Search results

In this chapter, I explore traditional notions of secondary data in qualitative research and consider the ways in which these are continually being reimagined in the digital age. I situate this discussion in respect to data typologies and, more reflexively, in relation to our need as researchers to make data real. I consider contemporary understandings of reuse in relation to secondary data, focusing particularly on qualitative interview data. Recognizing those who are already forging a path, I then suggest how we might move beyond notions of reuse and reimagine secondary data in the digital age. To illustrate these points, I highlight relevant studies drawing data from a range of online spaces, and finally summarize key considerations and challenges.

Retiring from work used to signify the end of paid employment and a transition to focus on life outside the workplace. From this perspective, the work-life interface may have no relevance for the retired. However, recent changes, particularly resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that conceptualizations of both retirement and the work-life interface are more fluid, ambiguous, and complex. In this chapter, we first set the scene, reviewing how and why the traditional concept of retirement has changed so dramatically. Drawing on empirical data from contemporary media, we then consider how the current experience of the older worker and retiree are being reframed in neoliberal terms, emphasizing individual responsibility to remain not just fit and healthy but also productive, through a wide range of activities. We then focus on the impact of COVID-19, highlighting how pre-pandemic structural inequalities have been exacerbated, resulting in a range of responses in both levels of retirement and work by older people. We conclude by suggesting that retirement and its work-life interface need to recognize lived experience as dynamic, messy, and varied and implicated in wider structural features of both the economy and society.

The purpose of this paper is to examine an oft‐neglected aspect of qualitative research practice – conducting a pilot – using the innovative approach of “e‐research” to generate both practical and methodological insights.

Using the authors’ “e‐research” pilot as a reflexive case study, key methodological issues are critically reviewed. This review is set in a broader context of the qualitative methods literature in which piloting appears largely as an implicit practice. Using a new and emerging approach (“e‐research”) provides a prompt to review “autopilot” tendencies and offers a new lens for analysing research practice.

The authors find that despite an initial focus on “practical” aspects of data collection within their “e‐research”, the pilot opened up a range of areas for further consideration. The authors review research ethics, collaborative research practices and data management issues specifically for e‐research but also reflect more broadly on potential implications for piloting within other research designs.

The authors aim to offer both practical and methodological insights for qualitative researchers, whatever their methodological orientation, so that they might develop approaches for piloting that are appropriate to their own research endeavours. More specifically, the authors offer tentative guidance to those venturing into the emerging area of “e‐research”.

This paper offers insight into an oft‐ignored aspect of qualitative research, whilst also engaging in an emerging area of methodological interest.

The study empirically explores employees' motives for engaging in constructive voice behaviors.

The authors utilized qualitative research methods. The data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews with 26 workers in the renewable energy industry in Kenya. The data were analyzed using a phronetic iterative approach (Tracy, 2020).

The data revealed various motives that may drive constructive voice including, personal (e.g. material rewards and emotional gratification), relational (e.g. advocating for others and diluting opposition) and organizational motives (e.g. ensuring organizational survival and bolstering innovation). Additionally, the authors illustrated how these motives may evolve and/or jointly drive constructive voice.

Although voice scholars are beginning to recognize the existence of other motives besides prosocial, the knowledge of such motives has remained theoretical. This is one of the first studies to empirically examine motives for constructive voice. By unveiling the motives, the findings demonstrate different pathways through which a voice opportunity transforms into a constructive voice behavior.