Search results

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

This paper aims to offer a brief personal reflection upon, and celebrates, the 10th anniversary of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM). More specifically, the author highlights the journal's contributions towards advancing qualitative management accounting research over the last decade, and the author suggests possible future avenues.

This short paper mainly constitutes a review of qualitative management accounting articles published in the first ten years of QRAM's publishing life, plus some personal reflection and suggestions for future directions.

The author celebrates the impressive achievements of QRAM's founding editors, and the author is encouraged to offer the personal views on how the journal might excel further in years to come.

Although the piece is primarily personal reflection, there is hopefully some food for thought with regard to fruitful directions in tomorrow's qualitative management accounting research. In particular, arguments are made for more undertaking of processual qualitative research and also for more targeted focus on the connections between management accounting and other relevant disciplines such as management and organisation studies.

The paper offers no practical implications as such, but does discuss, and in fact heeds some caution against, the apparent trend of (possibly too uncritically) seeking to tease out practical implications from qualitative management accounting research.

Again, while this paper offers no specific discussion on its social implications, the author would add that any qualitative management accounting research paper inherently carries at least some implications for society; management accounting and the wider society are continually intertwined through time.

The author would not claim that there is much that is original in this short piece – most of what is offered simply gathers others' past contributions. But hopefully there will be some values in the ideas offered with regard to the exciting future ahead for qualitative management accounting research in QRAM.

The purpose of this paper is to present a piece of empirical work that investigates the current role and status of qualitative research within the management field.

The research is based on 45 in‐depth qualitative interviews with members of a range of different stakeholder groups, including: journal editors; qualitative researchers; Doctoral Programme Leaders; practitioners; and those who fund qualitative management research.

The findings suggest that there is considerable variety in definitions of qualitative research; that there are still a number of issues surrounding the status and credibility of qualitative research within the field; and there is a need for greater access to researcher training in this area.

The paper is of practical interest to qualitative researchers in that it details some of the issues surrounding publishing qualitative work.

The paper presents original empirical work in this field.

The paper aims to provide an overview of the rationale for qualitative research in management accounting. It discusses how qualitative research could serve the development of theory, and provides guiding principles for qualitative investigation. It also seeks to identify common problems in qualitative studies and lays out avenues for further qualitative inquiry.

The paper relies on critical reflection and deductive logic in its discussion, drawing on a wide range of theoretical pronouncements and methodological literature, as well as on some illustrative field studies in management accounting.

The paper opens a broad panorama: it emphasizes field research as a necessary counterweight to textbook appreciations of management accounting, to idealized economic models and to consultancy‐oriented agenda. It identifies how field research serves theory development in different ways, providing a set of practical principles which assist qualitative efforts. The paper also specifies pitfalls in qualitative studies and shows areas where the future potential of qualitative investigations can be focused.

This is a paper that motivates the “qualitative” management accounting scholar. But it also assists in a pragmatic way the qualitatively oriented management accounting scholar – especially someone with little prior experience in empirical fieldwork and in the theoretical interpretation of qualitative data.

The paper provides a source of inspiration, an instructive reflection and a practical guide for the qualitatively oriented, but still somewhat hesitant, management accounting scholar.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of research which explores how the concept qualitative management research is variably constructed and defined by those who have a direct interest in, and influence upon, important aspects of qualitative management research.

Information was gathered through the use of semi‐structured interviews conducted with 44 individuals who were drawn from four observer‐identified types of “expert” informant who were taken to generally represent key groups of stakeholders in the conduct, evaluation and dissemination of qualitative management research. Interview data from these individuals were analysed though an iterative process using the NVivo software package to inductively generate definitional categories and explore aspects of their interrelationships.

From data analysis it was apparent that there are eight different, but often interrelated, ways in which interviewees define qualitative management research. The philosophical dimensions of each of these variable definitions are outlined and their relationships to the methodological literature are explored. The variety identified amongst informants, indicates how there is a potential dissensus possible regarding what qualitative management research might entail, as well as regarding its provenance and its academic status. This dissensus potentially can create problems with regard to its evaluation.

So whist there is little evidence to suggest any systematic relationship between the variable institutional backgrounds of informants and how they variably define and perceive qualitative management research, philosophical influences upon this contested terrain are explored and the implications of the identified dissensus for how qualitative management research is perceived and evaluated is discussed. The implications of this evidently contested terrain are discussed with particular reference to the future constitution of qualitative management research and its evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to address the qualitative synthesis and use of existing management research to inform management practice.

Three methods of qualitative synthesis, each with contrasting methodologies, are presented and their potential contribution in the management field explored.

Professional practice could be improved if practitioners had better access to the products of a large body of management research. Evidence‐based reviews of the literature in the management field could form a crucial bridge between research and practice. The task of reviewing and synthesising qualitative studies comprises a key challenge.

The key issues in conducting qualitative synthesis are highlighted and the barriers and enablers to the application of the product of qualitative synthesis in practice are discussed.

The paper stimulates debate about what counts as an effective synthesis of qualitative research and highlights the growing array of approaches. In so doing the paper presents new models for the production of evidence‐based reviews.

The purpose of this paper is to deliver an introduction to the Special Issue on new qualitative research methodologies in management.

The reasons of interest for the object of this Special Issue are explained through the discussion of a selected literature. Technological and sociological changes are considered as a source of new problem and new opportunities for management and management research. The traditional methods are put under strain by these changes and epistemological implications are considered.

New qualitative methodologies analyzed in the Special Issue are characterized by drivers including hybridization with others methods, both qualitative and quantitative. New methods can contribute to reduce distance between researcher's and practitioner's context.

A frame to analyze the new qualitative management research through the papers published in the Special Issue.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the new journal and outline the rationale and aims and objectives of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal (QROM).

The paper considers why there is a necessity for a journal like QROM, outlines the scope of the new journal, and introduces the articles in the first issue. An invitation for further contributions to the journal is also given.

There is still a need for an outlet that both provides a showcase for the diverse range of qualitative techniques in use and promotes high quality qualitative research.

This paper is of use to those new readers of the journal, and those who wish to submit to the journal, in that it clearly outlines editorial policy and processes.

This paper aims to offer an insight into the emergent qualitative methodological profile and its distinctive contribution to accounting and management scholarship, particularly reflecting upon the contribution of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM).

It examines the range of qualitative methodologies employed in the research published across the ten years of QRAM and analyses the methodological discourse and its contribution to the armoury available to qualitative researchers. In association with these methodological developments, the paper offers a critique of the articulated role of theory in contemporary accounting and management qualitative research.

A wide range of qualitative methodologies are found to be in evidence, with considerable scope for further adoption and development of some. Methodological exposition papers are found to be a significant contribution in the past decade and include methodological framework building, methodological applications, methodological critiques, and methodological development exemplars. Alongside methodology, the dual role of theory as either informing or reflecting methodology is presented.

The paper provides a critical analysis and consideration of qualitative methodological literature development in the last ten years of accounting and management research literature, particularly reflected in QRAM. It identifies dominant methodologies in use, as well as opportunities for expanding the methodological menu in accounting and management research. Furthermore, it classifies groups of methodological papers and their contributing perspectives, as well as addressing the often-vexed relationship between theory and methodology.

This research paper seeks to advance the techniques of “within-paradigm” triangulation and theoretical generalization adopted in qualitative field studies for new theory development in management control.

Using the evidence gleaned from three positivist case studies along with some published interpretivist studies, this paper identifies three triangulation approaches and links them with three forms of theoretical generalization in qualitative field studies.

While the “literal” approach to triangulation has its place in the extant literature, this study finds that two other approaches, labeled “convergent” and “normative” triangulation, which are relevant in many circumstances to link multiple pieces of evidence in order to build credible explanations. In theory development, while the extant forms of theoretical generalization (constructive and contextual) are useful for identifying new solutions for both practical and theoretical concerns, this paper finds that a third form, namely “transposed” logic, is relevant in identifying new control problems that can benefit by adopting the observed unusual solutions.

Within triangulation, while the extant literature endorses the role of literal triangulation in obtaining consistent evidence, including how verifying inconsistent responses helps improve the validity of the obtained evidence, this paper advances two new triangulation approaches that can enrich the extant literature. Within theoretical generalization, while the extant literature deems constructive and contextual forms as “rhetoric”, this paper (1) expands their status to “logic” by clarifying their theoretical purpose and (2) introduces one new form, namely “transposed” logic that helps identify a generalizable range of management control problems that can adopt the observed unusual solution.