ABSTRACT

One reason for why reviewers and editors do not do a good job evaluating qualitative research papers is that we shoehorn these studies into the confirmation narrative that assumes a linear, objective, and sequential execution of well-defined steps to confirm existing theory. This chapter develops an alternate discovery narrative that embodies more relevant criteria for evaluating qualitative work. The chapter contrasts three story lines to highlight discovery contributions, methods, and presenting findings. These are: defining the contribution as resolving grand challenges versus filling gaps; using abductive reasoning to cycle through hypothesis formulation, evaluation, and reframing rather than linear abstraction and reduction; and presenting findings as learning events in the journey of understanding rather than simple table talk. After detailing the three discovery narrative story lines and suggesting how to carry them out, the chapter proposes new criteria for evaluating qualitative studies based on the discovery narrative. The end result should be much more useful and interesting applications of organization theory for understanding major societal challenges, going beyond filling simple theoretical gaps.