Management journals are currently responding to challenges raised by the “replication crisis” in experimental social psychology, leading to new standards for transparency. These approaches are spilling over to qualitative research in unhelpful and potentially even dangerous ways. Advocates for transparency in qualitative research mistakenly couple it with replication. Tying transparency tightly to replication is deeply troublesome for qualitative research, where replication misses the point of what the work seeks to accomplish. We suggest that transparency advocates conflate replication with trustworthiness. We challenge this conflation on both ontological and methodological grounds, and we offer alternatives for how to (and how not to) think about trustworthiness in qualitative research. Management journals need to tackle the core issues raised by this tumult over transparency by identifying solutions for enhanced trustworthiness that recognize the unique strengths and considerations of different methodological approaches in our field.
AguinisH.CascioW. F.RamaniR. S.2017 “Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune.” Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 653–663.
2.
AguinisH.HillN. S.BaileyJ. R.2019 “Best practices in data collection and preparation: Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors.” Organizational Research Methods, published online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119836485.
3.
AguinisH.RamaniR. S.AlabduljaderN.2018 “What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research.” Academy of Management Annals, 12: 83–110.
4.
AguinisH.SolarinoA. M.2019"Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants.” Strategic Management Journal, 40: 1–25.
5.
AndersonB. S.WennbergK.McMullenJ. S.2019 “Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research.” Journal of Business Venturing, published online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.02.001.
6.
BaertP.2004 “Pragmatism as a philosophy of the social sciences.” European Journal of Social Theory, 7: 355–369.
7.
BambergerP. A.2019 “On the replicability of abductive research in management and organizations: Internal replication and its alternatives.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 5.2: 103–108.
8.
BansalP.CorleyK.2011 “The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods.” Academy of Management Journal, 54: 233–237.
9.
BansalP.SmithW. K.VaaraE.2018 “New ways of seeing through qualitative research.” Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1189–1195.
10.
BartunekJ. M.RynesS. L.IrelandR. D.2006 “What makes management research interesting and why does it matter?” Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9–15.
11.
BechkyB.2011 “Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders.” Organization Science, 22: 1157–1167.
12.
BhaskarR. A.1979The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester.
13.
BhaskarR. A.1997A Realist Theory of Science, 3rd ed.Oxford: Routledge.
CunliffeA. L.2011 “Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on.” Organizational Research Methods, 14: 647–673.
19.
Easterby-SmithM.Golden-BiddleK.LockeK.2008 “Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research.” Organizational Research Methods, 11: 419–429.
20.
EisenhardtK. M.1989 “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.
21.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E.2007 “Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.” Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25–32.
22.
GehmanJ.GlaserV. L.EisenhardtK. M.GioiaD.LangleyA.CorleyK. G.2018 “Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 27: 284–300.
23.
GibbertM.RuirokW.2010 “The ‘what’ and ‘how’of case study rigor: Three strategies based on published work.” Organizational Research Methods, 13: 710–737.
24.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L.2012 “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology.” Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15–31.
25.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.2017Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, reprint ed. New York: Routledge.
GoldfarbB.KingA. A.2016 “Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests and mistaken inference.” Strategic Management Journal, 37: 167–176.
28.
GoodmanS. N.FanelliD.IoannidisJ. P.2016 “What does research reproducibility mean?” Science Translational Medicine, 8: 1–7.
29.
GrantR. M.JammineA. P.ThomasH.1988 “Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972–1984.” Academy of Management Journal, 31: 771–801.
30.
HuisingR.2014 “The erosion of expert control through censure episodes.” Organization Science, 25: 1633–1661.
31.
IbarraH.1999 “Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764–791.
32.
JohnL. K.LoewensteinG.PrelecD.2012 “Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling.” Psychological Science, 23: 524–532.
33.
KaplanS.2008 “Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty.” Organization Science, 19: 729–752.
34.
KaplanS.OrlikowskiW. J.2013 “Temporal work in strategy making.” Organization Science, 24: 965–995.
35.
KelloggK. C.2009 “Operating room: Relational spaces and micro-institutional change in surgery.” American Journal of Sociology, 115: 657–711.
36.
KelloggK. C.2012 “Making the cut: Using status-based countertactics to block social movement implementation and micro-institutional change in surgery.” Organization Science, 23: 1546–1570.
37.
KerrN. L.1998 “HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 196–217.
38.
KetokiviM.MantereS.2010 “Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research.” Academy of Management Review, 35: 315–333.
39.
LangleyA.1999 “Strategies for theorizing from process data.” Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.
40.
LangleyA.AbdallahC.2011 “Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management.” Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6: 105–140.
41.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G.1985 “Establishing trustworthiness.” In Naturalistic Inquiry: 289–331. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
LockeK.Golden-BiddleK.1997 “Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies.” Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.
43.
MayerM.WhittingtonR.2003 “Diversification in context: A cross-national and cross-temporal extension.” Strategic Management Journal, 24: 773–781.
44.
McGrathJ. E.1981 “Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas.” American Behavioral Scientist, 25: 179–210.
45.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.1994Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
MillerC. C.BambergerP.2016 “Exploring emergent and poorly understood phenomena in the strangest of places: The footprint of discovery in replications, meta-analyses, and null findings.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 2: 314–319.
47.
MoorsA.2019 “The trouble with transparency: Reconnecting ethics, integrity, epistemology, and power.” Ethnography, 20: 149–169.
48.
MorganG.SmircichL.1980 “The case for qualitative research." Academy of Management Review, 5: 491–500.
49.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T.2018 “The preregistration revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115: 2600–2606.
50.
O’BoyleE. H.Jr.BanksG. C.Gonzalez-MuléE.2017 “The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles.” Journal of Management, 43: 376–399.
51.
ObstfeldD.2012 “Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done.” Organization Science, 23: 1571–1592.
52.
Open Science Collaboration2015 “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.” Science, 349 (6251): 1–68.
53.
PrattM. G.2008 “Fitting oval pegs into round holes—Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals.” Organizational Research Methods, 11: 481–509.
54.
PrattM. G.BonaccioS.2016 “Qualitative research in IO psychology: Maps, myths, and moving forward.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9: 693–715.
55.
PrattM. G.LepistoD.DaneE.2019 “The hidden side of trust: Supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 398–434.
56.
PrattM. G.SonensheinS.FeldmanM.2019 “Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research.” Working paper, Boston College.
57.
ReayT.ZafarA.MonteiroP.VernG.2020 “Presenting findings from qualitative research: One size does not fit all.” In ZilberT. B.AmisJ. M.MairJ. (eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 64: 1–24 (in press). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
58.
RortyR.1979Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
SayerA.1999Realism and Social Science. Lancaster, UK: Sage.
60.
SchommerM.RichterA.KarnaA.2019 “Does the diversification–firm performance relationship change over time? A meta-analytical review.” Journal of Management Studies, 56: 270–298.
61.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU.2011 “False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.” Psychological Science, 22: 1359–1366.
62.
SpradleyJ. P.1979The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
63.
StraussA.CorbinJ.1998Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
TsangE. W.KwanK. M.1999 “Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective.” Academy of Management Review, 24: 759–780.
65.
Van MaanenJ. 1995 “Style as theory.” Organization Science, 6 (1): 133–143.
66.
Van MaanenJ. 1998 “Different strokes: Qualitative research in the Administrative Science Quarterly from 1956 to 1996.” In Van MaanenJ. (ed.), Qualitative Studies of Organizations: ix–xxxii. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
VaughanD.2009 “Ethnographic analytics.” In HedstromP.BearmanP. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology: 688–711. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
YinR. K.2003Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
