Legitimizing Diverse Uses for Qualitative Research: A Rhetorical Analysis of Two Management Journals
通过分析两本管理学期刊1999-2011年间的定性研究论文，识别出三种修辞策略（现代主义、修正主义、颠覆主义），揭示研究者如何为定性研究的理论贡献和合法性进行辩护。
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 A cademy of M anagement J ournal and J ournal of M anagement S tudies , 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.