Based on an analysis of qualitative research papers published between 2019 and 2021 in four top-tier management journals, we outline three interrelated silences that play a role in the objectification of qualitative research: silencing of noninterview data, silencing the researcher, and silencing context. Our analysis unpacks six silencing moves: creating a hierarchy of data, marginalizing noninterview data, downplaying researcher subjectivity, weakening the value of researcher interpretation, thin description, and backgrounding context. We suggest how researchers might resist the objectification of qualitative research and regain its original promise in developing more impactful and interesting theories: noninterview data can be unsilenced by democratizing data sources and utilizing nonverbal data, the researcher can be unsilenced by leveraging engagement and crafting interpretations, and finally, context can be unsilenced by foregrounding context as an interpretative lens and contextualizing the researcher, the researched, and the research project. Overall, we contribute to current understandings of the objectification of qualitative research by both unpacking particular moves that play a role in it and delineating specific practices that help researchers embrace subjectivity and engage in inspired theorizing.
AlvessonM. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925191
AmisJ. M.SilkM. L. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300341
5.
AokiK. (2020). The roles of material artifacts in managing the learning–performance paradox: The Kaizen case. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1266–1299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0967
6.
AshcraftK. L. (1999). Managing maternity leave: A qualitative analysis of temporary executive succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 240–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666996
7.
AtkinsonP.SilvermanD. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300304
8.
AzambujaR.IslamG. (2019). Working at the boundaries: Middle managerial work as a source of emancipation and alienation. Human Relations, 72(3), 534–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718785669
9.
BabaS.SasakiI.VaaraE. (2021). Increasing dispositional legitimacy: Progressive legitimation dynamics in a trajectory of settlements. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6), 1927–1968. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0330
10.
BakerC. D. (2001). Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 777–794). Sage.
11.
BakerT.NelsonR. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
12.
BarkerJ. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374
13.
BartunekJ. M.RynesS. L.IrelandR. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785494
14.
BellE.VachhaniS. J. (2020). Relational encounters and vital materiality in the practice of craft work. Organization Studies, 41(5), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619866482
15.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality. Anchor Books Doubleday.
16.
BloomM.ColbertA. E.NielsenJ. D. (2021). Stories of calling: How called professionals construct narrative identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 298–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220949502
17.
BluhmD. J.HarmanW.LeeT. W.MitchellT. 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
18.
BrannickT.CoghlanD. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289253
19.
BrattströmA.FaemsD. (2020). Interorganizational relationships as political battlefields: How fragmentation within organizations shapes relational dynamics between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 63(5), 1591–1620. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0038
20.
BrummansB. H.HwangJ. M.CheongP. H. (2020). Recycling stories: Mantras, communication, and organizational materialization. Organization Studies, 41(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618819033
21.
BusseC.KachA. P.WagnerS. M. (2017). Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 574–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116641191
22.
CardadorM. T.PrattM. G. (2018). Becoming who we serve: A model of multi-layered employee–customer identification. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2053–2080. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1201
23.
CloutierC.RavasiD. (2020). Identity trajectories: Explaining long-term patterns of continuity and change in organizational identities. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1196–1235. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1051
24.
CnossenB.BencherkiN. (2019). The role of space in the emergence and endurance of organizing: How independent workers and material assemblages constitute organizations. Human Relations, 72(6), 1057–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718794265
25.
CornelissenJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210
26.
CovaleskiM. A.DirsmithM. W.HeianJ. B.SamuelS. (1998). The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393854
27.
CrawfordB.ChilesT. H.EliasS. R. S. T. A. (2021). Long interviews in organizational research: Unleashing the power of “show and tell.”. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(3), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620930096
28.
CrawfordB.DacinM. T. (2021). Policing work: Emotions and violence in institutional work. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1219–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620941614
29.
CunliffeA. L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110373658
30.
CunliffeA. L. (2018). Wayfaring: A scholarship of possibilities or let’s not get drunk on abstraction. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1429–1439. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.214.1429
31.
DavisM. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211
32.
DelmestriG.GreenwoodR. (2016). How Cinderella became a queen: Theorizing radical status change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 507–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216644253
33.
de RondM.HolemanI.Howard-GrenvilleJ. (2019). Sensemaking from the body: An enactive ethnography of rowing the Amazon. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1961–1988. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1417
34.
DiBenignoJ. (2018). Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of US army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3), 526–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217714024
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554. https://doi.org/10.2307/256405
37.
Easterby-SmithM.Golden-BiddleK.LockeK. (2008). Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108315858
38.
EndrissatN.IslamG. (2022). Hackathons as affective circuits: Technology, organizationality and affect. Organization Studies, 43(7), 1019–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211053206
39.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. L. (2019). An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: Aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 917–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118776771
40.
FarnyS.KiblerE.DownS. (2019). Collective emotions in institutional creation work. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 765–799. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0711
41.
FendtJ.SachsW. (2008). Grounded theory method in management research: Users’ perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106297812
42.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
43.
GersickC. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/256363
44.
GillR. (2011). The shadow in organizational ethnography: Moving beyond shadowing to spectating. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 6(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641111159116
45.
GioiaD.CorleyK.EisenhardtK.FeldmanM.LangleyA.LêJ.Golden-BiddleK.LockeK.Mees-BussJ.PiekkariR.RavasiD.RerupC.SchmidT.SilvermanD.WelchC. (2022). A curated debate: On using “templates” in qualitative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221098955
46.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
47.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine de Gruyter.
48.
GlaserV. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0842
49.
GonsalvesL. (2020). From face time to flex time: The role of physical space in worker temporal flexibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1058–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220907891
50.
HafermalzE.RiemerK. (2020). Interpersonal connectivity work: Being there with and for geographically distant others. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1627–1648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620973664
51.
HammersleyM. (2017). Interview data: A qualified defense against the radical critique. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116671988
HarleyB.CornelissenJ. (2022). Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239–261.
54.
HarrisonS. H.RouseE. D. (2014). Let's dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1256–1283. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0343
55.
HibbertP.SillinceJ.DiefenbachT.CunliffeA. L. (2014). Relationally reflexive practice: A generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(3), 278–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114524829
56.
HollisD.WrightA.Smolović JonesO.Smolović JonesS. (2021). From “pretty” to “pretty powerful”: The communicatively constituted power of facial beauty’s performativity. Organization Studies, 42(12), 1885–1907. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211030663
57.
Howard-GrenvilleJ.NelsonA.VoughH.ZilberT. B. (2021). From the editors—achieving fit and avoiding misfit in qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1313–1323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.4005
58.
HultinL.IntronaL. (2019). On receiving asylum seekers: Identity working as a process of material-discursive interpellation. Organization Studies, 40(9), 1361–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782280
59.
HultinL.IntronaL. D.GöranssonM. B.MähringM. (2022). Precarity, hospitality, and the becoming of a subject that matters: A study of Syrian refugees in Lebanese tented settlements. Organization Studies, 43(5), 669–697.https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211026115
60.
JarvisL. C.GoodrickE.HudsonB. A. (2019). Where the heart functions best: Reactive-affective conflict and the disruptive work of animal rights organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1358–1387. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0342
61.
JarzabkowskiP.LêJ.BalogunJ. (2019). The social practice of coevolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 850–882. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0689
62.
JohnsonP.BuehringA.CassellC.SymonG. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00124.x
63.
KöhlerT.SmithA.BhakooV. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211060710
64.
KumpB. (2022). No need to hide: Acknowledging the researcher’s intuition in empirical organizational research. Human Relations, 75(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720984837
65.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/259349
66.
LangleyA.KlagM. (2019). Being where? Navigating the involvement paradox in qualitative research accounts. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117741967
Lifshitz-AssafH. (2018). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217747876
69.
LockeK.Golden-BiddleK. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/256926
70.
MacleanN. (1992). Young men and fire. University of Chicago Press.
71.
MartinJ.KnopoffK.BeckmanC. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 429–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393858
72.
McLarenP. G.DureposG. (2021). A call to practice context in management and organization studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492619837596
73.
Mees-BussJ.WelchC.PiekkariR. (2022). From templates to heuristics: How and why to move beyond the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120967716
74.
MeyersonD. E. (1994). Interpretations of stress in institutions: The cultural production of ambiguity and burnout. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4), 628–653. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393774
75.
MorlacchiP. (2021). The performative power of frictions and new possibilities: Studying power, performativity and process with Follett’s pragmatism. Organization Studies, 42(12), 1863–1883. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211031729
76.
PalmerD. (2006). Taking stock of the criteria we use to evaluate one another's work: ASQ 50 years out. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.4.535
77.
Peticca-HarrisA.deGamaN.EliasS. R. S. T. A. (2016). A dynamic process model for finding informants and gaining access in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 19(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116629218
78.
PlowmanD. A.BakerL. T.BeckT. E.KulkarniM.SolanskyS. T.TravisD. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515–543. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525647
79.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp045oa
PradiesC.TunarosaA.LewisM. W.CourtoisJ. (2021). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: The social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200
82.
PrasadP. (1993). Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1400–1429. https://doi.org/10.2307/256817
83.
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(3), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303349
84.
PrattM. G.KaplanS.WhittingtonR. (2020). The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
85.
PrattM. G.SonensheinS.FeldmanM. S. (2022). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120927466
86.
RafaeliA.SuttonR. I. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.2307/256388
87.
ReedyP. C.KingD. R. (2019). Critical performativity in the field: Methodological principles for activist ethnographers. Organizational Research Methods, 22(2), 564–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744881
RouseE. D. (2016). Beginning’s end: How founders psychologically disengage from their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1605–1629. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1219
90.
RouseE. D.HarrisonS. H. (2016). Triangulate and expand: Using multiple sources of data for convergence and expansion to enrich inductive theorizing. In ElsbachK. D.KramerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research (pp. 286–297). Routledge.
91.
RyanA. (2019). Guiding and enabling liminal experiences between business and arts organizations operating in a sponsorship relationship. Human Relations, 72(2), 344–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718761784
92.
SadehL. J.ZilberT. B. (2019). Bringing “together”: Emotions and power in organizational responses to institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1413–1443. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1200
93.
SandbergJ.TsoukasH. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330942
94.
ShorttH.IzakM. (2021). Scarred objects and time marks as memory anchors: The significance of scuffs and stains in organisational life. Human Relations, 74(10), 1688–1715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720938848
95.
SilvermanD. (2013). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. Sage.
96.
SmithW. R. (2022). On relationality and organizationality: Degrees of durability, materiality, and communicatively constituting a fluid social collective. Organization Studies, 43(11), 1815–1837. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211035497
97.
SoinK.ScheyttT. (2006). Making the case for narrative methods in cross-cultural organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283297
98.
SonensheinS. (2010). We’re changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477–512. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51467638
99.
StephensJ. P. (2021). How the show goes on: Using the aesthetic experience of collective performance to adapt while coordinating. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220911056
SuttonR. I. (1987). The process of organizational death: Disbanding and reconnecting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 542–569. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392883
103.
SymonG.CassellC.JohnsonP. (2018). Evaluative practices in qualitative management research: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12120
104.
TanV. (2015). Using negotiated joining to construct and fill open-ended roles in elite culinary groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(1), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214557638
105.
ToubianaM. (2020). Once in orange always in orange? Identity paralysis and the enduring influence of institutional logics on identity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(6), 1739–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0826
106.
TraceyP.DalpiazE.PhillipsN. (2018). Fish out of water: Translation, legitimation, and new venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1627–1666. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0264
107.
VisserL. M.BenschopY. W. M.BleijenberghI. L.van RielA. C. R. (2019). Unequal consumers: Consumerist healthcare technologies and their creation of new inequalities. Organization Studies, 40(7), 1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772599
108.
WarhurstC. (1998). Recognizing the possible: The organization and control of a socialist labor process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 470–497. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393859
109.
WeickK. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.2307/258556
110.
WelchC.Paavilainen-MäntymäkiE.PiekkariR.PlakoyiannakiE. (2022). Reconciling theory and context: How the case study can set a new agenda for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00484-5
111.
WhitakerE. M.AtkinsonP. (2019). Authenticity and the interview: A positive response to a radical critique. Qualitative Research, 19(6), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118816885
112.
WhitemanG.CooperW. H. (2000). Ecological embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1265–1282. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556349
Wray-BlissE. (2002). Interpretation—appropriation: (Making) an example of labor process theory. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102051006
115.
WrightA. L.MeyerA. D.ReayT.StaggsJ. (2021). Maintaining places of social inclusion: Ebola and the emergency department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(1), 42–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220916401
116.
YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (2014). Wherefore ‘interpretive’? An introduction. In YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (Eds.), Interpretation and method (pp. xiii–xxii). Routledge.
117.
ZilberT. B. (2013). Institutional logics and institutional work: Should they be agreed? In LounsburyM.BoxenbaumE. (Eds.), Institutional logics in action (Vol. 39A, pp. 77–96). Emerald Group Publishing.
118.
ZilberT. B.ZanoniP. (2022). Templates of ethnographic writing in organization studies: Beyond the hegemony of the detective story. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 371–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120944468
