Postcolonialism and the politics of qualitative research in international business

This paper offers a re-configuration of international business research by subjecting it to a postcolonial critique. This critique sees international business research as exhibiting continuities with the colonial project in the way it appropriates the Other. Qualitative research in international business often reproduces a neopositivist separation of theory and method, which can marginalize discussion of the important ontological, epistemological and political issues inherent in any research process

Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method

Research councils, agencies, and researchers recognize the benefits of team-based health research. However, researchers involved in large-scale team-based research projects face multiple challenges as they seek to identify epistemological and ontological common ground. Typically, these challenges occur between quantitative and qualitative researchers but can occur between qualitative researchers, particularly when the project involves multiple disciplinary perspectives. The authors use the convergent interviewing technique in their multidisciplinary research project to overcome these challenges. This technique assists them in developing common epistemological and ontological ground while enabling swift and detailed data collection and analysis. Although convergent interviewing is a relatively new method described primarily in marketing research, it compares and contrasts well with grounded theory and other techniques. The authors argue that this process provides a rigorous method to structure and refine research projects and requires researchers to identify and be accountable for developing a common epistemological and ontological position.

A qualitative cross-level investigation of safety climate perceptions

ver the last few decades occupational health and safety research has shifted its focus away from engineering and ergonomics as a means of improving workplace safety, and has given greater attention to examining the role played by organisational factors, such as safety climate. One factor constraining the advancement of our understanding of the safety climate construct is the tendency of researchers to remain steadfastly bound to the notion that safety climate is measured via a quantative measurement tool. Researchers in the area (e.g., Frone & Barling, 2004; Zohar, 2003) are now arguing for better triangulation of methodologies, in particular better qualitative research, to advance our knowledge and understanding. The present study extends the present body of safety climate literature in two ways; firstly, it addresses this methodological issue via the utilisation of a semi-structured interview methodology and secondly it examines the qualitative structure of safety climate perceptions across different levels (organisation, supervisor and co-worker) and different groups (managers vs. employees). Examination of the interview transcripts revealed qualitative differences and similarities between the different safety climate levels (organisational, supervisor and co-worker) and between manager and employee safety climate perceptions. Implications of these findings for safety climate theory and measurement are discussed.