Page 48 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Gehman et al. 297

Corley. I tend to push back when they ask for propositions with their own toolkits and methodologies that should be
because propositions are not always the best output of induc- engaged or leveraged thoughtfully. In our concluding
tive research. I agree that propositions can be a useful way of thoughts, we highlight three takeaways for scholars using
transitioning from inductive insights to deductive testing, but qualitative research: (a) in determining what qualitative
some inductive efforts produce deeply meaningful insights approach to use, it is important to have a clear theoretical
that can’t be easily reduced to proposition-type language. goal and objective for your research—this theoretical pur-
pose animates the decisions made about research design; (b)
Langley. I personally think that we overemphasize the idea of every qualitative theory–method package, while potentially
induction, that we are completely theory free. I actually think providing some degree of template or exemplar, nonetheless
that what we are doing is abduction rather than induction. needs to be customized for a particular research context; (c)
Induction for me implies that you are generalizing from it is important to create a theory–method package “fit,” in
empirical observation, and that there is not really any a priori which the methodological tools and their particular configu-
theory there, which is illusory. I think that to develop a richer ration are suited to the research question and theoretical aims
understanding of the world, we do need to connect to prior of the project.
theory. First, the purpose of a research study is very important.
In most of my studies, we go into a site with some vague The scholars in this presentation explicitly or subtly described
idea about the kinds of concepts and ideas that we are inter- several different potential purposes that research seeks to
ested in. We collect some data that make us think about some theorize or explain. For example, do you want to understand
other angles that might be interesting, and then we go to the what characteristics of a firm are associated with superior
literature and search for theories that would be relevant. performance, perhaps using extant constructs? Are you
Usually, when we do that, we can see how theories that are attempting to understand how organizational actors in a
relevant can take us part, but not all, of the way to an social setting understand their circumstances or surround-
enhanced understanding, and it is the remaining piece that ings? Are you attempting to understand processual relation-
we contribute. Thus, both deduction and induction are pres- ships among events? Different purposes of research result in
ent in a kind of cycle. The word for that is abduction, which the need to use and to discover different types of concepts
means connecting what you see in the empirical world with and relationships among concepts. One takeaway from this
theoretical ideas, which are also out there and can be further session: If you want to generate a theory that can be tested
developed. deductively, the Eisenhardt method may be the place to start;
Of course, you do have to have something over and above if you want to understand the lived experiences of infor-
what is already expressed in theories. That’s why I said that mants, the Gioia method may be the place to start; and if you
the labeling approach to theorizing does not work. A typical want to understand temporal or practice dynamics in organi-
example I give is actor-network theory. Actor-network the- zational life, Langley’s approach may be a source of inspira-
ory, unfortunately, is so wonderful in that you can explain tion. By the same token, there seem to be rather limited
everything with it if you just label things the correct way. circumstances when a single paper would appropriately draw
However, you will not make a contribution to actor-network on many of the specifics of all three approaches.
theory by doing that because it will stay the same. It has not Second, it is important to customize the method for your
moved; you have not added to it. You do need to be able to research context. Research situations are different, and
extend theory. Quite often, my studies have a section called require the use of tools and techniques in different ways. On
theoretical framework where I say, “Well, this is what the one hand, some tools and techniques might be used in mul-
theory says but this is what we don’t know.” That gives me tiple approaches to qualitative research. For example, a gen-
enough to move forward. eral technique such as the constant comparative method for
coding (i.e., Strauss & Corbin, 1998) might be used across
Conclusion multiple approaches to qualitative research. On the other
hand, techniques such as visual mapping might be generally
This symposium led to several major insights. Overall, the applied but will need to be customized for particular studies.
panelists agreed that there is some commonality between the That said, given the different onto-epistemological assump-
different qualitative approaches. For instance, Kathy tions embedded in these methods packages, seemingly com-
Eisenhardt concluded, “Let’s get past those minor points. mon concepts are likely to have different meanings and
Let’s focus on doing great research and let’s remember that implications as you move from one method to another. For
90 percent of the academy is composed of deductive research- example, a concept such as replication differs quite a bit
ers, so let’s play on the same team.” Although this is cer- among the approaches. In Eisenhardt’s approach, replication
tainly something to be celebrated, this does not necessarily is central: Without replication across cases, the researcher is
mean that anything goes. Within the “big tent” of qualitative left with just a particular story. In Langley’s approach, the
research, there are different pockets or niches of scholars logic of replication is temporal (e.g., see Denis et al., 2011).