Management and Organisation Research Community Workshop – Professor Andrea Whittle & Professor Stefanie Reissner

Title: Qualitative Interview Research in Management and Organisation Studies

Date: 22 May 2024

Time: 10:00-12:00

Location: NUBS.2.03

If you would like to attend, please register using the following link:

Qualitative Interview Research in Management and Organisation Studies

Speakers: Professor Andrea Whittle, Professor of Management and Organisation Studies, Newcastle University Business School and Professor Stefanie Reissner, Professor of Work and Organization Studies at Durham University Business School, UK.

Andrea Whittle is Professor of Management and Organization Studies at Newcastle University Business School, UK. Before joining Newcastle University in 2013, Andrea held a Chair in Organization Studies at Cardiff University. Her research is driven by a passion for understanding the role of language in management settings and is informed by theories and methodologies from the fields of discourse analysis, narrative, discursive psychology, dramaturgy, and ethnomethodology. Stefanie Reissner is Professor of Work and Organization Studies at Durham University Business School, UK. She specialises in qualitative research, particularly methodologies involving interviewing, narrative and reflexivity. Stefanie has researched identity, narrative and storytelling as well as sensemaking in different contexts such as organizational change, employee engagement and flexible working.

Abstract:

This workshop is about how authors write up qualitative interview research in so-called ‘leading’ management and organisation journals. (Please note: This workshop is about the overall research design and writing-up of interview research. It will not cover the practical aspects of how to design interview questions or how to conduct interviews). The workshop is based on a paper recently published in the journal Qualitative Research in Organizations & Management (Reissner & Whittle, 2021). The article presented the findings of a methodological review of 225 journal articles using qualitative interviews that were published in selected management, human resource management, organisational behaviour and international business journals listed in the Financial Times 50 list between 2009 and 2019. The study identified significant differences in which journals publish interview-based studies and also found considerable diversity in the methodological practices used in these studies (as reported in the methodology section of the articles) as well as considerable differences in the presentational styles used to report the interview findings (e.g. where interview quotes are placed and how they are reported). To make sense of this plurality, the authors map these practices and styles against the onto-epistemological paradigms identified by Alvesson (2003; 2011) and discusses the apparent dissensus that exists amongst qualitative interview researchers about what makes a ‘good’ interview study (Johnson et al., 2007). The workshop will also explore some ideas from a related conceptual study (article currently under review) which explores the different modes through which management and organization scholars make the ‘leap’ from one or more interview quotes to claiming to know something about the phenomenon they are investigating. While other scholars such as Rockman and Vough (2023) have written about how to use quotes to ‘evidence’ claims, we ask a related but distinct question, namely: What do management and organization scholars typically claim their quotes are evidence of? We will introduce workshop participants to the main ‘epistemological modes’ through which these ‘leaps’ are made in our field. Participants will discuss the onto-epistemological plurality and diversity underpinning these leaps, using some practical examples from published research. The workshop will conclude with a discussion of the current state of the method in management and organisation studies. We will discuss the fact there is no ‘one best way’ to conduct and write up an interview study in our field, meaning we must also question the use of evaluative criteria derived from positivism to evaluate interview research (Cassell and Symon, 2015). We will conclude the workshop by calling for greater “paradigmatic awareness” (Plakoyiannaki and Budhwar, 2021, p. 5) amongst those using, assessing and teaching qualitative interviewing so that the philosophical diversity underpinning qualitative interview research can be appreciated. The workshop is expected to help doctoral students, early career scholars and those new to qualitative interviewing to make decisions about how to design, write up and publish their research. It could also be useful for journal editors, reviewers, doctoral examiners and conference organisers in reflecting on their assumptions about what ‘good’ qualitative interview research involves and what ‘rigour’ means.