Essay on: The nature and scope

of qualitative research in
management studies
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
 Essay on: The Nature and Scope of Qualitative Research in Management
Studies
An introduction to qualitative research:
We divide research into broadly two categories: Qualitative, and Quantitative research. The
more popular of the two is quantitative research. Researchers in management and natural
sciences use this methodology of research more extensively as it is known to be a more
“rigorous approach” at understanding the stated problem, though this is a debatable matter.
Whereas quantitative research, as the name suggests attempts to bring out the results of a study
or experiment in such a manner that the results may be generalized for large population,
qualitative research aims to understand the problem in-depth at hand by asking questions, the
outcome of which may not be necessarily quantifiable or applicable to the population at large.
In-fact, qualitative research takes a very different approach and tries to understand the cause of
a certain problem in-depth by eliciting responses from those individuals who have been part of
the said context, or have experienced the said phenomenon. Clearly, qualitative research has
several advantages in understanding the problem from every possible angle. At the same time,
qualitative research also its disadvantages since the researcher develops close personal
association with the group being studied, his/her presence may have an impact on the responses
being collected.
This essay attempts to elucidate the how qualitative research methods have been applied to
field of management over the years. In the process of writing this essay, the author has referred
to several articles published on these lines and drawn his ideas and understanding of the
implications of qualitative research in management studies from them.
Methodology:
This essay was written after going through several articles published on the importance of
qualitative research in management in various journals. The articles that were referred are
mentioned in the references section at the end of this text.
The methodology for selecting articles was as follows: Keywords such as “Qualitative research
in Management” or “Qualitative Management Research” were used in Google Scholar to find
the most relevant and most cited articles in this field. Due to paucity of time, all articles shown
in the search results could not be studied and only few key articles that covered the topic at
hand in depth were chosen.
These articles were then thoroughly read and understood. Most articles being referred to here
show how qualitative research articles and qualitative research methods per-se is viewed by the
management fraternity. The articles point out the biases against qualitative research in
management which were reflected this text.

This essay has its limitations since it looks at the prospects of qualitative research in
management mostly from a certain angle only, and that is the acceptability of such research in
management journals. Given time, this essay can be expanded to include how qualitative
research has fared in different management sub-disciplines such as Marketing, Finance,
Operations, etc.

The scope of Qualitative Research in management studies:

It is important in all sciences, including social sciences and Management Studies that the
researcher focusses on both conceptualizing and generalizing the information available from a
given context or case in point. The way to achieve this is using what researchers call “Grounded
Data”. This view of grounded data and grounded research distinguishes itself from the usual
tradition of research is management which puts “Positivistic Research” in very high regards.
The common practice in management is to quantify responses from respondents in a variety of
numerical scales and then using complex statistical analysis to evaluate them. Such research
may offer face validity and reliability – but not genuine validity and relevance. It is unfortunate
that such type of “positivistic” research methods have become “bureaucratised procedures” in
the field of management and they have become mainstream research techniques in management
and business. Usually, management gurus see Quantitative research as being superior to
qualitative research and methods of research used in natural sciences are hailed by social
scientists as being the epitome of rigorous and objective research. What’s more troubling is
that quantitative research has better acceptability in academic peer-reviewed journals and
conferences. Academicians tend to focus more on statistical complexity of a research and have
made this in the form of a ritual, often forgetting that management deals with “People” with
“Emotions” who are more than just “Numbers”.
It as to be noted that in the field of management, mere data cannot be the sole foundation of
drawing relationships between variables, as such relationships are incomplete. Management
decisions in all functions, in all organisation levels, from top management to specialists,
workers, suppliers, customers and all other stakeholders, are based on a mix of fact and
judgement calls. What happens when researchers use quantified information in the form of
statistical data is, the interpretations become erroneous and subsequently these imperfections
multiply as information travels across layers of management decision-makers. What managers
often fail to take into account as they lose themselves in the methodological quagmire is that
they are dealing with flesh and blood individuals and books on research methodology in
management often fail to point out what method to use for such situations.

Researchers have pointed out some of the reasons that has led to the management field being
so obsessed with numbers and statistics and a disregard of complete understanding of the
causes of human behaviour in a given context. The obsession with quantitative methodology
is a product of a groupthink which is of the opinion that research can only be called rigorous
and high quality if there are rigorous statistical processes involved in deriving the outcome.
This groupthink is perpetuated by generations of researchers and academicians who are quite
unwilling to look the other way. This means that researchers try hard to fit human behaviour
into theoretical distributions such “Normal Distribution” When they fail to do so, it can become
a source of frustration for researchers. As mentioned earlier, bureaucratisation of scholarly
research is a means to enforce inflexible dogmas and regulations and means to censor any
difference in opinion rather than looking at newer paradigms. This practice of bureaucratisation
is currently threatening to become the epidemic of the scholarly world. The biggest concern is
that in large developing nations such as India and China, management education seems to have
caught the fundamentalist plague and there is an even greater prevalence of methodological
fundamentalism in management in favour of numbers and statistical processes.

However, all is not gloomy in the field of management when it comes to qualitative research.
Over the past decade more and more papers have been accepted by leading management
journals in the United States and Europe. Though barriers to publications still exist for
qualitative research, especially when qualitative research work is compared to their quantitative
counterparts. There is still a much greater acceptance and ease of publication for quantitative
research focussed publications. The opportunities for qualitative research in management is
still evolving and expanding. There is still an issue with standard templates to be followed by
qualitative researchers when doing or presenting their qualitative work to journals for
publication. The other major impediment to qualitative researchers is the fact that many a times
qualitative research has to face the biases of reviewers who are more suited to reviewing
quantitative pieces of work. The reason behind this is attributable to the positivistic lens that
reviewers can’t help but use when they evaluate a qualitative research and hence comes the
bias.
It has been pointed out by researchers that this favouritism towards qualitative research is quite
less when it comes to European journals of management who claim to be more acceptable and
generous towards more novel methods of research such as qualitative research. They more
readily embrace and teach a variety of qualitative approaches to studying organizational
phenomena. It is expected that European journals are more open regarding publishing
qualitative research and have moved beyond the inhibitions in including such research.

Of late it has been observed that qualitative researcher’s unique methods are being seen in a
more favourable light. Since qualitative researchers have been gradually making their mark
through their unique methods, novelty, transparency, and good writing. However, it is not
enough to merely look at a few good publications and reputed journals, one need to also look
at how qualitative research has come forward and progressing as a discipline in itself. It would
probably take a while before qualitative research work find an equal footing around the world
as compared to their quantitative counterparts.

Systematic biases and stigma still exist against qualitative research work in management
research. In fact, qualitative research has been often given the title of “the unwanted, red-
headed stepchild of the field of management”. There are many who question the
unconventional methods used by qualitative researchers in collecting data, analysing responses
and drawing inferences from that information. It is expected that researchers over a period of
time will move away from the stigma attached to qualitative research methods and will become
more accepting towards them. It may be noted here that although the opinions against the
unconventional methods used in qualitative research are a weakness, the methods themselves
are the strength behind the qualitative approach. Thus, any research that propagates this line of
research is bound to come up with in-depth information about the context and the subject being
studied in ways quantitative research cannot.
In order to gain this equal footing with quantitative research methods, qualitative researchers
must produce work that leads to development of new theories and gives overall contribution to
the body of knowledge in the field of management. As more and more such papers in qualitative
field come up, they will lead to a further firm establishment of qualitative research and its
credibility in management.

One of the most important aspects of qualitative research is “Theory Generation”. Theory
generation is the qualitative creation of new theory which results in testable research
propositions. This theory thus generated is further elaborated. Thereafter, existing theory and
formal hypothesis may be used to test this theory further. Researchers and reviewers have also
pointed out the fact that it is difficult to cleanly classifying the theoretical purpose of some of
the articles being published. However, such articles have also seen acceptance and are pushing
the boundaries for acceptability of qualitative research.
One view that is gaining momentum is to use qualitative and quantitative research methods in
tandem to gain a more complete understanding of the context. The role of qualitative research
here is to uncover experience, processes, and causal mechanisms through its unconventional
methods. Thereafter, quantitative research may be used to follow through the findings and
insight gained from qualitative origins. Quantitative research can contribute further in
understanding the phenomenon by systematically evaluating it on a larger scale. With the help
of its data gathering and statistical analysis techniques, quantitative research methods can be
used effectively to find the extent to which the ideas generated by qualitative methods can be
generalized for a larger population. It is only a logical conclusion to make that both qualitative
and quantitative approaches have their advantages, and it will lead to better management
decision-making if both methods are used in subsequence rather than simply using one method
and excluding another.

Here, it becomes important to highlight one of the most important techniques in qualitative
research that may be of great significance to management research. This is the “Triangulation”
method. Similar to the three sides of a triangle, the triangulation method aims to evaluate a
single point in question from three different and independent sources. In data triangulation, the
three sources of data can be 1) The primary data collected from interviews and observation or
focussed group discussion of participants, 2) Secondary data available on the topic from
databases, stock exchanges, marketing surveys, books, journals, magazines, minutes of
meetings, novels, etc. and 3) Photographs, videos, music, voice recordings and clippings, etc.
How all these methods may be used and how they should be combined for effective outcome
of a research depends upon the researcher and the topic being studied. But using the
triangulation method and combining both qualitative and quantitative methods may lead to a
more substantiated outcome that may give a better insight on the topic being studied. In fact,
researchers have pointed out the usefulness of triangulation suggesting that it may give a
qualitative research better acceptability in management journals.

After having looked at qualitative research and its scope in management, the question that a
researcher must ask is how to choose the right research method. The answer is quite simple:
“Choose the combination of scientific tools that suit your personality”. Methodological
fundamentalism is best avoidable if one wants to make a substantive contribution to the field
of management research. Methodologies such as case study research, grounded theory,
ethnography, action research, and narrative research, etc. are just as relevant in management
studies as they are in any other field of research and should not be looked down or sneered
upon. Today, advanced software packages such as NVivo, ATLAS, etc. have come up which
can make the task of classifying responses of participants a much easier task. The software’s
are well equipped with text mining capabilities and can search through responses case by case
using keywords. The recommendation given by researchers is to avoid mimicking the research
of others and rather adopt a more independent style of research that suits the researcher, the
context, and the area where such research will be applied to in future.

References
Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative Research in
Management: A Decade of Progress. Journal of Management Studies, 1866-1891.
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, 157-
161.
Gummesson, E. (2006). Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context
and persona. Management Decision, 167-179.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 602-611.

*** End ***