Contradictions in qualitative management research: Consensus and dissensus perspectives on impression, identity and management work

Per Richard Hansen, Jens Dorland

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

– Contradictory accounts in empirical material are often perceived as deliberate “lies” or “misleading deceptions” performed in acts of impression management, or they are simply neglected. When observed in the material collected empirically, methods have been developed in order to identify and remove them from the analytical work. The purpose of this paper is to re-visit and re-introduce a dissensus-based management research strategy in order to analytically be able to work with what appear to be contradictions and misinformation in qualitative research accounts, and give them a more profound role in the understanding of management ideas, work and practices.
Translated title of the contributionModsigelser i kvalitativ management research: Consensus og dissensus perspektiver på indtryk, identitet, og ledelsesarbejde
Original languageEnglish
Article number3
JournalBaltic Journal of Management
Volume11
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)44-64
ISSN1746-5265
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jan 2016

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Contradictions in qualitative management research: Consensus and dissensus perspectives on impression, identity and management work'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this