Page 35 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

706029 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492617706029Journal of Management InquiryGehman et al.
research-article2017
Essay

Journal of Management Inquiry
Journal of Management Inquiry
Finding Theory–Method Fit: A 2018, Vol. 27(3) 284 –300 –300
2018, Vol. 27(3) 284
© The Author(s) 2017
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Comparison of Three Qualitative Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056492617706029
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
Approaches to Theory Building DOI: 10.1177/1056492617706029
jmi.sagepub.com
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi
1
1
2
Joel Gehman , Vern L. Glaser , Kathleen M. Eisenhardt ,
4
3
Denny Gioia , Ann Langley , and Kevin G. Corley 5
Abstract
This article, together with a companion video, provides a synthesized summary of a Showcase Symposium held at the 2016
Academy of Management Annual Meeting in which prominent scholars—Denny Gioia, Kathy Eisenhardt, Ann Langley, and
Kevin Corley—discussed different approaches to theory building with qualitative research. Our goal for the symposium
was to increase management scholars’ sensitivity to the importance of theory–method “fit” in qualitative research. We
have integrated the panelists’ prepared remarks and interactive discussion into three sections: an introduction by each
scholar, who articulates her or his own approach to qualitative research; their personal reflections on the similarities and
differences between approaches to qualitative research; and answers to general questions posed by the audience during the
symposium. We conclude by summarizing insights gleaned from the symposium about important distinctions among these
three qualitative research approaches and their appropriate usages.

Keywords
qualitative research, interviews, grounded theory, organization theory

Management scholars now widely accept qualitative methods sections from a sample of qualitative papers we
research, with as many qualitative papers published in the recently reviewed for journals such as Academy of
decade between 2000 and 2010 as in the prior two decades Management Journal (AMJ), Administrative Science
(Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011). Qualitative Quarterly, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of
research has not only grown in quantity but also has pro- Management Studies, and Organization Science, several
duced a substantial impact on the field by generating new contained citations to Eisenhardt (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989a;
theories that have shaped scholars’ understanding of core Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Sonenshein, 2016), Gioia (e.g.,
theoretical constructs (e.g., Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013), and Langley (1999)—all
2006). However, qualitative research cannot be described as in the same paper! Other papers we reviewed contained cita-
a singular approach: Rather, it encompasses a heterogeneous tions to some or all of these same three authors, together with
set of approaches. As a result, although qualitative research others such as Yin (2009), Strauss and Corbin (1998), Patton
methods provide researchers with diverse philosophies and (2002), Denzin and Lincoln (2005), Lincoln and Guba
toolkits for studying and theorizing the actions of organiza- (1985), van Maanen (1979), Golden-Biddle and Locke
tions, their members, and their influence on the world, as (2007), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Garud and Rappa
these tools and methods proliferate, there is an opportunity (1994). Although these different methodological citations
for enhanced awareness of and sensitivity to the unique may be relevant on their own and in various combinations,
assumptions associated with different qualitative methodolo-
gies (Langley & Abdallah, 2011; Sandberg & Alvesson,
2011; Smith, 2015). Notably, different approaches to qualita- 1 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
2
tive research often presume distinct ontologies and episte- Stanford University, Stanford, USA
3 Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA
mologies, resulting in different assumptions about the nature 4 HEC Montréal, Québec, Canada
of theory and the relationship between theory and method 5 Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
(Morse et al., 2009; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011).
As qualitative research has proliferated, we have observed Corresponding Author:
a tendency for qualitative papers to invoke a mashup of dif- Joel Gehman, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, 3-30G
Business Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R6, Canada.
ferent qualitative citations. For instance, looking at the Email: jgehman@ualberta.ca