METHODOLOGICAL FIT IN MANAGEMENT FIELD RESEARCH
This article introduces a framework for assessing and promoting methodological fit as an overarching
criterion for ensuring quality field research. We define methodological fit as internal consistency among
elements of a research project. Guidelines for ensuring methodological fit are not readily available.
We define field research in management as systematic studies that rely on the collection of original data
—qualitative or quantitative—in real organizations. The four key elements are: research question, prior
work, research design, and contribution to literature. In well-integrated field research the key elements
are congruent and mutually reinforcing. A key aspect of this is the ability to anticipate and detect
problems that emerge when fit is low.
BACKGROUND
Prior Work on Methodological Fit
McGrath noted that the state of prior knowledge is a key determinant of appropriate research
methodology. Bouchard: “The key to good research lies not in choosing the right method, but rather in
asking the right question and picking the most powerful method for answering that particular question”.
Others have issued cautions against assuming the unilateral rightness of a method— wielding a hammer
and treating everything as nails. Yet all researchers are vulnerable to preferring those hammers that we
have learned to use well. Thus, we benefit from reminders that not all tools are appropriate for all
situations.
Sources for Understanding Fit in Field Research
The opportunistic aspect of field research is not in itself a weakness but may increase the chances of
poor methodological fit when data collected for one reason are used without careful thought for
another. The experience of reviewing also highlights that a lack of methodological fit is easier to discern
in others’ field research than in one’s own. This motivated us to develop a formal framework to help
researchers uncover areas of poor fit in their own field research earlier in the research journey, without
waiting for external review.
A CONTINGENCY FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT FIELD RESEARCH
The State of Prior Theory
Mature theory presents well-developed constructs and models that have been studied over time with
increasing precision by a variety of scholars, resulting in a body of work consisting of points of broad
agreement that represent cumulative knowledge gained.
Intermediate theory presents provisional explanations of phenomena, often introducing a new construct
and proposing relationships between it and established constructs. Although the research questions
may allow the development of testable hypotheses, similar to mature theory research, one or more of
the constructs involved is often still tentative, similar to nascent theory research.
Nascent theory, in contrast to mature, proposes tentative answers to novel questions of how and why,
often merely suggesting new connections among phenomena.
, Developing Sensible Connections to Prior Work
In a given field study, the four elements should be influenced by the stage of development of the
current literature at the time of the research. In general, the less known about a specific topic, the more
open-ended the research questions, requiring methods that allow data collected in the field to strongly
shape the researcher’s developing understanding of the phenomenon. Leveraging prior work allows a
new study to address issues that refine the field’s knowledge.
Mature Theory Research
Mature theory encompasses precise models, supported by extensive research on a set of related
questions in varied settings. Maturity stimulates research that leads to further refinements within a
growing body of interrelated theories. Research questions tend to focus on elaborating, clarifying, or
challenging specific aspects of existing theories. Specific testable hypotheses are developed through
logical argument that builds on prior work. Research questions and designs utilize correlation-based
analyses consistent with causal inferences supported by logic. Precise models, supported by quantitative
data, are characteristic of effective field research in areas of mature theory.
Nascent Theory Research
On the other end of the continuum is nascent theory—topics for which little or no previous theory
exists. These topics have attracted little research or formal theorizing to date, or else they represent
new phenomena in the world. The types of research questions conducive to inductive theory
development include understanding how a process unfolds, developing insight about a novel or unusual
phenomenon, digging into a paradox, and explaining the occurrence of a surprising event. Because little
is known, rich, detailed, and evocative data are needed to shed light on the phenomenon. Interviews,
observations, open ended questions, and longitudinal investigations are methods for learning with an
open mind. Openness to input from the field helps ensure that researchers identify and investigate key
variables over the course of the study. Data collection may involve the full immersion of ethnography or,
more simply, exploratory interviews with organizational informants.
Researchers frequently use a grounded theory approach to connect these data to existing and suggestive
new theory. The data analyses often alternate and iterate with the data collection process. The essential
nature of the contribution of this type of work is providing a suggestive theory of the phenomenon that
forms a basis for further inquiry.
Intermediate Theory Research
Intermediate theory research draws from prior work—often from separate bodies of literature— to
propose new constructs and/or provisional theoretical relationships. The resulting papers may present
promising new measures, along with data consistent with the provisional theory presented. Careful
analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data increases confidence that the researchers’
explanations of the phenomena are more plausible than alternative interpretations. One trigger for
developing intermediate theory is the desire to reinvestigate a theory or construct that sits within a
mature stream of research in order to challenge or modify prior work. Research questions conducive to
developing intermediate theory include initial tests of hypotheses enabled by prior theory and focused
exploration that generates theoretical propositions as output.
This article introduces a framework for assessing and promoting methodological fit as an overarching
criterion for ensuring quality field research. We define methodological fit as internal consistency among
elements of a research project. Guidelines for ensuring methodological fit are not readily available.
We define field research in management as systematic studies that rely on the collection of original data
—qualitative or quantitative—in real organizations. The four key elements are: research question, prior
work, research design, and contribution to literature. In well-integrated field research the key elements
are congruent and mutually reinforcing. A key aspect of this is the ability to anticipate and detect
problems that emerge when fit is low.
BACKGROUND
Prior Work on Methodological Fit
McGrath noted that the state of prior knowledge is a key determinant of appropriate research
methodology. Bouchard: “The key to good research lies not in choosing the right method, but rather in
asking the right question and picking the most powerful method for answering that particular question”.
Others have issued cautions against assuming the unilateral rightness of a method— wielding a hammer
and treating everything as nails. Yet all researchers are vulnerable to preferring those hammers that we
have learned to use well. Thus, we benefit from reminders that not all tools are appropriate for all
situations.
Sources for Understanding Fit in Field Research
The opportunistic aspect of field research is not in itself a weakness but may increase the chances of
poor methodological fit when data collected for one reason are used without careful thought for
another. The experience of reviewing also highlights that a lack of methodological fit is easier to discern
in others’ field research than in one’s own. This motivated us to develop a formal framework to help
researchers uncover areas of poor fit in their own field research earlier in the research journey, without
waiting for external review.
A CONTINGENCY FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGEMENT FIELD RESEARCH
The State of Prior Theory
Mature theory presents well-developed constructs and models that have been studied over time with
increasing precision by a variety of scholars, resulting in a body of work consisting of points of broad
agreement that represent cumulative knowledge gained.
Intermediate theory presents provisional explanations of phenomena, often introducing a new construct
and proposing relationships between it and established constructs. Although the research questions
may allow the development of testable hypotheses, similar to mature theory research, one or more of
the constructs involved is often still tentative, similar to nascent theory research.
Nascent theory, in contrast to mature, proposes tentative answers to novel questions of how and why,
often merely suggesting new connections among phenomena.
, Developing Sensible Connections to Prior Work
In a given field study, the four elements should be influenced by the stage of development of the
current literature at the time of the research. In general, the less known about a specific topic, the more
open-ended the research questions, requiring methods that allow data collected in the field to strongly
shape the researcher’s developing understanding of the phenomenon. Leveraging prior work allows a
new study to address issues that refine the field’s knowledge.
Mature Theory Research
Mature theory encompasses precise models, supported by extensive research on a set of related
questions in varied settings. Maturity stimulates research that leads to further refinements within a
growing body of interrelated theories. Research questions tend to focus on elaborating, clarifying, or
challenging specific aspects of existing theories. Specific testable hypotheses are developed through
logical argument that builds on prior work. Research questions and designs utilize correlation-based
analyses consistent with causal inferences supported by logic. Precise models, supported by quantitative
data, are characteristic of effective field research in areas of mature theory.
Nascent Theory Research
On the other end of the continuum is nascent theory—topics for which little or no previous theory
exists. These topics have attracted little research or formal theorizing to date, or else they represent
new phenomena in the world. The types of research questions conducive to inductive theory
development include understanding how a process unfolds, developing insight about a novel or unusual
phenomenon, digging into a paradox, and explaining the occurrence of a surprising event. Because little
is known, rich, detailed, and evocative data are needed to shed light on the phenomenon. Interviews,
observations, open ended questions, and longitudinal investigations are methods for learning with an
open mind. Openness to input from the field helps ensure that researchers identify and investigate key
variables over the course of the study. Data collection may involve the full immersion of ethnography or,
more simply, exploratory interviews with organizational informants.
Researchers frequently use a grounded theory approach to connect these data to existing and suggestive
new theory. The data analyses often alternate and iterate with the data collection process. The essential
nature of the contribution of this type of work is providing a suggestive theory of the phenomenon that
forms a basis for further inquiry.
Intermediate Theory Research
Intermediate theory research draws from prior work—often from separate bodies of literature— to
propose new constructs and/or provisional theoretical relationships. The resulting papers may present
promising new measures, along with data consistent with the provisional theory presented. Careful
analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data increases confidence that the researchers’
explanations of the phenomena are more plausible than alternative interpretations. One trigger for
developing intermediate theory is the desire to reinvestigate a theory or construct that sits within a
mature stream of research in order to challenge or modify prior work. Research questions conducive to
developing intermediate theory include initial tests of hypotheses enabled by prior theory and focused
exploration that generates theoretical propositions as output.
