Advancing Research Methodologies in Management: Revisiting Debates, Setting New Grounds for Pluralism

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS British Journal of Management Pub Date : 2024-01-03 DOI:10.1111/1467-8551.12791
Michael Christofi, Elias Ηadjielias, Mathew Hughes, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki
{"title":"Advancing Research Methodologies in Management: Revisiting Debates, Setting New Grounds for Pluralism","authors":"Michael Christofi,&nbsp;Elias Ηadjielias,&nbsp;Mathew Hughes,&nbsp;Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki","doi":"10.1111/1467-8551.12791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this introduction and Special Issue (SI) is to offer a unique and timely opportunity to explore, revisit and critically examine key methodological debates and tensions with the purpose of advancing diversity and novel theorizing in the field. We join voices with the authors of the five papers of this SI to problematize taken-for-granted assumptions and research traditions and pave the way for inclusive and novel theorizing in management scholarship. We revisit four long-lasting debates that hinder methodological pluralism and diversity in management scholarship: (a) the quantitative-qualitative research divide, (b) the legitimacy of mixed-methods research, (c) the rigour versus relevance tension and (d) the lack of methodological innovation. We suggest that these debates are at least partly counterproductive because they create silos and opposing camps, thereby inhibiting an appreciation of different worldviews and collective learning. The dominance of functionalism and positivism in quantitative research and the inappropriate transfer of quantitative logics in qualitative research have led to a lack of diversity in empirical methodologies. The field's limited methodological diversity is further proliferated by a strict adherence to quality standards that have inadvertently promoted homogeneity. This introduction highlights the challenges and potential of mixed methods, which are gaining momentum owing to calls for methodological pluralism. We also call for a re-evaluation of quality standards to encourage more innovative and diverse research methodologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48342,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8551.12791","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12791","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this introduction and Special Issue (SI) is to offer a unique and timely opportunity to explore, revisit and critically examine key methodological debates and tensions with the purpose of advancing diversity and novel theorizing in the field. We join voices with the authors of the five papers of this SI to problematize taken-for-granted assumptions and research traditions and pave the way for inclusive and novel theorizing in management scholarship. We revisit four long-lasting debates that hinder methodological pluralism and diversity in management scholarship: (a) the quantitative-qualitative research divide, (b) the legitimacy of mixed-methods research, (c) the rigour versus relevance tension and (d) the lack of methodological innovation. We suggest that these debates are at least partly counterproductive because they create silos and opposing camps, thereby inhibiting an appreciation of different worldviews and collective learning. The dominance of functionalism and positivism in quantitative research and the inappropriate transfer of quantitative logics in qualitative research have led to a lack of diversity in empirical methodologies. The field's limited methodological diversity is further proliferated by a strict adherence to quality standards that have inadvertently promoted homogeneity. This introduction highlights the challenges and potential of mixed methods, which are gaining momentum owing to calls for methodological pluralism. We also call for a re-evaluation of quality standards to encourage more innovative and diverse research methodologies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
推进管理学研究方法:重温辩论,为多元化奠定新基础
本引言和特刊(SI)旨在提供一个独特而及时的机会,探讨、重新审视并批判性地检查关键的方法论争论和紧张关系,以促进该领域的多样性和新颖理论化。我们与本特辑中五篇论文的作者一起,对那些理所当然的假设和研究传统提出质疑,为管理学术中的包容性和新颖性理论研究铺平道路。我们重新审视了阻碍管理学术方法论多元化和多样性的四个长期争论:(a) 定量研究与定性研究的分歧,(b) 混合方法研究的合法性,(c) 严谨性与相关性的矛盾,以及 (d) 方法论创新的缺乏。我们认为,这些争论至少在一定程度上适得其反,因为它们造成了各自为政和对立阵营,从而阻碍了对不同世界观的理解和集体学习。功能主义和实证主义在定量研究中的主导地位,以及定量逻辑在定性研究中的不当移植,导致实证方法缺乏多样性。对质量标准的严格遵守无意中助长了同质化现象,从而进一步加剧了该领域有限的方法多样性。本导言强调了混合方法的挑战和潜力,由于对方法多元化的呼吁,混合方法的发展势头日益强劲。我们还呼吁重新评估质量标准,以鼓励更具创新性和多样性的研究方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Management provides a valuable outlet for research and scholarship on management-orientated themes and topics. It publishes articles of a multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary nature as well as empirical research from within traditional disciplines and managerial functions. With contributions from around the globe, the journal includes articles across the full range of business and management disciplines. A subscription to British Journal of Management includes International Journal of Management Reviews, also published on behalf of the British Academy of Management.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Discretion in the Governance Work of Internal Auditors: Interplay Between Institutional Complexity and Organizational Embeddedness Social Impact Business Angels as New Impact Investors Are Prestigious Directors Mere Attractive Ornaments on the Corporate Christmas Tree? Determinants of IPO Overpricing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1