Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis:

The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building

Stine Grodal Michel Anteby Audrey L. Holm

Associate Professor Associate Professor PhD Student
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Boston University Boston University Boston University
Boston, MA, 02215 Boston, MA, 02215 Boston, MA, 02215

Forthcoming at Academy of Management Review

ABSTRACT

Scholars have long debated how rigor can be achieved in qualitative analysis. To answer this
question, we need to better understand how theory is generated from data. Qualitative analysis is,
at its core, a categorization process. Nevertheless, despite a surge of interest in categorization
within the social sciences, insights from categorization theory have not yet been applied to our
understanding of qualitative analysis. Drawing from categorization theory, we argue that the
movement from data to theory is an active process in which researchers choose between multiple
moves that help them to make sense of their data. In addition, we develop a framework of the
main moves that people use when they categorize data and demonstrate that evidence of these
moves can also be found in past qualitative scholarship. Our framework emphasizes that if we
are not sufficiently reflexive and explicit about the active analytical processes that generate
theoretical insights, we cannot be transparent and, thus, rigorous about how we analyze data. We
discuss the implications of our framework for increasing rigor in qualitative analysis, for actively
constructing categories from data, and for spurring more methodological plurality within
qualitative theory building.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Associate Editor Heather Haveman and the
following people for their help on this paper: Beth Bechky, Christine Beckman, Julia DiBenigno,
Karen Golden-Biddle, Ann Goodsel, Gerardo Okhuysen, Siobhan O'Mahony, Melissa
Mazmanian, John Van Maanen and Mark Zbaracki.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Qualitative analysis is a central tool for developing new theory (Edmondson & McManus, 2007;

Eisenhardt, 1989). In recent years, there has been a call for increasing the rigor of qualitative

research (Lamont & White, 2008; Lubet, 2017; Pratt, Kaplan, & Whittington, 2020; Small,

2013). This debate on rigor has led some organizational scholars to ask, more specifically, “How

can inductive researchers apply systematic conceptual and analytical discipline that leads to

credible interpretations of data and also helps to convince readers that the conclusions are

plausible and defensible?” (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013: 15). In fact, the question of rigor

concerns all qualitative scholars and anyone evaluating qualitative research.

Scholars often assess rigor in qualitative research by examining qualitative analysts’

descriptions of how they moved from data to theory (Bansal & Corley, 2011). To demonstrate

rigor, then, qualitative scholars need to detail more effectively “the actual strategies used for

collecting, coding, analyzing, and presenting data when generating theory” (Glaser & Strauss,

1967: 244). When conducting qualitative analysis, we generally identify categories in our data.

These categories are generally described as codes or groupings of codes, such as the first- and

second-order codes and overarching categories often described in classical grounded theory

(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These categories later become the concepts and mechanisms that form

the foundation for theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003).

Given the centrality of categorization to qualitative analysis, it is surprising that we have

not yet drawn more purposely on categorization theory to penetrate the challenges faced by

qualitative scholars. A longstanding and vibrant line of inquiry among psychologists,

sociologists, and management scholars has focused on understanding how humans construct and

categorize the components of their world (Bingham & Kahl, 2013; Bloom, 2000; Khaire &

2
Wadhwani, 2010; Lamont & Molnar, 2002; Murphy & Lassaline, 1997; Rosch, 1978; Vergne &

Wry, 2014). Categorization is the process through which individuals group elements together to

generate an understanding of their world (Bowker & Star, 2000). Importantly, individuals have

been shown to actively construct categories based on the existing knowledge and the intentions

they bring to the categorization process (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Searle & Willis, 1995). Yet,

often this active categorization process is not evident in how qualitative researchers report their

research, which makes it difficult for readers to assess the researchers' analytical process.

Bringing categorization theory into the debate on how qualitative scholars achieve rigor

allows us to reflect on the active role that we as researchers play in the construction of the

categories critical to theory building. Such reflexivity can then allow us to articulate exactly what

we did so that others can better understand how we moved from data to theory. Oftentimes, "we

do not really know how the researcher got from 1,000 pages of field notes and transcriptions to

the final conclusions, as sprinkled with vivid illustrations as they may be " (Miles, Huberman, &

Saldaña, 2014: 5). This is problematic for all scholars trying to evaluate the results of such

pursuits, but even more so for junior scholars, who look to and try to learn from published pieces

for guidance on how to generate theoretical insights. The current lack of reflexivity also stands in

the way of theory development by limiting the repertoire into which scholars currently tap when

analyzing data and by artificially constraining the pathways that newcomers drawing upon

qualitative data believe they can pursue.

In this article, we integrate insights from both categorization theory and existing

scholarship on qualitative analysis to develop a framework emphasizing the researchers’ active

role in theory building. The framework includes the main analytical moves upon which scholars

might rely to sift through their data and serves as an invitation for them to both be more reflexive

3
and more transparent about their analytical processes. (Table 1 provides an overview of this

framework). We define moves as the micro-processes that researchers undertake during

qualitative theory building. By integrating categorization theory with insights from existing but

at times neglected qualitative scholarship, we identify specific moves. In other words, while

evidence of corresponding analytical strategies exists within qualitative scholarship, these moves

have not, as such, been explicated. Specifically, we highlight eight main moves—asking

questions, focusing on puzzles, dropping categories, merging categories, splitting categories,

relating and/or contrasting categories, sequencing categories, and developing and/or dropping

working hypotheses—that can provide analytical scaffolding to facilitate the often-daunting task

of analyzing qualitative data and crafting theoretical contributions. (Table 2 provides an

overview of each move, including a definition of it and examples of how it has been applied in

qualitative data analysis.)

- Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here -

Ultimately, we suggest that researchers can demonstrate rigor by detailing more precisely

how they have purposefully drawn on a broad and diverse set of moves to engage with their data.

This approach advocates that we are more candid and explicit about both the goals and the

process driving theory development. Moreover, we argue that different moves can be used to

generate insights during different phases of the research process and that no one template should

be reified as the true way to achieve rigor (Abbott, 2004, p. 52). That is true for Table 1 as

well—this is not a framework that should be applied as a template. Instead researchers should

apply the moves that allow them to generate insightful categories from their data and

subsequently report verbally and/or visually the often messy process that resulted. In short, we

4
not only answer the call for increased rigor but also encourage scholars to deploy their full and

diverse analytical imagination in pursuit of strong theoretical insights.

ACHIEVING RIGOR IN QUALIATIVE ANALYSIS

Qualitative scholars have long tried to achieve a better understanding of how readers are

convinced by ethnographic texts and how limited cases can lend themselves to rigorous

interpretation (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993; Small, 2009, 2013; Staw, 1995). A debate has

recently ignited about how to improve methodological rigor (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).

To pre-empt skepticism about qualitative rigor, scholars have articulated broad guidelines on

how to conduct qualitative research properly by calling on scholars to develop “a coding scheme

and, insofar as possible, provide a sample of likely coding categories” (Lamont & White, 2008:

143), yet they have been less explicit about how to do so.

In practice, many management scholars have translated the call for rigor into a need to

follow seemingly proven and tested templates in written accounts of their analytical processes

(Bansal & Corley, 2011; Langley & Abdallah, 2015). While templates might prove useful in

some circumstances, they can also obfuscate the researcher’s generative role in the analytical

process when applied indiscriminately. Moreover, using templates can hinder scholarly output

because it constrains the multiple ways in which rich qualitative data can be mined for insights

and have the unintended consequence of generated undue homogeneity in qualitative theory

building. As Swidler and Lamont (2014) argue, “Method debates are in fact theory debates” (p.

157). Even Strauss and Corbin (1990) caution against the use of templates: "We realize that

beginners need structure and that placing the data into discrete boxes makes them feel more in

control of their analyses” (p. 129). They then add, “Analysts who rigidify the process are like

artists who try too hard: Although their creations might be technically correct, they fail to capture

5
the essence of the objects represented, leaving viewers feeling slightly cheated. Our advice is to

let it happen. The rigor and vigor will follow." Put otherwise, qualitative scholars may adopt

different approaches when moving from data to theory; we argue that these various approaches

may nonetheless be rigorous.

Here, we draw on categorization theory to explicate how researchers decipher their data

and actively construct categories at different stages of the analytical process. In the process, we

unpack how a qualitative scholar might “let it happen” (in Strauss and Corbin’s terminology)

while still ensuring that readers can both evaluate the scholar’s analytical process and be better

guided in their own future pursuits. Instead of promoting a unique template, we posit that

rigorous qualitative analysis can be achieved by being transparent and detailed about individuals’

active categorization choices during the process of discovery (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 244).

Such an approach to rigor means that readers assessing the move from data to theory are able to

grasp and evaluate more clearly the many decisions made by researchers in their analytical

pursuits (Eisenhardt, Graebner, & Sonenshein, 2016). This approach also encourages us to be

more reflexive about our own research processes and how we build insights from our data

(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), which can help us achieve a stronger theoretical contribution.

Qualitative Analysis as a Categorization Process

At its core, the process of qualitative analysis entails sifting through data to generate new

categories that can form the foundation for new theoretical insights (Becker, 2008; Charmaz,

1983; Fine, 1993; Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007; Spradley, 1979; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Van

Maanen, 2011). As Charmaz explains, “As the researcher categorizes, he or she raises the

conceptual level of the analysis from description to a more abstract theoretical level” (Charmaz,

6
2006: 186). Van Maanen (1979: 541) likewise emphasizes “categorizing” as a step to move from

data to more general findings. In addition, Corbin and Strauss (1990: 7) stress the importance of

progressing from examining raw data to constructing and labeling larger groupings that capture

instances of emerging categories to develop theory. To generate “overarching categories,” they

advocate identifying similarities between subordinate categories and merging them to create

larger groupings. Importantly, within qualitative data, these categories are sometimes concepts

and at other times mechanisms, where mechanisms are categories of actions or behaviors that

relate the concepts to each other (Davis & Marquis, 2005; Hedström & Swedberg, 1996).

The challenge of creating categories is exacerbated when data are rich and layered; this is

true of much qualitative data. The richer and more layered the data, the more decisions the

researcher needs to make in order to generate categories that form the basis for novel insights.

Qualitative data tend to be rich and layered because they are often longitudinal (such that

categories might vary over time) (Langley, 1999), are collected on an ongoing basis (such that

the categories created initially no longer prove relevant later in the collection phase) (Lopez &

Phillips, 2019), or derive from participants or data sources with differing perspectives (such that

categories across participants or sources might differ) (Lofland & Lofland,1971). Nevertheless,

while categorization is at the heart of qualitative analysis, we have not yet looked to theories of

categorization as a way to reflect on the process of qualitative theory building.

Drawing on Categorization Research to Inform Theory Building

Scholars have long recognized that humans need to create categories to reduce the amount of

information they need to process in navigating a complex, information-satiated world (e.g.,

Bowker & Star, 2000; Lakoff, 2008; Rosch, 1978). Categories are actively and socially

7
constructed through a complex and multifaceted process that is driven by the knowledge, goals,

and contexts in which the categorization process unfolds (Barsalou, 1983; Berger & Luckmann,

1967; Durand & Paolella, 2013; Murphy & Medin, 1985; Searle & Willis, 1995). For example,

when antique dealers source pieces to acquire for their collection, they might distinguish them by

century rather than grouping them by function, thus sorting the pieces, in effect, based on their

goals and knowledge structures. By contrast, lay people would most likely sort antique furniture

by salient functional features, for example, grouping all chairs together or all tables together. In

other words, faced with the same set of elements, and depending on people’s goals and existing

knowledge, the sorting process will proceed differently, and people will ultimately most likely

generate distinct groupings (Barsalou, 1983). The creation of categories can therefore not be

decoupled from the person(s) who created them or the context in which they were created.

This active construction of categories not only shapes which categories are generated but

also the process through which they are created. As the knowledge and goals of the categorizer

change, so do the categories created (Vygotsky, 1987). Furthermore, the process of

categorization is not linear and rational but characterized by iteration, detours, and regression

(Bloom, 2000). Categories are often later forgotten. Some of these forgotten categories are lost

forever, whereas others are recreated at a later stage, when the need for the same category arises

(Siegler, 1998).

This active process also shapes the internal relationship between categories. Initially,

scholars asserted that categories were organized hierarchically: Each overarching category

encompassed all the other categories underlying it (Murphy & Lassaline, 1997). For example,

“beef,” “lamb,” and “pork” can all be viewed as subsets of the overarching category “meat,”

which in turn belongs to the overarching category “food.” This view, however, has been

8
challenged. First, scholars have found that not all categories are organized around hierarchies

(Rosch, 1978). Second, recent developments in categorization theory have emphasized that such

sorting is often contextual and dependent on the goal. If the goal is to consume only grass-fed

meat (Weber, Heinze, & DeSoucey, 2008), then one might reorder these elements into grass-fed

and traditionally-fed meat, regardless of the type of animal from which the meat is derived. Such

a grouping can recast elements into very different categories and produce new relations between

them.

Applied to qualitative analysis, such agency in generating categories suggests that there

could be an infinite number of perspectives on a particular data set, depending on the context and

on the coder’s knowledge and goals. Furthermore, people’s perspectives and goals evolve as

categories are created, forgotten, and at times resurrected throughout the analysis process.

Theory development encompasses many decisions that are anything but pre-defined and are

therefore difficult to fit into templates. The scholar is always at the center of the process and is

actively involved in making these choices.

Drawing on Past Qualitative Scholarship to Inform Theory Building

While an active perspective on theory building has not been at the center of qualitative analysis

published in management scholarship (Bansal & Corley, 2011; Langley & Abdallah, 2015), a

close reading across decades of scholarship on qualitative analysis reveals that there is support

for the active approach as an analytical strategy (Becker, 2008; Eisenhardt, 1989; Fine, 1993;

Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007; Langley, 1999; Miles et al., 2014; Spradley, 1979; Van Maanen,

2011). We propose that many of the moves used in qualitative analysis mirror processes

identified in categorization theory. For instance, Becker (2008) outlines “tricks” that qualitative

9
researchers can use to build theory. He encourages researchers to actively start elaborating

categories by asking themselves what questions their data can answer. As he articulates it, “The

reformulated questions constitute the beginnings of conceptual construction” (p. 122). Overall,

Becker suggests that asking questions may be what paves the way for theoretical development.

Similarly, Lofland and his colleagues (2006: 201) advise that “where the rubber hits the road, so

to speak” is when “you begin to condense and organize your data into categories that make sense

in terms of your relevant interests, commitments, literatures, and/or perspectives.” Thus, many

foundational recommendations in qualitative analysis point to a range of ways in which

qualitative researchers can actively approach their data to derive insights. These

recommendations inform the moves (detailed next) that constitute the building blocks of our

proposed active categorization framework.

AN ACTIVE CATEGORIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR THEORY BUILDING

In the following pages, we integrate insights from categorization theory with insights from the

recommendations provided by at times neglected qualitative scholarship to spotlight eight main

moves in which qualitative researchers engage when sifting through data and developing theory.

We detail how these eight moves can generate multiple pathways toward theory development.

Like different swimming strokes, these moves enable researchers to swim differently through

their data and reach diverse destinations. As such, they should be viewed as examples of possible

moves. Analytical moves can be actively recombined in many ways to create multiple paths to

insight, depending on the unfolding of the research process and/or the phenomenon in question.

Researchers will then themselves be able to identify more moves and to recombine them in

potentially infinite ways to create a rigorous data-analysis description with a fully transparent

10
analytical process.

One way to think about the active categorization framework is to consider these eight

moves in relation to three general stages in the analytical process: generating initial categories,

refining tentative categories, and stabilizing categories. Since analyzing data is a “live” and

iterative process (Locke, Feldman, & Golden-Biddle, 2015), all moves can be useful at all stages

of the process. Some moves, however, might be more relevant and more likely to be deployed at

specific stages. In Table 1, the shading of each move during a particular analytical stage

represents our expectations of its likelihood to occur at that time. In the following section, we

present the moves, following this possible order of appearance.

Generating Initial Categories: Initial Data Collection and Analysis

Very few qualitative scholars approach field settings as fully blank slates (Lofland et al., 2006).

Typically, qualitative scholars engage in early moves aimed at generating insights to prime the

theory-building process (Spradley, 1979). When they are selecting field topics and starting to

collect data, they draw on their existing knowledge and experiences to imagine possible

pathways, setting aside others that do not trigger their curiosity. Thus, the choices and focus that

researchers bring to their empirical inquiry seed the categorization process. We identified as

central to this early seeding process two moves associated with generating initial categories:

asking questions and focusing on puzzles. Here we define these moves, relate them to

methodological strategies that we have identified in existing qualitative scholarship, and provide

empirical examples.

11
Asking questions. Categorization theory suggests that how humans make sense of the world

depends on their prior understanding and initial goals (Barsalou, 1983; Durand & Paolella, 2013;

Murphy & Medin, 1985). Deprived of existing categories, we would not be able to integrate or

understand the world around us. Our existing categories are the foundations for the new

categories that we form when presented with novel stimuli (Armstrong, Gleitman, & Gleitman,

1983). In particular, we categorize the same objects differently depending on the goals we are

trying to achieve and the questions we ask of the world. Barsalou (1983), for example, points out

that the categories people formulate to prepare to go camping consist of heterogeneous objects—

such as boots, tents, and sleeping bags—that are united because they are useful for achieving the

same goal. By contrast, given a different goal (such as going to work), boots and tents would not

be viewed as part of the same category. Asking questions is the move in which researchers draw

on their existing categories to select and approach their field settings with specific questions to

which they would like answers. By asking questions, and thereby restricting their goals upfront,

researchers begin to craft initial (possible) categories while they are collecting and analyzing

their data. This is not to say that early questions are not revised or that new ones do not surface

during analysis, but the initial path through the data is determined by which questions are asked.

Identified methodological strategies. A close read of existing scholarship on qualitative

methods reveals that asking questions has been suggested as a move to initiate theory building

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Spradley, 1979; Strauss, 1987). Although many qualitative scholars

allow themselves to be guided by their field data and interactions, they still enter the field with

some preconceptions and a history of past research designs and questions (Golden-Biddle &

Locke, 2007). As Cohen (2013) lucidly reports, “many of the choices made in my [qualitative]

research design followed directly from past research” (p. 435). This pattern explains why Strauss

12
(1987) labels one common approach to qualitative data analysis a “theory elaboration exercise,”

one in which past literature serves as a springboard for asking questions to spur new lines of

research “in service of discovering” a new and more encompassing theory (p. 306). Similarly,

Spradley (1979) suggests that asking questions is a core part of the early discovery process

because it is through questions that researchers create initial categories for the problem they are

trying to understand.

Likewise, many scholars recommend ongoing efforts to answer the key question in

generalizing beyond the chosen empirical setting: What is this a case of? Asking this question

allows for an exploration of the conceptual possibilities offered by the data (Glaser & Strauss,

1967: 24), thereby generating theoretical insights that “bump things up a level of generality”

(Luker, 2008: 138). Another reason why asking questions is an important part of the research

process is that it helps the researcher to manage the complexity and overload of data, which can

stand in the way of theoretical insights. Without such questioning, “The result is death by data

asphyxiation—the slow and inexorable sinking into the swimming pool which started so cool,

clear, and inviting and now has become a clinging mass of maple syrup” (Pettigrew, 1990: 281).

Even if questions are not fully articulated, they are nonetheless ubiquitous in the mind of many

researchers and offer gateways into the initial process of category construction and theory

building.

Empirical examples. Our analysis of published qualitative papers revealed examples of

how authors have used questions to jump-start their theory development. Grodal, Nelson, and

Siino (2015) describe their process: “Initially, our observations focused on [the] grand tour

question (Spradley,1979): ‘How do helping behaviors unfold?’ Over time, however, as our

inquiry became more focused on specific aspects of helping behavior, the nature of these

13
questions changed to reflect our growing understanding” (p. 140). Because the authors asked this

question, helping behavior became the focus of their study, even though their data also spoke to

other phenomena. Deeper into their analysis, they began to wonder how engagement is sustained

during helping routines. Hence, their questions shifted at each stage and in many ways shaped

the categories on which they honed in during their finer-grained analysis. This approach of

iterative questioning is not unique: When describing the analytical process she followed in her

study of employees’ use of mobile devices, Mazmanian (2013) similarly reports asking questions

of her data (p. 1231). Likewise, in her study of women doing “unpaid” work in VIP nightclubs,

Mears (2015) asks the core question “Why do workers participate in their own exploitation?” as

a trigger to her analytical process (p. 1099). With these questions in mind, these scholars were

able to spearhead unique trajectories through their data. Asking questions is thus an important

move in qualitative research because it allows researchers to proactively direct their analysis

toward a specific theoretical end, making it more likely that the initial categories that emerge

from the data-analysis process will be of theoretical significance.

Focusing on puzzles. Initial categories are also generated by focusing on puzzles, the move in

which researchers concentrate on the parts of the data they find most surprising or salient. Not all

information is equally important in the categorization process (Bowker & Star, 2000). To

categorize the world around us, we bring with us the knowledge we have already accumulated

about a particular space (Durkheim & Mauss, 2009); thus, we categorize objects by making

inferences based on the knowledge base we already possess (Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994;

Murphy, 2004). If we observe that a particular animal has wings, we assume that it can fly, lays

eggs, and tends to its young in nests. When our knowledge of the world is confirmed in actual

14
behavior, we hardly pay attention: These categories have become part of our taken-for-granted

understanding of the world (Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Colyvas & Powell, 2006; Vygotsky,

1987). When the bird with wings takes off in flight, we happily proceed undisturbed.

Nevertheless, our observations do not always correspond to our existing knowledge about

the world. If we encounter a bird with wings that cannot fly (such as a penguin or an ostrich), we

pause in puzzlement. The lack of flight is a salient feature in an animal with wings; it forces us to

pay attention. “Salience refers to the intensity of a feature, the extent to which it presents a high

amplitude” (Sloman, Love, & Ahn, 1998: 193). Salience arises when an observation is at odds

with our existing knowledge about a category, and it plays an important role in category

formation because salience helps us to focus on the novelty and uniqueness of a specific situation

(Ahn, 1999). For example, we might believe that all swans are white. Encountering a black swan

creates dissonance with our existing cognitive structures, and we pay attention to the

phenomenon in an attempt to find an explanation for the discrepancy. Salience might take the

form of a contradictory exemplar—such as a puzzling person, event, or utterance (Smith &

Zarate, 1992)—that challenges the conceptual coherence through which we view the world

(Sloman et al., 1998). Focusing on puzzles might help us abduct new insights about a new and

untheorized category which may be present in the data (Behfar & Okhuysen, 2018; Locke,

Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008). In other words, a puzzling piece of data can function as a

lightning rod, attracting insights around which new categories can form (Zhao, Ishihara,

Jennings, & Lounsbury, 2018).

Identified methodological strategies. When developing theory, it is important to focus on

what is surprising and unexpected in how the data relate to existing theory. Scholars have called

such puzzles “negative cases” or “unusual incidents” (Katz, 2001) and have emphasized their

15
importance in the theorizing process, even if there is “only one case” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw,

2011: 193). Focusing on such cases can elucidate the patterns and variations in the meanings that

members attribute to a given social setting. Stated otherwise, strong qualitative research might

result precisely from focusing on the unexpected. In Tricks of the Trade, Becker (2008) describes

a move he calls over-focusing on strange elements: He explains how “weird” findings (p. 208) or

a “finding that does not fit” (p. 83) prove integral to theory development. Miles, Huberman and

Saldaña also call attention to “outliers” and “surprises” when analyzing data (2014: 301). Many

other scholars recommend honing in on puzzles as well. For example, Turco (2016) describes

generating insight by “reading her field notes and memos several times through” and never being

able to “jump right into line-by-line coding.” Instead, she suggests “looking for empirical

puzzles” (p. 206). In short, focusing on puzzling cases is an analytical strategy that researchers

can use to stimulate new lines of inquiry.

Empirical examples. When Desmond (2012) conducted his ethnography of evicted

tenants in high-poverty neighborhoods, he noticed that these tenants relied more on new

acquaintances than on kin ties to meet their more pressing needs, regardless of the strength or

weakness of those ties (Granovetter, 1973). “During everyday conversation, people in the trailer

park and the inner city claimed to have no friends or an abundance of them, to be surrounded by

supportive kinsmen or estranged from them,” Desmond explained. “I came to view these

accounts skeptically, interpreting them as a kind of data in their own right but not as accurate

evaluations of people’s social relationships” (p. 1302). This puzzling observation prompted him

to develop the notion of “disposable ties” as a new category of social ties not fully captured by

the notion of weakness.

In a similar fashion, when describing her analytical process, Vaughan (1996) highlights

16
how focusing on puzzles led her to generate theory about “normalizing deviance” in

organizations. “I began coding [the data],” Vaughan explained about her study of the space

shuttle Challenger disaster, “but soon realized … that this strategy was flawed: Aggregating

statements from all interviews by topic (a practice I often used) would extract part of each

interview from its whole” (p. 461). Instead, to elaborate her analytical categories, she focused on

the puzzle that informants’ statements regarding a critical part of the space shuttle often

contradicted the archival record—a move that proved to be core to her theorizing. Focusing on

puzzles thus directs researchers’ categorization efforts toward data elements that diverge from

expectations and might therefore form the basis for generating new theory.

During their initial data collection and analysis, researchers generate initial categories by

asking questions and focusing on puzzles. This is important in theory development because the

initial questions and puzzles arise from discrepancies between what researchers notice in the data

in light of their understanding of past theories which can help them abduct new theoretical

insights (Locke et al., 2008; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In this stage, researchers therefore

juxtapose initial categories with past theoretical insights.

Refining Tentative Categories: Further Analyses and Possible Added Data Collection

As research progresses, the process of data analysis shifts from generating initial categories

toward refining tentative categories through moves such as dropping categories, merging

categories, splitting categories, relating and/or contrasting categories, and sequencing

categories. These moves also help the analyst to begin distinguishing categories that might

function as mechanisms from those that function as concepts and to begin mapping out the links

between them. The combination of these moves starts to elaborate and challenge existing

17
theories.

Dropping categories. When we categorize the world around us, we must often sort through an

overwhelming amount of information (Murphy, 2004; Rosch, 1978). A consequence of the

overload of information is that people initially generate categories that turn out not to be relevant

to the categorization process. They might, thus, initially create categories that are faulty, biased

or irrelevant in explaining the phenomena that they are trying to categorize. When humans focus

in on salient cues to guide in the categorization process these initial categories might be salient

for accidental reasons instead of representing stable patterns (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld,

2005). An important part of the categorization process therefore entails dropping initial

categories to focus the categorization process on categories that are more important and

meaningful in explaining the phenomena at hand (Murphy, 2004). When people "drop

categories" they stop paying attention to categories that are no longer relevant in explaining the

phenomenon that they are paying attention to.

Identified methodological strategies. In the process of generating categories, researchers

often create a multitude of categories, only few of which will be essential in explaining the

puzzle that they have identified in the data. Several qualitative scholars suggest that an important

part of qualitative analysis is to revise and reduce the number of categories that are used to

explain the phenomena. Locke (2001, p. 79) for example suggests that "selecting out categories"

is an important part of the analytical process and that if "analysts feel they have in their theory a

coherent detailed and worthwhile story to tell then...they should drop the category." Likewise,

Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2014: 82) discuss the possible disconnect between the

researcher’s emerging understanding of a phenomenon and the categories identified in the early

18
stages of a project. In particular “some codes do not work; others decay. No field material fits

them, or the way they slice up the phenomenon is not the way the phenomenon appears

empirically.” The researcher realizes that “some codes do not work” and the associated

categories should be either dropped or transformed to best reflect the data.

Empirical examples. When researchers write their methods sections, they tend to focus

on the categories that remained in their analysis more than the ones that were dropped. This is

particularly true of published work where methods sections are often shorter than working papers

in which authors are more focused on convincing readers of their methodological astuteness.

However, examples from the co-authors’ own work suggest the importance of dropping

categories for the categorization process.

In her research on constructing social and symbolic boundaries in the nanotechnology

field, Grodal (2018, p. 792) describes that she "developed some broad and some very specific

codes. Through several rounds of iteration and moving back and forth between broad and

specific codes…" This process involved in fact dropping several codes which turned out not to

have theoretical traction. For example, the initial category "commercializing scientific

knowledge," which was abundant in the data, turned out to be only peripherally related to the

overarching theoretical story of how the social and symbolic boundaries of a field expand and

contract over time; this category was therefore dropped from the analysis.

Similarly, when studying ghostwriters, Anteby and Occhiuto (2020) initially created the

category "previously published" to track whether the ghostwriters they interviewed had

published under their own name prior to agreeing to write for others and how ghostwriters spoke

about such past publications. The intuition was that ghostwriters who had published under their

own name might resent (more than others) being asked to remain invisible from public view.

19
Ultimately, however, the category "previously published" proved partly irrelevant to the authors’

main findings. The ways in which ghostwriters spoke about their own writing did not illuminate

much their work experience of producing someone else’s self or what the authors label “stand-in

labor.” While Anteby and Occhiuto note that they “developed coding categories inductively” (p.

1295), they could have also added that they dropped several categories while developing their

theoretical insights.

Merging categories. When people “merge categories,” they unite two or more existing

categories to create a superordinate one. In categorization theory, people initially tend to create

elaborate and detailed categorization structures upon encountering unfamiliar objects or actions

(Bloom, 2000). Subsequently, to refine the initial categorization structure and optimize the

processing of information, people often merge these detailed categories to form superordinate

ones. Over time, this merging process can result in intricate hierarchies of categories (Murphy,

2004). For example, after creating the categories “ants,” “cows,” and “jellyfish,” a person might

realize that all three can be assigned to a superordinate category, “animal” because they all move

and depend on oxygen for their survival.

Identified methodological strategies. Historically, many qualitative scholars have

characterized merging categories as a fundamental move in qualitative analysis (Charmaz, 2006;

Locke, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). These scholars advocate beginning qualitative analysis

with “open coding,” that is, generation of a plethora of specific categories that closely adhere to

the phrasing articulated in the data. Ultimately, qualitative researchers should merge these

categories into superordinate categories that capture the essence of their meaning. For example,

Strauss and Corbin (1990) recommend that researchers progress from “open coding” to

20
ultimately generating “overarching categories” (pp. 223 and 229). As others have clarified, such

a “clustering” process enables researchers to “clump” items into “classes, categories, bins” and

to progress from “lower” to “more complex” categories (Miles et al., 2014: 279).

More recently, merging categories has become a common way to analyze qualitative data

in organizational scholarship. Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2013: 20) emphasize both merging

and the value of a “data structure” that depicts the conceptual movement from a multitude to a

reduced set of categories:

In this 1st-order analysis, which tries to adhere faithfully to informant terms, we

make little attempt to distill categories, so the number of categories tends to
explode on the front end of a study. There could easily be 50 to 100 1st-order
categories. … As the research progresses, we start seeking similarities and
differences among the many categories … a process that eventually reduces the
germane categories to a more manageable number (e.g., 25 or 30). … Once a
workable set of themes and concepts is in hand … we investigate whether it is
possible to distill the emergent 2nd-order themes even further into 2nd-order
“aggregate dimensions.”

Empirical examples. Many qualitative papers use the move “merging categories” in their

data analysis, although they may not label it as such. Some refer to merging as “combining” and

“bundling” (Huising, 2015: 270); others describe “consolidating” (e.g., Anteby & Molnar, 2012:

522; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006: 240), and still others report that they “assemble”

codes into “aggregate dimensions” (Nelson & Irwin, 2014: 900). Regardless of terminology,

these researchers proceed from having many categories to having fewer categories, often

referencing first-order categories, second-order categories, and overarching categories. For

example, Ramus, Vaccaro, and Brusoni (2017: 1264–65) describe initially creating a large set of

categories, which they gradually aggregated through subsequent data analysis:

First, we performed open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 61) of each document
to identify initial, empirical themes. … This stage of analysis drove us to identify
many empirical themes … Once a workable set of conceptual categories had been

21
 developed, we moved to more deliberate theorizing in an effort to aggregate
categories in an empirically grounded model that explained the process.

As an analytical process, merging categories can thus be found in both the categorization

literature and the qualitative methodology literature as a strategy for refining categories. Due to

its importance for theory development, this move has been widely used in recent empirical work.

It appears to be the most prevalent step that authors currently report when conducting qualitative

organizational research. Such an emphasis has generated an almost self-fulfilling prophecy

(Merton, 1948), in that the sheer assumption that theory development rests mainly on merging

categories minimizes other moves, such as splitting, which we turn to next.

Splitting categories. From studies of categorization, we know that humans’ category formation

does not progress uniformly from more categories to fewer through merging; often, progression

occurs in the opposite direction, from fewer to more (Murphy, 2004). Researchers studying

children’s language development have noted that children often “overgeneralize,” that is, they

use a category more broadly than is generally accepted. Over time, a child splits the

overgeneralized category into its component parts to create categories that are aligned with

conventional usage (MacWhinney, 1987). For example, a young child might use the word “car”

to refer to any object that moves, including a skateboard, a bicycle, and a ball. Over time,

however, the child breaks down the category “car” and distinguishes between “skateboard,”

“bicycle,” and “ball.” Splitting categories is a move defined as separating a category into two or

more subordinate categories.

Identified methodological strategies. Lofland and colleagues (2006: 119–143) assert that

probing the nuances of categories to create finer distinctions is an important component of theory

generation. Spradley (1979) also emphasizes that identifying “subsets within a domain and the

22
relationship between these subsets” is an important element in qualitative analysis (1979: 144).

Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014: 285) write about “partitioning” and “unbundling” as

critical ways to analyze data, adding that “there are many times when differentiation is more

important than integration.” As an illustration, researchers who have identified the category

“people above” in their data might through further analysis split the category into such

components as people “earning more” and people with “more ambition” than their informants

(Lamont, 2000: 102–145). Spradley (1979: 115–116) suggests that the process of splitting

categories can begin during data collection: If informants mention a category during data

collection, researchers might ask if they can provide other examples of the category. By means

of splitting, researchers can reach a more nuanced understanding of the different ways a category

is manifested (or not) in their data.

Empirical examples. Several qualitative studies provide examples of how splitting

categories can advance theory. For example, a vibrant stream of research has developed around

the notion of “emotional labor” (Hochschild, 1983); until recently, however, analysis of this form

of labor remained quite monolithic. In her study of psychotherapy practices, Craciun (2018: 261)

honed in on a single category, the use of emotions at work, that had emerged from her coding.

Through further data analysis, she discovered that the use of emotions could be split into three

categories: (1) “didactic,” as a tool of intervention (e.g., when professionals use emotion to foster

particular dispositions in their clients); (2) “supportive,” as a tool that helps professionals to

foster trust in their patients (e.g., when professionals are driven by passion for their work); or (3)

“inductive” (e.g., when professionals rely on their emotions as epistemic tools to identify

problems). Craciun also demonstrated that some professionals rely more heavily on one form of

emotional labor than the others, with important implications for their professional standing.

23
Likewise, Petriglieri (2015) describes how, in her study of BP executives during and after the

2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion and spill, she came to split a category she had developed

during the first stage of her analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of the relationship

between an organization and its members. While she initially developed the category

“questioning fit between self and organizational identity” as a theme, she realized that dividing

the category into emotional and cognitive components could lead to even more insights (p. 526).

Others have also described how they have split categories in order to specify their understanding

of a category (e.g. Crosina & Pratt, 2019). Broadly speaking, splitting can help researchers to

recognize nuances in their data and unpack a specific category that has piqued their curiosity.

Relating and/or contrasting categories. Categorization scholars have suggested that categories

are not created independently of each other but often evolve in parallel. In particular, many

scholars have asserted that categories are typically interrelated in semantic networks (Collins &

Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1969). Categories that often co-occur in discourse become more closely

related in the semantic network, whereas categories that seldom occur together become more

distantly related. For instance, if the category dog is often used in conjunction with the category

leash, the two words will ultimately be closely related in the semantic network. Nevertheless, it

is not merely categories’ association with one another that creates categorical meaning; it can

also be their perceived opposition. Categories often exist in contrasting pairs (Douglas, 1966;

Lévi-Strauss, 1969). For example, people construct the meaning of the category “natural” in part

from its contrast with the category “artificial” (Weber et al., 2008). The meaning of categories is

therefore determined by the way people relate and oppose categories to one another (Kahneman

& Tversky, 1984).

24
 Relating and/or contrasting categories is the move that researchers use when they

compare several categories to specify the relationships (or lack thereof) among them. It is

important to clarify how relating and/or contrasting categories differs from merging: Merging

identifies underlying features that belong to the same category; relating and/or contrasting

categories identifies relationships among categories that might not belong to the same

overarching category.

Identified methodological strategies. Many qualitative scholars have emphasized the

importance of comparing and/or contrasting categories (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007: 45;

Suddaby, 2006), thus implicitly acknowledging that categories can only operate in relation to one

another. Strauss and Corbin (1990: 125) note that categories are “related”; Becker similarly calls

all categories “relational” (2008: 132–133), pointing out that “working class” and “middle class”

labels have meaning only in relation to each other. Glaser and Strauss (1967: 106) thus provide

the following recommendation:

While coding an incident for a category, compare it with the previous incidents in
the same and different groups coded in the same category. This constant
comparison of the incidents very soon starts to generate theoretical properties of the
category. The analyst starts thinking in terms of the full range of types or continua
of the category … [including] its relation to other categories, and its other
perspectives.

Many other qualitative scholars would concur: The recommendation of Booth and

colleagues (2003: 46) to scholars progressing from a focused topic to a research question is

to “identify the parts [of a topic]” and “how they relate to each other”; Miles, Huberman,

and Saldaña (2014: 287) suggest that once one is “reasonably clear about what variables

may be in play in a situation, the natural next query is, How do they relate to each other?”

Empirical examples. Powerful examples of how categories relate to one another appear in

Lévi-Strauss’s The Raw and the Cooked (1969) and Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1966). Lévi-

25
Strauss’ study illustrates that myths cannot be understood in isolation: He describes a collection

of myths from tropical South America and points out how duality and oppositions (such as raw

versus cooked) are fundamental to humans’ understanding of society. Douglas’ (1966) seminal

work on purity makes a similar relational point: that the categories of “pure” and “impure”

function as a dyad, creating oppositions that enable individuals to make sense of their worlds; in

other words, we know what is impure by comparing it to what is pure.

A more recent example of such relational dynamics between categories appears in a study

of professionals’ social standing in organizations. The study examines commander–medical-

provider interactions in a military setting. As DiBenigno (2018: 18) explains, she coded whether

observed interactions entailed “developing personalized relationships across groups” or

“anchoring group members in their home group identity.” These two categories can be

understood separately, but they only fully make sense in relation to each other: One entails

anchoring oneself in an existing identity; the other involves building ties across identity groups.

Importantly, only anchoring contributed to taming inter-group conflict and encouraging the

medical providers to properly serve the soldiers. Relating and/or contrasting categories helps

researchers to identify in their data the boundaries of the categories and the relationships between

categories.

Sequencing categories. Categories are not static; they are dynamically related to the world that

people inhabit. An essential part of the categorization process is to create dynamic

understandings of this unfolding reality (Durand & Paolella, 2013; Nakamura, 1985). Categories

are not merely cross-sectional groupings of objects; they encode causal relationships between

objects and actions (Murphy & Medin, 1985). We categorize an event as a "birthday party" not

26
only due to the presence of a birthday cake and presents but also because the event follows a

sequence of actions: a) the arrival of guests, b) the guests make congratulatory statements, c) the

guests sing a birthday song, d) cake is served, e) candles are blown, f) cake is eaten and g) guests

leave. Breaking this sequence (for example by serving and eating cake before the guests arrive)

violates elements of the category "birthday party" and raises questions about whether the event

falls into this category. Indeed, a central part of the categorization process is to create sequential

relationships among categories, be they concepts or mechanisms (Ahn, 1999; Murphy & Medin,

1985). In qualitative theory building, researchers can use the sequencing move to temporally

organize the categories they have identified in the data. The categories created by researchers

consist of sequences of actions (mechanisms), objects, persons, and events (concepts) that

together form complex theories of reality.

Identified methodological strategies. A rich tradition in qualitative research has focused

on sequential processes as a lens through which to achieve a better understanding of various

phenomena (Langley, 1999; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013; Tsoukas &

Chia, 2002). From this viewpoint, the sequencing of categories matters decisively: An [A–B–C]

sequence might differ from a [C-B-A] sequence. As Locke notes, process-oriented research can

be described in many ways, but all “reflect a common element, namely time” (Locke, 2001, p.

42). Langley reminds us that events, phases, incidents, and ordering are all fundamental to the

coding process (1999: 696). Process scholars position time at the forefront of their analysis, but

many other qualitative researchers also recognize the importance of time in theory elaboration. In

Discovering Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss discuss sequencing in conjunction with

studying research productivity (1967: 213–214). Longer hours spent on research, they note, can

foster a higher level of motivation and, thus, superior performance, but those who perform at a

27
higher level might be more motivated than their peers and might therefore spend more time

conducting research. Thus, how the categories “hours spent at work,” “motivation,” and

“productivity” are temporally aligned can yield two very different theoretical stories, one led by

the hours worked and the other by high performance. Such distinct theoretical interpretations

suggest why qualitative researchers need to pay close attention to the sequencing of categories

when analyzing their data.

Empirical examples. Sequencing is important in qualitative analysis because the

interrelationship between categories is essential to identifying processes and their temporality. In

Jarzabkowski’s (2008) investigation of top managers’ strategizing behavior, an important part of

the analysis was to create a temporal sequence. The author describes how she “decomposed each

chronology into analytical periods time 1, time 2, and, if relevant, time 3 according to key

strategic responses or a discernable shift in top manager behavior” (p. 626). She then generated

categories to characterize the behavior within each period and sequenced them in time. Similarly,

to understand how organizations legitimated the new market category “satellite radio,” Navis and

Glynn (2010) compared patterns of categories associated with data collected over a period of six

years. By sequencing categories, the authors uncovered specific shifts in organizational identity

and audience attention. Finally, Barley’s (1986) examination of technology change as an

occasion for social structuration relied on data analysis that “traced the analytic logic suggested

by the sequential model of the structuring process” (p. 86); this indicates that the sequencing of

scripts (or categories) mattered as much as the categories per se. In all three examples,

sequencing enabled the researchers to develop novel insights into the temporal relationship

between categories.

In the process of juggling these merging, splitting, relating and/or contrasting, and

28
sequencing moves, the researcher begins to tease out some categories that function more like

mechanisms and others that function more like concepts. This is important because one of the

fundamental elements of theory development is not only to identify categories but also to offer a

novel perspective on the interrelationship between concepts and mechanisms (Davis & Marquis,

2005; Hedström & Swedberg, 1996). Such efforts can add to or even contradict what other

theoretical lenses would predict, thereby fulfilling the goal of achieving a more comprehensive

understanding of our social worlds.

Stabilizing Categories: Re-Analyses and Theoretical Integration

In the final analytical stage, the researcher aims to create a theoretical scaffold to explain the

studied phenomena by re-analyzing existing categories and integrating identified mechanisms

and concepts. This stabilizing stage often allows researchers to provide answers to or

explanations for their initial questions or puzzles. One of the critical moves in this stage entails

developing or dropping working hypotheses. This move allows the researcher to examine

whether the data truly support the theoretical conclusions reached in the prior stages and to be

more actively reflexive of how these conclusions were reached.

Developing or dropping working hypotheses. Categories are part of larger “theories” or

“working hypotheses” that we have formed to explain how the world works on the basis of prior

experiences (Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994; Murphy, 2004). We know, for example, that when

apples are dropped, they fall to the ground because of gravity. When encountering other

instances of dropped objects, we assume that gravity is also involved and look for evidence of

gravity in these new contexts. Gravity is thus part of our theory of the category “apple,” and we

would pause in astonishment if an apple did not fall but flew into the sky when dropped. In this

29
instance, we would probably begin to question whether the object we had dropped actually

belonged to the category “apple” because its behavior did not conform to our “theory” of the

apple category. Thus, how we construct categories cannot be decoupled from the broader

theoretical conjectures that form an integral part of a category (Durand & Paolella, 2013;

Murphy & Medin, 1985). In our interactions with the world, we are constantly updating our

working hypotheses and fitting them to our lived experiences (Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994).

Such updating might lead us to replace hypotheses about relationships that we once considered

true with new ones (Ahn, 1999). In developing and/or dropping a working hypothesis,

researchers formulate an overarching understanding of their data. As they iterate through their

data, they find either confirmatory evidence, spurring them to elaborate the hypothesis, or

contradictory/unsupportive evidence, prompting them to drop it.

Identified methodological strategies. Past advice on how best to approach qualitative data

analysis emphasizes the need to develop, but also to drop, working hypotheses. As Luker

elegantly articulates it, “We make private bets with ourselves about what features … will turn

out to be actual patterns. We know we will often be wrong … but we hang in there” (2008, p.

199). The frequent recommendation is for qualitative scholars to “abduct” insights from their

data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) without fully committing to them, so as to be able to

redirect their analytical eye and remain open to surprises. Locke and her co-authors (2008: 907)

note the coexistence of “doubt and belief” when analyzing data, suggesting that both knowing

and not knowing are central to the research process. The sense of knowing might lead to what

some authors call “propositions,” but propositions ought to be grasped loosely until each is either

supported by further data analysis or dropped (Lofland et al., 2006: 176). This “back-and-forth

… in which concepts, conjectures, and data are in continuous interplay” serves as the backbone

30
of many analyses (Van Maanen, Sørensen, & Mitchell, 2007: 1146). This shifting picture

explains why Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014: 99) recommend developing propositions to

“formalize and systematize the researcher’s thinking into a coherent set of explanations” yet

immediately warn researchers to adopt “safeguards against premature and unwarranted closure.”

One way to build such safeguards, they observe, is to purposely rate each conjecture as strong,

qualified, neutral, or contradictory, thus allowing the researcher to scrutinize those most likely to

emerge from the data and discard those that no longer fit.

Empirical examples. In their study of women crying at work, Elsbach and Bechky (2018:

134–135) started their analysis by identifying and coding events when women cried at work to

form a richer understanding of this phenomena. After the initial coding, they “developed a

preliminary model of defining the common situations in which women cried at work” and

hypothesized that the forms of situational emotional display could predict the observers’

reactions. They then returned to the literature to make sense of their data and began to

understand their data in light of the theory of “emotional display rules.” They found, however,

that their data “did not fit with these simplistic rules.” Instead, through engagement with existing

theory, they went on to create the new hypothesis that observers’ reactions could be explained by

their own “cognitive scripts.” After forming this new hypothesis, they returned to the data and

found support for this hypothesis.

Unsupported working hypotheses, however, often disappear from the public view:

Typically, only successful hypotheses graduate to presentation in print. Some authors’

retrospective comments on published pieces allow us nonetheless to see how working hypotheses

wax and wane. For instance, Chan and Anteby (2016) began studying front-line officers at the

U.S. Transportation Security Administration a decade after its creation. Initially, they focused on

31
developing categories capturing how employees had been socialized into a possible new

profession. Finding little support for the hypothesis that their data spoke to this theme, however,

they rapidly refocused the categorical analysis onto what interviewees deemed most salient,

gender discrimination and surveillance at work, and developed new working hypotheses (Anteby

& Chan, 2018; Chan & Anteby, 2016). In general, when researchers progress from data analysis

to theory development, developing and/or dropping working hypotheses is an important move: It

prompts researchers via multiple iterations through the data either to marshal strong support and

validity for their assumptions or to realize that their initial assumptions were faulty and to

discover new ways of interpreting their data (Locke et al., 2015). Once categories are stabilized

and hypotheses are supported, researchers can propose a scaffold that both fits their data and

advances theory.

DISCUSSION

The most important, yet mysterious, aspect of qualitative data analysis is rigorous theory

generation. In this paper, we integrate insights from categorization theory with often neglected

methodological strategies to develop a framework for how scholars can achieve and demonstrate

rigor in qualitative analysis. By being reflexive about their active role in confronting and creating

categories, scholars can be more transparent about their choice of moves, and thus increase the

rigor of their analytical process by making it easier for readers to assess the work. The

framework provides an overview of how researchers’ purposeful use of multiple moves can

generate theory from data. By spotlighting the various moves in which qualitative researchers

engage, our hope is both to help fuel more rigorous scholarship and to allow readers of

qualitative research to evaluate qualitative research efforts more effectively.

Although any of the moves can occur at any point in time during the analytical process,

32
the generation of initial categories often occurs when researchers ask questions that elicit insights

from the data or when they focus on puzzles in which the data conflict with existing theories.

After this initial stage, and in order to refine tentative categories, qualitative scholars can drop,

merge or split categories to make them more or less encompassing or organize categories, either

by sequencing them temporally or by relating and/or contrasting them with each other. Finally,

in order to stabilize categories, researchers develop and/or drop working hypotheses as they build

on their analysis to progress toward theoretical insights. The model of theory development that

we suggest is active and iterative: Researchers constantly cycle through multiple and distinct

moves while purposefully probing and revisiting initial categories. We argue that qualitative

researchers who adopt such an approach to data analysis will not only improve the transparency

and rigor of their work but also be better equipped to develop powerful theories that break with

existing understandings of the world. When researchers become more reflexive, they open the

black box of qualitative analysis to gain greater insight into their own analytical process, which

allows them to question and challenge their own assumptions. It is this prodding that might allow

them to develop greater theoretical insights.

Rigor via Reflexivity on Scholars’ Active Role in Categorization

Qualitative researchers have long been attuned to the challenges associated with achieving rigor

in their work and the need to detail their movement from data to theory carefully (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967: 244). Indeed, the most significant challenge for qualitative researchers “is not to

find more rigorous methods … [instead] the challenge … is to convince its practitioners that they

owe it to themselves … to explicate their procedures fully” (Comaroff, 2005: 38). Nevertheless,

recent debates, inspired in part by the rise of the behavioral sciences, have made it more urgent

33
to address these concerns (Pratt, Kaplan & Whittington, 2020). We argue that by being more

reflexive about the active process of categorization, scholars can better demonstrate transparency

in their movement from data to theory, which will allow readers to better evaluate the rigor of

their work.

Taking an active perspective on the process of analyzing qualitative data suggests that

researchers bring their own experiences and goals to bare on the analytical process. Some

scholars have argued that a sign of rigor in qualitative analysis is the ability of others to replicate

the same theoretical contribution when presented with the same data (Aguinis & Solarino, 2019).

Others, however, have posited that this concept of “replicability,” which is borrowed from

quantitative research, should be interpreted differently within qualitative scholarship (Pratt et al.,

2020). As Small (2009, p. 28) notes, qualitative researchers might need to embrace “alternative

epistemological assumptions better suited for their unique questions rather than retreat toward

models designed for statistical descriptive research.”

In sum, unless we assume that all scholars have the same cognitive/experiential

predispositions, the question of replicability becomes partly mute. Instead of focusing on

replicability as the path to rigor, we suggest that scholars can achieve and demonstrate rigor in

qualitative research by being first more reflexive and subsequently more transparent about their

metacognitive knowledge, that is, knowledge about their own knowledge and goals (Pintrich,

2002). As researchers, we might obtain a greater degree of rigor in our work if we are explicit

about and carefully detail our own knowledge and goals before and during our data collection

and analysis. It is thus important that researchers find ways to report and represent their data that

increases the transparency of their research process. Researchers can do this either verbally by

detailing the moves that they engaged in and the consequences each move had for their

34
theoretical development. They can also create visual representations of the analytical process that

are true to how the research unfolded and which shows the complexity and messiness of the

categorization process.

Unfolding the Analytical Process: An Opportunity for Theory Building

We argue that instead of mapping out all the possible and replicable categories in any given

dataset, qualitative researchers achieve rigor by tracing and detailing their unique pathway

through the data. Additionally, we argue that active categorization is more likely to yield

theoretical insights. Following categorization theory, we suggest that entering the field with

some theoretical understanding is both unavoidable and generative, and that not all data are

equally valuable for generating theory. For example, categorization processes fundamentally

forces us to not pay attention to the stimuli we encounter (Murphy, 2004). If we paid attention to

all the information at once, we would suffer from cognitive overload and be unable to create a

coherent representation of the world, let alone navigate through it (Rosch, 1978). Likewise,

because most areas of organizational life are already explained by existing theories, it is

important for qualitative researchers not to focus on the elements of their data that can be

explained within existing theories. Instead, we need to focus on the questions and puzzles that

challenge the current understanding of the phenomenon at hand and clearly explain the path that

helped us to reach our conclusions: That is, we need to focus on salient elements of the data that

cannot be explained within our existing categorical apparatus (Ahn, 1999; Sloman et al., 1998).

Theory represents an abstracted and simplified lens on reality that contributes to a

specific body of literature (Merton, 1973). Strong theoretical pieces shine because of what they

teach us: They help us to see new connections, revisit our preconceived viewpoints, and develop

35
new takes on old questions. When reading seminal academic articles and books, we focus on

their theoretical insights and can easily gloss over the analytical choices that underpin these

findings. Nevertheless, these insights are enabled by how scholars have generated theory from

data. This is particularly true of qualitative data analysis, which relies on researchers’

interpretations of their data and the analytical moves they make to generate theory from data.

Such an approach counters the illusion of a fully detached and comprehensive induction of

theory from data (Eisenhardt, 1989). The comprehensive, yet unintentional categorization of

qualitative data is unlikely to yield novel theoretical insights because it will mostly reproduce an

existing understanding.

An active categorization framework recognizes the unfolding of the research process and

implies that researchers select different moves at different times in the analytical process to

generate rigorous theory. For example, “asking questions” might be particularly well suited to

early phases of data analysis, prior even to developing categories, or to very late phases in which

researchers feel stuck. Similarly, the development of working hypotheses is most likely to occur

after several categories have emerged and been placed in relation to each other. Thus, focusing

exclusively on one move only tilts a scholar’s efforts and attention toward a single phase of the

analytical process, which, although important, might not stand alone. By spotlighting a

researcher’s potential toolkit of moves, we emphasize the sequential and iterative nature of any

analysis and underline that concentrating on a single phase/move might restrict our ability to

theorize in all phases of the research. This is not to say that questions or puzzles do not evolve.

Nonetheless, driving the analytical process with tentative questions or puzzles is critical to theory

development.

Plurality Within Qualitative Analysis

36
Adopting an active categorization frame means that researchers can approach the same data with

different goals and analyze it in different ways. The theoretical insights that are drawn from the

data are thus not simply “given” in the data but actively constructed by researchers to address

puzzles that they find interesting and important. Other researchers might view the same data very

differently: As we know, many valuable insights emerge from the interaction of different

individuals in distinct fields (Anteby, 2013; de Rond & Tunçalp, 2017; Hudson & Okhuysen,

2014; Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010; Louis & Bartunek, 1992). Building on the discussion by

Lamont and Swidler (2014) of diversity in qualitative methodologies, we call for more plurality

both within and across qualitive studies to fully leverage the richness and potential of qualitative

data. By combining analytical moves in different ways, researchers are ultimately likely to

generate more diverse insights from the same dataset, thus contributing to a broader range of

literature.

Beyond the fact that different paths can be taken through the data, if researchers

foreground certain moves over others, it might shape their theory development. A plurality of

analytical approaches is therefore likely to foster more diversity in contributions. For example, if

researchers focus more on puzzles, they are more likely to generate theory that challenges

existing theoretical understanding because the puzzling phenomena in the data derive precisely

from the contrast they present when juxtaposed with existing theories. This is the case in the

analysis by McPherson and Sauder (2013: 165) of how occupational groups can advantageously

hijack one another’s occupational logics. By focusing on the puzzle of why some occupational

groups did not uniformly display their own occupational logics, McPherson and Sauder (2013)

were able to demonstrate that logics can be used for strategic purposes to “manage institutional

complexity, reach consensus, and get the work … done.” Thus, because the authors focused on a

37
specific puzzle in their data, they developed an insight that broke with the prevailing

understanding of how logics operate.

Likewise, if researchers ask questions of their data, they will develop theory that might be

more likely to expand existing understanding. As an illustration, Tripsas and Gavetti (2000)

asked how cognitions (and not capabilities) might shape firms’ abilities to manage technological

discontinuities. From this point of departure, they were able to develop a perspective that

departed radically from prior views of how firms manage technological transitions. If researchers

start by merging or splitting categories, without asking questions or focusing on puzzles, it is

often difficult for them to gain theoretical traction because, without a guiding question or puzzle,

they can easily become overwhelmed by the multiplicity of possibilities and asphyxiate in their

data (Pettigrew, 1990).

The role of dropping, merging, splitting, relating and sequencing categories is to refine

categories that are created around an initial puzzle. These moves are likely to generate more

specificity in the resulting theory because they provide the researcher with more nuances in the

created categories. However, prioritizing any of these moves are likely to generate different

theoretical outcomes. An emphasis on dropping will for example narrow researchers' focus on a

smaller part of the data allowing them to develop a more detailed explanation of a smaller piece

of the reality that is captured in the data. This is often a cornerstone of qualitative analysis as any

given qualitative dataset is multifaceted and complex and can be used to address a wide variety

of theoretical questions. If researchers emphasize merging and splitting, the resulting theory is

likely to be better at explaining cross-sectional variation, as has been done in research drawing

on multiple cases (e.g. Graebner & Eisenhardt, 2004; Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009) or a matched

pairing of cases (e.g. Barley, 1986; Kellogg, 2009, 2019). In contrast, if researchers focus to a

38
greater degree on sequencing their resulting theories are more likely to excel at explaining

processes and mechanisms (e.g. Navis & Glynn, 2010; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010).

The timing of our call for increased plurality in qualitative research is important.

Although both categorization scholars and qualitative scholars have shown that categorization

processes are diverse, a renewed positivist orientation has in practice engendered uniformity in

analytical approaches to qualitative organizational research (Bansal & Corley, 2011; Gioia et al.,

2013; Langley & Abdallah, 2015). Nevertheless, as we have demonstrated, scholars across the

social sciences have found that categories are often generated not solely through applying a

single move but by focusing on puzzles that arise in the data and by applying a variety of

possible moves to generate categories which yield answers to that puzzle (e.g., Bingham & Kahl,

2013; Bloom, 2000; Bowker & Star, 2000; Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010; Lakoff, 2008; Murphy,

2004; Rosch, 1978). Gehman et al. (2017: 14) concur that “it is important to customize the

method for your research context. Research situations are different and require the use of tools

and techniques in different ways.” A call for increased rigor should therefore not be confused

with a call for uniformity.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this article posits that qualitative analysis is fundamentally a categorization process. By

drawing on categorization theory, we spotlight the range of diverse ways in which categories are

actively formed. To obtain rigor in qualitative analysis, we need to be transparent about these

active moves because otherwise readers cannot assess the precision of our work. We also suggest

that adopting an active categorization framework has critical consequences for how qualitative

analysis unfolds and for the theoretical insights we generate. If we do not problematize the

creation of analytical categories, we will be limited in the kinds of theoretical insights we are

39
able to develop. In other words, an active categorization framework can liberate scholars to

discover pathways through the data that might be less heavily traveled and, thus, more

innovative. Moving in lockstep, using identical tools, we may appear aligned and convey an

impression of rigor when in reality we are trampling on the seeds of our own imaginations.

40
 Table 1: An Active Categorization Framework for Theory Development

Categorization Analytical Researchers’ active moves Contribution to

process stages theory
Asking Focusing Dropping Merging Splitting Relating Sequencing Developing development
Questions on categories categories categories categories categories or dropping
puzzles hypotheses
Generating Initial data Linking initial
initial categories collection categories to past
and theoretical insights
analyses

Refining Further Linking tentative

tentative analyses categories to
categories and elaborate/challenge
possible existing theories
added data
collection

Stabilizing Re- Creating a

categories analyses theoretical scaffold
and
theoretical
integration

Note: On the figure the darker the shading the more attention is paid to that particular move during a given analytical stage.

41
 Table 2: An Overview of Eight Possible Analytical Moves

Move Definition Example

Asking questions Approaching the data with specific questions How do actors “construct, navigate, and capitalize on timing norms in their
that researchers want answers to attempts to change institutions”? (Granqvist & Gustanfsson, 2016)
Focusing on puzzles Focusing on the part of the data that is most It is puzzling that parties challenging established social systems collaborate with
surprising or salient to the researchers defenders of those same systems (O’Mahony & Becky, 2008).
Dropping categories Dropping categories that were generated during Upon attending his first role-playing game event, the researcher noted that “there
the initial part of data analysis but that turned was no organization to the group: there was no membership chairman, no one that
out not to have theoretical traction. one had to meet to gain access; one simply walked in…” (Fine, 1983: 244). Yet
rapidly that category lost relevance as others gained more theoretical traction.
Merging categories Uniting two or more existing categories to “In reviewing our first-level constructs and relating these to prior research, we
create a superordinate category concluded that all of them represented different phases and forms of identity
work.” Thus “identity work” was adopted as the label of a merged code (Creed,
Dejordy, & Lok, 2010: 1342)
Splitting categories Separating a category into two or more Splitting the category of Total Quality Management (TQM) “tools” into four sub-
subordinate categories categories, ranging from the least technical (general TQM methods) to the most
technical (statistical tools) (Zbaracki, 1998: 610)
Relating and/or Comparing several categories with each other Contrasting “grass-fed” and “conventional” to identify their similarities and
contrasting categories to identify relationships between them (or the differences (Weber et al., 2008)
lack of such relationships)
Sequencing categories Temporally organizing categories that Researchers “sought evidence of boundary and practice work patterns that co-
researchers have identified in the data occurred in time, by actor type and by objective. We identified four cycles of
interconnected boundary work and practice work.…We constructed raw data
tables for each cycle to provide another iteration between the raw data and this
higher level of abstraction.…These cycles together formed a complete lifecycle of
institutional stability and change” (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010, p. 200).
Developing and/or Formulating an overarching theory and, by “Throughout this cyclical process, we actively and continually called into question
dropping working iterating through the data, either finding our emerging theoretical understanding by exposing it to further data analysis” (de
hypotheses increasing evidence for it, leading to its Rond & Lok, 2016: 1971)
elaboration, or finding contradictory or
unsupportive evidence leading to its
abandonment

42
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. 2019. Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of
interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40: 1291–1315.

Ahn, W.-K. 1999. Effect of causal structure on category construction. Memory & Cognition, 27(6):
1008–1023.

Anteby, M. 2013. Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: Upholding professional distance and
personal involvement. Organization Science, 24(4): 1277–1290.

Anteby, M., & Chan, C. K. 2018. A self-fulfilling cycle of coercive surveillance: Workers’ invisibility
practices and managerial justification. Organization Science, 29(2): 247–263.

Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. 2012. Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to
forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3): 515–540.

Anteby, M., & Occhiuto, N. 2020. Stand-in labor and the rising economy of self. Social Forces, 98(3):
1287–1310.

Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition,
13(3): 263–308.

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

Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT

scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1):
78–108.

Barsalou, L. W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3): 211–227.

Becker, H. S. 2008. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about your Research while you’re Doing it.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Behfar, K., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2018. Discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing,
complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry.
Organization Science, 29(2): 323–340.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. 1966. New York: Anchor.

43
Bingham, C. B., & Kahl, S. J. 2013. The process of schema emergence: Assimilation, deconstruction,
unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 14–34.

Bloom, P. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. 2003. The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of
Chicago press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Chan, C. K., & Anteby, M. 2016. Task segregation as a mechanism for within-job inequality: Women and
men of the Transportation Security Administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2):
184–216.

Charmaz, K. 1983. The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson
(Ed.), Contemporary Field Research: 109–126. Boston: Little Brown.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
Los Angeles: Sage.

Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1): 1–39.

Cohen, L. E. 2013. Assembling jobs: A model of how tasks are bundled into and across jobs.
Organization Science, 24(2): 432–454.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.

Psychological Review, 82(6): 407.

Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. 2006. Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between
public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 305–353.

Comaroff, J. 2005. Notes on anthropological method, mainly in the key of E. Workshop on

Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research, 28–36. Washington D.C.:
National Science Foundation.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1): 3–21.

Craciun, M. 2018. Emotions and Knowledge in Expert Work: A Comparison of Two Psychotherapies.
American Journal of Sociology, 123(4): 959–1003.

44
Creed, W. E. D., Dejordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction
through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1336–1364.

Crosina, E., & Pratt, M. G. 2019. Toward a Model of Organizational Mourning: The Case of Former
Lehman Brothers Bankers. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1): 66–98.

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century:
Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4): 332–343.

de Rond, M., & Lok, J. 2016. Some things can never be unseen: The role of context in psychological
injury at war. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 1965–1993.

de Rond, M., & Tunçalp, D. 2017. Where the wild things are: How dreams can help identify
countertransference in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3): 413–
437.

Desmond, M. 2012. Disposable ties and the urban poor. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5): 1295–
1335.

DiBenigno, J. 2018. Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups:
The case of US Army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3): 526–569.

Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London ;
New York: Routledge.

Durand, R., & Paolella, L. 2013. Category stretching: Reorienting research on categories in strategy,
entrepreneurship, and organization theory. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6): 1100–1123.

Durkheim, E., & Mauss, M. 2009. Primitive Classification (Routledge Revivals). London: Routledge.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy
of Management Review, 32(4): 1246–1264.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4): 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. 2016. Grand challenges and inductive methods:
Rigor without rigor mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1113–1123.

Elsbach, K. D., & Bechky, B. A. 2018. How observers assess women who cry in professional work
contexts. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(2): 127–154.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

45
Fine, G. A. 1983. Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Fine, G. A. 1993. Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 22(3): 267–294.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., et al. 2017. Finding theory–method
fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management
Inquiry.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 1993. Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts
convince. Organization Science, 4(4): 595–616.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 2007. Composing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2004. The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and
governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3): 366–
403.

Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.

Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. 2015. Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine:
Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 136–168.

Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. 1996. Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 29: 281–308.

Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. 1994. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and
Culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2014. Taboo topics: Structural barriers to the study of organizational
stigma. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3): 242–253.

Huising, R. 2015. To hive or to hold? Producing relational authority through scut work. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 60(2): 263–299.

46
Jarzabkowski, P. 2008. Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal,
51(4): 621–650.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4): 341.

Katz, J. 2001. Analytic induction revisited. Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and
Formulations, 331–334.

Kellogg, K. C. 2009. Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery.
American Journal of Sociology, 115(3): 657–711.

Kellogg, K. C. 2019. Subordinate activation tactics: Semi-professionals and micro-level institutional

change in professional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4): 928–975.

Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research.
Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 315–333.

Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. 2010. Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a
new market category—Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1281–1304.

Lakoff, G. 2008. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, M. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and
Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lamont, M., & Swidler, A. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of
interviewing. Qualitative Sociology, 37(2): 153–171.

Lamont, M., & White, P. 2008. The Evaluation of Systematic Qualitative Research in the Social
Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4):
691–710.

Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. 2015. Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management.
In G. B. Dagnino & M. C. Cinici (Eds.), Research methods for strategic management: 155–184.
London: Routledge.

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of change in
organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1): 1–13.

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper & Row.

47
Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage.

Locke, K., Feldman, M. S., & Golden-Biddle, K. 2015. Handbook of Qualitative Organizational
Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Discovery, validation, and live coding: 371–380.
New York: Routledge.

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of
doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6): 907–918.

Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to
Qualitative Observation and Analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Lopez, S. H., & Phillips, L. A. 2019. Unemployed: White-collar job searching after the Great Recession.
Work and Occupations, 46(4): 470–510.

Louis, M. R., & Bartunek, J. M. 1992. Insider/outsider research teams: Collaboration across diverse
perspectives. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2): 101–110.

Lubet, S. 2017. Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters. Oxford University Press.

Luker, K. 2008. Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

MacWhinney, B. (Ed.). 1987. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mazmanian, M. 2013. Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for
heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1225–1250.

McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. 2013. Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug
court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 165–196.

Mears, A. 2015. Working for free in the VIP: Relational work and the production of consent. American
Sociological Review, 80(6): 1099–1122.

Merton, R. K. 1948. The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2): 193–210.

Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago:
University of Chicago press.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Murphy, G. L. 2004. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Murphy, G. L., & Lassaline, M. E. 1997. Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of
categorization. Knowledge, Concepts, and Categories, 93–131.

48
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. 1985. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological
Review, 92(3): 289.

Nakamura, G. V. 1985. Knowledge-based classification of ill-defined categories. Memory & Cognition,

13(5): 377–384.

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2010. How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy,
identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly,
55(3): 439–471.

Nelson, A. J., & Irwin, J. 2014. “Defining what we do—All over again”: Occupational identity,
technological change, and the librarian/Internet-search relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 57(3): 892–928.

Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2009. Origin of alliance portfolios: Entrepreneurs, network strategies, and
firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2): 246–279.

Petriglieri, J. L. 2015. Co-creating relationship repair: Pathways to reconstructing destabilized

organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3): 518–557.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization
Science, 1(3): 267–292.

Pintrich, P. R. 2002. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory
into Practice, 41(4): 219–225.

Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. 2020. The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency
from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 65(1): 1–19.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of
work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 235–262.

Quillian, M. R. 1969. The teachable language comprehender: A simulation program and theory of
language. Communications of the ACM, 12(8): 459–476.

Ramus, T., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. 2017. Institutional complexity in turbulent times: Formalization,
collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4):
1253–1284.

49
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization, ed. By Eleanor Rosch &
Barbara B. Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Searle, J. R., & Willis, S. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Siegler, R. S. 1998. Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W.-K. 1998. Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive
Science, 22(2): 189–228.

Small, M. L. 2009. How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based
research. Ethnography, 10(1): 5–38.

Small, M. L. 2013. Causal thinking and ethnographic research. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3):
597–601.

Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. 1992. Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review,
99(1): 3.

Spradley, J. P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Staw, B. M. 1995. Repairs on the road to relevance and rigor. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.),
Publishing in the Organizational Sciences: 85–97. London: Sage.

Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Los Angeles: Sage.

Suddaby, R. 2006. What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 633–642.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory
to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3): 167–186.

Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1147–1161.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science, 13(5): 567–582.

Turco, C. J. 2016. The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. New
York: Columbia University Press.

50
Van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(4): 539–550.

Van Maanen, J. 2011. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The interplay between theory and method.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1145–1154.

Vaughan, D. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at
NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vergne, J.-P., & Wry, T. 2014. Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future
directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1): 56–94.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. Thought and Language. New York: Plenum Press.

Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. 2008. Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the movement
for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 529–567.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16(4): 409–421.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Zbaracki, M. J. 1998. The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43(3): 602–636.

Zhao, E. Y., Ishihara, M., Jennings, P. D., & Lounsbury, M. 2018. Optimal distinctiveness in the console
video game industry: An exemplar-based model of proto-category evolution. Organization
Science, 29(4): 558–611.

Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. 2010. Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field:
The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2):
189–221.

51
Stine Grodal ([email protected]) is an associate professor of strategy and innovation at Boston University’s
Questrom School of Business and (by courtesy) sociology at Boston University’s College of Arts &
Sciences. Her research examines the emergence and evolution of markets, industries and fields with a
specific focus on the strategies firms and other industry stakeholders use to shape and exploit new market
categories.

Michel Anteby ([email protected]) is an associate professor of organizational behavior at Boston

University’s Questrom School of Business and (by courtesy) sociology at Boston University’s College of
Arts & Sciences. His research looks at how people relate to their work, their occupations, and the
organizations to which they belong. Recent empirical foci of his inquiries have included airport security
officers, correctional officers, and ghostwriters.

Audrey L. Holm ([email protected]) is a Doctoral Candidate in Management and Organizations at Boston

University's Questrom School of Business. Her research focuses on shifting occupational dynamics,
evolving relationships at work, and new labor market challenges. Her dissertation looks more specifically
at how members of intermediary-organizations (such as back-to-work programs) accompany returning
citizens in their job searches.

52