Asian Journal of Business Research Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021

ISSN 2463-4522  e-ISSN 1778-8933 DOI: 10.14707/ajbr.210111

Editorial
Applying Qualitative Approach in Business Research

Daniel Turner1; Hiram Ting2,3*; Mun Wai Wong4; Tze-Yin Lim5 and Kim-Lim
Tan6
1
Quirkos, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
2
Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, UCSI University, Malaysia
3
College of Business, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Philippines
4
School of Design & Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
5
Faculty of Business, Design and Arts, Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus,
Malaysia
6
Division of Business Management, BNU-HKBU United International College, China

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Researchers and students in the business field are increasingly turning to qualitative
methods to seek answers for complex research questions. Current literature presents
a copious number of published qualitative research compared to previous decades, in
which qualitative methods serve mainly as an exploratory inquiry toward more
comprehensive quantitative studies. Although qualitative research is now widely
adopted in both academia and practice, a dearth of germane literature that argues and
discusses key challenges in applying qualitative methods continues to compound the
scepticism and ambiguity of the research process. Moreover, details on the analysis
process gleaned from research articles are often limited and thus offer little to learn
from. Qualitative analysis thus resembles a black box, an analogy of intricacy and
complexity. In this editorial, we discuss how to define the scope and goals of a
qualitative study, examine current literature, and provide practical guidance for
researchers in business to apply qualitative approach and methods. We also detail
several steps for qualitative analysis and introduce Computer Assisted Qualitative
Data Analysis (CAQDAS) software for this purpose. Finally, we draw from other
disciplines to guide and encourage researchers to adopt qualitative research as part of
their inquiry endeavour.

Keywords: Qualitative, Methods, Analysis, CAQDAS, Quirkos, Business research.

Publication Details: Received 22 Nov 2021; Revised 6 Dec 2021; Accepted 13 Dec 2021

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 1

 Turner et.al., 2021

Introduction

Qualitative research is an increasingly popular methodological choice in business and

marketing research, most often using in-depth unstructured data to gain insights into
consumers’ behaviors (Bathmanathan et al., 2018; Lim et al., 2021; Marshall and
Rossman, 2014; Ting et al., 2018) and organizations (Campbell and Göritz, 2014;
Creswell and Poth, 2016). Researchers undertaking a qualitative approach can explore
complex issues, develop new propositions, and contextualize results from quantitative
and mixed-method studies (Taylor et al., 2015). As the business environment and
human society become increasingly dynamic, well-administered qualitative research
and its related procedures are pivotal not only to eliciting credible data from
respondents but also to analyzing and interpreting data that provides meaningful
explanations of phenomena.

Qualitative research involves extremely varied and subjective processes (Creswell,

2015; Stake, 2010), therefore methodological clarity plays an essential role in
determining the rigor of research and quality of submitted or published papers (Fawcett
et al., 2014). However, published research papers generally provide limited details on
qualitative methods and techniques used to collect or analyze data. As a result,
researchers attempting the qualitative approach unprecedentedly are bound to be
confronted by a ‘black box’ of past studies with few learning exemplars or references.
They potentially resort to producing a casual report or rigidly following templates in
the methodological section. Shrouded in mystery and ambiguity due to an unclear
understanding about the qualitative process, novice researchers, quantitative scholars,
and students would be discouraged from exploring and using qualitative design.

Another aspect that is relatively missing from current literature is a practical guide on
how to use qualitative data analysis software in different contexts. Other than coding of
verbatims, qualitative data analysis software is designed with multi-faceted functions
to support researchers in organizing, labelling, realigning, and discovering emerging
patterns which ultimately unveil useful insights (Gibbs, 2014; Saldana, 2021; Woods et
al., 2016). As qualitative data analysis using electronic methods is growing popular,
guidelines on how to report the process in journal articles are vital. Just like predictive
models are used to analyze past performance to establish relationships and assess future
likelihood of a specific behavior, text analytics can help researchers infer similar
insights on consumer and organizational behavior from various analysis of subtle text
patterns. Without such standards, insights gathered could be deemed bias and
inconsistent, leading to questionable conclusions and recommendations.

This editorial addresses these gaps by presenting key guidelines on conducting

qualitative research, supported by emerging Computer Assisted Qualitative Data
Analysis (CAQDAS) software. We illustrate how the qualitative research scope and
goals should be defined and highlight areas in which researchers should be attentive to
at the outset. Researchers and students are encouraged to adopt qualitative methods as
part of their research or learning journeys, regardless of their disciplines and
preferences. For example, qualitative review approaches offer advantages of generating
deeper understanding of literature and contributing to more comprehensive research
integration, even across quantitative studies. As such, in the coming years, we invite a
wider number of qualitative research submissions to AJBR that exhibit clarity and rigor.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 2

 Turner et.al., 2021

Background

The qualitative research paradigm outlines several key methods or inquiries to

determine the design of a particular study. For example, the grounded theory approach
is commonly employed in qualitative research to develop or extend a theory pertaining
to human phenomena (Corbin and Strauss, 2014; Morse et al., 2016). Ethnography, on
the other hand, is adopted to understand, explain, and gain deeper insights into a specific
cultural group’s behaviors and norms (Collingridge and Gantt, 2008; Lune and Berg,
2017; Tracy, 2019). Unfortunately, many published works suggest that authors have
misinterpreted data collection techniques (e.g., interviews and focus groups) as research
methods.

This debacle invariably leads to three core issues in qualitative research: First, in the
process of their data collection, qualitative researchers often report data saturation is
achieved with no emergence of new insights from analyzed data (Fusch and Ness,
2015). It has grown into a readily accepted ‘magic word’ when determining sample size
and to avoid the need for further explanation. Second, in terms of data collection
techniques, interviews and focus group discussions are among the most widely used
techniques to deal with text data, yet are typically unstructured and choppy (Bernard,
2012; Brockman et al., 2010; Korstjens and Moser, 2017; Nyumba et al., 2018).
Consequently, the clarity of procedure falls short in ensuring qualitative data is credible.

Third, qualitative research articles generally tend to mention the analysis and software
used in passing, often with just a single line (Asad et al., 2018; Guha et al., 2018). While
this manner of reporting does not necessarily compromise the rigor of research and is
accepted by most journals, it aptly conveys the extent of confusion or lack of clarity as
symbolically referred to as the ‘black box’. Despite this convoluted situation is in fact
reflective of both quantitative and qualitative research, the problem is more evident in
qualitative research due to the wider range of possible analytic approaches and
(mis)interpretations of commonly used terminology. For example, the phrase ‘thematic
analysis’ is often used to describe the entirety of the analysis process but is excessively
misused, resulting in a comprehensive guide is provided for journal editors to identify
mangled implementations (Braun and Clarke, 2019). We thus plan to address the issues
above in a future editorial by providing guidelines for researchers to administer
qualitative research rigorously across different contexts.

Although it is not mandatory to use CAQDAS software when conducting qualitative

research (O’Keeffe et al., 2016; Valos et al., 2018; Ting et al., 2018), researchers should
communicate how they used a software or tool with a similar level of detail when
describing the qualitative analysis approach. CAQDAS helps to organize, and present
data and findings in a coherent manner that addresses and reports potential bias and
distortion in the data (Atherton and Elsmore, 2007). Many qualitative research
textbooks resoundingly advocate the use of text analytic tools, such as Leximancer
(D’Alessandro et al., 2017). Overall, while acknowledging there are multiple issues in
qualitative research and reporting, this editorial will delve into four fundamental steps
in relation to the general qualitative process: (1) understand your research questions,
(2) justify your qualitative research design, (3) analyze your collected data, and (4) use
qualitative data analysis software.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 3

 Turner et.al., 2021

Understand Your Research Questions

This first step sounds deceptively simple and obvious but is a fundamental requisite:
understand your research problem and questions, and constantly refer back to them.
Research questions typically dictate not just the appropriate methodology but also the
type of analysis most suitable for the data as well. Moreover, collecting the first set of
minimum data would often inform and illuminate which qualitative methods,
techniques, and subsequently, analysis to be employed for optimum result. For
example, if participants’ responses are curt, ‘choppy’, or single-worded, a detailed
discourse analysis of the language and how people express themselves might be
unrealistic in this particular scenario.

Hence, concurrent reviewing and refining the analysis approach while data is being
collected is also important. Qualitative researchers widely advocate an ongoing and
cyclical approach to data collection and analysis, rather than waiting for a complete set
of data to be collected before conducting the first round of analysis. It allows the
researcher not only to identify issues respondents have not discussed, whereby the
questioning or recruitment strategy might be altered, but also to determine a certain
‘saturation point’ of the research. A researcher can obtain data saturation throughout a
study by collecting rich (quality) and thick (quantity) data. In addition, qualitative
researchers do compromise on a few basic principles and concepts of data saturation,
which are often referred to when there is neither new data, themes, and coding nor the
ability to replicate the center of the study (Braun and Clarke, 2021; Guest et al., 2006;
Saunders et al., 2018). Thus, staying focused on the research questions is essential as
data collection and interpretation progresses. As stated earlier, we plan to address these
issues in the upcoming editorial.

Justify Your Qualitative Research Design

Researchers who have previously used quantitative approaches or whose supervisors or
colleagues subscribe to a positivist view of research might find it challenging to explain
and justify aspects of qualitative research. A common outcry by qualitative researchers
or students is that the analysis process is subjective, untrustworthy, time-consuming,
lacks rigor, and concerns ethical issues (Oppong, 2013; Queirós et al., 2017). They
might also have been advised about their small sample size and as a result, they should
attempt to interview hundreds of participants. These criticisms generally show a lack
of understanding about the aims of qualitative research as well as its design and
procedures.

Qualitative researchers aim not to test measurable hypotheses but to explore a specific
phenomenon with ill-defined research problems and multi-layered realities, where there
are possibly dozens of ideas and theories to provisionally validate. According to
Maxwell (2008), qualitative research works under the universe of meaning, attitudes,
aspirations, and values, which reacts to more in-depth expressions of relationships,
interactions, and experience that cannot be haphazardly quantified and reduced to
operationalized variables. Therefore, qualitative research is concerned with a deeper
understanding and exploration of the dynamics of social relations. Researchers seek to
probe the collected data from different angles in order to tease out possible explanations
of a complex phenomenon (often guided by theoretically grounded procedures) which
would be highly inhibitive with a single-minded focus on a specific objective question.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 4

 Turner et.al., 2021

A superior qualitative research recognizes and details the researcher's worldview,

background, and potential biases. Bias is an inherent and inevitable component of the
entire research process, in both qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry. The call
here is not to give up on the research endeavor or abandon the quest for truth and
understanding of our world, but to acknowledge and disambiguate the researcher’s role
in the research process and how their positionality may influence the research. They are
an intrinsic instrument in qualitative research design and analysis, and an embedded
part of the research’s process and outcomes. Reflexivity statements are encouraged as
they help make this explicit, not just to researchers but also to readers.

In putting the respondents’ opinions and views forward as the prime focus of qualitative
research, researchers simultaneously accept the existence of multiple perceived
realities. Each respondent exhibits nuanced lived-in perceptions and experiences, thus
attempting to impose the external notion of objective truth on them renders a disservice
to their expressed data in the research process. Additionally, it is a misconception to
equate qualitative study to less data. What qualitative samples lack in breadth, they
make up for in depth, allowing researchers to explore a few illustrative cases in greater
detail. For example, in a business research, we might not have access to a large number
of participants, especially when they are few in number (such as senior managers) or
difficult to engage with (such as senior ministers). However, a detailed amount of data
from a small number of such eminent expert participants can provide great insights.

Manage Your Qualitative Data

Qualitative data comprises words or textual data that is not based on numerical figures.
Textual data can readily be drawn from many sources, such as interview transcripts,
diaries, books, reports, or journals, which should be analyzed concurrently with data
collection (Natow, 2019; Renner and Taylor-Powell, 2003; Shareia, 2016). Qualitative
analysis strategies fall into three main groups: categorizing strategies (such as coding
and thematic analysis), connecting strategies (such as narrative analysis and individual
case studies), and memoing and displaying (Maxwell, 2008; Miles and Huberman,
1994). Germane literature indicates three types of coding analysis: open coding, axial
coding, and selective coding. These are analytic procedures; it does not necessarily
follow that the researcher moves from open to axial to selective coding in a strict and
consecutive manner (Corbin and Strauss 1990; Vollstedt and Rezat, 2019).

A key challenge in qualitative analysis is managing the volume and richness of

collected data. While the sample size may be small, the amount of data for each
respondent can be considerable. For example, a typical transcript from a one-hour semi-
structured interview can reach as much as 8,000 words. The lack of structure in the
collected data can pose a challenge, as respondents possibly provide useful data in the
course of a non-linear and even tangential natural free-flowing conversation.
Qualitative research does not specify fixed rules for sample sizes since the depth of
collected data is more essential than its quantity. Instead, determining the sample size
depends on focus of study, topic of discussion, purpose of inquiry, validity of collected
data, and time and resources available to conduct the research (Boddy, 2016;
Burmeister and Aitken, 2012; Sim et al., 2018).

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 5

 Turner et.al., 2021

Before attempting to code or structure collected data in any way, it is recommended to

read and re-read the transcripts. ‘Immersing’ in the data and knowing it thoroughly by
heart should be the first task. For other analytical approaches, in fact, reading data is
the main and only activity. Most methods of analyzing qualitative data essentially
involve reading transcribed data in various ways, trying to see it under different lights
to uncover what lies beneath the surface. Researchers generally start with a cursory
‘thematic’ or content analysis: a relatively literal reading of the data to note what
respondents have explicitly talked about. Researchers might then start to ‘tag’ or code
sections of text that refer to interesting themes. As the reading progresses through
successive generations, more unique and abstract patterns begin to emerge. This process
of re-reading the data helps in understanding emerging patterns. Indeed, previous
analyses can help gain a higher and deeper understanding of theoretical concepts that
begin to answer the research questions.

Qualitative researchers use various techniques to sort and manage the huge amount of
data collected such as manually laying out printouts of data transcript, organizing sticky
notes, and using color highlighters to identify interesting sections of data on particular
topics. Others may use mapping exercises with flip-chart paper on a wall or large desk,
enabling them to physically navigate around the data, draw connections between
sources and themes, and experiment with different ways of thematically grouping data.
An example is the One Sheet of Paper or ‘OSOP’ approach (Ziebland and McPherson,
2006).

It is also possible to use standard word-processing or spreadsheet software to manage

markups and notes on the data, wherein tools like comments, tables, and columns can
be employed to store different aspects of the analysis (Meyer and Avery, 2008).
Alternatively, there are dedicated software packages designed to facilitate qualitative
analysis. These are tools that primarily help with the management of qualitative data by
keeping sources in a repository, structuring and managing coding frameworks and lists
of topics, and storing metadata on the research. They also have features for users to
code and annotate data as well as to create reports, summaries, and visualizations of
specific data segments. These tools are often referred to in the literature as CAQDAS
(Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis) software or QDAS (Qualitative Data
Analysis Software).

However, researchers should not assume the analysis to be complete once they have
coded all the data sources. Qualitative data analysis is an iterative and cyclical process,
with multiple levels of understanding and interpretation building upon each stage of
analysis. Researchers commonly attempt one method of data analysis before finding
themselves in a quandary whereby the approach could be inappropriate for the collected
data, or they might be unable to answer or manage the research question. In these
situations, it is necessary to restart the analysis with a different approach – perhaps
using a different coding methodology or not using coding at all. Many might find this
demoralizing after investing significant time in interpreting collected data using the
initial approach; nonetheless, the previous work is rarely wasted – it is part of an
iterative process of understanding the data structure. Qualitative software facilitates and
supports the iterative analysis process, making it easier or ‘safe’ to start over,
experiment, and change categories. When using paper, however, researchers can grow
attached to their physical creation and become wary of starting all over again.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 6

 Turner et.al., 2021

Another way to address limitations of a single-person qualitative data interpretation and

analysis process is to do it collaboratively or as part of a team. The task can be split in
different ways. On one hand, different data sources can be given to different researchers
to analyze, following which common patterns are subsequently discussed. On the other,
multiple people can analyze the same sources and compare their interpretations.
Statistical tools to measure inter-rater reliability (the extent to which different coders
agree with one another) can be used if necessary. Sharing projects for work to be
reviewed can also be useful between students and supervisors when learning qualitative
analysis. Saldana (2021) suggested that team coding or collaborative coding allows
multiple ways of interpreting and analyzing data by sharing and understanding the
study’s phenomena. Members can conduct coding in their team and combine findings
for cross-checking and reality checks. Researchers and team members can also conduct
Inter Coder Agreement to enhance the reliability of collected data.

An important caveat is to understand that the aim of qualitative analysis varies

significantly from quantitative techniques. Statistical approaches look for means and
outliers, assuming that some form of average is the optimal way to summarize variance
across a dataset and that outliers are anomalies. On the other hand, qualitative analysis
does not assume every research participant has similar experiences; thus, the use of
statistics is inappropriate to average out differences. Qualitative analysis importantly
acknowledges diversity in the data pool, captures and communicates the variety from
different angles, and even to an extent embraces and explains ‘outliers’ or unexpected
findings. Analyzing qualitative data, therefore, embodies a relentless pursuit of
challenging assumptions for interpretations to be as flexible as the collected data
requires.

Utilize Qualitative Data Analysis Software

At the time of writing, there are at least ten qualitative software packages in active
development – choosing one can be an overwhelming decision. These packages feature
similar basic operations and researchers show equally positive receptivity across all the
tools available in the market in terms of their functionality and ease of use. Selecting a
befitting software depends on the data and analysis technique to be applied, as well as
a researcher’s personal preferences in relation to how they structure and sort their data
and themes. Major software packages include ATLAS.ti MAXQDA, Nvivo, Quirkos,
and Dedoose.

Researchers who have experience using one or more of these software packages would
readily allude to their evolutionary lifecycles. In other words, these packages release
regular updates, while new software and tools are rapidly customized to cater to new
demands. For example, one of the newest packages, Quirkos, is specifically designed
to appeal to qualitative researchers who have found other software packages
challenging to learn. Despite its reduced feature set, it nevertheless offers a simple
operation which has attracted many small market research agencies in the UK which
value Quirkos’ quick learning process.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 7

 Turner et.al., 2021

Figure 1: Interface and Functions of Quirkos

Source: (Quirkos, 2022)

All the major packages provide free trials of the software, meaning researchers can
experiment with the software’s layout and operation before committing to one
particular platform. Adversely, users could possibly become too enticed by the
software’s innovative features and use it in situations that are inappropriate for the
collected data. For this reason, Silver and Woolf (2015) advocate a process whereby
researchers first decide which analysis tools they require before they explore various
software options, then breaking the process down into strategies and tactics to choose
the apt software that meets the analytical needs of a research question.

A recent notable development enables researchers to move ‘coded’ or analyzed

qualitative analysis projects from one software package to another. Known as the
‘REFI-QDA’ exchange format (qdasoftware.org), it is currently supported by Atlas.TI,
NVivo, Transana, F4Analyse, Quirkos, QDA Miner, and many other software packages
expected to follow suit in the next few years. This means that it is much easier for
researchers to use a range of tools from different qualitative software packages to
complete their analysis. For instance, they may start the analysis in one tool before
moving to another to use a specialist feature or generate a particular visualization.

Academics can sometimes be apprehensive about using qualitative software. For

example, they argue that users are indirectly compelled to using coding or specific types
of analysis based on a software’s program. They also contend that when using software,
users are often distanced from their collected data, resulting in quantification of the data
and removal of context (Cypress, 2019; Weitzmann, 2000). While these are legitimate
concerns, they are caused by misuse of the particular software rather than the intended
factor of its use. Other commenters posit that these are badly misquoted criticisms that
remain resurrected in the literature (Jackson et al., 2018).

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 8

 Turner et.al., 2021

For example, a software does not necessarily require users to code data just because it
provides the coding feature; users can just use the comment or memo features and
disregard any coding. While software does allow for quantification of data, it is often a
mistake to rely on this feature for analysis. Researchers should instead constantly be
revisiting the data text to view quotes in context. Case in point, Quirkos, by default,
does not show the number of quotes assigned to each code but rather displays the text
of each quote and its source for users to verify its origin. The goal is to constantly keep
users grounded in the text of the data.

However, researchers often fall into the misconception that the software will
automatically execute and complete the coding or analysis. In truth, there is no ‘magic
button’ in any software that will perform qualitative analysis and interpretation of a
dataset. They are only tools to help manage the researcher’s own interpretations of data.
CAQDAS neither decides what codes or themes exist in the data nor chooses which
sections of text belong in each category or theme. There is software today complete
with so-called ‘auto-coding’ tools but are only limited to basic descriptive analysis
based on statistical keyword searches and may not capture important themes. After all,
the software does not understand what your data is about and does not know the
research questions – it nonetheless remains the researcher’s role to interpret and
understand the data.

Since the software serves merely as a tool, it can be used in flexible ways to help
researchers analyze data. For example, to find unexpected and surprising elements
within the dataset, codes can be created to represent these unknowns, called ‘meta-
themes’, and subsequently use them in the software to keep track of parts of the data
that need further investigation. In fact, researchers can tag and keep track of sections of
data that do not form part of the coding framework but will help in the analysis and
interpretation process. To illustrate, a theme called ‘Key Quotes’ can be created for a
research question, and thereafter the best or most interesting parts of the data can be
assigned to ‘Key Quotes’. During the manuscript writing process, users can view their
assigned ‘Key Quotes’ on any particular topic across all sources. These are likely to be
the illustrative examples they use to justify their interpretation of data. Meta-themes
such as ‘Things I don’t understand’, ‘Unexpected quotes’, or ‘Issues to come back to’
can be created to aid the researcher in managing the analysis process.

Notable data presentation features enable business practitioners such as marketers,

managers, and executives to present their findings in scientific presentation formats
with colourful code labels as ‘at a glance’ references. Apart from that, complex coding
systems can be organized into proper hierarchies and networks for users’ quick
reference, ultimately eases data presentation. Most qualitative data analysis software
supports remote project access. For instance, Quirkos allows internal and cloud storage
for users to access data and information at their convenience. Such flexibility and
shareability features assist in accelerating the managerial decision-making process
within organizations.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 9

 Turner et.al., 2021

Figure 2: Unravelling the Black Box of Qualitative Research:

The Iterative Four Fundamental Steps

Conclusion

Throughout this editorial, we have unpacked 4 fundamental steps which are integral to
the general qualitative research process. Qualitative research is as an interwoven
tapestry of concepts, methods, techniques and procedures that are often regarded as
convoluted and perceived as unclear to researchers – hence, the ‘black box’ analogy in
this editorial, which we attempt to unravel to provide a clear and methodical stepping-
stone for researchers to understand what qualitative methods can produce and how it
can be administered. The iterative nature of the 4-step qualitative research process
allows researchers in business to explore a wider extent of qualitative research
applications in terms of (1) framing and understanding research question, (2) justifying
the research design, (3) managing the collected data, and (4) utilizing data analysis
software to systematically execute the process. As the current global business landscape
endows broad research opportunities, particularly in business research, including the
fields of marketing and consumer behaviour, we hope researchers who plan to conduct
qualitative research and authors who intend to submit their manuscripts to AJBR will
find the process a lot more purposeful and feasible.

References
Asad, M., Haider, S. H. and Fatima, M., (2018), “Corporate social responsibility, business
ethics, and labor Laws: A qualitative study on SMEs in Sialkot”, Journal of Legal,
Ethical and Regulatory Issues, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1-7.
Atherton, A. and Elsmore. P., (2007), “Structuring qualitative enquiry in management and
organization research”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, vol.
2, no. 1, pp. 62-77.
Bathmanathan, V., Rajadurai, J. and Sohail, M. S., (2018), “Generational consumer patterns: A
document analysis method”, Global Business and Management Research, vol. 10, no.
3, pp. 958-970.
Bernard, R. H., (2012), Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Boddy, C.R., (2016), “Sample size for qualitative research”, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 426-432.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 10

 Turner et.al., 2021

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., (2021), “To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation
as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales”, Qualitative
research in sport, exercise and health, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.201-216.
Braun V. and Clarke, V., (2019), “Guidelines for reviewers and editors evaluating thematic
analysis manuscripts”, University of Auckland.
Brockman, J. L., Nunez, A. A. and Basu, A., (2010), “Effectiveness of a conflict resolution
training program in changing graduate students style of managing conflict with their
faculty advisors”, Innovative Higher Education, vol. 35, pp. 277-293.
Burmeister, E. and Aitken, L.M., (2012), “Sample size: How many is enough?”, Australian
Critical Care, vol. 25, no. 4, pp.271-274.
Campbell, J. L. and Göritz, A. S., (2014), “Culture corrupts! A qualitative study of
organizational culture in corrupt organizations”, Journal of business ethics, vol. 120,
no. 3, pp. 291-311.
Collingridge, D. S. and Gantt, E. E., (2008), “The quality of qualitative research”, American
Journal of medical quality, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 389-395.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A., (2014), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. Sage publication.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A., (1990), “Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria’, Qualitative Sociology, vol. 13, pp. 3-21.
Creswell, J. W., (2015), 30 Essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. and Poth, C. N., (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Sage publications.
Cypress, B.S., (2019), “Data analysis software in qualitative research: Preconceptions,
expectations, and adoption”, Dimensions of critical care nursing, vol. 38, no. 4, pp.213-
220.
D’Alessandro, S., Zikmund, W., Winzar, W., Low, B. and Babin, B., (2016), Marketing
Research: Asia-Pacific Edition, Cengage Learning Australia.
Fawcett, S.E., Waller, M.A., Miller, J.W., Schwieterman, M.A., Hazen, B.T. and Overstreet,
R.E., (2014), “A trail guide to publishing success: tips on writing influential conceptual,
qualitative, and survey research”, Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1-
16.
Fusch, P. I. and Ness, L. R., (2015), “Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research”,
The Qualitative Report, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1408-1416.
Gibbs, G.R., (2014), Using software in qualitative analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative
data analysis. London: Sage Publication.
Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L., (2006), “How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability”, Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59-
82.
Guha, S., Harrigan, P. and Soutar, G., (2018), “Linking social media to customer relationship
management (CRM): A qualitative study on SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 193-214.
Jackson, K., Paulus, T. and Woolf, N. H., (2018), “The Walking Dead Genealogy:
Unsubstantiated Criticisms of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and the
Failure to Put Them to Rest”, The Qualitative Report, vol. 23, no. 13.
Korstjens, I. and Moser, A., (2017), “Practical guidance to qualitative research”, European
Journal of General Practice, vol. 23, no. 1, pp.271-272.
Lim, T.Y., Lim, B., Leong, C.M. and Le, A., (2021), “Finish your plate! Food disposition
behaviour among late adolescents”, British Food Journal, vol. 123, no. 9, pp. 3192-
3207.
Lune, H. and Berg, B.L., (2017), Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. England,
Pearson, pp. 107.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B., (2014), Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.
Maxwell, J. A., (2008), “Designing a qualitative study”, The SAGE handbook of applied social
research methods, vol. 2, pp. 214-253.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 11

 Turner et.al., 2021

Meyer, D. and Avery, L., (2008), “Excel as a Qualitative Data Analysis Tool”, Field Methods,
vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 91-112.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M., (1994), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-
book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Morse, J.M., Bowers, B., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Charmaz, K. and Clarke, A.E.,
(2016), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (Vol. 3). Routledge.
Natow, R.S., (2020), “The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite
interviews”, Qualitative Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp.160-173.
O’Keeffe, A., Ozuem, W. and Lancaster, G., (2016), “Leadership marketing: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 24, no. 5, pp.418-443.
O. Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J. and Mukherjee, N., (2018), “The use of focus group
discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation”,
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.20-32.
Oppong, S., (2013), “The problem of sampling in qualitative research”, Asian Journal of
Management Sciences and Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 202-210.
Queirós, A., Faria, D. and Almeida, F., (2017), “Strengths and limitations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods”, European Journal of Education Studies, vol. 3, no. 9,
pp. 369-387.
Quirkos, (2022), “Qualitative analysis software made simple”. Retrieved from
https://www.quirkos.com/.
Renner, M. and Taylor-Powell, E., (2003), Analysing qualitative data. Programme
Development and Evaluation, University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative
Extension, 1-10.
Saldaña, J., (2021), The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., ... and Jinks, C.,
(2018), “Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and
operationalization”, Quality and Quantity, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1893-1907.
Shareia, B.F., (2016), “Qualitative and quantitative case study research method on social
science: Accounting perspective”, International Journal of Economics and
Management Engineering, vol. 10, no. 12, pp.3849-3854.
Shareia, B., Parasuraman, B. and Cantrick-Brooks, B., (2005), Qualitative case study research
in Africa and Asia: challenges and prospects. https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/1570.
Silver, C. and Woolf, N. H., (2015), “From guided-instruction to facilitation of learning: the
development of Five-level QDA as a CAQDAS pedagogy that explicates the practices
of expert users”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 18., no. 5,
pp 527-543.
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J. and Kingstone, T., (2018), “Can sample size in qualitative
research be determined a priori?”, International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp.619-634.
Stake, R. E., (2010), Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M., (2015), Introduction to qualitative research
methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley and Sons.
Ting, H., Lim, T. Y., de Run, E. C., Koh, H. and Sahdan, M., (2018), “Are we baby boomers,
gen X and gen Y? A qualitative inquiry into generation cohorts in Malaysia”, Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 109-115.
Tracy, S.J., (2019), Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Valos, M.J., Turner, P., Scheepers, H. and Stockdale, R., (2018), “Integrating online
communities within business-to-business marketing communications: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Marketing Communications, vol. 24, no. 5, pp.450-468.
Vollstedt, M. and Rezat, S., (2019), An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on
axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium for early career researchers in
mathematics education, vol. 13, pp.81-100.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 12

 Turner et.al., 2021

Woods, M., Paulus, T., Atkins, D.P. and Macklin, R., (2016), “Advancing qualitative research
using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice
in published studies using ATLAS. ti and NVivo, 1994–2013”, Social Science
Computer Review, vol. 34, no. 5, pp.597-617.
Ziebland, S. and McPherson, A., (2006), “Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an
introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and
illness)”, Medical Education, vol. 40, no. 5.

All papers are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0). For more details, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Asian Journal of Business Research, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 13