Authors' response to the commentaries

Citation

Ashmos Plowman, D. and Smith, A.D. (2011), "Authors' response to the commentaries", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom.2011.29806aaa.005

Authors' response to the commentaries

Authors' response to the commentaries

Article Type: Authors' Response From: Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Volume 6, Issue 1.

Too hot to handle, still

At almost every point in the journey of our paper, �The gendering of research methods: evidence of gender patterns in qualitative research,� its focal topic seemed too hot to handle. Early on as we struggled to explain what we had found � that women are over-represented in qualitative publications and under-represented in quantitative publications � we shared our work with colleagues and asked for their impressions. The first two responses we got from male colleagues were the same: �that's easy to explain � women can't do math.� We were shocked at the deeply ingrained, negative stereotypes of both women and qualitative research that this paper provoked (and continues to provoke). As much as anything, our surprise at this initial, but somewhat persistent, explanation probably spurred us on to publish our findings. Two journals chose not to send the paper out for review because it did not fit the mission of the journal; although we agreed, we also felt frustration at the narrowness of many journals' missions. Another journal rejected the paper after one review warning us not to be �too polemic.� The editor eventually admitted that we could never have pleased the three reviewers because, in our words, the topic was too hot to handle. Thus, we were pleased that our paper found a home at Qualitative Research in Organization and Management, and we found an editor and set of reviewers who encouraged the controversial nature of our paper.

We were delighted when the editor asked us if she could send the paper out for commentaries, and offered us the opportunity to respond. Not only was our too-hot-to-handle paper going to be published but an open dialogue about our findings would ensue! As qualitative researchers and experts on gender and organizations, Karen Locke, Fiona Wilson, and Albert Mills offer three unique views on our paper and its findings.

While reviewing the commentaries, we reflected how our identities and relationship with each other are inextricably tied up in this study. During our time together on the same faculty, we forged a strong bond around issues of qualitative research and gender. We trusted each other and shared stories about our own personal journeys. Both of us graduated from strong public university PhD programs where quantitative approaches and the positivist scientific method dominated the curriculum. We were, in essence, stereotypical US PhDs in management. One of us used qualitative methods in her dissertation and the other came to it later in her career. We have taken different personal journeys but ended up in a similar place � drawn to qualitative research. We wanted to test our suspicion that women might be more drawn to qualitative methods than men and, if so, we wanted to know why. We stepped back from the quantitative patterns to consider why female involvement in qualitative methodologies is over-represented as compared to non-qualitative methodologies. Yet, this is just the beginning of a journey of exploration � as many qualitative endeavors are. As Karen Locke points out, this is the first step in a series of investigations that are needed to tease out what our identified patterns mean. We are excited about the journey ahead. We still have much to learn about research on gender and feminist studies, but we appreciate the guidance of thoughtful commentators. We focus on three important take-aways from the commentaries:

1. 1.

   What do we have a case of?

2. 2.

   Avoiding stereotypes? and

3. 3.

   Who is blind?

What do we have a case of?

Karen Locke correctly asks �what is this a case of?� She provides several ways to tease out and uncover more richness around this �why� question. Given our self-reflection about the commentaries about our paper, we found valence in her comments about how PhD program sentiments toward qualitative and quantitative studies may anchor selection of research approaches. Given that our PhD experiences affected our choices of methodologies, when we had the opportunity to design a strategy PhD program for our department, we purposely required a seminar in strategy process. We also actively promoted courses in qualitative methods to encourage our doctoral students toward qualitative methods. That said, a clear division in faculty attitudes toward and experience with qualitative methods still exists.

After reading Karen's commentary, we considered what else our findings might mean. First, Karen identified that 37 percent of the members of the Academy are female assistant professors. One study found that 26 percent of the faculty at AACSB �accredited schools are female (AACSB, 2007 found in Kelan and Jones, 2010, p. 27). What our patterns may be showing us is an increase in the number of women in business school faculties. This supports what we found as well; the 26 percent statistic fits with what we saw in the percent of female authorship in non-qualitative papers and the growth in the number of female faculty in business schools is in keeping with the 37 percent female authorship on qualitative papers that we observed (see Table 1 in our paper). Right now, the proportion of female management professors in business schools is still �tilted� in that women make up less than 35 percent of faculty, and female professors are still in the �out group� (Sackett and DuBois, 1991). We might expect the percent of female faculty in both types of research to increase over the next decade. Let's hope so!

A second possible explanation of our findings could be the interaction between management doctoral programs more open to qualitative methods and more women in these programs. We identified that more qualitative papers are sole-authored by women, which may be publications of dissertation research. Male faculty publish qualitative research later in their career which might reflect their roles as dissertation advisors or pursuit of different, and perhaps riskier, research questions later in their careers. We use term �riskier� in that it is acknowledged that qualitative is a more difficult road (Gephart, 2004). Thus, the path for women and men in pursuit of qualitative research may be different.

A third explanation may be that authors are able to produce more publications per quantitative data set than per qualitative data gathering effort. We know that our counts of total male authors (and males are over-represented in qualitative studies) include many of the same authors. This leveraging of data could be over-inflating the gender differences.

We cannot tease out which effects or combinations of effects may explain our article's core findings. Karen's suggestion of a different cohort study might help us see the effects of different institutions and lengths of tenure in the field. With some effort, we could identify how multiple studies from the same or sub-parts of a data set exacerbate the trends that we found between women and men; however, we do not think more quantitative work alone will answer the �a case of?� question. Karen Locke has generously laid out several qualitative approaches to help us and other researchers interested in delving into issues of gender and research methodologies. There is more work ahead to understand the patterns we observed.

Avoiding stereotypes

Some of the remarks in these commentaries, frankly speaking, made us blush. Did we really mean to exacerbate stereotypes, as Fiona Wilson suggested? The honest answer is �no� but we see how stereotypes can be inferred from our findings.

Let us be clear � more women in our data published using non-qualitative methods (1,243 women, or 74 percent of all women in our data) than qualitative methods (435 women, or 26 percent of all women in our study), so the subtext that women cannot do math needs to be dispelled! Certainly, psychology researchers of stereotype threat theory have studied female students and math performance (Nguyen and Ryan, 2008). They argue that stereotype stress related to math can lead to more processing inefficiencies and poorer performance than male students' experience. This threat, however, can be overcome with energy, effort, and experience. By the time a female doctoral student completes graduate school, having performed well on graduate admission tests, and many statistics and quantitative courses, surely this issue of math anxiety has been removed.

We should also consider stereotypes of the two main methodological approaches, although we recognize that we are potentially stepping into �hot water.� We believe that we need to stop apologizing for qualitative research and instead highlight the positive stereotypical features of published qualitative research. First, qualitative research generates new theory and as Bartunek et al. (2006) showed, often tops the list of �most interesting� empirical research. We make this point in our paper and note that many of the AMJ award-winning papers are qualitative as well as being mostly written by female authors. Second, qualitative research requires the ability to connect to others in a positive way to earn the trust of organizational members. This fieldwork requires a significant time investment, but a researcher will benefit from close connection with the data, resulting in a rich story. Third, qualitative research requires a lot of time to find the story in the text as well as the theoretical contribution (Langley, 1999), but it has the potential for novel and new insights for fields of study. These are positive methodological stereotypes that might be attracting both men and women equally. We also consider stereotypical features of quantitative research using the scientific method. First, getting to the story or findings is more straightforward than with qualitative research � an alpha value is universally understood and clearly identifies the findings. Second, theory is usually clear at the outset; typically, there is no need to explore a new theory lens to understand findings. Third, presentation of quantitative research has a set format, which is not the case with qualitative research (Pratt, 2009). We appreciate Fiona Wilson calling our attention to stereotypes about gender in research because it spurred us to consider stereotypes when it comes to methodologies. These stereotypes about methodologies might explain why we see the gender differences.

Who is blind?

Albert Mills accuses us of marginalizing the female organization scientist (that would be us), the qualitative researcher (that would be us), and of being gender blind. How subtle that the male commenter charges the female researchers with being blind to their own gender! Using critical discourse analysis, Mills pretends to prove through his review of the �text,� the �subject positions,� the �emplotment,� and the �tropes,� that there is no research problem; that in fact, we are the problem.

It is unfortunate that Mills attacks the authors for their (using his own words) �inability to recognize that cultural processes serve to construct notions of male/female, masculine/feminine, and as an inability to recognize the far-reaching implications of these processes.� Our analysis of author trends in 20 years of management publications resulted in observable patterns in choice of research methods by males and females. Pointing out these patterns and initiating a conversation about why these patterns may have occurred provoked the charge from Mills that the authors do not understand that affect of culture on notions of what it means to be male/female or masculine/feminine? Really? As we reflected on Mills' comments we were reminded of one of the stories Weick (1999, p. 803) told in his comment on theory construction as disciplined reflexivity. �Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is said to have once left a dinner party raving about [Oscar Wilde's] gift as a conversationalist. �But you did all the talking,' his companion pointed out. �Exactly!' Conan Doyle said.� Mills did all the talking, and it was not about our paper. Rather than contribute to the discussion about gender and research methods, he put himself at the center of the story and attempts to cleverly deconstruct our paper pointing out that in the end, we are the ones who marginalize both women and qualitative researchers. While we agree that critical discourse analysis has value, Mills' use of it illuminated nothing that contributes to the conversation about gender and research methods. For that reason we were disappointed in his comments. He chose monologue over conversation and when that happens little learning takes place.

We are grateful to Qualitative Research in Organization and Management for publishing our controversial paper and to Karen Locke, Fiona Wilson, and Albert Mills for taking the time to comment on our work. We appreciate the opportunity we were given to respond to the commentaries. This kind of back-and-forth among scholars does not take place in our journals nearly enough and we hope the exchange has stirred new interested in the questions we raised. Our paper continues to provoke strong reactions, although we are still surprised, at times, just how �hot� the reactions about gender and methodology are. The heat suggests there is more to know and we hope both male and female qualitative researchers will become involved in this conversation.

Donde Ashmos PlowmanUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, and

Anne D. SmithUniversity of Tennessee, Tennessee, Knoxville USA