Jurnal Filsafat 4

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal
Organizational access in qualitative research
Benjamin Nathan Alexander, Anne D. Smith,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Benjamin Nathan Alexander, Anne D. Smith, (2018) "Organizational access in qualitative research",
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, https://
doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2017-1574
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2017-1574
Downloaded on: 29 July 2018, At: 10:28 (PT)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:28 29 July 2018 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 132 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm
Organizational
Organizational access in access in
qualitative research qualitative
research
Benjamin Nathan Alexander
Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, California, USA, and
Anne D. Smith Received 27 October 2017
Department of Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA Revised 25 April 2018
Accepted 7 June 2018
Abstract
Purpose – While organizational access is central to much qualitative research, little is known about how
researchers secure it. The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic assessment of this critical
methodological step.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review was conducted to establish how researchers gained
access to organizations for qualitative research. Access type was identified and explanatory indicators were
inductively developed to illuminate how access was obtained in a sample of 216 qualitative articles published
in Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Journal between 1986 and 2013.
A supplemental review of 306 articles published in Organization Studies over the same period augmented the
primary analysis with a broader view of published accounts of access.
Findings – Learning prior to entering organizations, researchers’ backgrounds, organizational insiders, and
outside contacts facilitated access. The role of these factors, which served as indicators of legitimacy, varied
with the type of access. In addition, the authors found that many articles provide little information about how
the researchers gained access, regardless of a publication’s domicile.
Originality/value – This study furthers the understanding of how researchers gain access to organizations
to conduct qualitative research and discusses the implications of the limited access accounts in published
studies. In addition, this research provides practical guidance for authors, editors, and reviewers.
Keywords Legitimacy, Field research, Organizational access, Qualitative methods
Paper type Research paper
Many of the most important insights in management and organizational research are derived
from data gathered within organizations. In these studies, researchers went to the “field” and
spent time with organizational members. An obvious question then is: “How did these
researchers gain access?” A few dedicated efforts address this issue from a relational
perspective by drawing on rich backstories from qualitative researchers (Buchanan et al.,
1988; Cunliffe and Alcadipani, 2016; Dutton and Dukerich, 2006; Feldman et al., 2003; Johl and
Renganathan, 2010; Shenton and Hayter, 2004). On the foundation of this work and the
broader recent discourse on field research (e.g. Aguinis et al., 2009; Rynes and Gephart, 2004;
Strumińska-Kutra, 2016), this research conducts a systematic examination of access to further
understanding of this process. Specifically, the analysis is based on a detailed review and
coding of 216 qualitative articles published in Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) and the
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ ) to isolate mechanisms through which researchers
obtain organizational access. A supplementary review of 306 empirical articles published in
Organization Studies (OS ) enabled a broader assessment of access depictions across both
European and US publications and encompassing diverse research philosophies.
Despite a dearth of detail on access in the sampled articles, several specific patterns
emerged from the data on this critical methodological step. The findings indicated that
researchers’ activities prior to entering the field and the individuals who facilitated Qualitative Research in
access aligned with researchers’ ultimate level of immersion in the studied organizations. Organizations and Management:
An International Journal
Furthermore, this research argues that researchers’ legitimacy supported the relational © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5648
mechanisms elaborated on by others to facilitate access. In clarifying the role of these DOI 10.1108/QROM-10-2017-1574
QROM mechanisms, this study extends the prior work on access to specify how researchers are
legitimized for different types of field studies.
In beginning this study, the lone objective was to systematically illuminate access
mechanisms. However, the startling absence of access-related detail across all three journals
directed us to a second, yet equally important pursuit: clarifying the necessity for and
content of access descriptions in published research. For instance, most articles of the
articles in OS provided little or no information about how access was obtained.
While concerns regarding confidentiality certainly justify the exclusion of some details,
researchers may exclude other sensitive information for a variety of reasons. The findings
regarding the role of researcher legitimacy throw into relief the absence of other
explanations, such as “rational,” market-driven accounts, or quid pro quos. This explanatory
deficiency in published articles is problematic because the research process is inextricably
linked with the findings and the mechanisms by which researchers gain access may
profoundly influence the research itself (Van Maanen and Kolb, 1985). Accordingly, the
manner in which access is documented affects the trustworthiness of organizational
research and the interpretability of findings (Fine, 1996; Marcus, 1988; Van Maanen and
Kolb 1985). Moreover, accounts of how access is secured and maintained (e.g. Cunliffe
and Alcadipani, 2016) provide guidance for other researchers seeking access. In sum, though
the exclusion of access details is perhaps pragmatic for the review process, it ultimately
undermines the production of knowledge. To facilitate better documentation moving
forward, this research specifies access details that reviewers and editors should require.
Literature review
The limited literature on organizational access treats it primarily as a matter of relationships
(Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013; Dutton and Dukerich, 2006; Feldman et al., 2003). Dutton
and Dukerich (2006, p. 21) explain that “the quality of the connections that researchers form
with each other and with others who enable and contribute to the research (research
participants, journal reviewers, etc.) is key to developing and sustaining interesting
research.” With a similar focus on relationships, Feldman et al. (2003) offer the most
thorough examination of access. This volume provides commentary and accounts from
many qualitative scholars about their experiences entering organizations, managing
relationships with organizational members, and eventually exiting the field. Relationships
shape access throughout this process.
The extant literature offers several tactics for prospective field researchers. These include
breaking the ice gradually (i.e. deliberately phasing entry); offering some type of reciprocity to
the organization (e.g. providing a deliverable of interest); being forthright about the research
protocol and eventual reporting of research findings; demonstrating professional suitability
(through knowledge of the firm, membership in professional associations, etc.); highlighting
past links with the organization; carefully using both formal and informal communication
pathways; being receptive to suggestions on methods and content; and emphasizing
anonymity where necessary (Buchanan et al., 1988; Feldman et al., 2003; Johl and
Renganathan, 2010; Shenton and Hayter, 2004; Van Maanen and Kolb, 1985). Many of these
strategies, entrenched in the prevailing relational perspective, serve to clarify the process
through which meaningful data is obtained by researchers embedded in organizations.
Others, such as researcher identity, affiliations with reputable institutions, leveraging a
sponsor’s visibility, using past connections with an organization, and researching close-by
organizations speak more clearly to the question of field relationships’ origins.
These origins are less clearly examined in previous accounts of field access. Feldman
et al. (2003, p. 5) explain that “Using the romantic relationship as metaphor for this process,
this first stage is a bit like attending a singles gathering in which one is attempting to see
who is available and to signal one’s own availability.” However, relationships between
researchers and field sites likely have earlier origins. Before one prospective single says to Organizational
another, “I think it’s time that we get to know each another better,” they have to know each access in
other or at least be at the same gathering. Gaining access is influenced by researcher and qualitative
organizational characteristics that precede the first interaction between the two parties.
This study extends prior work by examining the foundation of relationships and access research
through the lens of legitimacy, “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of
an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of
norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). In seeking access,
researchers require legitimacy in accordance with prevailing societal institutions to ground
their relationships (e.g. Bartunek and Rynes, 2014).
This study systematically explores the patterns revealed across a rich subset of field
studies to characterize the origins of researcher–organization relationships. Without detracting
from relationships’ significant and inescapable role, this review looks methodically at the
sampled articles to further examine how researchers gained access to organizations.
Methods
Initially, we reviewed and coded all articles using qualitative methods published in ASQ and
AMJ between 1986 and 2013. Articles were excluded if the research methods did not entail
access to an organization (e.g. analyses were based on archival data or data gathered from
individuals without regard to organizational affiliation) or where access could not be clarified
from the published article. The sample was constrained to qualitative research in which the
methodology required organizational access to focus on research in which the issue of access is
particularly salient. The sampling procedure followed prior assessments of management and
organizational research that drew representative samples from “established, mainstream, and
highly regarded publications” (e.g. Locke and Golden-Biddle, 1990, p. 1027). The time period
was chosen because of its relevance to contemporary trends and because it roughly maps to
the introduction of the now ubiquitous Eisenhardt and Gioia approaches for qualitative
organizational research (Langley and Abdallah, 2011). Ultimately, the initial sample that was
coded and analyzed included 218 studies from 216 articles from ASQ and AMJ[1],[2].
Efforts to examine access unfolded over four steps. In the first step, the methods section of
articles published in ASQ were inspected for details regarding access. One author extracted
the relevant section of each article and reviewed the passage to assess the type of access
researchers obtained in terms of the degree of researchers’ immersion in the studied
organizations. Feldman et al.’s (2003) categories, which are elaborated on in the next section,
were adjusted and applied. After one author categorized all ASQ studies, the other author
cross-validated all categorizations, and all disagreements were discussed and resolved. In the
second step, the full article was examined to identify how organizational access was obtained.
More than 50 initial codes were developed to capture different aspects of the access process,
with each code supported by an excerpt or detail from the published article (Saldaña, 2015).
It was at this point, after the detailed coding was reviewed alongside accompanying evidence,
that the importance of researcher legitimacy emerged as a higher-order, explanatory construct
encompassing many of the explicit mechanisms involved in gaining access. Recursively, the
number of codes was reduced to learning before entering the field, researcher background,
insider assistance, and outsider assistance. All codes, which are described below, were
cross-validated by both authors. In the third step, these codes and type of access
categorizations were extended to the studies published in AMJ that fit the sample criteria.
In a final step, we sought to widen the perspective of the sample beyond the initial US
journals by reviewing OS, the official journal of the European Group for Organizational
Studies[3]. OS, because it includes more critical research and a wider range of research
philosophies which less commonly appear in AMJ and ASQ, permitted us to examine if
access discussions differed. We selected OS in particular because it was published across
QROM the same sample period as AMJ and ASQ, published articles addressing similar levels of
analysis, and was associated, like AMJ, with a professional association.
From OS, we reviewed an additional 306 qualitative studies involving organizational
access published between 1986 and 2013. Independently, both authors observed that these
articles’ treatment of access was incommensurate with the ASQ and AMJ in that access
received even less attention. After affirming this observation across the sampled period, we
directed our attention to explicating it rather than evaluating legitimacy, finding that many
OS studies drew on data from ongoing or larger research projects while others leveraged
access to present illustrative cases. We relate these observations in the discussion of making
access transparent. The findings immediately below on legitimacy and access type rely on
the initial AMJ and ASQ samples.
Type of access and indicators of legitimacy

We applied Feldman et al.’s (2003) categories of access to identify each study as
interview-only, interview with some observation, ethnographic observation, or participant
observation[4]. The four categories were eventually collapsed into two, interview-dominated
field involvement (1 and 2) and immersive field involvement studies (3 and 4), to simplify the
discussion of patterns.
Interview-dominated field involvement was far more common than immersive field
involvement. The largest category, interview-only, included 100 studies. For example,
Dutton et al. (2006) interviewed several dozen informants involved in the aftermath of a
university event. Most interview-only studies included at least one other data source such as
a questionnaire or archival data. The interviews and some observation category included
46 studies where some observation coincided with interviews. In these studies, the depth
of observation was not comparable to an ethnography, but nonetheless noted observations
of activities such as organizational meetings. In many cases, observations were used to
bolster interview data. For example, Weber et al. (2008, p. 536) conducted numerous
interviews and “repeatedly observed the activities at four farmers’ markets in [their] area
and at three nearby farms” in their study of the grass-fed beef and dairy movement.
Immersive field involvement entailed more intense observation or actual researcher
involvement in the work of studied organizations. The ethnographic observation category
includes 42 studies in which researchers were in the field observing for “at least several
weeks” (Feldman et al., 2003, p. 117). For example, over about ten months, Perlow (1999)
spent an average of four days each week observing at the focal organization, attended
off-site professional functions and social events, conducted home visits and interviews, and
reviewed participants’ performance evaluations. The final category, participant observation,
included 30 studies in which the researcher took on a formal role in the studied organization.
Whereas type of access was derived from a priori categories, the four indicators of
legitimacy—learning before entering the field, researcher background, insider assistance,
and outsider assistance—emerged from the analysis of the studies’ descriptions of access.
These indicators were derived from each article’s account of access, the explicit and implicit
narrative of how researchers gained access. Learning before entering the field indicated
whether or not authors explicitly noted preparation prior to engaging with organizational
members under the research protocol. Learning activities were often noted as facilitating
access; however, in other cases this indicator was noted when learning activities were
clearly relevant to access. Researcher background captured factors such as an author’s
previous work experience, skills, and demographic characteristics that were associated with
the organization or topic of research. Insider assistance captured any support researchers
received in gaining access from organizational members. Finally, outsider assistance
indicated any support researchers received in gaining access from actors, such as
consultants, who were not employed by the ultimately studied organization.
Patterns and analysis Organizational
Proportional tests of association ( χ2) were used to further explore the types of access in access in
conjunction with the indicators of legitimacy. This analysis addresses the independence/ qualitative
dependence of two categorical variables using the two superordinate access types
(interview-dominated field involvement and immersive field involvement[5]) in association research
with dichotomous indicators of learning before entering the field, researcher background,
insider assistance, and outsider assistance. These served to augment initial conceptions
regarding the mechanisms through which access was obtained, not as hypothesis tests.
Findings
Through the systematic review, this research sought to illuminate how researchers gain
access to organizations. While most authors provided little explicit detail on the mechanisms
through which they obtained access, several patterns emerged. In the following section, this
paper elaborates three core findings. First, learning before entering the field, which was
documented in 49 studies, occurred more frequently in interview-dominated research.
Second, researcher background, while a salient mechanism that emerged during coding, was
not statistically related to the type of research. Third, immersive field involvement studies
were more likely to rely on insiders, while access in interview-dominated studies was
associated with assistance from outsiders.
Learning before entering the field

In almost a quarter of the sample, studies documented learning activities prior to entering the
field, as seen in Table I. Learning before entering the field appeared to legitimize researchers
as scholars, knowledgeable in their academic fields, and as capable professionals with a grasp
of the organizational context. As such, these learning activities supported both initial
access and the continuation of access. These activities were particularly important for
interview-dominated field studies ( χ2 ¼ 7.97; p ¼ 0.01), as seen in Table I. Feldman et al. (2003)
referred to a “homework” phase, but did not fully elaborate on the intent and scope of these
practices. This study’s qualitative analysis of learning before descriptions yielded three
distinct intermediate objectives: to deepen understanding of the research context, to hone
methods, and to choose appropriate organizations or organizational contexts for study[6].
Deepen understanding. Several studies described researchers engaging in a period of
study on the research context including the industry, the particular organization, or the
topic of inquiry. Clark et al. (2010, p. 404) explained their efforts to better comprehend the
organizational context in their study of a hospital merger:
Prior to collecting primary data, we used archival and pilot interviews to understand the historical
context of the merger attempt and fill in gaps of knowledge for time periods and key events, some
having occurred nearly a century ago.
Learning before, as is further described in the exemplar quotes in Table II, included
conducting interviews with subject matter experts that were not organizational members
and/or reading archival materials.
Interview-dominated Immersive field

field involvement % involvement % Total %
Table I.
Learning before entering field not noted 105 72 64 89 169 78 Learning before
Learning before entering field noted 41 28 8 11 49 22 entering field by
146 100 72 100 218 100 type of access
χ2 ¼ 7.97 p ¼ 0.01 (AMJ and ASQ)
QROM Articles Exemplar quotes
Ross and Staw (1993)a I conducted familiarization interviews with twenty-seven top-level
Jehn (1997)b managers to provide general information about the organization and the
Martin et al. (1998)b household-goods‐moving industry ( Jehn, 1997, p. 534)
Edmondson et al. (2001)a To familiarize ourselves with the technology and the surgical process,
Mohrman et al. (2001)a we conducted initial interviews at MISA with senior managers and sales
Siggelkow (2001)a representatives. Next, we attended MISA’s three-day training program,
Pratt and Rosa (2003)b accompanying an OR team from a hospital we planned to study
Evans et al. (2004)b throughout its implementation process (Edmondson et al., 2001, p. 693)
Jacobides (2005)a To develop a detailed, robust understanding of TQM practices and
Schweizer (2005)a rhetoric, we conducted a detailed literature review of both scholarly and
Green et al. (2009)a practitioner journals. We supplemented this research with an extensive
Table II.
Hardy and Maguire (2010)a set of retrospective interviews with managers of firms in the Fortune 100
Learning before a
entering field, deepen Maclean and Behnam (2010) (Green et al., 2009, p. 18)
a
understanding (AMJ Vergne (2012)
and ASQ) Notes: aInterview-dominated; bimmersive
Through learning activities, field researchers familiarized themselves with the industries in
which they planned to conduct interviews, such as home moving ( Jehn, 1997), mortgage
underwriting ( Jacobides, 2005), and arms (Vergne, 2012). Researchers also immersed themselves
in studying company contexts, such as the Body Shop (Martin et al., 1998), Liz Claiborne
(Siggelkow, 2001), and a disguised firm, Acme, with questionable but well-documented sales
practices (Maclean and Behnam, 2010). Other researchers deepened their knowledge of particular
practices on which their research focused. For example, Green et al. (2009, p. 18) reviewed the
scholarly and practitioner literatures on total quality management “to develop a detailed, robust
understanding of TQM practices and rhetoric.” Learning the language of a practice, industry, or
company provides researchers with credibility in seeking and deepening access. Most of these
studies were interview-dominated, but some immersive studies also involved this homework.
Hone methods. Learning before entering the field also included activities which enabled
researchers to refine methods. In these studies, which were primarily interview-dominated,
learning before entering the field went beyond deepening researchers’ understanding of the
context. As Table III documents, several researchers undertook explicit analyses of data
before entering the field to improve methodologies. Stevenson and Greenberg (2000), for
example, constructed and analyzed narrative histories of environmental events using
government records, which they used to determine the focal issues for their interviews.
While this learning facilitated access broadly, it is likely that it most profoundly affected the
quality of access by improving researchers’ capacity to conduct focused interviews.
There were different data analysis activities that researchers engaged in to hone their
methods. Several studies described the creation of timelines to anchor subsequent
interviews (e.g. Stevenson and Greenberg, 2000; Siggelkow, 2002; Jacobides, 2005; Santos
and Eisenhardt, 2009). Mainiero (1986) conducted a pilot study and discovered confusion
about her focal issue (dependency). The author used the experience to improve the questions
used during the primary interviews which followed. Similarly, Mohrman et al. (2001, p. 362)
conducted “set-up sessions” with the company in their interview-dominated study to
“fashion the research process to fit the realities of the context.”
Select cases. Finally, researchers engaged in activities to select appropriate cases. In their
study of bricolage in a resource-constrained environment, Baker and Nelson (2005, p. 336)
approached community members in an economically depressed area “for help in identifying
local enterprises within a radius of 50 miles that had remained in business while others of
Articles Exemplar quotes
Organizational
access in
Mainiero (1986)a I also discovered through the pilot study that few people knew what I meant qualitative
Orlikowski and Yates (1994)a by dependency situations […] The pilot study also helped me to phrase
Provan and Milward (1995)a specific probing questions during the actual interviews (Mainiero, 1986, research
Bradach (1997)a p. 641)
Human and Provan (2000)a One purpose of these in-depth meetings was to review questionnaire
Stevenson and Greenberg (2000)a items and responses to ensure that respondents were interpreting them
Edmondson et al. (2001)a as we intended. The interviews also allowed us to eliminate several more
Mohrman et al. (2001)a agencies that should not have been included in the first place and to add
Siggelkow (2002)a additional ones, if mentioned by three or more respondents (Provan and
Evans et al. (2004)b Milward, 1995, p. 6)
Jacobides (2005)a First, our pilot interviews with both investors and venture executives
Graebner (2009)a indicated that although existing investors often give advice about fund-
Ozcan and Eisenhardt (2009)a raising strategies, suggest potential investors, provide introductions, and
Santos and Eisenhardt (2009)a sometimes veto a potential investor, venture executives typically develop
Table III.
Walsh and Bartunek (2011)a the actual strategy for a round, generally choose which potential investors Learning before
Hallen and Eisenhardt (2012)a to target, and personally handle the interactions underlying investment tie entering field, hone
formation (Hallen and Eisenhardt, p. 38) methods (AMJ

Notes: aInterview-dominated; bimmersive and ASQ)
the same kind had closed or been supplanted by franchises or nonlocal corporations.” These
case selection activities, which are summarized in Table IV, can legitimize researchers by
ensuring alignment between the research agenda and a field site.
While most of these studies were interview-dominated, several more immersive studies
included some case selection homework. Some researchers used experts to identify appropriate
cases (Finch and Cox, 1988; Ferlie et al., 2005; Maurer and Ebers, 2006; Souitaris et al., 2012).

a
Sutton (1987) Sixteen firms were identified through business contacts and venture
Finch and Cox (1988)a capitalists (Larson, 1992, p. 79)
Larson (1992)a I then interviewed nineteen different managers and line supervisors from
Provan and Milward (1995)a four divisions to select groups appropriate for this study ( Jehn, 1997, p. 534)
Elsbach and Kramer (1996)a A team of biotechnology industry experts helped us develop relevant
Human and Provan (1997)a sampling criteria and identify three matched pairs of firms that met these
Jehn (1997)b criteria (Maurer and Ebers, 2006, p. 265)
Uzzi (1997)a
a
Fox-Wolfgramm et al. (1998)
Elsbach (2003)a
Evans et al. (2004)b
Graebner and Eisenhardt (2004)a
Baker and Nelson (2005)b
Ferlie et al. (2005)a
Maurer and Ebers (2006)a
McDermott et al. (2009)a
Anteby (2010)a
Almandoz (2012)a
Table IV.
Gardner (2012)b
Learning before
Smets et al. (2012)b entering field, case
Souitaris et al. (2012)b selection (AMJ
Notes: aInterview-dominated; bimmersive and ASQ)
QROM For example, Uzzi (1997) had the help of the union to identify firms from its resources. Others
screened cases by visiting different potential sites (Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998; Elsbach, 2003;
Jehn, 1997; Gardner, 2012; Human and Provan, 1997; Provan and Milward, 1995; Smets et al.,
2012; Sutton, 1987). A third group of researchers consulted archival sources to select
organizations or organizational units (Almandoz, 2012; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996; Graebner
and Eisenhardt, 2004; McDermott et al., 2009).
Researcher background
Aspects of researchers’ backgrounds such as previous work experience, skills, and
demographic characteristics, can also signal legitimacy to field sites. Martin et al. (1998,
pp. 443-444), for example, explained why the researchers’ gender legitimized them and the
research in the eyes of participants: “According to feminist theory, intimacy, demographic
similarity, and subjective rapport with the study participants should elicit more honest
self-disclosure, an approach that some consider more ethical and more informative.” These
studies, which are summarized in Table V, also included a former leader of a self-managed
team studying self-managed teams (Barker, 1993), a former investment banker studying
investment banks (Michel, 2007), and active members in self-governed churches studying a
self-governed church (Dyck and Starke, 1999).
Scholars with backgrounds proximate to the research context appeared to leverage this
quality more often to conduct immersive research. However, this descriptive pattern was not
statistically significant (χ2 ¼ 1.40; ns) as seen in Table VI.
Insider assistance
In 25 articles in AMJ and ASQ, researchers identified organizational members that assisted
them in obtaining access. Insiders, beyond providing technical authorization, provide a more
taken-for-granted legitimation for the researcher. Ashcraft (1999, p. 250) was invited by the
firm’s founder “to submit a formal project proposal to the management team” and to present

a
Covaleski and Dirsmith, (1988) The study was initially designed to serve as an exploration of the validity of
Henderson and Clark (1990)a the concept of architectural innovation, a concept originally developed by
Ancona (1990)a one of the authors during the course of his experience with the automobile
Thomas (1993)a and ceramics industry […] (Henderson and Clark, 1990, p. 19)
Barker (1993)b We are white women, as were most of the study participants (Martin et al.,
Sutton and Hargadon (1996)b 1998, pp. 443-444)
Martin et al. (1998)b German-born, but UK-based, the observer was culturally versed in both
Dyck and Starke (1999)a settings and fluent in both languages, enabling him to follow discussions
Gersick et al. (2000)a without having to disrupt the natural flow of events for translation (Smets
Ashcraft (2001)b et al., 2012, p. 881)
b
Huy (2002)
a
Maguire et al. (2004)
Maitlis (2005)b
Michel (2007)b
Lüscher and Lewis (2008)b
Lingo and O’Mahony (2010)b
Dacin et al. (2010)b
Table V.
Researcher Michel (2011)b
background by Smets et al. (2012)a
type of access Pache and Santos (2013)a
(AMJ and ASQ) Notes: aInterview-dominated; bimmersive
“the project to an ‘all-hands’ meeting during which the study was unanimously approved by a Organizational
vote of the members.” Likewise, Adler and Adler (1998, p. 402) recount that “Peter [Adler] […] access in
gradually gained the trust of significant gatekeepers, particularly the head coach, and was qualitative
granted the status and privileges of an assistant coach (the ‘team sociologist’).” Insiders’
support was in some cases predicated on common interests, such as a mutual interest in teams research
(e.g. Barker, 1993) or sensemaking (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). In other cases, it reflected
perceived complementarity. For example, Bresman (2013, p. 39) recounted that “The newly
hired senior vice president of licensing granted access to the sites as part of a drive at
Pharmaco to expand its network in academia.”
Broadly, insider assistance was associated with immersive field involvement (χ2 ¼ 5.77,
p ¼ 0.02), as shown in Table VII. That is, researchers spending significant time and even
taking on roles in organizations benefitted from the aid of organizational members (see
Table VIII for additional exemplars).
Insiders occupied a variety of roles as senior leaders, middle-level managers, and/or prior
contacts (such as former co-workers or former students). Eight insiders were clearly senior
leaders, such as CEOs (Barker, 1993; Sutton and Hargadon, 1996), founder/CEOs (Ashcraft,
1999; Burgelman, 2002; Mair et al., 2012) or a board member (Bernstein, 2012). For instance,
Martin et al. (1998) contacted The Body Shop Co-founder and CEO, Anita Roddick, directly and
she granted them access. In a separate group of studies, it was clear that access was facilitated
by a middle-level manager, such as the head of the customer service group (Pentland, 1992) or a
branch manager (Yakura, 2002). In other cases, it was unclear if insiders such as a “corporate
personnel manager” (Rafaeli, 1989, p. 249), a “division director” (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008,
p. 223) or a senior vice president (Bresman, 2013) were part of the senior leadership team.
Finally, some studies identified insiders as prior contacts of the researchers (e.g. Sutton, 1991).
Outsider assistance
Outsider assistance refers to the facilitation of access by a third party (i.e. neither a member of
the research team, nor the organization). In the majority of studies involving outsider
assistance, well-connected experts or academics helped to open the organization’s doors for
researchers (e.g. Azoulay et al., 2010; Dyck and Starke, 1999; Gersick, 1988; Graebner and
Eisenhardt, 2004; Oakes et al., 1998; Trefalt, 2013). Trade associations and unions also assisted
researchers in four studies (Bacharach et al., 2005; Bradach, 1997; Fauchart and Gruber, 2011;
Interview-dominated field Immersive field

involvement % involvement % Total %
Table VI.
Researcher background not identified 135 92 63 88 198 91 Researcher
Researcher background identified 11 8 9 13 20 9 background by
146 100 72 100 218 100 type of access
χ2 ¼ 1.42 ns (AMJ and ASQ)

Insider assistance not noted 112 77 44 61 156 72 Table VII.

Insider assistance noted 34 23 28 39 62 28 Insider assistance by
146 100 72 100 218 100 type of access
χ2 ¼ 5.77 p ¼ 0.02 (AMJ and ASQ)
QROM Articles Exemplar quotes
Ritti and Silver (1986) I first met Jack [CEO of ISE] at a social event in January 1990, where,
Pinfield (1986) after finding out about our mutual interest in teams, he invited me to
Adler and Adler (1988) come study what was happening at ISE (Barker, 1993, p. 408)
Rafaeli (1989) We were invited to conduct this study by a manager who was trying to
Sutton (1991) decide what her employees should wear. (Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997, p. 868)
Rafaeli and Sutton (1991) [T]he division director […] shared our interests in sensemaking and
Pentland (1992) change […] He felt that the managers needed help making sense of the
Barker (1993) changing demands to enable implementation and achieve productivity
Kahn (1993) and quality improvements. For this reason, the director was
Pentland and Rueter (1994) enthusiastic about our research (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008, p. 223)
Sutton and Hargadon (1996)
Pratt and Rafaeli (1997)
Martin et al. (1998) Ashcraft (1999)
Earley and Mosakowski (2000)
Whiteman and Cooper (2000)
Heracleous and Barrett (2001)
Huy (2002)
Burgelman (2002)
Yakura (2002)
Michel (2007)
Lüscher and Lewis (2008)
Clark et al. (2010)
Table VIII. Michel (2011)
Insider assistance, Bernstein (2012) Gardner (2012)
immersive research Mair et al. (2012)
(AMJ and ASQ) Bresman (2013)
Nag and Gioia, 2012). Bacharach et al. (2005, p. 710) detail how, “Working with the union,
we succeeded in interviewing all of those volunteers we wanted to include in our sample.”
Outsiders played an active role in connecting the researcher to potential target
organizations and, in doing so, legitimized the researcher by association. This active role
distinguishes outsider assistance from the case selection homework described under
learning before entering the field.
Interestingly, whereas insider assistance is associated with immersive field involvement,
outsider access is associated with interview-dominated research ( χ2 ¼ 7.4, p ¼ 0.01), as
shown in Table IX. No immersive studies noted outsider assistance. Looking across the two
indicators, it appears that the role of insiders and outsiders shifts with the type of access.
Table X includes exemplar quotes on outsider assistance.
Implications for researchers seeking access

There is no online dating service that connects researchers and organizations. Though
colleagues and other contacts may offer assistance, there is neither a broad list of available

Table IX. Outside assistance not noted 132 90 72 100 204 94

Outside assistance Outside assistance noted 14 10 0 0 14 14
by type of access 146 100 72 100 218 100
(AMJ and ASQ) χ2 ¼ 7.38 p ¼ 0.01
Organizational
access in
Gersick (1988) Through letters and introductions from the International Franchise qualitative
Bradach (1997) Association and industry experts, I was able to identify five firms that fit the
Oakes et al. (1998) criteria and that agreed to participate in the research (Bradach, 1997, p. 280) research
Dyck and Starke (1999) I gained entry to the other five groups through referrals to individual
Bacharach et al. (2005) members (Gersick, 1988, p. 13)
Edmondson et al. (2001) We began our study by conducting five interviews with founders
Graebner and Eisenhardt (2004) introduced to us by the Academy of Sports Science and Technology in
Fu et al. (2010) Lausanne, an organization that has links to many entrepreneurs in the
Anteby (2010) sports-related equipment industry (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011, p. 939)
Azoulay et al. (2010) Table X.
Fauchart and Gruber (2011) Outsider assistance,
Nag and Gioia (2012) interview-dominated
Vergne (2012) research (AMJ
Trefalt (2013) and ASQ)
and willing organizations, nor a formula that suggests a match. Though the depictions of
how researchers obtained access were limited in the published literature, this study’s
systematic findings and several exemplars offer some insights which are discussed here.
Broadly, researchers should consider the indications of legitimacy they leverage when
approaching any organization for a particular type of research.
The convergence of circumstances and certain practices creates the potential for
impactful scholarship. While home universities situate researchers in internal and external
networks, scholars should remain open to research opportunities that emerge through
non-work relationships (Buchanan, et al., 1988), attend to local media (e.g. Sutton, 1987),
listen for interesting firms or those that resonate with personal background (e.g. Barker,
1993 and his experience with self-managed teams), and be open to fortuitous opportunities
derived from chance encounters (e.g. executive training programs; Fox-Wolfgramm et al.,
1998; Oakes et al., 1998).
Researchers should carefully consider the gatekeepers through which access or deeper
access (e.g. via snowball sampling) is legitimized. Personal relationships (or a friend of a
friend; Thomas, 1993), external organizations such as unions or industry, and organizational
insiders may legitimize researchers in the eyes of organizational gatekeepers. Whereas
outsiders paved the way for interview-dominated studies, researchers pursuing immersive
methodologies are likely to require the support of organizational members. Importantly,
while prospective field researchers might be inclined to seek help from top managers
(Burgelman, 2002; Martin et al., 1998), other scholars seemed to bypass these central
gatekeepers and dealt directly with subunit leaders (e.g. Pentland, 1992). Some authors were
leery about the impact of top managers providing access (e.g. Oakes et al., 1998).
Researchers should also approach organizations having done their homework.
Comprehension of an organization’s circumstances and the capacity to communicate in a
context-sensitive manner indicate legitimacy. In particular, learning before entering the field
appeared to legitimize researchers conducting interview-dominated studies. Researchers
conducting immersive field studies, on the other hand, are somewhat more likely to leverage a
deeper background related to the intended research. Obvious preparation may serve to
reassure a prospective organization that researchers will not require burdensome translations
of organizational practices and discourse. Where researchers intend greater immersion, deeper
familiarity may be important.
Finally, researchers should have a clear understanding of what they might offer an
organization in exchange for access. Some prospective studies may be legitimized by
QROM organizational interest in the topic of research. Researchers can offer objective accounts of
organizational processes or context-specific analyses (e.g. Bradach, 1997; Edmondson, 1999;
Ely and Thomas, 2001; Smith, 1989; Sutton and Hargadon, 1996). In some circumstances, as
highlighted by relational accounts of access, researchers should be prepared to offer
organizations a deliverable, a quid pro quo, within the bounds of ethical conduct.
While these arrangements were rarely characterized in AMJ and ASQ and only slightly more
often in OS, the exemplars cited above provide a strong foundation for the role of exchange in
gaining access.
Making access transparent

Given that access is one of the most vexing issues in qualitative field research, editors,
reviewers, and authors should attend to how access is characterized in published
manuscripts. Access accounts impact the interpretation of research findings and inform
prospective field researchers. Access’ importance is strongly implied in trustworthiness
discussions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Wallendorf and Belk, 1989; Sinkovics et al., 2008) and
the emphasis on researcher credibility during data collection (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989) is
wholly consistent with the argument that credibility is rooted in activities that enable data
collection such as securing access. The present dearth of access detail compromises both the
trustworthiness of published research and the production of knowledge.
As with the thick, rich descriptions which illuminate the research context for readers
(Creswell and Miller, 2000), access depictions reveal that the researcher was capable of
understanding data collected in the field. Munro’s (1999) account of embarrassment and
misaligned interests with top management provided, somewhat unusually, the foundation
for his native experience of the culture and the insight derived from it in relative isolation
from the gatekeepers. More commonly, analyses completed before fieldwork, such as
constructing timelines, provide researchers with a foundation to guide semi-structured
interviews and interpret interview data. Similarly, ultimately gaining access is tied to the
choice of an appropriate research site, which Lincoln and Guba (1985) highlight as an
important aspect of trustworthiness in qualitative research.
Furthermore, the issue of trustworthiness impacts the completeness of findings and the
capacity of readers to understand and build on published research. Creswell and Miller
(2000, p. 127) state that researchers should “report on personal beliefs, values, and biases
that may shape their inquiry.” How a researcher found and obtained access to an
organization informs this process of researcher reflexivity and through that, the substance
of the findings. Quid pro quo arrangements, for example, do not invalidate scholarly
research, but they can introduce bias into its conduct. In the passage below, Schultz (1991,
p. 493) relates the conditions of the study:
The data illuminating the interaction between the managers and the Minister originate from a case-
study conducted as a consultancy project. The project was commissioned to describe the
interaction between the department (140 employees) and a subordinate directory (250 employees) in
order to consider the future organization and task priorities […] I participated in the project as a
junior consultant in order to collect data for my Ph.D. dissertation on organizational culture
(Schultz 1990), which required that I did most of the data collection within the Ministry.
Just as some bias or conditions are inevitable, reflexivity and transparency is essential. Similarly,
a researchers’ professional or personal background might shape the choice of organization,
affect the process of initial access, and inform how access develops. Understanding a
researcher’s distal influences or assumptions, in addition to enhancing the trustworthiness of the
study, may alter the readers’ interpretation of findings when made visible.
Such documentation remains important in articles that characterize ongoing research. In
the supplementary sample from OS, about one-third of studies drew on data that were
collected as part of a larger or ongoing research project. These studies often referred to other Organizational
sources rather than providing their own accounts (e.g. Budhwar and Sparrow, 2002; access in
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011). While excluding access detail is potentially affective in qualitative
reducing the duplication of some information, the absence of a clear account of access still
hinders the interpretation of the article from which it is excluded. External accounts may research
also be difficult to obtain or have a different conceptual focus. Thus, the presence of an
external account does little to support trustworthiness and interpretability.
The supplementary analysis of articles published OS did reveal an important exception
to the necessity of access detail for trustworthiness: illustrative cases. These articles drew
on organizational access and depicted real organizations to demonstrate a logical argument
(e.g. Cooper et al., 1996; Dopson, 2005; Heusinkveld and Reijers, 2009). For example, Bloor
and Dawson (1994, p. 283) illuminate their arguments on professional subcultures using an
“empirical example,” a healthcare service, about which no methods are offered. Unlike
empirical research where access informs the building of theory from data, illustrative cases
characterize an a priori theoretical argument. Thus, access accounts are not germane in
these cases to trustworthiness and interpretability.
Yet even in articles using access for illustrative cases, complete access accounts are
important for prospective field researchers who look to published studies for methodological
guidance. Deficiencies in existing accounts misrepresent a key methodological step,
regardless of whether research is ongoing. For example, based on this review of published
research, researcher background was descriptively, but not statistically significantly related
to the type of research conducted. However, a cursory review of authors’ resumes reveals
that several authors who conducted immersive studies had related backgrounds that were
not noted in the published articles. For example, one author who studied top accounting
firms is a CPA (Covaleski et al., 1998).
Alignment or complementarity in researchers’ and organizational members’ values and
interests were evident in some cases where insiders supported access (e.g. Benghozi, 1990;
Collinson, 1999). While infrequently characterized in the published accounts, such
congruence may be implied through researcher background as well as more proximal goals.
In some cases, researchers’ occupation may support organizational goals. For example,
Collinson (1999) explains, in describing field work on offshore oil platforms, that managers
felt an independent academic researcher might enhance safety and demonstrate that
management’s concern for safety was genuine. Moreover, value congruence is conceivably
important in the researchers’ ability to leverage support from outsiders and in making case
selections. A fuller description of this information would provide prospective researchers
with a better conception of what is required for different types of access.
Importantly, while this study documents researchers gaining access on the basis on
scholarly legitimacy, transactional justifications were rarely noted by scholars as essential in
gaining access. Whether viewed through a neo-institutional lens as a contrast to institutional
legitimacy or as another institutional logic (i.e. a market logic), researchers’ access to
organizations is often predicated on what those scholars can do for those organizations, a quid
pro quo. This important access shaping dynamic is characterized in a handful of accounts
across OS, AMJ, and ASQ (e.g. Collinson, 1999; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Patriotta and
Spedale, 2009; Sutton and Hargadon, 1996) and elsewhere in many secondary and anecdotal
narratives. Simply, though researchers’ contribution to the studied organizations is evident in
collaborative management research and action research, a systematic account of these
exchanges cannot be constructed from published research in top management journals. While
scholars may suppress these details because they fear scrutiny in the review process,
prospective researchers are hindered by an incomplete understanding of the role and structure
of quid pro quos. A thorough accounting would yield the raw data from which a grounded
conceptualization of how quid pro quos might be structured to uphold scholarly objectives.
QROM Authors, reviewers, and editors can enhance future efforts by promoting transparency about
organizational access (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
To serve both future researchers and the clarity of published research, editors, reviewers,
and authors should ensure that authors thoroughly document access. The present lack of
transparency logically derives from a number of reasons including confidentiality, space
constraints, the availability of external accounts, authors’ reluctance to share information
revealing the role of luck or previous financial engagements, discomfort with the
involvement of family members or friends, or uncertainty regarding the relevant details.
The absence of any standards for access details certainly exacerbates the inconsistency in
authors’ accounts. Indeed, some information revealed by authors may very well be germane
to access, but is not clearly indicated as such. For example, most authors of the AMJ and
ASQ articles (94 percent) divulged some location information as part of the description of
the study context; however, proximity was rarely indicated as a mechanism for gaining
access. Other studies point to a dissertation or previous study for more information about
the methods. However, certain information on obtaining access, summarized in Table XI,
should be an expected part of published field studies.
At the most basic level, reviewers and editors should ask authors how they discovered or
selected the organization. In a large-scale survey research, significant space is devoted to the
identification and creation of a sample. Yet in field studies, the basic question of how the
organization was identified is often not addressed. Ten years after their highly cited
qualitative study was published, Dutton and Dukerich (2006) described how they rode the
train into New York for their jobs with a college friend who worked for the New York Port
Authority and had just been asked to head the Task Force on Homelessness. Although the
decision to ask the friend for access was not an easy one, the author knew that if access was
granted, the researchers would have an influential ally with high expectations for the research
project. This access narrative, though not included in the original article, is a powerful account
of how access was obtained and yields insight into the research itself. In conducting this
study, there were several times when it seemed possible that unmentioned personal ties linked
researchers to organizational access. For instance, how did Baker and Nelson (2005) select the
rural area they studied? Were there ancestral ties or personal connections to the local
community or a local leader who introduced the researchers to local small business owners?
If a researcher stumbles upon an organization, this may have less to do with serendipity than
a researcher being alert to a context which connects to her/his research interests. Clearer
descriptions of access allow prospective researchers to more effectively prepare.
Authors should also characterize the organizational member that granted access and any
third parties that facilitated access. In reading many of the studies in this sample, the
organizational member granting access was not clear. A “manager” might have been an
Access details Explanation
Organization discovery How the researcher’s background (e.g. personal or professional

experience, ties), location, case selection activities, luck, etc., facilitated the
discovery of the organization and eventual access
Learning before activities Other learning activities including deepening understanding and
(Beyond case selection) methodological refinement that preceded access
Insider and outsider assistance Any organizational members and/or outsiders that facilitated access, but
did not explicitly authorize it
Gatekeepers The role and/or position in the organizational hierarchy of the individual
(s) authorizing access
Table XI. Exchange Any benefits to the organization for granting access including explicit
Describing access transactions and implicit exchanges
individual with autonomy or a public relations gatekeeper. A “top manager” might be a CEO Organizational
or division leader. The gatekeeper, who may or may not provide additional assistance, can access in
influence the type of research, the time researchers spend in field, the type of data gathered, qualitative
and the openness of organizational members to the researcher. Pentland (1992, p. 534)
described that at two sites he “obtained permission from the managers of the customer research
service function, who gave me the keys and passcards required to gain entry and an
unoccupied office in which to work.” Discretion by two unit managers allowed Pentland
tremendous access, perhaps bypassing those higher in the organization. Martin et al. (1998)
described in detail how they obtained access through Body Shop CEO Anita Roddick by
exchanging multiple letters. Yet, the authors worried that high-level access from the CEO
might make for a less forthright discussion with organizational members. These two
studies’ unusual candor regarding access highlights the importance of documenting
the gatekeeper. Of course, exact organizational titles do not need to be revealed, but more
precision regarding the gatekeeper’s position and motivation are essential. Likewise, the
roles of both non-gatekeeper insiders and organizational outsiders who assist researchers in
securing access should be included in published field studies.
In addition, researchers’ backgrounds and specific learning before activities should be
consistently documented. The few instances in which a connection between researcher

background and the research topic or context was explicit highlighted the impact of researcher
background. Sutton and Hargadon (1996) explained, for example, that Hargadon had “studied,
practiced and taught product design in Silicon Valley for eight years” before the authors
studied IDEO. Similarly, the manner of learning before activities (i.e. case selection, honing
methods, and deepening understanding) should be regularly documented.
Finally, authors should disclose why an organization would bother letting researchers
inside. Exchanges might involve researchers providing a specific deliverable. For example,
Kahn (1993, p. 572), in his study of a human services agency in turmoil, stated that he
“approached the agency with a proposal to study the nature of caregiving among its
members in return for feedback about what I learned.” In other cases, a gatekeeper might be
curious about the topic of study or, rather than seeking a specific deliverable, seek to build a
deeper relationship with the researcher or the researcher’s university. Any manner of quid
pro quo should be completely documented.
“How did you obtain access?” is a question that reviewers and editors should ask
researchers to answer in published qualitative field studies. The description should cover how
organizations were identified, relevant aspects of researchers’ backgrounds and learning before
activities, the organizational gatekeeper, other insider assistance and outside facilitators, and
any exchange arrangements ( financial or otherwise). These details would ideally be in the
methods sections of the article; however, numerous other forums exist including appendices
and online features where access could be described. Editors, reviewers, and authors all play
important roles in ensuring transparency, the knowableness of useful practices for prospective
field researchers, and in providing a firm foundation for the interpretation of findings.
Conclusion
Accessing organizations for qualitative research is a critical matter for management scholars.
The purpose of this study was to augment the relational perspective on access by clarifying
relationships’ origins through a systematic review of published studies. Researchers’
legitimacy appears essential in understanding how researchers eventually develop impactful
scholarly works and researchers can apply different levers in accordance with the type of
access. However, this study indicated that there are substantial limitations in how access is
described in published articles across a variety of research philosophies. These deficiencies
have significant costs and this research argues that there are several areas that authors,
editors, and reviewers should emphasize to ensure a more complete research account.
QROM Notes
1. Please contact the corresponding author for the complete sample.
2. Two articles contained two distinct studies that entailed organizational access.
3. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this recommendation.
4. Feldman et al.’s (2003) individual-level category (e.g. refugees, HIV positive members of a
population) was excluded due to this research’s focus on organizational access.
5. In assessing the robustness of the findings, similar patterns were identified regardless of whether
four or two types of access were analyzed.
6. Some studies mentioned more than one type of learning before practices.
References
Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1988), “Intense loyalty in organizations: a case study of college athletics”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 401-417.
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C.A., Bosco, F.A. and Muslin, I.S. (2009), “First decade of organizational research
methods”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 69-112.

Almandoz, J. (2012), “Arriving at the starting line: the impact of community and financial logics on new
banking ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 1381-1406.
Ancona, D.G. (1990), “Outward bound: strategic for team survival in an organization”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 334-365.
Anteby, M. (2010), “Markets, morals, and practices of trade: jurisdictional disputes in the US commerce
in cadavers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 606-638.
Ashcraft, K.L. (1999), “Managing maternity leave: a qualitative analysis of temporary executive
succession”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 240-280.
Ashcraft, K.L. (2001), “Organized dissonance: feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form”, Academy of
Azoulay, P., Repenning, N.P. and Zuckerman, E.W. (2010), “Nasty, brutish, and short: embeddedness
failure in the pharmaceutical industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 472-507.
Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P. and McKinney, V. (2005), “Boundary management tactics and logics of
action: the case of peer-support providers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 704-736.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Barker, J.R. (1993), “Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams”,
Bartunek, J.M. and Rynes, S.L. (2014), “Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike the paradoxes
of academic–practitioner relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40, pp. 1181-1201.
Benghozi, P.J. (1990), “Managing innovation: from ad hoc to routine in French telecom”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 531-554.
Bernstein, E.S. (2012), “The transparency paradox: a role for privacy in organizational learning and
operational control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 181-216.
Bloor, G. and Dawson, P. (1994), “Understanding professional culture in organizational context”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 275-295.
Bradach, J.L. (1997), “Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 276-303.
Bresman, H. (2013), “Changing routines: a process model of vicarious group learning in
pharmaceutical R&D”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 35-61.
Buchanan, D., Boddy, D. and McCalman, J. (1988), “Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back”, Organizational
in Bryman, A. (Ed.), Doing Research in Organizations, Routledge, London, pp. 53-67. access in
Budhwar, P.S. and Sparrow, P.R. (2002), “Strategic HRM through the cultural looking glass: mapping qualitative
the cognition of British and Indian managers”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 599-638.
Burgelman, R.A. (2002), “Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in”, Administrative
research
Clark, S.M., Gioia, D.A., Ketchen, J.J. and Thomas, J.B. (2010), “Transitional identity as a facilitator of
organizational identity change during a merger”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 397-438.
Collinson, D.L. (1999), “ ‘Surviving the rigs’: safety and surveillance on North Sea oil installations”,
Cooper, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Greenwood, R. and Brown, J.L. (1996), “Sedimentation and transformation in
professional service firms”, Organization Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 623-648.
Covaleski, M.A. and Dirsmith, M.W. (1988), “An institutional perspective on the rise, social
transformation, and fall of a university budget category”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 562-587.
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, J.B. and Samuel, S. (1998), “The calculated and the avowed:
techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 293-327.
Creswell, J. and Miller, D. (2000), “Determining validity in qualitative inquiry”, Theory into Practice,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 124-130.
Cunliffe, A.L. and Alcadipani, R. (2016), “The politics of access in fieldwork”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 535-561.
Cunliffe, A.L. and Karunanayake, G. (2013), “Working within hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research:
implications for research identities and practice”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 364-392.
Dacin, M.T., Munir, K. and Tracey, P. (2010), “Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: linking ritual
performance and institutional maintenance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 6,
pp. 1393-1418.
Dopson, S. (2005), “The diffusion of medical innovations: can figurational sociology contribute?”,
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (2006), “The relational foundation of research: an underappreciated
dimension of interesting research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 21-26.
Dutton, J.E., Worline, M.C., Frost, P.J. and Lilius, J. (2006), “Explaining compassion organizing”,
Dyck, B. and Starke, F.A. (1999), “The formation of breakaway organizations: observations and a
process model”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 792-822.
Earley, C.P. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), “Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
transnational team functioning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001), “Disrupted routines: team learning and new
technology implementation in hospitals”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 685-716.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003), “Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: identity threat and
affirmation in a non-territorial office space”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 622-654.
Elsbach, K.D. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), “Members’ responses to organizational identity threats,
encountering and countering the business week rankings”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 442-476.
QROM Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on
work group processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 229-273.
Evans, J.A., Kunda, G. and Barley, S.R. (2004), “Beach time, bridge time, and billable hours: the
temporal structure of technical contracting”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 1-38.
Fauchart, E. and Gruber, M. (2011), “Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role of founder
identity in entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 935-957.
Feldman, M.S., Bell, J. and Berger, M.T. (2003), Gaining Access: A Practical and Theoretical Guide for
Qualitative Researchers, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M. and Hawkins, C. (2005), “The nonspread of innovations: the
mediating role of professionals”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 117-134.
Finch, B.J. and Cox, J.F. (1988), “Process-oriented production planning and control: factors that
influence system design”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 123-153.
Fine, G.A. (1996), “Justifying work: occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens”,
Fox-Wolfgramm, S.J., Boal, K.B. and Hunt, J. (1998), “Organizational adaptation to institutional change:
a comparative study of first-order change in prospector and defender banks”, Administrative

Fu, P.P., Tsui, A.S., Liu, J. and Li, L. (2010), “Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’
transformational behaviors and personal values”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55
No. 2, pp. 222-254.
Gardner, H.K. (2012), “Performance pressure as a double-edged sword: enhancing team motivation but
undermining the use of team knowledge”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-46.
Gersick, C.J. (1988), “Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-41.
Gersick, C.J., Dutton, J.E. and Bartunek, J.M. (2000), “Learning from academia: the importance of
relationships in professional life”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1026-1044.
Gibson, C.B. and Gibbs, J.L. (2006), “Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic
dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 451-495.
Graebner, M.E. (2009), “Caveat venditor: trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms”,
Graebner, M.E. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2004), “The seller’s side of the story: acquisition as courtship and
governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 366-403.
Green, S.E. Jr, Yuan, L. and Nohria, N. (2009), “Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: a rhetorical
model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 11-36.
Hallen, B.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2012), “Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: how
entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 35-70.
Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2010), “Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and
institutional fields: narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1365-1392.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990), “Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing
product technologies and the failure of established firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 9-30.
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001), “Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and
deep structures in the context of information technology implementation”, Academy of
Heusinkveld, S. and Reijers, H.A. (2009), “Reflections on a reflective cycle: building legitimacy in design Organizational
knowledge development”, Organization Studies, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 865-886. access in
Human, S.E. and Provan, K.G. (1997), “An emergent theory of structure and outcomes in qualitative
small-firm strategic manufacturing networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 368-403. research
Human, S.E. and Provan, K.G. (2000), “Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm multilateral
networks: a comparative study of success and demise”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 327-365.
Huy, Q.N. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the
contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 31-69.
Jacobides, M.G. (2005), “Industry change through vertical disintegration: how and why markets
emerged in mortgage banking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 465-498.
Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups”,
Johl, S.K. and Renganathan, S. (2010), “Strategies for gaining access in doing fieldwork: reflection of
two researchers”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 42-50.
Kahn, W.A. (1993), “Caring for the caregivers: patterns of organizational caregiving”, Administrative
Langley, A. and Abdallah, C. (2011), “Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and
management”, in Bergh, D.D. and Ketchen, D.J. (Eds), Building Methodological Bridges, Vol. 6,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 201-235.
Larson, A. (1992), “Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange
relationships”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-104.
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2011), “Organizations as discursive constructions: a Foucauldian
approach”, Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1247-1271.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lingo, E.L. and O’Mahony, S. (2010), “Nexus work: brokerage on creative projects”, Administrative
Locke, K. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1990), “Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring
intertextual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1023-1062.
Lüscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. (2008), “Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working
through paradox”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 221-240.
McDermott, G.A., Corredoira, R.A. and Kruse, G. (2009), “Public-private institutions as catalysts of
upgrading in emerging market societies”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 6,
pp. 1270-1296.
Maclean, T.L. and Behnam, M. (2010), “The dangers of decoupling: the relationship between
compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct”, Academy of
Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2004), “Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields:
HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 657-679.
Mainiero, L.A. (1986), “Coping with powerlessness: the relationship of gender and job dependency to
empowerment-strategy usage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 633-653.
Mair, J., Marti, I. and Ventresca, M.J. (2012), “Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how
intermediaries work institutional voids”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp. 819-850.
Maitlis, S. (2005), “The social processes of organizational sensemaking”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-49.
QROM Martin, J., Knopoff, K. and Beckman, C. (1998), “An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and
emotional labor: bounded emotionality at the body shop”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 429-469.
Marcus, A.A. (1988), “Bhopal: anatomy of a crisis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 154-157.
Maurer, I. and Ebers, M. (2006), “Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: lessons
from biotechnology start-ups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 262-292.
Michel, A. (2011), “Transcending socialization: a nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in
organizational control and knowledge workers’ transformation”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 325-368.
Michel, A.A. (2007), “A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ change processes: the
management of cognitive uncertainty in two investment banks”, Administrative Science
Mohrman, S.A., Gibson, C.B. and Mohrman, A.M. Jr (2001), “Doing research that is useful to practice a
model and empirical exploration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 357-375.
Munro, R. (1999), “The cultural performance of control”, Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 619-640.
Nag, R. and Gioia, D.A. (2012), “From common to uncommon knowledge: foundations of firm-specific
use of knowledge as a resource”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 421-457.
Oakes, L.S., Townley, B. and Cooper, D.J. (1998), “Business planning as pedagogy: language and control
in a changing institutional field”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 257-292.
Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (1994), “Genre repertoire: the structuring of communicative practices in
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 541-574.
Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2009), “Origin of alliance portfolios: entrepreneurs, network strategies,
and firm performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 246-279.
Pache, A.C. and Santos, F. (2013), “Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to
competing institutional logics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 972-1001.
Patriotta, G. and Spedale, S. (2009), “Making sense through face: identity and social interaction in a
consultancy task force”, Organization Studies, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 1227-1248.
Pentland, B.T. (1992), “Organizing moves in software support hot lines”, Administrative Science
Pentland, B.T. and Rueter, H.H. (1994), “Organizational routines as grammars of action”,
Perlow, L.A. (1999), “The time famine: toward a sociology of work time”, Administrative Science
Pinfield, L.T. (1986), “A field evaluation of perspectives on organizational decision making”,
Pratt, M.G. and Rafaeli, A. (1997), “Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities”,
Pratt, M.G. and Rosa, J.A. (2003), “Transforming work-family conflict into commitment in network
marketing organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 395-418.
Provan, K.G. and Milward, H.B. (1995), “A preliminary theory of interorganizational network
effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems”, Administrative
Rafaeli, A. (1989), “When cashiers meet customers: an analysis of the role of supermarket cashiers”,
Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1991), “Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: lessons
from criminal interrogators and bill collectors”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 749-775.
Ritti, R.R. and Silver, J.H. (1986), “Early processes of institutionalization: the dramaturgy of exchange in Organizational
interorganizational relations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 25-42. access in
Ross, J. and Staw, B.M. (1993), “Organizational escalation and exit: lessons from the Shoreham nuclear qualitative
power plant”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 701-732.
Rynes, S. and Gephart, R.P. (2004), “From the editors: Qualitative Research and the Academy of
research
Management Journal”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Saldaña, J. (2015), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage Publishing, London.
Santos, F.M. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2009), “Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:
entrepreneurial power in nascent fields”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 643-671.
Schweizer, L. (2005), “Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into
pharmaceutical companies: the need for a hybrid approach”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1051-1074.
Schultz, M. (1990), Kultur i organisationer, Funktion eller symbol, Handelshøjskolens forlag,
Copenhagen.
Schultz, M. (1991), “Transitions between symbolic domains in organizations”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 489-506.

Shenton, A.K. and Hayter, S. (2004), “Strategies for gaining access to organizations and informants in
qualitative studies”, Education for Information, Vol. 22, pp. 223-231.
Siggelkow, N. (2001), “Change in the presence of fit: the rise, the fall, and the renaissance of
Liz Claiborne”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 838-857.
Siggelkow, N. (2002), “Evolution toward fit”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 125-159.
Sinkovics, R.R., Penz, E. and Ghauri, P.N. (2008), “Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative
research in international business”, Management International Review, Vol. 48, pp. 689-714.
Smets, M., Morris, T. and Greenwood, R. (2012), “From practice to field: a multilevel model of practice-
driven institutional change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 877-904.
Smith, K.K. (1989), “The movement of conflict in organizations: the joint dynamics of splitting and
triangulation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Liu, G. (2012), “Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in corporate
venture capital programs”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 477-505.
Stevenson, W.B. and Greenberg, D. (2000), “Agency and social networks: strategies of action in a social
structure of position, opposition, and opportunity”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 651-678.
Strumińska-Kutra, M. (2016), “Engaged scholarship, steering between the risks of paternalism,
opportunism, and paralysis”, Organization, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 864-883.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Sutton, R.I. (1987), “The process of organizational death: disbanding and reconnecting”, Administrative
Sutton, R.I. (1991), “Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: the case of bill collectors”,
Sutton, R.I. and Hargadon, A. (1996), “Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product
design firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 685-718.
Thomas, D.A. (1993), “Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships”, Administrative
Trefalt, Š. (2013), “Between you and me: setting work-nonwork boundaries in the context of workplace
relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1802-1829.
Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness”,
QROM Van Maanen, J. and Kolb, D. (1985), “The professional apprentice, observations on fieldwork roles in
two organizational settings”, in Bacharach, S.B. and Mitchell, S.M. (Eds), Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 4, Con JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-33.
Vergne, J. (2012), “Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: a mixed-methods
study of the global arms industry, 1996–2007”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5,
pp. 1027-1052.
Wallendorf, M. and Belk, R.W. (1989), “Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research”,
in Hirschman, E.C. (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 69-84.
Walsh, I.J. and Bartunek, J.M. (2011), “Cheating the fates: organizational foundings in the wake of
demise”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 1017-1044.
Weber, K., Heinze, K.L. and DeSoucey, M. (2008), “Forage for thought, mobilizing codes in the
movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 529-567.
Whiteman, G. and Cooper, W.H. (2000), “Ecological embeddedness”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1265-1282.
Yakura, E.K. (2002), “Charting time, timelines as temporal boundary objects”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 956-970.
Corresponding author
Benjamin Nathan Alexander can be contacted at: balexa02@calpoly.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Jurnal Filsafat 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Filsafat 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An

References: this document contains references to 132 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Type of access and indicators of legitimacy

Learning before entering the field

Interview-dominated Immersive field

formation (Hallen and Eisenhardt, p. 38) methods (AMJ

Articles Exemplar quotes

Articles Exemplar quotes

Interview-dominated field Immersive field

Interview-dominated field Immersive field

Insider assistance not noted 112 77 44 61 156 72 Table VII.

Implications for researchers seeking access

Interview-dominated field Immersive field

Table IX. Outside assistance not noted 132 90 72 100 204 94

Making access transparent

Access details Explanation

Organization discovery How the researcher’s background (e.g. personal or professional

consistently documented. The few instances in which a connection between researcher

methods”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 69-112.

a comparative study of first-order change in prospector and defender banks”, Administrative

Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 489-506.

Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 956-970.

You might also like