IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i04p748-753_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Doctoral Education: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Bickmeier, Robert M.
  • Rogelberg, Steven G.
  • Berka, Gregory C.

Abstract

We were honored and flattered to be recognized in the feature article for our commitment to qualitative methods training. As an interdisciplinary program focused on organizational science, we strive not to privilege one form of training, thought, or inquiry over another. We recognize that a number of the problems and questions faced by organizational scholars and practitioners cannot adequately be addressed solely by a single discipline or method. Instead, we emphasize the synergy between different methods and modes of thought. Ultimately, our philosophy is that organizational phenomena are inherently interdisciplinary, thus training should reflect that. Our students are trained in industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, management, organizational sociology, and organizational communication. We use this commentary as an opportunity to explain why our program values qualitative methods equally with quantitative methods, describe how we integrate that training, highlight a few success stories resulting from qualitative projects in our program, and then share some advice to other programs considering additional qualitative training.

Suggested Citation

  • Bickmeier, Robert M. & Rogelberg, Steven G. & Berka, Gregory C., 2016. "Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Doctoral Education: A Case Study," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 748-753, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:04:p:748-753_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942616000857/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:04:p:748-753_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.