定性再研究:重新理论化的研究设计

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2023-12-03 DOI:10.1177/10944281231216323
T. Köhler, Maria N. Rumyantseva, Catherine Welch
{"title":"定性再研究:重新理论化的研究设计","authors":"T. Köhler, Maria N. Rumyantseva, Catherine Welch","doi":"10.1177/10944281231216323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Qualitative research methods are deemed best suited to exploring novel phenomena and generating new concepts. Their potential to reevaluate existing theorizing, however, is underestimated. Qualitative restudies that return to the data and settings on which the original theories were built are a well-established tradition in other disciplines (e.g., history, sociology, and anthropology), but have received little recognition in management and organization studies. We introduce qualitative restudies as a powerful means to improve theorizing by revising or challenging theories that have become outdated or obsolete and establishing transferability and longevity of findings and interpretations. We provide a typology of qualitative restudy designs drawing on an integrative review of literature in management, strategy, and the social sciences and humanities. We highlight the main design and ethical considerations for researchers in undertaking a restudy. We argue for the strengths of restudies as lying in their possibilities for retheorizing, above and beyond verifying or updating prior studies. Restudies draw on the strengths of in-depth qualitative work to uncover how interpretations and theorizing are shaped by methodological traditions, historical contexts, existing societal structures, and researcher backgrounds.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"36 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative Restudies: Research Designs for Retheorizing\",\"authors\":\"T. Köhler, Maria N. Rumyantseva, Catherine Welch\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10944281231216323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Qualitative research methods are deemed best suited to exploring novel phenomena and generating new concepts. Their potential to reevaluate existing theorizing, however, is underestimated. Qualitative restudies that return to the data and settings on which the original theories were built are a well-established tradition in other disciplines (e.g., history, sociology, and anthropology), but have received little recognition in management and organization studies. We introduce qualitative restudies as a powerful means to improve theorizing by revising or challenging theories that have become outdated or obsolete and establishing transferability and longevity of findings and interpretations. We provide a typology of qualitative restudy designs drawing on an integrative review of literature in management, strategy, and the social sciences and humanities. We highlight the main design and ethical considerations for researchers in undertaking a restudy. We argue for the strengths of restudies as lying in their possibilities for retheorizing, above and beyond verifying or updating prior studies. Restudies draw on the strengths of in-depth qualitative work to uncover how interpretations and theorizing are shaped by methodological traditions, historical contexts, existing societal structures, and researcher backgrounds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"36 23\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231216323\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231216323","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

定性研究方法被认为最适合探索新现象和产生新概念。然而,他们重新评估现有理论的潜力被低估了。在其他学科(如历史学、社会学和人类学)中,回归原始理论所依据的数据和背景的定性再研究是一个公认的传统,但在管理和组织研究中却很少得到认可。我们引入定性再研究作为一种强有力的手段,通过修订或挑战已经过时或过时的理论,并建立发现和解释的可转移性和持久性,来改进理论。我们提供了一种定性再研究设计的类型学,借鉴了管理、战略、社会科学和人文科学方面的综合文献综述。我们强调了研究人员在进行重新研究时的主要设计和伦理考虑。我们认为,再研究的优势在于,它们可以在验证或更新先前研究的基础上,重新理论化。再研究利用深入的定性工作的优势,揭示解释和理论化是如何被方法论传统、历史背景、现有社会结构和研究人员背景所塑造的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Qualitative Restudies: Research Designs for Retheorizing
Qualitative research methods are deemed best suited to exploring novel phenomena and generating new concepts. Their potential to reevaluate existing theorizing, however, is underestimated. Qualitative restudies that return to the data and settings on which the original theories were built are a well-established tradition in other disciplines (e.g., history, sociology, and anthropology), but have received little recognition in management and organization studies. We introduce qualitative restudies as a powerful means to improve theorizing by revising or challenging theories that have become outdated or obsolete and establishing transferability and longevity of findings and interpretations. We provide a typology of qualitative restudy designs drawing on an integrative review of literature in management, strategy, and the social sciences and humanities. We highlight the main design and ethical considerations for researchers in undertaking a restudy. We argue for the strengths of restudies as lying in their possibilities for retheorizing, above and beyond verifying or updating prior studies. Restudies draw on the strengths of in-depth qualitative work to uncover how interpretations and theorizing are shaped by methodological traditions, historical contexts, existing societal structures, and researcher backgrounds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
The Internet Never Forgets: A Four-Step Scraping Tutorial, Codebase, and Database for Longitudinal Organizational Website Data One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties
×
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