Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology

TLDR

Qualitative management research comprises diverse non‑statistical practices whose heterogeneity stems from competing philosophical assumptions, leading to confusion when universal evaluation criteria are applied. The paper aims to prevent misappropriation of evaluation criteria by proposing a contingent criteriology. This is achieved through a metatheoretical analysis of three qualitative research modes compared with the positivist mainstream to develop distinct evaluation forms. The authors argue that with criteria tailored to each philosophical stance, evaluation can reflexively assess whether research consistently adheres to the methodological principles sanctioned by its a priori commitments.

Abstract

The term qualitative management research embraces an array of non‐statistical research practices. Here it is argued that this diversity is an outcome of competing philosophical assumptions which produce distinctive research perspectives and legitimate the appropriation of different sets of evaluation criteria. Some confusion can arise when evaluation criteria constituted by particular philosophical conventions are universally applied to this heterogeneous management field. In order to avoid such misappropriation, this paper presents a first step towards a contingent criteriology located in a metatheoretical analysis of three modes of qualitative management research which are compared with the positivist mainstream to elaborate different forms of evaluation. It is argued that once armed with criteria that vary accordingly, evaluation can reflexively focus upon the extent to which any management research consistently embraces the particular methodological principles that are sanctioned by its a priori philosophical commitments.