A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Legitimizing diverse uses for qualitative research: A rhetorical analysis of two management journals
Tekijät: Welch C., Plakoyiannaki E., Piekkari R., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E.
Kustantaja: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Julkaisuvuosi: 2013
Journal: International Journal of Management Reviews
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: International Journal of Management Reviews
Vuosikerta: 15
Numero: 2
Aloitussivu: 245
Lopetussivu: 264
Sivujen määrä: 20
ISSN: 1460-8545
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12001
Verkko-osoite: http://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id:84875811694
Tiivistelmä
This paper examines how management researchers rhetorically construct the theoretical purpose and contribution of qualitative studies. By means of a rhetorical analysis of qualitative studies published in the Academy of Management Journal and Journal of Management Studies, we identify three sets of rhetorical practices, or repertoires, in the period 1999-2011. These repertoires differ with regard to how they position and legitimize the use of qualitative research. The first repertoire, which we label 'modernist', bases the legitimacy of qualitative research on its exploratory and theory-building strengths. The second 'revisionist' repertoire accepts key assumptions of modernism, but allows for an expanded role for qualitative research. In contrast, the third 'subversive' repertoire is non-positivist and rejects the traditional theory-building/-testing dichotomy. Using the insights from our 'rhetoric of science' approach, we argue for the use of alternative repertoires that decouple qualitative research from the rhetoric of exploration. © 2012 The Authors International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
This paper examines how management researchers rhetorically construct the theoretical purpose and contribution of qualitative studies. By means of a rhetorical analysis of qualitative studies published in the Academy of Management Journal and Journal of Management Studies, we identify three sets of rhetorical practices, or repertoires, in the period 1999-2011. These repertoires differ with regard to how they position and legitimize the use of qualitative research. The first repertoire, which we label 'modernist', bases the legitimacy of qualitative research on its exploratory and theory-building strengths. The second 'revisionist' repertoire accepts key assumptions of modernism, but allows for an expanded role for qualitative research. In contrast, the third 'subversive' repertoire is non-positivist and rejects the traditional theory-building/-testing dichotomy. Using the insights from our 'rhetoric of science' approach, we argue for the use of alternative repertoires that decouple qualitative research from the rhetoric of exploration. © 2012 The Authors International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Turun yliopiston Tutkimustietojärjestelmän portaali