One of the core strengths of qualitative research methods is that there is much variety among different approaches, for example, with regard to the underlying epistemological and ontological traditions (Bansal, Smith, & Vaara, 2018, Gephart, 2004), the data and materials that can be analyzed (e.g., text, numbers, pictures, graphs, audio files, movies, objects, etc.), the content that is assessed (e.g., the discourse between people or in the media, team dynamics and processes, narratives of people’s life or experiences, etc.), or the way in which the data are treated and coded. In addition, qualitative research methods are flexible and adaptable. Qualitative research tradition norms encourage researchers to engage in bricolage and adapt the methods to their respective research question, the sample, or the context in which they collect data (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Gehman et al. 2018; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Yin, 2017). This can entail adaptations in data collection procedures or differences in data analysis (e.g., the specific coding approach chosen). In that way, qualitative research methods represent a very powerful tool for researchers because the researcher can mold them to the needs of the data and the sample. However, recent trends in the field of management have been worrisome. One of the core concerns expressed by journal editors (e.g., Michael Pratt, Bill Harley, Bob Gephart, Mikko Ketokivi, Pratima Bansal, Wendy Smith, and Eero Vaara) is that the field seems to be coming to some form of convergence on a template for qualitative research. This means that there now seems to be an expectation of what qualitative research methods should look like, what they should entail, and how they should be written up. This greatly limits the power of qualitative research methods for discovery, exploration, and refinement. Part of the underlying issues is that when it comes to qualitative research, many researchers and reviewers are unable to clearly articulate what rigor means, how it should be operationalized, and how trustworthiness in the application of the method can be established. Worse, many researchers seem to assume that rigor in qualitative research should follow the same definitions and
[1]
L. Wright,et al.
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.)
,
2006
.
[2]
Wendy K. Smith,et al.
New Ways of Seeing through Qualitative Research
,
2018,
Academy of Management Journal.
[3]
Bill Harley.
THE ONE BEST WAY? 'SCIENTIFIC' RESEARCH ON HRM AND THE THREAT TO CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP
,
2015
.
[4]
Robert K. Yin,et al.
Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods
,
2017
.
[5]
R. Gephart.
Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal
,
2004
.
[6]
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.
Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building
,
2017
.