Readings for

Qualitative Methods

Name: Sinuo Wu Course: Research Methods Date: 14.09.2022

GENERATING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
THROUGH PROBLEMATIZATION
 Background

Gap-Spotting (underproblematize) Problematization

- Definition. Researchers generate research questions by identifying or - Definition. A methodology for challenging the

constructing specific gaps in the existing literature. (Identify competing assumptions that underlie not only others but also
explanations, scan for overlooked areas, or search for shortages of a one’s own theoretical position.
particular theory. ）
- Shortage. Underlie existing studies is often risky since
- Characteristic. Gap Spotting is trying to reinforce instead of challenge the
it means questioning existing power relations in a
already influential theories or their assumptions.
scientific field, which may result in upsetting

- Shortage. Gap Spotting is an Increasingly Disturbing Problem in reviewers and editors, thus, may reduce the chances of
having an article published.
Management Studies.

01
 Line of Reasoning
Goal
1) Typology development
Develop and propose problematization as a
methodology for identifying and
challenging assumptions.
2) Methodological principles
Generate research questions that lead to the
development of more interesting and
influential theories within management
studies.
Key Questions
1) Question 1: Sense assumptions
What types of assumptions are relevant
to consider?
2) Question 2: Generate ideas
How can these assumptions be identified,
articulated, and challenged in a way that is
likely to lead to the development of an
interesting theory?
Scope
1) Focus
Problematizing assumptions that
underlie existing literature as a way to
construct research questions.
2) Exclusion
Do not discuss how other aspects of
the research process may influence the
research objective.
02
Assumptions

Why Assumptions Can Be Challenged?

Cases in which we assume that a phenomenon is constituted in a particular

way, but in reality, it is not.

Instances in which we assume that there is a particular relation between

multiple phenomena when there is not.

03
 Assumptions open for problematization

A Typology of assumptions

01 In-House

Assumptions exist within a

02Root metaphor

Broader images of a
03 Paradigm

Ontological, epistemological,
04 Ideology

Political-, moral-, and gender-

05 Field

particular subject matter
specific school of thought.
underlying existing literature.
and methodological
assumptions underlying
existing literature.
related assumptions
underlying existing literature
Assumptions about a
specific subject matter
are shared across
different theoretical
schools.

04
Principles

Principles for identifying and challenging assumptions

Step 1. Identify a domain of literature: What main bodies of literature and key texts make up the domain?

Step 2. Identify and articulate assumptions: What major assumptions underlie the literature within the
identified domain?

Step 3. Evaluate articulated assumptions: Are the identified assumptions worthy to be challenged?

Step 4. Develop alternative assumptions: What alternative assumptions can be developed?

Step 5. Relate assumptions to audience: What major audiences hold the challenged assumptions?

Step 6. Evaluate alternative assumptions: Are the alternative assumptions likely to generate a theory
that will be regarded as interesting by the audiences targeted?

05
Conclusion
Q2
The identification and demonstration
of how gap-spotting as the prevalent
way of constructing research
questions from existing literature
leads to a shortage of interesting and
influential studies within
management science.
Proposed problematization
methodology, which provides a
comprehensive and systematic
addition to gap-spotting and
prepackaged problematization.
22
06
 The Tumult over Transparency:
Decoupling Transparency from Replication
in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research
 Background

Replication crisis Trustworthiness

- Definition. To be trustworthy, research must be replicable; - Definition. The degree to which the reader can assess

and to better ensure replicability, researchers need to be more transparent whether the researchers have been honest in how the
about their data and methods. research has been carried out and reasonable in the
conclusions they make.
-
Characteristic. Applied properly in Quantitative research.
- Proposition. Management journals need to tackle the

- Shortage. Tying transparency tightly to replication is deeply troublesome core issues by identifying solutions for enhanced

for qualitative research, where replication misses the point of what the work trustworthiness that recognize the unique strengths and

seeks to accomplish. considerations.

01
Line of Reasoning

Goal Key Questions Misleading point

1) Challenge the conflation 1) Question: qualitative research 1) Influence

Transparency advocates mixed the concept of How qualitative research in The inappropriate transfer of quantitative
replication with trustworthiness, thus this management should be understood, logic to qualitative research potentially
study tries to challenge it on both ontological especially as it relates to ensuring impacts a great deal of important work.
and methodological grounds. trustworthy research.

2) Alternative
2) Difficulty
Offer alternatives for how to (and how not A lot of impressive qualitative work is
to) think about trustworthiness in qualitative not replicable, based on large amounts
research of certain contexts.

02
Why replication is not appropriate

TWO KEY PROBLEMS

01 Problematic Ontologically
Diversity. There is considerable methodological diversity of
qualitative methods, most of which would reject the need for
3 02
Inappropriate or Even Harmful
Open Practice. Preregistration, publicly sharing one’s protocols (e.g.,
survey items), and publicly sharing one’s data.
replication or reproduction on ontological grounds.
Preregistration? One should not go into qualitative research with
Horizontal. The content of quantitative research is more hypotheses; if researchers look only for what they are seeking, they are not
horizontal and more open, and the accumulation of a large doing good inductive or abductive qualitative work.
amount of data and knowledge spans a wide range, which is
difficult to replicate. Sharing protocols? Some inductive methodologies necessitate changing
one’s interview questions as the study evolves.
Change. Organizational relationships are often unlikely to be
stable enough to replicate. Sharing data? This might obey research ethics. (the public cannot link
data to particular individuals or even organizations’ identities.)

03
Alternative

04
Conclusion

Q2
Transparency of the kind that is By applying appropriate

useful in quantitative studies standards of methodological

(Replications) is often not useful transparency for qualitative

or appropriate for qualitative research, journals can enhance

research and is not the same as horizontal knowledge

trustworthy research. accumulation in management.

05
THANKS
Name: Sinuo Wu