Theoretical Progress in Management Studies and the Role of Qualitative Research
探讨了定性研究在管理学期刊中面临的发表困境，分析了两种对立观点：一种认为定性研究应模仿定量方法，另一种则强调保持定性研究的独特价值，并呼吁不同方法论传统间的对话。
The Journal of Management Studies has a long history of publishing qualitative research. In recent years, a number of other journals have sought actively to attract more qualitative papers and it would appear that the proportion of qualitative papers in leading journals has increased (Bluhm et al., 2011). Nonetheless, it is widely recognised in the field that quantitative research remains the norm, and in some sub-disciplines would appear to be becoming even more dominant, with positivist methodology and conceptions of rigour more-or-less taken for granted as the preferred approach (Harley, 2015). A dilemma facing qualitative researchers is how to publish their work in leading journals, which demand very high levels of methodological rigour, without losing what is distinctively valuable about qualitative methods. In his contribution to this Point-Counterpoint, Joep Cornelissen suggests that an increasingly popular approach has been for qualitative researchers to produce papers which seek to mimic the style of quantitative papers. He argues that this commonly takes the form of analysis in which the rich and detailed data from qualitative studies is reduced to a series of ‘factors’. Cornelissen's concern is not with the method per se, but with its implications for theory building. He argues that method and theory are inextricably linked and that by adopting this kind of approach, qualitative scholars are led toward linear cause-effect theorising of the kind usually associated with quantitative work. For Cornelissen, the danger of this trend in methods is that it undermines the ability of qualitative work to provide the kind of rich, detailed explanatory theorising which is its hallmark. In his Counterpoint piece, Patrick Wright also accepts that qualitative scholars face difficulties in publishing their work in leading management journals. Adopting a view of theory and method consistent with positivism, he argues that theoretical progress takes place as theories are developed, refined and empirically tested. A necessary part of this is measurement. If concepts cannot be measured, then their reliability and validity cannot be tested, and theory cannot be built on a rigorous empirical basis. From Wright's perspective, quantification of qualitative data might help scholars in addressing their reliability and validity challenges and subsequently increase the probability of publishing in leading management journals. He concludes by arguing that the biggest obstacle to theoretical progress is a lack of meaningful dialogue between scholars working in different methodological traditions and he proposes ways of increasing such dialogue. Taken together, these papers present two very different accounts of the obstacles to theoretical progress in management studies. The two accounts reflect fundamentally different understandings of theory, methodology and the links between theory and method. They demonstrate the profound ways that our ontological and epistemological assumptions shape our views on the right way forward for management studies and we feel sure that they will stimulate ongoing debate about developments in qualitative research. Although Cornelissen and Wright provide clearly different perspectives, they agree on the need for establishing more connections between different research communities. We hope that our journal, emphasizing an inclusive ethos and having a tradition in publishing papers from different perspectives, can play an important role in stimulating and nurturing connections across different research traditions. We are convinced that publishing a wide variety of high-quality papers, applying different approaches and perspectives, allows for a richer theoretical understanding of particular phenomena. We therefore hope that our journal can continue functioning as a meeting place for different approaches and perspectives.