Abstract
In this chapter, Golka builds on recent developments in abductive research methods to develop a way to apply abductive, qualitative research designs to concurrently address analytical and explanatory research questions. To that end, he also presents in detail the two data sets and analytic procedures used in the process. To understand how proponents framed social impact investing in order to forge cooperation with others, the author builds on a sample of proponents’ reports. To analyze the processes and conditions of whether and how these frames were accepted by nonfinancial actors, Golka crafts an extensive, longitudinal data set that includes interviews with key actors such as policymakers, but also government documents and media reports.
If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism you will see it is nothing else than the question of the logic of abduction
(Peirce 1934, p. 195, cit. by Timmermans and Tavory 2012, p. 182)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, an impact investor specializing in “sustainable” forestry demanded our German-Brazilian agroforestry company to purchase land off Brazilian smallholder farmers as a collateral for German asset owners. In multiple other cases, impact investors’ due diligence process was almost exclusively focused on questions of return and risk, while internal rates of return far exceeding 10% p.a. were demanded. One impact investor directly asked us to reduce pay for Brazilian smallholder farmers in order to increase investors’ profits.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Beckert, J. (2010). How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605–627.
Beckert, J. (2011). Die sittliche Einbettung der Wirtschaft. Von der Effizienz-und Differenzierungstheorie zu einer Theorie wirtschaftlicher Felder. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 22(2), 247–266.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chiapello, E. (2015). Financialisation of valuation. Human Studies, 38(1), 13–35.
Diaz-Bone, R. (2015). Die “Economie des conventions”: Grundlagen und Entwicklungen in der neuen französischen Wirtschaftssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Dowling, E., & Harvie, D. (2014). Harnessing the social: State, crisis and (big) society. Sociology, 48(5), 869–886.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forst, R. (2013). Justification and critique: Towards a critical theory of politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
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. New York: Aldine.
Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.
Martin, J. L. (2011). The explanation of social action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peirce, C. (1934). In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 5). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1991). Researching the homeless: The characteristics and virtues of the case study. In J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), A case for the case study (pp. 148–173). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International social movement research, 1, 197–217.
Snow, D. A., & Trom, D. (2002). The case study and the study of social movements. In B. Klandermans & S. Staggenborg (Eds.), Methods of social movement research (pp. 146–172). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnestoa Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511–521.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to Abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.
Vaughan, D. (1997). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vaughan, D. (2004). Theorizing disaster: Analogy, historical ethnography, and the challenger accident. Ethnography, 5(3), 315–347.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Golka, P. (2019). Methodology and Research Methods. In: Financialization as Welfare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06100-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06099-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06100-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)