Management Classical Report

1. Building Better Theory by Bridging the
Quantitative–Qualitative Divide*
Journal of Management Studies 43:8 December 2006 0022-2380
Sonali K. Shah and Kevin G. Corley
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; Arizona
State University
Reporter: 陳錦玉
長榮大學經管所博士生
2013.6.5

2. ABSTRACT
• Qualitative methods for data collection and analysis are
not mystical, but they are powerful, particularly when used
to build new or refine 改善 existing theories.
• This article provides an introduction to qualitative methods
and an overview 概要 of tactics 策略 for ensuring rigor 確保嚴謹 in
qualitative research useful for the novice 初學者 researcher, as
well as more experienced researchers interested in
expanding their methodological repertoire 全部技能 or seeking
guidance on how to evaluate qualitative research.
• We focus our discussion on the qualitative analytical
technique of grounded theory building, and suggest that
organizational research has much to gain by coupling 結合 of
use of qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3. INTRODUCTION
• A theory tries to make sense of out of the observable
world by ordering the relationships among elements
that constitute the theorist’s focus of attention.
(Dubin, 1978, p.26)
• As Mintzberg (1979, p. 584) put it, ‘data don’t
generate theory – only researchers do that’. Data
describe the empirical patterns observed, while
theory explains why empirical patterns are observed
or expected. Theory building often requires the rich
knowledge that only qualitative methods can
provide:

4. Theory building seems to require rich description, the
richness that comes from anecdote( 趣聞 , 軼事 ). We uncover
all kinds of relationships in our ‘hard’ data, but it is only
through the use of this ‘soft’ data that we are able to
‘explain’ them, and explanation is, of course, the
purpose of research. I believe that the researcher who
never goes near the water, who collects quantitative
data from a distance without anecdote to support them,
will always have difficulty explaining interesting
relationships …… (Mintzberg,1979, p. 113)

5. Echambadi, Campbell and Agarwal (2006) provide a
critique of cross-sectional( 代表性的 ), survey-based data
collection and analysis methods and suggest a number
of alternative( 替換物 , 供選擇的 ) quantitative methods for
testing theory.
Empirically( 經驗主義地 ) grounded theory is most often
developed through the use of qualitative methods as
researchers generate( 產生 , 導致 ) a detailed understanding
and thick description of the phenomenon of interest;
they collect information on many aspects of a
phenomenon and attempt to document the
perspectives( 遠景 , 透視 , 看法 ) of all key participants.

6. FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTIONS IN
UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHIES 對於潛在哲學的基本區別
• All science is based on paradigmatic thinking
involving distinct assumptions on the nature of reality
(ontology), how we can come to know that reality
(epistemology), and how we can systematically
access what can be known about that reality
(methodology) (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
• we will focus on the differences between only two
here, functionalism 功能主義 , and interpretivism 解釋主義 ,
because they lie at the heart of the quantitative–
qualitative divide in management research.

7. • The essential( 必要的 , 本質的 , 重要的 ) difference
between functionalism and interpretivism is
the ultimate( 終極 , 根本 ) goal of the analysis
(Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
• data should be collected and analysed in such
a way that another researcher collecting and
analysing similar data under similar
conditions will find similar results, thus
helping establishing the veracity( 真實性 , 誠實 ) of
the theory.

8. • These goals are based in the ontological
assumption of objectivity 客觀性 (the world exists
independent of those observing 觀察 , 遵守 , 注意 , 評論
it, thus there is an objective reality that can be
accessed) and the epistemological heritage 遺產
; 傳統 ; 繼承權 of positivism 實證主義 , 實證論 (the search for
regularities 規則性 , 一致性 and causal relationships
among basic components 構成要素 ; 成分 ), and are
most often achieved through the
ethodological 方法論的 traditions of quantitative
data collection and statistical analysis.

9. • the goal is neither replication 複制 , 答辯 nor theory testing.
Instead, what is important is that results are
representative 代表 , 典型 of the interpretations 解釋 ,
翻譯 of those experiencing the phenomenon under study
and that they embody 具體表達 ; 包含 a rigorous 嚴格的 ; 苛刻的
interpretation of the phenomenon such that plausible 貌
似有理 ( 真實 ) 的 theory development is possible.
• ‘Because interpretive research implicitly 含蓄 ( 暗示 ) 地
assumes 假定 , 設想 that every person conducting 引導 , 管理 a
research study will have a unique interpretation of the
results’ data analysis cannot be judged on whether or
not the results are replicable 可複制的 by another
researcher.

10. • Multiple social realities can exist around a phenomenon
because those involved interpret the phenomenon
differently. This results in different people reaching
different conclusions about the causality 緣由 , 因果關系 of the
phenomenon, the implications 含意 , 暗示 of the
phenomenon, and the relationships other phenomena
have with the focal 焦點的 phenomenon.
• By placing oneself in the context where the
phenomenon is occurring and developing
interpretations of the phenomenon based on personal
experiences, as well as the experiences of those living it,
a researcher develops insights 洞察力 , 見識 not possible
through other methods of analysis.

11. 本節小結提問 : 質化研究法或量化研究法 , 何者較佳 ? 兩者如何
結合以擴展組織現象研究領域在理論上的認知 ?
• Neither one is better than the other (Morgan and
Smircich, 1982); each has strengths and weaknesses
and may be more or less appropriate 適當的 depending on
the research question being investigated 調查 , 研究 .
• With these basic ontological and epistemological
distinctions in place, it is now possible to go into more
depth concerning the methodological aspects of
qualitative research and, most importantly, how
qualitative methods can be combined with
quantitative methods to expand our theoretical
understanding of organizational phenomena.

12. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO QUALITATIVE
METHODS
• Qualitative methods are a set of data collection and
analysis techniques that can be used to provide
description, build theory, and to test theory (Van
Maanen, 1979).
• The primary benefits of qualitative methods are that
they allow the researcher to discover new variables 變
數 and relationships, to reveal and understand complex
processes, and to illustrate 舉例說明 the influence of the
social context 環境 , 背景 .

13. • Qualitative methods began to take root 建立 in the social
sciences in the early 1900s. In sociology, the ‘Chicago
School’ adopted a qualitative approach 方法 to studying
group life (Barl ey, 1989).
• In anthropology 人類學 , scholars including Bateson, Boaz,
Evans-Pritchard, Malinowski, and Radcliffe-Brown
established a tradition of fieldwork 實地調查 aimed at
creating ethnographic 民族志 ( 人種志 ) 學的 , accounts 描述 , 估計 of
life in different cultures (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).
• 表 I. 質化研究的典範在管理及相關的領域
• Table I lists a small sampling of well-known exemplars of qualitative research
drawn from management and related fields. It includes a few classics and a
few more recent pieces and is in no way meant to be an exhaustive list. 表 I 列
出的一小部分知名的典範來自管理及相關領域的定性研究。它包括一些經典和一些更近的部分，並且絕
不意味著是一個詳盡的列表

14. • As we will discuss in this piece, qualitative researchers use formal
and systematic methods for data collection and analysis to
ensure that the trustworthiness 可靠 , 確實性 of their work is
unassailable 無懈可擊的 .
• And, because qualitative researchers often use multiple modes
of data collection, they tend to describe their data collection and
analysis methods in detail, an act that both openly reveals their
methods for peer review 同行評審 and shows that their methods
meet rigorous standards 方法符合嚴格的標準 .
• To ensure the negative impressions 負面印象 of qualitative research
are completely overcome 戰勝 , 克服 , qualitative researchers must
be vigilant 警戒著的 as they write and review papers, ensuring that
papers are methodologically sound and consistent in their use of
terminology 用辭 , 術語學 .

15. QUALITATIVE METHODS FOR DATA
ANALYSIS AND COLLECTION 質化方法的數據分析和
收集
• The qualitative research tradition is comprised of distinct
methods for data collection and data analysis. For those
researchers unfamiliar with or just becoming familiar with
qualitative research, it is easy not to appreciate the
distinction between qualitative techniques for data collection
and analysis, and even misuse 誤用 , 濫用 terms 條件 , 措辭 such as
‘field research’, ‘grounded theory’, ‘case study research’,
‘ethnography 民族誌學’ and ‘qualitative methods’ or use the
terms interchangeably 術語交替 . This obviously creates
confusion and can damage perceptions of the methodology.

16. • Just as quantitative researchers take care to distinguish
between various methods – rarely does one see research
misusing the term ANOVA for event history analysis 很少見到一個
研究濫用方差分析對事件史分析– so should researchers be clear about
their use of terms describing qualitative techniques. 所以研究人員
應該清楚他們使用的術語來描述質性技術 .
• We order our discussion in this way for two reasons. First, this
allows the discussion to better mirror the early stages of an
inductive research process – where the researcher first
chooses a question of interest, then the analytic method, and
then the specific data collection methods based on the
particular context being researched. Second, while grounded
theorists engage in a lengthy period of data analysis following
data collection, they also engage in analysis concurrent with
data collection.

17. Grounded Theory as an Analytical Tool
紮根理論作為分析工具
• We focus our discussion on grounded theory building for two
reasons:first, proper use of the technique can result in the
creation of novel and illuminating 闡明 , 啟蒙 theoretical
concepts (thus moving beyond the limitation of theory testing
inherent 固有 ( 內在 ) 的 in cross-sectional 代表性的 , 橫斷面的 survey
research); and second, its prevalence 傳播 , 流行 , 普及 in the
literature on organizations.
• Grounded theory’s distinctive features are its commitment to
research and discovery through direct contact with the social
world, coupled with a rejection of a priori theorizing (Locke,
2001). 紮根理論的鮮明特色是其承諾通過直接接觸社會的世界，加上拒絕先驗的理論研
究和發現

18. • In fact, researchers must be intimately familiar with the
content, nuances, and weaknesses of existing theories. 事實上，
研究人員必須熟悉現有理論的內容，細微之處和弱點。
• It does mean that researchers should not allow preconceived
constructs and hypotheses to guide data collection. 研究人員不應
該讓先入為主的結構和假設來指導數據收集。
• While a priori theorizing is shunned, ex-post theorizing is
required with a contextualization of the findings and novel
theoretical contributions within the framework provided by
existing theory. 雖然先驗的理論是避之唯恐不及，需要事後的理論與語境化現有的
理論框架內所提供的調查結果和新的理論貢獻。
• Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue that researchers must
generate formal theories out of their data collection
experiences in order to advance understanding of the social
world. 研究人員必須產生正式的理論，從其數據收集的經驗，以推進社會世界的理解。

19. • The question.
• Research questions best addressed 最好的解決 by
grounded theory building include those that
explore new areas, seek to uncover processes,
understand poorly understood phenomena,
attempt to understand unspecified variables
or ill-structured linkages, or examine variables
that cannot be studied via experimentation
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Marshall and
Rossman, 1995; Miles and Huberman, 1994;
Yin, 2003).

20. • Theoretical sampling.
• The rationale 基本原理 behind theoretical sampling is to direct
data gathering efforts towards collecting information that will
best support the development of the theoretical framework
(Locke, 2001).
• Researchers might choose samples in which they expect to
support the emergent theory 突生 ( 新興 , 應變 ) 理論 or samples in
which they expect to refine and extend the emergent theory.
• The latter is often accomplished by choosing data collection
contexts that represent polar types – to show that their theory
applies across a variety of contexts or to define the boundaries
of the theory – or that highlight dissenting 異議 views to help
demarcate 劃分 ( 界 )the boundaries of the emergent theory. For
these reasons, random 隨機地 selection is neither necessary nor
even preferable (Eisenhardt, 1989a).

21. • Constant comparisons.
• Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced the constant comparison
method as the process by which researchers assign 分派 ( 配 )and
create meaning from the observations 觀察 recorded in the data.
• The constant comparative method is conceptualized 概念化 and
described in terms of 就 . 而言 , 在 . 方面 four stages 四個階段 which span
橫跨 the entire study 整個研究 , beginning with comparing incidents 事
件 applicable 適用的 to each category 種類 , 類別 , 範疇 (coding,
comparing, and memoing are important components of this
stage), integrating categories 綜合類 and their properties 屬性 , 財產 , 性
質 , focusing the theory 聚焦的理論 , and writing the theory 編寫理論 .
• ‘all stages are in operation throughout the analysis’
• Throughout the course of data collection, the researcher will
make constant comparisons among the nuggets 珍品 ( 聞 )of
information that they are collecting in order to identify patterns.

22. • Data analysis continues until theoretical
saturation 理論飽和 is reached, or when no new
information indicating that categories or the
relationships between them should be refined
is uncovered through the analysis or collection
of additional data.

23. Common Qualitative Data Collection Methods
常見的定性數據收集方法
• Grounded theory building favours data collection methods that
gather rich data directly from those people directly
experiencing the phenomenon. Although a number of
qualitative data collection methods exist, grounded theory
research in management generally relies on three data
gathering techniques: interviews, observation (both direct and
participant), and the analysis of archival information (Marshall
and Rossman, 1989). Each of these data collection methods
has its own standards, best practices, and rules. The use of
each of these techniques – particularly observation and
interviews – is common in management research, with many
studies combining the use of all three methodologies.

24. • Interviews.
Interviewing presumes 假定 that one can understand how
the world is known by asking informants to answer open-
ended 自由回答的 (but structured) questions about their
experiences.
Interviews differ in the degree to which informants set the
agenda 議程 , but in all instances 例證 , 情況 informants describe
their own experiences at length 詳細地 , including personal
narratives 敘述 or life histories. In-depth interviews are
frequently used to collect differing perspectives 視角 on a topic.
While most data collection efforts call for strong similarities 相
似點 in the questions asked across informants (to aid 幫助 in the
constant 常數 , 不變地 comparison process), the nature of
grounded theory calls for 呼籲 flexibility 靈活 ( 彈 , 適應 ) 性 in
questioning to allow each informant some control over
deciding what aspects of the phenomenon are most

25. • Observation.
The goal of observation is to understand what it means to be a
participant in the social situation – to understand how the social
context influences individual behaviour and how individual
behaviour influences the social context.
Qualitative observation is fundamentally naturalistic in
essence 基本的自然元素 ; it occurs in the natural context of
occurrence, among the actors 行動者 , 參與者 who would naturally
be participating in the interaction 互動 , and follows the natural
stream of everyday life. As such, it enjoys the advantage of
drawing the observer into the phenomenological complexity of
the world, where connections 前後關係 , 連接點 , correlations 相關性 ,
and causes can be witnessed as and how they unfold. (Adler
and Adler, 1994, p. 40)

26. • The researcher might observe a group,
community, or social context as either a
participant observer or simply an outside
observer, based on the degree to which they
interact with other participants.
• The researcher may choose to explain his or
her research interests to other participants or
may (covertly 祕密地 ; 偷偷摸摸地 ) collect data without
explanation.

27. • Archival data 檔案數據 .
Archival data include pre-existing documents, photographs,
email exchanges, audio and video recordings, and other
artefacts 加工品 ; 藝術品 .
Archival data is most often used in conjunction with interviews
and observations to develop a better understanding of the
phenomenon of interest and the context in which that
phenomenon is occurring.
Archival data may be used independently 獨立使用 as well,
particularly when attempting to understand historical incidents
or economic or social systems. ……archival data often take a
supporting role to interviews and observation in
management research.

28. ENSURING RIGOR IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
確保嚴格定性研究
• While many have claimed a bias against qualitative research
in our field’s top journals, most top journal editors have
shown an increased interest in high-quality qualitative
research.
• Many journal editors find themselves confronted with poorly
executed 不當執行 qualitative research that must be rejected
not because it is qualitatively-based, but simply because its
rigor 嚴謹 does not meet 不符合 the high standards of the
journal.
• To help with this problem, we provide a brief discussion of
rigor in qualitative methods using Lincoln and Guba’s (1985)
notion of ‘trustworthiness’ and Locke’s (2001) suggestions
for how to judge grounded-theory research.

29. • Lincoln and Guba (1985) explain that because
interpretive research is based on a different set of
ontological and epistemological assumptions than
functionally-based research, the traditional notions 概
念 , 想法 of validity 有效性 , 正確性 ; and reliability 可靠性 do not
apply in the same fashion.
• They furnish an alternative 選擇性的 set of criteria 標準 ; 規
範 by which to judge the rigor of qualitative research.
Credibility 確實性 , Transferability 可轉移性 , Dependability
可依賴性 , and Confirmability.
• Each criterion includes a set of specific actions a
researcher can take to help meet the criterion, as
listed in Table II.

30. Table II. Techniques to ensure the trustworthiness of qualitative
research 。表 II : 以確保技術的可信性定性研究
• For judging grounded theory-based research in particular,
Locke (2001) suggests three metrics: the extent to which it is
pragmatically useful, its credibility, and its theoretical
contribution. Pragmatic usefulness is at the heart of
grounded theory practice because its purpose is to
understand a phenomenon from the perspective of those
living it, in their daily practice, or as Locke (2001, p. 59)
explains, ‘good theory is one that will be practically
useful in the course of daily events, not only to
social scientists, but also to laymen’. She goes on to
cite Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) four aspects of practical
usefulness – fit,

31. SUCCESSFULLY PAIRING QUALITATIVE AND
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 成功配對的質化和量化研究
• Theory building involves trade-offs (Fine and Elsbach, 2000)
• Weick (1979) discusses a simple framework for assessing
theory along three dimensions 維度 : simplicity (i.e. ease of
understanding or application), accuracy (i.e. conformity to the
truth) and generalizability (i.e. extension to other domains).
• Qualitative research is often accurate and potentially
generalizable 潛在的可概括性 , but often overly complex 過於複雜 .
Large-sample quantitative studies often use proxies 代理人 to
measure aspects of the phenomenon of interest and might be
categorized 分類 as being simple and generalizable, but lacking
in accuracy.

32. • Weick (1979) suggests that the solution is not to search for a
method that combines all three elements (accuracy,
generalizability, and simplicity) but to build theory by
alternating 輪流 , 交替 among sets of data that provide one or
more of these elements or by incorporating 合併 , 具體表現
complementary 互補的 research conducted 引導 , 管理 by others.
• Several researchers have provided examples and guidance on
how to combine the use of these paradigms within a research
stream and even within a single study.

33. CONCLUSION
• We began this article with the argument that qualitative
methods overcome a key limitation of most quantitative
research: the inability 無能 ; 無力 to build theory.
• While we stand firmly behind this message and its
implications for the future of organizational research, we also
believe that the increased use of multiple methods is
necessary to build accurate, generalizable, and practically
useful theory in a field as inherently complex as management
research.
• As illustrated by the examples in the preceding section, the
benefits of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to
form a more complete picture of a phenomenon far outweigh
the costs of time and effort.

34. • Implementing this more complete methodological
strategy, however, requires organizational
researchers to be more familiar and comfortable
with the ontological, epistemological, and
methodological foundations of both qualitative and
quantitative research.
• Unfortunately, this is not the norm for most of us, and will
require some re-education as we expand our
methodological repertoires beyond the safety of our
preferred perspective.
• We hope that this set of essays provides a starting point for
those interested in becoming more complete organizational
researchers capable of testing, refining, and building theory.

35. Thank you for your listening!
Here are some questions to discuss with you:
1. Can you explain what is qualitative research?
2. Can you realize what is Grounded Theory?
3. Do you know what methods in qualitative research?
If you can answer above problems, then I have to
congratulate to you that you have already pass the based
test to research organization research.