Why We Need Qualitative Research in Management Studies

Main Article Content

Evelyn Lanka
Sanjay Lanka
Ali Rostron
Pallavi Singh


The purpose of this editorial is to outline the perspective of the special issue call for qualitative research tutorial papers in Revista de Administração Contemporânea (RAC), as well as to frame the need for qualitative research and its value in the larger management research literature. In this regard, this editorial will provide commentary on the concept of qualitative research and how this differs from quantitative research, before moving on to a brief discussion of why qualitative methods provide avenues for answering questions and producing research which quantitative methods may be unable to do alone. We also wish to frame the value of viewing qualitative methods as a complementary approach to quantitative methods, rather than taking a binary approach that privileges only one method or approach. This editorial does not wish to further the ongoing paradigm wars that seem to perpetually plague academic research. Rather, we wish to draw attention to the use value of qualitative research while also acknowledging the value that alternative paradigms bring. In doing so, we wish to acknowledge the continued privilege that quantitative research has in our field, and attempt to highlight ways in which qualitative research can, at times, prove to be a most useful approach, and why it may also be a valuable and necessary complement to quantitative methods. Hence, our call for qualitative research tutorial papers, which we hope will provide managers and researchers with appropriate new tools and guidance with which to conduct such complementary forms of research, and to enrich our knowledge and understanding of management.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Lanka, E., Lanka, S., Rostron, A., & Singh, P. (2020). Why We Need Qualitative Research in Management Studies. Journal of Contemporary Administration, 25(2), e200297. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2021200297.en


Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 819-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.03.007
Bluhm, D., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866-1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 78–92. http://doi.org/10.2307/590553
Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 729-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.007
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (2006), “Taking qualitative methods in organization and management research seriously”. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 1(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640610666606
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing and Organisations (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Coyle, J., & Williams, B. (2000). An exploration of the epistemological intricacies of using qualitative data to develop a quantitative measure of user views of health care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(5), 1235-1243. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01381.x
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalisability and the single case study. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds). Case Study Method (pp. 45-68). London: Sage Publications.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. London: Sage Publications.
Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., & Steinke, I. (Eds.). (2004). A companion to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hassard, J., McCann, L. & Morris, J. (2009). Managing in the modern corporation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Korica, M., Nicolini, D., & Johnson, B. (2017). In search of ‘managerial work’: Past, present and future of an analytical category. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(2), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12090
Lanka, E., Lanka, S., Rostron, A., Singh, P. (2019). Research methods in qualitative management research. RAC – Revista de Administração Contemporânea. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3547828
Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
Modell, S., (2009). In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 208-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.04.001
Morse, J. M., & Chung, S. E. (2003). Toward holism: The significance of methodological pluralism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200302
Pratt, M. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856-862. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M. & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
Symon, G., Cassell, C., & Dickson, R. (2000). Expanding our research and practice through innovative research methods. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 457-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320050203076
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Toomela, A. (2008). Variables in psychology: A critique of quantitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(3), 245-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9059-6
Vaivio, J., & Sirén, A. (2010). Insights into method triangulation and “paradigms” in interpretive management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2010.03.001
Watson, T. J. (2000). In Search of Management. London: Thomson Learning.
Watson, T. J. (2001). The emergent manager and processes of management pre-learning. Management Learning, 32(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601322004
Weinberg, D. (2014). Contemporary social constructionism: Key themes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014