Why the Qualms With Qualitative? Utilizing Qualitative Methods in 360° Feedback

Adam Kabins

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2016, vol. 9, issue 4, 806-810

Abstract: Although the authors of the focal article provide a comprehensive definition of 360° feedback, one exclusionary criterion results in an overly narrow definition of 360° feedback. Specifically, Point 3 in their definition described the criticality of strictly using quantitative methods in collecting 360° feedback. The authors provided a brief rationale by stating, “Data generated from truly qualitative interviews would not allow comparisons between rater groups on the same set of behaviors” (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016, p. 765). Although there is little doubt about the value in taking a quantitative approach for gathering 360° feedback, it is not clear why this has to be the sole approach. Below, I outline three issues with taking this constricted methodology. That is, first, excluding qualitative methods is not in line with the purpose of 360° feedback, which is directed at minimizing criterion deficiency. Second, qualitative methodologies (in conjunction with quantitative methodologies) are more equipped to provide and inspire a call to action (supporting the change component addressed by the authors). Finally, there are qualitative methods that allow for rigorous quantitative analysis and can provide an additional source of macro organizational-level data.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:04:p:806-810_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().