How should we (not) judge the 'quality' of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business

In this paper, we initiate a debate about evaluative criteria (such as validity) which are - or should be - in use to assess the quality of qualitative manuscripts in International Business (IB). We identify three generations of evaluative criteria, each derived from different philosophical orientations. Based on an analysis of published articles in two IB journals, expert interviews and sample reviews, we show how these generations shape what the scholarly community considers to be good qualitative research. As an alternative to rigid application of a single set of quality procedures, we advocate a pluralist, contextual approach, reflecting the inherent characteristics of IB as a field.