Critical Review of Literature

Vision
18(2) 109–123
Survey of Qualitative Research © 2014 MDI
SAGE Publications

Methodology in Strategy Research Los Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore,

and Implication for Indian Researchers Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/0972262914528437
http://vision.sagepub.com

Sandip Mukhopadhyay
Rajen K. Gupta

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 quan-
titative 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 arti-
cles 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.

Key Words
Strategic Management, Qualitative Methods, Research Design, Paradigms, Positivist, Interpretive, Case Study

Introduction them. But researchers have often found that differ-

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 research-
ers 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
ences between firms are as important as the similari-
ties (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984).
• The quantitative method is grounded in a positivist
framework and disregards the individual and collec-
tive 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
110
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 comple-
mentary data collection procedures (Flick, 2007;
Seale et al., 2007). Data analysis helps the research-
ers 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 data-
base. 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, han-
dling 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 pub-
lished 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 dur-
ing this period.
And based on the above analysis, our study assesses
and presents the areas where qualitative methodology
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123
Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research
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 imper-
fectly and probabilistically’ (Alvesson and Karreman,
2011). In our analysis for this article, positivist and
post-positivist are combined and termed as positivist.
The field of qualitative research accommodates
multiple and different research traditions and is very plu-
ralistic 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
Figure 1. Overview of Major Qualitative Traditions
Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 111

Figure 2. Differences between Positivist and Interpretive explains that methodological diversity has allowed strate-
Paradigms gic management to achieve significant theory development
and theory testing in short span of time. There are a signifi-
Positivist/Post-
positivist Interpretive cant number of researchers with economics background in
strategy research, and most of them have quantitative lean-
Ontology Single reality or can Reality is constructed
ings. But many of the seminal contributions such as
be apprehended and can be multiple
probabilistically Chandler’s work on strategy and structure, Mintzberg’s
Epistemology Knower and known Knower and known study on the role of top management and Eisenhardt’s work
are independent are inseparable on strategic decision making have mostly evolved from
Axiology Inquiry is value-free Inquiry is value-driven qualitative research. Innovation researchers such as
Inductive/ Deductive Inductive Christensen, Von Hippol and Rogers have used qualitative
Deductive methods extensively in their research along with quantita-
Generalization Time and context Generalization is tive methods. Figure 4 highlights the major theoretical
free not possible; hence,
developments in strategy research.
Generalization the focus is on
is possible understanding
Research Design
systems, the key difference between positivist and The research design for this survey involves identifying
interpretive paradigms is provided in Figure 2. top rated strategy and general management journals and
reviewing the published empirical articles for diversity and
Research Methods evolution related to paradigms and methods. For identify-
ing journals, time frame and actual paper, we have opted
In quantitative research, the most commonly used data for the structured selection approach that was used by
collection methods are survey and making use of Dibbern et al. (2004) in their article ‘Information Systems
existing secondary data sources. Compared to quantita­tive Outsourcing: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature’ for
method, qualitative method allows the researcher to be selecting the research articles for this study. According to
more creative both in terms of data collection and analysis. them, the ‘selection process’, that is, how the research
Figure 3 lists few of the popular data collection and analysis papers were chosen, had three phases: journal selection,
methods in qualitative tradition, which highlight the variety time frame selection and paper selection.
in this field. We have identified interview, observation,
case study, ethnographic study, action research, archival or
document as primary research methods used in qualitative Journal Selection
research designs, but the above list is not exhaustive. In 1997, Lohrke and Bruton (1997) completed a compre-
hensive analysis of the International Strategic Management
Important Theoretical Developments Literature. Lohrke and Bruton classified strategic manage-
ment journals in three categories, that is, ‘Outstanding
in Strategic Management Quality’, ‘Significant Quality’ and ‘Appropriate Quality’.
This section describes in chronological order the important They found that the journals of outstanding quality do not
research and theoretical developments that have taken change their rating significantly over time. The six journals
place in the domain of strategic management. This section of ‘Outstanding Quality’ identified based on the above

Figure 3. Research Methods Used by Qualitative Researchers

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

112 Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research

Figure 4. Major Theoretical Developments in Strategy Research

Theory Time Line

Early discussion on theory of firm (TOF) and transaction cost Coase (1937)
economics (TCE)
Dynamic models of economic growth and Change Schumpeter (1934)
Bounded rationality Simon (1947)
Knowledge-based theory of firms Hayek (1945)
Dynamic capabilities Penrose (1959)
Structure, conduct, performance paradigm Bain (1959)
Integrative capability as a function of firm Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
Strategy & structure: A precedent to industrial organization Chandler (1962)
Make-or-buy decision, concept of governance Williamson (1971, 1975)
Transaction cost economics—theory of firms Coase (1937)
Competence view of firm, focus on capabilities of a firm Richardson (1972)
Dynamic capabilities Teece et al. (1997)
Agency theory Jensen and Meckling (1976)
Resource-based view of firm Rumelt (1984), Wernerfelt (1984)
Competitive strategy and five-force model Porter (1980)
Seminal paper on RBV Barney (1991)
Top management’s role in strategy formation Mintzberg (1973)
Resource dependency theory Pfeffer and Salancik (1978)
Strategic decision making in high velocity environment Eisenhardt (1989b)
Extension of TCE-alliances Williamson (1991)
Disruptive innovation Christensen (1997)
Interfirm innovation process, the role of lead users Von Hippol (1988)
Alliances, network, governance Dyer and Singh (1998), Gulati (1999), Lorenzoni
and Lipparini (1999)

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.
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 promi-
nent 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.

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 113
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 collec-
tion 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,
Figure 5. Flow Chart of Systematic Literature Review Conducted for This Article
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.
Research Findings
This section explains the finding of the systematic litera-
ture 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,
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123
114 Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research

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.
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 institu-
tional environments. This December 2010 issue examines

Table 1. Quali versus Quanti in AMJ

Total Total No. of No. of No. of Mixed MM as % No. of Quality as % No. of Quantity as %
No. of Non-empirical Empirical Method of Empirical Qualitative of Empirical Quantitative of Empirical
Year Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Method Articles Articles Method Articles 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

Total Total No. of No. of No. of Mixed MM as % No. of Quality as % No. of Quantity as %
No. of Non-empirical Empirical Method of Empirical Qualitative of Empirical Quantitative of Empirical
Year Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Method Articles Articles Method Articles 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

Total Total No. of No. of No. of Mixed MM as % No. of Quality as % No. of Quantity as %
No. of Non-empirical Empirical Method of Empirical Qualitative of Empirical Quantitative of Empirical
Year Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Method Articles Articles Method Articles 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

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 115

Table 4. Consolidated Distribution of Quali versus Quanti

Total Total No. of No. of No. of Mixed MM as % No. of Quality as % No. of Quantity as %
No. of Non-empirical Empirical Method of Empirical Qualitative of Empirical Quantitative of Empirical
Year Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Method Articles Articles Method Articles 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

organization and symbolic aspect of institutionalization. In Table 7. The Paradigm Distribution for ASQ
tune with its research theme, the issue has eight qualitative
Paradigm (ASQ) Count Percentage
articles. Similarly, in 2007, significant number of non-
empirical articles were published; this was also due to Positivist  2 14.29
four special issues or research forum published in 2007 Interpretative 10 71.43
Structuralist  2 14.29
by AMJ. Each of those issues had a number of conceptual
Total 14 100
articles providing direction and guidance for research
methodology, research trends and impact of research on
practice. Table 8. The Consolidated Paradigm Distribution across Three
Journals

Paradigm (Consolidated) Count Percentage

Paradigm Trend
Positivist 28 35.44
The two most dominant paradigms for qualitative Interpretive 48 60.76
researchers are positivist and interpretive. To identify Structuralist  3 3.80
positivist and interpretive research design, we have used Total 79 100.00
guidelines provided by Lincoln and Guba (1985). The
key among these guidelines are that, positivism assumes Method Distribution
the existence of either a single reality or reality that can
be apprehended probabilistically; while interpretive Case studies are the most widely used research method.
researchers believe reality is socially constructed and can Here, ethnographic studies are recorded separately from
be multiple. Research design-based on structuralist is case studies and field studies. Generally, ethnographic case
based on works of Gidden (1976) and it is basically a social studies use participant observation as part of their research
organization theory. It focuses on social structures such as method.
language, rules, conventions as resources and interaction
and transformation of these structures. Table 9. The Distribution of Research Method in AMJ

Research Method (AMJ) Count Percentage

Table 5. The Paradigm Distribution for AMJ Case Study 23 47.92
Interview 10 20.83
Paradigm (AMJ) Count Percentage Documents 4 8.33
Positivist 11 22.92 Ethnography 6 12.50
Interpretive 36 75 Action Research 2 4.17
Structuralist  1 2.08 Multiple 3 6.25
Total 48 100.00 Total 48 100.00

Table 10. The Distribution of Research Method in SMJ

Table 6. The Paradigm Distribution for SMJ
Research Method (SMJ) Count Percentage
Paradigm (SMJ) Count Percentage
Case Study 15 88.24
Positivist 15 88.24 Documents 1 5.88
Interpretive  2 11.76 Interview 1 5.88
Total 17 100 Total 17 100.00

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

116 Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research

Table 11. The Distribution of Research Method in ASQ ASQ have published more number of qualitative research
articles. Fourteen per cent of their total empirical
Research Method (ASQ) Count Percentage
research articles are qualitative. In AMJ, the coverage of
Case Study 6 42.85 qualitative article has consistently increased during this
Interview 1 7.14 time span of 2007–2012, if we ignore the deviation of
Documents 1 7.14
2011. Other than the increasing number of qualitative arti-
Ethnography 4 28.57
Multiple 2 14.29 cles in AMJ, articles having qualitative research design
Total 14 100 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
Table 12. The Consolidated Distribution of Research Method empirical and theoretical contribution, so high concentra-
across Three Journals
tion of qualitative research designs in best article awards
Research Method (Consolidated) Count Percentage shows the tremendous scholarly impact of qualitative
Case Study 44 55.70 articles. On the other hand, Strategic Management Journal
Interview 12 15.19 has published least number of qualitative articles in terms
Documents 6 7.59 of percentage, only 4 per cent of total empirical research
Ethnography 10 12.66 articles in SMJ are qualitative.
Action Research 2 2.53 In terms of methodological diversity in these three
Multiple 5 6.33 journals, SMJ differs significantly from AMJ and ASQ in
Total 79 100.00
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 articu-
Key Inferences lating their paradigm and methodology as compared to the
The finding indicates that, even though there is growing other two journals. While analyzing the diversity in
interest in qualitative research methodology, in terms of research designs for the qualitative research articles, we
articles published in leading journals, the numbers are still found that SMJ provides very little diversity in terms of
few. It can be said, while there is significant and increasing methods. Most of the qualitative research article published
mind share about qualitative research methods, the leading in SMJ have used case study as their underlying method;
journals still prefer studies that use quantitative and 15 out of 17 qualitative research articles in SMJ have used
positivist paradigm. case study method. But the advocates of qualitative
Symon and Cassell (1999) have identified a number of research would be glad to find the co-existence of many
barriers that restrict publication of qualitative research different methods such as ethnography, action research,
articles in leading journals. Many of those barriers are still interview along with case study in the 62 published articles
very much valid and can explain the low usage of qualitative in AMJ and ASQ.
methodology. The most important among them are as Generally, interpretive is associated closely with
follows: qualitative research, the way positivist is associated with
quantitative research designs. But the qualitative research
• Difficult to get accepted by epistemological gate- tradition is more pluralistic and our research finding
keepers (journal editors and reviewers). confirms that it has accommodated positivist and other
• Journal editorial criteria were set as per positivist tradition along with the dominant interpretive paradigm.
standard and mostly remain unchanged. Frequently, If we refer to the overall preference of qualitative
the qualitative researchers need to justify their researchers across the three journals in terms of method,
research method in line with positivist tradition. case study being used in 50 per cent of the total published
• The negligible exposure to qualitative research articles is the most preferred and accepted method. With
methodologies by all stakeholders. their seminal work, Yin (2003) and Eisenhardt (1989a)
have redefined rigour in case-based research and have
The research finding supports a noteworthy trend in made it one of the most accepted qualitative research
the last five years that shows an increase in publication of methods. Their guidelines and recommendations are very
articles with qualitative methodology in AMJ. But if we frequently cited by researchers. We have come across two
consolidate our finding across three journals, we do not see variants of case study-based research: case study involving
increase or decrease of any one type of methodologies. single case or multiple cases. Researchers using multiple
There is variation among the three journals surveyed case design have used the option of both within and cross-
on their approach towards qualitative articles; AMJ and case analysis. Researchers using multiple case-based

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 117
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 ‘qualita-
tive 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 qualita-
tive 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 research-
ers 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 qualita-
tive 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 manage-
ment 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 develop-
ment, 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 statis-
tical 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 qualita-
tive 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 manage-
ment 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
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123
118 Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research

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.

Appendix
List of Qualitative Articles Considered

Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed      

Status:      
Year of
No. Name Authors Publication Journal Name
 1 The process of technological competence Erwin Danneels 2007 Strategic Management
leveraging Journal
 2 Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a Antonio Capaldo 2007 Strategic Management
dual network as a distinctive relational capability Journal
 3 Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos—repeatedly: Robert A. Burgelman 2007 Strategic Management
Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity and Andrew S. Grove Journal
 4 Doing well by doing good—case study: ‘Fair & lovely’ Aneel Karnani 2007 Strategic Management
whitening cream Journal
 5 Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances Werner H. Hoffmann 2007 Strategic Management
Journal
 6 Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures: Andrew C. Inkpen 2008 Strategic Management
The case of Nummi and General Motors Journal
 7 The role of fairness in alliance formation Africa Arino and 2010 Strategic Management
Peter Smith Ring Journal
 8 The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability Russell W. Coff 2010 Strategic Management
development Journal
 9 The implementation and structuring of divestitures: Caterina Moschieri 2011 Strategic Management
The unit’s perspective Journal
10 Trying to become a different type of company: Erwin Danneels 2011 Strategic Management
Dynamic capability at Smith Corona Journal
11 Capture, governance, and resilience: Strategy Abraham Carmeli and 2011 Strategic Management
implications from the history of Rome Gideon D. Markman Journal
12 How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and Quy Nguyen Huy 2011 Strategic Management
social identities influence strategy implementation Journal

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 119

Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed      

Status:      
Year of
No. Name Authors Publication Journal Name
13 Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists Christopher B. Bingham 2011 Strategic Management
learn from process experience and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt Journal
14 Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships Peter Boumgarden, 2012 Strategic Management
among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational Jackson Nickerson and Journal
performance Todd R. Zenger
15 Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the John Joseph and William 2012 Strategic Management
multibusiness firm: General electric from 1951 to 2001 Ocasio Journal
16 The architecture of collaboration Øystein D. Fjeldstad, Charles 2012 Strategic Management
C. Snow, Raymond E. Miles Journal
and Christopher Lettl
17 Enterprise logic: Explaining corporate attention to Donal Crilly and 2012 Strategic Management
stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’ Pamela Sloan Journal
18 How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to Christoph Zott and 2007 Administrative Science
acquire resources Quy Nguyen Huy Quarterly
19 A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ A. Alexandra Michel 2007 Administrative Science
change processes: The management of cognitive Quarterly
uncertainty in two investment banks
20 Interlopers and field change: The entry of U.S. news Michael Sauder 2008 Administrative Science
into the field of legal education Quarterly
21 Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among Siobhán O’Mahony 2008 Administrative Science
unexpected allies and Beth A. Bechky Quarterly
22 Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement Klaus Weber, Kathryn 2008 Administrative Science
for grass-fed meat and dairy products L. Heinze, and Michaela Quarterly
Desoucey
23 Employee-management techniques: Transient fads or Eric Abrahamson and 2008 Administrative Science
trending fashions? Micki Eisenman Quarterly
24 Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of Dennis A. Gioia, Kristin 2010 Administrative Science
processes involved in the formation of organizational N. Price, Aimee L. Hamilton, and Quarterly
identity James B. Thomas
25 Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects Elizabeth Long Lingo and 2010 Administrative Science
Siobhán O’Mahony Quarterly
26 Institutional work in the transformation of an Charlene Zietsma and 2010 Administrative Science
organizational field: The interplay of boundary Thomas B. Lawrence Quarterly
work and practice work
27 Nasty, brutish, and short: Embeddedness failure in the Pierre Azoulay, Nelson 2010 Administrative Science
pharmaceutical industry P. Repenning and Ezra Quarterly
W. Zuckerman
28 Transitional identity as a facilitator of organizational Shawn M. Clark, Dennis 2010 Administrative Science
identity change during a merger A. Gioia, David J. Ketchen, Quarterly
Jr. and James B. Thomas
29 Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional Michel Anteby 2010 Administrative Science
disputes in the U.S. commerce in cadavers Quarterly
30 Rotating leadership; and collaborative innovation: Jason P. Davis and Kathleen 2011 Administrative Science
Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships M. Eisenhardt Quarterly
31 Transcending socialization: A nine-year ethnography Alexandra Michel 2011 Administrative Science
of the body’s role in organizational control and Quarterly
knowledge workers’ transformation
32 Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and N. Anand, Heidi K. 2007 Academy of
embedding of new practice areas in management Gardner and Tim Morris Management Journal
consulting firms
33 The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, Rajiv Nag, Kevin G. Corley 2007 Academy of
and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge and Dennis A. Gioia Management Journal
grafting
(Appendix continued)

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

120 Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research

(Appendix continued)

Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed      

Status:      
Year of
No. Name Authors Publication Journal Name
34 Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of Samia Chreim, B. E. (Bernie) and 2007 Academy of
professional role identity Williams, C.R. (Bob) Hinings Management Journal
35 Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations Sally Maitlis and Thomas 2007 Academy of
B. Lawrence Management Journal
36 Radical change accidentally: The emergence and Donde Ashmos Plowman, 2007 Academy of
amplification of small change Lakami T. Baker, Tammy Management Journal
E. Beck, Mukta Kulkarni,
Stephanie Thomas Solansky
and Deandra Villarreal Travis
37 Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Lotte S. Luscher and 2008 Academy of
Working through paradox Marianne W. Lewis Management Journal
38 Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological Joshua D. Margolis and 2008 Academy of
engagement and the production of interpersonally Andrew Molinsky Management Journal
sensitive behavior
39 Shaping strategy as a structuration process Paula Jarzabkowski 2008 Academy of
Management Journal
40 How do I assess if my supervisor and organization Elaine C. Hollensbe, Shalini 2008 Academy of
are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based Khazanchi and Suzanne Management Journal
justice perceptions S. Masterson
41 Toward an integrative perspective on alliance Dries Faems, Maddy Janssens, 2008 Academy of
governance: Connecting contract design, trust Anoop Madhok and Bart Van Management Journal
dynamics, and contract application Looy
42 Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the Glen E. Kreiner, Elaine 2009 Academy of
work-home interface via boundary work tactics C. Hollensbe and Mathew Management Journal
L. Sheep
43 Caveat venditor: Trust asymmetries in acquisitions Melissa E. Graebner 2009 Academy of
of entrepreneurial firms Management Journal
44 The enactment-externalization dialectic: rationalization Paul M. Leonardi, Michele 2009 Academy of
and the persistence of counterproductive technology H. Jackson and Amer Diwan Management Journal
design practices in student engineering
45 Understanding shifting power relations within and Natalia Levina and Wanda 2009 Academy of
across organizations: A critical genre analysis J. Orlikowski Management Journal
46 Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Filipe M. Santos and Kathleen M.2009 Academy of
Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields Eisenhardt Management Journal
47 Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: Sandy Edward Green 2009 Academy of
A rhetorical model of institutionalization and Jr.Yuan Li and Nitin Nohria Management Journal
institutionally embedded agency
48 Discourse and deinstitutionalization: Steve Maguire and 2009 Academy of
The decline of DDT Cynthia Hardy Management Journal
49 Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, Jill M. Purdy and 2009 Academy of
and multilevel dynamics in emerging Barbara Gray Management Journal
institutional fields
50 Institutional logics as identity projects Jaco Lok 2010 Academy of
Management Journal
51 We’re changing—or are we? Untangling the role Scott Sonenshei 2010 Academy of
of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives Management Journal
during strategic change implementation
52 The faithful rise up: Split identification and an Betzaluz Gutierrez, 2010 Academy of
unlikely change effort Jennifer Howard-Grenville Management Journal
and Maureen A. Scully
53 Being the change: Resolving institutional W.E. Douglas Creed, Rich 2010 Academy of
contradiction through identity work Dejordy and Jaco Lok Management Journal

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 121

Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed      

Status:      
Year of
No. Name Authors Publication Journal Name
54 Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and Mukti Khaire, R. and Daniel 2010 Academy of
value in a new market category—modern Indian art Wadhwani Management Journal
55 The dangers of decoupling: The relationship between Tammy L. Maclean and 2010 Academy of
compliance programs, legitimacy perceptions, and Michael Behnam Management Journal
institutionalized misconduct
56 Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaborations in Jeffrey A. Martin and Kathleen 2010 Academy of
multibusiness organizations M. Eisenhardt Management Journal
57 From ritual to reality: Demography, ideology, and Andras Tilcsik 2010 Academy of
decoupling in a post-communist government agency Management Journal
58 Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual M. Tina Dacin, Kamal Munir 2010 Academy of
performance and institutional maintenance and Paul Tracey Management Journal
59 Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of Julie Battilana and Silvia 2010 Academy of
commercial microfinance organizations Dorado Management Journal
60 Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in Cynthia Hardy and Steve 2010 Academy of
organizations and institutional fields: Narratives Maguire Management Journal
of DDT and the Stockholm convention
61 On becoming extraordinary: The content and Richard D. Cotton,Yan Shen and 2011 Academy of
structure of the developmental networks of major Reut Livne-Tarandach Management Journal
league baseball hall of famers
62 Expecting the unexpected? How swat officers and Beth A. Bechky and 2011 Academy of
film crews handle surprises Gerardo A. Okhuysen Management Journal
63 Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: Emmanuelle Fauchart 2011 Academy of
The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship and Marc Gruber Management Journal
64 Ecological sensemaking Gail Whiteman and 2011 Academy of
William H. Cooper Management Journal
65 Routines as a source of change in organizational Claus Rerup and Martha 2011 Academy of
schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning S. Feldman Management Journal
66 Cheating the fates: Organizational foundings Ian J. Walsh and Jean M. 2011 Academy of
in the wake of demise Bartunek Management Journal
67 Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: Benjamin L. Hallen and 2012 Academy of
How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties Kathleen M. Eisenhardt Management Journal
68 Reversal of strategic change Saku Mantere Henri Saku Mantere, Henri 2012 Academy of
A. Schildt Hanken School of Economics A. Schildt and John Management Journal
John A. A. Sillince A.A. Sillince
69 Fools breaking out: The role of symbolic and Jan M.W.N. Lepoutre 2012 Academy of
material immunity in explaining institutional and Michael Valente Management Journal
non-conformity
70 From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations Rajiv Nag and Dennis 2012 Academy of
of firm-specific use of knowledge as a resource A. Gioia Management Journal
71 Which iron cage? Endo- and exoisomorphism in Vangelis Souitaris, Stefania 2012 Academy of
corporate venture capital programs Zerbinati and Grace Liu Management Journal
72 Collective memory meets organizational identity: Michel Anteby and 2012 Academy of
Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history Virág Molnár Management Journal
73 Learning sequences: Their existence, effect, Christopher B. Bingham 2012 Academy of
and evolution and Jason P. Davis Management Journal
74 Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: Johanna Mair, Ignasi Martí 2012 Academy of
How intermediaries work institutional voids and Marc J.Ventresca Management Journal
75 Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of Bradley P. Owens and 2012 Academy of
humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes David R. Hekman Management Journal
76 From practice to field: A multilevel model of Michael Smets, Tim Morris 2012 Academy of
practice-driven institutional change and Royston Greenwood Management Journal
77 Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material Ileana Stigliani and Davide 2012 Academy of
practices and the transition from individual to Ravasi Management Journal
group-level prospective sense making
(Appendix continued)

Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123

122
(Appendix continued)
Details of Qualitative Articles Surveyed
Status:
No. Name
78 Faking it or muddling through? Understanding
decoupling in response to stakeholder
pressures
79 Cross-domain identity transition during liminal periods:
Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother
during pregnancy
References
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and
theory development, mystery as method. London: SAGE
Publications.
Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (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 D.J. Ketchen &
D.D. Bergh (Eds), Research Methodology in Strategy and
Management (pp. 165–188), Volume 1.
Barry, C.A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis soft-
ware: Atlas/ti and Nudist compared. Sociological Research
Online, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/
socresonline/3/3/4.html
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (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, C. (1997). The innovatoe’s dilemma. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16),
386–405.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln. Y.S. (Eds). (1994). Handbook of quali-
tative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R., & Jayatilaka, B. (2004).
Information systems outsourcing: A survey and analysis of
the literature. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information
Systems, 35(4), 6–102.
Dyer, J.H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooper-
ative strategies and sources of interorganizational competi-
tive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
660–679.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989a). Building theories from case study
research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
532–550.
———. (1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-
velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal,
32(3), 543–576.
Flick, U. (2007). Managing quality in qualitative research.
London: SAGE Publications.
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123
Survey of Qualitative Research Methodology in Strategy Research
     
     
Year of
Authors Publication Journal Name
Donal Crilly, Maurizio Zollo and 2012 Academy of
Morten T. Hansen Management Journal
Jamie J. Ladge, Judith 2012 Academy of
A. Clair and Danna Management Journal
Greenberg
Frankel, Richard M. (1999). Standards of qualitative research.
In Benjamin F. Crabtree & William L. Miller (Eds), Doing
Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 333–346). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research:
An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: A & B Publications.
Gephart, Robert P. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research
and the academy of management. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(4), 454–462.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Barbara, W. (2008). What passes as
rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(9),
1465–1474.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A posi-
tive critique of interpretive sociologies. New York: Harper
and Row.
Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The
influence of network resources and firm capabilities on
alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5),
397–420.
Hayek, F.A. (1945). The user of knowledge in society. American
Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.
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.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd
ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
———. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions
(3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and envi-
ronment. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Lohrke, F.T., & Bruton, G.D. (1997). Contributions and gaps
in international strategic management literature. Journal of
International Management, 3(1), 25–57.
Lorenzoni, G. & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm
relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:
A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4),
317–338.
MacMillan, I.C. (1989). Delineating a forum for business
policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4),
391–395.
———. (1991). The emerging forum for business policy
scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), 161–165.
Sandip Mukhopadhyay and Rajen K. Gupta 123
Mahoney, J. (2004). The distinctive contributions of qualita-
tive data analysis. In Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel &
Patricia White (Eds), Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 95–99). Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences.
Markus, M.L. (1989). Case selection in a disconfirmatory case
study. In J.I. Cash & R. Lawrence (Eds), The Information
Systems Research Challenge: Qualitative Research Methods
(pp. 20–26), Volume 1. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analy-
sis. London: SAGE Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper and Row.
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.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London:
Basil Blackwell.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1985). Contextualist research and the study
of organizational change processes. In E. Mumford,
R. Hirscheim, G. Fitzgeralad, & A.T. Wood-Harper, A.T.
(Eds), Research Methods in Information Systems (pp. 53–78).
North Holland, Amsterdam.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organi-
zations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY:
Haper and Row Publishers.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free
Press.
Prasad, P. (1999). Crafting qualitative research working in the
postpositivist traditions. London: M.E. Sharpe.
Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2002). The coming age of interpretive
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,
5(1), 4–11.
Richardson, G.B. (1972). The organization of industry. Economic
Journal, 82, 883–897.
Ridder, H., & Hoon, C. (2009). Qualitative methods in research
on human resource management. German Journal of Human
Resource Research, 23(2), 93–106.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm.
In R.B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive Strategic Management
(pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sabat, H.K. (2002). The evolving mobile wireless value chain
and market structure. Telecommunications Policy, 26(9,10),
505–535.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). Theory of economic development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London:
SAGE Publications.
Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., & Silverman, D. (2007).
Introduction: Inside qualitative research. In Clive Seale,
Giampetro Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium & David Silverman
(Eds), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 1–12). London:
SAGE Publications.
Shah, S., & Corley, K. (2006). Building better theory by bridging
the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York:
Macmillan.
Stake, Robert E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd ed, pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Swanson, E.B., & Ramiller, N.C. (1993). Information sys-
tems thematics: Submissions to a new journal, 1987–1992.
Information Systems Research, 4(4), 299–330.
Symon, G., & Cassell, C.M. (1999). Barriers to innovation in
research practice. In M. Pina e Cunha, & C.A. Marques (Eds),
Readings in Organization Science: Organizational Change in
a Changing Context (pp. 387–398). Lisbon: ISPA.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capa-
bilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Williamson, O.E. (1971). The vertical integration of production:
Market failure considerations. American Economic Review,
61(2), 112–123.
———. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust
implications. New York: Macmillan Free Press.
———. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analy-
sis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sandip Mukhopadhyay (sandipmukho@gmail.com) is
a PhD student at Management development Institute,
Gurgaon, India. His academic research focuses on innovation
governance, business model for mobile service innovation .
Sandip has done his MBA from IIM, Calcutta and BE from
University of Calcutta. Sandip is presently working with
IBM in its Telecom Center of Competence and advises
major telecom operators and vendors around the world.
Rajen K. Gupta is a Professor of Organizational Behavior
in Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. He
has a first degree in Electrical Engineering from IIT,
Kanpur and is a Fellow of IIM, Ahmedabad. He has worked
in the State Bank of India and Jyoti Ltd before moving to
IIM, Lucknow as a faculty member. His main passion is to
create and apply ideas which are suited to Indian culture
and context. He would like to see Indian organizations
achieve world class effectiveness¸ and see MNCs to adapt
well to the Indian context. He would also like to collabo-
rate in experimenting with new ideas to create new and
better organizations.
Vision, 18, 2 (2014): 109–123
Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Sage India and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.