Search results

The study aims to explore the case study method with the formation of questions, data collection procedures and analysis, followed by how and on which position the saturation is achieved in developing a centralized Shariah governance framework for Islamic banks in Bangladesh.

Using purposive and snowball sampling procedures, data have been collected from 17 respondents who are working in the central bank and Islamic banks of Bangladesh through face-to-face and semi-structured interviews.

The study claims that researchers can form the research questions by using “what” question mark in qualitative research. Besides, the qualitative research and case study could explore the answers of “what” questions along with the “why” and “how” more broadly, descriptively and extensively about a phenomenon. Similarly, saturation can be considered attaining the ultimate point of data collection by the researchers without adding anything in the databank. Overall, this study proposes three stages of saturation: First, information redundancy. Second, referring the respondents (already considered in the study) without knowing anything about the data collection and their responses. Third, through the NVivo open coding process due to the decrease of reference or quotes in a certain position or in the saturation position as a result of fewer outcomes or insufficient information. The saturation is thus achieved in the diversified positions, i.e. three respondents for regulatory, nine for Shariah scholars and officers and five for the experts concerning the responses and respondents.

The study has potential implications on the qualitative research method, including the case study, saturation process and points, NVivo analysis and qualitative questions formation.

This research defines a case study with the inclusion of “what” and illustrates the saturation process in diverse positions. The qualitative research questions can also be formed with “what” in addition “why” and “how”.

This study demonstrates integration within a mixed-methods case study of construction phenomena, whilst ensuring reliability and validity. This is in view of the established philosophical challenges in theory generation, whereby qualitative and quantitative methods are underpinned by divergent, almost incompatible, paradigmic assumptions.

The study uses a sample case study research on the phenomenon of cost overruns, supported by a coherent flow of well-articulated philosophical arguments to idealise the logic of integration. Issues of reliability and validity were resolved along these lines, by incorporating applicable criteria from both the qualitative and qualitative strands. A detailed outline and rationalisation of the stepwise approach to achieving integration are provided, from the point of design conceptualisation, data collection, analysis and further down to theory generation.

The study generated two level-1 theories by collecting numerical data on cost overruns, geotechnical index parameters and textual data on the geotechnical practices. Another level-1 theory was generated in reflexive adaptation to unanticipated social constructs emerging from the qualitative data. All level-1 theories from the quantitative and qualitative strands were triangulated to yield two “level-2 theories”: A log-regression model and a cognitive map. The approach to integration is thus explanatory sequential, and concurrent (at the second stage of transformation in the generation of level-2 theories).

The study empirically reinforces that ontological flexibility, achievable through the use of thoughtfully designed integrated mixed-methods case studies, permits the investigation of multidimensional construction phenomena in innovative ways, relevant to provide holistic theoretical and practice-based contributions.

The study practically signposts a bespoke stepwise approach to integration, in a mixed-methods case study of construction phenomena, against the contextual backdrop of its relative novelty and lack of studies delving in-depth into the theoretical nitty-gritty.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and articulate concepts and approaches to qualitative generalisation that will offer qualitative accounting researchers avenues for enhancing and justifying the general applicability of their research findings and conclusions.

The study and arguments draw from multidisciplinary approaches to this issue. The analysis and theorising is based on published qualitative research literatures from the fields of education, health sciences, sociology, information systems, management and marketing, as well as accounting.

The paper develops two overarching generalisation concepts for application by qualitative accounting researchers. These are built upon a number of qualitative generalisation concepts that have emerged in the multidisciplinary literatures. It also articulates strategies for enhancing the generalisability of qualitative accounting research findings.

The paper provides qualitative accounting researchers with understandings, arguments and justifications for the generalisability of their research and the related potential for wider accounting and societal contributions. It also articulates the key factors that impact on the quality of research generalisation that qualitative researchers can offer.

This paper presents the most comprehensively sourced and developed approach to the concepts, strategies and unique deliverables of qualitative generalising hitherto available in the accounting research literature.

States that there are two general approaches to reasoning which may result in the acquisition of new knowledge: inductive reasoning commences with observation of specific instances, and seeks to establish generalisations; deductive reasoning commences with generalisations, and seeks to see if these generalisations apply to specific instances. Most often, qualitative research follows an inductive process. In most instances, however, theory developed from qualitative investigation is untested theory. Both quantitative and qualitative researchers demonstrate deductive and inductive processes in their research, but fail to recognise these processes. The research paradigm followed in this article is a post‐positivist (“realist”) one. This is not incompatible with the use of qualitative research methods. Argues that the adoption of formal deductive procedures can represent an important step for assuring conviction in qualitative research findings. Discusses how, and under what circumstances, qualitative researchers might adopt formal deductive procedures in their research. One approach, theory testing by “pattern matching”, is illustrated with a sample application.

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal, reflective analysis of publications over the last decade in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM) and to assess the implications for the future development of the journal, the practice of qualitative accounting research and the broader standing of the accounting discipline.

Reviewing QRAM published papers across a range of themes, including the spirit of generated debate, the representation and classification of qualitative research and the range of contributory authors. Using the review to identify important patterns and trends in the standing and practice of qualitative accounting research.

Highlighting the existence and contribution of numerous carefully crafted, thought provoking papers published in QRAM and drawing on them to present a number of important challenges, priorities and attractive opportunities for the future development of qualitative accounting research. Encouraging greater diversity, flexibility and creativity in the undertaking and utilisation of qualitative accounting research.

Emphasising how thinking differently about the emotions and lived experiences of qualitative accounting research(ers) can serve to inspire theoretical development, enhance trust in researcher judgement, and stimulate more fruitful and intellectually rewarding ways of doing qualitative accounting research.

Reminding of the value of reading papers as compared to relying on formal journal rankings. Revealing residing defensiveness tendencies in the undertaking of qualitative accounting research and arguing that restrictive representations and conceptions of “legitimate” qualitative accounting research are constraining what can be achieved and experienced both by individual accounting researchers and the discipline more generally.

Case study research, most often associated with qualitative inquiry has gained significance as an effective approach to investigate complex issues in real-world settings. Conducting case research is considered to be appropriate when a contemporary phenomenon is to be studied. This chapter covers all related concepts, relating to this unique method of research. The focus is on bringing about rigor in case study research.

In recent years, there has been an extraordinary accumulation of qualitative research in special education. However, as yet, there has been little accumulation of the understandings gained from these studies. This omission has important implications for knowledge development, the utilization of findings in practice, and providing implications for policy. In this chapter, we review and discuss perspectives and procedures from other fields with respect to aggregation of qualitative data. Additionally, we propose a specific method for the meta-synthesis of qualitative research in the area of special education. This synthesis would not be a numerical compilation of outcomes, as in traditional meta-analysis, but would treat individual research reports as “informants,” and employ procedures, such as analytic induction and the constant comparative method to develop higher understandings across individual cases. Such efforts are thought to be essential to reaching higher analytic goals and also to enhancing the generalizability of qualitative research. It is argued that meta-synthesis efforts could do much to promote the impact of the shared understandings gained from individual qualitative research efforts.