Search results

Consumers increasingly rely on organisations for online services and data storage while these same institutions seek to digitise the information assets they hold to create economic value. Cybersecurity failures arising from malicious or accidental actions can lead to significant reputational and financial loss which organisations must guard against. Despite having some critical weaknesses, qualitative cybersecurity risk analysis is widely used in developing cybersecurity plans. This research explores these weaknesses, considers how quantitative methods might address the constraints and seeks the insights and recommendations of leading cybersecurity practitioners on the use of qualitative and quantitative cyber risk assessment methods.

The study is based upon a literature review and thematic analysis of in-depth qualitative interviews with 16 senior cybersecurity practitioners representing financial services and advisory companies from across the world.

While most organisations continue to rely on qualitative methods for cybersecurity risk assessment, some are also actively using quantitative approaches to enhance their cybersecurity planning efforts. The primary recommendation of this paper is that organisations should adopt both a qualitative and quantitative cyber risk assessment approach.

This work provides the first insight into how senior practitioners are using and combining qualitative and quantitative cybersecurity risk assessment, and highlights the need for in-depth comparisons of these two different approaches.

The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations.

This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews.

The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis.

The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels.

In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.

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.

Mixed methods research is useful to enhance theoretical and practical research contributions. However, single methods have predominated much logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) research. This paper presents a review of mixed methods research across ten years in LSCM to determine their usage, identify benefits and inhibitors, and provide suggestions for LSCM researchers to realise the benefits from using mixed methods.

This paper adopts a mixed methods approach through a quantitative analysis of methods used in six leading LSCM journals, an e-mail survey of mixed methods article authors during the review period, and four published case studies that used mixed methods.

Only 144 (ten percent) of all empirical articles were published using mixed methods during the review period. A range of benefits and inhibitors regarding mixed methods adoption were found. Suggestions for LSCM authors include research training in mixed methods use and developing a project-specific research design due to the specificity and complexity associated with mixed methods research.

LSCM is at a critical juncture, shaped by new contexts, themes and challenges, and would benefit from different research approaches and methods. This paper contributes to the LSCM domain through analysing the current state, benefits and inhibitors of mixed methods research in LSCM journals to provide a renewed call to action and guidelines for mixed methods LSCM research, and suggesting research design adaptation to enable agile and resilient research when investigating rapidly changing and complex phenomena.

Many management scholars view templates as rigid rulebooks suffocating qualitative research. This viewpoint article recommends that, instead, templates should be viewed through the lens of organizational routines.

To facilitate this viewpoint, this article first clarifies the confusions surrounding templates. It points out that how using templates, like following routines in an organization, constitutes three parts - the artifact, the ostensive and the performative; the latter two being often neglected by template critics. The use of templates is encouraged by discussing the learning advantages for novice researchers, through an autoethnographic note narrating the author’s own research and teaching experiences.

This article deliberates upon the criticisms against templates. It then discusses templates using a perspective offered by organizational routines. Thereafter, the use of templates in qualitative management research is discussed, with the help of examples from published reports. Finally, the article explains a way of reflexively using templates through an autoethnographic note detailing the author’s own research and teaching experiences.

In its entirety, the article submits that the artifacts offered by the templates and the ostensive and performative engagements of the template-users must co-exist for co-creating excellent qualitative research.

Health services continue to face economic and capacity challenges. Quality improvement (QI) methods that can improve clinical care processes are therefore needed. However, the successful use of current QI methods within hospital settings remains a challenge. There is considerable scope for improvement of elective clinical pathways, such as hip and knee replacement, and so the use and study of QI methods in such settings is warranted.

A model to manage variability was adapted for use as a QI method and deployed to improve a hip and knee replacement surgical pathway. A prospective observational study, with a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design (quantitative emphasised) that consisted of two distinct phases, was used to assess its effectiveness.

Following the use of the novel QI method and the subsequent changes to care processes, the length of hospital stay was reduced by 18%. However, the interventions to improve care process highlighted by the QI method were not fully implemented. The qualitative data revealed that staff thought the new QI method (the model to manage variability) was simple, effective, offered advantages over other QI methods and had highlighted the correct changes to make. However, they felt that contextual factors around leadership, staffing and organisational issues had prevented changes being implemented and a greater improvement being made.

The quality of QI reporting in surgery has previously been highlighted as poor and lacking in prospective and comprehensively reported mixed-methods evaluations. This study therefore not only describes and presents the results of using a novel QI method but also provides new insights in regard to important contextual factors that may influence the success of QI methods and efforts.

This study aims to describe the development of hospitality research in terms of research methods and data sources used in the 2010s.

Content analyses of the research methods and data sources used in original hospitality research published in the 2010s in the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ), International Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM), Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research (JHTR) and International Hospitality Review (IHR) were conducted. It describes whether the time span, functional areas and geographic regions of data sources were related to the research methods and data sources.

Results from 2,759 original hospitality empirical articles showed that marketing research used various research methods and data sources. Most finance articles used archival data, while most human resources articles used survey designs with organizational data. In addition, only a small amount of research used data from Oceania, Africa and Latin America.

This study sheds some light on the development of hospitality research in terms of research method and data source usage. However, it only focused on five English-based journals from 2010–2019. Therefore, future studies may seek to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research methods and data source usage in hospitality research.

This is the first study to examine five hospitality journals' research methods and data sources used in the last decade. It sheds light on the development of hospitality research in the previous decade and identifies new hospitality research avenues.

This paper aims to introduce the extended qualitative content analysis (EQCA) method to integrate data-reducing and data-complicating research steps when conducting qualitative research on the United Nations and other international institutions.

EQCA supplements the method of qualitative content analysis, which enables researchers to deal with large amounts of data, with two elements from grounded theory, which allow detailed analysis and interpretation of codes and sub-codes. The elements in question are axial coding and theoretical sampling.

EQCA provides a method to generate middle-range theories by combining theoretical and empirical analysis to address and theorize the complex interactions between actors, structures and norms in international institutions. The value added by the proposed method is demonstrated with a case study of a United Nations intergovernmental working group in the issue area of business and human rights.

Based on the concepts of interpretation and social causality, this paper contributes to the body of qualitative research that transcends the dichotomy between positivist and post-positivist approaches in the disciplines of international relations and international political theory.

This paper illustrates how Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for establishing trustworthiness, can be adapted and applied to qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. It provides insights for social protection researchers, exploring plausible qualitative research rigor evaluation criteria, on plausible alternatives.

The paper draws on qualitative evidence from a larger ethnographic study on the dynamics of indigenous social protection systems in Nigeria. It illustrates the systematic application of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria.

Available evidence from the study shows that Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria is viable for establishing trustworthiness of qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. The criteria can facilitate credible and reliable research outcomes in research on improving social protection policy and practice.

Qualitative inquiries that draw on Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria as evaluation criteria for trustworthiness can complement quantitative research on social protection. This makes it imperative to incorporate both, in social protection research for a holistic system. How this can be done is beyond the scope of this paper but needs to be explored by future research.

Contrary to the use of Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria in qualitative research in other contexts, the use of the criteria has not been carefully examined in qualitative research on indigenous social protection systems. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap.

This paper aims to examine the current practice of reporting on translation issues in qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research. Based on an analysis of the methodological consideration of the translation of quotations from non-English interviews and additional interviews with experienced researchers, the authors aim to develop recommendations for the reporting on such translation procedures in future accounting research relying on interviews not conducted in English.

The analysis is based on papers published in four highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA) and Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (QRAM). The subjects of the analysis are publications of non-English-speaking researchers who conducted non-English interviews and therefore were confronted with translation issues when attempting to get published in these English-language journals. Additionally, to gain deeper insights into reporting decisions on language and translation issues, the authors conducted interviews with experienced researchers in the field of qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research whose mother tongue is not English. The authors combine these empirical insights with current developments in translation studies.

As suggested by translation studies, translation is an act of sense making and reconstruction of meaning, and therefore is a complex task that needs to be carried out with caution. However, the findings suggest that in current interdisciplinary, qualitative accounting research, the reporting of language and translation issues, especially with regards to the translation of quotations from interview data, have so far received only limited attention. The authors therefore call for more awareness of and sensibility toward dealing with language and translation issues, which should be reflected in more transparent reporting on translation processes to support the credibility and authenticity of qualitative accounting studies based on non-English interviews.

This paper is limited to the reporting on the methodological consideration of translating quotations from non-English interviews in papers published in AAAJ, AOS, CPA and QRAM between 2004 and 2015. For future accounting research that relies on such interviews, the authors call for more transparency and provide specific recommendations. This in turn should strengthen the awareness that language and translation are factors to be considered and reported.

This paper is the first to develop recommendations for the reporting of translation processes in accounting research studies, which are based on interviews not led in the English language.