Yönetim ve Organizasyon Alanında Kuram Geliştirme Yönelimli Araştırmanın Üç Öncül Geleneği: Langley, Eisenhardt ve Gioia Yöntemleri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı yönetim ve organizasyon alanında kuram geliştirme yönelimli araştırmanın üç öncül geleneğinin betimlenmesidir. Kuramın akademik çabaların hem tetikleyicisi hem de sosyal olguları açıklayabilmemizi sağlayan çıktısı olduğu açıktır. Kuram aynı zamanda bilimsel bilgi birikimi ile uygulama arasında bağ kurulmasını sağlayan önemli bir etkendir. Akademik bağlamda kurama atfedilen önemli role rağmen, görgül materyale dayalı kuram geliştirme sistematiğine ilişkin bilgi birikimi sınırlı düzeyde kalmaktadır. Çalışma bu açığı gidermek amacıyla yönetim ve organizasyon alanından hareketle kuram geliştirme yönelimli, geliştiricilerinin soyadlarıyla anılan üç yöntemi, örnek araştırmalara da yer vererek detaylı olarak betimlemektedir. Çalışmada betimlenen yöntemlerin sosyal bilimlerin diğer alanlarında da uygulanmasının, var olan kuramların geliştirilmesi ve yenilikçi kuramların ortaya konması çabalarına katkı sağlayarak karmaşık sosyal olguları anlamamızı kolaylaştırması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nitel Araştırma
• Kuram
• Kuram Geliştirme
• Langley Yöntemi
• Eisenhardt Yöntemi
• Gioia Yöntemi

Kaynakça

1. Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of 'theory'. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x
2. Aldrich, H. ve Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446212509
3. Alvesson, M. ve Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265-1281. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586822
4. Alvesson, M. ve Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing research questions. Doing interesting research, London: Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446270035
5. Alvesson, M. ve Spicér, A. (2016). (Un)Conditional surrender? Why do professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29 (1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2015-0221
6. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L. ve Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research ınteresting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20785494
7. Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W. ve Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866-1891. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
8. Campbell, J. P. ve Wilmot, M. P. (2017). The functioning of theory in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. N. R. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil ve C. Viswesvaran, (Ed.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, 2nd edition (s. 3–38) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608320

9. Cassell, C., Cunliffe, A. L. ve Grandy, G. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: Methods and challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430236
10. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
11. Corley, K. G. ve Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486
12. Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A. ve Seidl, D. (2021). What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020328
13. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th Ed.), (s. 29-71) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Managing in turbulent times. New York: Harper Business.
15. Dul, J. ve Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. London: Elsevier.
16. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
17. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The Case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279496
18. Eisenhardt, K. M. ve Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
19. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. ve Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and ınductive methods: Rigor without Rigor Mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1113-1123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4004
20. Erickson, F. (2017). A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th Ed.), (s. 87-141) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A. ve Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029
22. Gephart, R. P. Jr. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2004.14438580
23. Gioia, D. A. (2018). The long, hard road to legitimacy for qualitative research: A personal–professional journey. R. Mir ve S. Jain (Ed.), The Routledge companion to qualitative research in organization studies (s. 453-464) içinde. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315686103
24. Gioia, D. A. ve Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
25. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. ve Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
26. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analy¬sis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
27. Glaser, B. G. ve Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
28. Grey, C. (2010). Organizing Studies: Publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies, 31 (6), 677-694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372575
29. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346-1352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166119
30. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
31. Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007079965
32. Langley, A. ve Abdallah, C. (2016). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. G. B. Dagnino ve M. C. Cinici (Ed.), Research methods for strategic management (s. 137-166) içinde. NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203676615
33. Langley, A. ve Truax, J. (1994). A process study of new technology adoption in smaller manufacturing firms. Journal of Management Studies, 31(5), 619-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00632.x
34. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. ve Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
35. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R. ve Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 161-187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707
36. Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social sciences. London: Tavistock.
37. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38. MacKay, R. B. ve Chia, R. (2013). Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: A process understanding of the rise and fall of Northco automotive. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 208-230. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0734
39. Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Clarke, A. E., Charmaz, K., Corbin, J. ve Porr, C. J. (2021). The maturation of grounded theory. J. M. Morse, B. J. Bowers, K. Charmaz, A. E. Clarke, J. Corbin, C. J. Porrwith ve P. N. Stern (Editörler), Developing grounded theory: Second generation revisited (2nd Ed) (s. 3-22) içinde. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315169170
41. Myers, M.D. (2009) Qualitative research in business & management. London: Sage Publucations.
42. Nag, R. ve Gioia, D. A. (2012). From common to uncommon knowledge: foundations of fırm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. The Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 421-457. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0352
43. Ozcan, P. ve Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and firm performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 52, 246-279. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.37308021
44. Özen, Ş. (2002). Türkiye’deki örgütler/yönetim araştırmalarında törensel görgülcülük sorunu. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 5-31. http://yad.baskent.edu.tr/files/2002_cilt_2_ekim_4.pdf
45. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evalutaion mehods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
46. Patvardhan, S. D., Gioia, D. A. ve Hamilton, A. L. (2015). Weathering a meta-level identity crisis: Forging a coherent collective identity for an emerging field. The Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 405-435. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2012.1049
47. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48. Powell, E. E. ve Baker, T. (2014). It's what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1406-1433. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0454
49. Ravenswood, K. (2011). Eisenhardt's impact on theory in case study research. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 680-686. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.08.014
50. Sandberg, J. ve Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487-516. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
51. Shapira, Z. (2011). "I've got a theory paper—do you?": Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical contributions to knowledge in the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 22(5), 1312-1321. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0636
52. Strauss, A.L. ve Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
53. Strauss, A. ve Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co.
55. Su, N. (2018). Positivist qualitative methods. C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe ve G. Grandy (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: Methods and challenges (s.17-32) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526430236
56. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
57. Sullivan, W., Ehrlich, T. ve Colby, A. (2016). The Carnegie report: Looking back and thinking forward. C. Steyaert, T. Beyes ve M. Parker (Ed.), The Routledge companion to reinventing management education (s. 23-35) içinde. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852430
58. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. Austin & S. Worchel (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (s. 33–47) içinde. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
59. Tosun, K. (1965). Bir işletme idaresi yüksek okulunun ders programına dair bazı mütalaa ve teklifler. Eskişehir İktisadi ve Ticari İlimler Akademisi Dergisi, 1(2), 38-62.
60. Tunçalp, D. (2021). Nitel araştırmalarda paradigmalar, yöntembilimleri ve araştırma titizliği. Yönetim ve Organizasyon Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 1-47. https://betadergi.com/yoad/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/80-published.pdf
61. Üsdiken, B. (2014). Centres and peripheries: Research styles and publication patterns in‘top’ U.S. journals and their European alternatives, 1960-2010. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 764–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12082
62. Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486-489. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308370
63. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
64. Van Maanen, J. (1979a). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A Preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392358
65. Van Maanen, J. (1979b). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392360
66. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined ımagination. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. https://doi.org/10.2307/258556
67. Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385-390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789
68. Weick, K. E. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797-806. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553254
69. Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18 (4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050841140353
70. Yin, R. K. (1984/1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.