qualitative research business studies

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Qualitative designs and methodologies for business, management, and organizational research.

• Robert P. Gephart Robert P. Gephart Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta
•  and  Rohny Saylors Rohny Saylors Carson College of Business, Washington State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.230
• Published online: 28 September 2020

Qualitative research designs provide future-oriented plans for undertaking research. Designs should describe how to effectively address and answer a specific research question using qualitative data and qualitative analysis techniques. Designs connect research objectives to observations, data, methods, interpretations, and research outcomes. Qualitative research designs focus initially on collecting data to provide a naturalistic view of social phenomena and understand the meaning the social world holds from the point of view of social actors in real settings. The outcomes of qualitative research designs are situated narratives of peoples’ activities in real settings, reasoned explanations of behavior, discoveries of new phenomena, and creating and testing of theories.

A three-level framework can be used to describe the layers of qualitative research design and conceptualize its multifaceted nature. Note, however, that qualitative research is a flexible and not fixed process, unlike conventional positivist research designs that are unchanged after data collection commences. Flexibility provides qualitative research with the capacity to alter foci during the research process and make new and emerging discoveries.

The first or methods layer of the research design process uses social science methods to rigorously describe organizational phenomena and provide evidence that is useful for explaining phenomena and developing theory. Description is done using empirical research methods for data collection including case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and collection of texts, records, and documents.

The second or methodological layer of research design offers three formal logical strategies to analyze data and address research questions: (a) induction to answer descriptive “what” questions; (b) deduction and hypothesis testing to address theory oriented “why” questions; and (c) abduction to understand questions about what, how, and why phenomena occur.

The third or social science paradigm layer of research design is formed by broad social science traditions and approaches that reflect distinct theoretical epistemologies—theories of knowledge—and diverse empirical research practices. These perspectives include positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction (interpretive science). There are also scholarly research perspectives that reflect on and challenge or seek to change management thinking and practice, rather than producing rigorous empirical research or evidence based findings. These perspectives include critical research, postmodern research, and organization development.

Three additional issues are important to future qualitative research designs. First, there is renewed interest in the value of covert research undertaken without the informed consent of participants. Second, there is an ongoing discussion of the best style to use for reporting qualitative research. Third, there are new ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data. These are needed to better address the interplay of qualitative and quantitative phenomena that are both found in everyday discourse, a phenomenon that has been overlooked.

• qualitative methods
• research design
• methods and methodologies
• interpretive induction
• interpretive science
• critical theory
• postmodernism
• organization development

Introduction

Qualitative research uses linguistic symbols and stories to describe and understand actual behavior in real settings (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 ). Understanding requires describing “specific instances of social phenomena” (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xi) to determine what this behavior means to lay participants and to scientific researchers. This process produces “narratives-non-fiction division that link events to events in storied or dramatic fashion” to uncover broad social science principles at work in specific cases (p. xii).

A research design and/or proposal is often created at the outset of research to act as a guide. But qualitative research is not a rule-governed process and “no one knows” the rules to write memorable and publishable qualitative research (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xxv). Thus qualitative research “is anything but standardized, or, more tellingly, impersonal” (p. xi). Design is emergent and is often created as it is being done.

Qualitative research is also complex. This complexity is addressed by providing a framework with three distinct layers of knowledge creation resources that are assembled during qualitative research: the methods layer, the logic layer, and the paradigmatic layer. Research methods are addressed first because “there is no necessary connection between research strategies and methods of data collection and analysis” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 227). Research methods (e.g., interviews) must be adapted for use with the specific logical strategies and paradigmatic assumptions in mind.

The first, or methods, layer uses qualitative methods to “collect data.” That is, to observe phenomena and record written descriptions of observations, often through field notes. Established methods for description include participant and non-participant observation, ethnography, focus groups, individual interviews, and collection of documentary data. The article explains how established methods have been adapted and used to answer a range of qualitative research questions.

The second, or logic, layer involves selecting a research strategy—a “logic, or set of procedures, for answering research questions” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 18). Research strategies link research objectives, data collection methods, and logics of analysis. The three logical strategies used in qualitative organizational research are inductive logic, deductive logic and abductive logic (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 79). 1 Each logical strategy makes distinct assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology), the nature of being (ontology), and how logical strategies and assumptions are used in data collection and analysis. The task is to describe important methods suitable for each logical strategy, factors to consider when selecting methods (Blaikie, 2010 ), and illustrates how data collection and analysis methods are adapted to ensure for consistency with specific logics and paradigms.

The third, or paradigms, layer of research design addresses broad frameworks and scholarly traditions for understanding research findings. Commitment to a paradigm or research tradition entails commitments to theories, research strategies, and methods. Three paradigms that do empirical research and seek scientific knowledge are addressed first: positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction. Then, three scholarly and humanist approaches that critique conventional research and practice to encourage organizational change are discussed: critical theory and research, postmodern perspectives, and organization development (OD). Paradigms or traditions provide broad scholarly contexts that make specific studies comprehensible and meaningful. Lack of grounding in an intellectual tradition limits the ability of research to contribute: contributions always relate to advancing the state of knowledge in specific unfolding research traditions that also set norms for assessing research quality. The six research designs are explained to show how consistency in design levels can be achieved for each of the different paradigms. Further, qualitative research designs must balance the need for a clear plan to achieve goals with the need for adaptability and flexibility to incorporate insights and overcome obstacles that emerge during research.

Our general goal has been to provide a practical guide to inspire and assist readers to better understand, design, implement, and publish qualitative research. We conclude by addressing future challenges and trends in qualitative research.

The Substance of Research Design

A research design is a written text that can be prepared prior to the start of a research project (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 4) and shared or used as “a private working document.” Figure 1 depicts the elements of a qualitative research design and research process. Interest in a topic or problem leads researchers to pose questions and select relevant research methods to fulfill research purposes. Implementation of the methods requires use of logical strategies in conjunction with paradigms of research to specify concepts, theories, and models. The outcomes, depending on decisions made during research, are scientific knowledge, scholarly (non-scientific) knowledge, or applied knowledge useful for practice.

Figure 1. Elements of qualitative research design.

Research designs describe a problem or research question and explain how to use specific qualitative methods to collect and analyze qualitative data that answer a research question. The purposes of design are to describe and justify the decisions made during the research process and to explain how the research outcomes can be produced. Designs are thus future-oriented plans that specify research activities, connect activities to research goals and objectives, and explain how to interpret the research outcomes using paradigms and theories.

In contrast, a research proposal is “a public document that is used to obtain necessary approvals for a research proposal to proceed” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 4). Research designs are often prepared prior to creating a research proposal, and research proposals often require the inclusion of research designs. Proposals also require greater formality when they are the basis for a legal contract between a researcher and a funding agency. Thus, designs and proposals are mutually relevant and have considerable overlap but are addressed to different audiences. Table 1 provides the specific features of designs and proposals. This discussion focuses on designs.

Table 1. Decisions Necessitated by Research Designs and Proposals

Source: Based on Blaikie ( 2010 ), pp. 12–34.

The “real starting point” for a research design (or proposal) is “the formulation of the research question” (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 17). There are three types of research questions: “what” questions seek descriptions; “why” questions seek answers and understanding; and “how” questions address conditions where certain events occur, underlying mechanisms, and conditions necessary for change interventions (p. 17). It is useful to start with research questions rather than goals, and to explain what the research is intended to achieve (p. 17) in a technical way.

The process of finding a topic and formulating a useful research question requires several considerations (Silverman, 2014 , pp. 31–33, 34–40). Researchers must avoid settings where data collection will be difficult (pp. 31–32); specify an appropriate scope for the topic—neither too wide or too narrow—that can be addressed (pp. 35–36); fit research questions into a relevant theory (p. 39); find the appropriate level of theory to address (p. 42); select appropriate designs and research methods (pp. 42–44); ensure the volume of data can be handled (p. 48); and do an effective literature review (p. 48).

A literature review is an important way to link the proposed research to current knowledge in the field, and to explain what was previously known or what theory suggests to be the case (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 17). Research questions can used to bound and frame the literature review while the literature review often inspires research questions. The review may also provide bases for creating new hypotheses and for answering some of the initial research questions (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 18).

Layers of Research Design

There are three layers of research design. The first layer focuses on research methods for collecting data. The second layer focuses on the logical frameworks used for analyzing data. The third layer focuses on the paradigm used to create a coherent worldview from research methods and logical frameworks.

Layer One: Design as Research Methods

Qualitative research addresses the meanings people have for phenomena. It collects narratives of organizational activity, uses analytical induction to create coherent representations of the truths and meanings in organizational contexts, and then creates explanations of this conduct and its prevalence (Van Maanan, 1998 , pp. xi–xii). Thus qualitative research involves “doing research with words” (Gephart, 2013 , title) in order to describe the linguistic symbols and stories that members use in specific settings.

There are four general methods for collecting qualitative data and creating qualitative descriptions (see Table 2 ). The in-depth case study approach provides a history of an event or phenomenon over time using multiple data sources. Observational strategies use the researcher to observe and describe behavior in actual settings. Interview strategies use a format where a researcher asks questions of an informant. And documentary research collects texts, documents, official records, photographs, and videos as data—formally written or visually recorded evidence that can be replayed and reviewed (Creswell, 2014 , p. 190). These methods are adapted to fit the needs of specific projects.

Table 2. Qualitative Data Collection Methods

The in-depth case study method.

The in-depth case study is a key strategy for qualitative research (Piekkari & Welch, 2012 ). It was the most common qualitative method used during the formative years of the field, from 1956 to 1965 , when 48% of qualitative papers published in the Administrative Science Quarterly used the case study method (Van Maanen, 1998 , p. xix). The case design uses one or more data collection strategies to describe in detail how a single event or phenomenon, selected by a researcher, has changed over time. This provides an understanding of the processes that underlie changes to the phenomenon. In-depth case study methods use observations, documents, records, and interviews that describe the events in the case unfolded and their implications. Case studies contextualize phenomena by studying them in actual situations. They provide rich insights into multiple dimensions of a single phenomenon (Campbell, 1975 ); offer empirical insights into what, how, and why questions related to phenomena; and assist in the creation of robust theory by providing diverse data collected over time (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 36).

Maniha and Perrow ( 1965 ) provide an example of a case study concerned with organizational goal displacement, an important issue in early organizational theorizing that proposed organizations emerge from rational goals. Organizational rationality was becoming questioned at the time that the authors studied a Youth Commission with nine members in a city of 70,000 persons (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ). The organization’s activities were reconstructed from interviews with principals and stakeholders of the organization, minutes from Youth Commission meetings, documents, letters, and newspaper accounts (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ).

The account that emerged from the data analysis is a history of how a “reluctant organization” with “no goals to guide it” was used by other aggressive organizations for their own ends. It ultimately created its own mission (Maniha & Perrow, 1965 ). Thus, an organization that initially lacked rational goals developed a mission through the irrational process of goal slippage or displacement. This finding challenged prevailing thinking at the time.

Observational Strategies

Observational strategies involve a researcher present in a situation who observes and records, the activities and conversations that occur in the setting, usually in written field notes. The three observational strategies in Table 2 —participant observation, ethnography, and systematic self-observation—differ in terms of the role of the researcher and in the data collection approach.

Participant observation . This is one of the earliest qualitative methods (McCall & Simmons, 1969 ). One gains access to a setting and an informant holding an appropriate social role, for example, client, customer, volunteer, or researcher. One then observes and records what occurs in the setting using field notes. Many features or topics in a setting can become a focus for participant observers. And observations can be conducted using continuum of different roles from the complete participant, observer as participant, and participant observer, to the complete observer who observes without participation (Creswell, 2014 , Table 9.2, p. 191).

Ethnography . An ethnography is “a written representation of culture” (Van Maanen, 1988 ) produced after extended participation in a culture. Ethnography is a form of participant observation that focuses on the cultural aspects of the group or organization under study (Van Maanen, 1988 , 2010 ). It involves prolonged and close contact with group members in a role where the observer becomes an apprentice to an informant to learn about a culture (Agar, 1980 ; McCurdy, Spradley, & Shandy, 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

Ethnography produces fine-grained descriptions of a micro-culture, based on in-depth cultural participation (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 , 2016 ). Ethnographic observations seek to capture cultural members’ worldviews (see Perlow, 1997 ; Van Maanen, 1988 ; Watson, 1994 ). Ethnographic techniques for interviewing informants have been refined into an integrated developmental research strategy—“the ethno-semantic method”—for undertaking qualitative research (Spradley, 1979 , 2016 ; Van Maanen, 1981 ). The ethnosemantic method uses a structured approach to uncover and confirm key cultural features, themes, and cultural reasoning processes (McCurdy et al., 2005 , Table 3 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

Systematic Self-Observation . Systematic self-observation (SSO) involves “training informants to observe and record a selected feature of their own everyday experience” (Rodrigues & Ryave, 2002 , p. 2; Rodriguez, Ryave, & Tracewell, 1998 ). Once aware that they are experiencing the target phenomenon, informants “immediately write a field report on their observation” (Rodrigues & Ryave, 2002 , p. 2) describing what was said and done, and providing background information on the context, thoughts, emotions, and relationships of people involved. SSO generates high-quality field notes that provide accurate descriptions of informants’ experiences (pp. 4–5). SSO allows informants to directly provide descriptions of their personal experiences including difficult to capture emotions.

Interview Strategies

Interviews are conversations between researchers and research participants—termed “subjects” in positivist research and informants in “interpretive research.” Interviews can be conducted as individual face-to-face interactions (Creswell, 2014 , p. 190) or by telephone, email, or through computer-based media. Two broad types of interview strategies are (a) the individual interview and (b) the group interview or focus group (Morgan, 1997 ). Interviews elicit informants’ insights into their culture and background information, and obtain answers and opinions. Interviews typically address topics and issues that occur outside the interview setting and at previous times. Interview data are thus reconstructions or undocumented descriptions of action in past settings (Creswell, 2014 , p. 191) that provide descriptions that are less accurate and valid descriptions than direct, real-time observations of settings.

Structured and unstructured interviews. Structured interviews pose a standardized set of fixed, closed-ended questions (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2012 ) to respondents whose responses are recorded as factual information. Responses may be forced choice or open ended. However, most qualitative research uses unstructured or partially structured interviews that pose open-ended questions in a flexible order that can be adapted. Unstructured interviews allow for detailed responses and clarification of statements (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012 ; McLeod, 2014 )and the content and format can be tailored to the needs and assumptions of specific research projects (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 40).

The informant interview (Spradley, 1979 ) poses questions to informants to elicit and clarify background information about their culture, and to validate ethnographic observations. In interviews, informants teach the researcher their culture (Spradley, 1979 , pp. 24–39). The informant interview is part of a developmental research sequence (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ) that begins with broad “grand tour” questions that ask an informant to describe an important domain in their culture. The questions later narrow to focus on details of cultural domains and members’ folk concepts. This process uncovers semantic relationships among concepts of members and deeper cultural themes (McCurdy et al., 2005 ; Spradley, 1979 ).

The long interview (McCracken, 1988 ) involves a lengthy, quasi-structured interview sessions with informants to acquire rapid and efficient access to cultural themes and issues in a group. Long interviews differ ethnographic interviews by using a “more efficient and less obtrusive format” (p. 7). This creates a “sharply focused, rapid and highly intense interview process” that avoids indeterminate and redundant questions and pre-empts the need for observation or involvement in a culture. There are four stages in the long interview: (a) review literature to uncover analytical categories and design the interview; (b) review cultural categories to prepare the interview guide; (c) construct the questionnaire; and (d) analyze data to discover analytical categories (p. 30, fig. 1 ).

The active interview is a dynamic process where the researcher and informant co-construct and negotiate interview responses (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995 ). The goal is to uncover the subjective meanings that informants hold for phenomenon, and to understand how meaning is produced through communication. The active approach is common in interpretive, critical, and postmodern research that assumes a negotiated order. For example, Richardson and McKenna ( 2000 ) explored how ex-patriate British faculty members themselves interpreted and explained their expatriate experience. The researchers viewed the interview setting as one where the researchers and informants negotiated meanings between themselves, rather than a setting where prepared questions and answers were shared.

Documentary, Photographic, and Video Records as Data

Documents, records, artifacts, photographs, and video recordings are physically enduring forms of data that are separable from their producers and provide mute evidence with no inherent meaning until they are read, written about, and discussed (Hodder, 1994 , p. 393). Records (e.g., marriage certificate) attest to a formal transaction, are associated with formal governmental institutions, and may have legally restricted access. In contrast, documents are texts prepared for personal reasons with fewer legal restrictions but greater need for contextual interpretation. Several approaches to documentary and textual data analysis have been developed (see Table 3 ). Documents that researchers have found useful to collect include public documents and minutes of meetings; detailed transcripts of public hearings; corporate and government press releases; annual reports and financial documents; private documents such as diaries of informants; and news media reports.

Photographs and videos are useful for capturing “accurate” visual images of physical phenomena (Ray & Smith, 2012 ) that can be repeatedly reexamined and used as evidence to substantiate research claims (LeBaron, Jarzabkowski, Pratt, & Fetzer, 2018 ). Photos taken from different positions in space may also reveal different features of phenomena. Videos show movement and reveal activities as processes unfolding over time and space. Both photos and videos integrate and display the spatiotemporal contexts of action.

Layer Two: Design as Logical Frameworks

The second research design layer links data collection and analysis methods (Tables 2 and 3 ) to three logics of enquiry that answer specific questions: inductive, deductive, and abductive logical strategies (see Table 4 ). Each logical strategy focuses on producing different types of knowledge using distinctive research principles, processes, and types of research questions they can address.

Table 3. Data Analysis and Integrated Data Collection and Analysis Strategies

Table 4. logical strategies for answering qualitative research questions with evidence.

Based in part on Blaikie ( 1993 ), ch. 5 & 6; Blaikie ( 2010 ), p. 84, table 4.1

The Inductive Strategy

Induction is the scientific method for many scholars (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 134), and an essential logic for qualitative management research (Pratt, 2009 , p. 856). Inductive strategies ask “what” questions to explore a domain to discover unknown features of a phenomenon (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 83). There are four stages to the inductive strategy: (a) observe and record all facts without selection or anticipating their importance; (b) analyze, compare, and classify facts without employing hypotheses; (c) develop generalizations inductively based on the analyses; and (d) subject generalizations to further testing (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 137).

Inductive research assumes a real world outside human thought that can be directly sensed and described (Blaikie, 2010 ). Principles of inductive research reflect a realist and objectivist ontology. The selection, definition, and measurement of characteristics to be studied are developed from an objective, scientific point of view. Facts about organizational features need to be obtained using unbiased measurement. Further, the elimination method is used to find “the characteristics present in all the positive cases, which are absent in all the negative cases, and which vary in appropriate degrees” (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 135). This requires data collection methods that provide unbiased evidence of the objective facts without pre-supposing their importance.

Induction can establish limited generalizations about phenomena based solely on the observations collected. Generalizations need to be based on the entire sample of data, not on selected observations from large data sets, to establish their validity. The scope of generalization is limited to the sample of data itself. Induction creates evidence to increase our confidence in a conclusion, but the conclusions do not logically follow from premises (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 164). Indeed, inferences from induction cannot be extended beyond the original set of observations and no logical or formal process exists to establish the universality of inferences.

Key data collection methods for inductive designs include observational strategies that allow the researcher to view behavior without making a priori hypotheses, to describe behavior that occurs “naturally” in settings, and to record non-impressionistic descriptions of behavior. Interviews can also elicit descriptions of settings and behavior for inductive qualitative research. Data analysis methods need to describe actual interactions in real settings including discourse among members. These methods include ethnosemantic analysis to uncover key terms and validate actual meanings used by members; analyses of conversational practices that show how meaning is negotiated through sequential turn taking in discourse; and grounded theory-based concept coding and theory development that use the constant comparative method.

Facts or descriptions of events can be compared to one another and generalizations can be made about the world using induction (Blaikie, 2010 ). Outcomes from inductive analysis include descriptions of features in a limited domain of social action that are inferred to exist in other similar settings. Propositions and broader insights can be developed inductively from these descriptions.

The Deductive Strategy

Deductive logic (Blaikie, 1993 , 2010 ) addresses “why” questions to explain associations between concepts that represent phenomena of interest. Researchers can use induction, abduction, or any means, to develop then test the hypotheses to see if they are valid. Hypotheses that are not rejected are temporarily corroborated. The outcomes from deduction are tested hypotheses. Researchers can thus be very creative in hypothesis construction but they cannot discover new phenomena with deduction that is based only on phenomena known in advance (Blaikie, 2010 ). And there is also no purely logical or mechanical process to establish “the validity of [inductively constructed] universal statements from a set of singular statements” from which deductive hypotheses were formed (Hempel, 1966 , p. 15 cited in Blaikie, 1993 , p. 140).

The deductive strategy uses a realist and objectivist ontology and imitates natural science methods. Useful data collection methods include observation, interviewing, and collection of documents that contain facts. Deduction addresses the assumedly objective features of settings and interactions. Appropriate data analysis methods include content coding to identify different types, features, and frequencies of observed phenomena; grounded theory coding and analytical induction to create categories in data, determine how categories are interrelated, and induce theory from observations; and pattern recognition to compare current data to prior models and samples. Content analysis and non-parametric statistics can be used to quantify qualitative data and make it more amenable to analysis, although quantitative analysis of qualitative data is not, strictly speaking, qualitative research (Gephart, 2004 ).

The Abductive Strategy

Abduction is “the process used to produce social scientific accounts of social life by drawing on the concepts and meanings used by social actors, and the activities in which they engage” (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 176). Abductive reasoning assumes that the socially meaningful world is the world experienced by members. The first abductive task is to discover the insider view that is basic to the actions of social actors (p. 176) by uncovering the subjective meanings held by social actors. Subjective meaning (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ) refers to the meaning that actions hold for the actors themselves and that they can express verbally. Subjective meaning is not inexpressible ideas locked in one’s mind. Abduction starts with lay descriptions of social life, then moves to technical, scientific descriptions of social life (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 177) (see Table 4 ). Abduction answers “what” questions with induction, why questions with deduction, and “how” questions with hypothesized processes that explain how, and under what conditions, phenomena occur. Abduction involves making a logical leap that infers an explanatory process to explain an outcome in an oscillating logic. Deductive, inductive, and inferential processes move recursively from actors’ accounts to social science accounts and back again in abduction (Gephart, 2018 ). This process enables all theory and second-order scientific concepts to be grounded in actors’ first-order meanings.

The abductive strategy contains four layers: (a) everyday concepts and meanings of actors, used for (b) social interaction, from which (c) actors provide accounts, from which (d) social scientific descriptions are made, or theories are generated and applied, to interpret phenomena (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 177). The multifaceted research process, described in Table 4 , requires locating and comprehending members’ important everyday concepts and theories before observing or creating disruptions that force members to explain the unstated knowledge behind their action. The researcher then integrates members’ first-order concepts into a general, second-order scientific theory that makes first-order understandings recoverable.

Abduction emerged from Weber’s interpretive sociology ( 1978 ) and Peirce’s ( 1936 ) philosophy. But Alfred Schutz ( 1973a , 1973b ) is the contemporary scholar who did the most to extend our understanding of abduction, although he never used the term “abduction” (Blaikie, 1993 , 2010 ; Gephart, 2018 ). Schutz conceived abduction as an approach to verifiable interpretive knowledge that is scientific and rigorous (Blaikie, 1993 ; Gephart, 2018 ). Abduction is appropriate for research that seeks to go beyond description to explanation and prediction (Blaikie, 1993 , p. 163) and discovery (Gephart, 2018 ). It employs an interpretive ontology (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ) and social constructionist epistemology (Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ), using qualitative methods to discover “why people do what they do” (Blaikie, 1993 ).

Dynamic data collection methods are needed for abductive research to capture descriptions of interactions in actual settings and their meanings to members. Observational and interview approaches that elicit members’ concepts and theories are particularly relevant to abductive understanding (see Table 2 ). Data analysis methods must analyze situated, first-order (common sense) discourse as it unfolds in real settings and then systematically develop second-order concepts or theories from data. Relevant approaches to produce and validate findings include ethnography, ethnomethodology, and grounded theorizing (see Table 3 ). The combination of what, why, and how questions used in abduction produces a broader understanding of phenomena than do what and why deductive and inductive questions.

Layer Three: Paradigms of Research

Scholarly paradigms integrate methods, logics, and intellectual worldviews into coherent theoretical perspectives and form the most abstract level of research design. Six paradigms are widely used in management research (Burrell & Morgan, 1979 ; Cunliffe, 2011 ; Gephart, 2004 , 2013 ; Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ; Hassard, 1993 ). The first three perspectives—positivism, interpretive induction, and interpretive abduction—build on logics of design and seek to produce rigorous empirical research that constitutes evidence (see Table 5 ). Three additional perspectives pursue philosophical, critical, and practical knowledge: critical theory, postmodernism, and organization development (see Table 6 ). Tables 5 and 6 describe important features of each research design to show similarities and differences in the processes through which theoretical meaning is bestowed on research results in management and organization studies.

Table 5. Paradigms, Logical Strategies, and Methodologies for Empirical Research

Sources: Based on and adapted and extended from Blaikie ( 1993 , pp. 137, 145, & 152); Blaikie ( 2010 , Table 4.1, p. 84); Gephart ( 2013 , Table 9.1, p. 291) and Gephart ( 2018 , Table 3.1, pp. 38–39).

Table 6. Alternative Paradigms, Logical Strategies, and Methodologies

Based in part on Gephart ( 2004 , 2013 , 2018 ).

The Positivist Approach

The qualitative positivist approach makes assumptions equivalent to those of quantitative research (Gephart, 2004 , 2018 ). It assumes the world is objectively describable and comprehensible using inductive and deductive logics. And rigor is important and achieved by reliability, validity, and generalizability of findings (Kirk & Miller, 1986 ; Malterud, 2001 ). Qualitative positivism mimics natural science logics and methods using data recorded as words and talk rather than numerals.

Positivist research (Bitektine, 2008 ; Su, 2018 ) starts with a hypothesis. This can, but need not, be based in data or inductive theory. The research process, aimed at publication in peer-reviewed journals, requires researchers to (a) identify variables to measure, (b) develop operational definitions of the variables, (c) measure (describe) the variables and their inter-relationships, (d) pose hypotheses to test relationships among variables, then (e) compare observations to hypotheses for testing (Blaikie, 2010 ). When data are consistent with theory, theory passes the test. Otherwise the theory fails. This theory is also assessed for its logical correctness and value for knowledge. The positivist approach can assess deductive and inductive generalizations and provide evidence concerning why something occurs—if proposed hypotheses are not rejected.

Positivists view qualitative research as highly subject to biases that must be prevented to ensure rigor, and 23 methodological steps are recommended to enhance rigor and prevent bias (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010 , p. 720). Replicability is another concern because methodology descriptions in qualitative publications “insufficiently describe” how methods are used (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999 , p. 182) and thereby prevent replication. To ensure replicability, a qualitative “article’s description of the method must be sufficiently detailed to allow a reader . . . to replicate that reported study either in a hypothetical or actual manner.”

Qualitative research allows positivists to observe naturally unfolding behavior in real settings and allow “the real world” of work to inform research and theory (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 2004 ). Encounters with the actual world provide insights into meaning construction by members that cannot be captured with outsider (etic) approaches. For example, past quantitative research provided inconsistent findings on the importance of pre- and post-recruitment screening interviews for job choices of recruits. A deeper investigation was thus designed to examine how recruitment impacts job selection (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991 ). To do so, students undergoing recruitment were asked to “tell us in their own words” how their recruiting and decision processes unfolded (Rynes et al., 1991 , p. 399). Using qualitative evidence, the researchers found that, in contrast to quantitative findings, “people do make choices based on how they are treated” (p. 509), and the choices impact recruitment outcomes. Rich descriptions of actual behavior can disconfirm quantitative findings and produce new findings that move the field forward.

An important limitation of positivism is its common emphasis on outsiders’ or scientific observers’ objective conceptions of the world. This limits the attention positivist research gives to members’ knowledge and allows positivist research to impose outsiders’ meanings on members’ everyday behavior, leading to a lack of understanding of what the behavior means to members. Another limitation is that no formal, logical, or proven techniques exist to assess the strength of “relationships” among qualitative variables, although such assessments can be formally done using well-formed quantitative data and techniques. Thus, qualitative positivists often provide ambiguous or inexplicit quantitative depictions of variable relations (e.g., “strong relationship”). Alternatively, the analysts quantify qualitative data by assigning numeric codes to categories (Greckhamer, Misngyi, Elms, & Lacey, 2008 ), using non-parametric statistics, or quantitative content analysis (Sonpar & Golden-Biddle, 2008 ) to create numerals that depict associations among variables.

An illustrative example of positivist research . Cole ( 1985 ) studied why and how organizations change their working structures from bureaucratic forms to small, self-supervised work teams that allow for worker participation in shop floor activities. Cole found that existing research on workplace change focused on the micropolitical level of organizations. He hypothesized that knowledge could be advanced differently, by examining the macropolitical change in industries or nations. Next, a testable conclusion was deduced: a macro analysis of the politics of change can better predict the success of work team implementation, measured as the spread of small group work structures, than an examination of the micropolitics of small groups ( 1985 ). Three settings were selected for the research: Japan, Sweden, and the United States. Japanese data were collected from company visits and interviews with employment officials and union leaders. Swedish documentary data on semiautonomous work groups were used and supplemented by interviews at Volvo and Saab, and prior field research in Sweden. U.S. data were collected through direct observations and a survey of early quality circle adopters.

Extensive change was observed in Sweden and Japan but changes to small work groups were limited in the United States (Cole, 1985 ). This conclusion was verified using records of the experiences of the three nations in work reform, compared across four dimensions: timing and scope of changes, managerial incentives to innovate, characteristics of mobilization, and political dimensions of change. Data revealed the United States had piecemeal experimentation and resistance to reform through the 1970s; diffusion emerged in Japan in the early 1960s and became extensive; and Swedish workplace reform started in the 1960s and was widely and rapidly diffused.

Cole then answered the questions of “why” and “how” the change occurred in some countries but not others. Regarding why Japanese and Swedish managers were motivated to introduce workplace change due to perceived managerial problems and the changing national labor market. Differences in the political processes also influenced change. Management, labor, and government interest in workplace change was evident in Japan and Sweden but not in the United States where widespread resistance occurred. As to how, the change occurred through macropolitical processes (Cole, 1985 , p. 120), specifically, the commitment of the national business leadership to the change and whether or not the change was contested or uncontested by labor impacted the adoption of change. Organizational change usually occurs through broad macropolitical processes, hence “the importance of macro-political variables in explaining these outcomes” (p. 122).

Interpretive Induction

Two streams of qualitative research claim the label of “interpretive research” in management and organization studies. The first stream, interpretive induction, emphasizes induction as its primary logical strategy (e.g., Locke, 2001 , 2002 ; Pratt, 2009 ). It assumes a “real world” that is inherently objective but interpreted through subjective lenses, hence different people can perceive or report different things. This research is interpretive because it addresses the meanings and interpretations people give to organizational phenomena, and how this meaning is provided and used. Interpretive induction contributes to scientific knowledge by providing empirical descriptions, generalizations, and low-level theories about specific contexts based on thick descriptions of members’ settings and interactions (first-order understandings) as data.

The interpretive induction paradigm addresses “what” questions that describe and explain the existence and features of phenomena. It seeks to uncover the subjective, personal knowledge that subjects have of the objective world and does so by creating descriptive accounts of the activities of organizational members. Interpretive induction creates inductive theories based on limited samples that provide low-scope, abstract theory. Limitations (Table 5 ) include the fact that inductive generalizations are limited to the sample used for induction and need to be subjected to additional tests and comparisons for substantiation. Second, research reports often fail to provide details to allow replication of the research. Third, formal methods for assessing the accuracy and validity of results and findings are limited. Fourth, while many features of scientific research are evident in interpretive induction research, the research moves closer to humanistic knowledge than to science when the basic assumptions of inductive analysis are relaxed—a common occurrence.

An illustrative example of interpretive induction research . Adler and Adler ( 1988 , 1998 ) undertook a five-year participant-observation study of a college basketball program (Adler, 1998 , p. 32). They sought to “examine the development of intense loyalty in one organization.” Intense loyalty evokes “devotional commitment of . . . (organizational) members through a subordination that sometime borders on subservience” (p. 32). The goal was to “describe and analyze the structural factors that emerged as most related” to intense loyalty (p. 32).

The researchers divided their roles. Peter Adler was the active observer and “expert” who undertook direct observations while providing counsel to players (p. 33). Patricia Adler took the peripheral role of “wife” and debriefed the observer. Two research questions were posed: (a) “what” kinds of organizational characteristics foster intense loyalty? (b) “how” do organizations with intense loyalty differ structurally from those that lack intense loyalty?

The first design stage (Table 5 ) recorded unbiased observations in extensive field notes. Detailed “life history” accounts were obtained from 38 team members interviewed (Adler & Adler, 1998 , p. 33). Then analytical induction and the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ) were used to classify and compare observations (p. 33). Once patterns emerged, informants were questioned about variations in patterns (p. 34) to develop “total patterns” (p. 34) reflecting the collective belief system of the group. This process required a “careful and rigorous means of data collection and analysis” that was “designed to maximize both the reliability and validity of our findings” (p. 34). The study found five conceptual elements were essential to the development of intense loyalty: domination, identification, commitment, integration, and goal alignment (p. 35).

The “what” question was answered by inducing a generalization (stage 3): paternalistic organizations with charismatic leadership seek people who “fit” the organization’s style and these people require extensive socialization to foster intense loyalty. This description contrasts with rational bureaucratic organizations that seek people who fit specific, generally known job descriptions and require limited socialization (p. 46). The “how” question is answered by inductive creation of another generalization: organizations that control the extra-organizational activities of members are more likely to evoke intense loyalty by forcing members to subordinate all other interests to those of the organization (p. 46).

The Interpretive Abduction Approach

The second stream of interpretive research—interpretive abduction—produces scientific knowledge using qualitative methods (Gephart, 2018 ). The approach assumes that commonsense knowledge is foundational to how actors know the world. Abductive theory is scientifically built from, and refers to, everyday life meanings, in contrast to positivist and interpretive induction research that omits concern with the worldview of members. Further, interpretive abduction produces second-order or scientific theory and concepts from members’ first-order commonsense concepts and meanings (Gephart, 2018 , p. 34; Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ).

The research process, detailed in Table 5 (process and stages), focuses on collecting thick descriptive data on organizations, identifying and interpreting first-order lay concepts, and creating abstract second-order technical constructs of science. The second-order concepts describe the first-order principles and terms social actors use to organize their experience. They compose scientific concepts that form a theoretical system to objectively describe, predict, and explain social organization (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35). This requires researchers to understand the subjective view of the social actors they study, and to develop second-order theory based on actors’ subjective meanings. Subjective meaning can be shared with others through language use and communication and is not private knowledge.

A central analytical task for interpretive abduction is creating second-order, ideal-type models of social roles, motives, and interactions that describe the behavioral trajectories of typical actors. Ideal-type models can be objectively compared to one another and are the special devices that social science requires to address differences between social phenomena and natural phenomena (Schutz, 1973a , 1973b ). The models, once built, are refined to preserve actors’ subjective meanings, to be logically consistent, and to present human action from the actor’s point of view. Researchers can then vary and compare the models to observe the different outcomes that emerge. Scientific descriptions can then be produced, and theories can be created. Interpretive abduction (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35) allows one to addresses what, why, and how questions in a holistic manner, to describe relationships among scientific constructs, and to produce “empirically ascertainable” and verifiable relations among concepts (Schutz, 1973b , p. 65) that are logical, hold practical meaning to lay actors, and provide abstract, objective meaning to interpretive scientists (Gephart, 2018 , p. 35). Abduction produces knowledge about socially shared realities by observing interactions, uncovering members’ first-order meanings, and then developing technical second-order or scientific accounts from lay accounts.

Interpretive abduction (Gephart, 2018 ) uses well-developed methods to create, refine, test, and verify second-order models, and it provides well-developed tools to support technical, second-level analyses. Research using the interpretive abduction approach includes a study of how technology change impacts sales automobile practices (Barley, 2015 ) and an investigation study of how abduction was used to develop new prescription drugs (Dunne & Dougherty, 2016 ).

An illustrative example of the interpretive abduction approach . Perlow ( 1997 ) studied time management among software engineers facing a product launch deadline. Past research verified the widespread belief that long working hours for staff are necessary for organizational success. This belief has adversely impacted work life and led to the concept of a “time bind” faced by professionals (Hochschild, 1997 ). One research question that subsequently emerged was, “what underlies ‘the time bind’ experienced by engineers who face constant deadlines and work interruptions?” (Perlow, 1997 , p. xvii). This is an inductive question about the causes and consequences of long working hours not answered in prior research that is hard to address using induction or deduction. Perlow then explored assumption underlying the hypothesis, supported by lay knowledge and management literature, that even if long working hours cause professionals to destroy their life style, long work hours “further the goals of our organizations” and “maximize the corporation’s bottom line” (Perlow, 1997 , p. 2).

The research commenced (Table 5 , step 1) when Perlow gained access to “Ditto,” a leader in implementing flexible work policies (Perlow, 1997 , p. 141) and spent nine months doing participant observation four days a week. Perlow collected descriptive data by walking around to observe and converse with people, attended meetings and social events, interviewed engineers at work and home and spouses at home, asked participants to record activities they undertook on selected working days (Perlow, 1997 , p. 143), and made “thousands of pages of field notes” (p. 146) to uncover trade-offs between work and home life.

Perlow ( 1997 , pp. 146–147) analyzed first-order concepts uncovered through his observations and interviews from 17 stories he wrote for each individual he had studied. The stories described workstyles, family lives, and traits of individuals; provided objective accounts of subjective meanings each held for work and home; offered background information; and highlighted first-order concepts. Similarities and differences in informant accounts were explored with an empirically grounded scheme for coding observations into categories using grounded theory processes (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2012 ). The process allowed Perlow to find key themes in stories that show work patterns and perceptions of the requirements of work success, and to create ideal-type models of workers (step 3). Five stories were selected for detailed analysis because they reveal important themes Perlow ( 1997 , p. 147). For example, second-order, ideal-type models of different “roles” were constructed in step 3 including the “organizational superstar” (pp. 15–21) and “ideal female employee” (pp. 22–32) based on first-order accounts of members. The second-order ideal-type scientific models were refined to include typical motives. The models were compared to one another (step 4) to describe and understand how the actions of these employee types differed from other employee types and how these variations produced different outcomes for each trajectory of action (steps 4 and 5).

Perlow ( 1997 ) found that constant help-seeking led engineers to interrupt other engineers to get solutions to problems. This observation led to the abductively developed hypothesis that interruptions create a time crisis atmosphere for engineers. Perlow ( 1997 ) then created a testable, second-order ideal-type (scientific) model of “the vicious working cycle” (p. 96), developed from first-order data, that explains the productivity problems that the firm (and other research and development firms)—commonly face. Specifically, time pressure → crisis mentality → individual heroics → constant interruptions of others’ work to get help → negative consequences for individual → negative consequences for the organization.

Perlow ( 1997 ) then tested the abductive hypothesis that the vicious work cycle caused productivity problems (stage 5). To do so, the vicious work cycle was transformed into a virtuous cycle using scheduling quiet times to prevent work interruptions: relaxed work atmosphere → individuals focus on own work completion → few interruptions → positive consequences for individual and organization. To test the hypothesis, an experiment was conducted (research process 2 in Table 5 ) with engineers given scheduled quiet times each morning with no interruptions. The experiment was successful: the project deadline was met. The hypothesis about work interruptions and the false belief that long hours are needed for success were supported (design stage 6). Unfortunately, the change was not sustained and engineers reverted to work interruptions when the experiment ended.

There are three additional qualitative approaches used in management research that pursue objectives other than producing empirical findings and developing or testing theories. These include critical theory and research, postmodernism, and change intervention research (see Table 6 ).

The Critical Theory and Research Approach

The term “critical” has many meanings including (a) critiques oriented to uncovering ideological manifestations in social relations (Gephart, 2013 , p. 284); (b) critiques of underlying assumptions of theories; and (c) critique as self-reflection that reflexively encapsulates the investigator (Morrow, 1994 , p. 9). Critical theory and critical management studies bring these conceptions of critical to bear on organizations and employees.

Critical theory and research extend the theories Karl Marx, and the Frankfurt School in Germany (Gephart & Kulicki, 2008 ; Gephart & Pitter, 1995 ; Habermas, 1973 , 1979 ; Morrow, 1994 ; Offe, 1984 , 1985 ). Critical theory and research assume that social science research differs from natural science research because social facts are human creations and social phenomena cannot be controlled as readily as natural phenomena (Gephart, 2013 , p. 284; Morrow, 1994 , p. 9). As a result, critical theory often uses a historical approach to explore issues that arise from the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Critical research explores ongoing changes within capitalist societies and organizations, and analyzes the objective structures that constrain human imagination and action (Morrow, 1994 ). It seeks to uncover the contradictions of advanced capitalism that emerge from the fundamental contradiction of capitalism: owners of capital have the right to appropriate the surplus value created by workers. This basic contradiction produces further contradictions that become sources of workplace oppression and resistance that create labor issues. Thus contradictions reveal how power creates consciousness (Poutanen & Kovalainen, 2010 ). Critical reflection is used to de-reify taken-for-granted structures that create power inequities and to motivate resistance and critique and escape from dominant structures (see Table 6 ).

Critical management studies build on critical theory in sociology. It seeks to transform management and provide alternatives to mainstream theory (Adler, Forbes, & Willmott, 2007 ). The focus is “the social injustice and environmental destruction of the broader social and economic systems” served by conventional, capitalist managers (Adler et al., 2007 , p. 118). Critical management research examines “the systemic corrosion of moral responsibility when any concern for people or for the environment . . . requires justification in terms of its contribution to profitable growth” (p. 4). Critical management studies goes beyond scientific skepticism to undertake a radical critique of socially divisive and environmentally destructive patterns and structures (Adler et al., 2007 , p. 119). These studies use critical reflexivity to uncover reified capitalist structures that allow certain groups to dominate others. Critical reflection is used to de-reify and challenge the facts of social life that are seen as immutable and inevitable (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 , p. 34). The combination of dialogical inquiry, critical reflection, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and data are common in this research (Gephart, 2013 , p. 285). Some researchers use deductive logics to build falsifiable theories while other researchers do grounded theory building (Blaikie, 2010 ). Validity of critical research is assessed as the capability the research has to produce critical reflexivity that comprehends dominant ideologies and transforms repressive structures into democratic processes and institutions (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ).

An illustrative example of critical research . Barker ( 1998 , p. 130) studied “concertive control” in self-managed work teams in a small manufacturing firm. Concertive control refers to how workers collaborate to engage in self-control. Barker sought to understand how control practices in the self-managed team setting, established to allow workers greater control over their work, differed from previous bureaucratic processes. Interviews, observations, and documents were used as data sources. The resultant description of work activities and control shows that rather than allowing workers greater control, the control process enacted by workers themselves became stronger: “The iron cage becomes stronger” and almost invisible “to the workers it incarcerates” (Barker, 1998 , p. 155). This study shows how traditional participant observation methods can be used to uncover and contest reified structures and taken-for-granted truths, and to reveal the hidden managerial interests served.

Postmodern Perspectives

The postmodern perspective (Boje, Gephart, & Thatchenkery, 1996 ) is based in philosophy, the humanities, and literary criticism. Postmodernism, as an era, refers to the historical stage following modernity that evidences a new cultural worldview and style of intellectual production (Boje et al., 1996 ; Jameson, 1991 ; Rosenau, 1992 ). Postmodernism offers a humanistic approach to reconceptualize our experience of the social world in an era where it is impossible to establish any foundational underpinnings for knowledge. The postmodern perspective assumes that realities are contradictory in nature and value-laden (Gephart & Richardson, 2008 ; Rosenau, 1992 , p. 6). It addresses the values and contradictions of contemporary settings, how hidden power operates, and how people are categorized (Gephart, 2013 ). Postmodernism also challenges the idea that scientific research is value free, and asks “whose values are served by research?”

Postmodern essays depart from concerns with systematic, replicable research methods and designs (Calas, 1987 ). They seek instead to explore the values and contradictions of contemporary organizational life (Gephart, 2013 , p. 289). Research reports have the character of essays that seek to reconceptualize how people experience the world (Martin, 1990 ; Rosenau, 1992 ) and to disrupt this experience by producing “reading effects” that unsettle a community (Calas & Smircich, 1991 ).

Postmodernism examines intertextual relations—how texts become embedded in other texts—rather than causal relations. It assumes there are no singular realities or truths, only multiple realities and multiple truths, none of which are superior to other truths (Gephart, 2013 ). Truth is conceived as the outcome of language use in a context where power relations and multiple realities exist.

From a methodological view, postmodern research tends to focus on discourse: texts and talk. Data collection (in so far as it occurs) focuses on records of discourse—texts of spoken and written verbal communication (Fairclough, 1992 ). Use of formal or official records including recordings, texts and transcripts is common. Analytically, scholars tend to use critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992 ), narrative analysis (Czarniawska, 1998 ; Ganzin, Gephart, & Suddaby, 2014 ), rhetorical analysis (Culler, 1982 ; Gephart, 1988 ; McCloskey, 1984 ) and deconstruction (Calais & Smircich, 1991 ; Gephart, 1988 ; Kilduff, 1993 ; Martin, 1990 ) to understand how categories are shaped through language use and come to privilege or subordinate individuals.

Postmodernism challenges models of knowledge production by showing how political discourses produce totalizing categories, showing how categorization is a tool for social control, and attempting to create opportunities for alternative representations of the world. It thus provides a means to uncover and expose discursive features of domination, subordination, and resistance in society (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 2004 ).

An illustrative example of postmodern research . Martin ( 1990 ) deconstructed a conference speech by a company president. The president was so “deeply concerned” about employee well-being and involvement at work that he encouraged a woman manager “to have her Caesarian yesterday” so she could participate in an upcoming product launch. Martin deconstructs the story to reveal the suppression of gender conflict in the dialogue and how this allows gender conflict and subjugation to continue. This research established the existence of important domains of organizational life, such as tacit gender conflict, that have not been adequately addressed and explored the power dynamics therein.

The Organization Development Approach

OD involves a planned and systematic diagnosis and intervention into an organizational system, supported by top management, with the intent of improving the organization’s effectiveness (Beckhard, 1969 ; Palmer, Dunford, & Buchanan, 2017 , p. 282). OD research (termed “clinical research” by Schein, 1987 ) is concerned with changing attitudes and behaviors to instantiate fundamental values in organizations. OD research often follows the general process of action research (Lalonde, 2019 ) that involves working with actors in an organization to help improve the organization. OD research involves a set of stages the OD practitioner (the leader of the intervention) uses: (a) problem identification; (b) consultation between OD practitioner and client; (c) data collection and problem diagnosis; (d) feedback; (e) joint problem diagnosis; (f) joint action planning; (g) change actions; and (h) further data gathering to move recursively to a refined step 1.

An illustrative example of the organization development approach . Numerous OD techniques exist to help organizations change (Palmer et al., 2017 ). The OD approach is illustrated here by the socioeconomic approach to management (SEAM) (Buono & Savall, 2007 ; Savall, 2007 ). SEAM provides a scientific approach to organizational intervention consulting that integrates qualitative information on work practices and employee and customer needs (socio) with quantitative and financial performance measures (economics). The socioeconomic intervention process commences by uncovering dysfunctions that require attention in an organization. SEAM assumes that organizations produce both (a) explicit benefits and costs and (b) hidden benefits and costs. Hidden costs refer to economic implications of organizational dysfunctions (Worley, Zardet, Bonnet, & Savall, 2015 , pp. 28–29). These include problems in working conditions; work organization; communication, co-ordination, and co-operation; time management; integrated training; and strategy implementation (Savall, Zardet, & Bonnet, 2008 , p. 33). Explicit costs are emphasized in management decision-making but hidden costs are ignored. Yet hidden costs from dysfunctions often greatly outstrip explicit costs.

For example, a fishing company sought to protect its market share by reducing the price and quality of products, leading to the purchase of poor-quality fish (Savall et al., 2008 , pp. 31–32). This reduced visible costs by €500,000. However, some customers stopped purchasing because of the lower-quality product, producing a loss of sales of €4,000,000 in revenue or an overall drop in economic performance of €3,500,000. The managers then changed their strategy to focus on health and quality. They implemented the SEAM approach, assessed the negative impact of the hidden costs on value added and revenue received, and purchased higher-quality fish. Visible costs (expenses) increased by €1,000,000 due to the higher cost for a better-quality product, but the improved quality (performance) cut the hidden costs by increasing loyalty and increased sales by €5,000,000 leaving an increased profit of €4,000,000.

SEAM allows organizations to uncover hidden costs in their operations and to convert these costs into value-added human potential through a process termed “qualimetrics.” Qualimetrics assesses the nature of hidden costs and organizational dysfunctions, develops estimates of the frequencies and amounts of hidden costs in specific organizational domains, and develops actions to reduce the hidden costs and thereby release additional value added for the organization (Savall & Zardet, 2011 ). The qualimetric process is participative and involves researchers who use observations, interviews and focus groups of employees to (a) describe, qualitatively, the dysfunctions experienced at work (qualitative data); (b) estimate the frequencies with which dysfunctions occur (quantitative data); and (c) estimate the costs of each dysfunction (financial data). Then, strategic change actions are developed to (a) identify ways to reduce or overcome the dysfunction, (b) estimate how frequently the dysfunction can be remedied, and (c) estimate the overall net costs of removing the hidden costs to enhance value added. The economic balance is then assessed for changes to transform the hidden costs into value added.

OD research creates actionable knowledge from practice (Lalonde, 2019 ). OD intervention consultants use multistep processes to change organizations that are flexible practices not fixed research designs. OD plays an important role in developing evidence-based practices to improve organizational functioning and performance. Worley et al. ( 2015 ) provide a detailed example of the large-scale implementation of the SEAM OD approach in a large, international firm.

Here we discuss implication of qualitative research designs for covert research, reporting qualitative work and novel integrations of qualitative and quantitative work.

Covert Research

University ethics boards require researchers who undertake research with human participants to obtain informed consent from the participants. Consent requires that all participants must be informed of details of the research procedure in which they will be involved and any risks of participation. Researchers must protect subjects’ identities, offer safeguards to limit risks, and insure informant anonymity. This consent must be obtained in the form of a signed agreement from the participant, obtained prior to the commencement of research observations (McCurdy et al., 2005 , pp. 29–32).

Covert research that fails to fully disclose research purposes or practices to participants, or that is otherwise deceptive by design or tacit practice, has long been considered “suspect” in the field (Graham, 1995 ; Roulet, Gill, Stenger, & Gill, 2017 ). This is changing. Research methodologists have shown that the over/covert dimension is a continuum, not a dichotomy, and that unintended covert elements occur in many situations (Roulet et al., 2017 ). Thus all qualitative observation involves some degree of deception due practical constraints on doing observations since it is difficult to do fully overt research, particularly in observational contexts with many people, and to gain advance consent from everyone in the organization one might encounter.

There are compelling benefits to covert research. It can provide insights not possible if subjects are fully informed of the nature or existence of the research. For example, the year-long, covert observational study of an asylum as a “total institution” (Goffman, 1961 ) showed how ineffective the treatment of mental illness was at the time. This opened the field of mental health to social science research (Roulet et al., 2017 , p. 493). Covert research can also provide access to institutions that researchers would otherwise be excluded from, including secretive and secret organizations (p. 492). This could allow researchers to collect data as an insider and to better see and experience the world from members’ perspective. It could also reduce “researcher demand effects” that occur when informants obscure their normal behavior to conform to research expectations. Thus, the inclusion of covert research data collection in research designs and proposals is an emerging trend and realistic possibility. Ethics applications can be developed that allow for aspects of covert research, and observations in many public settings do not require informed consent.

The Appropriate Style for Reporting Qualitative Work

The appropriate style for reporting qualitative research has become an issue of concern. For example, editors of the influential Academy of Management Journal have noted the emergence of an “AMJ style” for qualitative work (Bansal & Corley, 2011 , p. 234). They suggest that all qualitative work should use this style so that qualitative research can “benefit” from: “decades of refinement in the style of quantitative work.” The argument is that most scholars can assess the empirical and theoretical contributions of quantitative work but find it difficult to do so for qualitative research. It is easier for quantitatively trained editors and scholars “to spot the contribution of qualitative work that mimics the style of quantitative research.” Further, “the majority of papers submitted to . . . AMJ tend to subscribe to the paradigm of normal science that aims to find relationships among valid constructs that can be replicated by anyone” (Bansal, Smith, & Vaara, 2018 , p. 1193). These recommendations appear to explicitly encourage the reporting of qualitative results as if they were quantitatively produced and interpreted and highlights the advantage of conformity to the prevailing positivist perspective to gain publication in AMJ.

Yet AMJ editors have also called for researchers to “ensure that the research questions, data, and analysis are internally consistent ” (Bansal et al., 2018 , p. 1193) and to “Be authentic , detailed and clear in argumentation” (emphasis added) (Bansal et al., 2018 , p. 1193). These calls for consistency appear to be inconsistent with suggestions to present all qualitative research using a style that mimics quantitative, positivist research. Adopting the quantitative or positivist style for all qualitative reports may also confuse scholars, limit research quality, and hamper efforts to produce innovative, non-positivist research. This article provides six qualitative research designs to ensure a range of qualitative research publications are internally consistent in methods, logics, paradigmatic commitments, and writing styles. These designs provide alternatives to positivist mimicry in non-positivist scholarly texts.

Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research in New Ways

Qualitative research often omits consideration of the naturally occurring uses of numbers and statistics in everyday discourse. And quantitative researchers tend to ignore qualitative evidence such as stories and discourse. Yet knowledge production processes in society “rely on experts and laypeople and, in so doing, make use of both statistics and stories in their attempt to represent and understand social reality” (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 , p. 1649). Numbers and statistics are often used in stories to create legitimacy, and stories provide meaning to numbers (Gephart, 1988 ). Hence stories and statistics cannot be separated in processes of knowledge production (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 , p. 1697). The lack of attention to the role of quantification in everyday life means a huge domain of organizational discourse—all talk that uses numbers, quantities, and statistics—is largely unexplored in organizational research.

Qualitative research has, however, begun to study how words and numbers are mutually used for organizational storytelling (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 ; Gephart, 2016 ). This focus offers the opportunity to develop research designs to explore qualitative features and processes involved in quantitative phenomena such as financial crises (Gephart, 2016 ), to address how stories and numbers need to work together to create legitimate knowledge (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2012 ), and to show how statistics are used rhetorically to convince others of truths in organizational research (Gephart, 1988 ).

Ethnostatistics (Gephart, 1988 ; Gephart & Saylors, 2019 ) provides one example of how to integrate qualitative and quantitative research. Ethnostatistics examines how statistics are constructed and used by professionals. It explores how statistics are constructed in real settings, how violations of technical assumptions impact statistical outcomes, and how statistics are used rhetorically to convince others of the truth of research outcomes. Ethnostatistics has been used to reinterpret data from four celebrated network studies that themselves were reanalyzed (Kilduff & Oh, 2006 ). The ethnostatistical reanalyses revealed how ad hoc practices, including judgment calls and the imputation of new data into old data set for reanalysis, transformed the focus of network research from diffusion models to structural equivalence models.

Another innovative study uses a Bayesian ethnostatistical approach to understand how the pressure to produce sophisticated and increasingly complex theoretical narratives for causal models has impacted the quantitative knowledge generated in top journals (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 ). The use of complex causal models has increased substantially over time due to a qualitative and untested belief that complex models are true. Yet statistically speaking, as the number of variables in a model increase, the likelihood the model is true rapidly decreases (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 , p. 3).

The authors test the previously untested (qualitative) belief that complex causal models can be true. They found that “the joint probability of a six variable model is about 3.5%” (Saylors & Trafimow, 2020 , p. 1). They conclude that “much of the knowledge generated in top journals is likely false” hence “not reporting a (prior) belief in a complex model” should be relegated to the set of questionable research practices. This study shows how qualitative research that explores the lay theories and beliefs of statisticians and quantitative researchers can challenge and disrupt conventions in quantitative research, improve quantitative practices, and contribute qualitative foundations to quantitative research. Ethnostatistics thus opens the qualitative foundations of quantitative research to critical qualitative analyses.

The six qualitative research design processes discussed in this article are evident in scholarly research on organizations and management and provide distinct qualitative research designs and approaches to use. Qualitative research can provide research insights from several theoretical perspectives, using well-developed methods to produce scientific and scholarly insights into management and organizations. These approaches and designs can also inform management practice by creating actionable knowledge. The intended contribution of this article is to describe these well-developed methods, articulate key practices, and display core research designs. The hope is both to better equip researchers to do qualitative research, and to inspire them to do so.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Karen Lund at The University of Alberta for carefully preparing Figure 1 . Thanks also to Beverly Zubot for close reading of the manuscript and helpful suggestions.

• Adler, P. A. , & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly , 401–417.
• Adler, P. A. , & Adler, P. (1998). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Adler, P. S. , Forbes, L. C. , & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. Academy of Management Annals , 1 (1), 119–180.
• Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography . New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Ainsworth, S. , & Hardy, C. (2012). Subjects of inquiry: Statistics, stories, and the production of knowledge. Organization Studies , 33 (12), 1693–1714.
• Akeson, C. (2005). Getting the truth: The police detective and the art of interviewing. In D. W. McCurdy , J. P. Spradley , & D. J. Shandy (Eds.), The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society (2nd ed., pp. 103–111). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• Avenier, M.-J. , & Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks. Systèmes d’information & Management , 20 (1), 61–98.
• Bansal, P. , & Corley, K. (2011). From the editors—The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal , 54 (2), 233–237.
• Bansal, P. , Smith, W. K. , & Vaara, E. (2018). From the editors: New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal , 61 (4), 1189–1195.
• Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 38 (3), 408–437.
• Barker, J. (1998). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. 126–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Barley, S. R. (2015). Why the internet makes buying a car less loathsome: How technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries , 1 (1), 31–60.
• Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York, NY: Doubleday.
• Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science . Sussex: Harvester Press; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Bitektine, A. (2008). Prospective case study design: Qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (1), 160–180.
• Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational and communication research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. , Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Thatchenkery, T. J. (Eds.). (1996). Postmodern management and organization theory . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Boje, D. M. , & Saylors, R. (2014). Quantum storytelling: An ontological perspective on process. In F. Cooren , E. Vaara , A. Langley , & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing (pp. 197–217). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Buono, A. F. , & Savall, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socio-economic intervention in organizations: The intervener-researcher and the SEAM approach to organizational analysis . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Burrell, G. , & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life . London, UK: Heinemann.
• Calás, M. B. (1987). Organizational science/fiction: The postmodern in the management disciplines (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Calás, M. B. , & Smircich, L. (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies , 12 (4), 567–601.
• Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies , 8 (2), 178–193.
• Cicourel, A. V. (1980). Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes , 3 (2), 101–132.
• Cole, R. E. (1985). The macropolitics of organizational change: A comparative analysis of the spread of small-group activities. Administrative Science Quarterly , 30 (4), 560–585.
• Coulon, A. (1995). Ethnomethodology . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Culler, J. (1982). On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Cummings, T. G. , & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Retelling tales of the field: In search of organizational ethnography 20 years on. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (2), 224–239.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods , 14 (4), 647–673.
• Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• de Rond, M. , & Tuncalp, D. (2017). Where the wild things are: How dreams can help identify countertransference in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods , 20 (3), 413–437.
• Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 1–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Dunne, D. D. , & Dougherty, D. (2016). Abductive reasoning: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex innovation. Organization Studies , 37 (2), 131–159.
• Duriau, V. J. , Reger, R. K. , & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods , 10 (1), 5–34.
• Dutton, J. E. , Workman, K. M. , & Hardin, A. E. (2014). Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 1 (1), 277–304.
• Easterby-Smith, M. , Thorpe, R. , & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Ganzin, M. , Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Suddaby, R. (2014). Narrative and the construction of myths in organizations. In F. Cooren , E. Vaara , A. Langley , & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing (pp. 219–260). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems , 11 (3), 225–250.
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1978). Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly , 23 (4), 553–581.
• Gephart, R. P. (1986). Deconstructing the defense for quantification in social science: A content analysis of journal articles on the parametric strategy. Qualitative Sociology , 9 (2), 126–144.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1988). Ethnostatistics: Qualitative foundations for quantitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal , 36 (6), 1465–1514.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1997). Hazardous measures: An interpretive textual analysis of quantitative sensemaking during crises. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18 (S1), 583–622.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal . Academy of Management Journal , 47 (4), 454–462.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2013). Doing research with words: Qualitative methodologies and industrial/organizational psychology. In J. M. Cortina & R. S. Landis (Eds.), Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizations (pp. 265–317). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2016). Counter-narration with numbers: Understanding the interplay of words and numerals in fiscal storytelling. European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and Management , 4 (1), 21–40.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2018). Qualitative research as interpretive social science. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 33–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Kulicki, M. (2008). Environmental ethics and business: Toward a Habermasian perspective. In D. M. Boje (Ed.), Critical theory ethics for business and public administration (pp. 373–393). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Pitter, R. (1995). Textual analysis in technology research: An investigation of the management of technology risk. Technology Studies , 2 (2), 325–354.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Richardson, J. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies and international human resource management. In M. M. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 29–52). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , & Saylors, R. (2019). Ethnostatistics . In P. Atkinson , S. Delamont , A. Cernat , J. W. Sakshaug , & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Gephart, R. P., Jr. , Topal, C. , & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, & organizing (pp. 275–311). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Gibbert, M. , & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (4), 710–737.
• Gill, G. J. (2017). Dynamics of democratization: Elites, civil society and the transition process . New York, NY: Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Gioia, D. A. , Corley, K. G. , & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods , 16 (1), 15–31.
• Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Graham, L. (1995). On the line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese model and the American worker . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Greckhamer, T. , Misangyi, V. F. , Elms, H. , & Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (4), 695–726.
• Greenwood, M. , Jack, G. , & Haylock, B. (2019). Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports. Organizational Research Methods , 22 (3), 798–827.
• Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimation crisis ( T. McCarthy , Trans.). Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
• Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society ( T. McCarthy , Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Hansen, H. , & Trank, C. Q. (2016). This is going to hurt: Compassionate research methods. Organizational Research Methods , 19 (3), 352–375.
• Hassard, J. (1993). Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work . New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
• Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 393–402). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Holstein, J. A. , & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Kelle, U. (Ed.). (1995). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and practice . London, UK: SAGE.
• Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review , 18 (1), 13–31.
• Kilduff, M. , & Oh, H. (2006). Deconstructing diffusion: An ethnostatistical examination of Medical Innovation network data reanalyses. Organizational Research Methods , 9 (4), 432–455.
• Kirk, J. , & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Lalonde, C. (2019). The development of actionable knowledge in crisis management. In R. P. Gephart, Jr. , C. C. Miller , & K. Svedberg Helgesson (Eds.), The Routledge companion to risk, crisis and emergency management (pp. 431–446). New York, NY: Routledge.
• LeBaron, C. , Jarzabkowski, P. , Pratt, M. G. , & Fetzer, G. (2018). An introduction to video methods in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods , 21 (2), 239–260.
• Lee, T. W. , & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review , 19 (1), 51–89.
• Lee, T. W. , Mitchell, T. R. , & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 55 (2), 161–187.
• Lee, T. W. , Mitchell, T. R. , Wise, L. , & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (1), 5–36.
• Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach to qualitative research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 17–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Locke, K. , & Golden-Biddle, K. (2004). An introduction to qualitative research: Its potential for industrial and organizational psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 99–118). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet , 358 (9280), 483–488.
• Maniha, J. , & Perrow, C. (1965). The reluctant organization and the aggressive environment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 10 (2), 238–257.
• Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science , 1 (4), 339–359.
• McCall, G. J. , & Simmons, J. L. (1969). (Eds.). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• McCloskey, H. J. (1984). Ecological ethics and politics .Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
• McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics (1st ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• McCurdy, D. , Spradley, J. , & Shandy, D. (2005). The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• McLeod, S. A. (2014, February 5). The interview research method . Simply Psychology.
• Mills, A. J. , Durepos, G. , & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Morrow, R. A. (with Brown, D. D. ). (1994). Critical theory and methodology (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Offe, C. (1984). Das Wachstum der Dienstleistungsarbeit: Vier soziologische Erklärungsansätze. In C. Offe (Ed.), Arbeitsgeselleschaft. Strukturprobleme und Zukunftsperspektiven (pp. 291–319). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.
• Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research , 52 (4), 817–868.
• Palmer, I. , Dunford, R. , & Buchanan, D. A. (2017). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Perlow, L. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from new work practices . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Piekkari, R. , & Welch, C. (2012). Pluralism in international business and international management research: Making the case. In R. Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.), Rethinking the case study in international business and management research (pp. 3–23). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Peirce, C. S. (1936). The Collected Papers . Eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss . Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press.
• Pollach, I. (2012). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods , 15 (2), 263–287.
• Poutanen, S. , & Kovalainen, A. (2010). Critical theory. In A. J. Mills , G. Durepos , & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1, pp. 260–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal , 52 (5), 856–862.
• Ray, J. L. , & Smith, A. D. (2012). Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods , 15 (2), 288–315.
• Richardson, J. , & McKenna, S. (2000). Metaphorical “types” and human resource management: Self-selecting expatriates. Industrial and Commercial Training , 32 (6), 209–218.
• Rodriguez, N. , & Ryave, A. (2002). Systematic self-observation . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Rodriguez, N. , Ryave, A. , & Tracewell, J. (1998). Withholding compliments in everyday life and the covert management of disaffiliation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 27 (3), 323–345.
• Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rosile, G. A. , Boje, D. M. , Carlon, D. M. , Downs, A. , & Saylors, R. (2013). Storytelling diamond: An antenarrative integration of the six facets of storytelling in organization research design. Organizational Research Methods , 16 (4), 557–580.
• Roulet, T. J. , Gill, M. J. , Stenger, S. , & Gill, D. J. (2017). Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organizational Research Methods , 20 (3), 487–517.
• Rynes, S. L. , Bretz, R. D. , & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology , 44 (3), 487–521.
• Savall, H. (2007). ISEOR’s socio-economic method: A case of scientific consultancy. In A. F. Buono & H. Savall (Eds.), Socio-economic intervention in organizations: The intervener-researcher and the SEAM approach to organizational analysis (pp. 1–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Savall, H. , & Zardet, V. (2011). The qualimetrics approach: Observing the complex object . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Savall, H. , Zardet, V. , & Bonnet, M. (2008). Releasing the untapped potential of enterprises through socio-economic management . Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
• Saylors, R. , & Trafimow, D. (2020). Why the increasing use of complex causal models is a problem: On the danger sophisticated theoretical narratives pose to truth . Organizational Research Methods , 1094428119893452.
• Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Schutz, A. (1973a). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers, volume I: The problem of social reality (pp. 3–47). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Schutz, A. (1973b). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers, volume I: The problem of social reality (pp. 48–66). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Smith, A. (2015). What grounded theory is . . . Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4), 578–580.
• Sonpar, K. , & Golden-Biddle, K. (2008). Using content analysis to elaborate adolescent theories of organization. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (4), 795–814.
• Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation . Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
• Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Su, N. (2018). Positivist qualitative methods. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 17–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization , 32 (4), 407–418.
• Van Maanen, J. (1981, March). Fieldwork on the beat: An informal introduction to organizational ethnography . Paper presented at the workshop on Innovations in Methodology for Organizational Research, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
• Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Van Maanen, J. (1998). Different strokes: Qualitative research on the Administrative Science Quarterly from 1956 to 1996. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. ix–xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Van Maanen, J. (2010). A song for my supper: More tales of the field. Organizational Research Methods , 13 (2), 240–255.
• Walsh, I. , Holton, J. A. , Bailyn, L. , Fernandez, W. , Levina, N. , & Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is . . . A critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (4), 581–599.
• Watson, T. J. (1994) . In search of management: Culture, chaos, and control in managerial work . London, UK: Routledge.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Whittle, A. (2018). Ethnomethodology. In C. Cassell , A. L. Cunliffe , & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 217–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Worley, C. G. , Zardet, V. , Bonnet, M. , & Savall, A. (2015). Becoming agile: How the SEAM approach to management builds adaptability . Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
• Yan, A. , & Gray, B. (1994). Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures: A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal , 37 (6), 1478–1517.
• Ybema, S. , Yanow, D. , Wels, H. , & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

1. The fourth logic is retroduction. This refers to the process of building hypothetical models of structures and mechanisms that are assumed to produce empirical phenomena. It is the primary logic used in the critical realist approach to scientific research (Avenier & Thomas, 2015 ; Bhaskar, 1978 ). Retroduction requires the use of inductive or abductive strategies to discover the mechanisms that explain regularities (Blaikie, 2010 , p. 87). There is no evident logic for discovering mechanisms and this requires disciplined scientific thinking aided by creative imagination, intuition, and guesswork (Blaikie, 2010 ). Retroduction is likr deduction in asking “what” questions and differs from abduction because it produces explanations rather than understanding, causes rather than reasons, and hypothetical conceptual mechanisms rather than descriptions of behavioral processes as outcomes. Retroduction is becoming important in the field but has not as yet been extensively used in management and organization studies (for examples of uses, see Avenier & Thomas, 2015 ); hence, we do not address it at length in this article.

Related Articles

• Agency Theory in Business and Management Research
• Assessing the State of Top Management Teams Research
• Case Study Research: A State-of-the-Art Perspective
• Advances in Team Creativity Research

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 27 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

Character limit 500 /500

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Research in Business and Management

• Emma Bell - Open University, UK
• Hugh Willmott - Cardiff Business School, UK
• Description

Over the past few decades, qualitative research in management and business has expanded rapidly. Business and management is set to become - if it is not already - the dominant field within the domain of qualitative research. It is therefore vital that students and scholars are well-informed about exemplary contributions to, methods employed by, and issues, challenges, debates faced by qualitative researchers in this field. This four-volume collection is designed to provide a set of authoritative sources capable of facilitating the development of knowledge and understanding.  The collection provides an Introduction written by the editors, which contextualises and guides readers through the selection. Volume One: Classical and Contemporary Studies Volume Two: Methods, Approaches, Techniques: Guides and Exemplars Volume Three: Practices and Preoccupations Volume Four: Challenges and Prospects

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Enlightening, provocative, argumentative, and formidably perceptive, this collection conveys the richness and complexity of organizational life while also holding the keys to its amelioration. While qualitative research studies in organization and management may still be outnumbered by their quantitative counterparts, we can see here how and why they hold the upper hand in transforming theory and practice.

Emma Bell and Hugh Willmott have put together four volumes of historically rich, analytically inclusive and vivid accounts of carrying out qualitative research in business and management settings. The volumes take readers through canonical, classic works to significant contemporary developments – in both theory and method – reflecting the changing organizational contexts in which current research is set. The editors provide a thoughtful introduction and guide to the materials. This is without doubt the most comprehensive and broad treatment of qualitative research I have ever encountered. It will have a long shelf life, deservedly so.

Preview this book

Select a purchasing option, related products.

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories
• Artificial Intelligence

Market Research

• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Business Research

Try Qualtrics for free

Business research: definition, types & methods.

10 min read What is business research and why does it matter? Here are some of the ways business research can be helpful to your company, whichever method you choose to carry it out.

What is business research?

Business research helps companies make better business decisions by gathering information. The scope of the term business research is quite broad – it acts as an umbrella that covers every aspect of business, from finances to advertising creative. It can include research methods which help a company better understand its target market. It could focus on customer experience and assess customer satisfaction levels. Or it could involve sizing up the competition through competitor research.

Often when carrying out business research, companies are looking at their own data, sourced from their employees, their customers and their business records. However, business researchers can go beyond their own company in order to collect relevant information and understand patterns that may help leaders make informed decisions. For example, a business may carry out ethnographic research where the participants are studied in the context of their everyday lives, rather than just in their role as consumer, or look at secondary data sources such as open access public records and empirical research carried out in academic studies.

There is also a body of knowledge about business in general that can be mined for business research purposes. For example organizational theory and general studies on consumer behavior.

Free eBook: 2024 global market research trends report

Why is business research important?

We live in a time of high speed technological progress and hyper-connectedness. Customers have an entire market at their fingertips and can easily switch brands if a competitor is offering something better than you are. At the same time, the world of business has evolved to the point of near-saturation. It’s hard to think of a need that hasn’t been addressed by someone’s innovative product or service.

The combination of ease of switching, high consumer awareness and a super-evolved marketplace crowded with companies and their offerings means that businesses must do whatever they can to find and maintain an edge. Business research is one of the most useful weapons in the fight against business obscurity, since it allows companies to gain a deep understanding of buyer behavior and stay up to date at all times with detailed information on their market.

Thanks to the standard of modern business research tools and methods, it’s now possible for business analysts to track the intricate relationships between competitors, financial markets, social trends, geopolitical changes, world events, and more.

Find out how to conduct your own market research and make use of existing market research data with our Ultimate guide to market research

Types of business research

Business research methods vary widely, but they can be grouped into two broad categories – qualitative research and quantitative research .

Qualitative research methods

Qualitative business research deals with non-numerical data such as people’s thoughts, feelings and opinions. It relies heavily on the observations of researchers, who collect data from a relatively small number of participants – often through direct interactions.

Qualitative research interviews take place one-on-one between a researcher and participant. In a business context, the participant might be a customer, a supplier, an employee or other stakeholder. Using open-ended questions , the researcher conducts the interview in either a structured or unstructured format. Structured interviews stick closely to a question list and scripted phrases, while unstructured interviews are more conversational and exploratory. As well as listening to the participant’s responses, the interviewer will observe non-verbal information such as posture, tone of voice and facial expression.

Focus groups

Like the qualitative interview, a focus group is a form of business research that uses direct interaction between the researcher and participants to collect data. In focus groups , a small number of participants (usually around 10) take part in a group discussion led by a researcher who acts as moderator. The researcher asks questions and takes note of the responses, as in a qualitative research interview. Sampling for focus groups is usually purposive rather than random, so that the group members represent varied points of view.

Observational studies

In an observational study, the researcher may not directly interact with participants at all, but will pay attention to practical situations, such as a busy sales floor full of potential customers, or a conference for some relevant business activity. They will hear people speak and watch their interactions , then record relevant data such as behavior patterns that relate to the subject they are interested in. Observational studies can be classified as a type of ethnographic research. They can be used to gain insight about a company’s target audience in their everyday lives, or study employee behaviors in actual business situations.

Ethnographic Research

Ethnographic research is an immersive design of research where one observes peoples’ behavior in their natural environment. Ethnography was most commonly found in the anthropology field and is now practices across a wide range of social sciences.

Ehnography is used to support a designer’s deeper understanding of the design problem – including the relevant domain, audience(s), processes, goals and context(s) of use.

The ethnographic research process is a popular methodology used in the software development lifecycle. It helps create better UI/UX flow based on the real needs of the end-users.

If you truly want to understand your customers’ needs, wants, desires, pain-points “walking a mile” in their shoes enables this. Ethnographic research is this deeply rooted part of research where you truly learn your targe audiences’ problem to craft the perfect solution.

Case study research

A case study is a detailed piece of research that provides in depth knowledge about a specific person, place or organization. In the context of business research, case study research might focus on organizational dynamics or company culture in an actual business setting, and case studies have been used to develop new theories about how businesses operate. Proponents of case study research feel that it adds significant value in making theoretical and empirical advances. However its detractors point out that it can be time consuming and expensive, requiring highly skilled researchers to carry it out.

Quantitative research methods

Quantitative research focuses on countable data that is objective in nature. It relies on finding the patterns and relationships that emerge from mass data – for example by analyzing the material posted on social media platforms, or via surveys of the target audience. Data collected through quantitative methods is empirical in nature and can be analyzed using statistical techniques. Unlike qualitative approaches, a quantitative research method is usually reliant on finding the right sample size, as this will determine whether the results are representative. These are just a few methods – there are many more.

Surveys are one of the most effective ways to conduct business research. They use a highly structured questionnaire which is distributed to participants, typically online (although in the past, face to face and telephone surveys were widely used). The questions are predominantly closed-ended, limiting the range of responses so that they can be grouped and analyzed at scale using statistical tools. However surveys can also be used to get a better understanding of the pain points customers face by providing open field responses where they can express themselves in their own words. Both types of data can be captured on the same questionnaire, which offers efficiency of time and cost to the researcher.

Correlational research

Correlational research looks at the relationship between two entities, neither of which are manipulated by the researcher. For example, this might be the in-store sales of a certain product line and the proportion of female customers subscribed to a mailing list. Using statistical analysis methods, researchers can determine the strength of the correlation and even discover intricate relationships between the two variables. Compared with simple observation and intuition, correlation may identify further information about business activity and its impact, pointing the way towards potential improvements and more revenue.

Experimental research

It may sound like something that is strictly for scientists, but experimental research is used by both businesses and scholars alike. When conducted as part of the business intelligence process, experimental research is used to test different tactics to see which ones are most successful – for example one marketing approach versus another. In the simplest form of experimental research, the researcher identifies a dependent variable and an independent variable. The hypothesis is that the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable, and the researcher will change the independent one to test this assumption. In a business context, the hypothesis might be that price has no relationship to customer satisfaction. The researcher manipulates the price and observes the C-Sat scores to see if there’s an effect.

The best tools for business research

You can make the business research process much quicker and more efficient by selecting the right tools. Business research methods like surveys and interviews demand tools and technologies that can store vast quantities of data while making them easy to access and navigate. If your system can also carry out statistical analysis, and provide predictive recommendations to help you with your business decisions, so much the better.

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

• Show search form Hide search form
• Quick links
• Staff search
• Search Search --> Websites Staff search Start search

Qualitative Research in International Business

Qualitative research (e.g. case study, interviews, ethnography, visual inquiry) permits to analyze events “from the inside out”, allowing a conceptualization from the standpoints of the actors at work. Qualitative research, with its emphasis on precise and ‘thick’ descriptions, captures the complex nature of rich life experiences and yields a nuanced understanding of social realities, drawing attention to processes, meaning patterns and structural features.

In the field of International Business, qualitative research is thus appropriate for opening the “black box” of organisational processes, helping to explore “how” and “why” firms internationalise. Qualitative studies indeed play a critical role to interpret and understand in depth the complex plurality of contexts- e.g. spatial, temporal, cultural, institutional, geographic and economic – that organisations encounter when operating beyond domestic borders. It is interesting to explore on how qualitative research can move the field of International Business forward by building, enriching and testing relevant theories.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Neurol Res Pract

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto.

1 Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

2 Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Gumbinger

Associated data.

Not applicable.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig.  1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig.  2 .

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig.  3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. ​ Fig.2, 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig.  4 .

Three common mixed methods designs

In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table ​ Table1. 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Exploring Strategies for Scaling Digital Transformation Business Models Innovation at the Enterprise Level for Sustainable Competitive Growth

• Dr Jodine Burchell
• Dr Tammy Corcoran

How to Cite

Download citation.

Digital transformation strategy (DTS) is a powerful concept that can be utilized throughout the digital transformation business model innovation of a construction industry business. The purpose of this pragmatic qualitative inquiry is to explore strategies construction industry business leaders adopt to scale innovative digital transformation business models for gaining sustainable competitive growth in the construction industry. Qualitative interviews (n = 10) were conducted with construction industry business leaders representing early and recent adopters of digital transformation of business model innovation practices. Interview data were analyzed by examining how digital transformation strategy is applied to scaling digital transformation business models in the Australian construction industry at the enterprise level to gain sustainable competitive growth. The results revealed that digital transformation strategy is widely mentioned among construction industry business leaders; Australian construction industry business leader's perceptions of digital strategy are relatively positive; there are distinctive views on the challenges and opportunities of utilizing digital transformation strategy while applying innovative digital business model; application of digital transformation strategy to scaling innovative digital business model to process, people and technology, and organizational excellence, performance, and growth are the most common prospects; and uncertainty, readiness, data management, and lack of capabilities are the most common digital transformation strategy to business model innovation challenges. The findings of this study may help construction industry business leaders understand the positive impact of utilizing digital transformation to business model innovation while applying digital transformation to business model innovation for gaining sustainable competitive organizational growth. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Copyright (c) 2024 Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal

Qualitative Research Applied to Organisations. An Approach to Business Reality

• Conference paper
• First Online: 17 November 2021
• Cite this conference paper

• Romel Ramón González-Díaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7529-8847 6 , 7 ,
• Cecilia Margarita Lugo-Báez 6 , 7 ,
• Yurkyna Xiomara Medina-Patron 6 , 7 ,
• Roxana Janette Valdez-Rodríguez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5774-1382 6 , 7 ,
• Daniela Uriarte-Soto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6210-8506 6 , 7 &
• Yanira Soledad Díaz Moreno   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0984-1151 6 , 7  

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 256))

1151 Accesses

This study aims to analyse the application of qualitative research in business organisations. For this purpose, a documentary analysis was applied and 5 most cited SAGE Publishing 2017 Publications in 2010 were selected. The analysis consisted of two phases: Phase 1 structuring of main and secondary ideas. Phase 2. Analysis of contributions according to the following approaches: Ontological Approach, Epistemological Approach and Methodological Approach. For this purpose, the Atlas.ti9 software was used to determine the points of convergence between the approaches and authors. The main findings show that qualitative research in organisational studies presents ontological weaknesses in terms of onto-epistemic positioning and priority is given to the methodological approach. Likewise, it is recommended to broaden the field of action of such research under this methodology, to take advantage of pluralism for the construction of theories and methodological contributions that help the study of the social phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

The one who sees more is more right: how theory enhances the ‘repertoire to interpret’ in qualitative case study research.

Paradigms in Qualitative IB Research: Trends, Analysis and Recommendations

Hernández-Royett, J., González-Díaz, R.R.: Enfoques de investigación en la contabilidad. Estrategia 2 (1), 87–100 (2016)

Google Scholar  

Gurdián Fernández, A.: El paradigma cualitativo en la investigación socio educativa (2010)

Guba, E., Lincoln, Y: Paradigmas en competencia en la investigación cualitativa. Por los rincones. Antología de métodos cualitativos en la investigación social, pp. 113–145, (2002)

Chen, Y., Mandler, T., Meyer-Waarden, L.: Three decades of research on loyalty programs: a literature review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 124 , 179–197. 2021/01/01/ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.057

Kolotylo-Kulkarni, M., Xia, W., Dhillon, G.: Information disclosure in e-commerce: A systematic review and agenda for future research. J. Bus. Res. 126 , 221–238. 2021/03/01/ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.006

Vlačić, B., Corbo, L., Costa e Silva, S., Dabić, M.: The evolving role of artificial intelligence in marketing: a review and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 128 , 187–203. 2021/05/01/ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.055

Lindgreen, A., Di Benedetto, C.A., Thornton, S.C., Geersbro, J.: Editorial: qualitative research in business marketing management. Indus. Market. Manag. 2021/03/04/ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.02.001

Park, K.: Book review: handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. J. Int. Manag. 12 (3), 379–382, 2006/09/01/ (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2006.06.006

Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, R., Penttinen, H., Tahvanainen, M.: Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research. Int. Bus. Rev. 11 (5), 611–628, 2002/10/01/ (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00039-2

Agarwal, S., Lenka, U., Singh, K., Agrawal, V., Agrawal, A.M.: A qualitative approach towards crucial factors for sustainable development of women social entrepreneurship: Indian cases. J. Cleaner Prod. 274 , 123135, 2020/11/20/ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123135

Osman, M., Abokersh, M.H., El-Baz, O., Sharaf, O., Mahmoud, N., El-Morsi, M.: Key performance indicators (KPIs): Assessing the process integration of a shell-and-tube latent heat storage unit. J. Cleaner Prod. 256 , 120249, 2020/05/20/ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120249

Zeidan, R., Van Holt, T., Whelan, T.: Existence inductive theory building to study coordination failures in sustainable beef production. J. Cleaner Prod. 267 , 122137, 2020/09/10/ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122137

Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research (2005)

Savall, H., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., Peron, M.: The emergence of implicit criteria actually used by reviewers of qualitative research articles: case of a European Journal. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (3), 510–540, 2008/07/01 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308855

Amis, J.M., Silk, M.L.: The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (3), 456–480, 2008/07/01 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300341

Pratt, M.G.: Fitting oval pegs into round holes: tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American Journals. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (3), 481–509, 2008/07/01 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303349

Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K., Locke, K.: Working with pluralism. Organ. Res. Methods—ORGAN RES METHODS 11 , 419–429, 08/08 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108315858

Fendt, J., Sachs, W.: Grounded theory method in management research: users’ perspectives. Organ. Res. Methods 11 (3), 430–455, 2008/07/01 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106297812

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage (2008)

González-Díaz, R., Acevedo-Duque, Á., Salazar-Sepúlveda, G., Castillo, D.: Contributions of subjective well-being and good living to the contemporary development of the notion of sustainable human development. Sustainability 13 (6) (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063298

González-Díaz, R.R., Acevedo-Duque, Á.E., Flores-Ledesma, K.N., Cruz-Ayala, K., Guanilo Gomez, S.L.: Knowledge management strategies through educational digital platforms during periods of social confinement. In: Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 297–303 Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72651-5_29

González-Díaz, R.R., Becerra-Perez, L.A.: Stimulating components for business development in Latin American SMEs. In: Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 366–374. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72651-5_35 .

González-Díaz, R.R., Acosta-Moltó, E.M.: ExPro as psycho-affective stimulators through experiential marketing in nonprofit organizations. CIID J. 1 (1), 01–27 (2020)

Article   Google Scholar  

Hernández-Julio, Y.F., Meriño-Fuentes, I., González-Díaz, R.R., Guerrero-Avendaño, A., Toledo, L.V.O., Bernal, W.N.: Fuzzy knowledge discovery and decision-making through clustering and dynamic tables: application in Colombian business finance. In: 2020 15th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 24–27 June 2020, pp. 1–5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI49556.2020.9141117

Gonzalez-Díaz, R.R., Becerra-Peréz, L.A., Acevedo-Duque, Á.E.: Narco-marketing as a strategy for local tourism development. Rev. Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação 36 (E36), 71–85 (2020)

González-Díaz, R., Vásquez Llamo, C.E., Hurtado Tiza, D.R., Menacho Rivera, A.S.: Plataformas interactivas y estrategias de gestión del conocimiento durante el Covid-19. Rev. Venezolana de Gerencia 25 (4), 68–81, 12/01 (2020). [Online]. Available: https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/rvg/article/view/35177

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centro Internacional de Investigación y Desarrollo–CIID, 230001, Montería, Colombia

Romel Ramón González-Díaz, Cecilia Margarita Lugo-Báez, Yurkyna Xiomara Medina-Patron, Roxana Janette Valdez-Rodríguez, Daniela Uriarte-Soto & Yanira Soledad Díaz Moreno

Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, México

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romel Ramón González-Díaz .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Anabela Mesquita

António Abreu

João Vidal Carvalho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

González-Díaz, R.R., Lugo-Báez, C.M., Medina-Patron, Y.X., Valdez-Rodríguez, R.J., Uriarte-Soto, D., Moreno, Y.S.D. (2022). Qualitative Research Applied to Organisations. An Approach to Business Reality. In: Mesquita, A., Abreu, A., Carvalho, J.V. (eds) Perspectives and Trends in Education and Technology. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 256. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5063-5_20

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5063-5_20

Published : 17 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-5062-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-5063-5

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Types of market research: Methods and examples

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn

Here at GWI we publish a steady stream of blogs, reports, and other resources that dig deep into specific market research topics.

But what about the folks who’d appreciate a more general overview of market research that explains the big picture? Don’t they deserve some love too?

Of course they do. That’s why we’ve created this overview guide focusing on types of market research and examples. With so many market research companies to choose from, having a solid general understanding of how this sector works is essential for any brand or business that wants to pick the right market research partner.

So with that in mind, let’s start at the very beginning and get clear on…

Market research definition

At the risk of stating the slightly obvious, market research is the gathering and analyzing of data on consumers, competitors, distributors, and markets. As such it’s not quite the same as consumer research , but there’s significant overlap.

Market research matters because it can help you take the guesswork out of getting through to audiences. By studying consumers and gathering information on their likes, dislikes, and so on, brands can make evidence-based decisions instead of relying on instinct or experience. 

What is market research?

Market research is the organized gathering of information about target markets and consumers’ needs and preferences. It’s an important component of business strategy and a major factor in maintaining competitiveness.

If a business wants to know – really know – what sort of products or services consumers want to buy, along with where, when, and how those products and services should be marketed, it just makes sense to ask the prospective audience. 

Without the certainty that market research brings, a business is basically hoping for the best. And while we salute their optimism, that’s not exactly a reliable strategy for success.

What are the types of market research?

Primary research .

Primary research is a type of market research you either conduct yourself or hire someone to do on your behalf.

A classic example of primary research involves going directly to a source – typically customers or prospective customers in your target market – to ask questions and gather information about a product or service. Interviewing methods include in-person, online surveys, phone calls, and focus groups.

The big advantage of primary research is that it’s directly focused on your objectives, so the outcome will be conclusive, detailed insights – particularly into customer views – making it the gold standard.

The disadvantages are it can be time-consuming and potentially costly, plus there’s a risk of survey bias creeping in, in the sense that research samples may not be representative of the wider group.

Secondary research 

Primary market research means you collect the data your business needs, whereas the types of market research known as secondary market research use information that’s already been gathered for other purposes but can still be valuable. Examples include published market studies, white papers, analyst reports, customer emails, and customer surveys/feedback.

For many small businesses with limited budgets, secondary market research is their first choice because it’s easier to acquire and far more affordable than primary research.

Secondary research can still answer specific business questions, but with limitations. The data collected from that audience may not match your targeted audience exactly, resulting in skewed outcomes. 

A big benefit of secondary market research is helping lay the groundwork and get you ready to carry out primary market research by making sure you’re focused on what matters most.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research is one of the two fundamental types of market research. Qualitative research is about people and their opinions. Typically conducted by asking questions either one-on-one or in groups, qualitative research can help you define problems and learn about customers’ opinions, values, and beliefs.

Classic examples of qualitative research are long-answer questions like “Why do you think this product is better than competitive products? Why do you think it’s not?”, or “How would you improve this new service to make it more appealing?”

Because qualitative research generally involves smaller sample sizes than its close cousin quantitative research, it gives you an anecdotal overview of your subject, rather than highly detailed information that can help predict future performance.

Qualitative research is particularly useful if you’re developing a new product, service, website or ad campaign and want to get some feedback before you commit a large budget to it.

Quantitative research

If qualitative research is all about opinions, quantitative research is all about numbers, using math to uncover insights about your audience. 

Typical quantitative research questions are things like, “What’s the market size for this product?” or “How long are visitors staying on this website?”. Clearly the answers to both will be numerical.

Quantitative research usually involves questionnaires. Respondents are asked to complete the survey, which marketers use to understand consumer needs, and create strategies and marketing plans.

Importantly, because quantitative research is math-based, it’s statistically valid, which means you’re in a good position to use it to predict the future direction of your business.

Consumer research 

As its name implies, consumer research gathers information about consumers’ lifestyles, behaviors, needs and preferences, usually in relation to a particular product or service. It can include both quantitative and qualitative studies.

Examples of consumer research in action include finding ways to improve consumer perception of a product, or creating buyer personas and market segments, which help you successfully market your product to different types of customers.

Understanding consumer trends , driven by consumer research, helps businesses understand customer psychology and create detailed purchasing behavior profiles. The result helps brands improve their products and services by making them more customer-centric, increasing customer satisfaction, and boosting bottom line in the process.

Product research 

Product research gives a new product (or indeed service, we don’t judge) its best chance of success, or helps an existing product improve or increase market share.

It’s common sense: by finding out what consumers want and adjusting your offering accordingly, you gain a competitive edge. It can be the difference between a product being a roaring success or an abject failure.

Examples of product research include finding ways to develop goods with a higher value, or identifying exactly where innovation effort should be focused. 

Product research goes hand-in-hand with other strands of market research, helping you make informed decisions about what consumers want, and what you can offer them.

Brand research  

Brand research is the process of gathering feedback from your current, prospective, and even past customers to understand how your brand is perceived by the market.

It covers things like brand awareness, brand perceptions, customer advocacy, advertising effectiveness, purchase channels, audience profiling, and whether or not the brand is a top consideration for consumers.

The result helps take the guesswork out of your messaging and brand strategy. Like all types of market research, it gives marketing leaders the data they need to make better choices based on fact rather than opinion or intuition.

Market research methods 

So far we’ve reviewed various different types of market research, now let’s look at market research methods, in other words the practical ways you can uncover those all-important insights.

Consumer research platform 

A consumer research platform like GWI is a smart way to find on-demand market research insights in seconds.

In a world of fluid markets and changing attitudes, a detailed understanding of your consumers, developed using the right research platform, enables you to stop guessing and start knowing.

As well as providing certainty, consumer research platforms massively accelerate speed to insight. Got a question? Just jump on your consumer research platform and find the answer – job done.

The ability to mine data for answers like this is empowering – suddenly you’re in the driving seat with a world of possibilities ahead of you. Compared to the most obvious alternative – commissioning third party research that could take weeks to arrive – the right consumer research platform is basically a magic wand.

Admittedly we’re biased, but GWI delivers all this and more. Take our platform for a quick spin and see for yourself.

And the downside of using a consumer research platform? Well, no data set, however fresh or thorough, can answer every question. If you need really niche insights then your best bet is custom market research , where you can ask any question you like, tailored to your exact needs.

Face-to-face interviews 

Despite the rise in popularity of online surveys , face-to-face survey interviewing – using mobile devices or even the classic paper survey – is still a popular data collection method.

In terms of advantages, face-to-face interviews help with accurate screening, in the sense the interviewee can’t easily give misleading answers about, say, their age. The interviewer can also make a note of emotions and non-verbal cues. 

On the other hand, face-to-face interviews can be costly, while the quality of data you get back often depends on the ability of the interviewer. Also, the size of the sample is limited to the size of your interviewing staff, the area in which the interviews are conducted, and the number of qualified respondents within that area.

Social listening 

Social listening is a powerful solution for brands who want to keep an ear to the ground, gathering unfiltered thoughts and opinions from consumers who are posting on social media. 

Many social listening tools store data for up to a couple of years, great for trend analysis that needs to compare current and past conversations.

Social listening isn’t limited to text. Images, videos, and emojis often help us better understand what consumers are thinking, saying, and doing better than more traditional research methods. 

Perhaps the biggest downside is there are no guarantees with social listening, and you never know what you will (or won’t) find. It can also be tricky to gauge sentiment accurately if the language used is open to misinterpretation, for example if a social media user describes something as “sick”.

There’s also a potential problem around what people say vs. what they actually do. Tweeting about the gym is a good deal easier than actually going. The wider problem – and this may shock you – is that not every single thing people write on social media is necessarily true, which means social listening can easily deliver unreliable results.

Public domain data 

Public domain data comes from think tanks and government statistics or research centers like the UK’s National Office for Statistics or the United States Census Bureau and the National Institute of Statistical Sciences. Other sources are things like research journals, news media, and academic material.

Its advantages for market research are it’s cheap (or even free), quick to access, and easily available. Public domain datasets can be huge, so potentially very rich.

On the flip side, the data can be out of date, it certainly isn’t exclusive to you, and the collection methodology can leave much to be desired. But used carefully, public domain data can be a useful source of secondary market research.

Telephone interviews 

You know the drill – you get a call from a researcher who asks you questions about a particular topic and wants to hear your opinions. Some even pay or offer other rewards for your time.

Telephone surveys are great for reaching niche groups of consumers within a specific geographic area or connected to a particular brand, or who aren’t very active in online channels. They’re not well-suited for gathering data from broad population groups, simply because of the time and labor involved.

How to use market research 

Data isn’t an end in itself; instead it’s a springboard to make other stuff happen. So once you’ve drawn conclusions from your research, it’s time to think of what you’ll actually do based on your findings.

While it’s impossible for us to give a definitive list (every use case is different), here are some suggestions to get you started.

Leverage it . Think about ways to expand the use – and value – of research data and insights, for example by using research to support business goals and functions, like sales, market share or product design.

Integrate it . Expand the value of your research data by integrating it with other data sources, internal and external. Integrating data like this can broaden your perspective and help you draw deeper insights for more confident decision-making.

Justify it . Enlist colleagues from areas that’ll benefit from the insights that research provides – that could be product management, product development, customer service, marketing, sales or many others – and build a business case for using research.

How to choose the right type of market research 

Broadly speaking, choosing the right research method depends on knowing the type of data you need to collect. To dig into ideas and opinions, choose qualitative; to do some testing, it’s quantitative you want.

There are also a bunch of practical considerations, not least cost. If a particular approach sounds great but costs the earth then clearly it’s not ideal for any brand on a budget.

Then there’s how you intend to use the actual research, your level of expertise with research data, whether you need access to historical data or just a snapshot of today, and so on.

The point is, different methods suit different situations. When choosing, you’ll want to consider what you want to achieve, what data you’ll need, the pros and cons of each method, the costs of conducting the research, and the cost of analyzing the results. 

Market research examples

Independent agency Bright/Shift used GWI consumer insights to shape a high-impact go-to-market strategy for their sustainable furniture client, generating £41K in revenue in the first month. Here’s how they made the magic happen .

Never miss a post

By subscribing you confirm you’re happy for us to send you our latest articles.

You’ve read our blog, now see our platform

Every business has questions about its audiences, GWI has answers. Powered by consistent, global research, our platform is an on-demand window into their world.

• Open access
• Published: 16 May 2024

Integrating qualitative research within a clinical trials unit: developing strategies and understanding their implementation in contexts

• Jeremy Segrott   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6215-0870 1 ,
• Sue Channon 2 ,
• Amy Lloyd 4 ,
• Eleni Glarou 2 , 3 ,
• Josie Henley 5 ,
• Jacqueline Hughes 2 ,
• Nina Jacob 2 ,
• Sarah Milosevic 2 ,
• Yvonne Moriarty 2 ,
• Bethan Pell 6 ,
• Mike Robling 2 ,
• Heather Strange 2 ,
• Julia Townson 2 ,
• Qualitative Research Group &
• Lucy Brookes-Howell 2  

Trials volume  25 , Article number:  323 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

360 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Background/aims

The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University’s Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration.

We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper.

Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies.

Conclusions

Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit’s experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations.

Peer Review reports

The value of using qualitative methods within randomised control trials (RCTs) is widely recognised [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Qualitative research generates important evidence on factors affecting trial recruitment/retention [ 4 ] and implementation, aiding interpretation of quantitative data [ 5 ]. Though RCTs have traditionally been viewed as sitting within a positivist paradigm, recent methodological innovations have developed new trial designs that draw explicitly on both quantitative and qualitative methods. For instance, in the field of complex public health interventions, realist RCTs seek to understand the mechanisms through which interventions generate hypothesised impacts, and how interactions across different implementation contexts form part of these mechanisms. Proponents of realist RCTs—which integrate experimental and realist paradigms—highlight the importance of using quantitative and qualitative methods to fully realise these aims and to generate an understanding of intervention mechanisms and how context shapes them [ 6 ].

A need for guidance on how to conduct good quality qualitative research is being addressed, particularly in relation to feasibility studies for RCTs [ 7 ] and process evaluations embedded within trials of complex interventions [ 5 ]. There is also guidance on the conduct of qualitative research within trials at different points in the research cycle, including development, conduct and reporting [ 8 , 9 ].

A high proportion of trials are based within or involve clinical trials units (CTUs). In the UK the UKCRC Registered CTU Network describes them as:

… specialist units which have been set up with a specific remit to design, conduct, analyse and publish clinical trials and other well-designed studies. They have the capability to provide specialist expert statistical, epidemiological, and other methodological advice and coordination to undertake successful clinical trials. In addition, most CTUs will have expertise in the coordination of trials involving investigational medicinal products which must be conducted in compliance with the UK Regulations governing the conduct of clinical trials resulting from the EU Directive for Clinical Trials.

Thus, CTUs provide the specialist methodological expertise needed for the conduct of trials, and in the case of trials of investigational medicinal products, their involvement may be mandated to ensure compliance with relevant regulations. As the definition above suggests, CTUs also conduct and support other types of study apart from RCTs, providing a range of methodological and subject-based expertise.

However, despite their central role in the conduct and design of trials, (and other evaluation designs) little has been written about how CTUs have integrated qualitative work within their organisation at a time when such methods are, as stated above, now recognised as an important aspect of RCTs and evaluation studies more generally. This is a significant gap, since integration at the organisational level arguably shapes how qualitative research is integrated within individual studies, and thus it is valuable to understand how CTUs have approached the task. There are different ways of involving qualitative work in trials units, such as partnering with other departments (e.g. social science) or employing qualitative researchers directly. Qualitative research can be imagined and configured in different ways—as a method that generates data to inform future trial and intervention design, as an embedded component within an RCT or other evaluation type, or as a parallel strand of research focusing on lived experiences of illness, for instance. Understanding how trials units have integrated qualitative research is valuable, as it can shed light on which strategies show promise, and in which contexts, and how qualitative research is positioned within the field of trials research, foregrounding the value of qualitative research. However, although much has been written about its use within trials, few accounts exist of how trials units have integrated qualitative research within their systems and structures.

This paper discusses the process of embedding qualitative research within the work of one CTU—Cardiff University’s Centre for Trials Research (CTR). It highlights facilitators of this process and identifies challenges to integration. We use the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as a framework to structure our experience and approach. The key gap addressed by this paper is the implementation of strategies to integrate qualitative research (a relatively newly adopted set of practices and processes) within CTU systems and structures. We acknowledge from the outset that there are multiple ways of approaching this task. What follows therefore is not a set of recommendations for a preferred or best way to integrate qualitative research, as this will comprise diverse actions according to specific contexts. Rather, we examine the processes through which integration occurred in our own setting and highlight the potential value of these insights for others engaged in the work of promoting qualitative research within trials units.

Background to the integration of qualitative research within CTR

The CTR was formed in 2015 [ 10 ]. It brought together three existing trials units at Cardiff University: the South East Wales Trials Unit, the Wales Cancer Trials Unit, and the Haematology Clinical Trials Unit. From its inception, the CTR had a stated aim of developing a programme of qualitative research and integrating it within trials and other studies. In the sections below, we map these approaches onto the framework offered by Normalisation Process Theory to understand the processes through which they helped achieve embedding and integration of qualitative research.

CTR’s aims (including those relating to the development of qualitative research) were included within its strategy documents and communicated to others through infrastructure funding applications, annual reports and its website. A Qualitative Research Group (QRG), which had previously existed within the South East Wales Trials Unit, with dedicated funding for methodological specialists and group lead academics, was a key mechanism through which the development of a qualitative portfolio was put into action. Integration of qualitative research within Centre systems and processes occurred through the inclusion of qualitative research in study adoption processes and representation on committees. The CTR’s study portfolio provided a basis to track qualitative methods in new and existing studies, identify opportunities to embed qualitative methods within recently adopted studies (at the funding application stage) and to manage staff resources. Capacity building and training were an important focus of the QRG’s work, including training courses, mentoring, creation of an academic network open to university staff and practitioners working in the field of healthcare, presentations at CTR staff meetings and securing of PhD studentships. Standard operating procedures and methodological guidance on the design and conduct of qualitative research (e.g. templates for developing analysis plans) aimed to create a shared understanding of how to undertake high-quality research, and a means to monitor the implementation of rigorous approaches. As the QRG expanded its expertise it sought to develop innovative approaches, including the use of visual [ 11 ] and ethnographic methods [ 12 ].

Understanding implementation—Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) provides a model with which to understand the implementation of new sets of practices and their normalisation within organisational settings. The term ‘normalisation’ refers to how new practices become routinised (part of the everyday work of an organisation) through embedding and integration [ 13 , 14 ]. NPT defines implementation as ‘the social organisation of work’ and is concerned with the social processes that take place as new practices are introduced. Embedding involves ‘making practices routine elements of everyday life’ within an organisation. Integration takes the form of ‘sustaining embedded practices in social contexts’, and how these processes lead to the practices becoming (or not becoming) ‘normal and routine’ [ 14 ]. NPT is concerned with the factors which promote or ‘inhibit’ attempts to embed and integrate the operationalisation of new practices [ 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Embedding new practices is therefore achieved through implementation—which takes the form of interactions in specific contexts. Implementation is operationalised through four ‘generative mechanisms’— coherence , cognitive participation , collective action and reflexive monitoring [ 14 ]. Each mechanism is characterised by components comprising immediate and organisational work, with actions of individuals and organisations (or groups of individuals) interdependent. The mechanisms operate partly through forms of investment (i.e. meaning, commitment, effort, and comprehension) [ 14 ].

Coherence refers to how individuals/groups make sense of, and give meaning to, new practices. Sense-making concerns the coherence of a practice—whether it ‘holds together’, and its differentiation from existing activities [ 15 ]. Communal and individual specification involve understanding new practices and their potential benefits for oneself or an organisation. Individuals consider what new practices mean for them in terms of tasks and responsibilities ( internalisation ) [ 14 ].

NPT frames the second mechanism, cognitive participation , as the building of a ‘community of practice’. For a new practice to be initiated, individuals and groups within an organisation must commit to it [ 14 , 15 ]. Cognitive participation occurs through enrolment —how people relate to the new practice; legitimation —the belief that it is right for them to be involved; and activation —defining which actions are necessary to sustain the practice and their involvement [ 14 ]. Making the new practices work may require changes to roles (new responsibilities, altered procedures) and reconfiguring how colleagues work together (changed relationships).

Third, Collective Action refers to ‘the operational work that people do to enact a set of practices’ [ 14 ]. Individuals engage with the new practices ( interactional workability ) reshaping how members of an organisation interact with each other, through creation of new roles and expectations ( relational interaction ) [ 15 ]. Skill set workability concerns how the work of implementing a new set of practices is distributed and the necessary roles and skillsets defined [ 14 ]. Contextual integration draws attention to the incorporation of a practice within social contexts, and the potential for aspects of these contexts, such as systems and procedures, to be modified as a result [ 15 ].

Reflexive monitoring is the final implementation mechanism. Collective and individual appraisal evaluate the value of a set of practices, which depends on the collection of information—formally and informally ( systematisation ). Appraisal may lead to reconfiguration in which procedures of the practice are redefined or reshaped [ 14 , 15 ].

We sought to map the following: (1) the strategies used to embed qualitative research within the Centre, (2) key facilitators, and (3) barriers to their implementation. Through focused group discussions during the monthly meetings of the CTR QRG and in discussion with the CTR senior management team throughout 2019–2020 we identified nine types of documents (22 individual documents in total) produced within the CTR which had relevant information about the integration of qualitative research within its work (Table  1 ). The QRG had an ‘open door’ policy to membership and welcomed all staff/students with an interest in qualitative research. It included researchers who were employed specifically to undertake qualitative research and other staff with a range of study roles, including trial managers, statisticians, and data managers. There was also diversity in terms of career stage, including PhD students, mid-career researchers and members of the Centre’s Executive team. Membership was therefore largely self-selected, and comprised of individuals with a role related to, or an interest in, embedding qualitative research within trials. However, the group brought together diverse methodological perspectives and was not solely comprised of methodological ‘champions’ whose job it was to promote the development of qualitative research within the centre. Thus whilst the group (and by extension, the authors of this paper) had a shared appreciation of the value of qualitative research within a trials centre, they also brought varied methodological perspectives and ways of engaging with it.

All members of the QRG ( n  = 26) were invited to take part in a face-to-face, day-long workshop in February 2019 on ‘How to optimise and operationalise qualitative research in trials: reflections on CTR structure’. The workshop was attended by 12 members of staff and PhD students, including members of the QRG and the CTR’s senior management team. Recruitment to the workshop was therefore inclusive, and to some extent opportunistic, but all members of the QRG were able to contribute to discussions during regular monthly group meetings and the drafting of the current paper.

The aim of the workshop was to bring together information from the documents in Table  1 to generate discussion around the key strategies (and their component activities) that had been adopted to integrate qualitative research into CTR, as well as barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation. The agenda for the workshop involved four key areas: development and history of the CTR model; mapping the current model within CTR; discussing the structure of other CTUs; and exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the CTR model.

During the workshop, we discussed the use of NPT to conceptualise how qualitative research had been embedded within CTR’s systems and practices. The group produced spider diagrams to map strategies and actions on to the four key domains (or ‘generative mechanisms’ of NPT) summarised above, to aid the understanding of how they had functioned, and the utility of NPT as a framework. This is summarised in Table  2 .

Detailed notes were made during the workshop. A core writing group then used these notes and the documents in Table  1 to develop a draft of the current paper. This was circulated to all members of the CTR QRG ( n  = 26) and stored within a central repository accessible to them to allow involvement and incorporate the views of those who were not able to attend the workshop. This draft was again presented for comments in the monthly CTR QRG meeting in February 2021 attended by n  = 10. The Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0 (SQUIRE) guidelines were used to inform the structure and content of the paper (see supplementary material) [ 16 ].

In the following sections, we describe the strategies CTR adopted to integrate qualitative research. These are mapped against NPT’s four generative mechanisms to explore the processes through which the strategies promoted integration, and facilitators of and barriers to their implementation. A summary of the strategies and their functioning in terms of the generative mechanisms is provided in Table  2 .

Coherence—making sense of qualitative research

In CTR, many of the actions taken to build a portfolio of qualitative research were aimed at enabling colleagues, and external actors, to make sense of this set of methodologies. Centre-level strategies and grant applications for infrastructure funding highlighted the value of qualitative research, the added benefits it would bring, and positioned it as a legitimate set of practices alongside existing methods. For example, a 2014 application for renewal of trials unit infrastructure funding stated:

We are currently in the process of undertaking […] restructuring for our qualitative research team and are planning similar for trial management next year. The aim of this restructuring is to establish greater hierarchical management and opportunities for staff development and also provide a structure that can accommodate continuing growth.

Within the CTR, various forms of communication on the development of qualitative research were designed to enable staff and students to make sense of it, and to think through its potential value for them, and ways in which they might engage with it. These included presentations at staff meetings, informal meetings between project teams and the qualitative group lead, and the visibility of qualitative research on the public-facing Centre website and Centre committees and systems. For instance, qualitative methods were included (and framed as a distinct set of practices) within study adoption forms and committee agendas. Information for colleagues described how qualitative methods could be incorporated within funding applications for RCTs and other evaluation studies to generate new insights into questions research teams were already keen to answer, such as influences on intervention implementation fidelity. Where externally based chief investigators approached the Centre to be involved in new grant applications, the existence of the qualitative team and group lead enabled the inclusion of qualitative research to be actively promoted at an early stage, and such opportunities were highlighted in the Centre’s brochure for new collaborators. Monthly qualitative research network meetings—advertised across CTR and to external research collaborators, were also designed to create a shared understanding of qualitative research methods and their utility within trials and other study types (e.g. intervention development, feasibility studies, and observational studies). Training events (discussed in more detail below) also aided sense-making.

Several factors facilitated the promotion of qualitative research as a distinctive and valuable entity. Among these was the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial design which was promoting the value of qualitative research, such as guidance on the evaluation of complex interventions by the Medical Research Council [ 17 ], and the growing emphasis placed on process evaluations within trials (with qualitative methods important in understanding participant experience and influences on implementation) [ 5 ]. The attention given to lived experience (both through process evaluations and the move to embed public involvement in trials) helped to frame qualitative research within the Centre as something that was appropriate, legitimate, and of value. Recognition by research funders of the value of qualitative research within studies was also helpful in normalising and legitimising its adoption within grant applications.

The inclusion of qualitative methods within influential methodological guidance helped CTR researchers to develop a ‘shared language’ around these methods, and a way that a common understanding of the role of qualitative research could be generated. One barrier to such sense-making work was the varying extent to which staff and teams had existing knowledge or experience of qualitative research. This varied across methodological and subject groups within the Centre and reflected the history of the individual trials units which had merged to form the Centre.

Cognitive participation—legitimising qualitative research

Senior CTR leaders promoted the value and legitimacy of qualitative research. Its inclusion in centre strategies, infrastructure funding applications, and in public-facing materials (e.g. website, investigator brochures), signalled that it was appropriate for individuals to conduct qualitative research within their roles, or to support others in doing so. Legitimisation also took place through informal channels, such as senior leadership support for qualitative research methods in staff meetings and participation in QRG seminars. Continued development of the QRG (with dedicated infrastructure funding) provided a visible identity and equivalence with other methodological groups (e.g. trial managers, statisticians).

Staff were asked to engage with qualitative research in two main ways. First, there was an expansion in the number of staff for whom qualitative research formed part of their formal role and responsibilities. One of the three trials units that merged to form CTR brought with it a qualitative team comprising methodological specialists and a group lead. CTR continued the expansion of this group with the creation of new roles and an enlarged nucleus of researchers for whom qualitative research was the sole focus of their work. In part, this was linked to the successful award of projects that included a large qualitative component, and that were coordinated by CTR (see Table  3 which describes the PUMA study).

Members of the QRG were encouraged to develop their own research ideas and to gain experience as principal investigators, and group seminars were used to explore new ideas and provide peer support. This was communicated through line management, appraisal, and informal peer interaction. Boundaries were not strictly demarcated (i.e. staff located outside the qualitative team were already using qualitative methods), but the new team became a central focus for developing a growing programme of work.

Second, individuals and studies were called upon to engage in new ways with qualitative research, and with the qualitative team. A key goal for the Centre was that groups developing new research ideas should give more consideration in general to the potential value and inclusion of qualitative research within their funding applications. Specifically, they were asked to do this by thinking about qualitative research at an early point in their application’s development (rather than ‘bolting it on’ after other elements had been designed) and to draw upon the expertise and input of the qualitative team. An example was the inclusion of questions on qualitative methods within the Centre’s study adoption form and representation from the qualitative team at the committee which reviewed new adoption requests. Where adoption requests indicated the inclusion of qualitative methods, colleagues were encouraged to liaise with the qualitative team, facilitating the integration of its expertise from an early stage. Qualitative seminars offered an informal and supportive space in which researchers could share initial ideas and refine their methodological approach. The benefits of this included the provision of sufficient time for methodological specialists to be involved in the design of the proposed qualitative component and ensuring adequate costings had been drawn up. At study adoption group meetings, scrutiny of new proposals included consideration of whether new research proposals might be strengthened through the use of qualitative methods where these had not initially been included. Meetings of the QRG—which reviewed the Centre’s portfolio of new studies and gathered intelligence on new ideas—also helped to identify, early on, opportunities to integrate qualitative methods. Communication across teams was useful in identifying new research ideas and embedding qualitative researchers within emerging study development groups.

Actions to promote greater use of qualitative methods in funding applications fed through into a growing number of studies with a qualitative component. This helped to increase the visibility and legitimacy of qualitative methods within the Centre. For example, the PUMA study [ 12 ], which brought together a large multidisciplinary team to develop and evaluate a Paediatric early warning system, drew heavily on qualitative methods, with the qualitative research located within the QRG. The project introduced an extensive network of collaborators and clinical colleagues to qualitative methods and how they could be used during intervention development and the generation of case studies. Further information about the PUMA study is provided in Table  3 .

Increasing the legitimacy of qualitative work across an extensive network of staff, students and collaborators was a complex process. Set within the continuing dominance of quantitative methods with clinical trials, there were variations in the extent to which clinicians and other collaborators embraced the value of qualitative methods. Research funding schemes, which often continued to emphasise the quantitative element of randomised controlled trials, inevitably fed through into the focus of new research proposals. Staff and external collaborators were sometimes uncertain about the added value that qualitative methods would bring to their trials. Across the CTR there were variations in the speed at which qualitative research methods gained legitimacy, partly based on disciplinary traditions and their influences. For instance, population health trials, often located within non-health settings such as schools or community settings, frequently involved collaboration with social scientists who brought with them experience in qualitative methods. Methodological guidance in this field, such as MRC guidance on process evaluations, highlighted the value of qualitative methods and alternatives to the positivist paradigm, such as the value of realist RCTs. In other, more clinical areas, positivist paradigms had greater dominance. Established practices and methodological traditions across different funders also influenced the ease of obtaining funding to include qualitative research within studies. For drugs trials (CTIMPs), the influence of regulatory frameworks on study design, data collection and the allocation of staff resources may have played a role. Over time, teams gained repeated experience of embedding qualitative research (and researchers) within their work and took this learning with them to subsequent studies. For example, the senior clinician quoted within the PUMA case study (Table  3 below) described how they had gained an appreciation of the rigour of qualitative research and an understanding of its language. Through these repeated interactions, embedding of qualitative research within studies started to become the norm rather than the exception.

Collective action—operationalising qualitative research

Collective action concerns the operationalisation of new practices within organisations—the allocation and management of the work, how individuals interact with each other, and the work itself. In CTR the formation of a Qualitative Research Group helped to allocate and organise the work of building a portfolio of studies. Researchers across the Centre were called upon to interact with qualitative research in new ways. Presentations at staff meetings and the inclusion of qualitative research methods in portfolio study adoption forms were examples of this ( interactive workability ). It was operationalised by encouraging study teams to liaise with the qualitative research lead. Development of standard operating procedures, templates for costing qualitative research and methodological guidance (e.g. on analysis plans) also helped encourage researchers to interact with these methods in new ways. For some qualitative researchers who had been trained in the social sciences, working within a trials unit meant that they needed to interact in new and sometimes unfamiliar ways with standard operating procedures, risk assessments, and other trial-based systems. Thus, training needs and capacity-building efforts were multidirectional.

Whereas there had been a tendency for qualitative research to be ‘bolted on’ to proposals for RCTs, the systems described above were designed to embed thinking about the value and design of the qualitative component from the outset. They were also intended to integrate members of the qualitative team with trial teams from an early stage to promote effective integration of qualitative methods within larger trials and build relationships over time.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), formal and informal training, and interaction between the qualitative team and other researchers increased the relational workability of qualitative methods within the Centre—the confidence individuals felt in including these methods within their studies, and their accountability for doing so. For instance, study adoption forms prompted researchers to interact routinely with the qualitative team at an early stage, whilst guidance on costing grants provided clear expectations about the resources needed to deliver a proposed set of qualitative data collection.

Formation of the Qualitative Research Group—comprised of methodological specialists, created new roles and skillsets ( skill set workability ). Research teams were encouraged to draw on these when writing funding applications for projects that included a qualitative component. Capacity-building initiatives were used to increase the number of researchers with the skills needed to undertake qualitative research, and for these individuals to develop their expertise over time. This was achieved through formal training courses, academic seminars, mentoring from experienced colleagues, and informal knowledge exchange. Links with external collaborators and centres engaged in building qualitative research supported these efforts. Within the Centre, the co-location of qualitative researchers with other methodological and trial teams facilitated knowledge exchange and building of collaborative relationships, whilst grouping of the qualitative team within a dedicated office space supported a collective identity and opportunities for informal peer support.

Some aspects of the context in which qualitative research was being developed created challenges to operationalisation. Dependence on project grants to fund qualitative methodologists meant that there was a continuing need to write further grant applications whilst limiting the amount of time available to do so. Similarly, researchers within the team whose role was funded largely by specific research projects could sometimes find it hard to create sufficient time to develop their personal methodological interests. However, the cultivation of a methodologically varied portfolio of work enabled members of the team to build significant expertise in different approaches (e.g. ethnography, discourse analysis) that connected individual studies.

Reflexive monitoring—evaluating the impact of qualitative research

Inclusion of questions/fields relating to qualitative research within the Centre’s study portfolio database was a key way in which information was collected ( systematisation ). It captured numbers of funding applications and funded studies, research design, and income generation. Alongside this database, a qualitative resource planner spreadsheet was used to link individual members of the qualitative team with projects and facilitate resource planning, further reinforcing the core responsibilities and roles of qualitative researchers within CTR. As with all staff in the Centre, members of the qualitative team were placed on ongoing rather than fixed-term contracts, reflecting their core role within CTR. Planning and strategy meetings used the database and resource planner to assess the integration of qualitative research within Centre research, identify opportunities for increasing involvement, and manage staff recruitment and sustainability of researcher posts. Academic meetings and day-to-day interaction fulfilled informal appraisal of the development of the group, and its position within the Centre. Individual appraisal was also important, with members of the qualitative team given opportunities to shape their role, reflect on progress, identify training needs, and further develop their skillset, particularly through line management systems.

These forms of systematisation and appraisal were used to reconfigure the development of qualitative research and its integration within the Centre. For example, group strategies considered how to achieve long-term integration of qualitative research from its initial embedding through further promoting the belief that it formed a core part of the Centre’s business. The visibility and legitimacy of qualitative research were promoted through initiatives such as greater prominence on the Centre’s website. Ongoing review of the qualitative portfolio and discussion at academic meetings enabled the identification of areas where increased capacity would be helpful, both for qualitative staff, and more broadly within the Centre. This prompted the qualitative group to develop an introductory course to qualitative methods open to all Centre staff and PhD students, aimed at increasing understanding and awareness. As the qualitative team built its expertise and experience it also sought to develop new and innovative approaches to conducting qualitative research. This included the use of visual and diary-based methods [ 11 ] and the adoption of ethnography to evaluate system-level clinical interventions [ 12 ]. Restrictions on conventional face-to-face qualitative data collection due to the COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid adoption of virtual/online methods for interviews, observation, and use of new internet platforms such as Padlet—a form of digital note board.

In this paper, we have described the work undertaken by one CTU to integrate qualitative research within its studies and organisational culture. The parallel efforts of many trials units to achieve these goals arguably come at an opportune time. The traditional designs of RCTs have been challenged and re-imagined by the increasing influence of realist evaluation [ 6 , 18 ] and the widespread acceptance that trials need to understand implementation and intervention theory as well as assess outcomes [ 17 ]. Hence the widespread adoption of embedded mixed methods process evaluations within RCTs. These broad shifts in methodological orthodoxies, the production of high-profile methodological guidance, and the expectations of research funders all create fertile ground for the continued expansion of qualitative methods within trials units. However, whilst much has been written about the importance of developing qualitative research and the possible approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative methods within studies, much less has been published on how to operationalise this within trials units. Filling this lacuna is important. Our paper highlights how the integration of a new set of practices within an organisation can become embedded as part of its ‘normal’ everyday work whilst also shaping the practices being integrated. In the case of CTR, it could be argued that the integration of qualitative research helped shape how this work was done (e.g. systems to assess progress and innovation).

In our trials unit, the presence of a dedicated research group of methodological specialists was a key action that helped realise the development of a portfolio of qualitative research and was perhaps the most visible evidence of a commitment to do so. However, our experience demonstrates that to fully realise the goal of developing qualitative research, much work focuses on the interaction between this ‘new’ set of methods and the organisation into which it is introduced. Whilst the team of methodological specialists was tasked with, and ‘able’ to do the work, the ‘work’ itself needed to be integrated and embedded within the existing system. Thus, alongside the creation of a team and methodological capacity, promoting the legitimacy of qualitative research was important to communicate to others that it was both a distinctive and different entity, yet similar and equivalent to more established groups and practices (e.g. trial management, statistics, data management). The framing of qualitative research within strategies, the messages given out by senior leaders (formally and informally) and the general visibility of qualitative research within the system all helped to achieve this.

Normalisation Process Theory draws our attention to the concepts of embedding (making a new practice routine, normal within an organisation) and integration —the long-term sustaining of these processes. An important process through which embedding took place in our centre concerned the creation of messages and systems that called upon individuals and research teams to interact with qualitative research. Research teams were encouraged to think about qualitative research and consider its potential value for their studies. Critically, they were asked to do so at specific points, and in particular ways. Early consideration of qualitative methods to maximise and optimise their inclusion within studies was emphasised, with timely input from the qualitative team. Study adoption systems, centre-level processes for managing financial and human resources, creation of a qualitative resource planner, and awareness raising among staff, helped to reinforce this. These processes of embedding and integration were complex and they varied in intensity and speed across different areas of the Centre’s work. In part this depended on existing research traditions, the extent of prior experience of working with qualitative researchers and methods, and the priorities of subject areas and funders. Centre-wide systems, sometimes linked to CTR’s operation as a CTU, also helped to legitimise and embed qualitative research, lending it equivalence with other research activity. For example, like all CTUs, CTR was required to conform with the principles of Good Clinical Practice, necessitating the creation of a quality management system, operationalised through standard operating procedures for all areas of its work. Qualitative research was included, and became embedded, within these systems, with SOPs produced to guide activities such as qualitative analysis.

NPT provides a helpful way of understanding how trials units might integrate qualitative research within their work. It highlights how new practices interact with existing organisational systems and the work needed to promote effective interaction. That is, alongside the creation of a team or programme of qualitative research, much of the work concerns how members of an organisation understand it, engage with it, and create systems to sustain it. Embedding a new set of practices may be just as important as the quality or characteristics of the practices themselves. High-quality qualitative research is of little value if it is not recognised and drawn upon within new studies for instance. NPT also offers a helpful lens with which to understand how integration and embedding occur, and the mechanisms through which they operate. For example, promoting the legitimacy of a new set of practices, or creating systems that embed it, can help sustain these practices by creating an organisational ambition and encouraging (or requiring) individuals to interact with them in certain ways, redefining their roles accordingly. NPT highlights the ways in which integration of new practices involves bi-directional exchanges with the organisation’s existing practices, with each having the potential to re-shape the other as interaction takes place. For instance, in CTR, qualitative researchers needed to integrate and apply their methods within the quality management and other systems of a CTU, such as the formalisation of key processes within standard operating procedures, something less likely to occur outside trials units. Equally, project teams (including those led by externally based chief investigators) increased the integration of qualitative methods within their overall study design, providing opportunities for new insights on intervention theory, implementation and the experiences of practitioners and participants.

We note two aspects of the normalisation processes within CTR that are slightly less well conceptualised by NPT. The first concerns the emphasis within coherence on identifying the distinctiveness of new practices, and how they differ from existing activities. Whilst differentiation was an important aspect of the integration of qualitative research in CTR, such integration could be seen as operating partly through processes of de-differentiation, or at least equivalence. That is, part of the integration of qualitative research was to see it as similar in terms of rigour, coherence, and importance to other forms of research within the Centre. To be viewed as similar, or at least comparable to existing practices, was to be legitimised.

Second, whilst NPT focuses mainly on the interaction between a new set of practices and the organisational context into which it is introduced, our own experience of introducing qualitative research into a trials unit was shaped by broader organisational and methodological contexts. For example, the increasing emphasis placed upon understanding implementation processes and the experiences of research participants in the field of clinical trials (e.g. by funders), created an environment conducive to the development of qualitative research methods within our Centre. Attempts to integrate qualitative research within studies were also cross-organisational, given that many of the studies managed within the CTR drew together multi-institutional teams. This provided important opportunities to integrate qualitative research within a portfolio of studies that extended beyond CTR and build a network of collaborators who increasingly included qualitative methods within their funding proposals. The work of growing and integrating qualitative research within a trials unit is an ongoing one in which ever-shifting macro-level influences can help or hinder, and where the organisations within which we work are never static in terms of barriers and facilitators.

The importance of utilising qualitative methods within RCTs is now widely recognised. Increased emphasis on the evaluation of complex interventions, the influence of realist methods directing greater attention to complexity and the widespread adoption of mixed methods process evaluations are key drivers of this shift. The inclusion of qualitative methods within individual trials is important and previous research has explored approaches to their incorporation and some of the challenges encountered. Our paper highlights that the integration of qualitative methods at the organisational level of the CTU can shape how they are taken up by individual trials. Within CTR, it can be argued that qualitative research achieved high levels of integration, as conceptualised by Normalisation Process Theory. Thus, qualitative research became recognised as a coherent and valuable set of practices, secured legitimisation as an appropriate focus of individual and organisational activity and benefitted from forms of collective action which operationalised these organisational processes. Crucially, the routinisation of qualitative research appeared to be sustained, something which NPT suggests helps define integration (as opposed to initial embedding). However, our analysis suggested that the degree of integration varied by trial area. This variation reflected a complex mix of factors including disciplinary traditions, methodological guidance, existing (un)familiarity with qualitative research, and the influence of regulatory frameworks for certain clinical trials.

NPT provides a valuable framework with which to understand how these processes of embedding and integration occur. Our use of NPT draws attention to the importance of sense-making and legitimisation as important steps in introducing a new set of practices within the work of an organisation. Integration also depends, across each mechanism of NPT, on the building of effective relationships, which allow individuals and teams to work together in new ways. By reflecting on our experiences and the decisions taken within CTR we have made explicit one such process for embedding qualitative research within a trials unit, whilst acknowledging that approaches may differ across trials units. Mindful of this fact, and the focus of the current paper on one trials unit’s experience, we do not propose a set of recommendations for others who are working to achieve similar goals. Rather, we offer three overarching reflections (framed by NPT) which may act as a useful starting point for trials units (and other infrastructures) seeking to promote the adoption of qualitative research.

First, whilst research organisations such as trials units are highly heterogenous, processes of embedding and integration, which we have foregrounded in this paper, are likely to be important across different contexts in sustaining the use of qualitative research. Second, developing a plan for the integration of qualitative research will benefit from mapping out the characteristics of the extant system. For example, it is valuable to know how familiar staff are with qualitative research and any variations across teams within an organisation. Thirdly, NPT frames integration as a process of implementation which operates through key generative mechanisms— coherence , cognitive participation , collective action and reflexive monitoring . These mechanisms can help guide understanding of which actions help achieve embedding and integration. Importantly, they span multiple aspects of how organisations, and the individuals within them, work. The ways in which people make sense of a new set of practices ( coherence ), their commitment towards it ( cognitive participation ), how it is operationalised ( collective action ) and the evaluation of its introduction ( reflexive monitoring ) are all important. Thus, for example, qualitative research, even when well organised and operationalised within an organisation, is unlikely to be sustained if appreciation of its value is limited, or people are not committed to it.

We present our experience of engaging with the processes described above to open dialogue with other trials units on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. Understanding how best to integrate qualitative research within these settings may help to fully realise the significant contribution which it makes the design and conduct of trials.

Availability of data and materials

Some documents cited in this paper are either freely available from the Centre for Trials Research website or can be requested from the author for correspondence.

O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(6):e002889.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Goode J, Hewison J. Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: the QUAlitative Research in Trials (QUART) study – a mixed methods study. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(38):1–197.

Clement C, Edwards SL, Rapport F, Russell IT, Hutchings HA. Exploring qualitative methods reported in registered trials and their yields (EQUITY): systematic review. Trials. 2018;19(1):589.

Hennessy M, Hunter A, Healy P, Galvin S, Houghton C. Improving trial recruitment processes: how qualitative methodologies can be used to address the top 10 research priorities identified within the PRioRiTy study. Trials. 2018;19:584.

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350(mar19 6):h1258.

Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2299–306.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

O’Cathain A, Hoddinott P, Lewin S, Thomas KJ, Young B, Adamson J, et al. Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1:32.

Cooper C, O’Cathain A, Hind D, Adamson J, Lawton J, Baird W. Conducting qualitative research within Clinical Trials Units: avoiding potential pitfalls. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(2):338–43.

Rapport F, Storey M, Porter A, Snooks H, Jones K, Peconi J, et al. Qualitative research within trials: developing a standard operating procedure for a clinical trials unit. Trials. 2013;14:54.

Cardiff University. Centre for Trials Research. Available from: https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/centre-for-trials-research . Accessed 10 May 2024.

Pell B, Williams D, Phillips R, Sanders J, Edwards A, Choy E, et al. Using visual timelines in telephone interviews: reflections and lessons learned from the star family study. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:160940692091367.

Thomas-Jones E, Lloyd A, Roland D, Sefton G, Tume L, Hood K, et al. A prospective, mixed-methods, before and after study to identify the evidence base for the core components of an effective Paediatric Early Warning System and the development of an implementation package containing those core recommendations for use in th. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18:244.

May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148.

May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54.

Article   Google Scholar  

May CR, Mair F, Finch T, Macfarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29.

Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden PB, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2016;25:986-92.

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.

Jamal F, Fletcher A, Shackleton N, Elbourne D, Viner R, Bonell C. The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT: a theoretical and methodological case-example. Trials. 2015;16(1):466.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Members of the Centre for Trials Research (CTR) Qualitative Research Group were collaborating authors: C Drew (Senior Research Fellow—Senior Trial Manager, Brain Health and Mental Wellbeing Division), D Gillespie (Director, Infection, Inflammation and Immunity Trials, Principal Research Fellow), R Hale (now Research Associate, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University), J Latchem-Hastings (now Lecturer and Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University), R Milton (Research Associate—Trial Manager), B Pell (now PhD student, DECIPHer Centre, Cardiff University), H Prout (Research Associate—Qualitative), V Shepherd (Senior Research Fellow), K Smallman (Research Associate), H Stanton (Research Associate—Senior Data Manager). Thanks are due to Kerry Hood and Aimee Grant for their involvement in developing processes and systems for qualitative research within CTR.

No specific grant was received to support the writing of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Trials Research, DECIPHer Centre, Cardiff University, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK

Jeremy Segrott

Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK

Sue Channon, Eleni Glarou, Jacqueline Hughes, Nina Jacob, Sarah Milosevic, Yvonne Moriarty, Mike Robling, Heather Strange, Julia Townson & Lucy Brookes-Howell

Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK

Eleni Glarou

Wales Centre for Public Policy, Cardiff University, Sbarc I Spark, Maindy Road, Cardiff, CF24 4HQ, UK

School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3WA, UK

Josie Henley

DECIPHer Centre, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Sbarc I Spark, Maindy Road, Cardiff, CF24 4HQ, UK

Bethan Pell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Qualitative Research Group

• , D. Gillespie
• , J. Latchem-Hastings
• , R. Milton
• , V. Shepherd
• , K. Smallman
•  & H. Stanton

Contributions

JS contributed to the design of the work and interpretation of data and was responsible for leading the drafting and revision of the paper. SC contributed to the design of the work, the acquisition of data and the drafting and revision of the paper. AL contributed to the design of the work, the acquisition of data and the drafting and revision of the paper. EG contributed to a critical review of the manuscript and provided additional relevant references. JH provided feedback on initial drafts of the paper and contributed to subsequent revisions. JHu provided feedback on initial drafts of the paper and contributed to subsequent revisions. NG provided feedback on initial drafts of the paper and contributed to subsequent revisions. SM was involved in the acquisition and analysis of data and provided a critical review of the manuscript. YM was involved in the acquisition and analysis of data and provided a critical review of the manuscript. MR was involved in the interpretation of data and critical review and revision of the paper. HS contributed to the conception and design of the work, the acquisition and analysis of data, and the revision of the manuscript. JT provided feedback on initial drafts of the paper and contributed to subsequent revisions. LB-H made a substantial contribution to the design and conception of the work, led the acquisition and analysis of data, and contributed to the drafting and revision of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Segrott .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was not sought as no personal or identifiable data was collected.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors are or were members of staff or students in the Centre for Trials Research. JS is an associate editor of Trials .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Segrott, J., Channon, S., Lloyd, A. et al. Integrating qualitative research within a clinical trials unit: developing strategies and understanding their implementation in contexts. Trials 25 , 323 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08124-7

Download citation

Received : 20 October 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 16 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08124-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Qualitative methods
• Trials units
• Normalisation Process Theory
• Randomised controlled trials

ISSN: 1745-6215

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]