This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hunt, S. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

On the Rhetoric of Qualitative Methods

Toward Historically Informed Argumentation in Management Inquiry

Texas Tech University

Qualitative research is becoming increasingly prominent in management. Such research is commonly contrasted with so-called positivist research, which is described as not only (a) being the same thing as quantitative methods but also (b) being deterministic, (c) involving the search for real causes, (d) adopting a realist ontology, (e) engaging in reification, (f) being functionalist, or (g) being objectivist. This article uses a qualitative method (i.e., historical method) to show that, qualitative research rhetoric notwithstanding, all seven of the characteristics that supposedly identify research in management as positivist are actually mischaracterizations (or caricatures) of any research in management that would be properly described as postivist. Because the rhetoric justifying qualitative methods is, therefore, intellectually impoverished, management scholars are urged to recognize the complementarity of qualitative and quantitative methods, recognize our responsibility for producing trustworthy knowledge, declare a truce or rhetorical "ceasefire," and move on to a more historically informed discourse on methodology in management inquiry.

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 3, 221-234 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/105649269433002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. J. Hartelius and L. D. Browning The Application of Rhetorical Theory in Managerial Research: A Literature Review Management Communication Quarterly, August 1, 2008; 22(1): 13 - 39. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. D. Hunt For Truth and Realism in Management Research Journal of Management Inquiry, June 1, 2005; 14(2): 127 - 138. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. T. Mahoney and R. Sanchez Building New Management Theory by Integrating Processes and Products of Thought Journal of Management Inquiry, March 1, 2004; 13(1): 34 - 47. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Nord Spinning Disciplines with Mayer Zald: Some Further Thoughts on Critical Management Studies and Management Education Organization, August 1, 2002; 9(3): 437 - 446. [PDF]

				M. F. Peterson and M. R. Meckler Cuban-American Entrepreneurs: Chance, Complexity and Chaos Organization Studies, January 1, 2001; 22(1): 31 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Kaghan and N. Phillips Building the Tower of Babel: Communities of Practice and Paradigmatic Pluralism in Organization Studies Organization, May 1, 1998; 5(2): 191 - 215. [Abstract]

				R. Jacques The Empire Strikes Out: Lyotard's Postmodern Condition and the Need for a `Necrology of Knowledge' Organization, February 1, 1997; 4(1): 130 - 142.

				A. F. Connell and W. R. Nord The Bloodless Coup: The Infiltration of Organization Science by Uncertainty and Values Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, December 1, 1996; 32(4): 407 - 427. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. G. Hunt Ruminations on a Continuum of Leadership Choices Journal of Management Inquiry, June 1, 1995; 4(2): 207 - 208.

				S. Van Eijkelenburg On the Rhetoric of Qualitative Methods: A Rejoinder Journal of Management Inquiry, June 1, 1995; 4(2): 209 - 210.