European qualitative research: A celebration of diversity and a cautionary tale

Abstract

This contribution aims to highlight the diversity in European qualitative management research as a way of celebrating its ongoing development within Europe. In recognising the strengths that emerge from this diversity in epistemological traditions and methods, attention is drawn to the concerns increasingly expressed by qualitative researchers about growing pressures of standardisation. It is argued that qualitative researchers should take every opportunity to encourage methodological diversity whilst resisting attempts at homogenising the experience and reporting of qualitative management research.

Englishization and the Politics of Knowledge Production in Management Studies

“…This focus inevitably tends to discourage methodological pluralism, with the "exemplary" journals in effect prioritizing quantitative-positivist methods over qualitative-interpretive ones (Cassell, 2016). The significance of this issue is such that recent years have seen regular calls by "top" journals for more qualitative research.…”

Efektivitas Tata Kelola Dana Zakat

“…Pelaksanaan pengumpulan data ber sumber dari dokumentasi, perekaman ar sip, hasil wawancara, observasi langsung, observasi para partisipan, serta perang katperangkat fisik lainnya. Pelaksanaan pengumpulan data bersumber dari doku men, pengamatan langsung, dan wawancara (Cassell, 2016;Hudaya & Smark, 2016). Wawancara terstruktur yang dilakukan yai tu untuk mendapatkan data sesuai dengan indikator dalam ZCP.…”

Editorial Paper: Exploring Management Through Qualitative Research – Introductory Remarks

“…It has been argued that the development of certain standards would help both reviewers in their evaluation and authors in improving the trustworthiness of the presented research. However, the observed tendency to enforce templates for qualitative research, and practices of mimicking the style of quantitative papers, has led many scholars to question such disciplinary, normative direction (Cassell, 2016;Symon et al, 2016;Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012). They suggest that such guidelines, instead of helping qualitative writers, raise the risk of compromising detailed, explanatory theorizing -the heart of qualitative research -for linear, cause-effect theorizing typical of a quantitative approach (Cassell, 2016;Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012).…”