Business and Management INK

Counting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it

September 14, 2010 895
David R. Hannah and Brenda A. Lautsch of Simon Fraser University, discuss their article recently published in the Journal of Management Inquiry‘s OnlineFirst: Counting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it.
 
Who is the Target Audience for this Article?
The target audience is anyone who has dealt with or will confront the difficult question of when counting is an appropriate strategy for the analysis of qualitative data.  We therefore think that it will be of particular interest to qualitative researchers and anyone who is responsible for the evaluation of qualitative research.    
 
What Inspired You To Be Interested In This Topic?
As qualitative researchers ourselves, we have been in situations where reviewers or editors asked us to count our data, but we felt that counting would not improve the quality of our work.   However, in those frustrating situations we had no published work that we could refer to in order to determine whether our feelings were justified, or whether there might be some unanticipated benefit from counting.   
 
Were There Findings That Were Surprising To You?

Since this is not an empirical paper there were no findings, but when we started this work we were more familiar with the arguments against counting than we were with the arguments about when counting could improve the quality of qualitative research.  We both feel that we now have a more balanced perspective about the role of counting.   (We expect that some of our colleagues will disagree with that statement!)

How Do You See This Study Influencing Future Research And/Or Practice?

We believe this article could influence future research in two ways.  First, we hope it provides some much-needed guidelines for when counting is and is not an appropriate means of qualitative data analysis.  As we developed this paper and presented it at conferences, researchers who were struggling with these issues often contacted us to ask for our advice.  This has made us hopeful that our ideas will be useful to many people.  Second, we hope that our ideas can stimulate a broader discussion on the topic of counting.  This is a controversial topic, and we do not intend for this paper to provide the last word about counting.  As we state in our conclusions, we hope that we have provided a set of ideas that others can consider, agree or disagree with, and build on in order to improve our understanding of this very important issue.

How Does This Study Fit Into Your Body Of Work/Line Of Research?  

Both of us have published qualitative research in the past (e.g. Beyer and Hannah, 2002; Hannah 2007; Lautsch 2002; Lautsch & Scully 2007).  This project added to our knowledge about qualitative research methods.

How Did Your Paper Change During The Review Process?  

We re-wrote this paper numerous times, and in the process of developing it received useful feedback from many of our colleagues.  We were particularly lucky that our final reviewers and editor helped us to turn the paper from a set of what we felt were interesting but loosely connected ideas into a more coherent “story” about counting.

What, If Anything, Would You Do Differently If You Could Go Back And Do This Study Again?

While we are happy with the final paper and the fact that it is being published in a prestigious outlet, we would like to have arrived at this happy outcome sooner.   However, we did receive a lot of useful feedback along the way, so the development process, while lengthy and at times very frustrating, was ultimately very useful.

References

Beyer, Janice M. and Hannah, David R.  2002.  Building on the past: Enacting established personal identities in a new work setting.  Organization Science, 13: 636-652.

Hannah, David R.  2007.  An examination of the factors that influence whether newcomers protect or share secrets of their former employers.  Journal of Management Studies, 44: 465-487.

Lautsch, Brenda A. & Maureen Scully.  2007.  Restructuring time: Implications of work-hours reductions for the working class.  Human Relations, 60:  719-743.

Lautsch, Brenda A. 2002.  Uncovering and explaining variance in the features and outcomes of contingent work within firms.  Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56:  23-43.

Bookmark and Share

Business and Management INK puts the spotlight on research published in our more than 100 management and business journals. We feature an inside view of the research that’s being published in top-tier SAGE journals by the authors themselves.

View all posts by Business & Management INK

Related Articles

How AI-Integration is Changing the Workplace
Business and Management INK
May 28, 2024

How AI-Integration is Changing the Workplace

Read Now
Keeping Qualitative Research Weird!
Business and Management INK
May 23, 2024

Keeping Qualitative Research Weird!

Read Now
Sometimes, We Do Need a Narcissist
Business and Management INK
May 21, 2024

Sometimes, We Do Need a Narcissist

Read Now
From Collision to Collaboration: Bridging University and Industry Relationships
Business and Management INK
May 17, 2024

From Collision to Collaboration: Bridging University and Industry Relationships

Read Now
Motivation of Young Project Professionals: Their Needs for Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, and Purpose

Motivation of Young Project Professionals: Their Needs for Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, and Purpose

Young professionals born between the early 1980s and mid-1990s now constitute a majority of the project management workforce. Having grown up connected, collaborative, and mobile, they have specific motivations and needs, which are explored in this study.

Read Now
A Complexity Framework for Project Management Strategies

A Complexity Framework for Project Management Strategies

Contemporary projects frequently pose complexities that cannot be adequately tackled by the classical project management tradition. This article offers a diagnostic tool to help identify the type of complexity of a project and determine the most suitable strategy for addressing it.

Read Now
Bringing Theories into Conversation to Strategize for a Better World

Bringing Theories into Conversation to Strategize for a Better World

In this article, Ann Langley, Rikkie Albertsen, Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, Katrin Heucher, Marc Krautzberger, Pauline Reinecke, Natalie Slawinski, and Eero Vaara reflect on the inspiration behind their research article, “Strategizing Together for a Better World: Institutional, Paradox and Practice Theories in Conversation,” found in the Journal of Management Inquiry.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments