Abstract
The configuration approach to the study of organizations is enjoying increasing popularity, in part, due to the methodological advances of qualitative comparative analysis. I argue that there are significant contrasts between earlier taxonomic clustering and typology approaches to configuration and the newer ones being pursued with the qualitative comparative analysis methodology. I compare the two approaches and their application, arguing that what is missing in many studies, old and new, often due to the lack of qualitative evidence, is “configuration itself”—that is, contrasting common, thematic, and rich characterizations that provide insight into how organizations function.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
