r Academy of Management Journal2018, Vol. 61, No. 4, 1189–1195.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004

FROM THE EDITORS

NEW WAYS OF SEEING THROUGH QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Qualitative research offers critical tools that ad-vance our editorial team’s ambition to foster ‘newways of seeing’ (see Shaw, Bansal, & Gruber, 2017).By building theory inductively, research based onqualitative data offers insights that challenge taken-for-granted theories and expose new theoretical di-rections. As we face more wicked problems in ourworld, scholars are increasingly adopting qualitativemethods to unpack these complex challenges. In thelast year, qualitative papers hit an all-time high of20% of submissions to Academy of ManagementJournal (AMJ).

Yet, effectively unpacking new theory requiresscholars to take advantage of the breadth and varietyof approaches to qualitative research. In2011, Bansaland Corley lamented that qualitative research wasnorming around a single approach—often, case-based positivist research with systematically codeddata—and called for more methodological diversity.As editors, we are now seeing more papers sub-mitted with varied qualitative methods, but thesemore novel approaches remain in the minority nev-ertheless. In this editorial, we underscore Bansaland Corley’s (2011) argument that such diversity inqualitative research is critical to advancing our cur-rent AMJ editorial team’s desire to foster “new waysof seeing.” By exposing the breadth of approachescovered by the single label of “qualitative research,”we hope to motivate researchers to more fully em-brace opportunities that advance theory throughqualitative methods. In so doing, we believe thatthe theoretical insights will contribute to our col-lective understanding of tackling someof theworld’smost intractable management and organizationalchallenges (Eisenhardt, Graebner, and Sonenshein,2016).

In this editorial, we describe different qualitativemethods as genres—distinct approaches with theirown internally coherent epistemology, historicalroots, and assumptions. Similar to different works ofliterature, music, or film, a genre emphasizes vari-ety across types of qualitative research, as well as

alignment of logics within each type. Examples ofqualitative genres include case study research, pro-cess studies, engaged scholarship, historical studies,discourse studies, paradox as a method, dialecticalinquiry, and fuzzy set qualitative comparative anal-ysis. Just as the label of ‘qualitative research’ con-tains within it a variety of genres, these genres oftencontain within them gradations and subgenres,which may form their own genre. Indeed, we antic-ipate that the diversity of methodologies will onlyexpand in scope as the qualitative field continues tomature, but only as long as we remain vigilant inensuring that the field does not institutionalizearound a few norms too quickly.

In this editorial, we first outline the broad cate-gory of qualitative research and highlight its valuefor new ways of seeing. We then expand upon someexemplary genres of qualitative research, notingtheir internally aligned assumptions as well as theirdistinctions from other genres. We conclude thiseditorial byhighlighting four core principles that canhelp both authors and reviewers alike adopt and as-sess the quality of research that aims to see in newways.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AS A MEANSTO SEE IN NEW WAYS

By ‘qualitative research,’ we mean scholarshipthat primarily relies on qualitative data and induc-tive theorizing. Quantitative data are numerical, andcan be added, manipulated, and transformed intoefficient data displays. Qualitative data, on the otherhand, are nonreduceable text, including words andvisuals delivered in static (e.g., paper) or dynamicform (e.g., theater). Although these qualitative datacan be digitized, synthesized, and even counted,doing so first requires interpretation of the data todiscern patterns and insights. Given the broad formsin which qualitative data may appear, a researcher’sonto-epistemological assumptions often shape his/her approaches to this analytical process.

Inductive theorizing is a cornerstone of qualitativeresearch.Whereas quantitativemethodsdeducenewknowledge that relies heavily on logical reasoningbased on prior insights and expands understanding

All authors contributed equally and are listed in alpha-betical order.

1189

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

along existing or adjacent paths, qualitative researchsurfaces new insights that can often introduce theoryin completely new directions. When adopting qual-itative methods, scholars draw on the observationsfrom the data to introduce abstracted knowledge thatcan generalize beyond the specific contexts. Induc-tive theorizing grounded in data can broaden theresearchers’ epistemological framewith longer leapsthanhypo-deductive logic basedonquantitative data,thereby yielding completely novel ideas.

Such inductive theorizing based on qualitative dataare particularly appropriate in new or understudiedempirical contexts where there is relatively little priorwork, as in the case of complex, messy grand chal-lenges (Nadkarniet al., 2018).AsBambergerandPratt’s(2010) AMJ editorial advocated, unconventional con-texts serve to break our assumed theoretical frames. Bystarting with the phenomena, researchers can some-times discern perspectives inaccessible throughhypothetico-deductive logic. By enabling lateral shiftsin knowledge that are often difficult to observe usingdeductive methods, qualitative research advancescritical thinking and scholarship.

EXAMPLES OF MORE-ESTABLISHED ANDLESS-ESTABLISHED GENRES

Qualitative research includes many genres, eachoffering a different lens with which to view phe-nomena.Wedescribe several examples of qualitativeresearch, seeking to highlight the rich breadth ofinsights through different qualitative genres drawnfrom management research and from scholarly tra-ditions developed in other fields of social sciencesand the humanities. The connection to these othertraditions helps researchers see the links to otheronto-epistemological assumptions, recognizing theorigins of the ideas and their related traditions. Ourexamples are meant to be illustrative not compre-hensive;we invite scholars to recognize anddeploy afull range of genres that fits their research endeavor,alignswith their data, and reflects their ownpersonalresearch preferences.

Variance-Based Case Studies

Variance-based case studies build an understand-ing of the relationships between well-defined con-structs, so that the proposed relationships transcenda specific context (Eisenhardt, 1989). These studiesoften aim to unpack “what causes what,” as re-searchers seek to understand the factors that can ex-plain different outcomes.

Multiple case studies use a replication-and-comparison logic to see patterns in a data set. Caseswith outcomes that vary (e.g. success and failure) areuseful in eliciting different explanatory variables;multiple cases with the same outcomes (e.g. successor failure) strengthen the reliability of the theory.Even single case studies can be used to supportvariance-based theorizing, comparing the currentdata against insights from received theory. Thesevariance-based approaches tend to follow a positivistparadigm, so that other researchers can assess thevalidityof the theoryandconstructsby applying themto different empirical settings.

More than any other qualitative method, thispositivist genre dovetails most closely with deduc-tive, quantitative research. Whereas a hypothetico-deductive approach to theorizing starts with priortheory, an inductive approach starts with the dataor context-specific problem (Weick, 1992).However,the propositions derived in this type of positivistanalysis can extend prior work and stimulate futuredeductivework (Eisenhardt &Graebner, 2007), thoughdoing so in ways that offer potential leapfrogs in the-orizing.Forexample,Plowman,Baker,Beck,Kulkarni,Solansky, and Travis (2007) used a single case studyto observe how a series of small events—specifically,offering hot breakfasts— ultimately contributed toradical changes in a church. To understand this phe-nomenon, the authors applied complexity theory totheorize how such small triggers could result in suchradical changes. Complexity theory had previouslyreceived little attention in mainstream managementjournals. By applying this theory, the authors ex-panded our field’s engagement with it.

Process Studies

Process studies explore change, emergence, ad-aptation, and transformation. Whereas variance ap-proachesprioritize static entities, unpack their stablestructures and constitutive features, and identify thefactors that lead to specific outcomes, process on-tology shifts the focus to the ongoing, dynamic, andshifting experiences. Early process studies consid-ered how entities changed from one time period tothe next (Mintzberg, 1978; Pettigrew; 1990). Startingin the late 1990s, however, scholars argued fora ‘strong’ process approach that diminishes entitiesaltogether and explores phenomena as alwayschanging (for an overview, see Langley & Tsoukas,2010, 2017). For example, Tushman andRomanelli’s(1985) work on punctuated equilibrium representsan early approach to process studies, highlighting

1190 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

the adaptive states of “variation and selection” thatstimulate organizational innovation and changebetween more stable states of “retention.” In con-trast, Weick and Quinn (1999) proffered a strongprocess model, suggesting that change is not epi-sodically occurring betweenmore static periods, butcontinuous and ongoing, such that there are no staticperiods.

Process studiesdraw fromrichphilosophical roots(i.e., Dewey, 1938; James, 1952; Whitehead, 1978),relying on a dynamic, relational, and antidualisticontology. This ontology describes a world that is inconstant flux, where individuals and environmentsare mutually constitutive. The nature of these flow-ing relationships take primacy, such that, in the ex-treme, the dualistic distinctions we make betweenthe individual and the environment, the self and theother, themind and the bodyabsolve to focus only ontheir dynamic interactions.

Adopting a process view then invites us to observeflows, changes, and relationality. For example,a more variance-oriented study might identify rou-tines and ask how particular routines lead tomore orless impact on organizational outcomes. A strongprocess view, in contrast, explores the underlyingmotor of routines, and how routines themselves arein constant flux and change informing as well asinformed by the users that adopt them (Feldman& Pentland, 2003). Similarly, a more variance-oriented study of hybridity might hold constantcompeting logics, goals, and identities and exploreorganizational factors that lead to increased or de-creased conflict between these competing demands(Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013).A process-oriented view might explore the morph-ing and changing of competing logics, goals, andidentities in relation to one another over time(Ashforth & Reingen, 2014; Jay, 2013; Smith &Besharov, 2017).

Engaged Scholarship

In most positivist research, we expect the peopleconducting the research to distance themselves fromthe ‘thing’ they are observing. Doing so protectsthe researchers’ objectivity and ensures that theirbiases do not influence scholarly outcomes. ‘En-gaged scholarship’ challenges this assumption ofdistance and objectivity. According to this genre,qualitative researchers cannot be disentangled fromtheir context; the very presence of a researcher in thecontext will ultimately influence the research con-text such that ultimately the two may be mutually

constituted (Van de Ven, 2007). Instead, theseconnections between the researcher and theresearched can be considered a strength for insights,as the people being studied are often seen as collab-orators in the research process.

Although scientific knowledge and practicalknowledge are different, they can inform each otherand the greater embeddedness of the researcherin his or her context will favor deeper insightsand empathy for those that he or she is research-ing. Engaged scholarship, then, offers new waysof seeing, as the insights not only incorporatethe perspective of managers, but also benefit fromthe creative abrasion of the two different types ofknowledge systems to givemeaning to the researchcontext. Further, one of the greatest strengths ofengaged scholarship is that it can help to mobilizethe insights in real time, which means that re-searchers can sometimes even assess the efficacyof their findings in real time (Rynes, Bartunek, &Daft, 2001).

Relatively few research articles based on engagedscholarship or action researchmake it into the pagesof AMJ, because authors have difficulty describingtheir experience and describing their role. How-ever, given that many qualitative researchers areengaged scholars, it is important for researchers tobe forthright about their role. Jay’s (2013) article onthe transformation of the Cambridge Energy Alli-ance from a client-oriented business to a publicservice nonprofit offers a good exemplar of engagedscholarship. During his two-year ethnography as anorganizational historian, he shared with his in-formants his insights about the context, actions, andoutcomes, which he recognized likely shaped theviews of his informants.He countered the criticismsfor such close engagement by being transparent andreflexive,while also keeping a ‘fourth notebook.’Healso recognizes that he gained deep, first-hand in-sights into the conflicts that his informants experi-enced in the change process, which gave himan emic perspective of the organization’s transitionprocess.

Historical Studies

Although longitudinal case studies or process stud-ies often analyze historical data, we are witnessinga ‘historical turn’ in management and orga-nization studies (Godfrey, Hassard, O’Connor,Rowlinson, & Ruef, 2016; Kipping & Üsdiken,2014; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). Thisturn is shifting attention from the simple use of

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1191

historical data to the value of these analyses inmaking us see the social, cultural, and institu-tional construction of organizational and mana-gerial phenomena in historical context. Whereashypothetico-deductive logic seeks universal lawsor mechanisms, historical analysis recognizes thetemporal and spatial historical embeddedness oforganizational phenomena. Such analysis requiresaccess to or ability to gather appropriate data, aswell as the key principles of historical analysis:a preference for authentic archival data over ret-rospective material, comprehensive source criti-cism, and researchers’ reflexivity in constructingthe narrative.

Although few in number, we have increasinglyseen more historical papers published in leadingjournals such as AMJ. For instance, Cattani, Dunbar,andShapira (2013) provided anexemplaryhistoricalanalysis of value creation and knowledge loss bystudying how value has been attributed to Cremon-ese stringed instruments from the 16th to the 19thcenturies. Hampel and Tracey (2017) offered an il-luminating institutional analysis of how ThomasCook’s travel agency moved from stigmatization tolegitimacy among the elite of Victorian Britain. Suchstudies successfully highlight historically embed-ded processes and practices and their changes overtime.

There are, however, many ways of conductinghistorical work, and these can be understood assubgenres. For instance, Vaara and Lamberg (2016)distinguished between realist, interpretative, andpoststructuralist approaches to using historicalmethods and conducting historically oriented strat-egy research. Each of these approaches can elucidateparticular aspects of historical phenomena, but theyalso imply very different kinds of perspectives onempiricalmaterial,methods of analysis, and thewaysin which research findings are articulated in papers.For instance, as in the studies mentioned above,realist historical analysis can uncover the processdynamics and help to elucidate the historically em-bedded agency of decision-makers or managers, im-plying a need to focus on as accurate a reconstructionof historical events and trajectories as possible. Moreinterpretative studies, such as microhistorical ana-lyses, can instead illuminate the roleof specific eventsand practices and how they exemplify typical char-acteristics of a particular time period from the per-spective of the key actors involved. Poststructuralisthistorical studies can in turn problematize typicallyheld historical interpretations, requiring a specialemphasis on reflexivity and criticality.

Discourse Studies

There are many discursive approaches to analyz-ing organizational data, such as content analysis,conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis,Foucauldian discourse analysis, and narrative stud-ies (Phillips & Oswick, 2012; Vaara, Sonenshein, &Boje, 2016). Although it is somewhat problematic tolump these approaches together, they share somecommon elements that can be described under oneheading. Specifically, this genre assumes a sociallyconstructed or poststructuralist understanding ofsocial reality that seeks to uncover and deconstructmeanings, rather than seek to discover causal con-nections (Fairclough, 2003; Foucault, 1977). Thus,this genre offers a unique way of seeing the con-struction of organizational and managerial phe-nomena through discursive practices. By so doing,discourse analysis not only emphasizes the role oflanguageor communicationper se, it also offerswaysto problematize commonly held conceptions and toconduct critical research. This approach, however,requires an ability to combine detailed linguisticanalysis with critical analysis of specific organiza-tional phenomena.

An early example of discourse studies is Boje’s(1995) poststructuralist narrative analysis of Disney,which focused on the stories used to construct thehistory of the company. This analysis revealed thealternative stories and marginalized voices in thishistorical construction. More recently, Maguire andHardy (2013) have studied the discursive processesand practices through which products “become”seen as risky, considering the implications for iden-tity andpower. Such studies have elucidated the roleof discourse and discursive practices and also pavedthe way for other types of analysis, such as conver-sation analysis or themoredetailed critical discourseanalysis.

PUBLISHING ACROSS QUALITATIVE GENRES

While qualitative research uses data and analysesthat can flex to fit the researchers’ preferences,scholars must still ensure rigor and fit. We offer fourcore principles to help scholars more effectivelywrite, review, and read qualitative papers across thebroad range of qualitative genres.

Principle #1: Know Your Epistemology

Specific genres reflect particular onto-epistemologicalassumptions that should be taken seriously throughthe research process and writing the paper. The

1192 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

majority of papers submitted to and published injournals such as AMJ tend to subscribe to the para-digm of normal science that aims to find relation-ships among valid constructs that can be replicatedby anyone. In such cases, researchers may not needto explicitly elaborate on onto-epistemological is-sues, which is the case with variance-based casestudies. However, genres that deviate from normalscience require researchers to often explicitly statetheir onto-epistemological assumptions. For in-stance, process studies need to state their relationaland temporal ontology in order to discriminate them-selves from more variance-based approaches tochange. Similarly, poststructuralist forms of dis-course studies must make their epistemological as-sumptions explicit to differentiate them from othertypes of studies and to help others see the value inthis kind of critical work.

Principle #2: Ensure that the Research Questions,Data, and Analysis are Internally Consistent

Effective scholarship requires alignment betweenone’s research questions, data, and analysis.Whereasquantitative scholars often make decisions at thestart of a project to ensure that the data collectionand analysis fit with the research question, qualita-tive, inductive approaches often require rethinkingthese questions throughout the project. Insightsemerging while collecting data often reveal newideas that might inspire new data collection, alter-native analytical processes, and even a modified re-search question. While this process enables moreflexibility, the final scholarship still requires align-ment across the research question, data collected,and analytical processes—as well as alignment be-tween these design choices and the overall genre’sepistemology. Therefore, scholars must be open andtransparent about their assumptions and maintaininternal consistency throughout the paper. More-over, scholars engaged in inductive inquiry mustoften be familiar with a variety of genres to be ableto deliberately and purposely make choices thatalign the research question, data, and analyticalmethods in the final manuscript. Although weappreciate and encourage scholars to boldly dis-cover and follow new theories and methods, thisshould be done in a careful manner that is mindfulabout the differences between various genres andsubgenres. For instance, when engaging in dis-course analysis, the tradition of conversation anal-ysis is very different from Foucauldian discourseanalysis.

Principle #3: Be Authentic, Detailed, and Clear inArgumentation and Style of Writing

The writing up of qualitative papers should bedetailed and authentic in terms of the genre fol-lowed. In particular, the methods sections shouldbe as complete as possible, and researchers mustbe able to defend the decisions they make to theirspecific context. For example, almost all re-searchers impact their organizational context, es-pecially when they are deeply embedded in theirresearch context, as in the case of ethnographic re-search. We encourage researchers to not only ex-plicitly report their impact on their context, but alsoto be reflexive in their data collection, so they rec-ognize the role they play in shaping the organiza-tional outcomes or their own implicit biases ininterpreting the result(s). Similarly, we advise re-searchers to be authentic in the way they write uptheir findings sections and conclusions. This is not,however, always easy, as there is a need to applyand adjust the original ideas in new contexts. Thus,for instance, historical analysis can rarely be re-ported in as detailed a way as historians ideallywould want to have it because that would requiremore space than we usually have and leave lessroom for theoretical contributions than is needed inour own field. Similarly, discourse analysis shouldfocus attention on the linguistic micro processesand practices, but this should not eat up all thespace needed to make specific points about the rolediscourse in the managerial or organizational phe-nomena one is studying.

Principle #4: Use Exemplary Papers, but Do NotForce Fit Your Scholarshipwith Existing Templates

We applaud the increasing scholarship advancingclear prescriptions and developing exemplary pa-pers, which collectively advance methodologicalrigor and ensure the value of our insights. We en-courage scholars using new genres to continue tofind exemplars and templates to help ensure suchrigor. However, given that most genres are contextspecific, following prior work too closely can resultin force fitting analysis that does not cohere withone’s own approach. Authors must see their work asunique and seek to continue to innovate and developthe qualitative methods to avoid orthodoxies. Wealso maintain that juxtaposing methodological ap-proaches against one another can help inspire in-novation within and across genres (see Gehman,Glaser, Eisenhardt, Gioia, Langley, & Corley, 2018).

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1193

Adopting qualitative, inductive methods allowsscholars to surface new insights and enable newways of seeing. The types of qualitative methods arerich and varied. By focusing on a narrow set ofqualitative methods, we limit the types of insight wesurface as qualitative scholars. Our hope is to inspiremore scholarship that adopts these broader genresand extends newways of seeing in management andorganizational research.

Pratima (Tima) BansalIvey Business School, Western University

Wendy K. SmithUniversity of Delaware

Eero VaaraAalto University School of Business

EMLYON Business SchoolLancaster University

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dys-function:Managing the dynamics of an organizationalduality in a natural food cooperative. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 59: 474–516.

Bamberger, P. A., & Pratt, M. G. 2010. From theeditors—Moving forward by looking back: Reclaimingunconventional research contexts and samples in or-ganizational scholarship. Academy of ManagementJournal, 53: 665–671.

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2011. From the editors—Thecoming of age for qualitative research: Embracing thediversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 54: 233–238.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainablehybrid organizations: The case of commercial micro-finance organizations. Academy of ManagementJournal, 53: 1419–1440.

Boje, D. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization: Apostmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-land.”Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.

Cattani, G., Dunbar, R., & Shapira, Z. 2013. Value creationand knowledge loss: The case of Cremonese stringedinstruments. Organization Science, 24: 813–830.

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York,NY: Holt.

Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. 2007. Theory buildingfrom cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academyof Management Journal, 50: 25–32.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Sonenshein, S. 2016.Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor

without rigor mortis. Academy of ManagementJournal, 59: 1113–1123.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study re-search.AcademyofManagement Review, 14: 532–550.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual anal-ysis for social research. London, England: Psychol-ogy Press.

Feldman,M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizingorganizational routines as a source of flexibility andchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118.

Foucault,M. 1977.Disciplineandpunish: Thebirth of theprison. London, England: Random House.

Gehman, J., Glaser, V., Eisenhardt, M., Gioia, D., Langley,A., & Corley, K. G. 2018. Finding theory–method fit:A comparison of three qualitative approaches totheory building. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 27:284–300.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E., Rowlinson, M., &Ruef, M. 2016. What is organizational history? To-wards a creative synthesis of history and organizationstudies. Academy of Management Review, 41: 590–608.

Hampel, C. E., & Tracey, P. 2017. How organizations movefrom stigma to legitimacy: The case of Cook’s travelagency in Victorian Britain. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 60: 2175–2207.

James,W. 1952.Theprinciples of psychology. Chicago, IL:Encyclopedia Britannica.

Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of changeand innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy ofManagement Journal, 56: 137–159.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. 2014. History in organizationand management theory: More than meets the eye.The Academy of Management Annals, 8: 535–588.

Langley, A., Tsoukas, H. 2010. Perspectives on processorganization studies. In T. Hernes, & S. Maitlis (Eds.),Process, sensemaking and organizing: 1–27. Oxford,England: Oxford University Press.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. 2017. Introduction: Processthinking, process theorizing and process researching.In A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE hand-book of process organizational studies: 1–26. LosAngeles, CA: SAGE.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2013. Organizing processesand the construction of risk: A discursive approach.Academy of Management Journal, 56: 231–255.

Mintzberg, H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Man-agement Science, 24: 934–948.

Nadkarni, S., Gruber, M., DeCelles, K., Connolly, B., andBaer, M. 2018. New Ways of Seeing: Radical

1194 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

Theorizing. Academy of Management Journal, 61:371–377.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2013. Inside the hybrid organi-zation: Selective coupling as a response to conflictinginstitutional logics. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 56: 972–1001.

Pettigrew, A. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change:Theoryandpractice.OrganizationScience, 1: 267–292.

Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. 2012. Organizational discourse:Domains, debates, and directions. The Academy ofManagement Annals, 6: 435–481.

Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M.,Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. 2007. Radical changeaccidentally: The emergence and amplification ofsmall change.Academy of Management Journal, 50:515–543.

Rowlinson,M.,Hassard, J., &Decker, S. 2014. Strategies fororganizational history: A dialogue between historicaltheory and organization theory. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 39: 250–274.

Rynes, S., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across thegreat divide: Knowledge creation and transfer be-tween practitioners and academics. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44: 340–355.

Shaw, J. D., Bansal, P., & Gruber, M. 2017. From theeditors—Newways of seeing: Elaboration on a theme.Academy of Management Journal, 60: 397–401.

Smith,W.K., &Besharov,M. 2017. Bowing before dual gods:How structured flexibility sustains organizational hy-bridity. Administrative Science Quarterly. Publishedonline ahead of print. doi:10.1177/0001839217750826.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizationalevolution:Ametamorphosismodel of convergence andreorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior,7: 171–222.

Vaara, E., & Lamberg, J.-A. 2016. Taking historicalembeddedness seriously: Three approaches to ad-vance strategy process and practice research. Acad-emy of Management Review, 41: 633–657.

Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. 2016. Narratives assources of stability and change in organizations:approaches and directions for future research. TheAcademy of Management Annals, 10: 495–560.

Van deVen,A.H. 2007.Engaged scholarship: A guide fororganizational and social research. Oxford, En-gland: Oxford University Press.

Weick, K. E. 1992. Agenda setting in organizational be-havior: A theory-focused approach. Journal of Man-agement Inquiry, 1: 171–182.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational changeand development.Annual Review of Psychology, 50:361–386.

Whitehead, A. N. 1978. Process and reality: An essay incosmology. New York, NY: Free Press.

2018 Bansal, Smith, and Vaara 1195

Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Managementand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.