TY - JOUR
T1 - An editorial perspective on judging the quality of inductive research when the methodological straightjacket is loosened
AU - Corley, Kevin
AU - Bansal, Pratima
AU - Yu, Haitao
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but has started to look more formulaic as well (i.e. standards, templates, checklists). The very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. The question, thus, needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because reviewers and editors find it difficult to judge “quality” when there is no guidebook. The quality of science-based research is easier to judge than creative inductive research, which is often assumed to be in the “eye of the beholder.” From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head-on by asking: what is “quality inductive research” when we loosen the science-based methodological straightjacket so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods? In this editorial, we explore how editors can judge quality inductive research and offer innovative editorial practices that can help to foster creative inductive research.
AB - As inductive research has moved from the fringe to the mainstream, it not only has come to look more like deductive research, but has started to look more formulaic as well (i.e. standards, templates, checklists). The very thing that makes inductive research unique is its ability to challenge what is known and to do so creatively. The question, thus, needs to be asked: why does inductive research continue to become more formulaic when many inductive editors, reviewers, and authors celebrate novelty and creativity? We believe it is because reviewers and editors find it difficult to judge “quality” when there is no guidebook. The quality of science-based research is easier to judge than creative inductive research, which is often assumed to be in the “eye of the beholder.” From our SO!apbox, we tackle this challenge head-on by asking: what is “quality inductive research” when we loosen the science-based methodological straightjacket so as to deliver the novelty and creativity promised by inductive methods? In this editorial, we explore how editors can judge quality inductive research and offer innovative editorial practices that can help to foster creative inductive research.
KW - ethnography
KW - field research
KW - grounded theory
KW - qualitative comparative analysis
KW - qualitative methods
KW - research methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094981665&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85094981665&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1476127020968180
DO - 10.1177/1476127020968180
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85094981665
JO - Strategic Organization
JF - Strategic Organization
SN - 1476-1270
ER -