Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that rather than contest the artificial schism produced by social scientists between “qualitative” and “quantitative” research, we should to accept this binary, however, contingently, and use it productively. This would be an act of “strategic essentialism” that would allow us to be productive in the research and inquiry.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper uses postcolonial theory to make a case for contingent representation, i.e. using artificial categories to carve out a space for heterodox theoretical approaches.
Findings
Researchers devoted to qualitative research must resist thinking, speaking and evaluating that research using quantitative thinking. Also, while ethical considerations are paramount in qualitative research, we need to debunk the narrow understanding of ethics as “following rules.” Also, qualitative researchers need to be aware of the institutional pulls that the research will be subject to, and also be ready to resist them.
Originality/value
This paper discusses how good research resists the siren call of institutionalization. It challenges the “common sense” assumptions of the field and brings them into the realm of the questionable. It seeks to theorize the untheorizable, and anthropologize the dominant.
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Reference19 articles.
1. In/out/side: positioning the researcher in feminist qualitative research;Resources for Feminist Research,2001
2. Industry invites regulation: the passage of the pure food and drug act of 1906;American Journal of Public Health,1985
3. Qualitative research in organizations and management: ten years on;Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal,2015
4. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs;Journal of Marketing Research,1979
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献