Thomas Greckhamer

Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Strategic Management Research An Examination of Combinations of Industry, Corporate, and Business-Unit Effects

The authors present qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a viable method for strategic management research. Specifically, they demonstrate its ability to examine the potential interdependence and complexity among effects through a study of how industry, corporate, and business-unit attributes combine in determining business-unit performance. They present in an accessible manner the consecutive phases of the QCA approach by analyzing a sample of 2,841 cases of business-unit performance, and they examine the insights that the QCA analysis provides for this particular stream of literature. The authors conclude with a discussion of the benefits and limitations QCA poses for strategic management research more generally, including major contingencies under which QCA or linear methods may be more appropriate for strategy research.

Cross-cultural Differences in Compensation Level and Inequality across Occupations: A Set-theoretic Analysis

Compensation level and compensation inequality, as central aspects of modern organizations, are vital for organization studies. Previous research has investigated various aspects of compensation systems, but few studies have taken a cross-cultural perspective. I address this need for cross-cultural research by studying compensation and culture utilizing a configurational approach, investigating combinations of cultural and macro-environmental attributes associated with differences in compensation level and compensation inequality. I apply fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to analyze country-level data encompassing four occupational groups (cleaners, secretaries, mid-level managers, and senior managers) from 44 countries. Findings show configurations of cultural dimensions, development, and welfare state that are sufficient for high compensation level and compensation inequality among these four occupations. Implications for future cross-cultural research on compensation are discussed.

The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory

Since its original inception in the 1960s grounded theory has been widely used by many qualitative researchers. However, recently epistemologically different versions of grounded theory have been presented and this epistemological diversity among grounded theorists and the erosion of the method will be the major focus of this paper. The first section explores the question of what ‘erosion’ of grounded theory means for the practice of qualitative research and the epistemological assumptions embedded in different uses of grounded theory are discussed. Furthermore, three ways to use qualitative methods are conceptualized: epistemological, strategic and intuitive. Additionally, the first section describes the erosion that occurs when research methods are transferred from one epistemology to another. The second part of the paper raises the questions as to whether it is possible to transfer methods from one epistemological realm and theoretical stance to another one to do qualitative research situated therein and how the erosion of a method influences qualitative research. To elucidate these questions, examples will be drawn from grounded theory to illuminate the different uses of methods. Last, the authors ask why such a transfer would be attempted altogether. In this final part of the paper they discuss how grounded theory is used as a label, believing that much of the current popularization of grounded theory is based on power, privilege and authority.

Chapter 3 The Two QCAs: From a Small-N to a Large-N Set Theoretic Approach

Although QCA was originally developed specifically for small-N settings, recent studies have shown its potential for large-N organization studies. In this chapter, we provide guidance to prospective researchers with the goal of opening up QCA’s potential for widespread use in organization studies involving large-N settings, both as an alternative and as a complement to conventional regression analyses. We compare small-N and large-N QCA with respect to theoretical assumptions and objectives, processes and decisions involved in building the causal model, selecting the sample, as well as analyzing the data and interpreting the results. Finally, we discuss the prospects for large-N configurational analysis in organization studies and related fields going forward.

Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective

Causal complexity has long been recognized as a ubiquitous feature underlying organizational phenomena, yet current theories and methodologies in management are for the most part not well-suited to its direct study. The introduction of the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) configurational approach has led to a reinvigoration of configurational theory that embraces causal complexity explicitly. We argue that the burgeoning research using QCA represents more than a novel methodology; it constitutes the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective to the study of management and organizations that enables a fine-grained conceptualization and empirical investigation of causal complexity through the logic of set theory. In this article, we identify four foundational elements that characterize this emerging neo-configurational perspective: (a) conceptualizing cases as set theoretic configurations, (b) calibrating cases’ memberships into sets, (c) viewing causality in terms of necessity and sufficiency relations between sets, and (d) conducting counterfactual analysis of unobserved configurations. We then present a comprehensive review of the use of QCA in management studies that aims to capture the evolution of the neo-configurational perspective among management scholars. We close with a discussion of a research agenda that can further this neo-configurational approach and thereby shift the attention of management research away from a focus on net effects and towards examining causal complexity.

Demystifying Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research.

This article seeks to demystify, through deconstruction, the concept of interdisciplinarity in the context of qualitative research to contribute to a new praxis of knowledge production through reflection on the possibilities and impossibilities of interdisciplinarity. A review and discussion of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity leads the authors to formulate and explore the following questions: What is interdisciplinary knowledge? What is it that researchers observe as interdisciplinarity? Why do researchers pursue it? In demystifying interdisciplinarity, the authors focus on the legitimacy of the sign interdisciplinary and the process of (interdisciplinary) knowledge production. After investigating the former, the authors explore the latter by metaphorically mapping the terrain of knowledge production and conclude by proposing that interdisciplinarity, as a sign, may have the function of enabling knowledge-producing organizations to leverage resources by symbolically alluding to desired characteristics of knowledge-production processes whereas, as an act, it may de facto reproduce and maintain the disciplinary organization of knowledge and knowledge production.

The Stretch of Strategic Management Discourse: A Critical Analysis

This article investigates the stretch of strategic management discourse, accomplished through writing economic development into the umbrella of strategic management. Building on the notion of authors as institutional entrepreneurs, I use discourse analysis methodology to analyze selected texts by Michael Porter that accomplish this discursive stretch. Findings illustrate the reality produced by the stretch of strategic management discourse, the discursive mechanisms used to accomplish this stretch, and how these mechanisms are concealed. I conclude with implications for future research investigating instances of stretch of strategic management discourses and for critical approaches to strategic management and economic development.

Strategic turns labeled ‘ethnography’: from description to openly ideological production of cultures

In this article we suggest that strategic turns shape various contemporary uses of ethnography and reflect the exploration of ontological, epistemological, and methodological alternatives. In addition, these strategic turns are aimed to meet the current challenges influenced by changing cultures and their diverse perceptions faced by an increasing number of qualitative researchers. The goal of description that has characterized one end of ethnographical continuum such as classical ethnography is replaced by the goal of producing ideologically open texts, as exemplified in more contemporary forms of ethnography such as critical ethnography. Instead of viewing culture as descriptive object, contemporary ethnographers practice disrupted ethnographies that openly declare their ideological productions and reproductions of cultures. In this article we draw particular attention to two forms of disrupted ethnography and types of ideological approaches: critical and deconstructive. Last, we put forward a discussion of what ethnography is and how it could be epistemologically produced, suggesting that it may serve as an ambiguous, but highly legitimate label for presenting a complex variety of epistemologically and theoretically different approaches to qualitative research. In particular, we consider various influences of power when exploring the field of ethnographies, labels, and contemplating ‘What is ethnography?’

Rigor, Transparency, Evidence, and Representation in Discourse Analysis: Challenges and Recommendations

Discourse analysis is an important qualitative research approach across social science disciplines for analyzing (and challenging) how reality in a variety of organizational and institutional arenas is constructed. However, the process of conducting empirical discourse analyses remains challenging. In this article, we identify four key challenges involved in doing discourse analysis and recommend several “tools” derived from empirical practice to address these challenges. We demonstrate these recommendations by drawing on examples from an empirical discourse analysis study we conducted. Our tools and recommendations aim to facilitate conducting and writing up discourse analyses and may also contribute to addressing the identified challenges in other qualitative methodologies.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Strategic Management Research: Current State and Future Prospects

Purpose – This chapter examines the potential of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) for strategy research. Methodology/approach – We introduce the set-theoretic framework of QCA and provide an overview of recent methodological developments. Findings – We utilize a variety of examples relevant to strategy research to illustrate the action steps and key concepts involved in conducting a QCA study. Originality/value of paper – We develop examples from core research areas in strategic management to illustrate QCAs potential for examining issues of causality and diversity in strategy research, and in settings involving medium-N samples. We conclude by emphasizing that QCA offers an alternative mode of inquiry to open and redirect important lines of strategy research.