Affiliation:
1. University of Memphis,
2. University of Bath
Abstract
Within this article, the authors outline the political and institutional structures that work to formulate operating norms that govern what is considered to be ``acceptable'' qualitative organizational research, and the quality indicators attached to foundational, quasi-foundational, and nonfoundational research orientations. They argue that encouraging a plurality of methods and representations will better position the field of organizational studies to address the most significant questions of our time. Located within this position, they call for a democratization of what counts in organizational research: a more considered and central space for nonhegemonic approaches to qualitative work. In so doing, they champion a moral-sacred epistemology that foregrounds ethical and moral concerns as underpinning both the purpose and the quality of the research.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management,General Decision Sciences
Cited by
132 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