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

4 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––Thus we argued that it is not that qualitative research is inherently weaker or less rigorousbut rather that judgements of ‘good practice’ in research cannot be made without reference tothe social and political context. Our analysis of debates in such publications as The Psychologist(the magazine of the British Psychological Society), suggested to us that the difficulty in gainingacceptance of qualitative methods could be partly because of the value placed on research basedon the natural science model, and because of the identity processes bound up with the role of‘scientist’. Where funding councils and other institutions may favour the supposed objectivityand rigour of ‘science’, then we must all be seen to be ‘scientists’. Career and psychologicalinvestments may be made in that identity – particularly in psychology, which may havestruggled to be accepted as a serious discipline over the last century.The identification of these sorts of problems, leads us to conclude that if we are to continueto ‘raise the profile’ of qualitative research within this political context, then we have to payattention not just to publicizing ‘alternative’ approaches in textbooks such as this, but also ‘selling’them to research councils, journal editors and our colleagues. To this end, with our colleague,Dr Phil Johnson, we have recently received a UK Economic and Social Research Council grant 1(as part of a recent research methods funding initiative) to review current practice in qualitativeresearch and devise training in the area. We discuss this further in the next section.INFLUENCING RESEARCH PRACTICE ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Our intention has always been to influence research practice within our own discipline byproducing these edited volumes. We hope that we can encourage others (academics andpractitioners, Symon et al., 2000) to consider alternative methods of inquiry. We have arguedthat despite the recent developments in the concerns of work psychology, there has been littlechange in the underlying epistemological assumptions that influence how research is construed(Symon and Cassell, 1999). Other researchers have also suggested that a lack of reflection andcreativity in this respect is stifling to the discipline (Anderson, 1998). In other words,quantitative studies driven by positivist concerns, are adopting an essentially conservativeresearch strategy, concentrating on investigating minor variations of already establishedtheoretical models (adding a variable here or there, trying the model out in a different contextor with a different sample, etc). This is not contributing to a vibrant and innovative researchcommunity. Qualitative approaches and research adopting alternative epistemologicalperspectives hold out the promise of new insights by adopting a critical stance on acceptedpractices and approaching research topics with different objectives. As noted above, however,producing edited volumes is insufficient to bring about these changes. Other strategies we seeas important include: exploring judgements of ‘good’ research practice; researcher reflexivity;and training, and we discuss each of these below.Evaluation criteriaOne of our research objectives within the ESRC project is to establish current perceptionsof the ‘worth’ of qualitative research amongst: the editors of influential journals in the field;those sponsoring research (for example, research councils and charities); those working in UKpublic policy; practitioners (such as management consultants); and those training newresearchers (for example, Directors of PhD programmes in UK universities). In interviewing