Search results

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to address the qualitative synthesis and use of existing management research to inform management practice.

Three methods of qualitative synthesis, each with contrasting methodologies, are presented and their potential contribution in the management field explored.

Professional practice could be improved if practitioners had better access to the products of a large body of management research. Evidence‐based reviews of the literature in the management field could form a crucial bridge between research and practice. The task of reviewing and synthesising qualitative studies comprises a key challenge.

The key issues in conducting qualitative synthesis are highlighted and the barriers and enablers to the application of the product of qualitative synthesis in practice are discussed.

The paper stimulates debate about what counts as an effective synthesis of qualitative research and highlights the growing array of approaches. In so doing the paper presents new models for the production of evidence‐based reviews.

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

Informed decisions about sampling are critical to improving the quality of research synthesis. Even though several qualitative research synthesists have recommended purposeful sampling for synthesizing qualitative research, the published literature holds sparse discussion on how different strategies for purposeful sampling may be applied to a research synthesis. In primary research, Patton is frequently cited as an authority on the topic of purposeful sampling. In Patton’s original texts that are referred to in this article, Patton does not make any suggestion of using purposeful sampling for research synthesis. This article makes a unique contribution to the literature by examining the adaptability of each of Patton’s 16 purposeful sampling strategies to the process of qualitative research synthesis. It illuminates how different purposeful sampling strategies might be particularly suited to constructing multi‐perspectival, emancipatory, participatory and deconstructive interpretations of published research.

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework informed by a literature review. This framework aims to deepen and broaden the understanding of the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and non-financial reporting (NFR) through qualitative research approaches.

A review of corporate governance and NFR literature and existing research frameworks leads to the development of a conceptual framework to encourage future qualitative accounting research on the corporate governance mechanisms for NFR.

Few studies consider the complex interrelationships between NFR and corporate governance mechanisms. Quantitative studies using secondary data sources dominate accounting research on the topic. Of the small number of qualitative studies, many are theoretical and offer little new knowledge about the effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms in practice. The research framework, developed from a literature review and consideration of multiple qualitative approaches, proposes numerous avenues for future research.

This paper is based on a scoping review of the literature using peer-reviewed journal papers. Other researchers may have identified additional literature for inclusion, including grey literature.

More qualitative research into NFR and corporate governance mechanisms may help to guide practitioners seeking to incorporate sustainability into their governance practices.

The critical relationship between NRF and corporate governance is under-explored in research yet has significant consequences for organisations pursuing sustainability.

The authors develop a conceptual framework for qualitative accounting research on NFR and corporate governance, addressing key outstanding questions in this area and considering different theoretical perspectives when approaching this critical topic. Although there is scope for further research in general in this promising area, including quantitative reviews and discursive studies, qualitative research would be of particular value. The authors also outline multiple directions for nurturing academic debate.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of empirical research methods in Journal of Services Marketing (JSM), how the choice of methodology is related to the research topic, and how methodology affects the impact of papers published in JSM.

Based on citation data from Scopus, bibliometric methods are used to describe the methodological evolution of literature over the period 1987-2017. Indicator correlations and logistic regression are used to test the methodological predispositions of research topics. Negative binomial regression is used to test the impact of paper methodology on paper citations on 1,036 papers.

Qualitative research methods have remained relatively rarely used in JSM (7.5 per cent qualitative papers, 13.4 per cent mixed methods), with no major changes over the past 15 years. The variety of research methods has slightly increased in the latest years. There are considerable differences in the methodological predispositions of research topics. The methodology does not directly affect the impact of papers. However, use of mixed methods may positively affect paper impact. Papers focusing on conceptual development tend to be cited more.

The review indicates that quantitative methods dominate research in JSM. However, future research challenges in service marketing research call for a reconsideration of the role of qualitative research for JSM. Findings point out that several research topics could benefit from further qualitative research.

Provides an overview of the latest development in research methodologies used in JSM, and direct statistical evidence on how paper methodology and other characteristics influence paper impact. Identifies areas for further qualitative research.

Qualitative research suffers from “contestation” and a lack of “boilerplate” problems to assessing and presenting qualitative data, which have hampered its development and the broader acceptance of qualitative research. This paper aims to address this gap by marrying the constructivist methodology and RQDA, a relatively new open-source computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS)-based R extension and demonstrate how the software can increase the rigor, transparency and validity of qualitative research.

This paper highlights the constructivist approach as an important paradigm in qualitative research and demonstrates how it can be operationalized and enhanced using RQDA. It provides a technical and methodological review of RQDA, along with its main strengths and weaknesses, in relation with two popular CAQDAS tools, ATLAS.ti and NVivo. Using samples of customer-generated e-complaints and e-praises in the electronics/computer sector, this paper demonstrates the development of a process model of customer e-complaint rhetoric.

This study offers step-by-step instructions for installing and using RQDA for data coding, aggregation, plotting and theory building. It emphasizes the importance of techniques for sharing coding outputs among researchers and journal gatekeepers to better disseminate and share research findings. It also describes the authors’ use of RQDA in classrooms of undergraduates and graduate students.

This paper addresses the “contestation” and “boilerplate” gaps, offering practical, step-by-step instructions to operationalize and enhance the constructivist approach using the RQDA-based approach. This opens new opportunities for existing R users to “cross over” to analyzing textual data as well as for computer-savvy scholars, analysts and research students in academia and industry who wish to transition to CAQDAS-based qualitative research because RQDA is free and can leverage the strengths of the R computing platform.

This study offers the first published review and demonstration of the RQDA-based constructivist methodology that provide the processes needed to enhance the rigor, transparency and validity of qualitative research. It demonstrates the systematic development of a data structure and a process model of customer e-complaint rhetoric using RQDA.

Transcription is an integral component to qualitative research, and as such, the ways that researchers discuss transcription in the literature matter. Scholarly discussions on the “how” and “why” of transcription not only shape discourse within interview data-based fields; they inform the ways that researchers understand the roles and ramifications of transcribing. This study aims to provide a comprehensive literature review of articles on transcription published in qualitative methods journals over the past 25 years, offering implications for research practice and pedagogy.

The literature review asked: How do qualitative researchers discuss transcription/transcribing? The authors first reviewed how transcription was discussed in the literature in qualitative studies in the social sciences broadly. Based on the findings, the authors then conducted a comprehensive literature review in 14 qualitative methods journals.

The authors found that overall, authors discussed transcription either as a technical tool or as a complex, researcher-constructed process. Specifically, utilitarian discussions of transcription emphasized transcription accuracy and efficiency, while theoretical discussions of transcription emphasized a continuously analytic and researcher-constructed process.

This study offers a comprehensive overview of the past 25 years of articles published on transcription. The authors conclude with a discussion of articles that bridge the theoretical and utilitarian discussions, as well as considerations for using transcription as a pedagogical tool for teaching qualitative research methods.

Cross-language qualitative research has gained momentum worldwide; yet, there is still a lack of consensus to guide researchers in ensuring the trustworthiness of the research. Several methodological dilemmas related to language differences between researchers and participants should be carefully addressed. Therefore, this study aims to (1) review qualitative literature addressing cross-language, (2) produce a list of methodological criteria and recommendations from the reviewed literature and (3) evaluate systematically published cross-language qualitative researches using the list.

This study employed a summative content analysis of 35 published curriculum and pedagogy researches from 2000–2018 that viewed language differences as methodological issue. A list of 20 criteria or recommendations was constructed and used to evaluate the selected researches.

The findings revealed that majority of the researches lacked understanding of language differences between researchers and participants causing multiple inconsistencies in reporting methodological issues. Failure to address these methodological issues could risk the trustworthiness of the data and the overall rigor of the research.

This study highlights the importance to minimize methodological issues related to language differences. It is hoped that the list of criteria or recommendations proposed by this study could support other cross-language qualitative researchers in overcoming these methodological dilemmas.