Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41898056›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Doing Qualitative Workplace Relationship Research: Current Trends, New Directions, and Quality Indicators.

Jimmie Manning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jimmie ManningCommunication Studies Department, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 0229, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89523, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Workplace relationship research has expanded rapidly across multiple disciplines, yet qualitative approaches to studying workplace relationships often remain constrained by single-participant designs, organization-centered analyses, and lingering post-positivist assumptions about rigor. Responding to these limitations, this article offers a methodological and conceptual primer for qualitative workplace relationship research grounded in interpersonal, organizational, constitutive, and reflexive traditions. Drawing on recent scholarship, the article first reviews contemporary conceptualizations of workplace relationships and highlights trends in qualitative research over the past decade. It then advances three generative directions for future inquiry: dyadic and multiadic research designs that capture relational co-construction; sociomaterial analyses that attend to objects, documents, bodies, and spaces as relationally consequential; and topic-centered approaches that theorize emergent workplace phenomena from participant-centered perspectives rather than theory-down deduction. The article further addresses questions of quality and rigor by engaging Tracy's "big-tent" criteria and introducing the Qualitative Relationship Reporting Framework (QRRF-4), a relationship-centered reporting aid designed to support transparency and ethical accountability without reducing qualitative rigor to procedural compliance. Taken together, this article serves as both a practical resource and a theoretical invitation, supporting rigorous, reflexive qualitative research that illuminates the communicatively constituted, materially situated, and meaning-centered dynamics of contemporary workplace life.

Indexed as

organizational studiesQualitative Relationship Reporting Framework (QRRF-4)qualitative researchresearch quality and rigorsociomaterialityworkplace relationships

Identifiers

PMID41898056
PMCPMC13023912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.