Page 36 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Gehman et al. 285

Table 1. Overview of the Participants and Selected Methods Contributions.
Eisenhardt Gioia Langley
Biography Kathy Eisenhardt is the Stanford W. Denny Gioia is the Robert & Judith Ann Langley is the holder of the Chair
Ascherman MD Professor in the Auritt Klein Professor of Management in Strategic Management in Pluralistic
Stanford School of Engineering in Penn State’s Smeal College of Settings in the Department of
and codirector of the Stanford Business. Management at HEC Montréal.
Technology Ventures Program.
Key works Her path-breaking article, “Building He pioneered a grounded theory She has been a strong proponent for
Theories from Case Study Research,” inspired method in his paper, theorizing from process data, writing
(Eisenhardt, 1989a) has been cited “Sensemaking and Sensegiving in an influential article, “Strategies
more than 41,000 times according to Strategic Change Initiation” (Gioia & for Theorizing from Process Data”
Google Scholar. Chittipeddi, 1991), with more than (Langley, 1999), cited more than
Her methods ideas have evolved 2,800 citations according to Google 3,700 times according to Google
and been elaborated in others Scholar. Scholar.
(see Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; This method was recently codified in She guest edited a 2013 special issue
Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Sonenshein, a paper “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in the Academy of Management Journal
2016). in Inductive Research: Notes on the that featured process research
Her comparative case method has Gioia Methodology” (Gioia, Corley, & (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van
been widely cited and used by Hamilton, 2012). de Ven, 2013).
scholars in BPS, OMT, TIM divisions The “Gioia Method” has been especially Her ideas have been used by scholars
of the Academy of Management, and influential with scholars in OMT, MOC, from OMT, ODC, SAP, and
beyond. and other divisions of the Academy of other divisions of the Academy of
Management. Management.
Note. BPS = Business Policy and Strategy; MOC = Managerial and Organizational Cognition; ODC = Organization Development and Change; OMT =
Organization and Management Theory; SAP = Strategizing Activities and Practices; TIM = Technology and Innovation Management.

more often it seems that such diverse methods are cited with- are notable exemplars and collectively provide a sense of
out attending to their different and potentially incommensu- the range of approaches available to qualitative research-
rable assumptions. ers. We had three specific goals for the symposium: First,
Inspired by such experiences, we organized a symposium we wanted to provide academy members an opportunity to
to help frame our thinking about how to use qualitative hear three leading scholars describe their personal
methods (i.e., the tools in our toolbox) in a more disciplined approaches to qualitative research. Second, we hoped to
way. Our basic intuition is that methods are tools; some foreground some important similarities and differences
tools are good for certain purposes, whereas other tools are among these three approaches—thereby fostering greater
good for other purposes. Specifically, at the 2016 Academy sensitivity to critical methodological issues among
of Management Annual Meeting in Anahiem, California, we researchers. Finally, we aimed to generate discussion and
brought together three scholars who have been particularly debate about appropriate combinations of qualitative
influential in shaping how we conduct qualitative research methods, research designs, research questions, and theo-
in our field: Denny Gioia, Kathy Eisenhardt, and Ann retical insights.
Langley. Although Denny was unable to attend in person, he We have written this paper to accompany the video of the
recorded his remarks via video, and Kevin Corley, a long- symposium. In doing so, we have synthesized the discussion
time collaborator, kindly participated in the questions and to increase management scholars’ sensitivity to the impor-
answer session on Denny’s behalf. Table 1 provides an over- tance of theory–method fit in qualitative research. Based on
view of the three key participants and some of their method- transcripts from the symposium and the panelists’ presenta-
ological contributions. tion materials, we have integrated the panelists’ prepared
By organizing this symposium, we aspired to provide a remarks and interactive discussion into three sections: an
forum for these influential scholars to present their per- introduction by each scholar to her or his own approach to
spectives on qualitative research, and engage in an interac- qualitative research; their personal reflections on the simi-
tive discussion with each other and the audience about larities and differences between these approaches, and
their methodological similarities and differences. Although answers to questions posed by the audience during the sym-
the approaches espoused by these scholars are commonly posium. We conclude by summarizing insights gleaned from
utilized by management scholars, by no means do they the symposium about important distinctions among these
exhaust the ways that we might engage in theory building three qualitative research approaches and their appropriate
through qualitative research. Rather, these three scholars applications.