How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business

Catherine Welch; Rebecca Piekkari

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007

How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business

Catherine Welch^*, Rebecca Piekkari

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Management Studies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

100 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper, we initiate a debate about evaluative criteria (such as validity) which are – or should be – in use to assess the quality of qualitative manuscripts in International Business (IB). We identify three generations of evaluative criteria, each derived from different philosophical orientations. Based on an analysis of published articles in two IB journals, expert interviews and sample reviews, we show how these generations shape what the scholarly community considers to be “good” qualitative research. As an alternative to rigid application of a single set of quality procedures, we advocate a pluralist, contextual approach, reflecting the inherent characteristics of IB as a field.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	714-725
Number of pages	12
Journal	Journal of World Business
Volume	52
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007
Publication status	Published - 1 Sep 2017
MoE publication type	A1 Journal article-refereed

Keywords

Assessment
Evaluative criteria
Publishing
Qualitative research
Quality
Reviewing
Validity

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{9741176d35f34f1b8fb69bf07d071763,

title = "How should we (not) judge the {\textquoteleft}quality{\textquoteright} of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business",

abstract = "In this paper, we initiate a debate about evaluative criteria (such as validity) which are – or should be – in use to assess the quality of qualitative manuscripts in International Business (IB). We identify three generations of evaluative criteria, each derived from different philosophical orientations. Based on an analysis of published articles in two IB journals, expert interviews and sample reviews, we show how these generations shape what the scholarly community considers to be “good” qualitative research. As an alternative to rigid application of a single set of quality procedures, we advocate a pluralist, contextual approach, reflecting the inherent characteristics of IB as a field.",

keywords = "Assessment, Evaluative criteria, Publishing, Qualitative research, Quality, Reviewing, Validity",

author = "Catherine Welch and Rebecca Piekkari",

year = "2017",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007",

language = "English",

volume = "52",

pages = "714--725",

journal = "Journal of World Business",

issn = "1090-9516",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business

AU - Welch, Catherine

AU - Piekkari, Rebecca

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - In this paper, we initiate a debate about evaluative criteria (such as validity) which are – or should be – in use to assess the quality of qualitative manuscripts in International Business (IB). We identify three generations of evaluative criteria, each derived from different philosophical orientations. Based on an analysis of published articles in two IB journals, expert interviews and sample reviews, we show how these generations shape what the scholarly community considers to be “good” qualitative research. As an alternative to rigid application of a single set of quality procedures, we advocate a pluralist, contextual approach, reflecting the inherent characteristics of IB as a field.

AB - In this paper, we initiate a debate about evaluative criteria (such as validity) which are – or should be – in use to assess the quality of qualitative manuscripts in International Business (IB). We identify three generations of evaluative criteria, each derived from different philosophical orientations. Based on an analysis of published articles in two IB journals, expert interviews and sample reviews, we show how these generations shape what the scholarly community considers to be “good” qualitative research. As an alternative to rigid application of a single set of quality procedures, we advocate a pluralist, contextual approach, reflecting the inherent characteristics of IB as a field.

KW - Assessment

KW - Evaluative criteria

KW - Publishing

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Quality

KW - Reviewing

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022002673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85022002673

VL - 52

SP - 714

EP - 725

JO - Journal of World Business

JF - Journal of World Business

SN - 1090-9516

IS - 5

ER -

How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this