Management and Organization Review Special Issue ‘Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets’Call for Papers
Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki,1 Tian Wei,2,∗ Carol Hsu,3
Catherine Cassell,4 and Shameen Prashantham5
1Leeds University (email@example.com), 2Fudan University (firstname.lastname@example.org),
3Tongji University (email@example.com), 4Leeds University (C.Cassell@leeds.ac.uk), and
Submission deadline: September 30, 2017
Special Issue Theme Background
The Management and Organization Review (MOR) special issue on ‘Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets’ aims to advance the quality, diversity, and understanding of qualitative research methods in management in the context of emerging markets. The value of qualitative research is increasingly embraced by management scholars thanks to its merits for building new theories and testing existing ones, as well as exemplifying new phenomena by surfacing contextual idiosyncrasies (Bansal & Corley, 2011; Birkinshaw, Brannen, & Tang, 2011; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Rynes, 2007;Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, 2011). As Bansal and Corley (2011: 234) suggest ‘The beauty of qualitative research is that it accommodates different paradigms and different styles of research and research reporting. Although there are merits to having norms emerge for the style of qualitative research manuscripts, we do not want to stifle creativity’.
This diversity of underlying philosophical positions, multiple research paradigms, nonstandard research designs, multiple theoretical purposes, and variable quality of writing, render qualitative research suitable to scholars who wish to generated nuanced accounts of high complexity settings (Pratt, 2008; Siggelkow, 2007; Suddaby, 2006). Empirical studies in social science require high-quality research to purse truth through rigorous research (Lewin, Fey, Levine, McDermott, Murmann, & Tsang, 2016). The criteriology of qualitative research can be pluralistic inspired by different philosophical orientations. Qualitative studies might employ ‘positivist’ quality criteria such as construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability (Yin, 2009, 2014) or naturalistic criteria, namely credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability (Symon & Cassell, 2012). As suggested by Welch et al. (2011), philosophical and methodological pluralism may be desirable and critical in producing insights of phenomena in novel, idiosyncratic, and multiple contexts.
With the recognition of the criticism on generalization because of the small-N problem (Gerring, 2007; Steinmetz, 2004), we appreciate the relative merits of qualitative research in three aspects of generalization: theoretical generalization, falsification and empirical within-population generalization (Tsang, 2014). Furthermore, the most recent editorial from Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) emphasizes on the trustworthiness in qualitative research by ruling out alternative explanations (Cuervo-Cazurra, Andersson, Brannen, Nielsen, & Reuber, 2016). Detailed recommendations have been outlined for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research in three dimensions: research context, research design, and empirical analysis (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2016).
Contextualization calls for more qualitative research to capture phenomena, explore comprehensive insights and develop context-specific theories (Tsui, 2006). It has been well recognized that the philosophy and approach in doing business vary between emerging markets and developed ones (Barkema, Chen, George, Luo, & Tsui, 2015). Management theories developed in western countries may not adapt well to the emerging context descripted by multiple embeddedness (or polycontextuality, see Shapiro, von Glinow, & Xiao, 2007). Therefore, contextinformed theory-building and -testing becomes an imperative if we are to explain the uniqueness of management in emerging markets, and so qualitative research becomes critical for scholars.
We are aware that the need for encouraging qualitative research has attracted the collective imagery and the joint attention of researchers, executives, and consultants in both transforming and established economies. Context-specific theories contribute both to scholars and practitioners in western and eastern world. However, even though some of the journals accept qualitative papers, the number of theories based on emerging markets is still limited.
We believe that a special interest on qualitative research in emerging markets has the potential to significantly draw the attention on qualitative research and enhance the understanding of qualitative methods.We echo Tsui (2007: 1353) and view this special issue as an opportunity for ‘serious engagement in deep contextualization, novel questioning and innovative theorizing’. The MOR special issue will contribute to establishing the groundwork for reviewing, motivating, and illustrating rigorous qualitative research in emerging markets, by adopting a wide range of qualitative methods (case study, grounded theory, historical data, interviews, observation, visual methodologies, etc.). It seeks to attract and publish a diverse array of empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions that significantly add to the state-of-the-art qualitative research in emerging markets. Through,reverse exporting’ (White, 2002: 306) this special issue may offer novel ways to revisit phenomena in other contexts therefore contributing to the wider discourse of qualitative management research. Potential topics included but not limited to an overview of qualitative research in emerging markets, context-specific theories built by qualitative research, and empirical pieces adopting qualitative methods.
The following list of research topics is not intended to be exhaustive or complete.
Questions about the special issue may be directed to guest editor Tian Wei (firstname.lastname@example.org). Papers for the special issue should be submitted electronically through MOR’s ScholarOne Manuscripts site at http://mc. manuscriptcentral.com/mor and identified as submission to the ‘DoingQualitative Research in Emerging Markets’ special issue. All submissions should follow the
‘MOR Author Guidelines’, available online at http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/MOR_ifc.pdf
Lewin, A. Y., Fey, C. F., Levine, S. S., McDermott, G., Murmann, J. P., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2016.The critique
of empirical social sciences: New policies at Management and Organization Review.
Management and Organization Review, 12(4): 649–658.
Pratt, M. G. 2008. Fitting oval pegs into round holes. Tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods,
11(3): 481–509.Rynes, S. L. 2007. Editor’s forward on rich research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1):13.
Shapiro, D. L., von Glinow, M. A., & Xiao, Z. 2007.Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods.
Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129–152.Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 20–24.
Steinmetz, G. 2004. Odious comparisons: incommensurability, the case study, and ‘small N’s’ in
sociology. Sociological Theory, 22(3): 371–400.Suddaby, R. 2006. What grounded theory is not. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49(4): 633–642.
Symon, G., & Cassell, C. 2012. Assessing qualitative research. In G. Symon and C. Cassell (Eds.),
Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges: 204–223. London:
Tsang, E. W. K. 2014. Generating from research findings: The merits of case studies, International
Journal of Management Review, 16(4): 369–383.
Tsui, A. S. 2006. Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization
Review, 2(1): 1–13.
Tsui, A. S. 2007. From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in theacademy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1353–1364.
case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.
White, S. 2002. Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can
we go? Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (2/3): 287–352.Yin, R. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.