Evaluate the Challenges of Conducting Qualitative Research; synthesize your findings and identify an appropriate qualitative research strategy for a study on managing diversity; analyze the issues associated with sampling, validity, reliability, and bias within the context of the study.
Introduction
The qualitative research model has long been used by researchers and scientists in ruling out the validity, reliability, and even in identifying presence of and the contribution of a certain range of factors in a particular population. Most of the time, qualitative studies are used in inquiring or going more deeply, meaning it deals with more than just knowing, about a certain issue in many different academic disciplines. The qualitative research is most commonly used in the field of social sciences, business and administration, philosophy, logic, art appreciation, and basically any other field wherein subjectivity can pretty much be involved. The purpose of this section is to discuss the scope and limitations of a qualitative research and identify its distinct characteristics. The process should be done by directly comparing it head to head with its counterpart, quantitative research. This way, it would be easier to delineate what qualitative research is and what it is not.
Over the course of time, the qualitative research model has evolved and has attracted individual researchers and research organizations, leading to the increase in instances where it is used. Now, the qualitative research model is already being used in disciplines that were formerly delved on by researchers using the quantitative research model. In a nutshell, the use of qualitative research had expanded and is actually continuing to evolve.
Qualitative research for instance, now aims to investigate on certain issues that may well be unknown about human behavior and the various possible internal and external factors that facilitate or inhibit such behavior. This method was basically designed to dwell on the unknown on a deeper sense; much deeper than where quantitative research would bring a researcher. It deals with all the questions involved in an inquiry: focusing more on the how and why a certain phenomenon occurs, although the questions what, when, and where may also be included. There are several major differences between qualitative and quantitative research.
One of the most distinct quality of a qualitative research that is inherently absent on quantitative studies is the depth of information. The quantitative research model has been the gold standard in meeting research problems that are related to the identification of the presence of something in a target population. It is most likely to answer what types of research questions. Because of the simplicity of the objective in a typical quantitative research, it is also usually so easy to increase the number of subjects to be studied from 10 to 100, even at an exponential rate. Of course, the larger the size of the subject pool is, say several hundred for example, the more generalizable the results of the study would be. At the same time, the results gathered may be readily applied to other populations based on the parameters of the research, the inclusion and exclusion criteria used, and most importantly of course, the total number of subjects used in the study.
The method of developing and testing drug prototypes before they receive permits for human consumption actually follows the quantitative research footprints. First, a certain number of initial test subjects are selected. The drug prototype is then administered to the first group of test subjects until either the expected of unexpected results of the procedure goes out. The process continues on and on—another group of test subjects are selected, asked to take the drug prototype, and are observed. For every round of observation, the number of test subjects is usually increased, exponentially at that, which could make the sample size equal to several thousand or even more, depending on the promise and risks involved with the use of the substance. The time of observation for both expected and unexpected results are also usually increased in every round of tests. Now that it has been established how a typical study that uses a quantitative research model is done, it is now possible to understand how a typical qualitative research is not.
A study that uses a qualitative research methodology is just more complex than a research that utilizes a quantitative one because first, one is entitled to answer more questions. More is simply expected to come out of a qualitative research study. Research topics that have been explored quantitatively are further explored by conducting a qualitative research study about the same topic most of the time. And this is because much more information—information that cannot be obtained using a research model that has been originally designed to simply identify and point out certain things present in a certain population, can be obtained using the qualitative model. So in a way, it is an upgrade or a research model that is a tier higher than quantitative research.
Another distinct quality of qualitative research is the fact that one need not be concerned of the number of subjects the way how a quantitative one does. The focus here is to obtain more information from a particular topic rather than to pinpoint something that is common from a large pool of subjects. The quantitative model can also be seen as a shotgun method of research because it hits a lot of subjects even though typically, there is only a one or a series being tried to identify. The qualitative research model on the other hand is the more precise method of doing research because it aims to discover something without requiring studying a lot of subjects. In case studies for example, there is only a single subject involved yet, there are significantly more information that are usually gathered.
Different Possible Types of Qualitative Research
There are four major types of qualitative research: Phenomenology, ethnography, case study, and grounded theory. Below is a table where the distinct features of each of the four types of qualitative research are discussed in relation to each other. All of these research methodologies are qualitative in nature and they would therefore be subject to the pros and challenges of qualitative research.
Characteristics of Different Qualitative Research Approaches
Challenges of Qualitative Research
Reality is complex, constructed, and ultimately subjective
Subjectivity is one of the most obvious weaknesses of a qualitative research . The presence of subjectivity in a qualitative research, in a way, defeats the entire purpose of conducting a research. What is the purpose of doing research about something? The purpose if research is basically to be able to find something that one (can be an individual or a group) does not yet know, in an objective and non-biased way, as much as possible . Trying to prove the presence or contribution of something on a certain phenomenon in a subjective way may be possible but may prove to be a lot more complex than using an objective, standardized, and structured one.
Unfortunately, not all realities can be solved or explained using objective, and systematically structured ways. In the field of social and behavioral sciences for example, it has been established that the nature of the human mind and behavior is too complex, with a high level of variability from one person to another, to be observed and tackled in a purely objective manner. This is one of the reasons why there is something called the qualitative research model and why such research model is still being used until now, despite the conflict in theories. Also, if the presumption that reality is complex, constructed, and ultimately subjective, then theoretically, qualitative research fits right in. there are certainly instances and disciplines wherein qualitative research may be best used and there are also certainly ones wherein it can be the least advisable one. But if what a study is trying to deal with is the reality of something, then qualitative research should fit right in.
Qualitative Research is unstructured
The main problem with subjectivity is the fact that it leads to procedural problems. A research, be it a qualitative or a quantitative research, in order to be highly appraised, should be well-structured, in other words, systematic . The people who will read the paper should be able to easily understand what was done in the research, what the goal of the research was, what interventions were used to meet the objectives, and whether they are valid interventions or whatnot, and from such, be able to picture out what the results and findings of the study were.
Unfortunately, this quality is not that easy to achieve in a qualitative research. Also, because of the procedural problems the ability of other researchers or even the same researchers who conducted the qualitative study would be vastly affected because it would only be naturally easier to replicate any material that is structured well than something that is not. Add the fact that researchers usually get discouraged to follow up on another person or group of persons’ research by conducting a research of their own—usually about the same line of topic, when it is obvious that the preceding study is so hard to replicate, apparently because of procedural problems brought about by heavy reliance on subjectivity.
Absence of succeeding researches on a certain topic would usually lead to stagnation. Meaning, the research findings would, in just a few years, become outdated. Also, in the same way, other researchers would be unable to contribute to that research topic. Such would imminently lead to a research dead-end, which is of course, not a very good thing because the time, efforts, and resources exerted on conducting the research would practically be wasted.
Researcher Bias is built-in and unavoidable
It has been well established by past literatures that a highly appraised research study has to be non-biased. Unfortunately, that will almost never be the case for qualitative studies because bias is usually present and in general, is actually unavoidable. The presence of bias in any form or model of research is definitely a bad thing. The research community frowns upon even a single hint of bias in a study, especially if the research topic is promising or could lead to major breakthroughs.
Any particular biased study would never be equally honored or appraised when compared side by side with a systematic, valid, and reliable one. It harmfully affects the reliability and validity of the findings in a qualitative study because as mentioned before, the researchers usually have no standardized means of answering their questions aside from merely interviewing the subjects, by reading relevant materials, by observation, etc. They are so predisposed to subjectivity that they would most likely fall trap to research bias. It distorts the truth.
Unfortunately, in a qualitative research where subjectivity is a permanent part of the equation, there are only three things that a researcher can do. Researchers in a qualitative study may either recognize or reduce the bias. In worse cases wherein the effects of the bias on the findings could not really be minimized, the best that the researchers could do is to be aware of the presence of bias, and have it clearly discussed in the scope and delimitations of the study, or create a section about possible sources of errors in the paper, so as not to mislead the readers and other researchers.
Qualitative Research does not ensure Accuracy
The accuracy and validity of not only the results, but every information being presented are both very important parts of a qualitative research because at the same time, they are also the ones that are usually most compromised. Conducting qualitative studies on disciplines such as mathematics and exact sciences may not be advisable because the principles in these fields usually indicate that they are more after the objectivity rather than the subjectivity of things, and because accuracy is usually compromised in qualitative researches.
This challenge or limitation may again be attributed to the fact that qualitative research deals more with the subjectivity of things and thus may present with research bias, which in general, is frowned upon by members of the academic community because it is perceived that bias distorts truth and distorted truth defeats the purpose of conducting a research .
Qualitative Research and its Toll on Reliability
Reliability is one of the characteristics that make a study acceptable to read and apply to the field it belongs to. Although there is not a single sure-fire way to quantify the extent of the reliability of any data that is being presented, readers and researchers could easily determine whether a finding is acceptable or reliable or otherwise based on a whole lot of factors such as how the authors of a paper came up with such finding or even what tool they used. Reliability is one of the measures of the acceptability and correctness of the findings in a research, be it a quantitative or a qualitative one.
A low reliability rating, even when subjectively rated, could be considered a bad thing because that only means that the research is not convincing enough. “The idea behind any significant results must be more than one-off finding and may be inherently repeatable” . This idea is grounded upon the presumption that real solutions should be easily replicated and applied to another population provided that they are under the same conditions and that a solution that cannot be replicated is not a real solution. A real solution to any research problem should be easily replicated by other researchers provided that the new group of subjects are exposed to research conditions similar or at least considerably comparable to that of the older ones—the ones present in the study wherein the first alleged solution to the research problem has been discovered.
A non-replicable or a non-reliable solution can only lead to two things: outdated research findings and evidence and worse, a research dead end. Qualitative researches are grounded more on the subjective than on the objective side of things which make them more vulnerable to adverse effects of subjectivity and other issues of reliability. What makes this situation even more challenging is the idea that researchers, despite knowing the limiting side effects of using the qualitative research design, which are apparently due to the issues of subjectivity and its toll on reliability, which is one of the gold standards in measuring a research paper’s level of evidence.
Naturally, the more reliable a research paper is, the more likely that the readers will accept the findings that are presented in that paper. The exact opposite of this scenario is also true if otherwise—if the paper has poor reliability issues. So, is there a way to address these issues of reliability which are inherently common among qualitative researches? Fortunately, there is a multitude of ways how researchers who plan on using qualitative research methodologies mitigate the effects of subjectivity and its toll on reliability. “Reliability determines how consistently a measurement of skill or knowledge yields similar results under varying conditions and so if a measure has high reliability, it should be able to yield consistent results” . Unfortunately, researchers can only do so much and the first line of measure to ensure that reliability issues would have minimal effects on the findings of the research is to recognize them.
In a study published by the Management International Review, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis computer software or what they referred to in the study as CAQDAS, was developed. Basically, the software programmers created the tool in an effort to aid the researchers in the field of business and management to recognize the fact qualitative research is a messy, non-linear, and also often an unpredictable undertaking, and that despite this, a considerable proportion of qualitative researches published in top journal publications is still presented as the result of a linear and predictable research process, which shows how wrong the process of extracting deductive reasoning in such qualitative researches could be. Why? It is simply because of a mismatch. Qualitative researches methodologies should be executed using non-linear strategies because of their unpredictable, and what most researchers who have had experiences in conducting qualitative researches, a messy undertaking.
Quantitative research methodologies on the other hand should be executed using linear strategies because of their systematic, predictable, and often mathematically-inclined characteristics. Tackling a qualitative research which includes all of the processes and phases involved in doing one using the means commonly used in a quantitative research is just wrong. Doing so immediately creates a mismatch between the goals of the research, the type of research problem being tried to address and the research strategies that the authors of the paper are planning on using, which would most likely translate into the formation of erroneous results, leading to the imminent drawing of false conclusions, which again, defeats the purpose of conducting a research.
False conclusions may actually disrupt the normal and accurate growth and development of an entire research community’s knowledge base. They negatively contribute to the goal of knowing the unknowns.The software was made to address the messiness where during the fieldwork, the research context is revealed to be more complex than anticipated, prompting the authors to narrow down their focus or even shift it towards the things that really matter in a qualitative research. To be more specific, the authors of the paper adopted Stake’s notion of progressive focusing because one, progressive focusing has been proven to be well suited to qualitative research studies in the field of international business management. Stake’s notion on progressive focusing deals with the complex iterations between data and theory, and the truthful but coherent presentation of the qualitative research processes.
Now, with a tool such as the CAQDAS, qualitative researches may well be able to incorporate Stake’s notion on progressive focusing to lessen the impact of qualitative research subjectivity on the reliability of the results and findings. In the end, CAQDAS has been proven to be a promising tool that can help to develop and re-negotiate insights from theory and interview data—which are predominantly present in qualitative research studies, and in enhancing the transparency, trustworthiness, publication potential, and overall reliability of the results of any qualitative studies.
Within the context of qualitative researches, proving that the work is highly reliable, remains to be one of the challenging facets of writing because results, findings, and basically everything that will be coming from the minds of the writers, the conclusions drawn and the analysis triggered, will be based on personal accounts, interviews, real life experiences, and primary one on one encounters with the research subjects. Misinterpretations, personal perceptions, errors, and personal bias will definitely come into play with these methods of data gathering. This has proven to be one of the handicaps of doing qualitative researches and one of the great advantages of doing quantitative ones.
In terms of concreteness and the ease of eliminating bias, errors, and perceptions secondary to subjectivity, quantitative researches far out-value qualitative ones. Statistics has made the life of researchers who are using the quantitative research model a whole lot easier for so many years. All data are simply obtained from the test subjects, usually by the use of surveys and questionnaires, and then using statistical tools—the measures of central tendency are the most commonly used ones, the data are analyzed. And just like that, conclusions can be drawn without any bias, and significantly less exposure to errors and miscalculations compared to that of the qualitative approach.
Being able to attain measurable results and being able to repeatedly obtain the same measures is what makes the research findings more reliable. However, there is usually no simple, one or even two-step way of measuring whatever it is a researcher is trying to measure in a qualitative research and this is what makes formulating an accurate and reliable qualitative research findings one of the biggest challenges a qualitative research author has to face. Fortunately, qualitative research authors could do some extra steps in order for them to demonstrate an acceptable level of reliability in their qualitative research. One of the conventional ways of achieving this is by performing steps that establish clarification and following up on the test subjects or even on related literatures whenever the researcher has to deal with some uncertainties.
Qualitative Research and its toll on Validity
In order for a qualitative research to be valued highly, it does not only have to be reliable. Validity should be considered. Any research should be valid and reliable if the goal is to create a huge impact on the present theories wherein the research is being conducted for. The research methodologies employed should also display rigorousness. The results and findings being presented should also be acceptable to other researchers and educators in the same field because that is what conducting a research is usually about.
The validity and reliability of the results have long been the traditional standards used in determining the quality of quantitative and qualitative studies. However, because of the various differences between quantitative and qualitative studies, researchers from both sides have argued that there should be alternate criteria in judging research quality.
Another reason behind such initiative is the fact that quantitative and qualitative researches operate on two different realities and so using these two gold standard determinants—validity and reliability as the only option in judging research quality, would almost always lead to the conclusion that qualitative researches are trash compared to quantitative ones.
It is logical enough for researchers to think that there should be a separate set of criteria that will be used to grade the quality of quantitative and qualitative researchers. Lincoln et al. (2001) proposed that the alternative terms credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability be used in place of validity, reliability, and of those commonly encountered terms in the discussions of a qualitative research’s quality because time and again, it has been proven that qualitative researches lag behind quantitative ones in terms of validity and reliability.
Most of the time, it is the presence of certain bias that prevents most qualitative researches from being highly recognized academically by the research community. In some cases, the reliability is just too unacceptable to publish despite the qualitative research hitting the right spot in terms of validity. The term credibility is proposed to be used in exchange of internal validity which refers to the establishment of results that are believable or credible from any participant knowledgeable in the research field’s perspective. Transferability on the other hand is proposed to be used interchangeably with the traditional term external validity which refers to the applicability of the results to other populations within the same research conditions or simply the ability of the results to be transmuted to another setting or context, or overall generalizability.
The research community frowns upon the low reliability ratings that qualitative researches usually get in research appraisals. This is the main reasons why it has also been proposed that the term dependability be used interchangeably with reliability—which refers to the replicable quality of the research results under the same testing conditions. Also, it has been affirmed that the main objective of a qualitative research greatly varies with that of a quantitative research. The former’s objective is to understand and explain something based on how others experienced it and because of the expected variation on the opinions of the subjects, it has been long accepted by authors of qualitative researches that multiple realities could exist. Thus, if the traditional reliability would still be used as the benchmark for repeatability, qualitative researches will continue to lag behind.
With the proposed use of the term dependability in place of reliability, the focus in appraising would not be on the repeatability of the results anymore but rather on the sensibility and consistency of the collected data, a move which makes the criteria easily applicable to qualitative researches . The idea behind dependability is the placement of more emphasis on the need for the researchers to consider the even-changing variables and factors within which the research topic revolves.
Lastly, validity is proposed to be used interchangeably with credibility. The focus of the credibility would basically be similar to the focus of validity only that it relies less on the use of standardized questionnaires because as mentioned before, it has long been accepted in the field of qualitative research that multiple realities could coexist and there would be no single standardized questionnaire or inquiry tool that would be able to comprehensively explain that.
Conducting a Qualitative Research about Managing Diversity
With the prevalence rates of challenges that a researcher who is planning to conduct a qualitative research might face, a researcher trying to conduct a research about managing diversity is most likely to face such challenges. Cultural diversity is only one aspect of the equation. Ergo, a research finding based on cultural diversity alone may not be enough to explain how diversity within an organization could be properly managed. This goes in line with the premise that reality is complex, constructed, and subjective. The complexity and the constructivism involved in conducting a qualitative research about diversity in the workplace is by far the largest challenge that researchers may face. The subjectivity involved in conducting a qualitative research is actually a plus when considering research topics that revolve around social sciences, such as cultural diversity for example, because social science greatly deals with subjectivity, although issues related to it may also be tackled quantitatively—that is, in a more objective manner, albeit less effectively. Research bias is an inherent part of a qualitative study and it has been established earlier that there is no surefire way how a researcher can eliminate such bias because these guys can only do so much. They can only minimize the research bias, and most importantly, recognize it. It is also important to inform the readers of a qualitative study about organizational diversity know if there are any to avoid being ridiculed for misinformation or any issues related to ethical research practices. One way to minimize the effects of research bias on the accuracy, validity, and reliability of qualitative researches about organizational diversity is to perform verification tests (e.g. inter and intra rater tests) so that they can at least say, that other people, preferably, similarly-lined researchers, have reviewed the validity and reliability of the research and its findings, despite of course the preconceived idea that it is bugged with research bias.
There can be two potential research strategies—under of course, the umbrella of qualitative research that can be used to appropriately approach the issue of managing cultural diversity: ethnography and case study. The grounded theory and phenomenology approach only aim to identify the issue or any certain phenomenon which in this case, has already been identified as the presence of cultural diversity in a certain workplace. By using either the ethnography, or case study research design, possible solutions to the problem may already be discovered. Out of the two, case study would be the top choice because of the fact that it can be used in almost all disciplines, and it typically aims to describe one or a series of in-depth cases which usually lead to the identification of research questions and issues, and then later on, identification of viable and efficient solutions to such.
Conclusion
Qualitative research is one of the oldest forms of conducting research. So far, subjectivity, and its overall direct and indirect effects on the research, especially on the validity and reliability of the findings, remains to be the number one source of challenges in conducting a qualitative research, at least based on the findings that have been presented. Qualitative research has been identified as the research model that deals more with reality. Unfortunately, reality is complex, constructed, and ultimately subjective, which are qualitative that make conducting an unbiased research even more challenging. Despite the presence of various qualitative research methodologies (e.g. phenomenology, case studies, ground theories). The fact that qualitative research is unstructured remains the same. At some point in any qualitative research, there will always be a certain degree of research bias. Research bias is really built-in and unavoidable in qualitative researches. All of these issues only lead to the fact that qualitative research does not ensure a very optimal level of validity and reliability, both of which are factors that directly affect the accuracy of a research’s findings.
References
Adler, N. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizatinal Behavior 4th edition. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, Mirror on the wall: Culture's Consequences in a value test of its own design. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 885-904.
Alexander, J., Nuchols, B., Bloom, J., & Lee, S. (2005). Organizational Demography and Turnover: an examination of multiform and nonlinear heterogeneity. Journal of Human Relations, 12, 1455-1480.
Arredondo, P. (2004). Organizational Assessments for Planning Diversity Initiatives. Academy of Management Journal, 5, 333-342.
Bottorff, J. (n.d.). Writing Qualitative Research Proposals. CIHR School of Nursing UBC.
Costello, D. (2006). Leveraging the Employment Life Cycle. Journal of Workforce Management, 43, 26-29.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of Qualiative Resaerch . Sage Publications.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualiative Research 3rd. edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Earley, P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transactional Team Functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26-49.
Greenfield, P. (1997). You Can't Take it With You: Why Ability Assessments Don't Cross Cultures. Journal of American Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging INfluences. Sage Publishing, 24-41.
Hernandez, R. (2006). What is Diversity Pedagogy. Texas Tech University, 01.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill, 576.
Kennedy, M. (1999). The Role of Preservice Teacher Education in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Review, 3, 2-19.
Lincoln et al. (2006). Practical Research Planning and Design 8th Edition. Resaerch Management Review , 03-09.
Maclaran, P., & Catterall, M. (2002). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Computer Software and the Market Researc Practitioner. Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal, 5, 28-39.
Marcus et al. (2000). Cultural Dimensions and Global Web Designs: What? So What? Now What? The Academy of Management Review, 7, 32-46.
Mazur, B. (2010). Cultural Diversity in Organizational Theory and Practice. Journal of Intercultural Management, 8, 80-89.
Mazur, B., & Barglowski, K. (2010). How to manage Easter and Western Christians Successfully in one Organizations. The First Conference on Applied Interculturality Research, 03.
Mellor, N. (2001). Messy Method: The Unfolding Story . Educational Action Research, 465-484.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (2004). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publishing, 16-25.
Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes us different and Similar: a new interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-cultural data. Klasika y Stil Publishing, 202-205.
Ospina, S. (2004). Qualitative Research.
Parkhe, A. (2003). Messy Research: Methodological Predispositions, and Theory. Academy of Management Review, 18, 227-268.
Partida, Y. (2007). Addressing Langauge Barriers: Building Response Capacity for a Changing Nation. Journal of Gen Intern Med, 22, 347-349.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (2009). Exploring the Black Box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
Public Service Commission. (2013). The Benefits of a Culturally Diverse Workforce. Public Service Commission, 3, 01-04.
Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine Forge Press, 01-03.
Rijamampianina, R., & Carmichael, T. (2005). A Pragmatic and Holistic Approach to Managing Diversity. Journal of Problems and Perspective in Management, 10, 555-568.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 01.
Sanchez et al. (2010). Managing Diversity in the Workplace. Journal of Human Resources Management, 12, 10-15.
Sheets, R. (1997). Racial and Ethnic Awareness: Affirming Identity. Teaching Tolerance Projects, 70, 181-188.
Shuttleworth, M. (2008). The Principles of Validity and Reliability are Fndamental Cornerstones of the Scientific Method. Explorable Research Methods, 10, 3-9.
Sinkovics, R., & Alfoldi, E. (2012). Progressive Focusing and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Management International Review, 52, 817-845.
Taflinger, R. (2011). Introduction to Research. Washington State University Press, 01.
Trochim, W. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog Publishing, 261.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London, England: Nicholas Brealey, 97.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O'Reilly, C. (2002). Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press, 8, 235-252.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 25.
Zweigenhaft, R., & Domhoff, W. (1998). Diversity in the Power Elite: Have women minorities reached the top. Yale University Review.
Identify two or more theories that help to explain relationships between cultural diversity and organizational culture. Identify key constructs for the selected theories and discuss at least three articles representing studies that confirm, build on, or reject these theories. Compare and contrast various findings on creating an environment that is effective in attracting and retaining a culturally diverse workforce.
