Designing a Qualitative Research Project Consistent with its Explicit or Implicit Epistemological Framework
This paper intends to offer guidance for designing and conducting qualitative research projects of high quality. It subscribes to the view that it is essential to locate any research project within a philosophical tradition to enable cogent justification and evaluation of the knowledge elaborated in the research project. It builds upon the view that the diversity of guidelines for rigorous qualitative research offered in the literature stems from their explicit or implicit association with different epistemological frameworks. It revisits, refines and extends in several ways extant typologies of criteria for conducting and evaluating qualitative research. We provide an overview of epistemological paradigms frequently mobilized in contemporary research in management, explicitly taking into account the epistemological frameworks of critical realism and pragmatic constructivism for three main reasons: these frameworks are solidly-grounded, increasingly mobilized in management research, and stand in an intermediary position between the two most frequently discussed epistemological traditions, namely the modernist and the postmodernist ones. We explain the epistemological reasons why certain kinds of qualitative research methods are adapted to carrying out research in certain epistemological frameworks, whereas they are not adapted for use in other frameworks. In addition, for each of these epistemological traditions, we present at least one kind of qualitative method adapted to doing research in this tradition. The explanations provided about consistency between research methods and epistemological frameworks constitute useful landmarks for navigating among the various kinds of methods and numerous guidelines available in the literature for doing rigorous qualitative research. Precise clues are also offered for making sound methodological decisions from the start of a research project through to publication of research results.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||To request an electronic copy of this paper, please email the author at Catherine.Thomas@gredeg.cnrs.fr|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2013-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Patrice Bougette)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.