Guidelines for Qualitative Research in Organization Studies: Controversy and Possibilities

Abstract

The aim of the present article is to tackle the controversy of establishing guidelines for qualitative research in Organization and Management Theory (OMT) and to present a summary of suggestions on how to conduct good qualitative research given by methodologists on top-tier international publications. In order to do so, the article discusses: general guidelines for qualitative research; how to achieve coherence and transparency in a qualitative empirical study; the meaning and importance of the concept of reflexivity; and, finally how to establish a theoretical contribution and transferability of findings in such context. The work presents a valuable contribution because such guidelines, concepts, and approaches can be adopted by students and researchers when conducting a qualitative research proposal, and by periodic reviewers to evaluate the quality of existing empirical studies.

Improving Volunteer Engagement in Nonprofit Healthcare Organizations

“…Kroll (2017) noted researchers achieve trustworthiness of a qualitative study when others can transfer the findings to other contexts or settings. Cavalcanti (2017) concluded researchers use different approaches to facilitate transferability. For example, in this research study, using purposeful sampling, member sampling, and collecting in-depth data enhanced trustworthiness and transferability.…”

“…Purposeful sampling identifies common patterns to formulate and evaluate assumptions (Duan et al, 2014). Transparency and detailed descriptions of study participants, framework, and location enhance transferability in a qualitative study (Cavalcanti, 2017). Providing detailed information about the researcher's role, participants, research method and design, ethical practices, data collection instruments and techniques, data organization, and data analysis allows readers and future researchers to determine my findings' transferability.…”

Pesquisa Qualitativa E Estudos De Caso: Significado E Linhas Práticas De Orientação

“…A multidisciplinaridade demanda desde logo, como refere Cavalcanti (2017) que as pesquisas construídas rompam com a controvérsia entre os paradigmas da ciência e com a ideia de que a cientificidade apenas está baseada no modo de fazer ciência inspirada nas técnicas proeminentes disseminadas pelo modelo do mainstream da pesquisa científica, assentado muitas vezes no argumento que presume, erradamente, a superioridade da investigação dedutiva sobre a indutiva, da positivista sobre a interpretativa. É comum propalar-se no meio acadêmico que a abordagem quantitativa, por se basear aparentemente em dados encarrados como exatos, são necessariamente mais capazes de descrever a realidade do que os dados de natureza qualitativa (CAVALCANTI, 2017, p. 475).…”

“The interviews were transcribed”, but how? Reflections on management research

“…This detailing becomes even more relevant in qualitative research since it presents specificities and restrictions (Cavalcanti, 2017) that prevent the generalization of results, as many authors postulate (Mattos, 2011). Before the reader's acceptance, the evaluation process of scientific works, especially papers, requires the agreement of the study between the peers, which occurs through the justification, the contribution and the relevance of the research (Lukosevicius, Guimarães, & Zouain, 2019), as well as through the description of the methodological course adopted.…”

“…In this way, when elaborating scientific documents, there is a prerogative that the authors attempt to explain the methodological approaches adopted in the research, pointing out characteristics, possibilities and limitations of the adopted techniques or methods (Gerhardt & Silveira, 2009). This detailing becomes even more relevant in qualitative research since it presents specificities and restrictions (Cavalcanti, 2017) that prevent the generalization of results, as many authors postulate (Mattos, 2011). Before the reader's acceptance, the evaluation process of scientific works, especially papers, requires the agreement of the study between the peers, which occurs through the justification, the contribution and the relevance of the research (Lukosevicius, Guimarães, & Zouain, 2019), as well as through the description of the methodological course adopted.…”