<i>Journal of Management</i> Is Pushing the Frontiers of Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative researchers often lament that editors and reviewers assess papers based primarily on rigor, which is signaled by 'methodological templates', such as the Gioia method for coding data, the Langley method of temporal bracketing, the Eisenhardt method of cross-case sampling, or by the positivist standards of replicability, validity and reliability (Harley & Cornelissen, 2022;Pratt, Sonenshein, & Feldman, 2022, Pratt, Kaplan andWhittington 2020).While some qualitative researchers appreciate the clarity that these approaches offer, others find them constraining and seek instead to apply novel methods, study phenomena not suited for well-accepted approaches, or present their paper in innovative ways.Some qualitative articles have embraced these innovative approaches and challenged boilerplate methods, but few are published in major management journals.With so many years of work at stake, most authors simply comply with editor and reviewer requests rather than risk losing the chance to publish in a high-quality journal (Corley, Bansal, & Yu, 2021).Through this Special Call, we seek to open up opportunities for qualitative researchers to engage in a unique review process that provides pathways for creativity and innovation, while also welcoming research that follows more conventional approaches.One aspect of this unique call is that the initial submission is a proposal rather than a full paper.This allows the author to indicate their intended direction for the research and their data in hand / progress to date with somewhat lower effort.This also allows for more creativity and flexibility in preparing the full manuscript, after receiving initial editorial feedback.Building on this point, authors and guest editors will have the opportunity to correspond with each other during the review process, discussing things such as uncertainties in the reviews, innovative directions the work could take, other data that might be available but do not appear, or alternative theoretical directions.Such open dialogue provides greater collaboration throughout the review progress, strengthening the finished product while saving time in the process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.343 | 0.464 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.056 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".