I know that the research field of Michael Tushman (ambidextrous organizations) is really popular in the Netherlands where Jansen and colleague have written a number of papers related to ambidexterity literature (e.g. on Management Science, AMJ, OrgSci) and their sample is the banking industry. In Italy the financial industry is dynamic and various and I know that scholars are running interesting surveys as well as case studies. I and colleagues are working on a manuscript on ambidextrous banks. I think this is one of the most interesting streams of research in the field of innovation and organizational learning. Hope somebody can tell us something about the development of ambidexterity (in both theoretical and empirical studies) for instance in Europe.
Just to try answering to your question I see ambidexterity more a process work, that can emerge in organizations but that can be a strategic objective as well. If with strategic you mean a positivistic approach (managing antecedents in order to achieve ambidexterity) I don’t agree since I think that so many scholars have already written on ambidexterity in terms of triggers (consequently outcomes) and I’d rather approaches like studying what happens in terms of focusing on the processes and behaviors that should help achieving ambidexterity. Moreover I argue that ambidexterity emerges and can’t be planned.
Cheers,
Marco

Additionally, qualitative methods is valuable when examining trends that occur at the organizational level. Research at the organizational level often explores higher levels of social processes. By interviewing key stakeholders, the researcher is able to gain insights into the different perspectives relating to a particular area of study.

Of course I may be missing other areas in IS where qualitative research methods are insightful, but these are the first few possibilities that came to mind.