Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research and Implication for Indian Researchers

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review the acceptance and popularity of qualitative research designs in contrast to quantitative research designs in strategic management domain. The researchers also make a case for accommodating more qualitative research methods in strategic management research and identify the areas where qualitative research methods would be highly useful.

In terms of research design for this survey, all peer-reviewed academic papers published in top three journals of strategic and general management (Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly) and published between 2007 and 2012 were covered for this survey. Those papers that have used qualitative methods are selected for further detailed analysis.

The finding suggests that, in terms of actual number of published articles, the qualitative methodology is far behind dominant quantitative methodology. Out of 847 empirical research articles published in the above three journals, only 9 per cent used qualitative research design, while 7 per cent used mixed method, but overwhelming 84 per cent uses quantitative research designs. There is variation among the three journals surveyed on their approach towards qualitative articles, while Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Journal provided more coverage for qualitative research articles; 14 per cent of total empirical research articles are qualitative. Strategic Management Journal has published least in terms of percentage; only 4 per cent of total empirical research articles are qualitative. Within qualitative methodology, case study is found to be most popular method among the researchers across all the three journals. In terms of paradigm, though interpretive paradigm is used for 75 per cent of the research design, positivist paradigm is used for half of the case study-based research design.

Keywords

Strategic Management Qualitative Methods Research Design Paradigms Positivist Interpretive Case Study

Introduction

Quantitative research is the widely used methodology in science and is also the dominant methodology used for investigative studies in social sciences and management. Generally, quantitative methodologies use the positivist paradigm. And at the same time, the social science researchers have experienced frustration with the positivist/ quantitative paradigm (Kuhn, 1996). The primary reasons for dissatisfaction with quantitative methodology are as follows:

The quantitative techniques use too few variables and are context neutral, that is, they do not take into account the context. Hence, they are less suited for social science compared to physical science (Barr, 2004; Gall et al., 2003).

Quantitative researchers are focused on similarities between firms and ignore the differences among them. But researchers have often found that differences between firms are as important as the similarities (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984).

The quantitative method is grounded in a positivist framework and disregards the individual and collective biases of the researchers as well as the subjects (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).

On the other hand, recent times have seen an increased interest in qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). This growing interest in qualitative research can be seen by the numerous high quality studies that are being done using qualitative methodologies as well as the increasing number of special issues on qualitative research in highly ranked strategy and general management journals (Ridder and Hoon, 2009). Though qualitative methodologies address many of the above limitations of quantitative methodology, there are concerns related to standards, validity, reliability and rigour in qualitative research (Flick, 2007; Frankel, 1999; Gibbert et al., 2008; Seale, 1999).

The most important concerns among them are as follows:

Lack of rigour: Many hold the view that non-positivist inquiry is more craftsman-like and less scientific. To avoid this criticism, there is increasing focus on improving quality on both data collection and data analysis (Ridder and Hoon, 2009). To boost the data collection process, researchers are focused on enhancing the quality of single data collection techniques as well as possibility of using complementary data collection procedures (Flick, 2007; Seale et al., 2007). Data analysis helps the researchers to reach theoretical contribution from raw data by transforming, interpreting or making sense of qualitative data (Mahoney, 2004). The inadequate development in this field, particularly in respect to techniques and procedures for analyzing data is a significant barrier in theorizing with qualitative data (Gephart, 2004),

Little basis for generalization: Qualitative researches are embedded in the context; hence, many assume that it would be difficult to generalize. The qualita-tive researchers also work with a very small database. Thus, moving from that data to general theory often elicits a ‘So What?’ or ‘What Else?’ response (Stake, 2005).

Practical difficulties: Qualitative research is time consuming when it comes to data collection, data analysis and creating research reports. It also calls for extended field work, getting access to site, handling massive documentation and significant time commitment compared to either survey or secondary data source-oriented positivist quantitative enquiry (Atkinson and Delamont, 2006).

With the above background, we have been able to establish the key arguments in favour of and against both the methodologies. The purpose of this article is to review the following:

First, the distribution of qualitative and quantitative methodologies based on the number of articles published in top strategy and general management journals.

Second, as qualitative methodology is pluralistic, conducting an in-depth analysis of evolution of methodologies and trends in qualitative research during this period.

And based on the above analysis, our study assesses and presents the areas where qualitative methodology would be more suitable for strategy researchers and particularly in the context of Indian business.

Research Paradigms and Methods

For any researcher of social science, the first major step is to select a paradigm and method to conduct his research. Clearly, the research subject or phenomena will determine the selection of research paradigm. Once the paradigm is identified, the research subject and paradigm jointly influence the selection of research method. Before getting any further, we have decided to define paradigms and methods.

Though there are many definitions of paradigms and methods, for our analysis we have referred to the following definition:

First popularized by Thomas Kuhn (1970) and later by Burrell and Morgan (1979), paradigm is often used to designate a shared set of ontological and epistemological assumptions that unite a community of scholars and prescribe specific guidelines for conducting researches. The concept of method refers in general to the appropriate use of techniques of data collection and analysis. (Prasad, 1999, pp. 7–8)

Research Paradigms Used in Social Sciences

Most contemporary quantitative social research and several qualitative researches are based on positivism or post-positivism. Post-positivism assumes ‘the existence of a reality that can be apprehended accurately but also imperfectly and probabilistically’ (Alvesson and Karreman, 2011). In our analysis for this article, positivist and post-positivist are combined and termed as positivist.

Figure 1.

Overview of Major Qualitative Traditions

The field of qualitative research accommodates multiple and different research traditions and is very pluralistic in its outlook. The key research traditions within qualitative methodology are indicated in Figure 1 and they are positivist, interpretive, structuralist and critical theories.

Among the four paradigms, the two most important ones followed in qualitative strategy research are positivist and interpretive. Therefore, it is important to understand the differences between these two paradigms.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) developed a system of comparing different types of paradigms. Based on their systems, the key difference between positivist and interpretive paradigms is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Differences between Positivist and Interpretive Paradigms

Research Methods

In quantitative research, the most commonly used data collection methods are survey and making use of existing secondary data sources. Compared to quantita-tive method, qualitative method allows the researcher to be more creative both in terms of data collection and analysis. Figure 3 lists few of the popular data collection and analysis methods in qualitative tradition, which highlight the variety in this field. We have identified interview, observation, case study, ethnographic study, action research, archival or document as primary research methods used in qualitative research designs, but the above list is not exhaustive.

Important Theoretical Developments in Strategic Management

This section describes in chronological order the important research and theoretical developments that have taken place in the domain of strategic management. This section explains that methodological diversity has allowed strategic management to achieve significant theory development and theory testing in short span of time. There are a significant number of researchers with economics background in strategy research, and most of them have quantitative leanings. But many of the seminal contributions such as Chandler’s work on strategy and structure, Mintzberg’s study on the role of top management and Eisenhardt’s work on strategic decision making have mostly evolved from qualitative research. Innovation researchers such as Christensen, Von Hippol and Rogers have used qualitative methods extensively in their research along with quantitative methods. Figure 4 highlights the major theoretical developments in strategy research.

Figure 3.

Research Methods Used by Qualitative Researchers

Research Design

The research design for this survey involves identifying top rated strategy and general management journals and reviewing the published empirical articles for diversity and evolution related to paradigms and methods. For identifying journals, time frame and actual paper, we have opted for the structured selection approach that was used by Dibbern et al. (2004) in their article ‘Information Systems Outsourcing: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature’ for selecting the research articles for this study. According to them, the ‘selection process’, that is, how the research papers were chosen, had three phases: journal selection, time frame selection and paper selection.

Journal Selection

In 1997, Lohrke and Bruton (1997) completed a comprehensive analysis of the International Strategic Management Literature. Lohrke and Bruton classified strategic management journals in three categories, that is, ‘Outstanding Quality’, ‘Significant Quality’ and ‘Appropriate Quality’. They found that the journals of outstanding quality do not change their rating significantly over time. The six journals of ‘Outstanding Quality’ identified based on the above study were Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Harvard Business Review, Management Science and Strategic Management Journal. As our study is about methodology and paradigms, we have excluded Harvard Business Review from our analysis. Similarly, Management Science is also left out as it publishes highly quantitative and statistical articles. We have decided to focus on three journals, Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) and Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ). Henceforth, we have mentioned the three journals as AMJ, SMJ and ASQ.

Figure 4.

Major Theoretical Developments in Strategy Research

The position of AMJ, ASQ and SMJ, as frontrunners in the field of strategy and general management, has also been confirmed by many other studies. The most prominent among them are the studies published by Ian MacMillan (1989, 1991) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) (1990 onwards). Macmillan’s study from 1986 found these three journals consistently positioned at the top of strategic management research journals. Similarly, based on SSCI index from 1990, ASQ, AMJ and SMJ have retained its place in the top 10 most influential business journals.

Among the three journals, while content of SMJ is focused on strategic management, the other journals have broader interests, encompassing interdisciplinary articles such as organization science. The research published in the three journals is in sync with the definition of strategic management as given by the Academy of Management:

Roles and problems of general managers—those who manage multi-business or multifunctional business units. Major topics include: strategic formulation and implementation; strategic planning and decision processes; strategic control and reward systems; resource allocation; diversification and portfolio strategies; competitive strategy; selection and behavior of general managers; and the composition of top management teams.

Time Frame Selection

The researchers started the work with a view to review five years of publications in the above journals. This was done so that it would provide a snapshot of contemporary trends and research approaches. It was also done because we believe that a five-year period is sufficient to cover publication time lags and to give a representative sample of published papers over recent years. Initially, 2007–2011 was chosen as the period for analysis. Later, we wanted to extend this analysis to cover current publications and hence the timeline is extended to 2012. The publications for 2013 were not possible to include in this analysis, as the content of SMJ is made available in scholarly databases after a gap of one year from its publication.

Paper Selection

A systematic literature search was performed in the above journals for the time-period mentioned. We have gone through each paper abstract, methodology and data collection section to determine whether the article follows the relevant qualitative methodology and paradigm. Conceptual articles, book reviews and editorials have been excluded from methodological review.

In-depth Classification Process for Qualitative Articles

Once a qualitative article was selected, it was classified according to research theme, research paradigm and research method. To do so, we followed the general approach used by Swanson and Ramiller (1993) in their analysis of submissions to Information Systems Research. That is, we read each paper’s abstract, introduction, discussion section and conclusion to determine the paper’s research methodology and paradigm. While those papers that used both quantitative and mixed methods were not analyzed in detail, research papers using qualitative methodologies were analyzed in more detail. Our intent was to place each paper in the single category to which it most strongly, if not exclusively, belonged.

The flow chart in Figure 5 explains the steps taken in the selection and inclusion process.

Figure 5.

Flow Chart of Systematic Literature Review Conducted for This Article

Research Findings

This section explains the finding of the systematic literature review activity on various dimensions.

Trends (Quant/Quali)

A total of 847 empirical articles were reviewed for this study. Of these, qualitative articles comprised just 9 per cent, while quantitative methodology was used by 84 per cent. Thus, it can be seen that quantitative methodology dominates the researcher’s selection by a huge margin.

Researchers who have used mixed methods have also used qualitative methodology as part of their research. Therefore, an additional 7 per cent of researchers have used qualitative methodology along with quantitative methodology. If we combine both the qualitative and mixed methods, we find that roughly 16 per cent of researchers have used qualitative method, which is significant.

The trends for each of the journal as well as the aggregated data are provided in Tables 1–12.

Table 1.

Quali versus Quanti in AMJ

Year	Total No. of Articles	Total No. of Non-empirical Articles	No. of Empirical Articles	No. of Mixed Method Articles	MM as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Qualitative Method Articles	Quality as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Quantitative Method Articles	Quantity as % of Empirical Articles
2007	92	30	62	6	9.68	5	8.06	51	82.26
2008	55	1	54	0	0.00	5	9.26	49	90.74
2009	57	0	57	3	5.26	8	14.04	46	80.70
2010	64	0	64	1	1.56	11	17.19	52	81.25
2011	55	1	54	1	1.85	6	11.11	47	87.04
2012	60	1	59	4	6.8	13	22	42	72.2
Total	383	33	350	15	4.28	48	13.72	287	82

Table 2.

Quali versus Quanti Distribution in ASQ

Year	Total No. of Articles	Total No. of Non-empirical Articles	No. of Empirical Articles	No. of Mixed Method Articles	MM as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Qualitative Method Articles	Quality as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Quantitative Method Articles	Quantity as % of Empirical Articles
2007	17	2	15	1	6.67	2	13.33	12	80.00
2008	21	3	18	2	11.11	4	22.22	12	66.67
2009	17	2	15	2	13.33	0	0.00	13	86.67
2010	16	0	16	4	25.00	6	37.50	6	37.50
2011	18	2	15	1	6.67	2	13.33	12	80.00
2012	16	0	16	2	12.5	0	0.00	14	87.5
Total	105	9	95	12	12.63	14	14.74	69	72.63

Table 3.

Quali versus Quanti Distribution in SMJ

Year	Total No. of Articles	Total No. of Non-empirical Articles	No. of Empirical Articles	No. of Mixed Method Articles	MM as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Qualitative Method Articles	Quality as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Quantitative Method Articles	Quantity as % of Empirical Articles
2007	73	9	64	6	9.38	5	7.81	53	82.81
2008	76	6	70	6	8.57	1	1.43	63	91.43
2009	71	6	65	12	18.46	0	0.00	53	81.54
2010	74	8	66	3	4.55	2	3.03	61	92.42
2011	75	11	64	2	3.13	5	7.81	57	89.06
2012	79	6	73	0	0.00	4	5.48	69	94.52
Total	448	46	402	29	7.21	17	4.23	356	88.56

Other than 2011, in percentage term, the no of qualitative articles has increased consistently in AMJ, year-on-year. In this six year time frame, this percentage figure (qualitative articles as percentage of total empirical articles) has moved up from 8.06 in 2007 to 22 in 2012.

Out of the three journals, ASQ publishes least number of research articles, around 16 articles in a year. Due to this less number of research articles published in ASQ, the percentage of qualitative articles with respect to overall empirical articles varies and it does not show any significant trend.

In terms of total number as well as percentage, 2010 has seen maximum amount of qualitative publications. This can be attributed largely to a special issue (research forum) of AMJ, which focuses on organizations and their institutional environments. This December 2010 issue examines organization and symbolic aspect of institutionalization. In tune with its research theme, the issue has eight qualitative articles. Similarly, in 2007, significant number of non-empirical articles were published; this was also due to four special issues or research forum published in 2007 by AMJ. Each of those issues had a number of conceptual articles providing direction and guidance for research methodology, research trends and impact of research on practice.

Table 4.

Consolidated Distribution of Quali versus Quanti

Year	Total No. of Articles	Total No. of Non-empirical Articles	No. of Empirical Articles	No. of Mixed Method Articles	MM as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Qualitative Method Articles	Quality as % of Empirical Articles	No. of Quantitative Method Articles	Quantity as % of Empirical Articles
2007	182	41	141	13	9.22	12	8.51	116	82.27
2008	152	10	142	8	5.63	10	7.04	124	87.32
2009	145	8	137	17	12.41	8	5.84	112	81.75
2010	154	8	146	8	5.48	19	13.01	119	81.51
2011	148	14	133	4	3.01	13	9.77	116	87.22
2012	155	7	148	6	4.05	17	11.49	125	84.46
Total	936	88	847	56	6.61	79	9.33	712	84.08

Paradigm Trend

The two most dominant paradigms for qualitative researchers are positivist and interpretive. To identify positivist and interpretive research design, we have used guidelines provided by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The key among these guidelines are that, positivism assumes the existence of either a single reality or reality that can be apprehended probabilistically; while interpretive researchers believe reality is socially constructed and can be multiple. Research design-based on structuralist is based on works of Gidden (1976) and it is basically a social organization theory. It focuses on social structures such as language, rules, conventions as resources and interaction and transformation of these structures.

Table 5.

The Paradigm Distribution for AMJ

Paradigm (AMJ)	Count	Percentage
Positivist	11	22.92
Interpretive	36	75
Structuralist	1	2.08
Total	48	100.00

Table 6.

The Paradigm Distribution for SMJ

Paradigm (SMJ)	Count	Percentage
Positivist	15	88.24
Interpretive	2	11.76
Total	17	100

Table 7.

The Paradigm Distribution for ASQ

Paradigm (ASQ)	Count	Percentage
Positivist	2	14.29
Interpretative	10	71.43
Structuralist	2	14.29
Total	14	100

Table 8.

The Consolidated Paradigm Distribution across Three Journals

Paradigm (Consolidated)	Count	Percentage
Positivist	28	35.44
Interpretive	48	60.76
Structuralist	3	3.80
Total	79	100.00

Method Distribution

Case studies are the most widely used research method. Here, ethnographic studies are recorded separately from case studies and field studies. Generally, ethnographic case studies use participant observation as part of their research method.

Table 9.

The Distribution of Research Method in AMJ

Research Method (AMJ)	Count	Percentage
Case Study	23	47.92
Interview	10	20.83
Documents	4	8.33
Ethnography	6	12.50
Action Research	2	4.17
Multiple	3	6.25
Total	48	100.00

Table 10.

The Distribution of Research Method in SMJ

Research Method (SMJ)	Count	Percentage
Case Study	15	88.24
Documents	1	5.88
Interview	1	5.88
Total	17	100.00

Table 11.

The Distribution of Research Method in ASQ

Research Method (ASQ)	Count	Percentage
Case Study	6	42.85
Interview	1	7.14
Documents	1	7.14
Ethnography	4	28.57
Multiple	2	14.29
Total	14	100

Table 12.

The Consolidated Distribution of Research Method across Three Journals

Research Method (Consolidated)	Count	Percentage
Case Study	44	55.70
Interview	12	15.19
Documents	6	7.59
Ethnography	10	12.66
Action Research	2	2.53
Multiple	5	6.33
Total	79	100.00

Key Inferences

The finding indicates that, even though there is growing interest in qualitative research methodology, in terms of articles published in leading journals, the numbers are still few. It can be said, while there is significant and increasing mind share about qualitative research methods, the leading journals still prefer studies that use quantitative and positivist paradigm.

Symon and Cassell (1999) have identified a number of barriers that restrict publication of qualitative research articles in leading journals. Many of those barriers are still very much valid and can explain the low usage of qualitative methodology. The most important among them are as follows:

Difficult to get accepted by epistemological gatekeepers (journal editors and reviewers).

Journal editorial criteria were set as per positivist standard and mostly remain unchanged. Frequently, the qualitative researchers need to justify their research method in line with positivist tradition.

The negligible exposure to qualitative research methodologies by all stakeholders.

The research finding supports a noteworthy trend in the last five years that shows an increase in publication of articles with qualitative methodology in AMJ. But if we consolidate our finding across three journals, we do not see increase or decrease of any one type of methodologies. There is variation among the three journals surveyed on their approach towards qualitative articles; AMJ and ASQ have published more number of qualitative research articles. Fourteen per cent of their total empirical research articles are qualitative. In AMJ, the coverage of qualitative article has consistently increased during this time span of 2007–2012, if we ignore the deviation of 2011. Other than the increasing number of qualitative articles in AMJ, articles having qualitative research design were awarded AMJ best article awards thrice (2007, 2009 and 2012) during this 6-year time span. Best article awards in AMJ are awarded to outstanding article that make strong empirical and theoretical contribution, so high concentration of qualitative research designs in best article awards shows the tremendous scholarly impact of qualitative articles. On the other hand, Strategic Management Journal has published least number of qualitative articles in terms of percentage, only 4 per cent of total empirical research articles in SMJ are qualitative.

In terms of methodological diversity in these three journals, SMJ differs significantly from AMJ and ASQ in terms of its marked preference towards quantitative and positivist research. Due to the dominance of positivist paradigm, the articles in SMJ spend far less time in articulating their paradigm and methodology as compared to the other two journals. While analyzing the diversity in research designs for the qualitative research articles, we found that SMJ provides very little diversity in terms of methods. Most of the qualitative research article published in SMJ have used case study as their underlying method; 15 out of 17 qualitative research articles in SMJ have used case study method. But the advocates of qualitative research would be glad to find the co-existence of many different methods such as ethnography, action research, interview along with case study in the 62 published articles in AMJ and ASQ.

Generally, interpretive is associated closely with qualitative research, the way positivist is associated with quantitative research designs. But the qualitative research tradition is more pluralistic and our research finding confirms that it has accommodated positivist and other tradition along with the dominant interpretive paradigm.

If we refer to the overall preference of qualitative researchers across the three journals in terms of method, case study being used in 50 per cent of the total published articles is the most preferred and accepted method. With their seminal work, Yin (2003) and Eisenhardt (1989a) have redefined rigour in case-based research and have made it one of the most accepted qualitative research methods. Their guidelines and recommendations are very frequently cited by researchers. We have come across two variants of case study-based research: case study involving single case or multiple cases. Researchers using multiple case design have used the option of both within and cross-case analysis. Researchers using multiple case-based researches are in better position to address the problem of generalization as they can do a cross-case analysis. In terms of paradigm followed for case study-based research design, a little more than half of them followed positivist paradigm, those research designs can be termed as ‘qualitative positivist’ (Prasad and Prasad, 2002). Here, the researchers have collected qualitative or non-quantitative data, but their overall assumption about reality remains positivist.

While reviewing the formal process for developing research design, data collection and data analysis used in these articles, we have found that researchers have access to abundant literature and numerous guidelines for qualitative research design and data collection. But at the same time, qualitative data analysis techniques are not as codified as quantitative techniques and still less matured. The data coding and analysis technique are still very much dependent on the individual researcher. The researchers mostly have not used any qualitative data analysis software tools or have not mentioned explicitly about the software tools they have used for data analysis. The use of a software tool provides a more systematic way of study-ing relationships among data and helps to avoid biases in data analyses (Barry, 1998; Markus, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Pettigrew, 1985). So, definitely qualitative researchers in present days can use one of the software data analysis tool to bring more rigour and system to data analysis.

Conclusions

Though there has been considerable progress in the last six decades, strategic management as a discipline is still very young and has not reached the maturity level of other social science disciplines. Kuhn (1996) has suggested that new disciplines have generally low levels of paradigm development. We can interpret this by saying that strategic management research methodologies are highly influenced by more mature disciplines such as economics, organization science and marketing.

Borrowing methodologies from the more matured disciplines has helped strategic management researchers to achieve more in a short span of time. For the next level of methodological development, strategic management researchers need to evolve and create a methodo-logy that is specific to strategic management domain. This would mean methodological innovation exclusively targe-ted to strategic management domain as well as adaption of methodology borrowed from economics, marketing, organization science to suit strategy domain. This would be only possible, when researchers remain open to using multiple and mixed methods, instead of focusing on only quantitative method.

From our literature survey, other than the numerical distribution of methodology, paradigms and methods, we have tried to identify the researcher’s specific objectives or purpose for designing qualitative research in all these 79 articles. The first and foremost among them, researchers have used qualitative research more for theory development, expansion and elaboration purposes than for the purpose of theory testing. Qualitative research is also being used where the researcher is interested in heterogeneity of firms instead of only focusing on commonalities and statistical averages. In the third case, researchers have designed qualitative research, where research questions need to be contextualized, and the researcher wants to use experience/perspectives of the different individuals in that particular organization or phenomenon. Besides, we have found that qualitative research articles, which are produced as a result of long-term projects and engagement; bring more insight and authenticity to the topic as compared to articles which are done as a one-off exercise. So, we can hypothesize that researchers would be able to make effective use of qualitative researches for these four scenarios: researches related to theory development, expansion, elaboration; researchers interested in heterogeneity of firms, researches trying to find answers to contextualized research problems and where the researcher has the option of designing a long-term research engagement.

Implications for India Specific Research

By building on the above finding, we have argued that managers and researchers in India would have three distinct reasons for accommodating more of qualitative research designs.

Theory development opportunity in a younger management domain: For theory development, qualitative metho-dology is more appropriate as it provides rich knowledge about the phenomenon and explains why some patterns are observed or expected (Shah and Corley, 2006). Strategic management is a newer field as compared to other matured social science fields and the tradition of management research in India is also new. While in other matured streams of social science, the main activity would be testing of theory; in strategic management discipline, Indian researchers would have more scope for researches focusing on new theory development and elaboration.

Non-existence of credible and extensive secondary data: Most of the strategic management theories used by researchers as well as managers in India have their origins in the western countries. Those theories need to be tested and adapted in a complex country like India. Unlike in the western countries, researchers in India do not have access to credible and extensive secondary data sources. The lack of secondary data limits the researcher’s ability to go for complex quantitative analysis and might compel them to evaluate qualitative methods as an alternative.

India’s vast technology industry: India’s economic growth in the last few decades can be attributed to its stellar performance in technology-intensive industries, such as information technology, telecommunication and mobile services. In today’s world, the telecommunication industry and particularly the mobile industry, is very dynamic and a hot-bed for innovation. Sabat (2002) observed: ‘confluence of technological leaps in devices, networks, and applica-tions is setting the stage for wireless to change our lives the way personal computers (PCs) did in the 1980s and Internet in the late 1990s’. Mobile services due to its rapid diffusion has become an huge industry in itself, according to different market researches, the market size for mobile content and application would be in excess of US$ 1 trillion by 2015. At the same time, mobility has been identified as the most important technological factor impacting organization competitiveness (The Global CEO study, IBM Institute of Business Value, 2012). India has two distinct competitive advantages in this industry. The first among them is the existence of a matured domestic mobile service market in terms of high tele-density, low cost of services, high level of competition and existence of multiple, large telecom service providers. The second advantage is that, India has large number of large, medium, small IT service organization, many of them over a period of time has moved from doing routine software maintenance work to highly innovative service and product development. All these organizations have huge potential in developing and selling content, application, platform, either by directly reaching to subscribers in India or abroad or partnering with leading telecom operators and device players. The traditional key concepts in strategy such as value-chain, network, governance, organizational control, diffusion, business model need to be revisited and adapted for mobile services industry. The Indian researchers might find qualitative methods to be more appropriate due to the following two reasons: in a new and contemporary industry, the researchers would be interested more in explaining a how or why question and it would be difficult to access enough quantitative data till this phenomenon is diffused further.

Footnotes

Appendix

List of Qualitative Articles Considered

Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed Status:
No.	Name	Authors	Year of Publication	Journal Name
1	The process of technological competence leveraging	Erwin Danneels	2007	Strategic Management Journal
2	Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability	Antonio Capaldo	2007	Strategic Management Journal
3	Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos—repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity	Robert A. Burgelman and Andrew S. Grove	2007	Strategic Management Journal
4	Doing well by doing good—case study: ‘Fair & lovely’ whitening cream	Aneel Karnani	2007	Strategic Management Journal
5	Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances	Werner H. Hoffmann	2007	Strategic Management Journal
6	Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures: The case of Nummi and General Motors	Andrew C. Inkpen	2008	Strategic Management Journal
7	The role of fairness in alliance formation	Africa Arino and Peter Smith Ring	2010	Strategic Management Journal
8	The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development	Russell W. Coff	2010	Strategic Management Journal
9	The implementation and structuring of divestitures: The unit’s perspective	Caterina Moschieri	2011	Strategic Management Journal
10	Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona	Erwin Danneels	2011	Strategic Management Journal
11	Capture, governance, and resilience: Strategy implications from the history of Rome	Abraham Carmeli and Gideon D. Markman	2011	Strategic Management Journal
12	How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation	Quy Nguyen Huy	2011	Strategic Management Journal
13	Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience	Christopher B. Bingham and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt	2011	Strategic Management Journal
14	Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance	Peter Boumgarden, Jackson Nickerson and Todd R. Zenger	2012	Strategic Management Journal
15	Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General electric from 1951 to 2001	John Joseph and William Ocasio	2012	Strategic Management Journal
16	The architecture of collaboration	Øystein D. Fjeldstad, Charles C. Snow, Raymond E. Miles and Christopher Lettl	2012	Strategic Management Journal
17	Enterprise logic: Explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’	Donal Crilly and Pamela Sloan	2012	Strategic Management Journal
18	How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources	Christoph Zott and Quy Nguyen Huy	2007	Administrative Science Quarterly
19	A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ change processes: The management of cognitive uncertainty in two investment banks	A. Alexandra Michel	2007	Administrative Science Quarterly
20	Interlopers and field change: The entry of U.S. news into the field of legal education	Michael Sauder	2008	Administrative Science Quarterly
21	Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies	Siobhán O’Mahony and Beth A. Bechky	2008	Administrative Science Quarterly
22	Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products	Klaus Weber, Kathryn L. Heinze, and Michaela Desoucey	2008	Administrative Science Quarterly
23	Employee-management techniques: Transient fads or trending fashions?	Eric Abrahamson and Micki Eisenman	2008	Administrative Science Quarterly
24	Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity	Dennis A. Gioia, Kristin N. Price, Aimee L. Hamilton, and James B. Thomas	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
25	Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects	Elizabeth Long Lingo and Siobhán O’Mahony	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
26	Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work	Charlene Zietsma and Thomas B. Lawrence	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
27	Nasty, brutish, and short: Embeddedness failure in the pharmaceutical industry	Pierre Azoulay, Nelson P. Repenning and Ezra W. Zuckerman	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
28	Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger	Shawn M. Clark, Dennis A. Gioia, David J. Ketchen, Jr. and James B. Thomas	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
29	Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers	Michel Anteby	2010	Administrative Science Quarterly
30	Rotating leadership; and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships	Jason P. Davis and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt	2011	Administrative Science Quarterly
31	Transcending socialization: A nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in organizational control and knowledge workers’ transformation	Alexandra Michel	2011	Administrative Science Quarterly
32	Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms	N. Anand, Heidi K. Gardner and Tim Morris	2007	Academy of Management Journal
33	The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting	Rajiv Nag, Kevin G. Corley and Dennis A. Gioia	2007	Academy of Management Journal
34	Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role identity	Samia Chreim, B. E. (Bernie) and Williams, C.R. (Bob) Hinings	2007	Academy of Management Journal
35	Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations	Sally Maitlis and Thomas B. Lawrence	2007	Academy of Management Journal
36	Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change	Donde Ashmos Plowman, Lakami T. Baker, Tammy E. Beck, Mukta Kulkarni, Stephanie Thomas Solansky and Deandra Villarreal Travis	2007	Academy of Management Journal
37	Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox	Lotte S. Luscher and Marianne W. Lewis	2008	Academy of Management Journal
38	Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior	Joshua D. Margolis and Andrew Molinsky	2008	Academy of Management Journal
39	Shaping strategy as a structuration process	Paula Jarzabkowski	2008	Academy of Management Journal
40	How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions	Elaine C. Hollensbe, Shalini Khazanchi and Suzanne S. Masterson	2008	Academy of Management Journal
41	Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application	Dries Faems, Maddy Janssens, Anoop Madhok and Bart Van Looy	2008	Academy of Management Journal
42	Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics	Glen E. Kreiner, Elaine C. Hollensbe and Mathew L. Sheep	2009	Academy of Management Journal
43	Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions of entrepreneurial firms	Melissa E. Graebner	2009	Academy of Management Journal
44	The enactment-externalization dialectic: rationalization and the persistence of counterproductive technology design practices in student engineering	Paul M. Leonardi, Michele H. Jackson and Amer Diwan	2009	Academy of Management Journal
45	Understanding shifting power relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analysis	Natalia Levina and Wanda J. Orlikowski	2009	Academy of Management Journal
46	Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields	Filipe M. Santos and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt	2009	Academy of Management Journal
47	Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency	Sandy Edward Green Jr. Yuan Li and Nitin Nohria	2009	Academy of Management Journal
48	Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT	Steve Maguire and Cynthia Hardy	2009	Academy of Management Journal
49	Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields	Jill M. Purdy and Barbara Gray	2009	Academy of Management Journal
50	Institutional logics as identity projects	Jaco Lok	2010	Academy of Management Journal
51	We’re changing—or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation	Scott Sonenshei	2010	Academy of Management Journal
52	The faithful rise up: Split identification and an unlikely change effort	Betzaluz Gutierrez, Jennifer Howard-Grenville and Maureen A. Scully	2010	Academy of Management Journal
53	Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work	W.E. Douglas Creed, Rich Dejordy and Jaco Lok	2010	Academy of Management Journal
54	Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—modern Indian art	Mukti Khaire, R. and Daniel Wadhwani	2010	Academy of Management Journal
55	The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and institutionalized misconduct	Tammy L. Maclean and Michael Behnam	2010	Academy of Management Journal
56	Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaborations in multibusiness organizations	Jeffrey A. Martin and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt	2010	Academy of Management Journal
57	From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency	Andras Tilcsik	2010	Academy of Management Journal
58	Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance	M. Tina Dacin, Kamal Munir and Paul Tracey	2010	Academy of Management Journal
59	Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations	Julie Battilana and Silvia Dorado	2010	Academy of Management Journal
60	Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm convention	Cynthia Hardy and Steve Maguire	2010	Academy of Management Journal
61	On becoming extraordinary: The content and structure of the developmental networks of major league baseball hall of famers	Richard D. Cotton, Yan Shen and Reut Livne-Tarandach	2011	Academy of Management Journal
62	Expecting the unexpected? How swat officers and film crews handle surprises	Beth A. Bechky and Gerardo A. Okhuysen	2011	Academy of Management Journal
63	Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship	Emmanuelle Fauchart and Marc Gruber	2011	Academy of Management Journal
64	Ecological sensemaking	Gail Whiteman and William H. Cooper	2011	Academy of Management Journal
65	Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning	Claus Rerup and Martha S. Feldman	2011	Academy of Management Journal
66	Cheating the fates: Organizational foundings in the wake of demise	Ian J. Walsh and Jean M. Bartunek	2011	Academy of Management Journal
67	Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties	Benjamin L. Hallen and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt	2012	Academy of Management Journal
68	Reversal of strategic change Saku Mantere Henri A. Schildt Hanken School of Economics John A. A. Sillince	Saku Mantere, Henri A. Schildt and John A.A. Sillince	2012	Academy of Management Journal
69	Fools breaking out: The role of symbolic and material immunity in explaining institutional non-conformity	Jan M.W.N. Lepoutre and Michael Valente	2012	Academy of Management Journal
70	From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations of firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource	Rajiv Nag and Dennis A. Gioia	2012	Academy of Management Journal
71	Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in corporate venture capital programs	Vangelis Souitaris, Stefania Zerbinati and Grace Liu	2012	Academy of Management Journal
72	Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history	Michel Anteby and Virág Molnár	2012	Academy of Management Journal
73	Learning sequences: Their existence, effect, and evolution	Christopher B. Bingham and Jason P. Davis	2012	Academy of Management Journal
74	Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids	Johanna Mair, Ignasi Martí and Marc J. Ventresca	2012	Academy of Management Journal
75	Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes	Bradley P. Owens and David R. Hekman	2012	Academy of Management Journal
76	From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change	Michael Smets, Tim Morris and Royston Greenwood	2012	Academy of Management Journal
77	Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sense making	Ileana Stigliani and Davide Ravasi	2012	Academy of Management Journal
78	Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures	Donal Crilly, Maurizio Zollo and Morten T. Hansen	2012	Academy of Management Journal
79	Cross-domain identity transition during liminal periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy	Jamie J. Ladge, Judith A. Clair and Danna Greenberg	2012	Academy of Management Journal

References

Alvesson

Karreman

(2011). Qualitative research and theory development, mystery as method. London: SAGE Publications.

Atkinson

Delamont

(2006). Narrative methods (Vol. 1). London: SAGE Publications.

Bain

J. S.

(1959). Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.

Barney

J. B.

(1991). Firm resource and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Barr

P. S.

(2004). Current and potential importance of qualita-tive methods in strategy research. In Ketchen

D. J.

Bergh

D. D.

(Eds), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (pp. 165–188), Volume 1.

Barry

C. A.

(1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nudist compared. Sociological Research Online, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/3/4.html

Burrell

Morgan

(1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chandler

A. D.

(1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Christensen

(1997). The innovatoe’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

10.

Coase

(1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

11.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln.

Y.S.

(Eds). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

12.

Dibbern

Goles

Hirschheim

Jayatilaka

(2004). Information systems outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(4), 6–102.

13.

Dyer

J. H.

Singh

(1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

14.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989a). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

15.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in highvelocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.

16.

Flick

(2007). Managing quality in qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

17.

Frankel

Richard M.

(1999). Standards of qualitative research. In Crabtree

Benjamin F.

Miller

William L.

(Eds), Doing Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 333–346). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

18.

Gall

M. D.

Gall

J. P.

Borg

W. R.

(2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: A & B Publications.

19.

Gephart

Robert P.

(2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the academy of management. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.

20.

Gibbert

Ruigrok

Barbara

(2008). What passes as rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 1465–1474.

21.

Giddens

(1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretive sociologies. New York: Harper and Row.

22.

Gulati

(1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.

23.

Hayek

F. A.

(1945). The user of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

24.

Jensen

M. C.

Meckling

W. H.

(1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

25.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University Press.

28.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

29.

Lohrke

F. T.

Bruton

G. D.

(1997). Contributions and gaps in international strategic management literature. Journal of International Management, 3(1), 25–57.

30.

Lorenzoni

Lipparini

(1999). The leveraging of interﬁrm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 317–338.

31.

MacMillan

I. C.

(1989). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), 391–395.

32.

MacMillan

I. C.

(1991). The emerging forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 161–165.

33.

Mahoney

(2004). The distinctive contributions of qualitative data analysis. In Ragin

Charles C.

Nagel

Joane

White

Patricia

(Eds), Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research (pp. 95–99). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

34.

Markus

M. L.

(1989). Case selection in a disconfirmatory case study. In Cash

J. I.

Lawrence

(Eds), The Information Systems Research Challenge: Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 20–26), Volume 1. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

35.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

36.

Mintzberg

(1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.

37.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

(2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387.

38.

Penrose

(1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London: Basil Blackwell.

39.

Pettigrew

A. M.

(1985). Contextualist research and the study of organizational change processes. In Mumford

Hirscheim

Fitzgeralad

Wood-Harper

A. T.

, A. T. (Eds), Research Methods in Information Systems (pp. 53–78). North Holland, Amsterdam.

40.

Pfeffer

Salancik

(1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Haper and Row Publishers.

41.

Porter

M. E.

(1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.

42.

Prasad

(1999). Crafting qualitative research working in the postpositivist traditions. London: M. E. Sharpe.

43.

Prasad

(2002). The coming age of interpretive organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 4–11.

44.

Richardson

G. B.

(1972). The organization of industry. Economic Journal, 82, 883–897.

45.

Ridder

Hoon

(2009). Qualitative methods in research on human resource management. German Journal of Human Resource Research, 23(2), 93–106.

46.

Rumelt

R. P.

(1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In Lamb

R. B.

(Ed.), Competitive Strategic Management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

47.

Sabat

H. K.

(2002). The evolving mobile wireless value chain and market structure. Telecommunications Policy, 26(9,10), 505–535.

48.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(1934). Theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

49.

Seale

(1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

50.

Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

J. F.

Silverman

(2007). Introduction: Inside qualitative research. In Seale

Clive

Gobo

Giampetro

Gubrium

Jaber F.

Silverman

David

(Eds), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 1–12). London: SAGE Publications.

51.

Shah

Corley

(2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.

52.

Simon

(1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.

53.

Stake

Robert E.

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

Norman K.

Lincoln

Yvonna S.

(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed, pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

54.

Swanson

E. B.

Ramiller

N. C.

(1993). Information systems thematics: Submissions to a new journal, 1987–1992. Information Systems Research, 4(4), 299–330.

55.

Symon

Cassell

C. M.

(1999). Barriers to innovation in research practice. In Cunha

M. Pinae

Marques

C. A.

(Eds), Readings in Organization Science: Organizational Change in a Changing Context (pp. 387–398). Lisbon: ISPA.

56.

Teece

D. J.

Pisano

Shuen

(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

57.

Von Hippel

(1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

58.

Wernerfelt

(1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

59.

Williamson

O. E.

(1971). The vertical integration of production: Market failure considerations. American Economic Review, 61(2), 112–123.

60.

Williamson

O. E.

(1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Macmillan Free Press.

61.

Williamson

O. E.

(1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.