Métodos qualitativos nos estudos organizacionais e de gestão
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
A investigação sobre gestão e organizações tem sido metodologicamente dominada pela lógica hipotético-dedutiva e pelos métodos quantitativos. Tal orientação tem possibilitado significativos desenvolvimentos do conhecimento. Todavia, essas disciplinas também se beneficiam da aplicação de métodos indutivos. Assim, os métodos indutivos são aqui apresentados como de especial relevância para um mundo organizacional em profunda mudança. Este artigo apresenta algumas das críticas recorrentes aos métodos qualitativos (MQ) de natureza indutiva, bem como possíveis remédios contra essas críticas. O texto procura ultrapassar a visão preconceituosa por vezes feita dos MQ. Mas estes métodos ajudam a explicar, a mostrar por quê, a retratar com rigor os fenômenos estudados –o objetivo último da investigação científica. Permitem, ainda, mitigar um problema atual dos estudos organizacionais, um campo no qual muitos estudos são rigorosos, mas oferecem conclusões triviais.
Downloads
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
A Revista de Gestão dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (RGPLP) compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- Adota a licença Creative Commoms BY (CC-BY) em todos os textos que publica, exceto quando houver indicação de específicos detentores dos direitos autorais e patrimoniais;
- Adota software de verificação de similaridade de conteúdo - plagiarismo (Crossref Similarity Check);
- Adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Mais detalhes do código de ética adotado pela RGPLP podem ser visualizados em Diretrizes Éticas.
Referências
ALVESSON, M.; SANDBERG, J. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, v. 50, n. 1, p. 128-152, 2013.
ANTONAKIS, J. On doing better science: from thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, n. 28, p. 5-21, 2017.
BANSAL, P.; CORLEY, K. The coming of age for qualitative research: embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, v. 54, n. 2, p. 233-237, 2011.
BANSAL, P.; KIM, A.; WOOD, M. O. Hidden in plain sight: the importance of scale on organizational attention to issues. Academy of Management Review, v. 43, n. 2, p. 217-241, 2018.
BIRKINSHAW, J.; BRANNEN, M. Y.; TUNG, R. L. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 42, n. 5, p. 573-581, 2011.
BITEKTINE, A. Prospective case study design: qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organizational Research Methods, v. 11, n. 1, p. 160-180, 2008.
BODNER, J.; SONG, S. Y.; SZULANSKI, G. Heuristics to navigate uncertainties: interview with Professor Kathleen Eisenhardt. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2019, v.28, n.3, p.359-365.
BOJE, D. M. et al. Enron spectacles: a critical dramaturgical analysis. Organization Studies, n. 25, p. 751-774, 2004.
CALAPRICE, A. (Ed.). The expanded quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
CLANCY, A.; VINCE, R. Theory as fantasy: emotional dimensions to grounded theory. British Journal of Management, v. 30, n. 1, p. 203-216, 2019.
CLEGG, S.; CUNHA, M. P.; REGO, A. The theory and practice of utopia in a total institution: the pineapple panopticon. Organization Studies, v. 33, n. 12, p. 1735-1757, 2012.
COAST, J.; MCDONALD, R.; BAKER, R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, v. 9, n. 3, p. 171-176, 2004.
CUNHA, M. P.; DIAS, P. S. O que define uma boa questão de investigação? [s.l.]: [s.n.], 2019. Não publicado.
CUNHA, M. P. et al. Embodying sensemaking: learning from the extreme case of Vann Nath, prisoner at S-21. European Management Review, v. 12, n. 1, p. 41-58, 2015.
CUNHA, M. P. et al. Biographical methods in leadership research. In: SCHYNS, B.; HALL, R.; NEVES, P. (Ed.). Handbook of methods on leadership research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017. p. 372-400.
DAVIS, M. S. “That’s interesting!”: towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Sciences, n. 1, p. 309-344, 1971.
DUKES, W. F. “N = 1”. Psychological Bulletin, v. 64, n. 1, p. 74-79, 1965.
FAIRHURST, G. T.; PUTNAM, L. L. An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 2019, v. 22, n. 4, p. 917-940.
FLYVBJERG, B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, v. 12, n. 2, p. 219-245, 2006.
GARUD, R.; TURUNEN, M. The banality of organizational innovations: embracing the substance-process duality. Innovation: Organization & Management, v. 19, n. 1, p. 31-38, 2017.
GEORGE, G. et al. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, v. 59, n. 6, p. 1880-1895, 2016.
GIOIA, D. A.; CORLEY, K. G.; HAMILTON, A. L. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, v. 16, n. 1, p. 15-31, 2012.
GODDARD, J.; ECCLES, T. Uncommon sense, common nonsense. London: Profile Books, 2013.
HARROD, H. How Tolkien became the man who made Middle-earth. 2018. Disponível em: <https://www.ft.com/content/c7ec7e70-4d98-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4>. Acesso em: 17 dez. 2019.
HEMINGWAY, M. A. Qualitative research in I-O psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, n. 38, p. 45-51, 2001.
HIBBERT, P. et al. Relationally reflexive practice: a generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, v. 17, n. 3, p. 278-298, 2014.
HUFF, A. S. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1999.
JACKSON, M.; MANTSCH, H. H. The medical challenge to infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Molecular Structure, n. 408, p. 105-111, 1997.
JARZABKOWSKI, P.; BEDNAREK, R.; LÊ, J. Studying paradox as process and practice. In: FARJOUN, M. (Ed.). Perspectives on process organization studies: dualities, dialectics and paradoxes in organizational life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. v. 8, p. 175-194.
JARZABKOWSKI, P.; LÊ, J.; BALOGUN, J. The social practice of co-evolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal, v. 62, n. 3, p. 850-882, 2018.
JEBB, A. T.; PARRIGON, S.; WOO, S. E. Exploratory data analysis as a foundation for inductive research. Human Resource Management Review, n. 27, p. 265-276, 2017.
JOHNSON, P. Evaluating qualitative research: past, present, and future. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, v. 10, n. 4, p. 320-324, 2015.
JOHNSON, P. et al. Evaluating qualitative management research: towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 8, n. 3, p. 131-156, 2006.
JOHNSON, P. et al. Defining qualitative management research: an empirical investigation. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, v. 2, n. 1, p. 23-42, 2007.
KAFKA, J. O processo. Mem Martins: Europa-América, 1976.
KAHN, W. A. Dynamics and implications of distress organizing. Academy of Management Journal, v. 62, n. 5, p. 1471-1497, 2018.
KAMOCHE, K.; CUNHA, M. P. Minimal structures: from jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, n. 22, p. 733-764, 2001.
KLAG, M.; LANGLEY, A. Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 15, n. 2, p. 149-166, 2013.
KOHLER, T. On writing up qualitative research in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, v. 15, n. 3, p. 400-418, 2016.
LOCKE, E. A. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, v. 33, n. 6, p. 867-890, 2007.
LOPES, C. C.; CUNHA, M. P. Da teoria à prática: contrastando modelos e realidades na inovação de produtos. Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão, v. 4, n. 2, p. 159-185, 1998.
MAISON, D. Qualitative marketing research: understanding consumer behaviour. London: Routledge, 2018.
MARCH, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational life. Organization Science, n. 2, p. 71-87, 1991.
MELVILLE, H. Moby Dick. Lisboa: Guerra e Paz, 2017.
MINTZBERG, H. Developing theory about the development of theory. In: SMITH, K. G.; HITT, M.A. (Ed.). Great minds in management: the process of theory development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 355-372.
MITCHELL, T. R. A dynamic, inclusive, and affective evolutionary view of organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, n. 5, p. 1-19, 2018.
OSTROVSKY, V. N. Towards a philosophy of approximations in the ‘exact’ sciences. Hylé: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, v. 11, n. 2, p. 101-126, 2005.
POLLOCK, T. G.; BONO, J. E. Being Scheherazade: the importance of storytelling in academic writing. Academy of Management Journal, v. 56, n. 3, p. 629-634, 2013.
POPPER, K. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge, 1959.
PRATT, M. G. For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, v. 52, n. 5, p. 856-862, 2009.
PRATT, M. G.; BONACCIO, S. Qualitative research in I-O psychology: maps, myths, and moving forward. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, v. 9, n. 4, p. 693-715, 2016.
PUTNAM, L.; FAIRHURST, G. T.; BANGHART, S. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, v. 10, n. 1, p. 65-171, 2016.
RHODES, C. Democratic business ethics: Volkswagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty. Organization Studies, v. 37, n. 10, p. 1501-1518, 2016.
RUDDIN, L. P. You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, v. 12, n. 4, p. 797-812, 2006.
SMITH, W. K.; BESHAROV, M. L. Bowing before dual gods: how structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 64, n. 1, p. 1-44, 2019.
STRAUSS, A.; CORBIN, J. Basics of qualitative research. 2. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.
STYHRE, A. Raymond Carver and the voices of everyday life. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, v. 12, n. 3, p. 174-189, 2017.
SUDDABY, R. Objectivity and truth: the role of the essay in management scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, v. 56, n. 2, p. 441-447, 2018.
SUTTON, R. I.; STAW, B. M. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 40, n. 3, p. 371-384, 1995.
TRACY, S. J. Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, v. 16, n. 10, p. 837-851, 2010.
TSANG, E. W. K. Generalizing from research findings: the merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, n. 16, p. 369-383, 2014.
TSOUKAS, H. Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In: BUCHANAN, D.; BRYMAN, A. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2009. p. 285-301.
URQUHART, C. Regrounding grounded theory – or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief reply to Bryant. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, v. 4, n. 3, p. 43-54, 2002.
URQUHART, C. The evolving nature of grounded theory method: the case of the information systems discipline. In: BRYANT, A.; CHARMAZ, K. (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2007. p. 339-359.
WHITEMAN, G. Management studies that break your heart. Journal of Management Inquiry, v. 19, p. 328-337, 2010.
WIKLUND, J. et al. Mental disorders in the entrepreneurship context: when being different can be an advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, v. 32, n. 2, p. 182-206, 2018.
WOICESHYN, J.; DAELLENBACH, U. Evaluating inductive vs deductive research in management studies: implications for authors, editors, and reviewers. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, v. 13, n. 2, p. 183-195, 2018.