452821

12

SOQ10310.1177/1476127012452821Graebner et al.Strategic Organization

So!apbox Editorial Essay

Qualitative data: Cooking

without a recipe

Strategic Organization
10(3) 276284
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476127012452821
soq.sagepub.com

Melissa E. Graebner
University of Texas, USA

Jeffrey A. Martin
University of Alabama, USA

Philip T. Roundy
University of Texas, USA

As researchers who often work with qualitative data, we are frequently asked to review qualitative
papers and to speak about how to conduct qualitative research. Through these experiences, we have
come to believe that there are prevalent misconceptions about the range of roles that qualitative
data can play in research on strategic organization. Most frequently, an assumption is made that
qualitative data should only be used in areas of nascent theory. Less frequently but equally problematically, an assumption is made that qualitative data should only be used when researchers are
employing an interpretive perspective. We argue that these assumptions about the roles of qualitative data are excessively narrow and have led to several unfortunate consequences. For example,
many authors justify their use of qualitative data by arguing that there is a lack of prior theory in
their domain of interest even when this is not the case and when they may be using qualitative
data for other, entirely legitimate reasons.
In our view, strategic organization is an eclectic domain that encompasses multiple theoretical
approaches and levels of analysis, and that diversity can and should be reflected in the ways in
which qualitative data are used. It is often observed that no cookbook or recipe exists for qualitative research (Bansal and Corley, 2011; Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Maxwell, 2005; Pratt, 2009).
To take the analogy further, we view qualitative data as an ingredient, like flour, that can be used
in a creative and wide-ranging variety of ways. Our intended contribution in this essay is to explicate the multiple functions that qualitative research can play in studies of strategic organization,
and in particular, to debunk what we view as myths regarding the circumstances in which qualitative data are valuable, and by extension, the criteria by which qualitative studies should be judged.
Our goal is to offer a framework that is useful to authors when deciding whether and how to use
qualitative data and to reviewers when evaluating qualitative work. We hope to move the field
beyond its current state, which reminds us of a restaurant critic who disparages a perfectly good
chocolate clair because he was expecting a baguette.

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

277

Graebner et al.

This essay proceeds as follows: First, we explore the origins of the current confusion regarding
uses of qualitative data. Second, we attempt to reduce this confusion by describing how the unique
features of qualitative data lead to several distinct rationales for incorporating qualitative data in a
research project. Third, we examine how greater clarity among authors and reviewers regarding the
diverse uses of qualitative data may help resolve three challenges that arise for qualitative researchers:
writing the front end of a manuscript, describing analytical approaches, and addressing biases.
Overall, we argue that authors would be well served by identifying their specific rationales for
using qualitative data, thereby aiding reviewers and other readers in evaluating papers based on
appropriate sets of criteria.

Origins of the problem

We believe that many discussions of qualitative research even those written by proponents
inadvertently contribute to misunderstandings about the multiple, distinct roles that qualitative
data may play in studies of strategy and organizations. Many textbooks and commentaries regarding qualitative methods follow the same stylized pattern: They begin by listing a set of typical
characteristics of qualitative work, which may include nascent theory, a naturalistic setting, an
inductive analytical approach, a constructivist, relativist, or interpretive philosophical stance, an
acceptance of researcher bias, an interest in ordinary or everyday behavior, etc. (e.g., Creswell,
2007; Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Textbook and commentary authors then note that there is no
recipe or cookbook for qualitative research (e.g., Coffey and Atkinson, 1996: 51), often adding
that imposing such constraints would run contrary to the emergent nature of qualitative inquiry.
Yet, they point out, this should not be viewed as advocating an anything goes mentality (e.g.,
Coffey and Atkinson, 1996: 194; Gephart, 2004: 458).
A variant of this approach is to divide qualitative research into a few categories, such as narrative research, ethnography, and case studies, each of which has its own set of typical characteristics (see Creswell, 2007). While the goal of such categorizations is worthy, the resulting
schemes may confusingly confound philosophical approaches, topic areas, research designs, and
data collection methods. For example, case studies and interviews may be listed as types of
qualitative research, when the former are properly viewed as a unit of analysis and the latter as
a means of data collection.
We find these approaches to describing qualitative research to be troublesome. Unfortunately,
despite caveats warning against a cookbook approach to working with qualitative data, providing
lists of typical characteristics or types of qualitative research may perpetuate the view that qualitative work should conform to narrowly defined archetypes. Yet in reality, many studies do not fit
a single mold or school of qualitative research (Maxwell, 2005; Miles and Huberman, 1994). The
authors of these studies are left in uncharted territory, at risk of being accused of an anything goes
approach. We believe that as a result, many qualitative researchers feel pressure to conform to sets
of typical characteristics, such as an inductive approach or interpretive perspective, even when
these do not reflect the researchers goals or methods.

An alternative framework
Our aim in this essay is to offer an alternative way of thinking about working with qualitative data.
Rather than trying to collapse qualitative research into a cluster of characteristics or set of pure
types, we attempt to unpack the various ways in which qualitative data may be used to advance

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

278

Strategic Organization 10(3)

understanding of strategic organization. In doing so, we hope to provide a broader and more flexible logic to guide the creation and evaluation of qualitative work.
We begin by noting that qualitative data have three fundamental characteristics that offer
potential advantages over quantitative data.1 First, qualitative data are open-ended. In other
words, researchers do not need to predetermine precise constructs and measures in order to collect qualitative data. Indeed, open-endedness encompasses often-used descriptors of qualitative
methodology, such as flexible and exploratory. Second, qualitative data can be concrete and
vivid. Concreteness and vividness activate cognitive processes that foster the development and
communication of ideas (Paivio et al., 1988). Third, qualitative data are often rich and nuanced
(Weick, 2007). This allows qualitative data to capture details and mechanisms that are easily
overlooked in quantitative data.
Building on these underlying characteristics and drawing on our own extensive review of qualitative studies, we now identify and describe five distinct rationales for the use of qualitative data
in studies of strategic organization.2

To build new theory when prior theory is absent, underdeveloped, or flawed

By far the most commonly cited reason for using qualitative data is in order to build theory.
Qualitative data are useful for generating theory when the phenomenon being studied is new or
previously uninvestigated (i.e., when no prior theory exists), or when existing theory contains
inherent contradictions, has failed to withstand empirical test, or was developed in settings that
lacked ecological validity. Theory-building studies are diverse and may have findings in the
form of variance predictions, which may or may not be stated as formal propositions (e.g., Ozcan
and Eisenhardt, 2009; Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009), process models (e.g., Graebner, 2009), or
simply typologies that unpack one or more important and poorly understood construct (e.g.,
Hite, 2003). While the vividness and richness of qualitative data are useful for inspiring and
deepening theory, in our view the most fundamental advantage of qualitative data for theorybuilding is open-endedness. Many researchers choose to collect qualitative data because, in the
absence of prior theory, they simply cannot anticipate which constructs should be measured in a
closed-ended, quantitative manner.
Building theory is a powerful rationale for using qualitative data. However, many authors
claim that no prior theory exists even when their lengthy and detailed literature reviews clearly
indicate otherwise. We are sympathetic to these authors, who have most likely been advised by
well-meaning colleagues and reviewers that a lack of prior research is the only justification for a
qualitative approach. However, justifying a qualitative study based on lack of theory when substantial prior work exists tends to perpetuate confusion about other legitimate uses of qualitative
data, such as those outlined below.

To capture individuals lived experiences and interpretations

A second rationale for using qualitative data is to enable informants to express themselves in their
own words, allowing researchers to more closely capture individuals own subjective experiences
and interpretations. As with theory-building, the advantage of qualitative data for interpretive
research is that researchers do not need to impose particular conceptual frames on the data prior to
data collection. Yet despite this shared starting point, the end points of interpretive studies and
(non-interpretive) theory-building studies will often be very different. Many theory-building studies analyze their qualitative data with the aim of divining abstract relationships that can be defined

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

279

Graebner et al.

and measured in objective terms (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Many interpretive studies, in
contrast, aim to preserve the subjective, interpretive nature of their data throughout the analytical
process.
A second difference is that while some interpretive studies tackle phenomena with little
prior theory, others investigate areas in which substantial theory does exist. In this case, the
justification for using qualitative data does not primarily rest on the state of prior theory, but
on researchers fundamental interest in individuals subjective perspectives. For instance, in
their study of identity work and institutional contradiction, Creed et al. (2010) use qualitative
methodology to capture the interpretations and experiences of marginalized organizational
members. Their focus complements and extends previous theoretical work rather than building entirely new theory (2010: 1337).

To understand complex process issues

Process has many meanings in strategic organization (see Van de Ven, 1992), but for our purposes
process research refers to understanding phenomena involving complex temporal dynamics or
causal mechanisms, often embedded in nuanced social interactions. Complex causal mechanisms
could involve, for example, feedback loops, balanced tensions, or multiple levels of analysis. In
our view, the fundamental advantage of qualitative data for investigating process phenomena is its
richness, which enables researchers to unpack multifaceted, temporally unfolding situations and
causal mechanisms in a detailed and sophisticated manner.
Because the field of strategic organization has a dearth of process theories (Langley, 2007),
in practice many process studies involve some component of theory-building. However, qualitative methods may be appropriate for examining processes even in areas of relatively mature
theory. Examples include Martins (2011) study of top management team processes and Lumineau
et al.s (2011) study of organizational learning. Both studies built upon significant bodies of
research in their domains of interest. If sufficient prior theory exists, process researchers may
even use qualitative data for purposes of theory testing rather than theory building (e.g.,
Greenwood et al., 1994).

To illustrate an abstract idea

Qualitative data may also be used to bring an abstract idea or model to life, making it more
persuasive and credible. The key advantages of qualitative data in this context are vividness,
concreteness, and richness. Open-endedness is less important. In fact, researchers using qualitative data for illustrative purposes often have well-developed models prior to gathering their data
(see, for example, Kauppila, 2010). As Siggelkow noted when reflecting on his qualitative study
of Liz Claiborne (Siggelkow, 2001), The framework proposed in the paper emerged more from
a conceptual exercise than from my exposure to Liz Claibornes experiences. However, the case
turned out to be a very helpful illustration and was used in that manner after the conceptual
framework was presented (Siggelow, 2007: 22). The use of qualitative data to illustrate an
abstract framework derived through other means has thus far been relatively rare in the literature. However, we believe this use may become more common as formal simulation techniques
become increasingly widespread in studies of strategic organization (e.g., Davis et al., 2006;
Kim and Rhee, 2009), since the vividness and concreteness of qualitative data are particularly
complementary to the highly abstract nature of formal simulation.

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

280

Strategic Organization 10(3)

To examine narratives, discourse, or other linguistic phenomena

Finally, qualitative data may be used because the phenomena of interest fundamentally involve
words and language. Scholars examining linguistic phenomena may or may not be interested in
capturing individuals lived experiences and interpretations. Therefore, while interpretive scholars
typically rely on first-hand accounts of individuals experiences, scholars examining linguistic
phenomena may choose to examine media accounts as well as strategic organizational communications such as annual reports, websites, and press releases. Moreover, linguistically oriented
researchers may depart from a purely interpretive approach and code their data in ways that enable
statistical analysis. An example is Martens et al.s (2007) analysis of narratives contained in initial
public offering prospectuses, which utilized qualitative narrative data to develop emergent hypotheses and then quantified the narratives to test the hypotheses using statistical estimation.

Qualitative data and the review process

Our goal in presenting the framework just described is to demonstrate the breadth of roles that
qualitative data may play in studies of strategy and organizations. We recognize that the five rationales we identified will often co-occur. Nonetheless, we believe that defining distinct reasons for
working with qualitative data is important, both conceptually and practically. Qualitative researchers face unique challenges in the review process, including the lack of a standard boilerplate for
writing up qualitative studies (Pratt, 2009) and the need to address concerns about researcher and
informant bias (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). We believe that identifying specific reasons for
using qualitative data can help authors to communicate more effectively with readers about the
purposes of their research. This, in turn, may help authors to deal with several difficult aspects of
the publication process:

Writing the front end

Writing the front end of a paper is a delicate balancing act for many qualitative researchers.
Some reviewers may argue that qualitative methods are only appropriate when there is a complete
dearth of prior research and theory on a topic in other words, when researchers are studying
phenomena that have never before been studied. These reviewers expect a relatively brief front
end that simply establishes that the topic is new. But other reviewers view phenomenon-driven
research questions as fishing expeditions and look for a front end with detailed theoretical
development. Satisfying both is difficult.
However, clearly stating authors reasons for working with qualitative data may provide cues
to reviewers and other readers regarding what form the beginning of a paper should take.
(Reviewers, of course, need to do their part by paying attention to these cues.) Authors who are
using qualitative data primarily for illustration will logically have extensive front ends that lay
out specific theoretical frameworks. Researchers who are interested in process questions, interpretive perspectives, or language may also have significant literature reviews in the front ends
of their papers these authors decisions to use qualitative methods do not rest on the idea that
no one has examined the topic before (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). In contrast, authors who
are using qualitative methods in order to collect open-ended data on a previously unstudied or
poorly understood phenomenon may have brief front ends that merely establish that the topic
has not been studied before. Or, they may have longer front ends that identify specific inadequacies in the prior literature, such as inherent conflicts or lack of ecological validity, that call

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

281

Graebner et al.

for a fresh approach unconstrained by extant theory. The key is that specifying the authors
reason for using qualitative data helps to set the readers expectations regarding how the author
will introduce and justify the study.

Describing analysis
A second challenge that qualitative researchers encounter is how to describe their analytical
approaches. In our observation, the vast majority of studies using qualitative data describe their
analyses as inductive. We suspect this is because authors have been told (inaccurately, in our
view) that using qualitative data is only justified when no prior theory exists. However, in reality
many researchers use a blend of inductive and deductive processes. Some researchers draw certain
constructs or theoretical frames from the existing literature before gathering data and build these
ideas into their data collection efforts (Bitektine, 2008; Yin, 2003). Other researchers begin with no
specific constructs or theories in mind, but realize during data analysis that some definitions or
frameworks can be drawn from the existing literature (e.g., Graebner, 2009).
We believe there are many valid paths to generating interesting findings from qualitative
data, including purely inductive and blended approaches. However, it is misleading to label
them all in the same way. Labeling virtually all qualitative research as inductive tends to perpetuate the myth that all qualitative research is theory-building. Moreover, calling work that
uses established frameworks inductive with no qualification tends to unfairly make purely
inductive, theory-building research look ill-planned by comparison. A better alternative is for
authors to be more precise regarding how and when constructs and relationships emerge during
the research process and to avoid using inductive as a blanket label. The work of Denis et al.
(2001) provides a useful example of how authors may explicate the inductive and deductive
steps in their analytical processes. Specifying why qualitative data are being used may help
researchers to explain why such a blended analytical approach or even a purely deductive one
makes sense for a particular study.

Addressing biases
A final concern that often arises for qualitative authors during the review process is the possibility of informant or researcher biases (biases exist in quantitative research as well, but that is
beyond our scope here). Identifying a researchers rationale for working with qualitative data
can help to pinpoint which biases are of primary concern and assist the author with addressing
them. In particular, clarifying the researchers rationale may help to highlight whether the
greater risk is informant biases (e.g., retrospective bias or impression management) or researcher
biases (e.g., confirmation bias during the analysis process). When researchers are interested in
capturing individuals lived experiences, informant bias and subjectivity are not problems to be
addressed, but rather the essential nature of what the researchers are studying. On the other
hand, these researchers may need to be conscious of introducing their own biases by imposing
their interpretations on informants words.
For researchers who are interested in building positivist theory, the relative importance of
informant and researcher biases is reversed. Since the goal is to develop an understanding of
objective reality, informant biases are a potential problem that needs to be mitigated, typically by
combining real-time and retrospective data collection and by triangulating individual informants
accounts with those of other informants and with archival data (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
Researcher bias may pose less of a threat in this case, since positivist researchers often focus on

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

282

Strategic Organization 10(3)

specific facts that are less subject to interpretation (Eisenhardt, 1989). Moreover, researchers who
aim to build new theory may be less prone to confirmation bias when looking for patterns in the
data, since they begin their projects without preconceived theoretical frameworks or specific
expectations of what they will find.

Conclusion
We have argued that qualitative data can be used in multiple, diverse ways to advance understanding of strategy and organizations. Unfortunately, we believe the distinctions between various
applications of qualitative data are often obscured in lists of typical characteristics or archetypes
of qualitative research. To address this problem, we have attempted to explicate several rationales
for working with qualitative data and to explain why distinguishing between these rationales is
important and helpful to both authors and reviewers. We believe greater clarity about authors
reasons and goals for working with qualitative data can help researchers to succeed in a domain
that lacks recipes or a cookbook but nonetheless holds great potential for contributing to the field
of strategic organization.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Gerardo Okhuysen, Kathleen Eisenhardt and the editors for their valuable comments.

Notes
1. We acknowledge that qualitative data have disadvantages as well. For example, collecting interview or
observational data is time-consuming and in most instances will limit the feasible sample size for a study.
2. We do not claim that these are the only possible rationales, but we believe they collectively encompass
most qualitative studies in the field of strategic organization.

References
Bansal, P. and Corley, K. (2011) The Coming of Age for Qualitative Research: Embracing the Diversity of
Qualitative Methods, Academy of Management Journal 54(2): 2337.
Bitektine, A. (2008) Prospective Case Study Design: Qualitative Method for Deductive Theory Testing,
Organizational Research Methods 11(1): 16080.
Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R. and Lok, J. (2010) Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction
through Identity Work, Academy of Management Journal 53(6): 133664.
Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, J. P., Bingham, C. B. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2006) Developing Theory Through Simulation Methods,
Academy of Management Review 32(2): 48099.
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. and Langley, A. (2001) The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic
Change in Pluralistic Organizations, Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 80937.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review
14(4): 53250.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges,
Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 2532.
Gephart, R. P. Jr (2004) Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Journal 47(4): 45462.

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

283

Graebner et al.

Graebner, M. (2009) Caveat Venditor: Trust Asymmetries in Acquisitions of Entrepreneurial Firms, Academy
of Management Journal 52(3): 43572.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. and Brown, J. L. (1994) Merging Professional Service Firms, Organization
Science 5(2): 23957.
Hite, J. M. (2003) Patterns of Multidimensionality among Embedded Network Ties: A Typology of
Relational Embeddedness in Emerging Entrepreneurial Firms, Strategic Organization 1(1): 949.
Kauppila, O. P. (2010) Creating Ambidexterity by Integrating and Balancing Structurally Separate Interorganizational Partnerships, Strategic Organization 8(4): 283312.
Kim, T. and Rhee, M. (2009) Exploration and Exploitation: Internal Variety and Environmental Dynamism,
Strategic Organization 7(1): 1141.
Langley, A. (2007) Process Thinking in Strategic Organization, Strategic Organization 5(3): 27182.
Lumineau, F., Frechet, M. and Puthod, D. (2011) An Organizational Learning Perspective on the Contracting
Process, Strategic Organization 9(1): 832.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (2006) Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E. and Jennings, P. D. (2007) Do the Stories They Tell Get Them the Money
they Need? The Role of Entrepreneurial Narratives in Resource Acquisition, Academy of Management
Journal 50(5): 110732.
Martin, J. A. (2011) Dynamic Managerial Capabilities and the Multibusiness Team: The Role of Episodic
Teams in Executive Leadership Groups, Organization Science 22(1): 11840.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ozcan, P. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009) Origin of Alliance Portfolios: Entrepreneurs, Network Strategies,
and Firm Performance, Academy of Management Journal 52(2): 24679.
Paivio, A., Clark, M. and Khan, M. (1988) The Effects of Concreteness and Semantic Relatedness on
Composite Imagery Ratings and Cued Recall, Memory and Cognition 16(5): 42230.
Pratt, M. G. (2009) For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research,
Academy of Management Journal 52(5): 85662.
Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009) Constructing Markets and Shaping Boundaries: Entrepreneurial
Power in Nascent Fields, Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 64371.
Siggelkow, N. (2001) Change in the Presence of Fit: The Rise, the Fall, and the Renaissance of Liz
Claiborne, Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 83857.
Siggelkow, N. (2007) Persuasion with Case Studies, Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 204.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992) Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process: A Research Note, Strategic Management Journal 13(5): 16988.
Weick, K. E. (2007) The Generative Properties of Richness, Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 1419.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Author biographies
Melissa E. Graebner is an Associate Professor of Management at the McCombs School of Business at the
University of Texas at Austin. She received her PhD in Management Science and Engineering from Stanford
University. Her research interests include strategy in entrepreneurial firms, interorganizational trust, and
mergers and acquisitions. She has published work in the Academy of Management Journal, Strategic
Management Journal, and Administrative Science Quarterly. Her paper Caveat Venditor: Trust Asymmetries
in Acquisitions of Entrepreneurial Firms received the Academy of Management Journal Best Paper Award
for 2009. Address: Management Department McCombs School of Business, University of Texas, 2110
Speedway Stop B6300, Austin, TX 78712-1750, USA. [email: melissa.graebner@mccombs.utexas.edu]
Jeffrey A. Martin is an Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Management and Marketing
at Culverhouse College of Commerce of the University of Alabama. He received his PhD in Management

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015

284

Strategic Organization 10(3)

Science and Engineering from Stanford University in 2002. His research focuses on dynamic capabilities,
entrepreneurship, and technology commercialization. His paper (with Kathleen Eisenhardt) Dynamic
Capabilities: What Are They? won the Dan and Mary Lou Schendel Best Paper Award for the Strategic
Management Journal in 2007. Dr Martin has published work in leading journals such as the Academy of
Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, and Organization Science. Address: Department of
Management and Marketing, The University of Alabama, 361 Stadium Drive, 105 Alston Hall, Box 870225,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, USA. [email: jmartin@cba.ua.edu]
Philip T. Roundy is a PhD candidate at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at
Austin. His dissertation examines how social entrepreneurs acquire the resources needed to found and
grow their ventures. His other research focuses on the role of narratives in stakeholder evaluations and
strategic decision-making. His research has been published in journals such as Academy of Management
Perspectives and Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. Address: Management Department
McCombs School of Business, 2110 Speedway Stop B6300, Austin, TX 78712-1750, USA. [email:
philip.roundy@phd.mccombs.utexas.edu]

Downloaded from soq.sagepub.com at UNIV DE LOS ANDES on June 1, 2015