Developing corporate governance research through qualitative methods: a review of

previous studies

Manuscript Type: 'Review’

Research Question/Issue: The article is concerned with the prevalence, character and

development of qualitative research within the field of corporate governance. The paper

provides an overview of published qualitative research in the field of corporate governance

based on a structured literature search of papers published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

between 1986 and 2011.

Research Findings/Insights: A fine-grained search based on key words resulted in a sample

of 78 qualitative corporate governance studies. A review and content analysis of these studies

show that qualitative studies in governance have grown in number since the ‘90s but remain a

small fraction of the published work on corporate governance. Studies are mostly developed

by UK and European scholars, published in European journals and tend to explore boards of

directors more than other governance related actors and mechanisms. These studies utilize a

range of disciplines, predominantly management, adopting a wide range of methods, the most

prevalent being that of the interview, often in combination with other methods to get a better

account of the empirical phenomenon.

Theoretical/Academic Implications: The search reveals an eclectic range of theories,

spanning several disciplines, which is serving to generate, elaborate and refine theorizing

about corporate governance and the associated meanings, mechanisms, processes and

relationships. There is much scope and need for more qualitative studies of significant rigor

and relevance which explore the array of interactions and processes involved in corporate

governance, across different levels of analysis and contexts.

1
Practitioner/Policy Implications: After over two decades of research and reform of

corporate governance, problems of practice remain and corporate governance prescription via

codes and other forms of regulation is increasing in search of better governance. Qualitative

research can assist policy-makers and practitioners to develop more efficient governance

mechanisms, by shedding light on the efficacy of policy prescription. Qualitative research

provides a basis for rethinking and challenging some of the dominant assumptions and

meanings about how governance actors and institutions actually function.

Keywords: Corporate Governance, Qualitative research, Theory, Method.

2
Developing corporate governance research through qualitative research: a review of

previous studies

INTRODUCTION

This article reviews qualitative research in corporate governance in order to both characterize

the body of work on corporate governance using qualitative methods in terms of research

topics, questions, settings and methods and suggest some ways forward for advancing

understanding of corporate governance through qualitative research. This paper is positioned

as a contribution to sit alongside other recent reviews of the state of knowledge in corporate

governance such as: Durisin and Puzone’s (2009) meta analysis of corporate governance

research between 1993-2007; Pugliese, Bezemer, Zattoni, Huse et al.’s (2009) review of the

literature about board of directors contribution to strategy; Ahrens, Filatotchev and Thomsen

(2009) discussion of research frontiers in corporate governance; Deutsch’s (2005) review of

the impact of board composition on firms’ critical decisions; Boyd, Haynes and Zona (2011)

review of CEO-Board relations; and Ryan, Bechholtz, Kolb (2010) review of research at the

intersection of business ethics and corporate governance.

This paper is unique since none of these reviews privilege attention to qualitative research

per se, though they do suggest a need for the sort of knowledge that is developed through

qualitative research inquiry. Ahrens et al. (2009) call for field studies of corporate

governance practice that address interactions and key relationships between various corporate

governance practitioners. Opening a recent special issue of Organization Science, Hambrick,

v. Werder and Zajac (2008: 381) also suggest a field in “...flux; as corporations and societal

norms evolve”. Some of the research questions flagged for attention include attending to

formal and informal structures and processes, including power, which affect boardrooms and

the roles of key institutional actors who influence governance practices at societal level.

3
Shareholder heterogeneity and stakeholder diversity are also viewed as requiring of greater

attention in future governance research. Aspirations for greater attention to context, process,

structure (formal and informal), director motives and identities, behavioral dynamics and

(power) relations suggest a field of corporate governance in need of research that pursues

theoretical and empirical development through direct engagement with the actors and settings

involved in governance phenomena (e.g. Huse, Hoskisson, Zattoni and Viganò, 2011;

Pugliese et al., 2009).

Direct, first-hand engagement is one of the distinguishing features of qualitative research

(Birkinshaw, Brannan and Tung, 2011) and so against this backdrop we have sought to

complement existing knowledge of the field through a focused review of published

qualitative studies on corporate governance that appeared in scholarly journals between 1986

to 2011. We searched through databases using several keywords and eventually identified 78

qualitative articles on governance topics. Then we analyzed all articles using a set of criteria

aimed at exploring their characteristics in terms of date and outlet of publication, nationality

and number of authors, theoretical frameworks and empirical settings. The results show that

qualitative studies on governance (i) have grown in number since the ‘90s but remain a small

fraction of the published work on corporate governance; (ii) are mostly developed by UK

scholars and published in European journals; (iii) draw on a range of disciplines,

predominantly management; (iv) adopt a wide range of methods, the most prevalent being

that of the interview, often in combination with other methods to get a better account of the

empirical phenomenon.

Our results have implications for both research and practice. Recent special issues on

corporate governance raised a call to go beyond simple input and output models based on

simplistic agency assumptions (e.g. Daily, Dalton and Cannella, 2003; Hambrick et al., 2008;

Huse et al., 2011). Ahrens et al. (2009) suggest that the financial crisis has exposed the lack

4
of value and insight of much published work in corporate governance. Certainly, it has

confirmed corporate governance to be a topic of major social, economic and political

significance on a global scale. In its connection to law, regulation and policy reform it ranges

across macro national and pan-national institutions. Yet at the same time, it also touches on

the micro processes by which we understand actors and groups at firm and sub-firm level. As

an evolving, complex, global, multi-level phenomena it is ripe for and is requiring of inquiry

that can explore, describe and compare governance phenomena with due sensitivity to the

diversity and to the context in which they are embedded. In line with these calls and using

this survey as a platform, theoretically, we aspire to greater use of qualitative methods that

explore processes and interactions in a real empirical context, and follow a more eclectic

range of theoretical frameworks. Practically, the financial crisis is a salutary pointer about the

need to move forward with respect to the questions asked, phenomenon studied, theories

employed and prescriptions provided by corporate research.

Following this introduction the next section further discusses the character of qualitative

research and proceeds to map existing qualitative research in corporate governance using a

wide range of criteria. Through these criteria we offer, to our knowledge, the first descriptive

and analytical overview of qualitative research in corporate governance. Thereafter, the paper

moves to a discussion of evaluating quality in qualitative research drawing on the twin tenets

of theoretical contribution and methodological rigor. The sample of studies identified by this

review is considered in these terms leading to some suggestions for corporate governance

research to develop further using qualitative inquiry.

CHARACTERIZING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE

5
Selection of journals and papers

We approached the review by considering qualitative research inquiry to be a diverse activity

that embraces a variety of assumptions and practices but is in essence a ‘situated activity’ that

occurs in the locale(s) of phenomena and attends to the interpretations of actors,

relationships, events in their natural settings (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Defining

characteristics of qualitative research include: (i) data collection in the natural ‘field’ setting;

(ii) researcher as key to data collection; (iii) multiple sources of data; (iv) inductive data

analysis, a focus on meanings of participants; (v) emergent research design; (vi) interpretive

inquiry; and (vii) holistic account and use of a theoretical lens (Cresswell, 2007).

To identify previous qualitative studies focused on corporate governance, we explored

peer-reviewed studies published in a range of general management and themed journals,

regardless of their impact factor (Seglen, 1994). We were particularly guided in our search by

two recent reviews both published in CGIR: (i) Durisin and Puzone’s (2009) meta-analysis of

corporate governance research between 1993-2007, and (ii) Pugliese et al.’s (2009) review of

the literature about board of directors contribution to strategy, as well as (iii) the recent

review of qualitative research in management (Bluhm et al., 2011). We selected all journals

included in these previous reviews plus added others which we knew had published

qualitative research in corporate governance. Our search produced over 1200 articles

containing the phrase ’Corporate Governance’ (see Table 1 for a journals’ distribution). In the

next phase, we used the databases ABI/Inform, Business Source Premier, Ebsco-Host, JSTOR

and Swetsnet to search for all paper publications containing a combination of the terms

‘qualitative method’ or each individual qualitative method (i.e. “case study”, “ethnography”,

“grounded theory”, etc.) together with ‘corporate governance’ or ‘board’ in the title, abstract

and/or key words. This approach enabled us to identify ninety-two articles directly referring

to qualitative studies on corporate governance issues. Each article was analyzed

6
independently by two persons for evidence of first-hand qualitative data collection by the

authors as well as engagement with prior academic debate and research. Using these two

primary determinants, our final sample consisted of 78 articles published in 11 journals from

1986 (first included paper) through 2011. The reduction in the number of articles occurred as

some articles were found to be absent of any meaningful attention to theoretical debate or

research design and method.

------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------------

Content analysis

Guided by the reviews mentioned above especially Bluhm et al (2001) we identified a range

of categories which would serve to help us develop a meta-descriptive overview of a

qualitative segment of literature within a large and diverse field of study. Accordingly, we

analyzed some key characteristics of each paper: (i) date of publication, (ii) country of the

qualitative scholars attributed work institution, (iii) number of scholars, (iv) journal’s title, (v)

main topic, (vi) discipline and theoretical perspective (vii) number of disciplinary

frameworks, (viii) theoretical aim, (ix) research setting, (x) number of research settings, (xi)

sources of data, (xii) number of sources of data, (xiii) level of analysis.

In the first phase, all three of us coded independently a sample of the final selection of

articles in order to pre-test our criteria and to come to an agreement about the final set of

items to be used in the classification for each category. A review was then conducted on the

whole set of articles by two independent raters. At the end of the coding procedure, the two

sets of data were matched. There appeared to be a very high level of agreement in the

responses. There was a high overlap in the responses as only few items (i.e. 30 out of 1014)

7
were coded differently by the raters. In subsequent meetings we reconciled the different

views and we solved the few inconsistencies. See Table 2 for a description of all criteria.

------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------------

Date. For each article we collected the date of publication. We classified each article

according to the decade in which it was published: we coded this variable as 1 if the study

was published before 1990, 2 if it was published between 1990-99, 3 if published between

2000-09, and 4 if published in 2010 or after.

Country of qualitative scholars. In order to understand who is undertaking qualitative

research in corporate governance we coded the nationality of authors’ institutions as this can

underline country tradition or preference in developing qualitative studies. We coded this

variable as 1 if the first author’s institution is in the UK, 2 if it is in the USA, 3 if it is in

Europe (non UK), 4 if it is in China, 5 if it is in Australia and New Zealand, 6 if it is in

Canada, 7 in if it is located in the Middle East.

Number of scholars. We also coded the number of scholars involved in the preparation of

the article as to see if the study was the result of an individual or a collaborative effort. We

coded this variable as 1 for articles with a single author, 2 for articles with two authors, and 3

for articles with three or more authors.

Journal’s title. Bluhm et al. (2011) review of qualitative research in management

recognized that European journals have been more embracing of qualitative research per se.

We wanted to explore if this pattern also characterizes corporate governance research. To this

purpose, we coded all articles according to the journal’s title.

Main topic explored in the study. Corporate governance is a very broad area of research

with many national variations and intellectual perspectives. It is relevant to all kinds of

8
organizations, but it is most considered in relation to the ownership, control and

accountability of listed corporations. At its core are relations between managers, boards and

shareholders, and how these relations are framed by and impact events and developments in

the wider institutional and market contexts of organizations. Methods of research, whether

they be qualitative or quantitative, need to be made in the light of one’s research purpose

(Bluhm et al., 2011). Hence it is important to look at studies and identify the purposes to

which qualitative research is being applied, that is: what governance phenomena and why?

For this purpose we coded as 1 articles focused on boards, directors or board committees, 2

articles focused on issues related to management, 3 articles focused on issues related to

investors or shareholders, 4 articles on a set of corporate governance mechanisms.

Nature of disciplines and theories. Corporate governance is a topic that attracts interest

from a range of disciplines, ranging from economics and law, to sociology, social psychology

and management. It is important therefore to consider what disciplines provided the

framework for each study. For this purpose we coded as 1 articles developed in the law or

economic tradition, 2 articles with a sociological tradition, 3 articles with a social

psychological tradition, 4 articles with a management tradition. Our judgment of discipline

was made on the basis of theories utilized in studies. It was not always apparent from the

studies, either because they took a more grounded approach or because some studies left the

theoretical content more implicit than explicit. However, for many articles we were able to

discern the main theoretical perspectives used and overall we identified an eclectic range of

theories within the overall body of research. To try and get a feel for the disciplinary interests

and theoretical content of qualitative research in corporate governance we sought to link

theory to disciplines. For example, articles that used Agency Theory and Transaction Cost

theory were associated with the disciplines of economics and law. Stakeholder theory,

Stewardship theory were associated with a management tradition, as were theories of

9
leadership, decision, and roles. Institutional theory, social theory, power were associated with

a sociological tradition, while sense-making was related to social psychology.

Number of disciplinary frameworks. We also wanted to explore if qualitative articles draw

on one or more disciplines. To this purpose, we coded as 1 articles with one disciplinary

framework, 2 articles with two frameworks, and 3 articles with three or more frameworks.

Theoretical aim. What theoretical aims and ambitions are pursued through qualitative

research in corporate governance? Shah and Corley (2006) suggest that while “...theory

testing is the cornerstone of the scientific method” (p. 1822) within the larger process of

scientific inquiry, theory development and refinement are of equal importance to theory

testing. Theory testing “utilizes formal hypotheses form extant theory to inform study

design”, but theory development, is “...grounded in the experiences of those living with and

creating the phenomenon” (Bluhm et al., 2011). Theory generation in qualitative research

refers to “qualitative creation of new theory, which results in testable research propositions”

while theory elaboration “occurs when the study design derives from a pre-existing model or

conceptual ideas in which formal hypotheses are not included” (Bluhm et al., 2011). What

theoretical aims and ambitions can we identify in published qualitative research in corporate

governance? To explore this purpose, we coded as 1 articles with an exploratory nature, 2

articles with a development nature, and 3 articles inclined to theory testing.

Research setting. One of the characterizing features of qualitative research is that it takes

place in natural settings (Bluhm et al., 2011). The purpose of the chosen context and unit of

analysis is part of ‘the basics’ of qualitative reporting. To measure this dimension, we

collected information on the national empirical setting of the study. To this purpose, we

coded as 1 studies whose empirical setting was the UK, 2 studies located in the USA, 3

studies in European countries (non UK), 4 in China, 5 in Australia and New Zealand, 6

Middle East, 7 Asia, 8 Africa, 9 multi countries.

10
 Number of research settings. Corporate governance research analyzes traditionally

empirical phenomena in one country, as national (formal and informal) institutions can

profoundly affect governance practices at firm level. For this reason, we measured the

number of national research settings explored by the qualitative articles. To this purpose, we

coded as 1 articles with one single national setting, 2 articles with two national settings, and 3

with three or more national settings.

Research Methods. How are corporate governance researchers conducting qualitative

research? Methodology has been defined as being about how we “...systematically access

what can be known about (reality)” (Shah and Corley, 2006). It is possible to appreciate the

labels qualitative inquiry and qualitative methods as an overarching expression that refers to

an array of interpretative techniques for understanding more or less naturally occurring

phenomena in the social world (Shah and Corley, 2006; Van Maanen, 1979). In qualitative

inquiry we are very familiar with methods of interviews, observation, archival analysis but

other methods can include shadowing actors, use of diaries, etc. To measure this dimension,

we coded the use of several techniques to collect data such as interviews, observation,

archival, participant observation, survey.

Number of Methods. Triangulation of data (Jick, 1979) is often considered part of the rigor

of qualitative research, hence we measured the number of methods used to collect data. To

this purpose, we coded as 1 single method studies, 2 studies with two methods, and 3 studies

with three or more methods.

Level of analysis. Corporate governance is a complex, multi-level phenomenon and

research can be developed along different levels of analyses. To measure this dimension, we

coded as 1 articles with individuals as level of analysis, 2 articles with groups as level of

analysis, 3 articles with firms as level of analysis, 4 articles with national level, 5 articles with

relational level, 6 articles with multiple levels of analysis.

11
 Citation. In order to measure the contribution of qualitative research to the field of

corporate governance, we included a citation analysis. In particular, using Google Scholar,

we collected the number of citations of all articles (at the 3rd of August 2012) to measure how

qualitative research may be adding to the body of knowledge in corporate governance. There

are several ways to assess the impact of the scholarly research. The two widely used datasets,

Thomson ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar, have their own strengths and limitations.

For example, Google Scholar has been criticized for including some non-scholarly citations

or for not indexing all scholarly journals, while the major disadvantage of the Web of Science

is that it may provide a substantial underestimation of an individual academic’s actual

citation impact. That being said, in this study we decided to use Google Scholar as it is freely

available to anyone with an internet connection and is generally praised for its speed.

RESULTS

The topic of corporate governance can be traced back several decades (Berle and Means,

1932) but as a subject of academic research it has grown enormously over the last two

decades to the point that scholars have recently taken stock of the state of the field (e.g.

Ahrens et al., 2009; Boyd et al., 2011; Daily et al., 2003; Durisin and Puzone, 2009;

Hambrick et al., 2008; Huse et al., 2011; Pugliese et al., 2009). Ahrens et al.’s (2009) search

of refereed journal articles identified in excess of nearly 8,000 articles, with the greatest

proportion being generated since 2004. Focusing on qualitative research our search led us to

identify 78 qualitative articles on corporate governance issues, a small proportion of the total

work published, i.e. less than 1 percent. This result is in line with Zattoni and Van Ees (2012)

review of papers published on CGIR between 2008-10. Our data show only one qualitative

article published before the ‘90s, 13 in the ‘90s and 58 between 2000-09. This upward trend

to more qualitative research is ongoing as we found 7 papers published between 2010 and

12
2011. Another interesting, even if not surprising characteristic is that several articles are

drawn from the same study or a series of related ongoing studies by the same author(s), for

example Pettigrew and McNulty’s study of boards (1995, 1996 and 1999), Pye’s longitudinal

study on governance of British companies (2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004), Samra-

Fredericks’s ethnographic studies on boards dynamics (2000a and 2000b), and Parker studies

on boards of nonprofit associations (2007a, 2007b, 2008).

Country of authors’ institutions. In line with previous studies (Bluhm et al., 2011), we

found that most of the qualitative studies published on corporate governance come from

scholars based in European institutions. The largest majority of these studies (44) come from

scholars located in UK institutions, and another 14 articles come from scholars located in

non-UK European institutions. The second geographic area for number of articles is Oceania

(i.e. Australia and New Zealand) with 8 articles published. North America, USA and Canada,

are far behind Europe with respectively 7 and 3 qualitative papers published. In sum our data

show that qualitative research is diffused across a number of countries (14), but also that the

qualitative method in governance studies is most prevalent in the UK and in other European

countries.

Number of scholars. Our data show that many articles (32) have one single author.

However, the majority of the articles have more than one author. In particular, 26 articles

have two authors and 20 three or more authors. These results confirm a growth and

movement from solo research teams to more collaborative research projects.

Journal of publication. The journal with the highest number of articles is CGIR, with more

than the half of qualitative articles published. Other journals with a significant number of

qualitative articles on governance are Journal of Management Studies (JMS) with 8, British

Journal of Management (BJM) 7, Long Range Planning (LRP) with 6, Journal of

Management & Governance (JM&G) with 4 and Organization Studies (OS) with 3. These

13
results show that more qualitative work about corporate governance is published in

traditionally European based journals. This result mirrors findings of other surveys of

qualitative research in management with a more general focus (Bluhm et al., 2011).

Main research topic. Our results show that the dominant focus of qualitative studies is the

board of directors (49 articles), including topics related to non-executive directors and board

committees. Beyond boards, qualitative studies are focused on the effectiveness and

interactions of governance mechanisms (12), on investors and shareholders involvement and

consequences (9), and finally on management issues, including their compensation and

objectives (8). These results confirm that at the core of corporate governance research is

attention to boards, while qualitative studies devote a limited attention to exploring investors

and shareholders.

Disciplinary and theoretical framework. A recent review of articles published in CGIR

Zattoni and Van Ees, 2012) showed that despite recent criticism for their simplifying

assumptions (Lubatkin, 2007), theories based in law and economics, and particularly agency

theory, tend to dominate governance studies (e.g. Daily et al., 2003) and only a relatively low

number of articles departs from this tradition. Our results show a different picture as the

majority of the qualitative studies come from a management tradition (31). The law and

economics tradition and the sociology tradition have 19 papers each, and the psychological

tradition is rarely adopted (4). Interestingly a large number of papers explore the functioning

and sometimes also the interactions of governance mechanisms without taking a clear choice

about the disciplinary base or theoretical perspectives. In other words, their contribution is

mostly empirical and based on the richness of the data collected.

Number of Disciplines. The large majority of the studies (57) use theories related to the

same disciplinary tradition, while a relatively low number of studies use two disciplinary

traditions (15), and very few are based on three or more traditions (6). This result suggests

14
that qualitative researchers find it difficult to build a theoretical framework based on different

disciplinary traditions as each of them has its own assumptions and they can clash with each

other. At the same time, it encourages governance scholars to take this challenge and to

develop richer and more intriguing theoretical frameworks to interpret governance

phenomena. The combination of two or more disciplinary frameworks can open promising

avenues for future governance research (e.g. Daily et al, 2003; Huse et al., 2011)

Theoretical Aim. It was not always easy to identify the theoretical aim as it was frequently

implicit more than explicit, and in some cases we could not quite decipher what it was (see

also Bluhm et al., 2011). Our results show that the majority of the qualitative articles are

exploratory (40). Fewer are aimed at developing or elaborating theories (34), and only a small

fraction are aimed at testing theory (5). This data supports the view that qualitative research is

more inclined to the particular aspects or stages of theoretical formation and development, as

it is more effective than quantitative methods to explore new phenomena or to develop new

insights on well-known phenomena. Qualitative studies can also be used to test theories, but

as also our data shows this use is much less common.

Research Setting. The most investigated research setting is the UK (37) followed by other

non-UK European countries (11) and Australia and New Zealand (8). Corporate governance

mechanisms of all other countries are not explored very much, and in fact we found 5 studies

in North America, (4 in the US and 1 in Canada), 3 in China and Asia, 2 in Middle East and 1

in Africa. Our results show that there is a spread of national settings, albeit qualitative studies

have been mostly applied in the UK. This result is not surprising as it correlates with the

nationality of authors’ institutions and of the journals where articles are published. It

emphasizes the long research tradition in qualitative studies that characterizes the UK – and

to a less extent European, Australian and New Zealand – scholars, and underline that US

scholars use much less these methods of research.

15
 Number of research settings. Our results show that most of the studies are focused on a

single context, but there are also few studies exploring corporate governance in a multi

country context (8). In particular, 3 are comparative studies exploring corporate governance

in two countries, and 5 analyze corporate governance issues in three or more countries. If we

compare our results with the results of a recent review of articles published on CGIR between

2008-10 (Zattoni and Van Ees, 2012), we found that qualitative studies tend to focus on a

single country more than quantitative articles do. This result may be explained considering

both the difficulties to access data in a qualitative study, and the strong impact of legal and

cultural institutions on governance phenomena and mechanisms (e.g. Aguilera and Jackson,

2003; Zattoni and Cuomo, 2010). At the same time, an increase in the number of studies

doing comparative analyses of governance practices or exploring governance practices at

multinational level would significantly contribute to the development of a global theory of

corporate governance.

Research Methods. Methods are said to be the strength of qualitative research, and

qualitative scholars can consider a wide range of alternative methods to collect data.

Moreover, the transparent reporting of the process of qualitative inquiry is recognized as

critical to generating the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis. The results suggest

that the dominant qualitative method to explore governance issues is by large the interview

(62), followed by archival data (22), observation (12), survey (12), and finally participant

observation (6).

Number of Methods. It is often suggested that qualitative studies should use more than one

method of data collection, as the triangulation of different sources can lead to a better

understanding of the issue under examination. Our results show that the majority of studies

rely on one method of data collection (49), but a number of studies have used two or more

methods of data collection (29). In these multi-method studies interviews are in most of the

16
cases the main method of data collection (25) augmented by other methods to enrich the

understanding of the phenomenon. We found 19 studies with two methods, 8 with three

methods, 1 with five different methods.

Level of Analysis. About the level of analysis, our study shows that the group level is the

most diffused (36), followed by the individual level (16) and the firm level (15). Our results

show that it is less common to find studies with a national (3) or a relational (2) level of

analysis. They indicate that multilevel studies are also not common as we found only few of

them (5). Our results show that qualitative methods allows scholars to explore group or team

level issues focused on boards of directors, but they are less adopted to explore national level

governance practices. Based on these results, we encourage governance scholars to follow

more often multi levels of analysis to get a richer understanding of governance practices.

Citations. We calculate the citations in order to provide the reader with some data about

the most relevant and impactful qualitative articles. The purpose is purely descriptive and

informative. The 78 qualitative studies received on average 41 total citations or 4.2 citations

per year. These figures underline how corporate governance research is dominated by articles

founded on economic and legal disciplines, and tend to progress through testing of

hypotheses through quantitative methods. This result parallels the low number of qualitative

studies on governance issues, i.e. less than 1 percent of all governance articles published.

Despite this general trend, there are some qualitative articles that received large attention by

other governance scholars both in term of overall and year citations. For example, Demb and

Neubauer (1992) pioneering work reopening the discussion on boards and governance

received 377 citations (almost 18 per year), McNulty and Pettigrew’s (1999) study of the

board involvement in strategy received 299 citations (21 per year), and Roberts, McNulty and

Stiles paper on how to make boards more accountable received 252 citations (31 per year).

17
DEVELOPING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

The research conducted for this paper suggests that qualitative research is only a very small

proportion of the entire corpus of published articles about corporate governance. In terms of

volume, qualitative research in corporate governance is dominated by quantitative research.

Also qualitative research is most attentive to the study of boards of directors and much less of

other actors, mechanisms and aspects of corporate governance. Qualitative research is also

largely absent in the US and in emerging markets.

Quite why these findings emerge is a matter for attention. One possible explanation is that

the wide-spread availability of data-sets about public corporations, their boards and even

executive compensation arrangements is inclined to further facilitate research on these

particular governance phenomena, especially quantitative analysis that can be conducted at

some distance from the phenomena. Furthermore, the regulatory and media push for more

reporting and greater transparency of governance arrangements and board affairs would

suggest that there is a growing scope for more analysis that relies on publicly available data.

However, without seeking to denigrate quantitative analysis, this prospect makes

development of first-hand accounts that go beyond what is reported in the public domain and

what is visible to the public gaze even more important in order to ensure that the field of

governance research is not too far removed from phenomena of interest and does not suffer

from the dangers of studying the appearance of governance, but not its substance.

Undertaking research that requires first-hand contact with governance actors presents a

different set of challenges of access (LeBlanc and Schwartz, 2007) versus quantitative

research, but on a positive note the studies identified in this search suggest that access to

governance actors and settings is a challenging, but not impossible condition for undertaking

high quality research about corporate governance.

18
 Also our search reflects only published work and it is difficult to capture the gap between

the qualitative research that is actually undertaken and the work that reaches publication.

Stigmatization and the wrongful evaluation of qualitative inquiry, according to ‘positivistic’

criteria, are long-standing concerns for advocates and practitioners of qualitative research as

they pursue the practice, legitimacy and publication of qualitative inquiry (Bluhm, Harman,

Lee and Mitchell, 2011; Symon and Cassell 2012). Some qualitative researchers and editors

have responded to perceived barriers facing qualitative research by identifying standards and

criteria for qualitative research that are distinct from those applied to quantitative research.

Some are explicit in calls for all parties, not just qualitative researchers, but also reviewers,

editors and commissioners of research to be more aware and explicit in terms of their

understanding and expectations of qualitative research (Symon and Cassell 2012).

Usefully, Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified the following alternative criteria by which to

evaluate qualitative research as compared to quantitative research: credibility, transferability,

dependability and confirmability, as opposed to alternatives to the positivist notions of

internal validity, generalizability, reliability, and objectivity. Tracy (2010) has most recently

put forward eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for excellent qualitative research, viewing high quality

qualitative research to be marked by the following characteristics: a worthy topic, rich rigor,

sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant contribution, ethics, and meaningful coherence.

Other more ‘contingent’ criteria have been proposed by, for example, Cresswell, (2007) who

identifies key characteristics and procedures for data collection, analysis and reporting for

five analytical approaches for conducting qualitative inquiry: narrative, phenomenology,

grounded theory, ethnography, and case study (Creswell, 2007).

Editors of leading management journals have elaborated on theoretical and

methodological practices which contribute to good quality qualitative research (Corley and

Gioia, 2011; Kilduff, 2006; Okhuysen and Bonardi, 2011; Suddaby, 2010). Overarching a

19
range of criteria mentioned above, the twin tenets of theoretical contribution and

methodological rigor seem to be uppermost in the minds of editors. Whilst a full evaluation

of all the published studies identified in our search is beyond the scope of the paper, the

remainder of this discussion addresses these issues of theoretical contribution and

methodological rigor before concluding with some pointers for qualitative research direction

and development in corporate governance.

Theoretical contribution

For Bansal and Corley (2011) a theoretical contribution serves to change, challenge, or

fundamentally advance our understanding of phenomena. In the particular case of qualitative

research, their call is to “‘engage scholars in an intellectual conversation” that ”not only

describes or explains a phenomenon, but also discerns or anticipates what scholars need to

know about it and shapes their framing and dialogue around it”’ (Bansal and Corley, 2011:

235). Additionally, for Corley and Gioia (2011) a theoretical contribution has originality and

utility. Originality highlights what we otherwise had not seen, known or conceived about

phenomena. Utility refers to theory that is practically useful, as when theory can be directly

applied to the managerial problems, and/or scientifically useful, that is improving conceptual

rigor of an idea and/or its potential to be tested.

In this review, it was not always easy for us to identify the theoretical aim of a paper. In

some cases there was an explicit mention of a grounded approach to the study, for example

Xiao et al, (2004) but we did find papers where theoretical ambition was more implicit than

explicit. Where we could discern a theoretical ambition, we found practitioners of qualitative

research to be more inclined to the generative, exploratory and elaboratory aspects theoretical

formation and development rather than testing per se (Bluhm et al, 2011; Shah and Corley,

2006). Furthermore, such ambitions were pursued through an eclectic range of disciplines and

20
theories which suggest that qualitative researchers are seeking fresh perspectives on

governance phenomena and offer much by way of contributing theoretical originality and

utility to the field of research. In stark contrast to the findings of others surveys of the overall

field of corporate governance research which reveals the dominance of legal-economic

theories, the body of qualitative research is heavily influenced by the disciplines of

management and sociology. Over two thirds of the published qualitative research draw on

theories associated with these disciplines. To be indicative, the search has unearthed a corpus

of work which draws on a rich variety of theoretical perspectives: sensemaking (Fassin and

Van Rossem, 2009; Tengblad, 2004; Pye, 2002); discourse (Hendry et al, 2006); power and

influence (Maitlis, 2001; Pettigrew and McNulty, 1995); control (Parker, 2008); emotions

(Brundin and Nordqvist, 2008); role and leadership (Pye, 2002; Roberts, 2002; Stewart,

1991); accountability, (Roberts et al, 2005, Tengblad, 2004, Pye 2001); decision process

(Useem and Zelleke, 2006; Stiles, 2001, McNulty and Pettigrew, 1999); strategic renewal

(Kwee et al, 2011) and institutions (Parker, 2007).

This observation is suggestive of qualitative researchers seeking to take a different

perspective on the nature of governance phenomena, which goes beyond the particular

assumptions of agency theory, thus far considered to be the single most influential theory in

corporate governance research (Daily et al., 2003). This is not to suggest that agency theory

and the wider economics tradition is absent, unimportant or not amenable to qualitative

research. Approximately 20 percent of the studies identified by the search involve researchers

exploring, refining and evaluating the relative merits of agency theory (Bender, 2007;

Gendron and Bedard, 2011; Perkins and Hendry, 2005; Rongli et al, 2009; Zattoni and

Cuomo, 2008). Furthermore, those studies tended to be amongst the relative small number

identified that cross disciplinary boundaries. This is an important endeavor and one by which

21
qualitative inquiry can make important contributions of theoretical and practical utility

(Bansal, 2012; Huse et al., 2011).

In a seminal piece, Pettigrew (1992) urged researchers to engage directly with actors and

settings of governance, as qualitative inquiry can help to open-up the black box of boards

(Pettigrew, 1992) in order to shed light on director behavior, relationships and effects.

Subsequent qualitative work has made a number of theoretical contributions which identify

the partiality and limits of agency theory as an explanation of the work and effects of boards.

Pettigrew and McNulty (1995) show the relational character of power relations on boards,

which in turns sheds light on the multi-dimensional nature of board tasks and process. Stiles

(2001) and McNulty and Pettigrew (1999) provide empirical support for a wider

conceptualization of board tasks by providing evidence that boards play a role in strategy.

This is now a major line of investigation within the field (Pugliese et al., 2009). Also through

a focus on behavior, qualitative research is proving to be instrumental in providing impetus

for theoretical and practical debate to go beyond structural features to develop group based

and team-production approaches to theorizing the work of boards (Machold et al., 2011). For

example, Maitlis (2004) studied the behaviors and influence processes in the CEO-board

relationship in order to provide a better understanding of the behavioral mechanisms

underlying the implementation of corporate governance practices. Ravasi and Zattoni (2006)

comparative study of boards’ decision making in mixed-ownership companies extend

previous knowledge by showing how the heterogeneity of interests represented on the board,

the directors’ possession of relevant knowledge, and the presence of ex-ante conflict

resolution mechanisms shape board engagement in strategic decision making. Nicholson and

Kiel (2007) pattern matching analysis of seven cases explored hypothesized links between the

board of directors and firm performance using three predominant theories, e.g. agency,

stewardship and resource dependence theories.

22
 All in all, these studies are part of direction which is taking us deeper in analysis of the

roles that boards perform, how executives and non-executives should interact in the interests

of group working and how meaningful structural reform cannot produce complementary

behavioral effects. Here we see the ability of qualitative research to challenge or confirm a

dominant theory and push theoretical boundaries. Related to the empirical findings of these

studies, more attention is now being paid to the potential of collaboration and cooperation

within the board for effective governance. If we view these studies in terms of mid range

theoretical development, qualitative inquiry has been instrumental in lending validity to an

extension of theories about the role of directors from oversight to matters of service and

resourcing (Pearce and Zahra, 1991; Zahra and Pearce, 1989). Additionally, we are also

seeing a stream of work inclined to test theory about the relationship between board processes

and board task performance (e.g. Minichilli et al., 2012; Minichilli et al., 2009; Van Ees et

al., 2008; Zona and Zattoni, 2007).

Also there is an important potential practical utility, as well as theoretical utility to these

developments in qualitative research. Corporate governance policy and practice has been and

remains heavily influenced by economics and legal disciplines, and by agency theory in

particular. Research that has engaged with governance reform and policy prescription over

the last two decades reveals how reform resonates with the recommendations and arguments

of agency theory (Hooghiemstra and Van Manen, 2004; Mengoli et al., 2009; Roberts et al.,

2005; Zattoni and Cuomo, 2010). Nevertheless, recent events show that, after more than two

decades of reforms and codes development around the globe, creating better corporate

governance and better boards remains challenging and elusive. This is so true that a

fundamental question has surfaced recent qualitative research about the efficacy of agency

prescription and whether the appearance of good governance has triumphed over its

substance (Roberts et al, 2005; Useem and Zelleke, 2006; Zattoni and Cuomo, 2008).

23
Although small in volume qualitative research is making a big contribution to the field in

recognizing this to be a question of major theoretical and practical significance that can only

be addressed by going beyond agency theory and its associated prescription regarding

structural arrangements on boards to probe the behavioral and relational dynamics on boards

(Maitlis, 2004; Pettigrew and McNulty, 1995; Roberts et al., 2005; Zattoni and Cuomo,

2010). Theoretical contribution is not just about ‘filling the gap’ within the literature but also

it is about the way scholars think and talk about the phenomenon (Bansal and Corley, 2011).

Qualitative research is playing an important role with the field overall by using a rich variety

of theoretical perspectives to challenge prior assumptions that underlay the dominant theory

of the field.

Methodological rigor: Delving deeper into the phenomena

A strength of qualitative inquiry is that it affords a deep engagement with phenomena that are

beyond the purview of quantitative inquiry. Notwithstanding that interviewing is by far the

dominant method apparent in the research that we identified, our overall sample reflects

something of the array and variety of in-depth innovative approaches available to qualitative

researchers, for instance: observation and shadowing (Tengbald, 2004); narrative and textual

analysis (Ng and De Cock, 2002); participant observation (Parker, 2008, 2007); longitudinal

interview data (Pye 2002a,b, 2001a,b) and ethnography and conversational analysis (Samra-

Fredericks, 2000a,b).

With regard to methodological rigor, the second tenet of high quality qualitative research,

Bansal and Corley (2011) emphasize the need for transparency which results from thoroughly

describing data sources, analysis and also providing rich descriptions of the findings. Pratt

recommends that the ‘basics’ in methods sections of articles should include an explanation of

what is motivating a study and why the research methods are appropriate. This involves not

24
only reviewing the literature to illustrate a ‘gap’ in prior research, but also explaining why it

is important to fill this gap. With regard to data collection and analysis, it is important to

explain the sampling of people, events, or cases and how one gets from data to findings. This

requires articulation of a basic set of steps in an inductive analysis, from what the informants

say (first-order codes) to what the literature says (e.g. enfold theory, second-order codes), to

tell the story of how it all fits together. Thereafter, showing data in a smart fashion is

important and can involve, for example, organizing figures to depict how a methodological

process unfolded and how one moved from raw data to the theoretical labels or constructs.

We would concur with scholars who have called for researchers to “...adopt a higher standard

of methodological description” (Bluhm et al.’s 2011; Pratt, 2008; 2009). We were often

surprised by both a frequent lack of detail and depth to the reporting of method in published

articles. In this respect a small number of studies stood-out as particularly noteworthy for the

depth of description regarding data collection, analysis and explanation of the approach used

(for example, Maitlis, 2004; Parker, 2007 and 2008; Samra-Fredericks, 2000a, 2000b; Pye,

2003, 2002a,b, 2001a,b, 2000).

In talking about high quality research Suddaby (2010) has drawn attention to the

importance of identifying and expressing concepts or constructs that are grounded in actors’

meanings. A particular example of using the interview method over time to great effect is

provided by Pye (2002a,b; 2001a,b and 2000) to generate a longitudinal sense-making

perspective on meanings associated with corporate governance amongst those responsible for

leading companies covering the period 1989 to 2000. This stream of work offers an insightful

theoretical and practical contribution in revealing that in 1989 executives who ‘run a large

organization’ were silent about corporate governance. However, just a decade later, Pye

found that executives discussed ‘corporate governance’, ‘shareholder value’ and ‘strategic

focus’ as fundamental aspects of their work. Conducted during this formative era for

25
corporate governance, Pye’s work helps to explain how within a context where capital

markets and corporate activity had become global, a whole new language of governance

informed contemporary explanations of organizing, managing and directing corporations

(Pye, 2002a).

In respect of the work by Samra-Fredericks and Maitlis we can only echo the recognition

afforded to these works by Bluhm et al. 2011 in their review of qualitative work in

management. Maitlis (2004) is exemplary in using, collecting and analyzing interview data

within comparative longitudinal case study design to reveal patterns and processes of sense-

making between chief executive and boards. The study is also exemplary as an illustration of

how to reveal patterns in the data and use those patterns to substantiate claims about social

processes on boards. Similarly, work by Samra-Fredericks is distinctive for its ethnographic

and ethnomethodological approach to conversational analysis which offers readers a rich

insight into the work of boards. As an empirical insight into experiences of strategizing, the

work is additive and distinctive. Like Samra-Fredericks, Parker’s work eschews “the casual

ethnography of the executive suite” (Westney and Van Maanen, 2011) to offer a revealing

ethnography into frequently invisible processes of control and strategy.

Beyond the encouragement to use varying approaches for data collection, the importance

of transparency in data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings is paramount in

producing qualitative research that provides important contributions to the literature (Bansal

and Corley, 2011; Bluhm et al., 2011; Pratt 2008). A meritorious example of superior

qualitative research in our review is that of Ravasi and Zattoni (2006). In their study, the

authors provide a detailed description of the multiple methods used and include specifics on

their analytical techniques. Their methods are informed by prior studies in the field and they

use decision stories which allow them to communicate their findings to the reader. Their

study embodies the criteria emphasized by Bluhm et al. (2011) and Bansal and Corley

26
(2011): a typical structure of the article (introduction, theoretical background, methods,

findings, and discussion), data analyses relying on coding data, findings illustrated in detailed

tables and figures, the use of propositions to show a theoretical contribution. The Nicholson

and Kiel (2007) article on boards is another exemplar study for its methods. The authors

employed a case-based methodology in order to be able to analyze rich data within specific

contexts. Nicholson and Kiel’s (2007) study is particularly interesting for the data collection

process as they started with semi-structured interviews with directors and key personnel of

the seven companies, then collected archival data (board agenda, minutes, newspaper articles,

etc.), and finally organized presentations to the boards with the researchers taking part as

participant observers. Also in respect of the analysis of data, the study presents a rigorous

combination of data coding and pattern matching allowing the authors to move from data to

results.

We have also included a number of studies in our search that use both qualitative and

quantitative methods to provide rich insights into key relationships. Shah and Corley 2006

make a case for combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to develop formal and

substantive theory. Pettigrew, in his commentary included in this special issue (2012),

cautions about the dangers of hard and fast distinctions between qualitative and quantitative

citing Kathy Eisenhardt as a preeminent scholar in the combined use of both qualitative and

quantitative methods in combination. By way of examples in the field of corporate

governance, a number of articles in our sample exemplify the effective use of combined

qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper by Westphal and Khanna (2003) first used a

qualitative approach to support the assumptions underlying the theoretical foundation of their

quantitative study design and followed the quantitative study with a second qualitative

approach in order to confirm and help explain their results. Zattoni and Cuomo (2008)

collected corporate governance codes developed worldwide at the end of 2005 and made a

27
comparative analysis of the scope, coverage, and strictness of their recommendations. Their

findings suggest, consistently with a symbolic perspective on corporate governance

(Westphal and Zajac, 1998), that the issuance of codes in civil law countries is prompted

more by legitimation reasons than by the determination to improve the governance practices

of national companies. Fassin and Rossem (2009) is another example of a mixed-method

study whose objective was to investigate how opinion leaders understand and differentiate the

various concepts pertaining to corporate governance, CSR, and business ethics. They did

forty one interviews with top managers and governance authorities using the repertory grid

technique. Fassin and Rossem (2009) developed between seven and fifteen dichotomous

constructs per interviewee. Then they compared the constructive systems across individuals

through content analysis and used an exploratory statistical analysis method in order to draw

a multidimensional space and to determine the perceived relative image. The combined use of

qualitative and quantitative methods is encouraged since it enables a richer understanding of

the phenomena being studied.

Some Future Directions

Progress in a field is thought to rely on directing attention to worthy topics and developing

big ideas (Kilduff, 2006; Tracy, 2010). Taking a lead from the work of Pye, discussed above,

it is timely to ask what concepts and meanings apply today for those leading corporations and

organizations and what have they to do with corporate governance? Shareholder primacy,

board independence, rewards for performance are just some of the mantras of corporate

governance that have sprung-up in the last decade and more. However, the problems and

scandals of corporate governance persist as does concern about the role of corporate

governance in the financial crisis. How, if at all, has the meaning and luster of such ideas

28
changed in the light of the financial crisis? What new ideas and meanings are emerging

amongst the interested constituents of corporate governance?

Our review has also revealed a major imbalance in the attention given to boards as

compared with other key actors and constituents that are core to the governance debate, such

as investors and owners. We are surprised by the small number of studies that attend to actors

involved as shareholders or investors (e.g. Chiu and Monin, 2003; Hendry, Sanderson, Barker

and Roberts, 2006; Pye 2001; Tengblad 2004; Yuan et al., 2009). Yuan et al. (2009) provide

a rare insight into the role of financial institutions in Chinese Listed firms. Pye (2001) reveals

the growing significance of institutional investors in the conduct of companies. Hendry et al.

(2006) and Tengblad (2004) show the benefit of direct engagement with actors to take us

deeper into the relationship between the work of managers and the financial context of

corporate governance. Hendry et al.’s (2006) in-depth study of the behavior of investors

suggests that a concept of trading rather than ownership better explains investor behavior and

the conduct of relations between the so-called owners and managers (Hendry et al., 2006).

Tengblad’s (2004) direct observation of CEO’s of large corporations reveals how control is

exercised. This study is notable for its diary and observational methods as well as its

explanation of the link between top managers’ work and financial perspectives on corporate

governance. The study reveals the influence of ‘shareholder value’ on CEO’s, how CEO’s

seek to reconcile different expectations and how external expectations affect the internal

climate of inside companies. These studies aside, relatively speaking, more work need to be

done to better identify the actors, relationships and behavior of the so-called investor and

owner element of the corporate governance conundrum.

Such matters are not merely ones of academic curiosity as, for example, in the aftermath

of the financial crisis the UK government is undertaking reviews into the nature and meaning

of ownership as well as the implications of short-termism in equity markets (Kay Review,

29
2012; Ownership Commission, 2012). Shifting our analytical gaze from a pre-occupation

with boards to a wider concern to study the wider array of actors and institutions involved in

governance, especially at a time of major financial upheaval and regulatory change, seems

like an important direction for the field to follow.

Another line of direction relates to considering what the impact will be of a continuing

stream of new regulations at the country and regional level that result from perceived market

failures? Along this line, it can be particularly useful to use qualitative methods to explore

corporate governance phenomena in peculiar national settings. Dahya, Karbhari, Xiao and

Mei (2003) did a qualitative event study on a Chinese listed company failing to issue a

supervisory board report through a set of interviews with several informed actors (e.g.

directors, supervisory board members, senior executives) in order to explore the usefulness of

the report in light of the role of the supervisory board. Wanyama, Burton and Helliar (2009)

studied corporate governance practices in the developing nation of Uganda based on the

perceptions of multiple individuals representing local companies as well as important

stakeholders. They found a significant difference between codes that are included in the

institutional statutes and the actual practices that exist in a country. Safieddine (2009)

explored agency issues in the special context of Islamic financial institutions through survey

and interview methods identifying that there can be trade-offs between Sharia compliance

and mechanisms protecting investors’ rights. The use of rich qualitative methods in the

exploration of governance phenomena in different national contexts can help scholars to take

into account the role played by national legal and cultural institutions in affecting governance

issues. These studies are few and far between, but they are indicative of contributions that can

yield an understanding of corporate governance on a global scale.

Moreover, since the pioneering study of Berle and Means (1932), literature and empirical

studies have explored governance issues in Anglo-Saxon public companies. To extend our

30
knowledge, it can be particularly useful to explore corporate governance issues in other type

of firms and organizations. For example, Ravasi and Zattoni (2006) developed their

comparative study of board functioning and strategic decision making in nine boards of

mixed-ownership institutions – i.e. companies where two or more stockholders own large

shares of the capital – a research setting selected with the explicit aim of increasing the

visibility of social and political dynamics surrounding strategic issues. This study show that

exploring governance issues in some exemplar or peculiar case can help scholars to get a

better understanding of the empirical phenomena and to extend the results of previous

studies. Qualitative studies such as those by Parker (2007; 2008) are also helpful in revealing

the governance challenges in organizational settings where the ownership and governance is

less defined by equity stake and principle-agent relations.

CONCLUSION

This article is aimed at presenting the main characteristics of qualitative research and

analyzing previous qualitative studies on corporate governance topics. At the same time, this

article is encouraging governance scholars to submit rigorous and relevant qualitative articles

to CGIR (and other journals) so to contribute to the development of a theory able to

rigorously explain corporate governance phenomena across the globe and to provide effective

solutions for practitioners. Qualitative studies can help governance scholars to address this

issue as they provide a rich and deep knowledge of the phenomena under investigation. The

eclectic nature of qualitative studies can help governance scholars to use complementary and

alternative theories (to the dominant agency theory) so to produce new and innovative

interpretations of corporate governance phenomena. Moreover, the involvement of the

researchers in a real world situation can help governance scholars to get a deeper

understanding of the relationships among key subjects (investors, directors, regulators and

31
managers) and of the processes leading to decision making. In sum, an increasing use of

rigorous qualitative methods will lead governance scholars to broaden the theoretical and

methodological scope of their research projects so as to strengthen their contribution to the

development of a global theory of comparative corporate governance.

32
 REFERENCES

Aguilera, R.V. & Jackson, G. 2003. The cross national-diversity of corporate governance.
Dimensions and determinants: Academy of Management Review, 28: 447-465.

Ahrens, T., Filatotchev, I., & Thomsen, S. 2011. The research frontier in corporate
governance. Journal of Management & Governance, 15 (3): 311-325.

Bansal, P. & Corley, K. 2011. From the editors. The coming of age for qualitative research:
Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2):
233-237.

Bansal, P. 2012. Inducing frame-breaking insights through qualitative research. Corporate

Governance: An International Review, 2012, (published in this issue)

Bender, R. 2007. Onwards and upwards: Why companies change their remuneration
schemes, and why this leads to increases in pay. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 15, 5, 709-723.

Berle, A. & Means, G. 1932. The modern corporation and private property. New York:
MacMillan.

Birkinshaw, J., Brannan, M.Y., and Tung, R. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up
close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business
research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 573-581.

Bluhm, D., Harman, W., Lee, T.W. & Mitchell, T.R. 20101. Qualitative research in
management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8): 1866-1891.

Boyd, B.K., Haynes, K.T. & Zona, F. 2011. Dimensions of CEO-Board relations. Journal of
Management Studies, 48 (8): 1892-1923.

Brundin, E & Nordqvist, M. 2008 Beyond facts and figures: The role of emotions in
boardroom dynamics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 4, 326-341.

Chiu, P. & Monin, J. 2003. Effective corporate governance: from the perspective of New
Zealand fund managers. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2): 123-
131.

Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a
theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 12-32.

Cresswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the five
approaches. London: Sage

Dahya, J., Karbhari, Y., Xiao, J.Z. & Mei, Y. 2003. The usefulness of the supervisory board
report in China. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(4): 308-322.

33
Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R. & Cannella, A.A. 2003. Corporate governance: Decades of
dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3): 371-382.

Demb, A. & Neubauer, F.F. 1992. The corporate board: confronting the paradoxes. Long
Range Planning, 25 (3): 9-20.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) 2005. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research,
(3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deutsch, Y. 2005. The impact of board composition on firms' critical decisions: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Management, 31 (3): 424-444.

Durisin, B. & Puzone, F. 2009. Maturation of corporate governance research, 1993–2007: An

assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 266-291.

Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K. & Locke, K. 2008. Working with pluralism.

Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3): 419-
429.

Fassin, Y. & Van Rossem, A. 2009. Corporate governance in the debate on CSR and Ethics:
Sensemaking of social issues in management by authorities and CEOs. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 17(5): 573-593.

Gendron, Y & Bedard, J., 2005. On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 211-239.

Gephart, R.P. 2004. From the editors. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management
Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 454-462.

Hambrick, D.C., Werder, A.v. & Zajac, E.J. 2008. New directions in corporate governance
research. Organization Science, 19 (3): 381-385.

Hendry, J., Sanderson, P., Barker, R. & Roberts, J. 2006. Owners or traders?
Conceptualizations of institutional investors and their relationship with corporate managers.
Human Relations, 59(8): 1101-1132.

Hooghiemstra, R. & van Manen, J. 2004. The independence paradox: (im)possibilities facing
non-executive directors in the Netherlands. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 12(3): 314-324.

Huse, M., Hoskisson, R., Zattoni, A. & Viganò, R. 2011. New perspectives on board
research: changing the research agenda. Journal of Management & Governance, 15(1): 5-
28.

Jick, T.D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602-611.

34
Kay Review 2012. The Kay Review of UK equity markets and long-term decision making.
[available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-law/docs/k/12-631-kay-review-
of-equity-markets-interim-report.pdf ]

Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: publishing theory. Academy of Management Review,

31(2): 252-255.

Kwee, Z., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. 2011. The influence of top management
team’s corporate governance orientation on strategic renewal trajectories: A longitudinal
analysis of Royal Dutch Shell plc 1907-2004. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 5, 984-
1014.

LeBlanc, R. and Schwartz, M. S. (2007). The black box of board process: gaining access to a
difficult subject. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, pp. 843-851.

LePine, J.A. & Wilcox King, A. 2010. Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical
insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review,
35(4): 506-509.

Lincoln, Y and Guba, E (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills: Sage

Lubatkin, M. 2007. One more time: What is a realistic theory of corporate governance?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 59-67.

Machold, S., Huse, M., Minichilli, A. & Nordqvist, M. 2011. Board leadership and strategy
involvement in small firms: A team production approach. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 19(4): 368-383.

Maitlis, S. 2004. Taking it from the top: How CEOs influence (and fail to influence) their
boards. Organization Studies, 25(8): 1275-1311.

McNulty T. and A. Pettigrew 1999. Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20: 47-
74.

Mengoli, S., Pazzaglia, F. & Sapienza, E. 2009. Effect of governance reforms on corporate
ownership in Italy: Is it still pizza, spaghetti, and Mandolino? Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 17(5): 629-645.

Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A. & Zona, F. 2009. Making boards effective: An empirical
examination of board task performance. British Journal of Management, 20(1): 55-74.

Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S. & Huse, M. 2012. Board task performance: An
exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(2): 193-215.

Ng, W & De Cock, C. 2002. Battle in the boardroom. Journal of Management Studies, 39,
1, 23-49.

35
Nicholson, G.J. & Kiel, G.C. 2007. Can directors impact performance? A case-based test of
three theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
15 (4): 585-608.

Okhuysen, G. & Bonardi, J.F. 2011. Editors’ comments: The challenges of building theory by
combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 6-11.

Ownership Commission Report 2012. Plurality, stewardship and engagement. The Ownership
Commission.[availableat:http://www.ownershipcomm.org/files/ownership_commission_2012
.pdf]

Parker, L.D. 2007. Boardroom strategizing in professional associations: Processual and

institutional perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8): 1454-1480.

Parker, L.D. 2007. Internal governance in the non-profit boardroom: a participant observer
study. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5): 923-934.

Parker, L.D. 2008. Boardroom operational and financial control: an insider view. British
Journal of Management, 19(1): 65-88.

Pearce, J.A. & Zahra, S.A. 1991. The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors:
associations with corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2): 135-153.

Perkins, S.J. & Hendry, C. 2005. Ordering top pay: Interpreting the signals. Journal of
Management Studies, 42, 7, 1443-1468.

Pettigrew, A. 2012. The conduct of qualitative research in organizational settings. Corporate

Governance: An International Review, – in this issue.

Pettigrew, A. & McNulty, T. 1995. Power and influence in and around the boardroom.
Human Relations, 48(8): 845-873.

Pettigrew, A. 1992. On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13:

163-182.

Pratt, M. 2009. From the editors. For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and
reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5): 856-862.

Pratt, M.G. 2008. Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research
Methods, 11(3): 481-509.

Pugliese, A., Bezemer, P.J., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.,
2009. Boards of directors' contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3): 292-306.

Pye, A. 2005. The importance of context and time for understanding board behaviour.
International Studies of Management and Organization, 34, 2, 63-89.

36
Pye, A. 2002a. Corporate directing: Governing, strategizing and leading in action. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 10(3): 153-162.

Pye, A. 2002b. The changing power of 'explanations': Directors, academics and their
sensemaking from 1989 to 2000. Journal of Management Studies, 39(7): 907-925.

Pye, A. 2001a. A study in studying corporate boards over time: Looking backwards to move
forwards. British Journal of Management, 12(1): 33-46.

Pye, A. 2001b. Corporate boards, investors and their relationships: Accounts of

accountability and corporate governing in action. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 9(3): 186-196.

Pye, A. 2000. Changing scenes in, from and outside the boardroom: UK corporate
governance in practice from 1989 to 1999. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 8(4): 335-347.

Ravasi, D. & Zattoni, A. 2006. Exploring the political side of board involvement in strategy:
A study of mixed-ownership institutions. Journal of Management Studies,43(8): 1671-
1702.

Roberts, J. 2002. Building the complementary board. The work of the Plc Chairman. Long
Range Planning, 35, 493-520.

Roberts, J., McNulty, T. & Stiles, P. 2005. Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the
non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of
Management, 16: 5-26.

Rongli, Y., Xiao, J.S., Milonas, N. & Zou, J.H. (2009) The role of financial institutions on the
corporate governance of listed Chinese companies. British Journal of Management, 20,
562-580.

Ryan, L.V., Bechholtz, A.K. & Kolb, R.W. 2010. New directions in corporate governance
and finance: Implications for business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20 (4):
673-694.

Safieddine, A. 2009. Islamic financial institutions and corporate governance: New insights
for agency theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(2): 142-158.

Samra-Fredericks, D. 2000a. Doing ‘Boards-in-Action’ research: An ethnographic approach

for the capture and analysis of directors’ and senior managers’ interactive routines.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8(3): 244-258.

Samra-Fredericks, D. 2000b. An analysis of the behavioural dynamics of corporate

governance – a talk-based ethnography of a UK manufacturing ‘board-in-action’. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 8(4): 311-327.

37
Seglen, P. O. (1994) Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact factor,
Journal of the America Society for Information Science, 45: 1–11.

Shah, S.K. & Corley, K.G. 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–
qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8): 1821-1835.

Stewart, R. 1991 Chairmen and Chief Executives: An exploration of their relationship.

Journal of Management Studies, 28, 5, 511-527.

Stiles, P. 2001. The impact of the board on strategy: An empirical examination. Journal of
Management Studies, 38: 627-650.

Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor’s Comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and

organisation. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 346-357.

Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. & Huy, Q.N. 2011. Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the
new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 236-246.

Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012) Assessing qualitative research. In Symon, G. and Cassell,
C. (eds). Organizational Qualitative Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges.
Sage Publications.

Tengblad, S. 2004. Expectations of alignment: examining the link between financial markets
and managerial work. Organization Studies, 25(4): 583-606.

Tracy, S.J. 2010. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10): 837-851.

Useem, M & Zelleke, A. 2006 Oversight and delegation in corporate governance: Deciding
what the board should decide. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 1, 2-
10.

van Ees, H., van der Laan, G. & Postma, T.J.B.M. 2008. Effective board behavior in the
Netherlands. European Management Journal, 26(2): 84-93.

Van Maanen, J. 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4): 520-526.

Wanyama, S., Burton, B. & Helliar, C. 2009. Frameworks underpinning corporate

governance: Evidence on Ugandan perceptions. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 17(2): 159-175.

Westney, D.E and Van Maanen, J.V 2011. The casual ethnography of the executive Suite.
Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 602-607

Westphal, J. & Khanna, P. 2003. Keeping directors in line: Social distancing as a control
mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 361-398.

38
Westphal, J.D. & Zajac, E.J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate
governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrattive Sceience Quarterly, 43(1):
127-153.

Xiao, J.Z., Dahya, J. & Lin, Z. (2004) A grounded theory exposition of the role of the
supervisory board in China, British Journal of Management, 15, 39-55.

Yuan, R., Xiao, J.Z., Milonas, N. & Zou, J.H. 2009 The role of financial institutions in the
corporate governance of listed chinese companies. British Journal of Management, 20(4):
562-580.

Zahra, S.A. & Pearce, J.A. 1989. Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A
review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15: 291-334.

Zattoni, A. & Cuomo, F. 2010. How independent, competent and incentivized should Non-
executive directors be? An empirical investigation of good governance codes. British
Journal of Management, 21(1): 63-79.

Zattoni, A. & Van Ees, H. 2012. How to contribute to the development of a global
understanding of corporate governance? Reflections from submitted and published articles in
CGIR. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20 (1): 106-118.

Zattoni, A. & Cuomo, F. 2008. Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison of
institutional and efficiency perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 16: 1-15.

Zona, F. & Zattoni, A. 2007. Beyond the black box of demography: Board processes and task
effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15:
852-864.

39
Table 1: Search Results by Journal

Journal Number of contributions Number of

on ‘corporate governance’ contributions using
OR ‘board of directors’ qualitative
methods included
in the review
Academy of Management Review (AMR) 18 0
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) 24 1
Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 2
The Accounting Review (AR) 21 0
Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) 27 1
Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE) 13 0
Journal of Accounting Research (JAR) 5 0
Corporate Governance: An International Review 468 41
(CGIR)
Journal of Business (JOB) 9 0
Organization Science (OS) 8 0
Journal of Finance (JF) 52 0
Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) 51 0
Management Science (MS) 5 0
The International Journal of Accounting (IJA) 13 0
Review of Economic Studies (RES) 2 0
Review of Financial Studies (RFS) 17 0
Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) 29 0
Long Range Planning 51 6
Harvard Business Review 111 0
Journal of Management 16 0
Journal of Management Studies 29 8
California Management Review 23 0
Academy of Management Executive 18 0
Organizational Dynamics 19 1
Journal of Small Business Management 5 0
British Journal of Management 16 7
Journal of General Management 1 1

40
Journal of International Business Studies 23 0
International Studies of Management and 2 2
Organization
Journal of Organizational Change Movement 1 0
Service Industries Journal 2 0
Decision sciences 46 0
Human Relations 7 2
Organization Studies 8 3
Journal of Management and Governance 60 3
TOTAL 1,210 78

41
Table 2. Criteria used to analyze qualitative articles on corporate governance

Criteria Meaning Variables Results

I. Date of Decade of publication of 1 pre 1990, 2 1990-99, 3 1 study before 1990,
publication the article 2000-09, 4 after 2010 13 between 1990-99,
58 between 2000-09,
6 after 2010
II. Author Country where is located 1 UK, 2 USA, 3 Europe 44 UK, 14 Europe
nationality the first author’s institution (no UK), 4 China, 5 (non UK), 8
Australia & New Zealand, Australia and New
6 Canada, 7 Middle East Zealand, 7 USA, 3
Canada, 1 China and
Lebanon
III. Research team Number of authors 1 one, 2 two, 3 three or 32 single author, 26
more two authors, 20 three
or more authors
IV. Journal of Title of the journal 1 BJM, 2 JMS, Org. Stud., 41 CGIR, 8 JMS, 7
publication 4 CGIR, 5 HR, 6 Org. BJM, 6 LRP, 4
Dyn., 7 JM&G, 8 LRP, 9 JM&G, 3 Org. Stud.
JGM, 10 AMJ, 11 ISMO 2 HR, 2 ISMO, 1
12. ASQ, 13. AOS Org. Dyn., JGM, 1
AMJ, 2 AOS, 1 ASQ
V. Topic Main topic explored in the 1 board/directors, 2 49 board, 12 CG
study management, 3 mechanisms, 9
investors/shareholders, 4 Investors, 8
CG mechanisms Management
VI. Disciplines Disciplinary Background 1 law or economics, 2 31 management, 28
of the study sociology, 3 social analysis of CG
psychology, 4 mechanisms, 19 law
management. or economic, 19
sociology, 4 social
psychology
VII. Number of Number of disciplines 1 one, 2 two, 3 three 57 one discipline, 15
disciplines used in the same study two disciplines
frameworks, 6 three

42
 disciplines
VIII. Theoretical Nature of the theoretical 1 exploratory, 2 40 exploratory, 34
aim aim of the paper development or development or
elaboration, 3 testing elaboration, 5 testing
IX. Research Country of the empirical 1 UK, 2 USA, 3 Europe 37 UK, 11 Europe
setting setting of the study (no UK), 4 China, 5 (non UK), 8
Australia & New Zealand, Australian and New
6 Middle East, 7 Asia, 8 Zealand, 4 USA, 3
Africa, 9 multi countries China, 3 Asia, 2
Middle East, 1
Africa, 1 Canada, 8
multi countries
X. Number of Number of countries of the 1 one, 2 two, 3 three or 70 single country, 3
research settings empirical setting more two countries, 5
three or more
countries
XI. research Method of data collection 1 Interviews, 2 62 Interviews, 22
method Observation, 3 Archival, 4 Archival, 12
Participant observation, 5 Observation, 12
Survey Survey, 6 Participant
observation
XII. Number of Number of different 1 single source, 2 multi 49 single method, 29
methods methods of data collection source multi methods
XIII. Level of Level of analysis of the 1 individual, 2 group, 3 36 group, 16
analysis study firm, 4 national, 5 individual, 15 firm, 3
relational, 6 multiple national, 3 relational,
5 multiple

43
Table 3: Qualitative Studies of Corporate Governance*: By Journal Title, Authors and
Date (* Studies with Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Methods)

Journal, Author, Year

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Gendron and Bedard (2006)
Roberts, Sanderson, Barker and Hendry (2006)

Academy of Management Journal

Lok (2010)

Administrative Science Quarterly

*Westphal and Khanna (2003)

British Journal of Management

Peck (1995)
Pye (2001a)
Zezhong Xiao, Dahya and Lin (2004)
Roberts, McNulty and Stiles (2005)
Parker (2008)
Yuan, Xiao Milonas and Zou (2009)
Zattoni and Cuomo (2010)

Corporate Governance: an International Review

Main (1994)
McNulty and Pettigrew (1996)
Holland (1998)
Spira (1998)
Cornforth and Edwards (1999)
Hendry, Woodward, Harvey-Cook and Gaved (1999)
Mackay and Sweeting (2000)
Pye (2000, 2001b, 2002a)
Samra-Fredericks (2000a, 2000b)
Jackson (2001)
O’Higgins (2002)
Chiu and Monin (2003)
Dahya, Karbhari, Zezong Xiao and Yang (2003)
Nowak and McCabe (2003)
*Hooghiemstra and Van Manen (2004)
Bender (2004, 2007)

44
*Burton, Helliar and Power (2004)
Van den Berghe and Levrau (2004)
Long, Dulewicz and Gay (2005)
Useem and Zelleke (2006)
Anderson, Melanson and Maly (2007)
Buchanan (2007)
Nicholson and Kiel (2007)
Parker (2007)
Main, Jackson, Pymm and Wright (2008)
Edwards and Wolfe (2007)
Liew (2007)
Bondy, Matten and Moon, (2008)
Brundin and Nordqvist (2008)
Jamali, Safieddine and Rabbath (2008)
Hoffman, Neill and Stovall (2008)
Fassin and Van Rossem (2009)
* Safieddine (2009)
*Mengoli, Pazzaglia and Sapiennza (2009)
Taylor and O’Sullivan (2009)
*Wanyama, Burton and Helliar (2009)
Gospel, Pendelton, Vitols and Wilke (2011)
Long Range Planning
Aram and Cowen (1986)
Huse (1998)
Demb and Neubauer (1992)
Roberts (2002)
Mellahi (2005)
Grant and Visconti (2006)

Journal of Management and Governance

Kemp (2010)
Del Baldo (2010)
Piesse, Strange and Toonsi, (2011)

Journal of Management Studies

Stewart (1991)
Stiles (2001)
Pye (2002b)
Ng and De Cock (2002)
Perkins and Hendry (2005)
Parker (2007)
Ravasi and Zattoni (2006)
*Kwee,Z., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2011)

45
Human Relations
Pettigrew and McNulty (1995)
Hendry, Sanderson, Barker and Roberts (2006)
Organizational Dynamics
Lawler, Benson, Finegold and Conger (2002)
Organization Studies
McNulty and Pettigrew (1999)
Tengblad (2004)
Maitlis (2004)

Journal of General Management

Pye and Camm (2003)
International Studies of Management and Organization
Pye (2004), Huse and Zattoni (2008)

46