MGMT 8095 Qualitative Research Methods - …business.uc.edu/content/dam/business/departments/management... · case research, as those are the two methods most typically represented

MGMT 8095 Qualitative Research Methods

Spring 2018: Fridays 12-3; 502 Lindner Hall

Professor: Elaine Hollensbe, Ph.D. Office Hours: By appointment Office: 503 Lindner Hall Email: [email protected] Phone: 556-7122 (office); 227-8350 (cell) Course Overview: This course provides an overview of and experience with qualitative research methods. You will be introduced to a wide variety of qualitative methods, including ethnography, participant observation, interviewing, grounded theory, discourse analysis, action research, narrative analysis, content analysis, and case analysis. We will focus particularly on grounded theory and case research, as those are the two methods most typically represented in leading management journals. In the beginning of the course, we will briefly review the epistemological foundations of qualitative research, then move immediately into research design and data collection, taking a more applied focus for the rest of the course. We will examine a variety of techniques for coding and analyzing qualitative data, as well as read several examples of published qualitative studies to deconstruct the methods used. Finally, we will learn tips for crafting qualitative research for publication and conventions for ensuring that qualitative work is rigorous. Throughout the course, there will be opportunities to try on various methods and gain hands-on experience. You will also launch your own qualitative study and begin to collect and analyze data for it as part of the course requirements. Course Objectives: o To understand the philosophical perspectives associated with qualitative methods. o To develop a working knowledge of the array of ways to conduct qualitative research. o To be able to generate research questions and design a qualitative study appropriate for

examining those questions. o To become proficient at collecting systematically and organizing qualitative data (e.g.,

interviews, field notes). o To be able to code data and extract themes/analyze qualitative data. o To learn methods of establishing trustworthiness and other criteria for evaluating

qualitative research. o To be able to assess and critique qualitative journal articles. o To learn how to prepare a publishable product from qualitative data analysis. Required Text : o Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative

Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MGMT 8095 – Qualitative Research Methods 2

Highly Recommended Books:

o Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. (3rd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

o Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. 2005. Handbook of Qualitative Research. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

o Denzin, N.K, & Lincoln, Y.S. 2008. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. (3rd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

o Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.

o Spradley, J.P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. [We will read portions.] o Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Techniques. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Yin, R.K. 2003. Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Supplementary Books:

o Alvesson, M. 2009. Reflexive Methodology. London: Sage. o Bernard, H. 2009. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. 2005. Foundations of Multi-method Research: Synthesizing

Styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. 2010. Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage. o Elsbach, K.D., & Bechky, B.A. 2009. Qualitative Organizational Research, Vol. 2.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. o Feldman, M. S. 1995. Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. o Herman, L., & Vervaeck, B. 2001. Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln, NB:

University of Nebraska Press. o King, N., & Horrocks, C. 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. o Lee, T. W. 1998. Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage. o Marshall, C., & Rossman, C.B. 2010. Designing Qualitative Research. (5th Ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. o McNiff, J. 2009. Doing and Writing Action Research. London: Sage. o Stake, R.E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. o Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. 1990. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative

research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. o Symon, G., & Cassell, C. 1998. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational

Research. London: Sage. o Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. 2009. Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. o Wolcott, H. F. 2009. Writing up Qualitative Research, 3rd edition. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.


Grades: Mini-exercises 25% Article review 25% Discussion leadership/class contribution 25% Research project/presentation 25% Participant Responsibilities: You will be expected to read all of the assigned articles completely and critically, and be prepared to discuss the issues raised in each article in class. Your preparation will be guided by questions provided by the discussion leaders (below), but you are also encouraged to develop perspectives of your own that you can present during the class discussion. Overall, class contribution will be calculated based on your attendance, the quality of your discussion questions and article summaries, and your meaningful contributions to class discussion. Discussion Leader Responsibilities: You will be expected to serve as a discussion leader for several articles during the semester. On the first day of class, discussion leader assignments will be made. As a discussion leader, you will be expected to take the “lead” in class on the discussion of the article(s) you are assigned. This involves preparing a one- to two-page single-spaced summary of the article which addresses the following questions: For the content articles: (1) What do you see as three most important or interesting take-aways from the article? (2) Are there any “arguable” or confusing points based on your reading of the article? (3) Discussion questions: What are two questions that you have after reading the article? Note: Questions should stimulate the class to explore interesting, arguable/confusing issues or points made in the article. For the Charmaz chapters, include a more detailed outline of the chapter. For the empirical articles, i.e., the articles with two asterisks (**): (1) How effective has/have the author(s)’ been in describing the study’s purpose, importance, and research question(s)? (2) Briefly describe the method(s) used. Is there anything that bothers you about the method? What and why? Is there anything that you find especially compelling or well done? What and why? (3) How did the author(s) move from the data to theorizing from it? (4) What some things the author(s) did to convince you of the trustworthiness and credibility of the study/method/findings? (5) Discussion questions: What are two questions that you have after reading the article? Note: Questions should focus on your deconstruction of the paper (Q1-4 above), i.e., on the way the paper is structured/argued and on the method.


Both the summary and the discussion questions should be emailed to your fellow students and me at least 24 hours in advance of class. Performance as a discussion leader will be assessed as part of your contribution grade and will be evaluated based on (1) the completeness and clarity of the article summaries; (2) the degree to which the discussion questions highlight or tap major themes in the readings, and (3) the utility of these questions in generating meaningful discussion during the seminar. My goal is that we keep the tone open and informal so that each of us feels comfortable raising questions to clarify and critique, and to bring up interesting issues. Mini-exercises There will be five exercises assigned during the course of the semester to give you the opportunity to apply what you are learning. Ideally, each will lead and contribute to the final research project in the course. All projects should be submitted to me electronically no later than noon the day that they are due. 1. Research Question. Come up with a research question that you would like to investigate using qualitative methods. The task here is to develop a question suitable for investigating qualitatively. As is the nature of qualitative research, this question may be adjusted and modified as you get into the data gathering and analysis stages. 2. Participant Observation - Fieldnotes. For this mini-exercise, you will identify a site related to the research question(s) that you will develop early in the course. You will conduct an observation at this site in which you record fieldnotes on the setting and any interactions you observe. If you are a participant in the observation, you should also give an account of the interactions in which you participated. I would like for you to spend at least an hour in the setting and shoot for field notes of at least one page, single-spaced. See the Course Schedule for the due date. 3. Interview – Protocol. For the third mini-exercise you are to develop an interview protocol, i.e., a list of questions related to your research topic/question(s). You will submit your protocol by the due date on the Course Schedule and integrate feedback before conducting the interview(s). You will need to conduct three interviews of approximately one hour each to fulfill the remaining mini-exercise requirements in the course. You should record all three interviews, but due to time and cost, you need transcribe only one. Note: In transcribing, you do not need to include pauses, verbal interrupters, e.g., “you know,” etc. Even so, transcription of a one-hour interview can take up to four hours. You are free to hire an outside transcriber; in my experience, the cost varies from $35-$100 for a one-hour interview. To facilitate transcribing your interview, you might want to use ExpressScribe software, a free version of which can be downloaded at http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/. 4. Coding - Dictionary/Memos. For the fourth mini-exercise, you will code the transcript from the interview that you transcribed. We will discuss coding techniques in class, but at a basic level, you will record codes on a hard copy of the transcript. You will also record these

http://www.nch.com.au/scribe/


codes in a separate document (dictionary) and include a brief explanation or definition of the code. As you code, ideas or connections in the data will come to you. These should be recorded as memos in a separate document. The length of the dictionary and memos will depend on the length and richness of the transcript; however, I would anticipate each document would be at least one page. I would like for you to also turn in the coded transcript (hard-copy version) along with your dictionary/memos. 5. Thematic analysis – Data structure. Finally, you will analyze the codes/dictionary/ memos prepared for the third mini-exercise and use them to develop themes. For this mini-exercise, you may also use data from the un-transcribed interviews. These themes should take the form of a data structure diagram (with arrows leading from codes to themes). As you develop themes, consider both the data and the literature related to the phenomena you are studying. That is, your thematic analysis should suggest new ideas, but also be anchored somewhat in a related literature to which you hope your study will contribute. Research Project: Paper/Presentation In this course, you are responsible for developing a preliminary research paper on a topic of your choice. During the course, you will gather and work with data for this paper through the five mini-exercises described above, as well as archival materials, if relevant. The final paper should: (1) introduce your research question(s) and your study’s purpose; (2) include a literature review or research justification (as appropriate); (3) provide a thorough description of your methodology; (4) develop first- and second-order analytic findings (i.e., thematic analysis/data structure); (5) suggest a model/propositions (as appropriate); (6) discuss implications for future research and practice, and outline study limitations. You should also include a reference list, using a consistent style accepted in your field. (For Management, this would be the AMJ Style Guide.) You will be expected to present your paper on the last class day, as well as turn in a written copy. It is not expected that your data will fully address your research question(s), but it should be a reasonable first step at exploring your topic and provide a good foundation for further research. Another way to think of it – this paper could be a springboard for further data collection and analysis, after which the paper could be submitted to a journal. We are playing a bit of “let’s pretend” with these papers because you would need far more than 3 interviews for journal publication. We are limited to a semester and therefore I’m having you “force” some theorizing onto a very limited dataset for practical purposes. It is highly recommended that you use NVivo (or similar software) to analyze your data for the project. Check to see if your College has a licensing arrangement for faculty and students (usually around $100). Alternatively, QSR International offers a free 14-day trial of the NVivo software at this website: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_free-trial-software.aspx. Do NOT start your 14-day trial until after you have transcribed the data to analyze; otherwise, you will run out of time. Other software packages that are popular include ATLAS ti and MAXQDA. We will not include software training as part of the course, since using the software is optional and there are excellent online tutorials for that purpose. I suggest you also speak

http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_free-trial-software.aspx


with other doctoral students who have used the software; they can recommend their favorites as well as give some advice on its usage. Article Review You will review a qualitative article or manuscript as a final assignment in the course. Your review will include responses to a list of questions about the research question, approaches taken to data collection and analysis, and effectiveness of data presentation/write-up and theory building. You will be expected to integrate course materials and apply criteria for evaluating qualitative research.


Course Schedule

Week

Date

Topic

Assignments (in addition to assigned readings listed below)

1 1/12 Introduction to Qualitative Research/Paradigms 2 1/19 Research Questions and Designing a Qualitative

Study

3 1/26 (Non)participant Observation Ethnography

Mini-exercise #1 due (research question) Human Subjects Review forms submitted (if required).

4 2/2 Grounded Theory

Mini-exercise #2 due (fieldnotes from participant observation)

5 2/9 Interviewing and Sampling 6 2/16 Case Studies

Action Research Mini-exercise #3 due (interview protocol)

7 2/23 Analyzing Qualitative Data: Coding 8 3/2 Analyzing Qualitative Data: Theoretical Sampling

Process Research Content Analysis

Conduct/transcribe interview(s)

9 3/9 Generating & Elaborating Theory Narrative Analysis

Code transcript(s) Guest speaker: Prof. Heather Vough, Management Dept.

10 3/16 SPRING BREAK No class…rest & relaxation! 11 3/23 Multiple Methods and Triangulation Mini-exercise #4 due

(coded transcript(s)/dictionary/ memos)

12 3/30 Discourse Analysis Guest speaker: Prof. Gail Fairhurst, Communication Dept.

13 4/6 Writing & Presenting Research Findings Convincingly

Mini-exercise #5 due (thematic analysis)

14 4/13 Establishing Trustworthiness

15 4/20 Presentation of Projects In-class presentation of research projects/paper due

Finals Week

Article Review (Day TBA) Out of class; submit electronically to Elaine


COURSE READINGS

Note: I have included each week (an) article(s) in which qualitative methods have been employed, indicated by two asterisks (**). To the extent you can, when reading these articles, pay particular attention to the discussion of the techniques for collecting and analyzing data and the way the data are presented to develop/support the argument. Try to deconstruct how the authors have gone about crafting their work—this is one of the best ways to learn how to do qualitative research well. Week 1: Introduction to Qualitative Research/Paradigms in the Social Sciences (95 pages) Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., & Sonenshein, S. 2016. Grand challenges and inductive

methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1113-1123. (11 pages)

Gephart, R.P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 454-462. (9 pages)

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. 2012. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1) 15-31. (17 pages)

**Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. 2014. Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1256- 1283. (28 pages) Murphy, C., Klotz, A. C., & Kreiner, G.E. 2017. Blue skies and black boxes: The promise (and

practice) of grounded theory in human resource management research. Human Resource Management Review, 27: 291–305. (15 pages)

Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. C. 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantitative– qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8): 1821-1835. (15 pages) Supplementary Readings: Bansal, P. & Corley, K. 2011. The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity

of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 233-237. Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2012. Publishing in AMJ – Part 7: What’s different about qualitative research? Academy of Management Journal, 55: 509-513. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis.

Portsmouth, NH: Heineman: 1-37. Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. 1994. Pfeffer's barriers to the advance of organizational

science: A rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19, 331-341. Cunliffe, A. 2010. Crafting organizational research: Morgan & Smircich 30 years on.

Organizational Research Methods Online,1-27. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. 2008. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin,

N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry : 1-43. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Edmondson, A.C., & McManus, S.E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1155-1174.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: 584-602.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 105-117.

Lee, T. W. 1998. Tensions between qualitative and quantitative traditions. In Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 5-14.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. 1985. Postpositivism and the naturalist paradigm. In Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage: 14-45.

Locke, K. 2011. Field research practice in management and organization studies: Reclaiming its tradition of discovery. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 613-652. Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a

dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620. Rynes, S. L., & Barnunek, J. M. 2016. Qualitative research: It just keeps getting better! In

Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Eds: Kimberly D. Elsbach & Roderick M. Kramer. Taylor & Francis, Chapter 2.

Schwandt, T.A. 2003. Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivisim, hermeneutics and social contructionism. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 292-332.

Van Maanen, J. 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 520-526.

Week 2: Research Questions and Designing a Qualitative Study (117 pages) Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization.

Academy of Management Review, 36: 247-271. (25 pages) **Benson, M. L. 2009. Emotions and adjudication: Status degradation among white-collar criminals. Justice Quarterly, 7(3): 515-528. (14 pages) Marshall, E., & Rossman, G. 2011. The what of the study: Building the conceptual framework.

In Designing Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Newbury Park: Sage. 55-86. (There are examples of qualitative research questions on p. 74.) (32 pages)

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. (2nd Ed.): Chapter 2 (Focusing and Bounding the Collection of Data): 16-25. Thousand Oaks: Sage. (There are examples of qualitative research questions on p. 24.) (10 pages)

Pratt, M. 2016. Crafting and selecting research questions and contexts in qualitative research. In: Elsbach, K. D. & Kramer, R. M. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Eds: Kimberly D. Elsbach & Roderick M. Kramer. Taylor & Francis, Chapter 17. (10 pages)

**Schabram & Maitlis, S. 2017. Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60, No. 2, 584–609. (26 pages)


Supplementary Readings: Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Chapter 2: Practical Considerations, pp. 19-43. Chapter 3: Prelude to Analysis, pp. 45-64. Lee, T. W. 1998. Generic qualitative research design. In Using Qualitative Methods in

Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 21-35. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. 1985. Designing naturalistic inquiry. In Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage: 221-249. Marshall, E. and Rossman, G. 2011. The how of the study: Building the research design. In

Designing Qualitative Research : 89-130. McGrath, J.E. 1982. Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. In McGrath,

J.E., Martin, J., & Kulka, R.A. (Eds.) Judgment Calls in Research. Beverly Hills: Sage: 69-101.

Reinharz, S. 1979. The integration of person, problem and method. In On Becoming a Social Scientist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 369-382.

Stake, R.E. 1995. Research questions. In The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 15-33.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapter 4-5 (Practical Considerations; Analysis through Microscopic Examination of Data): 35-85. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Week 3: (Non)participant Observation/Ethnography (129 pages) **Bechky, B.A. 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary

organizations. Organization Science, 17: 3-21. (19 pages) Cunliffe, A.L. 2010. Retelling tales of the field: In search of organizational ethnography 20 years

on. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 224-232. (First 9 pages) **DeRond, M., & Lok, J. 2016. Some things can never be unseen: The role of context in

psychological injury at war. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1965–1993. (29 pages)

Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 1-16. (17 pages)

Fetterman, D.M. 1989. Ethnography: Step by Step. (3rd Ed.) Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 17: 26-47. (21 pages)

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 1993. Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4: 595-616. (22 pages)

Spradley, J.P. 1979. Writing an ethnography. In The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 204-216. (12 pages)

Supplementary readings:


Angrosino, M.V. 2008. Recontextualizing observation. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 161-183.

Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. 1998. Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry: 110-136. Also in the Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1994: 248-262.

**Barley, S. 2015. Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: how technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1: 31–60.

Becker, H.S., Gane, H.J., Newman, K.S., & Vaughan, D. 2004. On the value of ethnography: Sociology and public policy: A dialogue. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595: 264-276.

**Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. 2011. Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 239-261.

**Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. D. 2003. “Assessing Creativity in Hollywood Pitch Meetings: Evidence for a dual process model of creativity judgments.” Academy of Management Journal, 46: 283–301.

Fine, G.A., Morrill, C.A., & Surianarain, S.. 2008. Ethnography in organizational settings. In Buchanan, D., & Bryman, A.I. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage: 602-619.

Gatson, S.N. 2011. The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In Denzin & Lincoln, Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edition, 513-527.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York: Routledge: 1-53.

Lee, T.W. 1998. Participation and observation. In Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 98-101.

Snow, D.A., Morrill, C.A., & Anderson, L. 2003. Elaborating analytic ethnography: Linking ethnography and theoretical development. Ethnography , 4: 181-200.

**Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 685-718. Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R. 1984. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for

Meanings. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 52-64 (Field Notes). Van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 24: 539-550. Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press: 13-124.

**Van Maanen, J. 1991. The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. Frost, et al (eds.) Reframing Organizational Culture, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 58-76.

Vidich, A.J., & Lyman, S.M. 2003. Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research. (2nd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA: 55-129.

Whyte, W.R. 1979. On making the most of participant observation. The American Sociologist, 14: 56-66.

Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. 2009. Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: Sage Publications Ltd.


Week 4: Grounded Theory (143 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapter 1 (An Invitation to Grounded Theory): 1-21. (21 pages) Lee, T.W. 1998. Grounded theory. In Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 44-50. (7 pages) Locke, K. 2002. The grounded theory approach to qualitative research. In Drasgow, F., &

Schmitt, N. (Eds.), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations: Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 17-43. (27 pages)

O’Reilly, K., Paper, D., & Marx, S. 2012. Demystifying grounded theory for business research. Organizational Research Methods, 15 (2): 247-262. (16 pages)

**Shubha D. Patvardhan, S.D., Gioia, D.A., & Hamilton, A.L. 2015. Weathering a meta-level identity crisis: Forging a coherent collective identity for an emerging field. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 405–435. (31 pages)

**Sonenshein, S., Nault, K., & Obodaru, O. 2017. Competition of a different flavor: How a strategic group identity shapes competition and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 626–656. (31 pages)

Suddaby, R. 2006. From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49:633-642. (10 pages)

Supplementary Readings: **Bendersky, C. 2009. Work team formation as a social order negotiations. In Elsbach, K.A., &

Becky, B.A. (Eds.), Qualitative Organizational Research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing: 21-48.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. 2010. The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage. **Gioia, D.A., Price, K.N., Hamilton, A.L.., & Thomas J.B. 2010. Forging an identity: An insider-

outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-46.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. Theoretical sampling. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter: 45-77.

Glaser, B.G. 2002. Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2). http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/

Glaser, B.G. 1999. The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9, No. 6, 836-845.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. 1967. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter: 101-116.

http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Eijqm/


Goulding, C. 2009. Grounded theory perspectives in organizational research. In Buchanan, D.A., & Bryman, A. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage: 381-394.

**Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C., & Sheep, M.L. 2009. Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 704-730.

Locke, K. 1996. Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5: 239-245.

Reichertz, J. 2010. Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 214-228.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Denzin, N.K., &

Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 273-285.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapter 6 (Basic Operations: Asking Questions and Making Comparisons): 73-85. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Week 5: Interviewing and Sampling (188 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapter 2-4 (Gathering Rich Data; Crafting and Conducting Intensive Interviews; Interviewing in Grounded Theory Studies): 22-108. (87 pages) **Rogers, K., Corley, K., & Ashforth, B. 2017. Seeing more than orange: Organizational respect and positive identity transformation in a prison context. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 219–269. (51 pages) Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Read the following selections: Informants (pp. 24-39) (16 pages) Locating an Informant (pp. 44-53) (10 pages) Making an Ethnographic Record (pp. 69-77) (11 pages) Asking Descriptive Questions (pp. 78-91). (13 pages) Supplementary Readings: Alvesson, M. 2003. Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to

interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28: 13-33. Berg, B.L. 1994. A dramaturgical look at interviewing. In Qualitative Research Methods for the

Social Sciences. (5th Ed.) Boston: Pearson Education: 75-93. (18 pages) Cunliffe, A.L. 2003. Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities.

Human Relations, 56 (8): 983-1003.


Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. 1994. Interviewing: The art of science. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 361-376.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. 2003. The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 61-106. Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. 2008. The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Newbury Park ,CA: Sage: 115-159. King, N., & Norrocles, C. 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Koro-Ljungberg, M. 2007. A social constructionist framing of the research interview. In

Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research. New York: Guilford.

Kvale, S. 1994. Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. J. Phenomenological Psychology, 25(2): 147-173.

Lamont, M. & Swidler, A. 2014. methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology, 37: 153-171. Patton, M.Q. 2002. Segment on “Purposeful Sampling” from Qualitative Evaluation and

Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage: 169-186. Mays, N. and Pope, C. 1995. Qualitative research: rigor and qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 311(6997): 109-12. (Relates to purposive sampling) Weiss, R. 1994. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies.

New York, NY: The Free Press. Whyte, W.F. 1984. Interviewing strategy and tactics. In Learning from the Field. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage: 97-112. Week 6: Case Studies/Action Research (110 pages) Dyer, W.G. Jr., & Wilkins, A.L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better

theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16: 613-619. (7 pages)

Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532-550. (19 pages)

Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32. (7 pages)

**Ripamonti, S., Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G., & Cunliffe, A. L. 2016. Pushing action research toward reflexive practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(1) 55–68. (14 pages)

Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 20-24. (5 pages)

**Smith, W. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623. (32 pages) Yin, R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. [5th ed.]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:

99-125. (26 pages)


Supplementary Readings: **Barley, S.R. 1983. Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 393-413. Cochlan, D. 2011. Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing.

Academy of Management Annals, 53-87. Coglan, D. 2011. Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing.

The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 53-97. Druskat, V.U. 2005. Scholarship that works. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 952-955. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review. 16: 620-627. **Galunic, D.C., & Eisenhardt, K.M. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6), 1229-1250. Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. 2010. The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 710-737. **Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221-240. Stake, R.E. 1994. Case studies. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 236-247. Stake, R.E. 2008. Qualitative case studies. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. Strategies of

Inquiry. (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 119-149. Sutton, R.I., & Staw, B.M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-

384. Weick, K.E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-

390. Yin, R.K. 2003. The role of theory in doing case studies. In Applications of Case Study Research,

2nd. Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 3-27. Yin, R.K., & Heald, K.A. 1975. Using the case study method to analyze policy studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 371-381. Week 7: Analyzing Qualitative Data: Coding (160 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapters 5-7(The Logic of Grounded Theory Coding Practices and Initial Coding; Focused Coding and Beyond; Memo-writing): 109-191. (83 pages) Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook . (2nd

Ed.): Chapter 4 (Early Steps in Analysis/Contact Summary Sheets/Codes and coding): 50-72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (22 pages)

**Petriglieri, J. L. 2015. Co-creating relationship repair: Pathways to reconstructing destabilized Organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 518-557. (40 pages) Yin, R. K. 2009. Analyzing case study evidence. In: Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 4th

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 130-144. (15 pages)


Supplementary Readings: Bernard, H. 2009. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Davidson, C. 2009. Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 8(2): 36-52. Diesing, P. 1971. Main steps of a case study. In Patterns of Discovery in the Social Sciences

Chicago: Aldine Atherton: 142-168. Richards, L. 2005. Resource pages for Handling Qualitative Data: A practical guide. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Spradley, J.P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 92-172. Spradley, J.P. 1980. Discovering cultural themes. In Participant Observation. New York: Holt

Reinhardt, & Winston. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapters 7-9 (Analytic Tools; Open Coding; Axial Coding): 87-142. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R. 1984. “Coding” and “discounting data”. In Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. New York: John Wiley: 138-142.

**Walsh, I.J., & Bartunek, J.M. 2011. Cheating the fates: Organizational foundings in the wake of demise. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 1017-1044.

White, W.F. 1984. From data analysis to reshaping conceptual schemes. In Learning from the Field. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage: 251-261.

Yin, R.K. 2009. Analyzing case study evidence. In Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (4th Ed.): 127-162.

Week 8: Analyzing Qualitative Data: Theoretical Sampling/Process Research/Content Analysis (126 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapter 8 (Theoretical Sampling, Saturation and Sorting): 192-224. (33 pages) **Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B., & Kataria, N. 2015. Elasticity and the

dialectic tensions of organizational identity: how can we hold together while we are pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58: 981–1011. (31 pages)

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691-710. (20 pages)

Smith, A. 2002. From process data to publication: A personal sensemaking. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4): 383-406. (24 pages)

**Vadera, A. K., & Aguilera, R. V. 2015. The evolution of vocabularies and its relation to investigation of white-collar crimes: An institutional work perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1): 21–38. (18 pages)


Supplementary Readings: Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., & Tushman, M.L. 2001. Time: A new research

lens. Academy of Management Review, 26: 645-663. **Barley. S.R. 1990. Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization

Science, 1: 220-247. Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K., & Pfarrer, M.D. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis

literature in organization studies. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1): 5-34. **Howard-Grenville, J., Metger, M.., & Meyer, A. D. 2013. Rekindling the flame: Processes of

identity resurrection, Academy of Management Journal. **Isabella, L.A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key

organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 7-41. Perakyla, A. 2008. Analyzing talk and text. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. Collecting and

Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 351-375 Pettigrew, A.M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization

Science, 1: 267-292. **Ross, J. P., Intindola, M. L., & Boje, D. M. 2017. It was the best of times; it was the worst of

times: The expiration of work–life balance. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2): 202–215.

Silverman, D. 2003. Analyzing talk and text. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 340-362.

Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 92-106. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapters 10, 11, 13, & 14 (Selective Coding; Coding for Process; Theoretical Sampling; Memos and Diagrams): 143-179; 201-241. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

**Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35-67.

Week 9: Generating and Elaborating Theory/Narrative Analysis (127 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapter 9 (Reconstructing Theorizing in Grounded Theory Studies): 225-260. (36 pages) **Koerner, M. 2014. Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57, No. 1, 63–93. (31 pages) Pentland, B.T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation.

Academy of Management Review, 2: 711-724. (13 pages) Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. 2016. Narratives as sources of stability and change in

organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 495-560. Read only 495-508 and 547-553 (21 pages).

**Vough, H., Bataille, C.D., Noh, S. C., & Lee, M.D. 2015. Going off script: How managers make sense of the ending of their careers. Journal of Management Studies, 52 (3): 414-440. (26 pages)


Supplementary Readings: **Boje, D. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as

“Tamara-Land.” Academy of Management. Journal, 38: 997-1035 Boje, D. M. 2001. Narrative methods for organizational and communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. **Cassell, C., & Symon, G. 2011. Assessing ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 633–650. **Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. 2012. From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations. 65: 63-88. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. 2004. Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. **Dutton, J.E., Worline, M.C., Frost, P.J., & Lilius, J. 2006. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 59-96. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Roslie, G.A. Boje, D.M., Carlon, D.M., Downs, A., & Saylors, R. 2013. Storytelling diamond: An

antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 557-580.

Shepherd, D.A., & Suddaby, R. 2017. Theory building: A review and integration. Journal of Management, 43: 59-86.

Smith C.P. 2000. Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis H. T., Judd C. M., Eds. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Week 10: SPRING BREAK – NO CLASS Week 11: Multiple Methods and Triangulation (126 pages) Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. 2005. The multimethod approach and its promise. Foundations of

Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 1-15. (16 pages) **Detert, J.R., & Edmondson, A.C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-

censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461-488. (28 pages) Gibson, C. 2017. Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing

the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2): 193-223. (31 pages)

Jick, T.D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602-611. (10 pages)

Kaplan, S. 2016. Mixing quantitative and qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Eds: Kimberly D. Elsbach & Roderick M. Kramer. Taylor & Francis, Chapter 40. (11 pages)


**Little, L.M., Major, V., Hinojosa, A., & Nelson, D.L. (2015). Professional image maintenance: How women navigate pregnancy in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 8-37. (30 pages)

Supplementary Readings: ** Bunderson, J.S., & Thompson, J.A.2009. The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the

double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 32-57.

Cox, J. W., & Hassard, J. 2005. Triangulation in organizational research: A re-presentation. Organization, 12: 109-133.

Creswell, J.W. 1994. Combined qualitative and quantitative designs. In Research Designs: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: 173-192. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fine, G.A., & Elsbach, K.D. 2000. Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36: 51-76.

**Jehn, K.A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Lee, A. S. 1991. Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2, 342-365.

Lewis, M., & Grmes, A.I. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24: 672-690.

Molina-Azorin, J., Bergh, D. D., Corley, K. G., & Ketchen, D.J. 2017. Mixed methods in the organizational sciences: Taking stock and moving forward. Organizational Research

Methods, 20(2): 179-192. **Sonenshein, S., Decelles, K. A. , & Dutton, J. E. 2014. It’s not easy being green: The role of self-evaluations in explaining support of environmental issues. Academy of

Management Journal, 57: 7-37. Week 12: Discourse Analysis NOTE: Readings for the week will announced and provided later in the course. Prof. Gail

Fairhurst will visit the class. Supplementary Readings: **Brown, B.K., & Campion, M.A. 1994. Biodata phenomenology: Recruiters' perceptions and

use of biographical information in resume screening. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 897-908.

**Calas, M., & Smircich, L. 1991. Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organizational Studies, 12: 567-602.

Chase, S.E. 2005. Narrative inquiry. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S., Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials: Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 57-94.


**Cunliffe, A.L., & Eriksen, M. 2011. Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64: 1425:1449. Cunliffe, A.L. 2003. Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities.

Human Relations, 56 (8): 983-1003. Fairhurst, G.T., & Putnam, L.L. 2014. Organizational discourse analysis. In: L.L. Putnam & D.K. Mumby, Eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B., Deacon, Z., Nievar, M.A., & McCann, P. 2005. Using methods

that matter: The impact of reflection, dialogue and voice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (3/4): 275-291.

Kincheloe, J. L., & Mclaren, P. 2003. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: 433-488.

Manning, P.K., & Cullum-Swan, B. 1994. Narrative, content, and semiotic analysis. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 463-477.

**Pentland, B.T., & Feldman, M.S. 2007. Narrative networks: Patterns of technology and organization. Organization Science, 18(5): 781-795.

**Phillips, N., & Brown, J.L. 1993. Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1547-1576.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 2002. Discourse Analysis: 1-17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watson, T.J. 1995. Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sensemaking: A

reflective tale. Organizational Studies, 16 (5): 805-821. Week 13: Writing & Presenting Research Findings Convincingly (139 pages) Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapters 11 (Writing the Draft): 285-318 (34 pages) Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 1997. Composing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:

50-70. (21 pages) Jonsen, K., Fendt, J., & Point, S. 2018 Convincing qualitative research: What constitutes

persuasive writing? Organizational Research Methods, 21(1): 30-67. (38 pages) **Ladge, J.J., Clair, J.A., & Greenberg, D. 2012. Cross-domain identity transition during liminal

periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1449–1471. (23 pages)

Pollock, T. 2012. FTE: Publishing in AMJ: Part 3: Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 873–879. (7 pages)

Pratt, M.G. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 856-862. (7 pages) Ragins, B. 2012. FTE: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review,

37: 493–501. (9 pages)


Supplementary Readings: Bartunek, J.M., & Rynes, S. 2010. The construction and contributions of "Implications for

practice": What's in them and what might they offer? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9 (1): 100-118.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. 1995. Writing ethnography. In Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge: 230-262.

**Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. 2006. Where is the “Me” among the “We”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1031-1057.

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and "problematizing" in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023-1062.

Miles, M.B., 1979. Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 590-601.

Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapter 15 (Writing Theses and Monographs and Giving Talks about Research): 243-263. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (21 pages)

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 35-67.

Sutton, R.I. 1997. The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8, 97-106. Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J.B., & Mitchell, T.R. 2007. The interplay between theory and

method. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1145-1154. Van Maanen, J. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, 132-143. Wolcott, H.F. 1990. Writing Up Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Week 14: Establishing Trustworthiness/Evaluating Qualitative Research (129 pages) Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: Chapter 12 (Reflecting on the Research Process): 319-340 (22 pages) Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. 1985. Establishing trustworthiness. In Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage: 289-331. (43 pages) 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. (29 pages)

Rheinhardt, A., Kreiner, G. E., Gioia, D.A, & Corley, K. (Forthcoming). Conducting and publishing rigorous qualitative research. In: Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L, & Grandy, G. (Eds.) Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods, SAGE Publications Ltd. (20 pages, not typeset)

Tracy, S. J. 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight ''big-tent'' criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10): 837-851. (15 pages)


Supplementary Readings: Altheide, D.L., & Johnson, J.M. 1998. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative

research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials: Newbury Park, CA: Sage: 283-312.

Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., and Locke, K. 2008. Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 419-429.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M.L. 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lee, T.W. 1998. The cardinal concepts of reliability and validity. In Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 145-170.

Leitch, C.M., Hill, F.M., & Harrison, R.T. 2010. The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation and trust. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (1): 67-84.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. 1985. Case reporting, member checking and auditing. In Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage: 357-381. Maxwell, J.A. 1992. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational

Review, 62: 279-299. Morse, J.M. 1997. Perfectly healthy, but dead: The myth of inter-rater reliability. Qualitative

Health Research, 7: 445-447. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. (2nd Ed.): Chapter 16 (Criteria for Evaluation): 265-274. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Week 15: April 20th Presentation of Research Findings Week 16: Article Review (day to be confirmed)

Documents

MGMT 8095 Qualitative Research Methods - …business.uc.edu/content/dam/business/departments/management... · case research, as those are the two methods most typically represented