• Understand the choices involved in executing a qualitative study – from a paradigmatic stand, through defining a research question, choosing a case, choosing which data to collect and how, how to analyze it and conceptualize from it, and how to present the findings.
• Reflect on the pros and cons of each choice, the different considerations they entail, how they fit together, and the overall coherence of the project.
• Rigorously reflect on, justify, and communicate these choices.

This course is meant to bridge between the comprehensive “KAN-CGMAO2004U

Qualitative Methods and Reasoning“ course that the students take in the first

semester, and the research project to be designed and executed in the fourth

semester. Whereas the first course takes an “opportunistic approach” to doing

qualitative research and is built on hands-on experience in collecting and analyzing

qualitative field materials, this course takes a more “design-oriented approach”,

focusing on the different choices involved in designing a qualitative research project.

Building on the knowledge the students acquired in the first course, this course is

based on intensive student-teacher interactions to get the students closer to the

state of the art in research practice.

During this elective, we will discuss the research process as a series of

choices, each of which entails pros and cons and is consequential to the other

choices and to the overall project. These choices include:

1. Paradigmatic stand (from post-positivist to constructivist) 

2. Research question (level of analysis, focus on experience or construction);

3. The case study (what makes a good case? E.g., extreme case versus a typical

case; homogeneity versus heterogeneity of interviewees, etc.)

4. Data collection (interviews, observations, or archival, or a mix thereof)

5. Data analysis (thematic, comparative, or longitudinal/process approach);

6. Ways of theorizing

7. Ways of presenting qualitative insights

In discussing each of these decision-points, we will map the terrain of possibilities,

the implication of various choices, their pros and cons, and the kinds of

considerations (e.g., ethical, practical) they should weigh as students design their

research project. We will also highlight that these decisions are not made in isolation. Instead, they are interdependent and should fit each other to ensure the overall coherence of the research project. We will also exemplify the various choices through examples from management and strategic research on entrepreneurship, decision-making, and leadership

• Methodology

• Development of research questions
• Discussion, critical reflection, modelling

Empirical articles

A list of exemplary qualitative empirical studies will be determined in coordination with the advanced theoretical course, to help students see the connection between research design and the knowledge it can produce (theories they cover in the advanced theoretical course). For example:

Alacovska, A., & Kärreman, D. (2023). Tormented selves: The social imaginary of the tortured artist and the identity work of creative workers. Organization Studies, 44(6), 961-985.

Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an

Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 65(3): 644-679.

Skade, L., Lehrer, E., Hamdali, Y., & Koch, J. (2025). The temporality of crisis and the crisis of temporality: On the construction and modulation of urgency during prolonged crises. Journal of Management Studies, 62(3), 1087-1120.

Laguecir, A., & Hudson, B. A. (2024). Too poor to get social housing: Accounting and structural stigmatisation of the poor. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 100, 102757.

van Werven, R., Bouwmeester, O., & Cornelissen, J. (2019). Pitching a Business

Idea to Investors: How New Venture Founders Use Micro-Level Rhetoric to Achieve

Narrative Plausibility and Resonance. International Small Business Journal, 37(3):

193-214.

Mazmanian, M., & Beckman, C.M. (2019). “Making” Your Numbers:

Engendering Organizational Control Through a Ritual of Quantification.

Organization Science, 29(3): 357-379.

Methodological articles

Class 1, Paradigmatic stand: One of the following

Amis, J. M., & Silk, M. L. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 456-480.

Neesham, C. (2018). Philosophical Foundations of Qualitative Organizational Research. Ch. 2 In: Mir, R. & Jain, S. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies. Routledge.

Class 2, Research question:

Pratt, M.G. (2016). Crafting and Selecting Research Questions and Contexts in Qualitative Research. Ch. 17 In Elsbach, K.D. & Kramer, R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Routledge.

Class 3, The case study: One of the following

Small, M. L. (2009). How many cases do I need?' On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5-38.

Ozcan, P., Han, S., & Graebner, M.E. (2018). Single Cases: The What, Why and How. Ch. 7 In Mir, R. & Jain, S. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies. Routledge.

Chen, K.K. (2016). Understanding Organizations from Extreme Cases. Ch. 4 In Elsbach, K.D. & Kramer, R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Routledge.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Class 4 & 5, Data collection: Two of the following

Langley, A., & Meziani, N. (2020). Making interviews meaningful. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 370-391.

Locke, K. (2011). Field research practice in management and organization studies: Reclaiming its tradition of discovery. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 613-652.

Moore, N., Salter, A., Stanley, L., & Tamboukou, M. (2016). The archive project: Archival research in the social sciences. Routledge.

Class 6 & 7, Data analysis: Two of the following

Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2020). What makes a process theoretical contribution?. Organization Theory, 1(1), 2631787720902473.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really?. Strategic organization, 19(1), 147-160.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.

Classes 8 & 9, Ways of theorizing:

Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368-383.

Mantere, S. (2018). Reasoning with Qualitative Data: Balancing a Theoretical Contribution. Ch. 24 In:  Mir, R. & Jain, S. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies. Routledge.

Class 10, Presenting qualitative findings: One of the following

Golden-Biddle, K. & Locke, K. (2007). Composing Qualitative Research. Sage. Chapter 2: Crafting a theorized storyline, pp.

Reay, T., Zafar, A., Monteiro, P., & Glaser, V. (2019). Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all!. In The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory (pp. 201-216). Emerald Publishing Limited.