Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research : A Critical Review. / Symon, Gillian; Cassell, Catherine; Johnson, Phil .

In: International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.2018, p. 134-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Published

Standard

Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research : A Critical Review. / Symon, Gillian; Cassell, Catherine; Johnson, Phil .

In: International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 1, 01.2018, p. 134-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Symon, G, Cassell, C & Johnson, P 2018, 'Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research: A Critical Review', International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 134-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12120

APA

Symon, G., Cassell, C., & Johnson, P. (2018). Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research: A Critical Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 134-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12120

Vancouver

Symon G, Cassell C, Johnson P. Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research: A Critical Review. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2018 Jan;20(1):134-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12120

Author

Symon, Gillian ; Cassell, Catherine ; Johnson, Phil . / Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research : A Critical Review. In: International Journal of Management Reviews. 2018 ; Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 134-154.

BibTeX

@article{de08b9a4679d4fc1b68af72cd623ffe9,
title = "Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research: A Critical Review",
abstract = "This paper critically reviews commentaries on the evaluation and promotion of qualitative management research. From the review we identify two disjunctures: between methodological prescriptions for epistemologically diverse criteria and management journal prescriptions for standardised criteria; and between the culturally-dependent production of criteria and their positioning in editorials and commentaries as normative and objective. Our critical social constructionist analysis surfaces underlying positivist assumptions and institutional processes in these commentaries which we argue are producing (inappropriate) homogeneous evaluation criteria for qualitative research, marginalising alternative perspectives and disciplining individual qualitative researchers into particular normative practices. We argue that interventions to encourage more qualitative research need to focus as much on editorial, disciplinary and institutional practices as those of individual researchers, and we make recommendations for changes that may allow qualitative management research to develop in a more supportive context by recognizing philosophical diversity as legitimate.",
keywords = "Criteriology; Evaluation; Institutional processes; Qualitative research; Knowledge production ",
author = "Gillian Symon and Catherine Cassell and Phil Johnson",
year = "2018",
month = jan,
doi = "10.1111/ijmr.12120",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "134--154",
journal = "International Journal of Management Reviews",
issn = "1460-8545",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluative Practices in Qualitative Management Research

T2 - A Critical Review

AU - Symon, Gillian

AU - Cassell, Catherine

AU - Johnson, Phil

PY - 2018/1

Y1 - 2018/1

N2 - This paper critically reviews commentaries on the evaluation and promotion of qualitative management research. From the review we identify two disjunctures: between methodological prescriptions for epistemologically diverse criteria and management journal prescriptions for standardised criteria; and between the culturally-dependent production of criteria and their positioning in editorials and commentaries as normative and objective. Our critical social constructionist analysis surfaces underlying positivist assumptions and institutional processes in these commentaries which we argue are producing (inappropriate) homogeneous evaluation criteria for qualitative research, marginalising alternative perspectives and disciplining individual qualitative researchers into particular normative practices. We argue that interventions to encourage more qualitative research need to focus as much on editorial, disciplinary and institutional practices as those of individual researchers, and we make recommendations for changes that may allow qualitative management research to develop in a more supportive context by recognizing philosophical diversity as legitimate.

AB - This paper critically reviews commentaries on the evaluation and promotion of qualitative management research. From the review we identify two disjunctures: between methodological prescriptions for epistemologically diverse criteria and management journal prescriptions for standardised criteria; and between the culturally-dependent production of criteria and their positioning in editorials and commentaries as normative and objective. Our critical social constructionist analysis surfaces underlying positivist assumptions and institutional processes in these commentaries which we argue are producing (inappropriate) homogeneous evaluation criteria for qualitative research, marginalising alternative perspectives and disciplining individual qualitative researchers into particular normative practices. We argue that interventions to encourage more qualitative research need to focus as much on editorial, disciplinary and institutional practices as those of individual researchers, and we make recommendations for changes that may allow qualitative management research to develop in a more supportive context by recognizing philosophical diversity as legitimate.

KW - Criteriology; Evaluation; Institutional processes; Qualitative research; Knowledge production

U2 - 10.1111/ijmr.12120

DO - 10.1111/ijmr.12120

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 134

EP - 154

JO - International Journal of Management Reviews

JF - International Journal of Management Reviews

SN - 1460-8545

IS - 1

ER -