123
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2013, 21(2): 123126
Commentary
The Conduct of Qualitative Research in
Organizational Settings
Andrew M. Pettigrew*
R esearch methodologies are important but they should
always be thought of as means and not ends in
themselves. An influential scholarly contribution is rarely
explained by methodological appropriateness alone. Schol-
arly outputs which have a sustained impact normally tackle
issues and theoretical problems of substance. They may
also challenge or confirm a dominant theory or perspec-
tive; create a new lens or conversation; cross boundaries
and effect a conceptual transfer; and deliver novel empiri-
cal findings in a high attention context. Scholarly impact
can also arise from risk taking. Because most scholars
are risk averse, the odds favor the risk taker (Pettigrew,
2012).
Having tried to put methodology in its place, may I also
assert that research methodology is too important to be left
to methodologists? There have been many valuable texts on
qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lee, 1999), but as a practitioner
myself, I am more persuaded by ardent research practitio-
ners who reflect on the compromises in their practice as they
struggle for impact. It is this emphasis on research practice
which has encouraged me to focus on the conduct of quali-
tative research. This task has been made considerably easier
by the increased desire for qualitative researchers to write
reflective practitioner articles on their research practice
(Eisenhardt, 1989a; Langley, 1999; Mintzberg, 2007; Petti-
grew, 1990, 1997a), and for journal editors to share their
experience of trends in the assessment of qualitative articles
(Gephardt, 2004; Pratt, 2008; Suddaby, 2006).
I have always been uncomfortable with the label qualita-
tive research. Labels perform many functions in social life.
They can offer zones of identity and comfort. They can be
used as terms of reproach and abuse. They may also be
genuine attempts to codify and explain. The problem with
the term qualitative research has been its very indefinite-
ness as a construct and label and its unhappy juxtaposition
*Address for correspondence: Andrew M. Pettigrew, Sad Business School, University
of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK. E-mail: andrew.pettigrew@
sbs.ox.ac.uk
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00925.x
with the term quantitative research. The problem with
dichotomies is that they conceal as much as they reveal. I
have always been much more convinced by the power of
dualities and much more comfortable with framing quali-
tative and quantitative research as a duality rather than a
dichotomy.
There is no space in this paper for a comprehensive review
of the varieties of research practice in qualitative methods. I
have a more limited aim, to selectively acknowledge some of
the main contributors to the field; to give emphasis to the
codification of standards in qualitative research; and to high-
light some of those standards by focusing on the scholarship
of Kathy Eisenhardt, who I believe to be one of the exem-
plary practitioners of qualitative research approaches.
But let me start by signaling the mobilizing importance
of a special issue of a prestigious journal. In 1979 John Van
Maanen, himself a distinguished ethnographer and evoca-
tive writer, edited a special issue of the Administrative
Science Quarterly on Qualitative Methods. At that time the
Administrative Science Quarterly was the most important
scholarly journal in the field of organization and manage-
ment. Subsequently this position has been challenged,
but the Administrative Science Quarterly still remains near
the top of journal hierarchies in management. The fron-
tispiece for the special issue has an imaginary seminar
exchange between a qualitative and quantitative researcher.
The tone and content of this exchange is still instructive
and I repeat it here:
Qualitative Researcher Many people these days are bored
with their work and are . . .
Quantitative Researcher What people, how many, when do
(interrupting) they feel this way, where do they
work, what do they do, why are they
bored . . . how long have they felt this
way, what are their needs, when do
they feel excited, where did they come
from, what parts of their work bother
them most, which . . .
Qualitative Researcher Never mind
124
The purported exchange does, of course, communicate a
stereotype but a stereotype which is still meaningful. In a
recent article by Bartunek, Rynes, and Ireland (2006),
posing the question What makes management research
interesting?, the authors conclude that in their estimate
the most interesting research articles in top US journals
often featured the use of qualitative research methods.
In his own introductory article, Van Maanen (1979) noted
the power of qualitative research methods to observe every-
day life through interpretative frameworks, to get close to
the context of the study, and to reveal unfolding social pro-
cesses. Van Maanen noted the tendency in organization
theory at that time for theoretical constructs to be distant
from data, for a reductionist tendency in social science and at
the same time the absence of guidelines to follow in assess-
ing the soundness of qualitative research techniques. The
special issue contained notable articles by Jick, Mintzberg,
Pettigrew, and Webb and Weick. There is no doubt the
special issue published at that time in the Administrative
Science Quarterly had a significant consciousness raising and
legitimating impact. Since then, the range of articles pub-
lished in top United States and European journals using
qualitative methods has significantly increased and with
benefit to scholarship and management practice (Bartunek
et al., 2006; Pratt, 2008).
It is a measure of the quality of the publication that some
13 years later Lees 1999 book Using qualitative research
methods in organizational research is still one of the clearest
and most comprehensive treatments of the subject. One of
the first observations Lee makes is that qualitative research-
ers should be very explicit about their biases and personal
views. Lees positivist training is evident throughout the
book, and is seen most clearly in his commitment to com-
bining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Unusually in
the domain of qualitative research, Lee also takes the view
that qualitative research can go beyond theory generation
and elaboration to theory testing. Lee notes the power and
significance of interpretation, of personal investment in data
collection, and the customized and flexible character of data
collection in qualitative work. He also argues that the best
qualitative work is contextually grounded and seeks to
understand process dynamics and not just outcomes. Above
all, the qualitative researcher is the carrier and interpreter of
the lived meanings of the key people in the study. Whereas
the quantitative researcher may lean towards prevalence,
generalizability, and calibration, the qualitative researcher
gives greater emphasis to narration, description, interpreta-
tion, and explanation.
Commentators on research methods of whatever charac-
ter are fond of signaling the ontological, epistemological,
axiological, rhetorical, and methodological assumptions of
each. These distinctions can be tiresome to research practi-
tioners, but it is important for us also to be aware of the
assumptions which may be underpinning and limiting our
practice. The realist view of knowing that reality is indepen-
dent of our conceptions of it remains under pressure from
the combined assaults of postmodernists, relativists, con-
structivists, and mediativists. Postmodernism can take the
view that there can be no overarching reason, no one best
way of looking at things; truth is undecidable and unobtain-
able. That view and the relativist position that reality is
Volume 21 Number 2 March 2013
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
merely a posit of particular conceptual schemes are increas-
ingly being seen to be breeding grounds for helplessness
and self-doubt. The constructivist orientation that there is no
reality beyond the constructs we imply when we talk of
reality still has its supporters. I have always favored the
mediativist position, which contends that social circum-
stances intervene by mediating between nature and accounts
of nature, but do not eliminate the effects of nature. The
process scholar interested in how context and action shape
processes and outcomes is likely to be a devotee of the
mediativist position on knowing in social science (Pettigrew,
1997a, 1997b, 2012). Although he does not use the language
of mediativism, it is interesting to note that Lees (1999)
treatment of qualitative research incorporates an assumption
of a patterned objective reality and an ongoing process of
interpretation and sensing of organizational phenomena. I
emphasize this point to make clear how important philo-
sophical assumptions are in shaping awareness of standards
in the conduct of qualitative research.
But what of the changing standards over time in the
assessment of qualitative research by authors and journal
reviewers? This is a large and complex subject which I can
only elude here. Fortunately, this brief meta-level apprecia-
tion has been made both easier and more evidence based by
two recent articles which between them offer appreciations
of criteria for journal publishing of qualitative work in
selected North American and European management jour-
nals. I am referring to Pratts 2008 article on tensions in
evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier
North American journals and an equivalent but more longi-
tudinal and comprehensive article by Bluhm, Harman, Lee,
and Mitchell (2011), which compares published qualitative
work in selected North American and European journals.
Pratts 2008 article draws on original and empirical data
collected by survey methods on the criteria-in-use adopted
by qualitative researchers as they sought to publish or
review research in four top North American journals:
Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quar-
terly, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal.
Qualitative was broadly defined to include a range of
qualitative methodologies. Pratt found three major tensions
in such publishing (Pratt, 2008: 485).
(i) The need to both break away from and be firmly embed-
ded in existing theory.
(ii) The need to provide such data so that the reader can
draw conclusions while also providing enough inter-
pretation of that data.
(iii) The need to be both detached and transparent with
regard to ones methods while also fitting ones
research into the format of a top-tier North American
journal.
Interestingly, there was considerable overlap in the criteria
of worth as articulated by authors and reviewers. The three
central criteria were Qualitative research should contribute
to theory, be well written, and have well articulated method
(Pratt, 2008: 488). However, Pratts work also noted that
alongside this apparent consensus around core criteria,
there was also evidence of a lack of common evaluation
standards or a boilerplate for communicating its methods.
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
So the criteria may be evident at the level of theory but much
less so at the level of theory in use. Although Pratts 2008
article uses quantitative survey data to good effect, it is also
notable that his most interesting findings are from the more
expressive data collected from the open-ended questions in
his survey. Unfortunately, there is no space here to elucidate
these more subtle and meaningful observations and patterns
in his data.
The 2011 paper by Bluhm, Harman, Lee, and Mitchell is
more ambitious than Pratts 2008 paper. Bluhm et al. offer a
10-year review of 198 qualitative articles published in three
US journals over the period 19992008. The journal sample
included Academy of Management Journal, Administrative
Science Quarterly, and Journal of Vocational Behavior. Articles
were also examined from two European journals, Journal of
Management Studies and Organizational Studies. The con-
structs used in the Bluhm et al. paper for evaluating the
qualitative papers were taken largely from Lees 1999 book
and the similar paper by Lee, Mitchell, and Sablynski (1999).
The Bluhm et al. (2011) article offers a range of valuable
insights about the distinctive characteristics of qualitative
research and how its understanding and use has changed in
management research over the period 19982008. Key find-
ings include the confirmation that most published qualita-
tive research concerns itself with theory generation and
elaboration rather than theory testing. Like Pratt (2008),
Bluhm et al. (2011) show how crucial transparency of
methods and analysis are in convincing skeptical reviewers
of the validity of qualitative research. In their USEuropean
journal comparison, Bluhm et al. (2011) are able to demon-
strate how US journals give greater emphasis to this form of
transparency. Apparently, European journals are more likely
to sacrifice documenting details of methods for perhaps a
greater focus on displaying research findings. However, the
clear trend over time is for both sets of journals to require
higher standards of methodological codification of qualita-
tive research methods.
Bluhm et al. (2011) used citation data to infer scholarly
impact and were also able to link realized theory generation
and the use of multiple data collection methods to differen-
tial scholarly impact. Studies that used less common research
designs also seemed to contribute more to the progressive
development of qualitative research, and the European jour-
nals were more likely than their US counterparts to publish
articles using less common methods.
Bluhm et al. (2011) are also able to show how important
transparency of methods and data analysis are to the suc-
cessful publishing of qualitative research. Their time series
data in both US and European journals show conclusively
how increasingly transparent published qualitative research
has become in the last decade. In order to contextualize and
give greater meaning and significance to these broad obser-
vations, I would like to embed them in a case study of an
exemplary practitioner of qualitative research. Although
Kathy Eisenhardts published research and methods are not
unique, they offer in her empirical publishing (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997; Davis & Eisenhardt, 2011; Eisenhardt,
1989b; Martin & Eisenhardt, 2010) and in her writing reflec-
tive of her research practice (for example, Eisenhardt, 1989a;
Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) clear manifestations of
exemplary practice in all stages of qualitative research. Her
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
125
work encapsulates and illustrates transparency across-the-
board and not just the transparency of data sources and
analysis mentioned by Bluhm et al. (2011). Thus we see
in Eisenhardts published work evidence of transparency
of theoretical and empirical positioning, transparency of
research questions, of appropriate theory, of where the theo-
retical and empirical gaps are to be filled, of choice of cases,
of data display and evidence, of transparency of method and
forms of analysis, and evidence of substantiation of claims of
scholarly contribution.
Kathy Eisenhardts research focus has been on theoretical
and managerial issues of relevance to technology-based
companies in nascent and rapidly changing markets.
To Eisenhardt, scholarly positioning is of the essence:
Sound empirical work begins with a strong grounding in
relevant literature, identifies a research gap and proposes
research questions that address that gap (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007: 26). She avoids the term qualitative
research: rather clarify the research strategy being used
and contrast it with qualitative approaches with different
epistemological assumptions. Specifically, when inducting
theory from cases, be explicit about the theory building
goal (2007: 20). Also, avoid the term grounded theory
unless precisely following the Glaser and Strauss proce-
dures, which are stringent. For a similar argument, see
Suddaby (2006). Use a clearly articulated and justified
dependent variable legitimated against the existing litera-
ture and the focal research question. With Eisenhardt, there
is great clarity about what is being studied and why. There is
precise language and thoughtful research design, including
some a priori constructs. This is all part of the strong deduc-
tive element and framework in which inductive case analy-
sis and theory development occur.
Eisenhardt is also transparent about the rationale for case
study choice and prefers theoretical sampling in relation
to her dependent variable and not convenience sampling.
She uses multiple data methods and more often than not
attempts to combine qualitative and quantitative methods.
She is also flexible and opportunistic in data collection, with
ongoing development of key theoretical constructs that fit
the emerging substantive theory and the emerging data set.
She practices pluralistic interviewing and other tactics to
limit informant bias. She also uses explicit within-case and
cross-case analysis and there is transparency in data display
and data analysis. Appendices are used to reveal any chro-
nologies and there is a liberal use of tables and figures for
data display. There is explicit pattern recognition in data
display and direct comparison with conflicting and compat-
ible literatures. She is also an artful influencer, regularly
pointing out to the reader this or that question has been
answered and this puzzle now resolved. All this exemplary
practice emphasizes the special character and special contri-
butions of her work. Effective publishing must always be
underpinned by effective influence strategies.
REFERENCES
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: 915.
Volume 21 Number 2 March 2013
126
Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2011. Quali-
tative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of
Management Studies, 48: 18661891.
Brown, S. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change:
Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relent-
lessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
42: 134.
Davis, J. P. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership
and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in sym-
biotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56: 159
201.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, W. S. 2000. Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989a. Building theories from case study
research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989b. Making fast strategic decisions in high
velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32:
543576.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from
cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management
Journal, 50: 2532.
Gephardt, R. 2004. From the editors: Qualitative research and the
Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management
Journal, 47: 454462.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data.
Academy of Management Review, 24: 691710.
Lee, T. W. 1999. Using qualitative methods in organizational
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. 1999. Qualitative
research in organizational and vocational psychology, 19791999.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45: 79122.
Martin, J. A. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2010. Rewiring: Cross-business
unit collaborations in multi-business organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 53: 265301.
Mintzberg, H. 2007. Appendix: Steps in research on strategy for-
mation. In Tracking strategies: Toward a general theory: 380
390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Volume 21 Number 2 March 2013
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change:
Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1: 267292.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1997a. What is a processual analysis? Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, 13: 337348.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1997b. The double hurdles for management
research. In T. Clarke (Ed.), Advancement in organizational
behaviour: Essays in honour of Derek S. Pugh: 277296. Alder-
shot: Ashgate.
Pettigrew, A. M. 2012. Context and action in the transformation
of the firm: A reprise. Journal of Management Studies. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01054.x
Pratt, M. G. 2008. Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in
evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North
American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 481
509.
Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not.
Academy of Management Journal, 49: 633642.
Van Maanen, J. 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organiza-
tional research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:
520526.
Andrew M. Pettigrew is a Professor of Strategy and Organi-
zation, Sad Business School, University of Oxford and Senior
Golding Fellow, Brasenose College, Oxford. He has held
previous academic appointments at Yale University, London
Business School, University of Warwick, University of Bath
and Harvard Business School. His long term research inter-
ests have been in the study of decision making, strategy
making and change and corporate governance in organiza-
tions in the private and public sectors. He has received many
distinctions as a scholar. These include Distinguished Scholar
of the Academy of Management, Fellow of the British
Academy, Fellow of the Academy of Management and the
British Academy of Management. He was co-founder and
President of the British Academy of Management. In 2009, he
was awarded an OBE in the Queens New Years Honours list
for services to higher education.
2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd