Editorial: A roadmap for data analysis in qualitative research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-07-2023-274Abstract
Qualitative research is often associated with new developments in theory building and elaboration. At the core of this type of research, data analysis represents a significant challenge. Some scholars consider inductive data analysis a black box because of its creative and unpredictable nature (common features of radical innovations). In response to this challenge, standard protocols (called templates) gained relevance (Harvey & Cornelissen, 2022). This editorial sheds light on how to perform inductive data analysis. We link this crucial process with the three main templates in qualitative research: the Eisenhardt method, the Langley approach, and the Gioia methodology. Moreover, we provide a framework (roadmap) for data analysis, which might facilitate research to build new theories.
Downloads
References
Bansal, P. T., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). From the editors new ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004
Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-15.
Bocken, N. M. & Geradts, T. H. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long range planning, 53(4), 101950.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really?. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147-160.
Fisher, G. & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational research methods, 20(3), 438-464.
Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284-300.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
Gioia, D. A. (2021). A systematic methodology for doing qualitative research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 20-29.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1999). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge.
Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012452821
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Harley, B. & Cornelissen, J. (2022). Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239-261.
Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in Qualitative Research Methods: Origins, Limitations, and New Directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211060710
Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., ... & Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00169.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. In D. D. Bergh & D. J. Ketchen Jr. (Eds.), Building methodological bridges (Vol. 6, pp. 201-235). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-8387(2011)0000006007
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. (pp. 213-263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307636
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, California.
Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P., & Glaser, V. (2019). Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all!. In T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis, & J. Mair (Eds.), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory (Vol. 59, pp. 201-216). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Sandberg, J. & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487-516.
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Management Department of the School of Economics, Management and Accounting of the University of São Paulo.
The publication of article segments is allowed, subject to prior authorization and source identification.
Copyright is regulated under Licença Creative Commons Attribution
