The purpose of this paper is to address concerns regarding the absence or lax of rigor in qualitative naturalistic decision making (NDM) studies. The paper argues that concerns regarding the rigor of NDM's qualitative studies are largely irrelevant, as they are typically conceptualized consistent with the quantitative/experimental paradigm. To redress this category mistake (discussing entity A in terms appropriate to a qualitatively different entity B; Ryle, 1949), the paper (a) conceptualizes rigor inclusively as “the disciplined application of reason to subjects related to knowledge and/or communication” (Allende, 2004); (b) differentiates this broad conceptualization into a substantive facet that is common to all paradigms (i.e., the judicious selection and application of methods in order to maximize the probability of producing trustworthy answers to the study's questions under the constraints imposed by its context) and a technical facet (the strict application of correct or prescribed methods) that admits paradigm-specific distinctions; and (c) based on this conceptualization, presents a set of appropriate guidelines for optimizing and evaluating the rigor of theoretical and empirical studies that is appropriate for inquiry-guided NDM qualitative studies.
References
1.
AhaD. W.(1992).Generalizing from case studies: A case studyMachine Learning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (pp. 1–10). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
BoudreauG.(2001).The mental representations underlying naval operations (TR 2001–068). Toronto, CanadaDefence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine
7.
8.
CampbellD. T.(1975).“Degrees of freedom” and the case studyComparative Political Studies, 8, 178–193
9.
ChiM. T. H.FeltovichP. J.GlaserR.(1981).Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novicesCognitive Science, 5, 121–152
10.
ChiovittiR. F.PiranN.(2003).Rigor and grounded theory researchJournal of Advanced Nursing, 44, 427–435
11.
12.
ConnellL.KeaneM. T.(2006).A model of plausibilityCognitive Science, 30, 95–120
13.
CorbinJ.StraussA. C.(2007).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CASage
14.
15.
16.
FinchamR.ClarkT.(2009).Introduction: Can we bridge the rigor-relevance gap?Journal of Management Studies, 46, 510–515
17.
FirestoneW. A.(1993).Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative researchEducational Researcher, 22, 16–23
18.
FisherR. P.BrennanK. H.McCauleyM. R.(2002).The cognitive interview method to enhance eyewitness recall In EisenM.GoodmanG.QuasJ. (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
19.
FlyvbjergB.(2006).Five misunderstandings about case-study researchQualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245
20.
FuchsS.(1997).A sociological theory of objectivityScience Studies, 11, 4–26
21.
22.
GilliesD.(1998).The Duhem thesis and the Quine thesis In CurdM.CoverJ. A. (Eds.), Philosophy of science: The central issues (pp. 302–319). New York: W. W. Norton
23.
GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
24.
HodgkinsonG. P.RousseauD. M.(2009).Bridging the rigor-relevance gap in management research: It's already happening!Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534–546
25.
HubermanM.MilesM. B. (Eds.). (2002).The qualitative researcher's companion.Thousand Oaks, CASage
26.
KahnemanD.SlovicP. A.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982).Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.New YorkCambridge University Press
27.
28.
KennedyM. M.(1979).Generalizing from single case studiesEvaluation Review, 3, 661–678
29.
KieslerA.LeinerL.(2009).Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeableJournal of Management Studies, 20, 516–533
30.
KlaymanJ.(2003, May).An NDM wish list: “Friendly opposition.” Paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, Pensacola, Florida
31.
32.
33.
LipshitzR.Bar IlanO.(1996).How problems are solved: Reconsidering the phase theoremOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 48–60
34.
LipshitzR.Ben ShaulO.(1997).Schemata and mental models in recognition-primed decision making In ZsambokC.KleinG. A. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 293–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
35.
LipshitzR.Leshem-LevyD.OrchenK.(2006).How to solve real-world problems: A lay model of effective real-world problem solvingThinking and Reasoning, 12, 413–430
36.
LipshitzR.StraussO.(1997).Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision making analysisOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 149–163
37.
LockeE. A.(2009).It's time we brought introspection out of the closetPerspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 24–25
38.
MagnaniL.(2005).An abductive theory of scientific reasoningSemiotica, 153, 1–4
39.
MaxwellJ. A.(1992).Understanding and validity in qualitative researchHarvard Educational Review, 62, 279–300
40.
McCloskeyD. N.(1994).How economists persuadeJournal of Economic Methodology, 1, 15–32
41.
MishlerE. G.(1990).Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studiesHarvard Educational Review, 60, 415–441
42.
MorseJ.BarretM.MayanM.OlsonK.SpiersJ.(2002).Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative researchInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 1–19
PonterottoJ.(2006).Brief note on the origins, evolution and meaning of the qualitative research concept thick descriptionQualitative Report, 11, 538–549
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
SandelowskiM.(1993).Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem of rigor in qualitative research revisitedAdvances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1–8
55.
56.
SieckW. R.KleinG.PelusoD. A.SmithJ. L.Harris-ThompsonD.(2004).FOCUS: A model of sensemaking (Final Tech. Report, Contract 1435–01–01-CT-31161, U.S. Army Research Institute). Fairborn, OHKlein Associates
57.
58.
59.
StarkeyK.HatchuelA.TempestS.(2009).Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagementJournal of Management Studies, 46, 547–558
