Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research

Organizational Research Methods

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 419-429

  Easterby Smith, Mark ^a   Golden Biddle, Karen ^b   Locke, Karen ^c  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c The College of William and Mary

Author keywords

Criteria of quality; Faculty development; Journal editors; Pluralism; Qualitative research methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 44649097513     PISSN: 10944281     EISSN: 15527425     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1094428108315858     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Amis, J., & Silk, M.L. (2008). Understanding quality: The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organization Research Methods, 11 (3). 456-480.
2. Angen, M. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10 (3). 378-395.
3. Buchanan, D.A., & Bryman, A. (2007). Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (3). 483-501.
4. Cepeda, G., & Martin, D. (2005). A review of case studies publishing in Management Decision 2003-2004: Guides and criteria for achieving quality in qualitative research. Management Decision, 43 (6). 851-876.
5. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Deutscher, I. (1976). Toward avoiding the goal-trap in evaluation research. In C. C. Abt (Ed.), The evaluation of social programs (pp. 249-288). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2008). Management research. London: Sage.
10. Economic and Social Research Council. (2001). Postgraduate training guidelines. Swindon, UK: Author.
11. Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2008). Pride and prejudice in grounded theory method in management research: A pragmatic appraisal. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (3). 430-455.
12. Gephart, B. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4). 454-462.
13. Gephart, R. (2006). Ethnostatistics and organizational research methodologies: An introduction. Organizational Research Methods, 9 (4). 417-431.
14. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
15. Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (1993). Appealing work: A study of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4 (4). 1-22.
16. Gordon, R.A., & Howell, J.E. (1959). Higher education for business. New York: Ford Foundation.
17. Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiry. Education Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 79-91.
18. Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J.A. (2001). Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Hamilton, D. (1976). Curriculum evaluation. London: Open Books.
20. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock Publications.
21. Hobbs, W.C., & Anderson, G.L. (1971). The operation of academic departments. Management Science, 18, B134 - B144.
22. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2003). Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Inside interviewing (pp. 3-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Katz, J. (2004). Commonsense criteria. In C. Ragin, J. Nagel, & P. White (Eds.), Proceedings of the ''Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research'' Workshop (pp. 77-80). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
24. Klein, H., & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1). 67-94.
25. Knudsen, C. (2003). Pluralism, scientific progress, and the structure of organization studies. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 262-286). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5-36.
27. March, J.G. (1990). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1). 71-87.
28. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Page, R. (2000). The turn inward in qualitative research. In B. Brizuela, J. Stewart, R. Carrillo, & J. Berger (Eds.), Acts of inquiry in qualitative research (pp. 3-16 ; Reprint Series No. 34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
30. Patton, M.Q. (1978). Utilization-focussed evaluation. London: Sage.
31. Patton, M.Q. (2003). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., & Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4). 697-713.
33. Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
34. Pratt, M.G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (3). 481-509.
35. Ragin, C. (1992). Introduction: Cases of ''what is a case?'' In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 1-17). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
37. Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15 (2). 187-203.
38. Reeves, T.K., & Turner, B.A. (1972). A theory of organization in batch production factories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 81-98.
39. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Rynes, S. (2004). From the editors. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4). 454.
41. Sandberg, J. (2005). How do you justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 8 (1). 41-68.
42. Savall, H., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., & Pron, M. (2008). The emergence of implicit criteria actually utilized by reviewers of qualitative research articles: Case of a European journal. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (3). 510-540.
43. Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
44. Seale, C. (2004). Quality in qualitative research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 409-419). London: Sage.
45. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London: The Cabinet Office.
46. Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social enquiry. Educational Researcher, 7 (2). 5-9.
47. Stewart, A. (1999). The ethnographer's method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4). 633-642.
49. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4). 520-526.
50. Van Maanen, J. (1998). Different strokes: Qualitative research in the administrative science quarterly from 1956 to 1996. In J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. ix - xxxii). London: Sage.
51. Zedeck, S. (2003). Editorial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1). 3-5.