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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex - Download

@article{9741176d35f34f1b8fb69bf07d071763,
title = "How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ 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 = "9",
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",

}

RIS - Download

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

VL - 52

SP - 714

EP - 725

JO - Journal of World Business

JF - Journal of World Business

SN - 1090-9516

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 17271643