruitment impacts job selection (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991 ). To do so, students undergoing recruitment were asked to “tell us in their own words” how their recruiting and decision processes unfolded (Rynes et al., 1991 , p. 399). Using qualitative evidence, the researchers found that, in contrast to quantitative findings, “people do make choices based on how they are treated” (p. 509), and the choices impact recruitment outcomes. Rich descriptions of actual behavior can disconfirm quantitative findings and produce new findings that move the field forward.

An important limitation of positivism is its common emphasis on outsiders’ or scientific observers’ objective conceptions of the world. This limits the attention positivist research gives to members’ knowledge and allows positivist research to impose outsiders’ meanings on members’ everyday behavior, leading to a lack of understanding of what the behavior means to members. Another limitation is that no formal, logical, or proven techniques exist to assess the strength of “relationships” among qualitative variables, although such assessments can be formally done using well-formed quantitative data and techniques. Thus, qualitative positivists often provide ambiguous or inexplicit quantitative depictions of variable relations (e.g., “strong relationship”). Alternatively, the analysts quantify qualitative data by assigning numeric codes to categories (Greckhamer, Misngyi, Elms, & Lacey, 2008 ), using non-parametric statistics, or quantitative content analysis (Sonpar & Golden-Biddle, 2008 ) to create numerals that depict associations among variables.

An illustrative example of positivist research . Cole ( 1985 ) studied why and how organizations change their working structures from bureaucratic forms to small, self-supervised work teams that allow for worker participation in shop floor activities. Cole found that existing research on workplace change focused on the micropolitical level of organizations. He hypothesized that knowledge could be advanced differently, by examining the macropolitical change in industries or nations. Next, a testable conclusion was deduced: a macro analysis of the politics of change can better predict the success of work team implementation, measured as the spread of small group work structures, than an examination of the micropolitics of small groups ( 1985 ). Three settings were selected for the research: Japan, Sweden, and the United States. Japanese data were collected from company visits and interviews with employment officials and union leaders. Swedish documentary data on semiautonomous work groups were used and supplemented by interviews at Volvo and Saab, and prior field research in Sweden. U.S. data were collected through direct observations and a survey of early quality circle adopters.

Extensive change was observed in Sweden and Japan but changes to small work groups were limited in the United States (Cole, 1985 ). This conclusion was verified using records of the experiences of the three nations in work reform, compared across four dimensions: timing and scope of changes, managerial incentives to innovate, characteristics of mobilization, and political dimensions of change. Data revealed the United States had piecemeal experimentation and resistance to reform through the 1970s; diffusion emerged in Japan in the early 1960s and became extensive; and Swedish workplace reform started in the 1960s and was widely and rapidly diffused.

Cole then answered the questions of “why” and “how” the change occurred in some countries but not others. Regarding why Japanese and Swedish managers were motivated to introduce workplace change due to perceived managerial problems and the changing national labor market. Differences in the political processes also influenced change. Management, labor, and government interest in workplace change was evident in Japan and Sweden but not in the United States where widespread resistance occurred. As to how, the change occurred through macropolitical processes (Cole, 1985 , p. 120), specifically, the commitment of the national business leadership to the change and whether or not the change was contested or uncontested by labor impacted the adoption of change. Organizational change usually occurs through broad macropolitical processes, hence “the importance of macro-political variables in explaining these outcomes” (p. 122).

Interpretive Induction

Two streams of qualitative research claim the label of “interpretive research” in management and organization studies. The first stream, interpretive induction, emphasizes induction as its primary logical strategy (e.g., Locke, 2001 , 2002 ; Pratt, 2009 ). It assumes a “real world” that is inherently objective but interpreted through subjective lenses, hence different people can perceive or report different things. This research is interpretive because it addresses the meanings and interpretations people give to organizational phenomena, and how this meaning is provided and used. Interpretive induction contributes to scientific knowledge by providing empirical descriptions, generalizations, and low-level theories about specific contexts based on thick descriptions of members’ settings and interactions (first-order understandings) as data.

The interpretive induction paradigm addresses “what” questions that describe and explain the existence and features of phenomena. It seeks to uncover the subjective, personal knowledge that subjects have of the objective world and does so by creating descriptive accounts of the activities of organizational members. Interpretive induction creates inductive theories based on limited samples that provide low-scope, abstract theory. Limitations (Table 5 ) include the fact that inductive generalizations are limited to the sample used for induction and need to be subjected to additional tests and comparisons for substantiation. Second, research reports often fail to provide details to allow replication of the research. Third, formal methods for assessing the accuracy and validity of results and findings are limited. Fourth, while many features of scientific research are evident in interpretive induction research, the research moves closer to humanistic knowledge than to science when the basic assumptions of inductive analysis are relaxed—a common occurrence.

An illustrative example of interpretive induction research . Adler and Adler ( 1988 , 1998 ) undertook a five-year participant-observation study of a college basketball program (Adler, 1998 , p. 32). They sought to “examine the development of intense loyalty in one organization.” Intense loyalty evokes “devotional commitment of . . . (organizational) members through a subordination that sometime borders on subservience” (p. 32). The goal was to “describe and analyze the structural factors that emerged as most related” to intense loyalty (p. 32).

The researchers divided their roles. Peter Adler was the active observer and “expert” who undertook direct observations while providing counsel to players (p. 33). Patricia Adler took the peripheral role of “wife” and debriefed the observer. Two research questions were posed: (a) “what” kinds of organizational characteristics foster intense loyalty? (b) “how” do organizations with intense loyalty differ structurally from those that lack intense loyalty?

The first design stage (Table 5 ) recorded unbiased observations in extensive field notes. Detailed “life history” accounts were obtained from 38 team members interviewed (Adler & Adler, 1998 , p. 33). Then analytical induction and the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ) were used to classify and compare observations (p. 33). Once patterns emerged, informants were questioned about variations in patterns (p. 34) to develop “total patterns” (p. 34) reflecting the collective belief system of the group. This process required a “careful and rigorous means of data collection and analysis” that was “designed to maximize both the reliability and validity of our findings” (p. 34). The study found five conceptual elements were essential to the development of intense loyalty: domination, identification, commitment, integration, and goal alignment (p. 35).

The “what” question was answered by inducing a generalization (stage 3): paternalistic organizations with charismatic leadership seek people who “fit” the organization’s style and these people require extensive socialization to foster intense loyalty. This description contrasts with rational bureaucratic organizations that seek people who fit specific, generally known job descriptions and require limited socialization (p. 46). The “how” question is answered by inductive creation of another generalization: organizations that control the extra-organizational activities of members are more likely to evoke intense loyalty by forcing members to subordinate all other interests to those of the organization (p. 46).

The Interpretive Abduction Approach

The second stream of interpretive research—interpretive abduction—produces scientific knowledge using qualitative methods (Gephart, 2018 ). The approach assumes that commonsense knowledge is foundational to how actors know the world. Abductive theory is scientifically built from, and refers to, everyday life meanings, in contrast to positivist and interpretive induction research that omits concern with the worldview of members. Further, interpretive abduction produces second-order or scientific theory and concepts from members’ first-order commonsense concepts and meanings (Gephart, 2018 , p. 34; Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ).

The research process, detailed in Table 5 (process and stages), focuses on collecting thick descriptive data on organizations, identifying and interpreting first-order lay concepts, and creating abstract second-order technical constructs of science. The second-order concepts describe the first-order principles and terms social actors use to organize their experience. They compose scientific concepts that form a theoretical system to objectively describe, predict, and explain social organization (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35). This requires researchers to understand the subjective view of the social actors they study, and to develop second-order theory based on actors’ subjective meanings. Subjective meaning can be shared with others through language use and communication and is not private knowledge.

A central analytical task for interpretive abduction is creating second-order, ideal-type models of social roles, motives, and interactions that describe the behavioral trajectories of typical actors. Ideal-type models can be objectively compared to one another and are the special devices that social science requires to address differences between social phenomena and natural phenomena (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ). The models, once built, are refined to preserve actors’ subjective meanings, to be logically consistent, and to present human action from the actor’s point of view. Researchers can then vary and compare the models to observe the different outcomes that emerge. Scientific descriptions can then be produced, and theories can be created. Interpretive abduction (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35) allows one to addresses what, why, and how questions in a holistic manner, to describe relationships among scientific constructs, and to produce “empirically ascertainable” and verifiable relations among concepts (Schutz, 1973b , p. 65) that are logical, hold practical meaning to lay actors, and provide abstract, objective meaning to interpretive scientists (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35). Abduction produces knowledge about socially shared realities by observing interactions, uncovering members’ first-order meanings, and then developing technical second-order or scientific accounts from lay accounts.

Interpretive abduction (Gephart, 2018 ) uses well-developed methods to create, refine, test, and verify second-order models, and it provides well-developed tools to support technical, second-level analyses. Research using the interpretive abduction approach includes a study of how technology change impacts sales automobile practices (Barley, 2015 ) and an investigation study of how abduction was used to develop new prescription drugs (Dunne & Dougherty, 2016 ).

An illustrative example of the interpretive abduction approach . Perlow ( 1997 ) studied time management among software engineers facing a product launch deadline. Past research verified the widespread belief that long working hours for staff are necessary for organizational success. This belief has adversely impacted work life and led to the concept of a “time bind” faced by professionals (Hochschild, 1997 ). One research question that subsequently emerged was, “what underlies ‘the time bind’ experienced by engineers who face constant deadlines and work interruptions?” (Perlow, 1997 , p. xvii). This is an inductive question about the causes and consequences of long working hours not answered in prior research that is hard to address using induction or deduction. Perlow then explored assumption underlying the hypothesis, supported by lay knowledge and management literature, that even if long working hours cause professionals to destroy their life style, long work hours “further the goals of our organizations” and “maximize the corporation’s bottom line” (Perlow, 1997 , p. 2).

The research commenced (Table 5 , step 1) when Perlow gained access to “Ditto,” a leader in implementing flexible work policies (Perlow, 1997 , p. 141) and spent nine months doing participant observation four days a week. Perlow collected descriptive data by walking around to observe and converse with people, attended meetings and social events, interviewed engineers at work and home and spouses at home, asked participants to record activities they undertook on selected working days (Perlow, 1997 , p. 143), and made “thousands of pages of field notes” (p. 146) to uncover trade-offs between work and home life.

Perlow ( 1997 , pp. 146–147) analyzed first-order concepts uncovered through his observations and interviews from 17 stories he wrote for each individual he had studied. The stories described workstyles, family lives, and traits of individuals; provided objective accounts of subjective meanings each held for work and home; offered background information; and highlighted first-order concepts. Similarities and differences in informant accounts were explored with an empirically grounded scheme for coding observations into categories using grounded theory processes (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012 ). The process allowed Perlow to find key themes in stories that show work patterns and perceptions of the requirements of work success, and to create ideal-type models of workers (step 3). Five stories were selected for detailed analysis because they reveal important themes Perlow ( 1997 , p. 147). For example, second-order, ideal-type models of different “roles” were constructed in step 3 including the “organizational superstar” (pp. 15–21) and “ideal female employee” (pp. 22–32) based on first-order accounts of members. The second-order ideal-type scientific models were refined to include typical motives. The models were compared to one another (step 4) to describe and understand how the actions of these employee types differed from other employee types and how these variations produced different outcomes for each trajectory of action (steps 4 and 5).

Perlow ( 1997 ) found that constant help-seeking led engineers to interrupt other engineers to get solutions to problems. This observation led to the abductively developed hypothesis that interruptions create a time crisis atmosphere for engineers. Perlow ( 1997 ) then created a testable, second-order ideal-type (scientific) model of “the vicious working cycle” (p. 96), developed from first-order data, that explains the productivity problems that the firm (and other research and development firms)—commonly face. Specifically, time pressure → crisis mentality → individual heroics → constant interruptions of others’ work to get help → negative consequences for individual → negative consequences for the organization.

Perlow ( 1997 ) then tested the abductive hypothesis that the vicious work cycle caused productivity problems (stage 5). To do so, the vicious work cycle was transformed into a virtuous cycle using scheduling quiet times to prevent work interruptions: relaxed work atmosphere → individuals focus on own work completion → few interruptions → positive consequences for individual and organization. To test the hypothesis, an experiment was conducted (research process 2 in Table 5 ) with engineers given scheduled quiet times each morning with no interruptions. The experiment was successful: the project deadline was met. The hypothesis about work interruptions and the false belief that long hours are needed for success were supported (design stage 6). Unfortunately, the change was not sustained and engineers reverted to work interruptions when the experiment ended.

There are three additional qualitative approaches used in management research that pursue objectives other than producing empirical findings and developing or testing theories. These include critical theory and research, postmodernism, and change intervention research (see Table 6 ).

The Critical Theory and Research Approach

The term “critical” has many meanings including (a) critiques oriented to uncovering ideological manifestations in social relations (Gephart, 2013 , p. 284); (b) critiques of underlying assumptions of theories; and (c) critique as self-reflection that reflexively encapsulates the investigator (Morrow, 1994 , p. 9). Critical theory and critical management studies bring these conceptions of critical to bear on organizations and employees.

Critical theory and research extend the theories Karl Marx, and the Frankfurt School in Germany (Gephart & Kulicki, 2008 ; Gephart & Pitter, 1995 ; Habermas, 1973 , 1979 ; Morrow, 1994 ; Offe, 1984 , 1985 ). Critical theory and research assume that social science research differs from natural science research because social facts are human creations and social phenomena cannot be controlled as readily as natural phenomena (Gephart, 2013 , p. 284; Morrow, 1994 , p. 9). As a result, critical theory often uses a historical approach to explore issues that arise from the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Critical research explores ongoing changes within capitalist societies and organizations, and analyzes the objective structures that constrain human imagination and action (Morrow, 1994 ). It seeks to uncover the contradictions of advanced capitalism that emerge from the fundamental contradiction of capitalism: owners of capital have the right to appropriate the surplus value created by workers. This basic contradiction produces further contradictions that become sources of workplace oppression and resistance that create labor issues. Thus contradictions reveal how power creates consciousness (Poutanen & Kovalainen, 2010 ). Critical reflection is used to de-reify taken-for-granted structures that create power inequities and to motivate resistance and critique and escape from dominant structures (see Table 6 ).

Critical management studies build on critical theory in sociology. It seeks to transform management and provide alternatives to mainstream theory (Adler, Forbes, & Willmott, 2007 ). The focus is “the social injustice and environmental destruction of the broader social and economic systems” served by conventional, capitalist managers (Adler et al., 2007 , p. 118). Critical management research examines “the systemic corrosion of moral responsibility when any concern for people or for the environment . . . requires justification in terms of its contribution to profitable growth” (p. 4). Critical management studies goes beyond scientific skepticism to undertake a radical critique of socially divisive and environmentally destructive patterns and structures (Adler et al., 2007 , p. 119). These studies use critical reflexivity to uncover reified capitalist structures that allow certain groups to dominate others. Critical reflection is used to de-reify and challenge the facts of social life that are seen as immutable and inevitable (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 34). The combination of dialogical inquiry, critical reflection, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and data are common in this research (Gephart, 2013 , p. 285). Some researchers use deductive logics to build falsifiable theories while other researchers do grounded theory building (Blaikie, 2010 ). Validity of critical research is assessed as the capability the research has to produce critical reflexivity that comprehends dominant ideologies and transforms repressive structures into democratic processes and institutions (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ).

An illustrative example of critical research . Barker ( 1998 , p. 130) studied “concertive control” in self-managed work teams in a small manufacturing firm. Concertive control refers to how workers collaborate to engage in self-control. Barker sought to understand how control practices in the self-managed team setting, established to allow workers greater control over their work, differed from previous bureaucratic processes. Interviews, observations, and documents were used as data sources. The resultant description of work activities and control shows that rather than allowing workers greater control, the control process enacted by workers themselves became stronger: “The iron cage becomes stronger” and almost invisible “to the workers it incarcerates” (Barker, 1998 , p. 155). This study shows how traditional participant observation methods can be used to uncover and contest reified structures and taken-for-granted truths, and to reveal the hidden managerial interests served.

Postmodern Perspectives

The postmodern perspective (Boje, Gephart, & Thatchenkery, 1996 ) is based in philosophy, the humanities, and literary criticism. Postmodernism, as an era, refers to the historical stage following modernity that evidences a new cultural worldview and style of intellectual production (Boje et al., 1996 ; Jameson, 1991 ; Rosenau, 1992 ). Postmodernism offers a humanistic approach to reconceptualize our experience of the social world in an era where it is impossible to establish any foundational underpinnings for knowledge. The postmodern perspective assumes that realities are contradictory in nature and value-laden (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ; Rosenau, 1992 , p. 6). It addresses the values and contradictions of contemporary settings, how hidden power operates, and how people are categorized (Gephart, 2013 ). Postmodernism also challenges the idea that scientific research is value free, and asks “whose values are served by research?”

Postmodern essays depart from concerns with systematic, replicable research methods and designs (Calas, 1987 ). They seek instead to explore the values and contradictions of contemporary organizational life (Gephart, 2013 , p. 289). Research reports have the character of essays that seek to reconceptualize how people experience the world (Martin, 1990 ; Rosenau, 1992 ) and to disrupt this experience by producing “reading effects” that unsettle a community (Calas & Smircich, 1991 ).

Postmodernism examines intertextual relations—how texts become embedded in other texts—rather than causal relations. It assumes there are no singular realities or truths, only multiple realities and multiple truths, none of which are superior to other truths (Gephart, 2013 ). Truth is conceived as the outcome of language use in a context where power relations and multiple realities exist.

From a methodological view, postmodern research tends to focus on discourse: texts and talk. Data collection (in so far as it occurs) focuses on records of discourse—texts of spoken and written verbal communication (Fairclough, 1992 ). Use of formal or official records including recordings, texts and transcripts is common. Analytically, scholars tend to use critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992 ), narrative analysis (Czarniawska, 1998 ; Ganzin, Gephart, & Suddaby, 2014 ), rhetorical analysis (Culler, 1982 ; Gephart, 1988 ; McCloskey, 1984 ) and deconstruction (Calais & Smircich, 1991 ; Gephart, 1988 ; Kilduff, 1993 ; Martin, 1990 ) to understand how categories are shaped through language use and come to privilege or subordinate individuals.

Postmodernism challenges models of knowledge production by showing how political discourses produce totalizing categories, showing how categorization is a tool for social control, and attempting to create opportunities for alternative representations of the world. It thus provides a means to uncover and expose discursive features of domination, subordination, and resistance in society (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 2004 ).

An illustrative example of postmodern research . Martin ( 1990 ) deconstructed a conference speech by a company president. The president was so “deeply concerned” about employee well-being and involvement at work that he encouraged a woman manager “to have her Caesarian yesterday” so she could participate in an upcoming product launch. Martin deconstructs the story to reveal the suppression of gender conflict in the dialogue and how this allows gender conflict and subjugation to continue. This research established the existence of important domains of organizational life, such as tacit gender conflict, that have not been adequately addressed and explored the power dynamics therein.

The Organization Development Approach

OD involves a planned and systematic diagnosis and intervention into an organizational system, supported by top management, with the intent of improving the organization’s effectiveness (Beckhard, 1969 ; Palmer, Dunford, & Buchanan, 2017 , p. 282). OD research (termed “clinical research” by Schein, 1987 ) is concerned with changing attitudes and behaviors to instantiate fundamental values in organizations. OD research often follows the general process of action research (Lalonde, 2019 ) that involves working with actors in an organization to help improve the organization. OD research involves a set of stages the OD practitioner (the leader of the intervention) uses: (a) problem identification; (b) consultation between OD practitioner and client; (c) data collection and problem diagnosis; (d) feedback; (e) joint problem diagnosis; (f) joint action planning; (g) change actions; and (h) further data gathering to move recursively to a refined step 1.

An illustrative example of the organization development approach . Numerous OD techniques exist to help organizations change (Palmer et al., 2017 ). The OD approach is illustrated here by the socioeconomic approach to management (SEAM) (Buono & Savall, 2007 ; Savall, 2007 ). SEAM provides a scientific approach to organizational intervention consulting that integrates qualitative information on work practices and employee and customer needs (socio) with quantitative and financial performance measures (economics). The socioeconomic intervention process commences by uncovering dysfunctions that require attention in an organization. SEAM assumes that organizations produce both (a) explicit benefits and costs and (b) hidden benefits and costs. Hidden costs refer to economic implications of organizational dysfunctions (Worley, Zardet, Bonnet, & Savall, 2015 , pp. 28–29). These include problems in working conditions; work organization; communication, co-ordination, and co-operation; time management; integrated training; and strategy implementation (Savall, Zardet, & Bonnet, 2008 , p. 33). Explicit costs are emphasized in management decision-making but hidden costs are ignored. Yet hidden costs from dysfunctions often greatly outstrip explicit costs.

For example, a fishing company sought to protect its market share by reducing the price and quality of products, leading to the purchase of poor-quality fish (Savall et al., 2008 , pp. 31–32). This reduced visible costs by €500,000. However, some customers stopped purchasing because of the lower-quality product, producing a loss of sales of €4,000,000 in revenue or an overall drop in economic performance of €3,500,000. The managers then changed their strategy to focus on health and quality. They implemented the SEAM approach, assessed the negative impact of the hidden costs on value added and revenue received, and purchased higher-quality fish. Visible costs (expenses) increased by €1,000,000 due to the higher cost for a better-quality product, but the improved quality (performance) cut the hidden costs by increasing loyalty and increased sales by €5,000,000 leaving an increased profit of €4,000,000.

SEAM allows organizations to uncover hidden costs in their operations and to convert these costs into value-added human potential through a process termed “qualimetrics.” Qualimetrics assesses the nature of hidden costs and organizational dysfunctions, develops estimates of the frequencies and amounts of hidden costs in specific organizational domains, and develops actions to reduce the hidden costs and thereby release additional value added for the organization (Savall & Zardet, 2011 ). The qualimetric process is participative and involves researchers who use observations, interviews and focus groups of employees to (a) describe, qualitatively, the dysfunctions experienced at work (qualitative data); (b) estimate the frequencies with which dysfunctions occur (quantitative data); and (c) estimate the costs of each dysfunction (financial data). Then, strategic change actions are developed to (a) identify ways to reduce or overcome the dysfunction, (b) estimate how frequently the dysfunction can be remedied, and (c) estimate the overall net costs of removing the hidden costs to enhance value added. The economic balance is then assessed for changes to transform the hidden costs into value added.

OD research creates actionable knowledge from practice (Lalonde, 2019 ). OD intervention consultants use multistep processes to change organizations that are flexible practices not fixed research designs. OD plays an important role in developing evidence-based practices to improve organizational functioning and performance. Worley et al. ( 2015 ) provide a detailed example of the large-scale implementation of the SEAM OD approach in a large, international firm.

Here we discuss implication of qualitative research designs for covert research, reporting qualitative work and novel integrations of qualitative and quantitative work.

Covert Research

University ethics boards require researchers who undertake research with human participants to obtain informed consent from the participants. Consent requires that all participants must be informed of details of the research procedure in which they will be involved and any risks of participation. Researchers must protect subjects’ identities, offer safeguards to limit risks, and insure informant anonymity. This consent must be obtained in the form of a signed agreement from the participant, obtained prior to the commencement of research observations (McCurdy et al., 2005 , pp. 29–32).

Covert research that fails to fully disclose research purposes or practices to participants, or that is otherwise deceptive by design or tacit practice, has long been considered “suspect” in the field (Graham, 1995 ; Roulet, Gill, Stenger, & Gill, 2017 ). This is changing. Research methodologists have shown that the over/covert dimension is a continuum, not a dichotomy, and that unintended covert elements occur in many situations (Roulet et al., 2017 ). Thus all qualitative observation involves some degree of deception due practical constraints on doing observations since it is difficult to do fully overt research, particularly in observational contexts with many people, and to gain advance consent from everyone in the organization one might encounter.

There are compelling benefits to covert research. It can provide insights not possible if subjects are fully informed of the nature or existence of the research. For example, the year-long, covert observational study of an asylum as a “total institution” (Goffman, 1961 ) showed how ineffective the treatment of mental illness was at the time. This opened the field of mental health to social science research (Roulet et al., 2017 , p. 493). Covert research can also provide access to institutions that researchers would otherwise be excluded from, including secretive and secret organizations (p. 492). This could allow researchers to collect data as an insider and to better see and experience the world from members’ perspective. It could also reduce “researcher demand effects” that occur when informants obscure their normal behavior to conform to research expectations. Thus, the inclusion of covert research data collection in research designs and proposals is an emerging trend and realistic possibility. Ethics applications can be developed that allow for aspects of covert research, and observations in many public settings do not require informed consent.

The Appropriate Style for Reporting Qualitative Work

The appropriate style for reporting qualitative research has become an issue of concern. For example, editors of the influential Academy of Management Journal have noted the emergence of an “AMJ style” for qualitative work (Bansal & Corley, 2011 , p. 234). They suggest that all qualitative work should use this style so that qualitative research can “benefit” from: “decades of refinement in the style of quantitative work.” The argument is that most scholars can assess the empirical and theoretical contributions of quantitative work but find it difficult to do so for qualitative research. It is easier for quantitatively trained editors and scholars “to spot the contribution of qualitative work that mimics the style of quantitative research.” Further, “the majority of papers submitted to . . . AMJ tend to subscribe to the paradigm of normal science that aims to find relationships among valid constructs that can be replicated by anyone” (Bansal, Smith, & Vaara, 2018 , p. 1193). These recommendations appear to explicitly encourage the reporting of qualitative results as if they were quantitatively produced and interpreted and highlights the advantage of conformity to the prevailing positivist perspective to gain publication in AMJ.

Yet AMJ editors have also called for researchers to “ensure that the research questions, data, and analysis are internally consistent ” (Bansal et al., 2018 , p. 1193) and to “Be authentic , detailed and clear in argumentation” (emphasis added) (Bansal et al., 2018 , p. 1193). These calls for consistency appear to be inconsistent with suggestions to present all qualitative research using a style that mimics quantitative, positivist research. Adopting the quantitative or positivist style for all qualitative reports may also confuse scholars, limit research quality, and hamper efforts to produce innovative, non-positivist research. This article provides six qualitative research designs to ensure a range of qualitative research publications are internally consistent in methods, logics, paradigmatic commitments, and writing styles. These designs provide alternatives to positivist mimicry in non-positivist scholarly texts.

Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research in New Ways

Qualitative research often omits consideration of the naturally occurring uses of numbers and statistics in everyday discourse. And quantitative researchers tend to ignore qualitative evidence such as stories and discourse. Yet knowledge production processes in society “rely on experts and laypeople and, in so doing, make use of both statistics and stories in their attempt to represent and understand social reality” (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 , p. 1649). Numbers and statistics are often used in stories to create legitimacy, and stories provide meaning to numbers (Gephart, 1988 ). Hence stories and statistics cannot be separated in processes of knowledge production (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 , p. 1697). The lack of attention to the role of quantification in everyday life means a huge domain of organizational discourse—all talk that uses numbers, quantities, and statistics—is largely unexplored in organizational research.

Qualitative research has, however, begun to study how words and numbers are mutually used for organizational storytelling (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 ; Gephart, 2016 ). This focus offers the opportunity to develop research designs to explore qualitative features and processes involved in quantitative phenomena such as financial crises (Gephart, 2016 ), to address how stories and numbers need to work together to create legitimate knowledge (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 ), and to show how statistics are used rhetorically to convince others of truths in organizational research (Gephart, 1988 ).

Ethnostatistics (Gephart, 1988 ; Gephart & Saylors, 2019 ) provides one example of how to integrate qualitative and quantitative research. Ethnostatistics examines how statistics are constructed and used by professionals. It explores how statistics are constructed in real settings, how violations of technical assumptions impact statistical outcomes, and how statistics are used rhetorically to convince others of the truth of research outcomes. Ethnostatistics has been used to reinterpret data from four celebrated network studies that themselves were reanalyzed (Kilduff & Oh, 2006 ). The ethnostatistical reanalyses revealed how ad hoc practices, including judgment calls and the imputation of new data into old data set for reanalysis, transformed the focus of network research from diffusion models to structural equivalence models.

Another innovative study uses a Bayesian ethnostatistical approach to understand how the pressure to produce sophisticated and increasingly complex theoretical narratives for causal models has impacted the quantitative knowledge generated in top journals (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 ). The use of complex causal models has increased substantially over time due to a qualitative and untested belief that complex models are true. Yet statistically speaking, as the number of variables in a model increase, the likelihood the model is true rapidly decreases (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 , p. 3).

The authors test the previously untested (qualitative) belief that complex causal models can be true. They found that “the joint probability of a six variable model is about 3.5%” (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 , p. 1). They conclude that “much of the knowledge generated in top journals is likely false” hence “not reporting a (prior) belief in a complex model” should be relegated to the set of questionable research practices. This study shows how qualitative research that explores the lay theories and beliefs of statisticians and quantitative researchers can challenge and disrupt conventions in quantitative research, improve quantitative practices, and contribute qualitative foundations to quantitative research. Ethnostatistics thus opens the qualitative foundations of quantitative research to critical qualitative analyses.

The six qualitative research design processes discussed in this article are evident in scholarly research on organizations and management and provide distinct qualitative research designs and approaches to use. Qualitative research can provide research insights from several theoretical perspectives, using well-developed methods to produce scientific and scholarly insights into management and organizations. These approaches and designs can also inform management practice by creating actionable knowledge. The intended contribution of this article is to describe these well-developed methods, articulate key practices, and display core research designs. The hope is both to better equip researchers to do qualitative research, and to inspire them to do so.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Karen Lund at The University of Alberta for carefully preparing Figure 1 . Thanks also to Beverly Zubot for close reading of the manuscript and helpful suggestions.

• Adler, P. A. , & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly , 401–417.
• Adler, P. A. , & Adler, P. (1998). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Adler, P. S. , Forbes, L. C. , & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. Academy of Management Annals , 1 (1), 119–180.
• Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography . New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Ainsworth, S. , & Hardy, C. (2012). Subjects of inquiry: Statistics, stories, and the production of knowledge. Organization Studies , 33 (12), 1693–1714.
• Akeson, C. (2005). Getting the truth: The police detective and the art of interviewing. In D. W. McCurdy , J. P. Spradley , & D. J. Shandy (Eds.), The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society (2nd ed., pp. 103–111). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• Avenier, M.-J. , & Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks. Systèmes d’information & Management , 20 (1), 61–98.
• Bansal, P. , & Corley, K. (2011). From the editors—The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal , 54 (2), 233–237.
• Bansal, P. , Smith, W. K. , & Vaara, E. (2018). From the editors: New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal , 61 (4), 1189–1195.
• Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 38 (3), 408–437.
• Barker, J. (1998). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. 126–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Barley, S. R. (2015). Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: How technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries , 1 (1), 31–60.
• Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York, NY: Doubleday.
• Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science . Sussex: Harvester Press; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Bitektine, A. (2008). Prospective case study design: Qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (1), 160–180.
• Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. , Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Thatchenkery, T. J. (Eds.). (1996). Postmodern management and organization theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. , & Saylors, R. (2014). Quantum storytelling: An ontological perspective on process. In F. Cooren , E. Vaara , A. Langley , & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing (pp. 197–217). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Buono, A. F. , & Savall, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socio-economic intervention in organizations: The intervener-researcher and the SEAM approach to organizational analysis . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life . London, UK: Heinemann.
• Calás, M. B. (1987). Organizational science/fiction: The postmodern in the management disciplines (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Calás, M. B. , & Smircich, L. (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies , 12 (4), 567–601.
• Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies , 8 (2), 178–193.
• Cicourel, A. V. (1980). Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes , 3 (2), 101–132.
• Cole, R. E. (1985). The macropolitics of organizational change: A comparative analysis of the spread of small-group activities. Administrative Science Quarterly , 30 (4), 560–585.
• Coulon, A. (1995). Ethnomethodology . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Culler, J. (1982). On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Cummings, T. G. , & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Retelling tales of the field: In search of organizational ethnography 20 years on. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (2), 224–239.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods , 14 (4), 647–673.
• Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• de Rond, M. , & Tuncalp, D. (2017). Where the wild things are: How dreams can help identify countertransference in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods , 20 (3), 413–437.
• Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 1–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Dunne, D. D. , & Dougherty, D. (2016). Abductive reasoning: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex innovation. Organization Studies , 37 (2), 131–159.
• Duriau, V. J. , Reger, R. K. , & Pfarrer, M. D. (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.
• Dutton, J. E. , Workman, K. M. , & Hardin, A. E. (2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 1 (1), 277–304.
• Easterby-Smith, M. , Thorpe, R. , & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Ganzin, M. , Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Suddaby, R. (2014). Narrative and the construction of myths in organizations. In F. Cooren , E. Vaara , A. Langley , & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing (pp. 219–260). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems , 11 (3), 225–250.
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1978). Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly , 23 (4), 553–581.
• Gephart, R. P. (1986). Deconstructing the defense for quantification in social science: A content analysis of journal articles on the parametric strategy. Qualitative Sociology , 9 (2), 126–144.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1988). Ethnostatistics: Qualitative foundations for quantitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal , 36 (6), 1465–1514.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1997). Hazardous measures: An interpretive textual analysis of quantitative sensemaking during crises. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18 (S1), 583–622.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal . Academy of Management Journal , 47 (4), 454–462.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2013). Doing research with words: Qualitative methodologies and industrial/organizational psychology. In J. M. Cortina & R. S. Landis (Eds.), Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizations (pp. 265–317). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2016). Counter-narration with numbers: Understanding the interplay of words and numerals in fiscal storytelling. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management , 4 (1), 21–40.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2018). Qualitative research as interpretive social science. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 33–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Kulicki, M. (2008). Environmental ethics and business: Toward a Habermasian perspective. In D. M. Boje (Ed.), Critical theory ethics for business and public administration (pp. 373–393). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Pitter, R. (1995). Textual analysis in technology research: An investigation of the management of technology risk. Technology Studies , 2 (2), 325–354.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Richardson, J. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies and international human resource management. In M. M. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 29–52). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Saylors, R. (2019). Ethnostatistics . In P. Atkinson , S. Delamont , A. Cernat , J. W. Sakshaug , & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , Topal, C. , & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, & organizing (pp. 275–311). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Gibbert, M. , & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (4), 710–737.
• Gill, G. J. (2017). Dynamics of democratization: Elites, civil society and the transition process . New York, NY: Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Gioia, D. A. , Corley, K. G. , & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods , 16 (1), 15–31.
• Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Graham, L. (1995). On the line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese model and the American worker . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Greckhamer, T. , Misangyi, V. F. , Elms, H. , & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (4), 695–726.
• Greenwood, M. , Jack, G. , & Haylock, B. (2019). Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports. Organizational Research Methods , 22 (3), 798–827.
• Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation crisis ( T. McCarthy , Trans.). Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
• Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society ( T. McCarthy , Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Hansen, H. , & Trank, C. Q. (2016). This is going to hurt: Compassionate research methods. Organizational Research Methods , 19 (3), 352–375.
• Hassard, J. (1993). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work . New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
• Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 393–402). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Holstein, J. A. , & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Kelle, U. (Ed.). (1995). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice . London, UK: SAGE.
• Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review , 18 (1), 13–31.
• Kilduff, M. , & Oh, H. (2006). Deconstructing diffusion: An ethnostatistical examination of Medical Innovation network data reanalyses. Organizational Research Methods , 9 (4), 432–455.
• Kirk, J. , & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Lalonde, C. (2019). The development of actionable knowledge in crisis management. In R. P. Gephart, Jr. , C. C. Miller , & K. Svedberg Helgesson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to risk, crisis and emergency management (pp. 431–446). New York, NY: Routledge.
• LeBaron, C. , Jarzabkowski, P. , Pratt, M. G. , & Fetzer, G. (2018). An introduction to video methods in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods , 21 (2), 239–260.
• Lee, T. W. , & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review , 19 (1), 51–89.
• Lee, T. W. , Mitchell, T. R. , & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 55 (2), 161–187.
• Lee, T. W. , Mitchell, T. R. , Wise, L. , & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (1), 5–36.
• Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach to qualitative research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 17–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Locke, K. , & Golden-Biddle, K. (2004). An introduction to qualitative research: Its potential for industrial and organizational psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 99–118). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet , 358 (9280), 483–488.
• Maniha, J. , & Perrow, C. (1965). The reluctant organization and the aggressive environment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 10 (2), 238–257.
• Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science , 1 (4), 339–359.
• McCall, G. J. , & Simmons, J. L. (1969). (Eds.). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• McCloskey, H. J. (1984). Ecological ethics and politics .Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
• McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics (1st ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• McCurdy, D. , Spradley, J. , & Shandy, D. (2005). The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• McLeod, S. A. (2014, February 5). The interview research method . Simply Psychology.
• Mills, A. J. , Durepos, G. , & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Morrow, R. A. (with Brown, D. D. ). (1994). Critical theory and methodology (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Offe, C. (1984). Das Wachstum der Dienstleistungsarbeit: Vier soziologische Erklärungsansätze. In C. Offe (Ed.), Arbeitsgeselleschaft. Strukturprobleme und Zukunftsperspektiven (pp. 291–319). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
• Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research , 52 (4), 817–868.
• Palmer, I. , Dunford, R. , & Buchanan, D. A. (2017). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Perlow, L. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from new work practices . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Piekkari, R. , & Welch, C. (2012). Pluralism in international business and international management research: Making the case. In R. Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case study in international business and management research (pp. 3–23). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Peirce, C. S. (1936). The Collected Papers . Eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss . Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press.
• Pollach, I. (2012). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods , 15 (2), 263–287.
• Poutanen, S. , & Kovalainen, A. (2010). Critical theory. In A. J. Mills , G. Durepos , & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1, pp. 260–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• 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.
• Ray, J. L. , & Smith, A. D. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods , 15 (2), 288–315.
• Richardson, J. , & McKenna, S. (2000). Metaphorical “types” and human resource management: Self-selecting expatriates. Industrial and Commercial Training , 32 (6), 209–218.
• Rodriguez, N. , & Ryave, A. (2002). Systematic self-observation . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Rodriguez, N. , Ryave, A. , & Tracewell, J. (1998). Withholding compliments in everyday life and the covert management of disaffiliation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 27 (3), 323–345.
• Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rosile, G. A. , Boje, D. M. , Carlon, D. M. , Downs, A. , & Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods , 16 (4), 557–580.
• Roulet, T. J. , Gill, M. J. , Stenger, S. , & Gill, D. J. (2017). Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organizational Research Methods , 20 (3), 487–517.
• Rynes, S. L. , Bretz, R. D. , & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology , 44 (3), 487–521.
• Savall, H. (2007). ISEOR’s socio-economic method: A case of scientific consultancy. In A. F. Buono & H. Savall (Eds.), Socio-economic intervention in organizations: The intervener-researcher and the SEAM approach to organizational analysis (pp. 1–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Savall, H. , & Zardet, V. (2011). The qualimetrics approach: Observing the complex object . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Savall, H. , Zardet, V. , & Bonnet, M. (2008). Releasing the untapped potential of enterprises through socio-economic management . Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
• Saylors, R. , & Trafimow, D. (2020). Why the increasing use of complex causal models is a problem: On the danger sophisticated theoretical narratives pose to truth . Organizational Research Methods , 1094428119893452.
• Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Schutz, A. (1973a). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers, volume I: The problem of social reality (pp. 3–47). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Schutz, A. (1973b). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers, volume I: The problem of social reality (pp. 48–66). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Smith, A. (2015). What grounded theory is . . . Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4), 578–580.
• Sonpar, K. , & Golden-Biddle, K. (2008). Using content analysis to elaborate adolescent theories of organization. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (4), 795–814.
• Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation . Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Su, N. (2018). Positivist qualitative methods. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 17–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization , 32 (4), 407–418.
• Van Maanen, J. (1981, March). Fieldwork on the beat: An informal introduction to organizational ethnography . Paper presented at the workshop on Innovations in Methodology for Organizational Research, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
• Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Van Maanen, J. (1998). Different strokes: Qualitative research on the Administrative Science Quarterly from 1956 to 1996. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. ix–xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Van Maanen, J. (2010). A song for my supper: More tales of the field. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (2), 240–255.
• Walsh, I. , Holton, J. A. , Bailyn, L. , Fernandez, W. , Levina, N. , & Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is . . . A critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4), 581–599.
• Watson, T. J. (1994) . In search of management: Culture, chaos, and control in managerial work . London, UK: Routledge.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Whittle, A. (2018). Ethnomethodology. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 217–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Worley, C. G. , Zardet, V. , Bonnet, M. , & Savall, A. (2015). Becoming agile: How the SEAM approach to management builds adaptability . Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
• Yan, A. , & Gray, B. (1994). Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures: A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal , 37 (6), 1478–1517.
• Ybema, S. , Yanow, D. , Wels, H. , & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

1. The fourth logic is retroduction. This refers to the process of building hypothetical models of structures and mechanisms that are assumed to produce empirical phenomena. It is the primary logic used in the critical realist approach to scientific research (Avenier & Thomas, 2015 ; Bhaskar, 1978 ). Retroduction requires the use of inductive or abductive strategies to discover the mechanisms that explain regularities (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 87). There is no evident logic for discovering mechanisms and this requires disciplined scientific thinking aided by creative imagination, intuition, and guesswork (Blaikie, 2010 ). Retroduction is likr deduction in asking “what” questions and differs from abduction because it produces explanations rather than understanding, causes rather than reasons, and hypothetical conceptual mechanisms rather than descriptions of behavioral processes as outcomes. Retroduction is becoming important in the field but has not as yet been extensively used in management and organization studies (for examples of uses, see Avenier & Thomas, 2015 ); hence, we do not address it at length in this article.

Related Articles

• Agency Theory in Business and Management Research
• Assessing the State of Top Management Teams Research
• Case Study Research: A State-of-the-Art Perspective
• Advances in Team Creativity Research

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 30 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Research in Business and Management

• Emma Bell - Open University, UK, Open University Business School, UK
• Hugh Willmott - Cardiff Business School, UK
• Description

Over the past few decades, qualitative research in management and business has expanded rapidly. Business and management is set to become - if it is not already - the dominant field within the domain of qualitative research. It is therefore vital that students and scholars are well-informed about exemplary contributions to, methods employed by, and issues, challenges, debates faced by qualitative researchers in this field. This four-volume collection is designed to provide a set of authoritative sources capable of facilitating the development of knowledge and understanding.  The collection provides an Introduction written by the editors, which contextualises and guides readers through the selection. Volume One: Classical and Contemporary Studies Volume Two: Methods, Approaches, Techniques: Guides and Exemplars Volume Three: Practices and Preoccupations Volume Four: Challenges and Prospects

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Enlightening, provocative, argumentative, and formidably perceptive, this collection conveys the richness and complexity of organizational life while also holding the keys to its amelioration. While qualitative research studies in organization and management may still be outnumbered by their quantitative counterparts, we can see here how and why they hold the upper hand in transforming theory and practice.

Emma Bell and Hugh Willmott have put together four volumes of historically rich, analytically inclusive and vivid accounts of carrying out qualitative research in business and management settings. The volumes take readers through canonical, classic works to significant contemporary developments – in both theory and method – reflecting the changing organizational contexts in which current research is set. The editors provide a thoughtful introduction and guide to the materials. This is without doubt the most comprehensive and broad treatment of qualitative research I have ever encountered. It will have a long shelf life, deservedly so.

Preview this book

Select a purchasing option, related products.

• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Research in Business and Management

• Emma Bell - Open University, UK, Open University Business School, UK
• Hugh Willmott - Cardiff Business School, UK
• Description

Over the past few decades, qualitative research in management and business has expanded rapidly. Business and management is set to become - if it is not already - the dominant field within the domain of qualitative research. It is therefore vital that students and scholars are well-informed about exemplary contributions to, methods employed by, and issues, challenges, debates faced by qualitative researchers in this field. This four-volume collection is designed to provide a set of authoritative sources capable of facilitating the development of knowledge and understanding.  The collection provides an Introduction written by the editors, which contextualises and guides readers through the selection. Volume One: Classical and Contemporary Studies Volume Two: Methods, Approaches, Techniques: Guides and Exemplars Volume Three: Practices and Preoccupations Volume Four: Challenges and Prospects

Enlightening, provocative, argumentative, and formidably perceptive, this collection conveys the richness and complexity of organizational life while also holding the keys to its amelioration. While qualitative research studies in organization and management may still be outnumbered by their quantitative counterparts, we can see here how and why they hold the upper hand in transforming theory and practice.

Emma Bell and Hugh Willmott have put together four volumes of historically rich, analytically inclusive and vivid accounts of carrying out qualitative research in business and management settings. The volumes take readers through canonical, classic works to significant contemporary developments – in both theory and method – reflecting the changing organizational contexts in which current research is set. The editors provide a thoughtful introduction and guide to the materials. This is without doubt the most comprehensive and broad treatment of qualitative research I have ever encountered. It will have a long shelf life, deservedly so.

Preview this book

Select a purchasing option, related products.

Qualitative research for international business

• Perspective
• Published: 15 June 2011
• Volume 42 , pages 582–590, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Yves Doz 1  

13k Accesses

347 Citations

Explore all metrics

Qualitative research in international business has been rare, the main research streams of the field relying more on quantitative methods. This paper first outlines why qualitative research has been scant. It then presents areas, such as theory building, where qualitative research could make a substantial contribution. Third, it reviews approaches to high standards of qualitative research and criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Finally, some possible research areas where qualitative research might prove fruitful are suggested.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Putting qualitative international business research in context(s)

A Reviewer’s Perspective: Which Mistakes Do Authors Often Make in Qualitative International Business Research?

Something borrowed, something new: Challenges in using qualitative methods to study under-researched international business phenomena

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

A parallel may be drawn here with the transitory role of the “International Division” in US multinational companies: when the attention of the business divisions was primarily home-centric (US-centric) international divisions provided a countervailing power, bringing management attention to international markets. Once a company internationalized, international divisions were disbanded, business divisions became “global”, but attention often remained or reverted to being home-centric.

Of course, the boundaries between qualitative and quantitative research can at times be fuzzy, for instance around text analysis or in quantitative analysis of case data, such as in the chronology of events.

Christopher Bartlett is one of the very few researchers in IB to have explicitly combined the development of research cases and teaching cases in a joint effort. For instance, cumulatively, the whole stream of cases on Procter and Gamble he wrote over a number of years constitutes a set of very insightful snapshots of the internationalization process of a major multinational (P&G, Vizir, Ariel Ultra, SKII). Together with Sumantra Ghoshal, who was the theory builder where Bartlett was the empiricist, they contributed significantly to our understanding of multinational companies.

The risk of communicating evidence via teaching cases is obvious: under the appearance of a story a teaching case usually contains a strong theoretical or conceptual hidden structure it is designed to surface, illustrate and communicate in a pedagogical process.

One cannot help but recall a revealing anecdote. American researchers studying the aircraft industry had a long day of hard research interviews in a windowless meeting room at Boeing, surviving on coffee and snacks. The same research team, upon flying to Toulouse, France, to meet Airbus management, was taken directly to a three star restaurant around noon and treated to a lavish lunch. Finally, around four in the afternoon, one of the researchers asked the seniormost Airbus executive about going to his office and having the interview, to which the befuddled executives retorted “Oh, we had quite a long interview over lunch, didn't we? Let me take you back to the airport”. At that point the researchers deeply regretted having exchanged opening their note pads for several glasses of wine! Their memory was blurry.

Aguilar, F. J. 1973. Daag Europe, Harvard Business School Case 9-374-037.

Aharoni, Y. 1966. The foreign investment decision process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Allison, G. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Axelrod, R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Axelrod, R. 1997. The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bartlett, C. 1979. Multinational structural evolution: The changing decision environment in international divisions, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Bower, J. L. 1970. Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Brannen, M. Y., & Peterson, M. 2009. Merging without alienating: Interventions promoting cross-cultural organizational integration and their limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (3): 468–489.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 1–34.

Buckley, P. J. 2002. Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 365–373.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 2009. The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1563–1580.

Buckley, P. J., & Lessard, D. R. 2005. Regaining the edge for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (6): 595–599.

Burgelman, R. 1994. Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 24–56.

Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of industrial enterprise. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Cheng, J. L. C. 2007. Critical issues in international management research: An agenda for future advancement. European Journal of International Management, 1 (1/2): 23–38.

Christensen, C. 1997. The innovators’ dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

DiMaggio, P. 1995. Comments on “what theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3): 391–397.

Dore, 1973. British factory-Japanese factory: The origins of national diversity in industrial relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Doz, Y. 1976. National policies and multinational management, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Doz, Y. 2004. Toward a managerial theory of the MNC. Advances in International Management, 16: 3–30.

Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1991. Managing DMNCs: A search for a new paradigm. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (S1): 145–164.

Dubois, A., & Gibbert, M. 2010. From complexity to transparency: Managing the interplay between theory, method and empirical phenomena in IMM case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 38 (1): 129–136.

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

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. 1994. Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (S2): 91–112.

Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. 2010. The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (4): 710–737.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29 (13): 1465–1474.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Business and Management Series.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of Knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1): 23–32.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4): 625–645.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6 (3): 257–272.

Peng, M. 2004. Identifying the big question in international business research. Journal of Business Studies, 35 (2): 99–108.

Pettigrew, A. 1973. The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock Press.

Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (Eds) 2010. Rethinking the case study in international business research. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. 2009. The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12 (3): 567–589.

Poole, M., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. 2000. Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Prahalad, C. K. 1975. The strategic process in a multinational corporation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

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

Quinn, J. B. 1980. Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin Press.

Rangan, S. 2009. The influence of macro structure on the foreign market performance of transnational firms: The value of IGO connections, export dependence, and immigration links. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (2): 229–267.

Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 20–24.

Thomas, D., Brannen, M. Y., & Garcia, D. 2010. Bicultural individuals and intercultural effectiveness. European Journal of Cross-cultural Competence and Management, 1 (4): 315–333.

Van de Ven, A. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales from the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

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

Weick, K. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4): 628–652.

Weick, K. 2007. The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 14–19.

Wilkins, M. 1970. The emergence of multinational enterprise: American business abroad from the colonial era to 1914. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilkins, M. 1974. The maturing of multinational enterprise: American business abroad from 1914 to 1970. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wilkins, M. 1997. The conceptual domain of international business inquiry. In B. Tyne & D. Nigh (Eds), International business: An emerging vision. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, Fontainebleau Cedex, France

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Accepted by Rosalie Tung, Area Editor, 24 February 2011. This paper was single-blind reviewed. It has been with the author for one revision .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Doz, Y. Qualitative research for international business. J Int Bus Stud 42 , 582–590 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.18

Download citation

Received : 29 October 2010

Revised : 24 February 2011

Accepted : 24 February 2011

Published : 15 June 2011

Issue Date : 01 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.18

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• research methods
• theory building
• qualitative research
• international business research agenda
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Qualitative Methods in Business Research

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management

ISSN : 1746-5648

Article publication date: 13 March 2017

Ruel, S. (2017), "Qualitative Methods in Business Research", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 87-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-08-2016-1410

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Imagine for a moment that its 40 below 0 outside, the depth of winter is upon you, and you roll yourself up into the warmest blanket you can find to keep out the chill. This image – of being surrounded by this warm blanket – kept playing out in my mind as I read through the second edition of Qualitative Methods in Business Research by Paivi Eriksson and Anne Kovalainen. I fondly remember the first edition that was assigned to us in my first year as a doctoral student. When I started reading through the first edition, I thought that finally I could understand this journey I was on! The language in the first edition was clear, concise, and such a relief from the ontological and epistemological debates I had been exposed to. The second edition, thankfully, keeps this tradition alive: the book is attainable for its intended student audience and I might add for those that want a refresher in qualitative methodologies that the reader may have skipped over upon first reading.

There are five important changes within the structure and content of this second edition. The first two changes consist of renaming a few key chapters (chapter 4, “Research questions and literature review;” chapter 8, “Interviews and observations;” chapter 9 on “Digital data”), and the addition of new chapters on “Qualitative content analysis,” “Visual research,” and “Publishing.” The next change involves the addition of new and updated literature references (i.e. books and academic publications) to support the various chapters, and to instigate the student to do further independent study via the further reading section found at the end of each chapter. Finally, the two remaining changes involve more editorial issues such as restructuring problems and questions for the reader to practice their acquired knowledge and the tightening up of language for clarity. Within these editorial changes, there are now four parts to this edition (“The business of qualitative research,” “Working with qualitative data,” “Qualitative research approaches,” and “Writing, evaluating and publishing”) as opposed to initial three parts found in the first edition.

The new chapters on “Qualitative content analysis,” “Visual research,” and “Publishing” are very much welcome additions to this book. The “Qualitative content analysis” chapter was present in the first edition, but was lost in the “Electronic research” chapter. The “Visual research” chapter was, I found, an exciting addition as this method gains traction in studying businesses and their environment. Finally, the “Publishing” chapter was a surprise addition that was much needed. Many doctoral students question where and how to publish their research, some to make a difference within the business world and others to build their own academic pursuits. While this last chapter is brief, it allows for the beginning of a conversation on what avenue to follow (i.e. practitioner publications, conferences, book chapters, academic publications, etc.).

I identify in my academic work as a postfeminist poststructuralist. As controversial as this may sound, I must make this distinctive identification clear when I consider my expectations with respect to the “Feminist approach” chapter in this second edition. The authors point out right away that many textbooks do not identify feminism let alone as a method of study. While I was and continue to be ecstatic that these authors recognize this shortcoming within the business research literature, I really wanted to see some major updates to this chapter which unfortunately did not happen in this edition. Suggested improvements include considering introducing different types of feminism, and then suggesting matches of these types with appropriate methods. Too much focus was given to postmodernism as a feminist method, potentially confusing the audience into believing such avenues such as liberal feminism could be dealt with effectively say via a critical discourse analysis. Feminist studies span many different ontological states which necessitate a variety of potential approaches to bring forth feminist epistemologies, and thus different feminist approaches that can span an extensive continuum of possibilities. While I embrace this book as an introductory one to various qualitative methodologies, the authors have simplified the idea of feminism too much I believe.

On the whole, this is a wonderful warm blanket of a resource book for its intended audience. It provides a level of security to students in understanding the beginning of the conversation on a variety of qualitative methodologies. My first edition book is dog-eared, with many scribbles and tags throughout. I found myself doing the same thing with this second edition – writing down notes for myself, flipping corners of pages, etc. – and it is a welcome addition to my ever growing library of resource books that keep out the cold.

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? Identity construction of Chinese management researchers amid the research–practice gap

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Busines School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

• Shubo Liu, 
• Mengna Lv, 
• Qiuli Huang, 

• Published: August 29, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833
• Reader Comments

We move beyond discussing the desirability and feasibility of bridging the research–practice gap to introducing an identity perspective to explore how Chinese management researchers make sense of the research–practice gap and what kinds of career identities are constructed. We conducted a qualitative study among 34 Chinese management researchers working at or studying for a PhD at research-oriented business schools in China. The findings show that management researchers in typical Chinese higher education institutions prefer constructing a single identity (i.e., professional, scholar, or knowledge worker identity) rather than a hybrid identity such as "academic-practitioner" as studies of their Western counterparts suggest. Moreover, before seeking and emulating role models to construct their desired career identities, researchers in China studying management reflexively search for referent groups by identifying either with a narrow disciplinary group (US mainstream management researchers or traditional intellectuals) or a broad group of knowledge workers. Furthermore, this study delineates how researchers with varying career identity narratives adopt corresponding identity work strategies (i.e., redefinition, defense, and distance) suggesting that identity work strategies do not always lead to achieving or preserving positive identity.

Citation: Liu S, Lv M, Huang Q, Wang Y (2024) Professional, scholar, or knowledge worker? Identity construction of Chinese management researchers amid the research–practice gap. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0306833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833

Editor: Muhammad Arsyad Subu, School of Health Binawan: Universitas Binawan, INDONESIA

Received: April 23, 2024; Accepted: June 23, 2024; Published: August 29, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The gap between academic research and practical application in business management is a long-standing issue that has significant implications for both academic and professional communities [ 1 – 3 ]. This phenomenon is particularly evident in China, where the academic evaluation system heavily emphasizes publication in high-impact journals and researchers often prioritize theoretical contributions over practical relevance [ 4 ]. For instance, a report from the National Natural Science Foundation of China revealed, "Many management research projects fail to align with China’s management practices largely due to the academic community’s insufficient interaction with the business sector … Researchers often lack focus and a deep understanding of the current state of China’s management practices, failing to produce influential perspectives…. The disconnection between research and practice has become a unique chronic problem in China" [ 5 ]. Additionally, news from Guangming Daily (2021), one of China’s official media outlets, indicated a growing disconnect between the knowledge taught in business school and the needs of management practices [ 6 ].

Notably, considerable academic controversy exists regarding the feasibility and desirability of bridging this gap, posing identity challenges for management researchers [ 1 – 3 ]. For example, some management researchers marginalize their peers who maintain close ties with the practical world [ 7 ], and others criticize those who prioritize rigor over relevance [ 8 ], resulting in what Gulati (2007) termed "brutal identity warfare" [ 9 ]. Considering the situations in which research is detached from practice, generating intense debates in academia, how do management researchers make sense of and construct their career identities?

The limited studies that have suggested that management researchers aspire to construct a hybrid identity to maintain a balance between the two selves as a scholar and practitioner [ 2 , 3 , 10 ] have primarily involved "academic-practitioners" acting as boundary spanners navigating both the academic and practical realms. However, there are also considerable management researchers based in business schools or universities where institutional norms focus on academic-specific tasks such as the pursuit of high-quality research, publication in top-tier academic journals, and participation in academia-oriented events. Their primary work responsibility is producing "scientific management knowledge" rather than "practical application," commonly observed in China [ 11 ]. Unfortunately, these "pure" researchers without practical application roles have received little consideration; thus, how they construct career identity amid the research–practice gap remains poorly understood. Therefore, this study’s central research question is as follows:

• How does the research–practice gap affect Chinese management researchers’ career identity construction? We divided this broad question into three distinct questions:
• What are the identity narratives of Chinese management researchers?
• Why do Chinese management researchers construct these career identities?
• How do Chinese management researchers implement identity work strategies to maintain these career identities?

Based on 34 in-depth interviews with Chinese management researchers, we identify three identity narratives categories: professionals, scholars, and knowledge workers. Different categories of Chinese management researchers identify with distinct referent groups (i.e., US mainstream management researchers, traditional intellectuals, and knowledge workers) and frame their identities in terms of referent group membership. Furthermore, we delineate three identity work strategies that correspond to the three identified identity narratives: redefinition, defense, and distance.

This study makes a threefold contribution to the literature. First, it reveals how Chinese management researchers who are not "academic-practitioners" construct their single rather than hybrid career identities and the identity work strategies that they adopt to maintain their desired identities. These findings contribute to the emerging literature on the career identity construction of management researchers amid the research–practice gap. Second, this study enriches the literature on the identity construction of professionals by including a new situation in which an ideal career identity has not yet been commonly identified and shared by members of professional communities. In doing so, we illustrate how Chinese management researchers self-categorize and identify with referent groups before they seek and emulate role models to construct their desired career identities. Third, unlike other studies illustrating that individuals employ identity work strategies for constructing positive identities, this study highlights how the identity narrative of knowledge workers challenges this prevailing perspective.

The remainder of this study proceeds as follows. We first summarize the relevant literature on identity and the identity work of professionals and subsequently review studies on the research–practice gap in the management field, focusing on the management field in China. Following this literature review, we introduce this study’s qualitative semi-structured interview method. Further, in the results section, we discuss three types of identity construction adopted by Chinese management researchers in navigating the research–practice gap; specifically elucidate the meanings of each identity narrative, underlying reasons for its construction, and corresponding identity work strategies. The final section presents the theoretical implications derived from the research findings.

Theoretical background

Identity and identity work of professionals.

Emphasizing the social dimensions of identity, Tajfel and Turner (1979) contend that an individual’s identity or self-perception is rooted in their group memberships and derived from the social categories to which they perceive themselves as belonging [ 12 ]. Moreover, the degree of identification with a referent group is a pivotal factor influencing an individual’s willingness to incorporate a given social category into their self-definition [ 13 ].

The processes and practices employed to construct and manage identities can be understood as identity work [ 14 , 15 ]. Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003, p. 1165) define identity work as "people being engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening, or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of coherence and distinctiveness" [ 16 ]. The concept of identity work emphasizes individual agency and recognizes the substantial influence exerted by social groups [ 14 , 15 , 17 ]. Furthermore, according to social identity theory, social identities are contingent upon social interactions; that is, individuals observe and categorize people into categories, aligning themselves with those that uphold and augment their self-esteem [ 18 ]. The motivation to identify with a specific category is partially rooted in the human drive to enhance individual social identity [ 18 ].

Professionals working in various fields have been the research object of identity studies. Moreover, studies have examined the process of identity work among professionals and the effects of socialization and role models. For example, Pratt et al. (2006) and Obling (2023) examine the dynamics of identity enactment and reconstruction in young medical residents and military career officers at later career stages, respectively [ 15 , 19 ]. Both studies emphasize the importance of professional socialization. Consistent with the socialization literature, Shapiro et al. (1978) demonstrate that role modeling contributes to identity construction and influences professional identification processes [ 20 ]. Role models are part of a group’s collective identity, which is members’ shared sense of identity as a group [ 21 ]. Further research examines the function of role models in crafting "provisional selves" [ 14 ], development of "managerial identities" [ 13 ], and enactment of "collective identity" [ 21 ].

The aforementioned studies reveal that when experiencing identity challenges due to career transitions, professionals observe and emulate role models to construct their career identities [ 14 , 15 , 19 ], commonly identified by members of professional communities such as accountants, physicians, consultants, and investment bankers. However, how professionals construct their career identities within a professional community without consensus on a shared ideal identity has been scarcely explored. For example, we will demonstrate in the context of the research–practice gap, researchers within the management discipline have not reached a consensus on the meaning of the research, leading to an identity crisis regarding "who are we, really, and what are we here to do?" [ 9 ]. Unfortunately, limited studies have investigated how researchers construct their identities in academic communities where a commonly identified or recognized career identity is lacking or not clearly defined. Therefore, several management scholars have called for further research to explore the identity construction of management researchers amid the research–practice gap [ 1 – 3 ].

Research on the research–practice gap in the management field

Various management researchers attempt to impact practice but often do not succeed, widely known as the "research–practice gap" [ 3 , 22 ]. Studies tend to discuss the reasons and outcomes of the gap; the feasibility and desirability of bridging the gap; and when advisable, how to bridge this gap [ 22 – 25 ]. Specifically, Susman and Evered (1978) attribute this gap to increasingly sophisticated research methods and techniques, suggesting "As our research methods and techniques have become more sophisticated, they have also become increasingly less useful for solving the practical problems that members of organizations face" (p. 582) [ 25 ]. Other commentators opine that researchers are motivated to generate knowledge and publish research primarily evaluated by peers rather than appraised by practitioners and applied within organizational contexts [ 26 ]. Thus, the outcome is that practitioners often criticize the knowledge generated by researchers in the management field due to its limited or negligible practical applicability [ 8 , 22 , 24 ]. Therefore, some scholars recommend bridging the research–practice gap to generate practical and theoretical (or relevant and rigorous) insights [ 22 ]. However, other scholars argue that bridging this gap may be neither feasible nor desirable [ 23 ]. These debates give rise to "brutal identity warfare" [ 6 ]. Specifically, some self-appointed "serious academics" show disdain and marginalize their peers who speak with practitioners [ 7 ], and others who believe strongly in the value of relevance denigrate researchers who focus on rigor more than relevance [ 8 ].

Despite numerous studies on the research–practice gap, how management researchers make sense of and navigate the gap at the individual level is poorly understood. This knowledge gap is surprising because how to perceive and whether to bridge the research–practice gap occurs at the individual level [ 3 ]. Although Gulati (2007) argues that management researchers bifurcate into two tribes (i.e., the rigorous research and applicable findings tribe), and each tribal member forms their identity as either "serious scholars" or "management types" (p. 777) [ 9 ], this identity distinction is theoretical and has no robust empirical support. Notably, with the rigor-relevance debate simmering, management researchers have increasingly recognized the challenges associated with establishing "either-or" identities and have endeavored to address them [ 2 , 3 ]. Therefore, the identities constructed by management researchers may not be as clear as Gulati (2007) suggests [ 9 ].

Regarding empirical research, a few studies suggest that attempting to bridge the research–practice gap would lead to researchers experiencing intense identity conflict due to their perceived incommensurability of dual work identities of scholar and practitioner [ 1 – 3 ]. However, management researchers who do not pursue practical relevance out of concern that it might compromise high-quality basic research exist [ 8 ]. Notably, a substantial number of management researchers are affiliated with business schools or universities, where institutional norms emphasize academic-focused duties such as conducting high-quality research, publishing in leading journals, and participating in academic events. This phenomenon is increasingly prominent in China (which we will delineate). However, how these management researchers who worked in environments where their primary obligation centers on generating management knowledge rather than practical application perceives the research–practice gap and shape their career identities remains underexplored.

Research–practice gap in Chinese management studies

Management academia in China has introduced US academic standards, and thus the disconnection between research and practice. Numerous Chinese commentators believe that the research–practice gap is more prevalent and severe in China than in the Western context. For example, Zhang (2008) asserts, "Randomly selecting a certain number of papers from academic journal websites, summarizing their main conclusions or viewpoints, and then organizing discussions among researchers and business practitioners to assess the authenticity of these conclusions—perhaps the proportion of conclusions that withstand scrutiny may not exceed 50%!" (p. 338) [ 27 ]. Furthermore, Han and Xi (2010) state, "Our perspective differs slightly, suggesting that it may not be, perhaps, not more than 50% withstand scrutiny, but rather around 90% of models and assumptions are solemnly examined and proven to be common sense" (p. 11) [ 28 ].

According to some commentators, the research–practice gap in Chinese management studies is partially due to the "scientification of management." In the 1980s, China began importing Western management theories, especially from the US, coinciding with the peak of the US "scientification of management research." Influenced by this trend, researchers in China became fixated on constructing several theoretical models or conceptual knowledge, excessively emphasizing scientific rigor and normativity [ 29 ]. Thus, they overlooked the intimate connection among morality, ideals, emotions, and practice, leading to a decreasing emphasis on its relevance to practice [ 30 ].

Furthermore, the long-term adherence to a single empirical paradigm in academic training has led researchers to detach themselves from reality. Developing an awareness of issues arising from managerial practices becomes challenging due to this detachment. Researchers may become accustomed to overlooking the complexity of reality, equating management research with the manipulation of abstract conceptual relationships, resulting in a disconnect between research content and real-world practices [ 4 , 29 ].

Other commentators attribute the research–practice gap in Chinese management studies to the market-driven academic evaluation system within business schools. With the advent of the globalization of higher education, Chinese business schools are actively seeking to participate in global competition and rankings. Since the quantity of papers published in top international journals significantly influences rankings, numerous business schools consider this a crucial component in assessing faculty performance. The desire to improve rankings has prompted government agencies and academic institutions to introduce policies encouraging or mandating faculty to increase their quantity of research and the rate at which they produce [ 31 ]. Therefore, under the pressure of performance assessment, an increasing number of Chinese management researchers have limited time to engage closely with managerial practices. Thus, academic research has become more about publishing papers than solving real-world problems, resulting in a significant gap between research and practice [ 32 ].

To address the issue of the research–practice gap in Chinese management studies, several Chinese management researchers are calling for changing the management research paradigm to better align with management practitioners’ perspective [ 4 , 29 ], advocating for management researchers and practitioners to construct a common language [ 33 ] or suggesting managers as researchers [ 34 ]. However, numerous Chinese management researchers appear indifferent to these calls [ 28 ]. At present, Chinese management researchers primarily comprise faculty who have retreated to the "ivory tower" of universities after completing their doctoral education. The majority of these researchers have little practical experience, tending to select research topics solely from the literature rather than practical engagement; hence, these topics do not offer insights into the subjects of their research [ 4 , 11 , 29 ]. Consequently, their output may be mere intellectual exercises without real-world benefits [ 4 , 11 , 29 ]. Notwithstanding the escalating scrutiny and criticism within Chinese management academia concerning the research–practice gap, how Chinese management researchers understand and construct their career identities remains a crucial question worth further investigation.

Materials and methods

Research design and data collection.

Consistent with other studies examining the identity construction of business school researchers, we used a qualitative semi-structured interview method [ 1 , 35 , 36 ]. Considering that our study explores how Chinese management researchers construct their career identities in the research–practice gap context, we conducted interviews with Chinese management researchers working or studying for a PhD at research-oriented business schools, which are typically in elite Chinese universities. To ensure a representative sample, we purposively selected interviewees at various career stages (i.e., complete, assistant, and associate professors and PhD candidates), who represented a range of management research fields (i.e., strategy, marketing, organizational behavior and human resource management (OBHRM), operations, as well as finance and accounting). We approached the interviewees through established social networks and snowball methods [ 37 ]. The first three authors of this paper, comprising one male associate professor and two female doctoral students, all had experience in interview methods, and conducted the interviews with each participant. The interviewers usually began the interview by asking the respondents to describe their academic background and impressions of management studies before discussing the factors that inspire and guide their research. These questions often led to conversations regarding their experiences in research, including selecting research questions, conducting empirical studies, and publishing practices ( S1 File ). To adhere to theoretical sampling principles, we terminated the interview when no new concepts, categories, or relationships emerged from further interview analyses, that is, when data reached saturation [ 38 ].

Between September 13, 2021 and July 22, 2022, we conducted interviews with 34 Chinese management researchers from 12 business schools in China. The team members had varying degrees of familiarity with the interviewees, ranging from professional colleagues to new acquaintances recruited via snowball sampling. Over half of the interviews were face-to-face, while the remaining interviews were via WeChat video, a necessary adaptation due to COVID-19 restrictions. The face-to-face interviews were conducted at various locations based on the participants’ preferences, including their offices or homes, providing a comfortable and convenient environment for open dialogue. The WeChat video interviews were conducted online, allowing for remote participation and accommodating a flexible approach to data collection that included participants who might not be able to attend in-person meetings. This hybrid approach to the setting of data collection ensured accessibility and participant comfort, facilitating a rich and diverse dataset.

Prior to the interview, each participant was provided with a participant information leaflet ( S2 File ) detailing how their data would be used, stored, and protected. Following this, participants signed a consent form ( S3 File ) indicating their informed consent regarding data collection and usage. These measures ensure that participants are fully aware of the confidentiality protocols in place and agree to the terms before participating in the study.

Each interview, lasting between 45 to 150 minutes, was audio-recorded with a professional voice recorder capable of automatic verbatim transcription. Since the interviews were conducted in Chinese, the transcripts are also in Chinese characters. Within 72 hours of each interview, the second and third authors independently reviewed and cross-checked the transcriptions to ensure accuracy and maintain the integrity of the original meaning. These transcriptions were then sent back to the interviewees for verification. The process resulted in over 650,000 Chinese characters of transcribed text ( S4 File ). To protect the confidentiality of our participants, all data were de-identified before analysis, with identifiable information replaced by pseudonyms or numerical identifiers. Each interviewee was denoted with distinct codes. Table 1 summarizes the profiles of the interviewees.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.t001

Ethics statement and data management

This study received ethical approval ( S5 File ) from the Research Ethics Committee of the Central University of Finance and Economics (approval number: AC-SB-CUFE-2021-0013). Prior to participation, each participant was provided with a participant information leaflet ( S2 File ) to be informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, assessments, potential risks, benefits, and outlined our intentions to publish findings in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings in the future before recruitment. Then, he/she gave written informed consent ( S3 File ) in line with the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards. Participants were also clearly informed that their involvement was entirely voluntary and that they could withdraw without providing a reason.

Moreover, all collected participant data was de-identified and pseudonymized by assigning each participant a code (e.g., J01) prior to analysis and securely encrypted for storage. The data were stored on isolated data platforms and backed up on multiple non-networked hard drives. Regular security updates and anti-virus checks were conducted to ensure data integrity and security. To oversee and manage the data, we utilized NVivo software. This software facilitated the organization, coding, and analysis of qualitative data, providing a secure environment for handling sensitive information. The software’s built-in encryption and access control features ensured that only authorized research team members could access the data. Additionally, the software allowed for comprehensive audit trails, enabling us to track any changes or access to the data, further enhancing the security and integrity of our data management process.

Data analysis

We conducted an inductive data analysis, employing the grounded theory approach [ 39 ]. This involved iterative cycles of data examination and theory development facilitated by Nvivo12 software. This software facilitated the creation of a coding tree, allowing us to visualize the hierarchical structure of our coding scheme and track the relationships between different codes.

Our analysis comprised three major steps. First, during open coding, the first three authors independently reviewed the raw text of the interview transcripts line by line. They systematically identified and labeled discrete units of meaning, referred to as initial codes. These initial codes were descriptive in nature and stayed as close as possible to the words used by the interviewees. For instance, a quote like "Prof. X from Wharton School is my role model. His work really speaks to entrepreneurs and genuinely helps them. He has shown me that it’s possible to create research that’s top-notch and valued by the real-world folks. (F01)" was categorized under the code "encountering role models with traditional intellectual temperament." Another example "Calling what we do in management ’scientific research’—that’s a stretch. We’re basically word factories crafting texts. (B07)" was coded as "regarding her as an ordinary worker dealing with knowledge or words." Following this initial coding process, the first three authors convened to discuss respective coding schemes and identify areas of agreement and divergence. Through collaborative dialogue and constant comparison, they sought to reconcile any discrepancies and refine the coding scheme to ensure consistency and coherence. This iterative process of coding and recoding allowed us to discern patterns and connections within the data, gradually refining and consolidating our coding scheme. By the end of the open coding phase, we had repeatedly separated and combined the identified initial codes and generated a comprehensive set of eighteen first-order codes, each representing a distinct aspect of the data. These codes formed the foundation upon which subsequent stages of analysis were built, serving as the raw material from which more abstract conceptualizations would emerge during axial and selective coding.

During axial coding, which involved a deeper level of analysis to identify relationships among the initial codes and to group them into broader categories, we engaged in several iterative movements between data and theory to ensure that our coding captured the complexity and interconnectedness of the participants’ experiences. Specifically, each of the first three authors independently reviewed the first-order codes generated during open coding. Then, they conducted a series of collaborative meetings to discuss and collapse these eighteen first-order codes into nine broad second-order codes. For example, grouping the first-order codes "statements about redefining the boundaries of researchers’ job responsibilities," "statements about redefining what it means for research to influence practice," and "statements about redefining the profession" under a broader second-order category labeled "redefinition." These nine second-order codes represented more abstract concepts that captured the underlying themes within the data, setting the stage for the final phase of selective coding.

Finally, during selective coding, we focused on integrating and refining the second-order codes to develop overarching themes that represented the core findings of our study. Each of the first three authors independently reviewed the second-order codes identified during axial coding and proposed potential themes. They then conducted a series of collaborative meetings to discuss and harmonize these proposed themes. This process involved several iterative cycles of comparison and refinement to ensure that the themes accurately reflected the underlying patterns and relationships within the data. For instance, grouping the second-order codes including "redefinition," "defense," and "distance" into a theme labeled "identity work strategies." By the end of this phase, we had distilled the second-order codes into three aggregate dimensions: identity narratives, selective identification with referent groups, and identity work strategies. These themes reflect three types of identity narratives that Chinese management researchers construct, why they construct such identity narratives, and what identity work strategies they adopt to construct their identities. Table 2 details the specific connotations of the main themes and Fig 1 presents the data encoding structure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.t002

Measures to ensure rigor

To ensure the rigor and credibility of our qualitative research, we implemented several measures throughout the study. First, during the data collection process, each interviewer maintained a reflexive journal after every interview. This practice involved continuously questioning and reflecting on their assumptions, emotions, and values to minimize the influence of personal biases, preconceptions, and assumptions on the data collection and interpretation [ 40 ]. Second, during the data analysis, we employed researcher triangulation. The first three authors independently conducted open coding, then met to discuss discrepancies and reached a consensus. This process was repeated for axial and selective coding, with each author working independently before meeting to discuss and agree on the final coding results. Third, after data analysis, we randomly fed back the analysis results to eight interviewees to solicit their opinions and feedback. The chosen participants generally provided affirmative responses, expressing agreement and validation of the research findings. This step is crucial as it aligns with the qualitative research practice of member checking, ensuring that the research outcomes are both researcher-conceived and participant-endorsed [ 41 ]. Last, we referred to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist from Tong et al. (2007) to report crucial aspects of the research team, study methods, study context, findings, analysis, and interpretations [ 41 ] ( S6 File ). This measure enables readers to replicate our findings.

Our analysis revealed three distinct identity narratives and respective identity work strategies among Chinese management researchers experiencing identity challenges in both their academic and practical realms in the research–practice gap context. Consistent with the self-categorization theory, our respondents categorized themselves into new referent groups and defined their identities in terms of group membership [ 42 ]. In particular, they reflexively identified either with a narrow disciplinary group (US mainstream management researchers or traditional intellectuals) or a broad group of knowledge workers. Three types of identity narratives emerged, namely, professional, scholar, and knowledge worker identities, and each had a unique strategy for identity work, namely redefinition, defense, and distance, respectively.

Professional identity construction

Professional identity narrative..

Approximately half of the respondents (13/34) believed that practitioners’ difficulty in understanding management research highlights their professional identity. Considering the exclusivity inherent in the profession, laymen (practitioners) not understanding their professional work (management research) was expected. Thus, the observed divide between research and practical application was not perceived as a salient issue warranting concerted attention. For example, an associate professor explained the rationale for practitioners disregarding her research content.

Initially, sharing my papers didn’t get much buzz, which was kind of disappointing. But then I figured it’s pretty much niche stuff and it’s cool if it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. Then I decided to quit the show-off game. (F02)

According to these respondents, professional identity was derived primarily from acknowledgment within academic circles and remained unaffected by lack of recognition among lay practitioners. Moreover, most interviewees mentioned top-tier journals’ authority, contending that articles featured in such publications undergo rigorous peer reviews and garner extensive peer acknowledgment. Therefore, the consensus among these researchers was that the higher the frequency of publications in top-tier journals, the greater the enhancement of their professional identity. J06 commented:

I got to say, top-tier journal articles are top-notch—rigorous, detailed, and pro. Land a paper there and peers see you’ve really nailed it, marking you as an ace researcher.

Identification with US mainstream management researchers.

These respondents constructed a professional identity primarily because, during their academic socialization, they gradually considered US mainstream management researchers as a referent group and identification target. Specifically, the US educational model and management style profoundly influence the academic socialization of Chinese management researchers. Various PhD courses are now in leading business schools in China similar to top-tier business schools in North America. As articulated by one respondent who received his PhD from one of the top two universities in China, the doctoral education systems closely mirrored those of top-tier business schools in the US:

The PhD program at our university is pretty much cloned from the US one—identical curriculum, same teaching methods, and research methods. My PhD advisor said doing a PhD here is like doing it in the US universities. (F06)

A long-standing focus on US academic standards resulted in these respondents viewing US mainstream management researchers (who have published in top-tier US journals) as their referent group and identification target. As indicated by F08, "We obediently and unquestioningly look to the US academic standards and readily adopt their criteria as professional benchmarks during evaluations. Unconsciously, we perceive US mainstream management researchers as authoritative figures." Hence, they tended to consider US mainstream management researchers’ research as the most normative, legitimate, and professional. Some respondents mentioned that when they observed US professors showing little concern for the research–practice gap and engaging in exquisite but irrelevant studies, rationalized such studies as a reflection of professional identity. For example, a respondent who was a visiting researcher in the US stated the following.

We just cranked out three papers. Looked for research questions from literature, collected data from the Internet, clueless about where it came from. Turned that into articles, chatted about managerial implications, and submitted them. I know it’s a bit wild, but it’s the same abroad (in the US) and even more so. (J03)

Similarly, during the initial stages of his doctoral education in mainland China, another interviewee did not understand the practical relevance of mainstream management research. He experienced a sense of depression and anguish stemming from this concern. However, after one year of being a visiting researcher in the US and observing how referent group members conducted management research, he found solace regarding the disconnect between research and practice but he also gained a heightened sense of confidence in his professional identity, as he explained:

My year in the US totally transformed me; after I came back, I evolved into a professional. Noticed lots of big-name US profs were super focused on their niche, kind of ignoring the big picture and real-world effects. That kicked up my confidence and eased my worries about the gap between research and practice. After all, I recognized that numerous influential figures in the US academic landscape shared a similar professional orientation. (F06)

These narratives suggest that these respondents constructed their professional identity through academic socialization and appeared to have rid themselves of the troubles of the research–practice gap. Furthermore, they regarded US mainstream management researchers as role models, considering their approach to the relationship between research and practice as a professional standard. Consequently, they emulated these role models to construct a professional identity.

Identity work: Redefinition.

When challenged by the accusation that their research cannot influence practitioners, potentially threatening their professional identity, the respondents who regarded themselves as professionals applied a "redefinition" identity work strategy. This implementation involved redefining the boundaries of researchers’ job responsibilities, what it means for research to influence practice, and the profession. By doing so, they intended to repair, maintain, and strengthen their preferred professional identity.

First, some respondents sought to redefine the roles of management researchers and practitioners. Some metaphorically depicted management researchers and practitioners as two distinct occupations, namely "craftsmen" responsible for forging weapons and "commanders" tasked with leading troops into battle. Accordingly, researchers were perceived to have a duty limited to crafting "weapons" for practitioners rather than replacing practitioners in directly engaging in the "battlefield." As stated by F05, "It seems that our research is akin to stocking the arsenal and practitioners choosing what they want to use." Thus, by redefining the scope of responsibilities for researchers and practitioners, these respondents strategically retreated from their work duties to a domain that did not jeopardize their professional status. Moreover, the publication of management research papers in top-tier journals in the US supported their adoption of this identity work tactic. A professor in the operation management field explained:

Most top US journal articles aren’t super practical, but they’re very delicately constructed. Their prevalence and dominance prove their value. It’s just how the game is played. (J05)

Second, some respondents redefined research’ influence on practice, arguing that assessing the impact of management research on practice should be based on the collective findings of multiple studies rather than relying on the outcomes of one or limited studies. This tactic was aimed to address the critique that solely individual management studies may not substantially affect practice. They posited that the value of an individual study was akin to grains of sand—each grain might seem inconsequential on its own, but collectively they were an indispensable component in building a towering structure. In other words, the accumulation of numerous seemingly meaningless studies synthesized the force propelling theoretical advancement, offering guidance for practical applications. An assistant professor in the OBHRM field stated the following.

Thinking one study can guide practice is just kidding ourselves. Real research is about big-picture stats, not one-shot tips for a company. Doing management research is not gathering or telling stories; instead, it is searching and discovering the universal laws underlying the management world, regardless contexts of US or China. Intentionally pursuing the practical value of a specific study seems incompatible with scientific principles. But yeah, when you stack up a bunch of studies, that’s when you get theories that can tackle most management issues. (L06)

Moreover, they perceived that the impact of research on practice did not necessarily imply that research must guide practice. By contrast, practice could guide research development; subsequently, research could synthesize the experiences of practice. As expressed by an associate professor in the marketing field:

Management is practical, but that doesn’t mean theory always leads practice. Often, theory plays catch-up, summarizing practice. (F02)

However, the associate professor did not elaborate on how to advance based on summarizing practical experiences, making their advocacy of "research summarizing practical experiences" seem more like a less scrutinized pretext for justifying the claim that research can influence practice.

Finally, redefining the profession is another tactic used by respondents who described themselves as professionals to legitimize the divide between management research and practice. The term "profession" originally referred to exclusive groups formed by individuals using specific abstract knowledge to address particular situations, characterized by an altruistic orientation [ 43 ]. However, these respondents redefined the profession by emphasizing exclusivity while undervaluing altruistic attributes, giving legitimacy to research disconnected from practice and then maintaining their desired professional identity. They argued that numerous management studies, although not directly contributing to societal well-being, held signaling value within the management academic community. Such studies proved to the discipline community that researchers possessed the skills in writing management research papers that nonprofessionals may not master, demonstrating their professional capability. An associate professor indicated:

Writing academic papers isn’t really about their realistic significance or practical implications to managers. It’s more symbolic, like a ticket into academia, like holding a luxury bag expected by the high society. (F07)

Scholar identity construction

Scholar identity narrative..

Our interviews revealed that almost one-third of the respondents (11/34) aspired to become scholars rather than professionals; they perceived a crucial distinction between these two identities, with the former emphasizing a sense of social responsibility and mission akin to traditional intellectuals. Moreover, they advocated for altruistic-oriented research with societal impact, transcending mere recognition within the academic community. One informant referred to his accountability to society: "I see myself working for the common good of society rather than working solely for the academic community" (L05). Hence, they explicitly resisted management research that did not impact practice. In their view, commendable management research should examine issues genuinely pertinent to practitioners and the public comprehensively and profoundly. Furthermore, the purpose should result in a tangible impact on practitioners and the public, guided by their concerns, rather than being constrained by artificially narrow disciplines or professional domains, as often observed in professionals. A professor engaged in interdisciplinary management research articulated:

For me, being a member of a specific discipline or profession isn’t crucial. I don’t see myself as an economist, linguist, sociologist, or management scientist. I view myself as a scholar, a thinker—that’s my aim. Those so-called professions? They don’t hold meaning for me. (J01)

Since they emphasized the impact of research on the external world, they perceived that practitioners and the public should assess management research’s value instead of being limited to internal evaluations from peers who are supposedly similar to "professionals." An associate professor claimed:

Ideas that matter, ones that even non-academics get. We’re not just penning stuff for our circle. We’re shooting for ideas that resonate beyond, even outside our turf. (J04)

Identification with traditional intellectuals.

Early educational experiences, including family education and primary and secondary education, are crucial for helping the respondents hoping to become scholars identify traditional intellectuals as a referent group and form a scholar identity. Some demonstrated how early exposure to a family of scholars influenced their career choices and understanding of scholar identity. For example, L07 shared, "My father was a university teacher and my mother also worked in a university, so my personality was significantly influenced by the scholarly environment … Since childhood, I’ve aspired to be a scientist, and I desire to engage in research and become a scholar contributing to the betterment of society." Further, other interviewees mentioned the values instilled in primary and secondary schools. For instance, L10 shared an ancient poem by Fan Zhongyan ( 范仲淹 , a role model of intellectuals in ancient China) that she learned in secondary school: "Worry before the people fear something will happen and be happy after the people are happy." Since then, she has been keenly interested in public welfare, frequently engaging in discussions with classmates and friends. Even today, as a researcher in the finance and accounting field, she continues to prioritize the interests of the public. She stated, "I believe that good research should primarily serve the welfare of society rather than merely aiming to maximize shareholder profits. If a study is solely focused on finding means for companies to make money, in my view, this is bad research since it does not maximize societal benefits. That is why I pay considerable attention to corporate social responsibility in my research."

Furthermore, during their academic socialization, the respondents who wanted to be scholars were inspired by role models. They observed management researchers who could effectively bridge research and practice, providing them the confidence to pursue management research that has both theoretical and practical significance. F01 noted:

Prof. X from Wharton School is my role model. His work really speaks to entrepreneurs and genuinely helps them. He has shown me that it’s possible to create research that’s top-notch and valued by the real-world folks.

Identity work: Defense.

The strategy of defense refers to those respondents who want to be scholars taking measures to counter the research–practice gap, adhere to pursuing the public value and practical utility of management research, derive research insights from practical experiences, and apply them back to practice. We identified that this strategy relies on three tactics: prompting oneself to be close to field sites, learning from role models when confronted with friction in interacting with practitioners, and reminding oneself of long-term when encountering difficulties.

First, to conduct practically impactful management research, these respondents consistently motivated themselves to be immersed in field sites. Further, drawing on commonly employed ethnographic research methods from disciplines such as anthropology and sociology, they strived to integrate themselves into the real managerial world. As L07 said, "I’m eager to conduct research deeply rooted in Chinese practical contexts; hence prolonged close-range observation, experiential immersion, and interviews are necessary." For some, close engagement with field sites was not aimed at producing academic papers. Instead, this aim stemmed from a genuine desire to generate insights that could inspire management practitioners. Moreover, they were willing to invest additional time and effort in this pursuit. For example, an assistant professor indicated the following.

I aim for my research to truly impact management practice; hence I dive into understanding real-world happenings, even if they stray from my paper. I feel I must get it; without understanding, there’s no way to offer practical insights. (L02)

However, despite their intention to involve themselves in practical fields, communication with practitioners was occasionally hindered. Specifically, disparate expectations in communication between researchers and practitioners contributed to this challenge. Researchers often approached their research with specific research questions, aiming to summarize solutions through interaction with practitioners. These questions might pertain to problems already resolved by practitioners or issues no longer pertinent to them. Conversely, practitioners hoped that researchers could assist in overcoming the current challenges. Thus, such misalignment in expectations can lead to communication barriers. For instance, L02, an assistant professor who researched entrepreneurs, mentioned:

I chat with entrepreneurs who throw hard questions at me, wanting straightforward models: "You’re the expert having knowledge, tell us what to do." But often I’m stumped by their urgent problems … And some say, "Books and theories got it wrong. They preach ’focus’ in startups, but how can I do it when I’m struggling to pay salaries? My business is sinking. Why ’focus’?"

When confronted with friction in interacting with practitioners, certain respondents proactively sought guidance from their role models. For example, L02 stated the following:

Whenever I meet someone authoritative, I ask for advice to clear up my confusion. My mentor once told me, in corporate research, don’t act like you have all the answers. Make it clear to practitioners from the start that we’re here to learn, not solve all their problems.

Finally, research grounded in practice often demands a substantial investment of time and effort, with a long output cycle for research outcomes that do not match the short-term evaluation system prevalent in Chinese universities. For early career researchers in particular, who have not secured tenured positions, dismissal is a risk. When they experience difficulties that threaten the survival of their academic careers, the respondents who constructed their career identity as scholars often reminded themselves to adhere to a long-term perspective. One assistant professor articulated:

Research work is like a marathon, not a sprint. It’s about diving deep into what truly matters, not just churning out quick empty papers for ticking boxes. I keep telling myself: Don’t rush, don’t let the outside noise steer my course. Sure, it’s easy to know this but challenging to do. So I frequently remind myself to play the long game. (L10)

Knowledge worker identity construction

Knowledge worker identity narrative..

In contrast with the identity work strategies of redefining and defending that helped Chinese management researchers construct positive identities (professional and scholar identities), certain respondents described themselves as ordinary knowledge workers adopting distance as an identity work strategy to enact and sustain a sense of disillusionment. Within this narrative, they did not construct their career identity as a positive or powerful identity; instead, they downplayed or denied links with their research work. Furthermore, several participants repeatedly described conducting management research as "meaningless" and "bullshit" (interviews with F04; L11; B06–08), challenging achieving positive self-concepts through research work. They perceived that a sense of meaninglessness led these individuals to view academic work merely as a routine vocation for livelihood, positioning themselves as ordinary workers working with knowledge or words. A doctoral student expressed:

For me, writing papers is switching to work mode, treating research as a job without interest or passion. Just completing the task itself is sufficient. (B01)

Identification with ordinary workers.

These respondents often did not explicitly embrace the identity of knowledge workers when embarking on the academic path. Notably, they once aspired to pursue the identity of a scholar, aiming to conduct research beneficial to managerial practice and society. An assistant professor articulates the following:

I used to perceive the academia as a sacred place, harboring grand aspirations. I aimed to achieve a magnificent ambition through academic work, aspiring to become a person of societal value by contributing to meaningful endeavors. (L09)

However, due to the increasingly strict requirements for normativity and rigor in academic papers, these respondents often felt confined and constrained by established standards, akin to "dancing delicately on stage with chains" (L09). This issue often leads to a weakening of their focus on practical significance. Consequently, they did not perceive the value their research could bring to society, and practitioners’ skepticism toward research conclusions further intensified their doubts and negations regarding the meaningfulness of their work. An assistant professor in the strategic field mentioned the following:

I often fret over whether my research really helps businesses—like does it boost profits or give them an edge? But the execs I chat with seem doubtful; they say a paper’s ideas aren’t game-changers for them. Leaves me wondering what mark my work’s really making. Still figuring out if it’s got value, to be honest. (L04)

These respondents did not perceive the altruistic value and public attributes of conducting management research, consequently missing the sense of accomplishment and professional passion. Their research seemed to primarily serve personal gains, including obtaining a doctoral degree, achieving tenure, securing professional promotions, or receiving performance bonuses. Consequently, they view themselves as no different from ordinary workers, exhibiting solid characteristics of a secular work identity. An assistant professor stated:

Right now I’m just doing research to snag tenure. It’s like ticking boxes for the boss—nothing special. No fame, no dazzle in it for me. (L11)

Often, they deliberately conceal their researcher identity or self-deprecate themselves as pedantic word processors. For example, a doctoral student in the field of logistics perceived her work as being a wordsmith:

Calling what we do in management ’scientific research’—that’s a stretch. We’re basically word factories crafting texts. (B07)

Another reason leading these respondents to identify with the identity of ordinary workers is corporate-style management. Currently, elite business schools in China actively adopt management systems from profit-making enterprises, such as implementing performance assessments to manage researchers and establishing numerous assessments or competitions, aimed at the speedy and efficient publication of papers. Such systems lead to researchers working overtime to write papers, reducing the time originally intended for investigation and surveys. Thus, the high-intensity workload leads to psychological diminishment and instrumentalization of the researchers’ self-identity. As an assistant professor expressed:

We have a major assessment every three years and a minor one every year. We’ve become paper machines buried in writing papers every day. Where is the time to get close to practice? Aren’t we just screws in the factory? (L04)

Identity work: Distance.

Regarding constructing the identity of a knowledge worker, these respondents attempted to distance themselves from the academic community, avoiding defining themselves as members. Instead, they sought closeness with a broad community of ordinary workers, using the language and behaviors commonly associated with these demographics.

First, they often used terms common in other industries when referring to their academic work. For example, they described research projects as KPIs that must be completed, comparing themselves to screws in the machinery of their institutions’ performance tasks. Their aims for using this strategy were not only to demean research work but also to diminish and instrumentalize themselves, eliminating the distinctiveness of their work identity. For example, an assistant professor stated the following on having to continue conducting research projects.

Academia’s just a job to me now. You can’t stop for lack of mood; hit a KPI then onto the next. Even if it sucks, you do it. It’s like any job—you don’t quit over dislikes. Of course, you can resign, but there are always things you have to endure. (L11)

Evidently, management research had been relegated to routine piecework. Furthermore, the research meaning of the respondents who regarded themselves as knowledge workers was often far from altruistic. Since their management research typically had limited impact on practical applications, they struggled to experience a sense of achievement and significance from academic work. Instead, they portrayed academic work as similar to pursuing personal interests, especially material gains. For example, an associate professor specified:

Research isn’t useless, it pays the bills … Come bonus time, I see the point of my articles—it’s cashing them in for a bonus, which helps alleviate the emptiness inside. (F04)

Notably, some respondents viewed their identity as knowledge workers as a temporary compromise due to current circumstances. They hoped to maintain their initial intention of contributing to society and aspired to become genuine scholars. These respondents often did not have tenures and were experiencing career uncertainty and insecurity, prompting them to temporarily compromise by engaging in research that they might not fully endorse, such as mediocre studies without practical significance. Another assistant professor experiencing upcoming probationary assessments stated:

As a scholar, you can’t live only for yourself; it’s about serving society. But now, survival is my focus. Once I snag tenure, I’ll dive into work I believe really makes a difference. (L09)

For him, cynicism is a means of protecting oneself while challenging the idealized scholar identity of the management researcher.

Discussion and conclusions

This study addresses how Chinese management researchers construct their varied career identities in response to the identity threat posed by the research–practice gap. Using a qualitative research method, we revealed that the research–practice gap does influence the construction of career identities among Chinese management researchers. However, individual researchers tend to develop distinct identity narratives. We identified three types of identity narratives: professional, scholar, and knowledge worker. Furthermore, we discovered that the primary reason for these varying identity narratives is the different referent groups chosen by the researchers, which, in turn, lead to differences in seeking out and emulating role models. Specifically, they reflexively identified either with a narrow disciplinary group (US mainstream management researchers or traditional intellectuals) or a broad group of knowledge workers. These choices shape their identity narratives. In addition, Chinese management researchers adopt different identity work strategies to construct and maintain their respective career identity narratives. Those identifying as professionals engage in redefinition, scholars employ defense, and knowledge workers utilize distance. These strategies help them navigate the tensions between academic rigor and practical relevance, illustrating the complex interplay between individual motivations, institutional expectations, and societal influences in the context of the research–practice gap.

Specifically, certain Chinese management researchers regard themselves as professionals because, during their academic socialization, they consider US mainstream management researchers as a reference and then their research as the epitome of normative and professional standards. When they observe members of this referent group showing limited concern for the research–practice gap and conducting exquisite studies irrelevant to practice, they rationalize such studies as a reflection of professional identity. To maintain and strengthen their ideal professional identity, they employ the "redefinition" identity work strategy, for example, redefining the boundaries of researchers’ job responsibilities, what it means for research to influence practice, and the profession.

Other Chinese management researchers tend to identify with traditional intellectuals since they were young due to their early lives. They are keen on the scholar identity and advocate that management research should influence practice for exerting external influence. During their academic socialization process, they are often fortunate to be inspired by role models capable of effectively bridging the gap between research and practice and exerting influence in both the theoretical and practical realms. Thus, the role models serve as exemplars for the integration of scholarly pursuits with real-world applications. To form and protect the scholar identity, they adopt the identity work strategy of defense, comprising three tactics, namely, prompting oneself to be close to field sites, learning from role models when confronted with friction in interacting with practitioners, and reminding oneself of long-term when facing difficulties.

There are also Chinese management researchers with an ordinary knowledge worker identity, and they believe that they work primarily for self-interest, similar to first-line employees in profit-making enterprises. To sustain their ordinary knowledge worker identity, they attempt to distance themselves from the academic community and its traditional calling, consciously refraining from identifying themselves as socially responsible scholars. Table 3 summarizes the main findings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.t003

This study contributes to the nascent literature on management researchers’ career identity construction in the research–practice gap context. Previous studies have demonstrated that management researchers often adopt hybrid identities to navigate the tension between scholarly pursuits and practical applications [ 3 , 10 ]. However, our study reveals a different pattern among Chinese counterparts—they tend to develop single identities. This divergence likely stems from our focus on informants based in typical higher education institutions in China, whose primary roles involve producing high-quality research and publishing in esteemed journals rather than being "academic- practitioners" who engage in both theory and practice [ 1 – 3 , 10 ].

Partly consistent with Gulati (2007) [ 9 ], our research identifies that some Chinese management researchers form their identities as scholars; however, different from his findings, the practitioner identity narrative does not exist in the Chinese context. As previously described, the participants in this study were not required to engage in managerial tasks directly; hence, they did not construct a practitioner identity.

Second, our study contributes to the understanding of identity construction among professionals. Previous research on professionals’ identities has primarily focused on situations where members of professional communities share a common ideal career. Under such circumstances, professionals observe and emulate role models to construct their career identities [ 14 , 15 , 19 ]. Our study examines the field of management academia, which is characterized by a lack of consensus on an ideal identity. It illustrates how Chinese management researchers select referent groups before seeking and emulating role models. Specifically, they reflexively identify either with a narrow community of discipline (such as US mainstream management researchers or traditional intellectuals) or with a broad community of workers (ordinary workers), strategically positioning themselves within these referent groups. This finding supports Empson’s (2013) observation that individuals resolve identity conflicts by finding a peer group with whom they identified [ 3 ].

Third, our study demonstrates that individuals do not always construct positive identities to enhance self-esteem. Previous research on identity work has generally assumed that the quest for positive meaning motivates identity construction and that individuals adopt identity work strategies to achieve or preserve positive identity [ 44 ]. However, Ahuja et al. (2019, p. 989) challenged this perspective, arguing that "identity work may not always lead to the accomplishment of a positive sense of self but can express a sense of disillusionment [ 45 ]". They found that apart from identity work strategies of idealizing and reframing that provide opportunities for self-affirmation, some junior architects adopt a cynical and self-deprecating emotion talk to distance themselves from preconfigured notions of an ideal career self. Similarly, our study shows that, while professional and scholar narratives enhance social identity and allows researchers to construct positive identities, the knowledge worker narrative expresses frustration and disillusionment among some Chinese management researchers when they feel disappointed in their research experiences. Furthermore, our study responds to Beech et al. (2016), who called for further insights into identity work that is not self-affirming [ 46 ].

Notably, our study reveals a nuanced divergence between informants’ professional identity construction and traditional definitions of professionalism, which historically underscores serving the public interest over seeking intra-group recognition [ 47 ]. Participants in our study actively redefined the profession, emphasizing exclusivity and redefining the job responsibilities of management researchers and practitioners and what it means for research to influence practice. They strive for professional legitimacy through a "redefining" identity work strategy. This approach highlights the potential of redefinition to foster a positive professional identity under conditions where career identity encounters challenges from peers [ 48 ]. Moreover, our findings offer a contemporary perspective on "professional retreat," traditionally viewed as delegating lower-skilled tasks to preserve work purity and prestige positions [ 43 ]. Contrary to the traditional view of striving for the most valued aspects of the profession, our analysis suggests that professional retreat may also involve relinquishing these aspects to maintain the legitimacy of professional identity. Furthermore, our findings resonate with other commentators’ criticism that increasing management researchers have become career-oriented, producing esoteric knowledge for a small community of peers [ 26 ].

Our study also reveals that approximately one-third of the participants who aspire to be scholars try to bridge the research–practice gap. However, others either justify the divide by using a redefinition strategy or maintain the divide by devaluing their career identity, feeling helpless about the divide. This finding aligns with existing literature, which indicates that numerous Chinese management researchers do not appear to be attempting to bridge the research–practice gap [ 28 ].

Finally, due to the provisional nature of identity work [ 44 ], management researchers may construct distinct identities at different academic career stages. Similar to the experiences of interviewees L04 and L10, although they yearned for the identity of scholars, the pressure of the "publish or perish" environment forced them to adopt the identity of knowledge workers temporarily. However, this study does not aim to capture the dynamic process of identity construction. Further research could employ a longitudinal method to track participants over an extended period, investigating how management researchers’ identity narratives and strategies evolve across different career phases.

Supporting information

S1 file. interview schedules..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s001

S2 File. Participant information leaflet.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s002

S3 File. Consent form.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s003

S4 File. Interview data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s004

S5 File. Ethical approval.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s005

S6 File. COREQ checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306833.s006

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 4. Han W. [Critical constructive and reflexive thinking on management research]. Beijing: Peking University Press; 2022. Chinese.
• 5. Editorial Office. Facing China’s management practices and generating major theoretical achievements——Minutes of the Second First Expert Advisory Committee Enlarged Meeting of the Management Science Department of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Chin J Manag. 2005;(2):127–8. Chinese.
• 12. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979. p. 33–7.
• 18. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austins WG, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson; 1986. p. 7–24.
• 37. Atkinson R, Flint J. Snowball sampling. In: Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, editors. The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Sage; 2004. p. 1043–4.
• 38. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 6th ed. Routledge; 2007.
• 39. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
• PubMed/NCBI

Qualitative Research for Intervention Development and Evaluation:

• Conducting Research

Qualitative Research

October 2022

• Slides (PDF, 1MB)

This content is disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

This webinar describes how qualitative evaluation can make a vital contribution to every stage of developing and optimizing an intervention.

This program does not offer CE credit.

Lucy Yardley, PhD

University of Bristol and University of Southampton, UK

More in this series

Presents a handful of key strategies to maintain our mental well-being when trying to help others do the same.

October 2022 On Demand Webinar

Emphasizes the basics of classic grounded theory and shows how the original tenets of the method guide the procedures.

Provides practical guidance to help researchers carry out IPA studies which take advantage of the strengths and potential for flexibility within the approach.

September 2022 On Demand Webinar

Reviews four different strategies for integrating qualitative and quantitative data or results that invite a more instrumental role for a qualitative inquiry in contributing analytical insight.