Preserving Theoretical Divergence in Management Research: Why the Explanatory Potential of Qualitative Research Should Be Harnessed Rather than Suppressed

• Published date: 01 May 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210
• Author: Joep P. Cornelissen
• Date: 01 May 2017

Preserving Theoretical Divergence in Management

Research: Why the Explanatory Potential of

Qualitative Research Should Be Harnessed Rather

than Suppressed

Joep P. Cornelissen

Erasmus University

ABSTRACT Despite the evident rise in the number of qualitative studies that are published in

leading journals, I argue that the rich tradition and hallmark of qualitative research is under

pressure. In recent years qualitative papers are increasingly being fashioned in the image of

quantitative research, so much so that papers adopt ‘factor-analytic’ styles of theor izing that

have typically been the preserve of quantitative methods. This is a worrying trend as it leads

to certain types of explanations dominating our f‌ield and at the expense of other viable forms

of explanation. It also narrows the remit of qualitative research in general by channelling the

theoretical contribution of qualitative studies in the direction of factor-analytic propositional

or variance models. In this article, I discuss the differences between the distinct types of

theoretical explanations that are associated with quantitative and qualitative methods, survey

the trend towards a quantitative ‘restyling’ of qualitative research, and elaborate its negative

implications for our body of knowledge and for the state of management and organization

theory.

Keywords: management studies, qualitative methods, qualitative research, theory

In absolute terms, the number of qualitative research studies published in the leading

international journals in business and management has grown over the last decades

(Bluhm et al., 2011). This growth ref‌lects not only the broadly supportive position

towards qualitative research within the f‌ield, as well as the concerted efforts of different

stakeholders (including journal editors and reviewers) to support qualitative researchers

in getting their work published. There may as such no longer be any stark divide

between quantitative and qualitative research, as far as for example the chances of pub-

lishing one’s work are concerned.

Address for reprints: Joep P. Cornelissen, Corporate Communication Centre, Department of Business-

Society Management, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan

50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands (cornelissen@rsm.nl).

V

C2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies 54:3 May 2017

doi: 10.1111/joms.12210

At the same time, I argue in this article that the hallmark of qualitative research in pro-

ducing rich and detailed explanatory accounts of management and organizational phe-

nomena is under pressure. The reason is that increasingly qualitative methods are pushed

in the direction of mimicking quantitative research (Bluhm et al., 2011; Gioia et al.,

2013), not just in terms of the way in which research is reported but also in aping the style

of theorizing typically associated with quantitative methods. This is problematic as it leads

to certain styles of theorizing (in our reasoning and writing) dominating the f‌ield (Del-

bridge and Fiss, 2013; Harley, 2015), with the focus on abstract models and linear causal

effects that is characteristic of quantitative research crowding out a qualitative concern

with root causes, complexity and sequential patterns in our explanations of management

and organizations.

In this article, I f‌irst conceptualize and categorize styles of theorizing and suggest how

they are linked to different quantitative and qualitative methods. The linkage between

styles and methods make up different explanatory programmes (Abbott, 2004); def‌ined as

coherent and programmatic efforts of communities of researchers to enhance our under-

standing of management and organizations. These explanatory programmes involve

explanations based on formalizing theoretical scenarios or game-based models, explana-

tions based on pragmatically establishing cause and effects as part of hypothesized interac-

tion models, and explanations based on writing ‘thick’ descriptions. Qualitative research

used to be for the most part positioned in the latter explanatory programme, but its remit,

as I will argue, is gradually shifting in the direction of the other explanatory programmes

– which means that the rich tradition of qualitative research is being refashioned and re-

categorized as an integral part of the more quantitatively oriented formal and pragmatic

explanatory programmes, and is seen as only an ‘exploratory’ way station towards more

formal or effects-driven theorizing (see Bluhm et al., 2011; Eisenhardt, 1989; Lee, 1999).

I elaborate and illustrate this trend, and discuss the gains and losses that it brings to

our f‌ield as a whole and to our collective body of knowledge concerning management

and organizations. I specif‌ically develop the argument that whatever methodological

gains this trend may have brought, it at the same time limits our possibilities and means

for theorizing from qualitative data. This is a worrying trend, based on the assumption

that our body of knowledge and the f‌ield as a whole is best served by a combination of

styles of theorizing and the different explanatory programmes associated with them, so

that different questions get asked and different modes of knowing sit alongside each

other in a complementary fashion.

METHODS AND STYLES OF THEORIZING

Theory and methods are highly interrelated in management and organizational research,

as indeed they are in other f‌ields (Van Maanen et al., 2007). This is perhaps not that sur-

prising as theory without any empirical reference is idle and empty, and as our quest for

knowledge necessitates grounding our theory and theoretical inferences in empirical data.

As such, the methods that we use to collect and analyse empirical data (including ques-

tions of what counts as data) have a close link to our theorizing efforts. Van Maanen et al.

(2007, p. 1146) argue in this respect that; ‘method can generate and shape theory, just as

theory can generate and shape method. There is a back-and-forth character in which

369Preserving Theoretical Divergence in Management Research

V

C2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies