rough the lens of the analytic process of coding in specific research projects. Using a relational definition of coding, we identify the reported coding actions of several studies with rich descriptions of their analytical processes. By doing this, we show that it is useful to understand these coding actions in the context of coding moments that relate to how researchers use the coding actions as their project develops. The moments we identify are making codes, organizing to code, and putting patterns together. To show iteration, we trace the reported coding practices in exemplar articles. These tracings indicate that the reported process is not a fixed or consistent sequence. Rather, iterativity is organized by what is the next needed analytic input required to progress a given situated study.

28:T474,

Well-accepted methodological practices require thoughtful and appropriate use to avoid becoming mindlessly applied and distorted. We review how ideas from Langley’s (1999) process data analysis article have been used in practice. By closely analyzing 176 empirical articles in management and organization journals from 1999 to 2019, we highlight how Langley’s ideas have been applied in exemplary ways and adapted through bricolage (a central concept in qualitative methods). In many instances, we found that Langley’s ideas have been given a cursory nod or have even been distorted (what we label as considerations); thus, we recommend how to avoid replicating these applications. We discuss process data analysis tools from Langley’s article that have been underused (labeled overlooked) but that may be valuable in future process studies. Through our deep reading and review, we highlight how using Langley’s ideas can enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of a qualitative process study and mitigate her ideas’ movement toward a mindless template application.

29:T442,

In this article, we examine how scholars innovate research methods. Based on a review of published qualitative strategy and management research, we identify highly innovative academic papers, that is, papers that demonstrate substantial novelty in every part of the research process. We work through these papers in detail to demonstrate their novelty, highlighting concrete ways in which scholars have innovated three interconnected parts of the research process: data generation, data analysis, and presentation of findings. Based on our analysis, we develop a two-layered “iceberg” model of method innovation, which shows that important principles guide the innovative use of organizational research tools. These principles are engaging in holistic innovation, being excruciatingly clear in the presentation of methods, developing theory and method together, and being reflexive in innovating methods. Our model demystifies the largely implicit process of innovating research methods. We hope it serves to orient and encourage a more creative use of methods in future studies.

2a:T59f,