This paper highlights construct validity issues that can occur when researchers utilize index variables (commonly referred to as ratios) in which the denominator can become negative. These indexes are commonly used in management research, and we demonstrate that indexes constructed from data which includes negative values for the denominator lose their ordinal properties and can be difficult, if not impossible, to interpret. Further, we show that common empirical practices to resolve these issues do not solve issues of ordinality and interpretability and may lead to additional validity issues. We recommend the use of alternate measures not affected by the issues described in this article to increase the validity of future organizational research. 

The aim of this paper is to present a new original qualitative research method called the Discount Focus Subgroup (DFSG) method, which originated in and was developed from information systems research. This paper synthesizes previous work on DFSG method to provide a more coherent picture of the method's applications, procedures, and strengths. It discusses why the DFSG is an innovative method and how it is distinct from the existing traditional qualitative group‑based methods (e.g. focus group, brainstorming, and joint application development). The paper also provides a critical evaluation of the method by highlighting the limitations and dilemmas that a researcher might encounter when applying it and demonstrating how these pitfalls can be avoided or lessened. It finally offers directions for future research to further develop this method. This paper presents useful methodological guidelines to researchers who intend to use this method in their research projects. 

The need to demonstrate both the value of collective forms of language and the richness that interviewee reviews add to constructed analyses is a focus of debate. Researchers undertaking developmental studies have continually affirmed their commitment to demonstrate to the managers of Developmental Charities (DCs) and associated stakeholder groups not only the value a case‑study approach adds to understanding but, more importantly, how better to analyse the perspectives of the different stakeholder groups regarding the management of their organisations. Here we demonstrate a methodology to help achieve this. This paper reflects on a novel case‑study approach used to demonstrate the added value of constructed analyses from data provided by key informants in the construction of case studies for Oxfam GB, Water Aid, Christian Aid, Amnesty International and Action Aid. Using a wide‑range of key informants to provide different insights with regards to the subject of study is an intrinsic part of the methodology. These act as the principals in adding value to data and reviewing the constructed analysis. The constructionist approach used in the development of meanings is a key methodological feature in creating a cumulative cultural text. This fits well with the key features inherent in Representation Theory that guides the choice of methodology. Four components are discussed in relation to a new proposal for case‑study methodologies. These are: Key Informants, Cumulative Cultural Text, Representation Theory, Constructed Public Understanding.