The Conduct of Qualitative Research in Organizational Settings

• Author: Andrew M. Pettigrew
• Date: 01 March 2013
• Published date: 01 March 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00925.x

Commentary

The Conduct of Qualitative Research in

Organizational Settings

Andrew M. Pettigrew*

Research methodologies are important but they should

always be thought of as means and not ends in

themselves. An inf‌luential scholarly contribution is rarely

explained by methodological appropriateness alone. Schol-

arly outputs which have a sustained impact normally tackle

issues and theoretical problems of substance. They may

also challenge or conf‌irm a dominant theory or perspec-

tive; create a new lens or conversation; cross boundaries

and effect a conceptual transfer; and deliver novel empiri-

cal f‌indings in a high attention context. Scholarly impact

can also arise from risk taking. Because most scholars

are risk averse, the odds favor the risk taker (Pettigrew,

2012).

Having tried to put methodology in its place, may I also

assert that research methodology is too important to be left

to methodologists? There have been many valuable texts on

qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000;

Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lee, 1999), but as a practitioner

myself, I am more persuaded by ardent research practitio-

ners who ref‌lect on the compromises in their practice as they

struggle for impact. It is this emphasis on research practice

which has encouraged me to focus on the conduct of quali-

tative research. This task has been made considerably easier

by the increased desire for qualitative researchers to write

ref‌lective practitioner articles on their research practice

(Eisenhardt, 1989a; Langley, 1999; Mintzberg, 2007; Petti-

grew, 1990, 1997a), and for journal editors to share their

experience of trends in the assessment of qualitative articles

(Gephardt, 2004; Pratt, 2008; Suddaby, 2006).

I have always been uncomfortable with the label qualita-

tive research. Labels perform many functions in social life.

They can offer zones of identity and comfort. They can be

used as terms of reproach and abuse. They may also be

genuine attempts to codify and explain. The problem with

the term qualitative research has been its very indef‌inite-

ness as a construct and label and its unhappy juxtaposition

with the term quantitative research. The problem with

dichotomies is that they conceal as much as they reveal. I

have always been much more convinced by the power of

dualities and much more comfortable with framing quali-

tative and quantitative research as a duality rather than a

dichotomy.

There is no space in this paper for a comprehensive review

of the varieties of research practice in qualitative methods. I

have a more limited aim, to selectively acknowledge some of

the main contributors to the f‌ield; to give emphasis to the

codif‌ication of standards in qualitative research;and to high-

light some of those standards by focusing on the scholarship

of Kathy Eisenhardt, who I believe to be one of the exem-

plary practitioners of qualitative research approaches.

But let me start by signaling the mobilizing importance

of a special issue of a prestigious journal. In 1979 John Van

Maanen, himself a distinguished ethnographer and evoca-

tive writer, edited a special issue of the Administrative

Science Quarterly on Qualitative Methods. At that time the

Administrative Science Quarterly was the most important

scholarly journal in the f‌ield of organization and manage-

ment. Subsequently this position has been challenged,

but the Administrative Science Quarterly still remains near

the top of journal hierarchies in management. The fron-

tispiece for the special issue has an imaginary seminar

exchange between a qualitative and quantitative researcher.

The tone and content of this exchange is still instructive

and I repeat it here:

Qualitative Researcher Many people these days are bored

with their work and are . . .

Quantitative Researcher

(interrupting)

What people, how many, when do

they feel this way, where do they

work, what do they do, why are they

bored . . . how long have they felt this

way, what are their needs, when do

they feel excited, where did they come

from, what parts of their work bother

them most, which . . .

Qualitative Researcher Never mind

*Address for correspondence: Andrew M. Pettigrew,Saïd Business School, University

of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK. E-mail: andrew.pettigrew@

sbs.ox.ac.uk

123

Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2013, 21(2): 123–126

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00925.x