Siinviidatu võiks kuuluda paljude erialade uurimisseminarides seminaritekstide hulka, sest avab kvalitatiivuuringutes tahke, mille iseseisev koondamine oleks väga ajamahukas ja eeldab tõsiseid teadmisi uurimismeetoditest. Allpool lisan vaid mõned väljavõtted Denny Gioia selgitustest ja jätan ülejäänu lugejale nautimiseks.
I had been aware, however, that some scholars had been treating that methodology as a kind of cookbook to dress up their research reporting to make it look more rigorous than it actually was, so I ﬁgured (correctly, as it turned out) that the methodology was going to be a target of some of the contributors to the special issue—especially because I had also learned that several editors and reviewers had been counseling authors that they needed to provide more convincing evidence for their assertions and that they should consult that piece for a look at a methodology that might enable them to do just that.
Because a methodology I have been developing and honing for over 30 years now was a target of many of the works in that special issue, I thought we should start by looking at the bigger picture and using the occasion to reconsider some of the approaches and practices we have historically employed to develop our bases of knowledge.
Ontoloogia, epistemoloogia ja metodoloogia
First, my most fundamental assumption is that ontology implies epistemology implies methodology. Ontology concerns assumptions we make about the nature of the organizations and the people in them. Epistemology concerns assumptions about how we know about organizations and their actions. Methodology concerns assumptions about how we study organizations and the people concerned with them.
Just this: at an elemental level I see organizations as structurational creations (Giddens, 1984)—meaning that organization members (agents) engage in actions that create structures, which recursively enable and constrain further action. But, it is a human agency that starts this ball rolling, so the agency has primacy.
I initiated the development of the approach because of (justiﬁed) criticisms that qualitative research in the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s was overly impressionistic and did not provide adequate evidence in support of assertions made.
Ei ole retsept
I never meant the methodology to be used as a template, I have said so repeatedly, and I’ll say it again here: The methodology I have been developing over all these years should not be treated like a cookbook recipe.
Qualitative research is usually aimed at representing messy, complex, phenomenal worlds in the form of simpliﬁed theoretical models. That pursuit implies that we theorists and researchers should become sensegivers by simplifying the complex in essential ways (that’s what models inevitably do anyway).
Gioia, D., Corley, K., Eisenhardt, K., Feldman, M., Langley, A., Lê, J., Golden-Biddle, K., Locke, K., Mees-Buss, J., Piekkari, R., Ravasi, D., Rerup, C., Schmid, T., Silverman, D., & Welch, C. (2022). A Curated Debate: On Using “Templates” in Qualitative Research. Journal of Management Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221098955