essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

2 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––‘qualitative’ methods was something of a ‘red herring’ (Symon and Cassell, 1998b: 3) and thatwhat was of importance in understanding particular research practices was to appreciate avariety of ontological and epistemological stances (such as are summarized in the metatheoriesof Burrell and Morgan, 1979, and Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). While much (socalled)quantitative method might be underpinned by a positivist, normative or functionalistparadigm, qualitative methods might be informed by all possible epistemological positions,including those traditionally associated with quantitative methods (Gephart, 1999).This difficulty in labelling raises a number of issues. Firstly, Dachler (1998), in a review ofour first volume, emphasized that as long as ‘alternative’ methods were labelled qualitative inopposition to ‘traditional’ quantitative methods, they would always be perceived as an adjunctto quantitative research, rather than forming a distinct perspective based on differentunderlying epistemological assumptions and following different research goals. In ourexperience, quantitative researchers do not call their research ‘quantitative’. They just call itresearch and ‘qualitative’ research may be viewed as something subsidiary. We may be creatinga false dichotomy or simply not recognizing underlying value judgements by using these labels.Secondly, the use of such a broad label masks a very great variety of approaches, which perhapsshould not be taken together as some sort of coherent whole. Their only shared characteristicmight be that they do not seek to quantify phenomena. Even then, some researchers claimingto be engaged in qualitative research may go on to quantify their data (for example, countingfrequencies of interview responses, and using statistical techniques to compare groups). Thisraises a third issue of ‘can these researchers then be said to be engaged in “real” qualitativeresearch?’ In our reply to Dachler’s review (Cassell and Symon, 1998), we emphasized theparticular problems of this argument. If there is no agreed definition that might act as a ‘goldstandard’ against which to make the judgement, then anyone who says they are conducting‘qualitative’ research is conducting qualitative research. Despite our earlier description of thecharacteristics of qualitative research, we were reluctant to ‘speak for’ qualitative research, toclaim a special prerogative or knowledge which allowed us to be the arbiters in judgingwhether research is ‘truly’ qualitative or not. We also were not seeking to privilege a particularepistemological standpoint, but rather to seek a ‘level playing field’ (Symon and Cassell, 1999:396) for all kinds of research practice. This is, however, quite a relativist position, and thereforehas its own problems. Hoshmand (1999) suggests that qualitative research should be specificallyaligned with action research and critical hermeneutical traditions and that qualitativeresearchers should form a ‘community’ around these specific concerns. Indeed, her argumentis that:Philosophical and procedural differences among qualitative approaches have made itdifficult for qualitative researchers to forge a unified proposal and to establish the placeof qualitative inquiry in psychology in particular and in the social sciences in general.(1999: 15)Thus, we cannot gain credibility for qualitative research unless qualitative researchers showsome sort of united front. We feel that this approach might well undermine the current varietyof approaches taken to research, loosely termed ‘qualitative’, which are based in differentepistemologies. An alternative approach would be to abandon the term ‘qualitative’ and seekinstead some sort of common reflexive practice across research – such that all researchers seekto account for their practice and assumptions whatever they are. We discuss this further in thepenultimate section of this chapter. However, Hoshmand does raise the important issue of the