BookPDF Available

Research Methods for Business Students

March 2023

Edition: 9th
Publisher: Research Methods for Business Students
ISBN: 978-1-292-40272-7

Authors:

University of Birmingham

Hello everyone. The publishers have given me permission to upload chapter four and the contents pages. Unfortunately, I am unable to share any other chapters for copyright reasons. There is however a large amount of material on my YouTube channel marksaundersonresearchmethods. Mark

…

Four (research) paradigms for organisational analysis Source: Developed from Burrell and Morgan (2016) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis

…

Critical realist's stratified ontology Source: Developed from Bhaskar (2008)

…

Figures - uploaded by Mark NK Saunders

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Mark NK Saunders

Content may be subject to copyright.

Research Methods for Business Students

At Pearson, we have a simple mission: to help people

make more of their lives through learning.

We combine innovative learning technology with trusted

content and educational expertise to provide engaging

and eﬀective learning experiences that serve people

wherever and whenever they are learning.

From classroom to boardroom, our curriculum materials, digital

learning tools and testing programmes help to educate millions

of people worldwide – more than any other private enterprise.

Every day our work helps learning ﬂourish, and

wherever learning ﬂourishes, so do people.

To learn more, please visit us at www.pearson.com

RESEARCH METHODS

NINTH EDITION

RESEARCH METHODS

NINTH EDITION

FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS

MARK N.K. SAUNDERS

PHILIP LEWIS • ADRIAN THORNHILL

Harlow, England • London • New York • Boston • San Francisco • Toronto • Sydney • Dubai • Singapore • Hong Kong

Tokyo • Seoul • Taipei • New Delhi • Cape Town • São Paulo • Mexico City • Madrid • Amsterdam • Munich • Paris • Milan

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED

KAO Two

KAO Park

Harlow CM17 9SR

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1279 623623

Web: www.pearson.com

First published under the Pitman Publishing imprint in 1997

Then published 2000, 2003, 2007, 20009, 2012 (print), 2016, 2019 (print and electronic)

Ninth edition published 2023 (print and electronic)

The rights of Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill to be identified as authors of

this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents

Act 1988.

The print publication is protected by copyright. Prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a

retrieval system, distribution or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

recording or otherwise, permission should be obtained from the publisher or, where applicable, a

licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom should be obtained from the Copyright

Licensing Agency Ltd, Barnard’s Inn, 86 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1EN.

The ePublication is protected by copyright and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed,

leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by

the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased, or as strictly

permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct

infringement of the authors’ and the publisher’s rights and those responsible may be liable in law

accordingly.

All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this

text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor

does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.

Pearson Education is not responsible for the content of third-party internet sites.

The Financial Times. With a worldwide network of highly respected journalists, The Financial Times

provides global business news, insightful opinion and expert analysis of business, finance and

politics. With over 500 journalists reporting from 50 countries worldwide, our in-depth coverage

of international news is objectively reported and analysed from an independent, global perspective.

To find out more, visitwww.ft.com/pearsonoffer.

ISBN: 978-1-292-40272-7 (print)

978-1-292-40273-4 (PDF)

978-1-292-40274-1 (ePub)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for the print edition is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Saunders, M. N. K., author. | Lewis, Philip, 1945- author |

Thornhill, Adrian, author

Title: Research methods for business students / Mark N. K. Saunders, Philip

Lewis, Adrian Thornhill.

Description: Ninth edition. | Harlow, England ; New York : Pearson, 2023.

| Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2022042532 (print) | LCCN 2022042533 (ebook) | ISBN

9781292402727 (paperback) | ISBN 9781292402734 (pdf) | ISBN

9781292402741 (epub)

Subjects: LCSH: Business—Research. | Business—Research—Data processing.

Classification: LCC HD30.4 .S28 2023 (print) | LCC HD30.4 (ebook) | DDC

650.072—dc23/eng/20221107

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022042532

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022042533

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

27 26 25 24 23

Cover design: Michelle Morgan

Print edition typeset in 9.5/12 ITC Slimbach Std by Straive

Printed in Slovakia by Neografia

NOTE THAT ANY PAGE CROSS REFERENCES REFER TO THE PRINT EDITION

Brief contents

How to use this book xvii

Preface xxiii

Contributors xxv

1 Research, reflective diaries and the purpose of this book 2

2 Generating a research idea and developing your

research proposal 28

3 Critically reviewing the literature 72

4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory

development 128

5 Formulating the research design 176

6 Negotiating access and research ethics 234

7 Selecting samples 288

8 Obtaining and evaluating secondary data 342

9 Collecting primary data using observation 390

10 Collecting primary data using interviews and diaries 440

11 Collecting primary data using questionnaires 506

12 Analysing data quantitatively 572

13 Analysing data qualitatively 650

14 Writing and presenting the project report 718

Bibliography 768

Appendices 786

Glossary 812

Index 839

Publisher’s acknowledgements 852

vii

Contents

How to use this book xvii

Preface xxiii

Contributors xxv

1 Research, reflective diaries and the

purpose of this book 2

Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill

Learning outcomes 2

1.1 Introduction 2

1.2 The nature of research 4

1.3 Business and management research 6

1.4 The research process 12

1.5 Keeping a reflective diary or research notebook 14

1.6 The purpose and structure of this book 16

1.7 Summary 20

Self-check questions 21

Review and discussion questions 21

Progressing your research project: Starting your reflective diary

or notebook 22

References 22

Further reading 763

Case 14: Chloe’s poster creation 764

Clare Burns

Self-check answers 767

Contents

xvi

Bibliography 768

Appendices 786

1 Systems of referencing 786

2 Calculating the minimum sample size 805

3 Guidelines for non-discriminatory language 807

Glossary 812

Index 839

Publisher’s acknowledgements 852

Supporting resources

Visit www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders to find valuable online resources:

Companion Website for students

• Multiple-choice questions to test your learning

• Tutorials and datasets for Excel and SPSS

• Updated research datasets to practise with

• Updated additional case studies with accompanying questions

• Smarter Online Searching Guide – how to make the most of the Internet

in your research

• Online glossary

For instructors

• Complete, downloadable Instructor’s Manual

• PowerPoint slides that can be downloaded and used for presentations

Also: The regularly maintained Companion Website provides the following

features:

• Search tool to help locate specific items of content

• Email results and profile tools to send results of quizzes to instructors

• Online help and support to assist with website usage and

troubleshooting

For more information please contact your local Pearson Education sales

representative or visit www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders.

xvii

How to use this book

This book is written with a progressive logic, which means that terms and concepts are

defined when they are first introduced. One implication of this is that it is sensible for you

to start at the beginning and to work your way through the text, various boxes, self-check

questions, review and discussion questions, case studies and case study questions. You can

do this in a variety of ways depending on your reasons for using this book. However, this

approach may not be suitable for your purposes, and you may wish to read the chapters

in a different order or just dip into particular sections of the book. If this is true for you

then you will probably need to use the glossary to check that you understand some of the

terms and concepts used in the chapters you read. Suggestions for three of the more com-

mon ways in which you might wish to use this book follow.

As part of a research methods course or for

self-study for your research project

If you are using this book as part of a research methods course the order in which you read

the chapters is likely to be prescribed by your tutors and dependent upon their perceptions

of your needs. Conversely, if you are pursuing a course of self-study for your research pro-

ject, dissertation or consultancy report, the order in which you read the chapters is your

own choice. However, whichever of these you are, we would argue that the order in which

you read the chapters is dependent upon your recent academic experience.

For many students, such as those taking an undergraduate degree in business or man-

agement, the research methods course and associated project, dissertation or consultancy

report comes in either the second or the final year of study. In such situations it is probable

that you will follow the chapter order quite closely (see FigureP.1). Groups of chapters

within which we believe you can switch the order without affecting the logic of the flow

too much are shown on the same level in this diagram and are:

• those associated with obtaining or collecting data (Chapters8, 9, 10 and 11);

• those associated with data analysis (Chapters12 and 13).

Within the book we emphasise the importance of beginning to write early on in the

research process as a way of clarifying your thoughts. In Chapter1 we encourage you to

keep a reflective diary, notebook or journal throughout the research process so it is helpful

to read this chapter early on. We recommend you also read the sections in Chapter14 on

writing prior to starting to draft your critical review of the literature (Chapter3).

Alternatively, you may be returning to academic study after a gap of some years, to

take a full-time or part-time course such as a Master of Business Administration, a Master

of Arts or a Master of Science with a Business and Management focus. Many students in

such situations need to refresh their study skills early in their programme, particularly

How to use this book

xviii

Chapter 8:

Obtaining and

evaluating secondary

data

Chapter 9:

Collecting primary

data through

observation

Chapter 10:

Collecting primary

data using interviews

and diaries

Chapter 11:

Collecting primary

data using

questionnaires

Chapter 13: Analysing

data qualitatively

Chapter 12: Analysing

data quantitatively

Chapter 14: Writing

and presenting

your project report

Chapter 1:

Research, reﬂective diaries

Chapter 2: Generating a research

idea and developing the proposal

Chapter 3:

Critically reviewing the literature

Chapter 4: Understanding research

philosophy and approaches to theory

Chapter 6: Negotiating

access and research ethics

Chapter 7:

Selecting samples

Chapter 5:

Formulating the research design

Chapter 14: Writing and presenting

your project report

Figure P.1 Using this book for your research methods course and associated project

How to use this book

xix

those associated with critical reading of academic literature and academic writing. If you

feel the need to do this, you may wish to start with those chapters that support you in

developing and refining these skills (Chapters3 and 14), followed by Chapter8, which

introduces you to the range of secondary data sources available that might be of use for

other assignments (FigureP.2). Once again, groups of chapters within which we believe

Figure P.2 Using this book as a returner to academic study

Chapter 12: Analysing

data quantitatively

Chapter 13: Analysing

data qualitatively

Chapter 14: Writing

and presenting

your project report

Chapter 9: Collecting

primary data through

observation

Chapter 10: Collecting

primary data using

interviews and diaries

Chapter 11: Collecting

primary data using

questionnaires

Chapter 1:

Research, reﬂective diaries

Chapter 14: Writing

and presenting your project report

Chapter 3: Critically

reviewing the literature

Chapter 8: Obtaining and

evaluating secondary data

Chapter 4: Understanding research

philosophy and approaches to theory

Chapter 7:

Selecting samples

Chapter 2: Generating a research

idea and developing the proposal

Chapter 6: Negotiating access

and research ethics

Chapter 5:

Formulating the research design

How to use this book

you can switch the order without affecting the logic of the flow too much are shown on

the same level in the diagram and are:

• those chapters associated with primary data collection (Chapters9, 10 and 11);

• those associated with data analysis (Chapters12 and 13).

In addition, we would recommend that you re-read Chapter14 prior to starting to

write your project report, dissertation or consultancy report, or if you need to undertake

a presentation.

In whichever order you choose to read the chapters, we would recommend that you

attempt all the self-check questions, review and discussion questions and those questions

associated with the case studies. Your answers to the self-check questions can be self-

assessed using the answers at the end of each chapter. However, we hope that you will

actually attempt each question prior to reading the answer! If you need further information

on an idea or a technique, then first look at the references in the further reading section.

At the end of each chapter, the section headed ‘Progressing your research project’ lists

a number of tasks. Such tasks might involve you in just planning a research project or,

alternatively, designing and distributing a questionnaire of your own. They all include

making an entry in your reflective diary or notebook. When completed, these tasks will

provide a useful aide-mémoire for assessed work (including a reflective essay or learning

log) and can be used as the basis for the first draft of your project report. It is worth point-

ing out here that many consultancy reports for organisations do not require you to include

a review of the academic literature.

As a guide through the research process

If you are intending to use this book to guide you through the research process for a

research project you are undertaking, such as your dissertation, we recommend that you

read the entire book quickly before starting your research. In that way you will have a

good overview of the entire process, including a range of techniques available, and will be

better able to plan your work.

After you have read the book once, we suggest that you re-read Section1.5 on keeping

a reflective diary or notebook and Sections14.2–14.10 on writing first. Then work your

way through the book again following the chapter order. This time you should attempt the

self-check questions, review and discussion questions and those questions associated with

each case study to ensure that you have understood the material contained in each chapter

prior to applying it to your own research project. Your responses to self-check questions

can be assessed using the answers at the end of each chapter.

If you are still unsure as to whether particular techniques, procedures or ideas are rel-

evant, then pay special attention to the ‘Focus on student research’, ‘Focus on management

research’ and ‘Focus on research in the news’ boxes. ‘Focus on student research’ boxes

are based on actual students’ experiences and illustrate how an issue has been addressed

or a technique or procedure used in a student’s research project. ‘Focus on management

research’ boxes discuss recent research articles in established refereed academic journals,

allowing you to see how research is undertaken successfully. These articles are easily

accessible via the main online business and management databases. ‘Focus on research

in the news’ boxes provide topical news stories of how particular research techniques,

procedures and ideas are used in the business world. You can also look in the ‘Further

reading’ for other examples of research where these have been used. If you need further

How to use this book

xxi

information on an idea, technique or procedure then, again, start with the references in

the further reading section.

Material in some of the chapters is likely to prove less relevant to some research top-

ics than others. However, you should beware of choosing techniques because you are

happy with them, if they are inappropriate. Completion of the tasks in the section headed

‘Progressing your research project’ at the end of Chapters2–13 will enable you to gener-

ate all the material that you will need to include in your research project, dissertation or

consultancy report. This will also help you to focus on the techniques and ideas that are

most appropriate to your research. When you have completed these tasks for Chapter14

you will have written your research project, dissertation or consultancy report and also

prepared a presentation using slides or a poster.

As a reference source

It may be that you wish to use this book now or subsequently as a reference source. If this

is the case, an extensive index will point you to the appropriate page or pages. Often you

will find a ‘checklist’ box within these pages. ‘Checklist’ boxes are designed to provide you

with further guidance on the particular topic. You will also find the contents pages and

the glossary useful reference sources, the latter defining over 750 research terms. In addi-

tion, we have tried to help you to use the book in this way by including cross-references

between sections in chapters as appropriate. Do follow these up as necessary. If you need

further information on an idea or a technique then begin by consulting the references in

the further reading section. Wherever possible we have tried to reference books that are in

print and readily available in university libraries and journal articles that are in the major

business and management online databases.

xxii

Pearson’s Commitment to

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Pearson is dedicated to creating bias-free content that reflects the diversity, depth

and breadth of all learners’ lived experiences. We embrace the many dimensions of

diversity including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation,

socioeconomic status, ability, age and religious or political beliefs.

Education is a powerful force for equity and change in our world. It has the potential

to deliver opportunities that improve lives and enable economic mobility. As we work

with authors to create content for every product and service, we acknowledge our

responsibility to demonstrate inclusivity and incorporate diverse scholarship so that

everyone can achieve their potential through learning. As the world’s leading learning

company, we have a duty to help drive change and live up to our purpose to help more

people create a better life for themselves and to create a better world.

Our ambition is to purposefully contribute to a world where:

• Everyone has an equitable and lifelong opportunity to succeed through learning.

• Our educational products and services are inclusive and represent the rich diversity of

learners.

• Our educational content accurately reflects the histories and lived experiences of the

learners we serve.

• Our educational content prompts deeper discussions with students and motivates

them to expand their own learning and worldview.

We are also committed to providing products that are fully accessible to all learners. As

per Pearson’s guidelines for accessible educational Web media, we test and retest the

capabilities of our products against the highest standards for every release, following the

WCAG guidelines in developing new products for copyright year 2022 and beyond. You

can learn more about Pearson’s commitment to accessibility at:

https://www.pearson.com/us/accessibility.html

While we work hard to present unbiased, fully accessible content, we want to hear

from you about any concerns or needs regarding this Pearson product so that we can

investigate and address them.

• Please contact us with concerns about any potential bias at:

https://www.pearson.com/report-bias.html

• For accessibility-related issues, such as using assistive technology with Pearson

products, alternative text requests, or accessibility documentation, email the Pearson

Disability Support team at:

disability.support@pearson.com

xxiii

In writing the ninth edition of Research Methods for Business Students we have, alongside

the many comments we have received regarding previous editions, considered the implica-

tions of the Covid-19 pandemic for undertaking research. The pandemic invariably caused

us to adapt the way we do research posing new challenges for gaining access and recruiting

people to take part, and in the collecting of data (Nind et al., 2021). Alongside an already

growing use of online questionnaires, there was a shift from face-to-face to online and

telephone interviews. The former of these made considerable use of cloud based video-

conferencing and the latter computer assisted telephone interviewing. Ethnographic, diary

and other expressive methods were also used more widely.

In response to these challenges and over developments we have fully revised the book,

expanding our consideration of online, ethnographic, diary and other expressive methods

and the analysis of the resulting data. In particular: Chapter1 now includes a discussion of

responsible business research; Chapter2 contains considerably more detail on developing

research questions including using the AbC (Abstract, Context) rule; Chapter4 now consid-

ers the interrelationships between paradigms and philosophies in more depth; Chapter 5

now considers engaged scholarship; Chapter6 now considers Internet mediated access and

associated issues of ethics in more detail; Chapter7 discusses using purchased database

lists and volunteer panels alongside more detailed discussions of sample size; Chapter9

contains enlarged sections on using researcher and informant created videos, static images

and audio recordings in observation; Chapter10 has a new section on evaluating interview

practice looking at conversational space mapping and language cleanliness; Chapter11

now provides an overview of scale development; Chapter13 includes more detail on tran-

scription and thematic coding, including using the Gioia method; Chapter14 includes more

detailed advice regarding using quotations from transcripts, diaries and other documentary

data, as well as on poster design; and we have developed further the Glossary, which now

includes over 750 research-related terms. New case studies at the end of each chapter have

been developed with colleagues, providing up-to-date scenarios through which to illustrate

issues associated with undertaking research. Alongside this we have also taken the oppor-

tunity to update many examples and revise the tables of Internet addresses.

As in previous editions, we have taken a predominantly non-software-specific approach

in our discussion of methods. By doing this, we have been able to focus on the general

principles needed to utilise a range of analysis software and the Internet effectively for

research. However, recognising that many students have access to sophisticated data col-

lection and analysis software and may need help in developing these skills, we continue

to provide access to up-to-date ‘teach yourself’ guides to Qualtrics™, IBM SPSS Statistics™,

Excel™ and Internet searching via the book’s website (www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders).

Where appropriate, these guides are provided with data sets. In the preparation of the ninth

edition we were fortunate to receive considerable feedback from colleagues and students

Preface

xxiv

in universities throughout the world. We are extremely grateful to all the reviewers who

gave their time and shared their ideas.

Inevitably, the body of knowledge of research methods has developed further since

2019, and we have revised all chapters accordingly. Our experiences of teaching and super-

vising students and working through the methods in classes have suggested alternative

approaches and the need to provide alternative material. Consequently, we have taken

the opportunity to update and refine existing worked examples, remove those that were

becoming dated, and develop new ones where appropriate. However, the basic structure

remains much the same as the previous eight editions.

Other minor changes and updating have been made throughout. Needless to say, any

errors of omission and commission continue to remain our responsibility.

As with previous editions, much of our updating has been guided by comments from

students and colleagues, to whom we are most grateful. We should like particularly to

thank students from University of Birmingham, and various Doctoral Symposiums for their

comments on all of the chapters. Colleagues in both our own and other universities have

continued to provide helpful comments, advice and ideas. We are particularly grateful to

Heather Cairns-Lee, Zeineb Djebali, Colin Hughes, Emrah Karakaya, Juliet Kele, Amanda

Lee, Ben Saunders, and Nicholas Wheeler for their insightful comments and help with

early drafts of chapters. Colleagues and friends again deserve thanks for their assistance

in providing examples of research across the spectrum of business and management, co-

authoring chapters, writing case studies and in reviewing parts of this book: Neve Abgel-

ler, Mina Beigi, Alexandra Bristow, Clare Burns, Catherine Cassell, Fariba Darabi, Viktor

Dörfler, Adina Dudau, Sarah Forbes, Mat Hughes, Joséphine Lapointe, Natasha Mauth-

ner, Megane Miralles, Emily Morrison, Trevor Morrow, Shahrzad Nayyeri, Jonathan Scott,

Maura Sheehan, Melika Shirmohamma, Marc Stierand and Catherine Wang.

We would also like to thank all of the staff at Pearson (both past and present) who sup-

ported us through the process of writing the ninth edition. Our thanks go, in particular, to

Vicky Tubb, our commissioning editor, and Kay Richardson our online content developer

for their continuing support and enthusiasm throughout the process. We would also like

to express our thanks to Andrew Muller as content producer and as copy-editor.

MNKS

March 2022

Reference

Nind, M., Coverdale, A. and Meckin, R. (2021) National Centre for Research Methods:

Changing Social Research Practices in the Context of Covid-19: Rapid Evidence Review.

UKRI Economic and Social Research Council. Available at: https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/

eprint/4458/1/NCRM%20Changing%20Research%20Practices_Rapid%20Evidence%20

Review_FINAL%20REPORT.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2022]

xxv

Mark N.K. Saunders, BA, MSc, PGCE, PhD, Chartered FCIPD, is Professor of Business

Research Methods at the Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham. He is a

Fellow of both the Academy of Social Sciences and the British Academy of Management.

He currently holds visiting professorships at Mälardalen University in Sweden, University

of Surrey and the University of Worcester. Mark teaches research methods to masters and

doctoral students as well as supervising master’s dissertations and research degrees. He has

published articles on research methods, trust, and human resource aspects of the manage-

ment of change, in journals such as Annals of Tourism Research, British Journal of Manage-

ment, Field Methods, Human Relations, Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of

Small Business Management, Management Learning and Social Science and Medicine. Mark

is book series editor of the Handbooks of Research Methods (Edward Elgar) and co-series

book editor of Elgar Dissertation Companions (Edward Elgar). He is co-editor of How to

Keep your Doctorate on Track, Keeping your Research on Project on Track, the Handbook

of Research Methods on Human Resource Development and the Handbook of Research

Methods on Trust (all published by Edward Elgar). Mark has also written textbooks on

business statistics, human resource management, and managing change. He continues to

undertake consultancy in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Prior to becoming

an academic, he had a variety of research jobs in the public sector. Mark also enjoys hill

walking, and riding his motor-trike.

Philip Lewis, BA, PhD, MSc, Chartered MCIPD, PGDipM, Cert Ed, began his career in HR

as a training adviser with the Distributive Industry Training Board. He subsequently taught

HRM and research methods in three UK universities. He studied part-time for degrees with

the Open University and the University of Bath, from which he gained an MSc in industrial

relations and a PhD for his research on performance pay in retail financial services. He is

co-author with Adrian and Mark of Employee Relations: Understanding the Employment

Relationship and with Mark, Adrian, Mike Millmore and Trevor Morrow of Strategic Human

Resource Management and with Adrian, Mark and Mike Millmore of Managing Change:

AHuman Resource Strategy Approach, all published by Pearson. He has undertaken con-

sultancy in both public and private sectors.

Adrian Thornhill, BA, PhD, PGCE, Chartered FCIPD. Prior to his career as a university

lecturer and Head of Department, he worked as an industrial relations researcher and

in training and vocational education. He has also undertaken consultancy and training

for a range of private and public-sector organisations. He has taught a range of subjects,

including HRM, the management of change and research methods, to undergraduate, post-

graduate and professional students. He has experience of supervising undergraduate and

postgraduate dissertations, professional management projects and research degrees. Adrian

has published a number of articles principally associated with employee and justice per-

spectives related to managing change and the management of organisational downsizing

Contributors

xxvi

and redundancy. He is co-author with Phil and Mark of Employee Relations: Understand-

ing the Employment Relationship, with Phil, Mark, Mike Millmore and Trevor Morrow of

Strategic Human Resource Management and with Phil, Mark and Mike Millmore of Manag-

ing Change: A Human Resource Strategy Approach, all published by Pearson. He has also

co-authored a book on downsizing and redundancy.

Dr Neve Abgeller is a Lecturer in Organisation, Work and Employment at Birmingham

Business School, University of Birmingham, UK.

Dr Mina Beigi is an Associate Professor in Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource

Management in Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, UK.

Dr Alexandra Bristow is Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour at the Open Univer-

sity Business School, UK.

Dr Clare JM Burns is a Sessional Academic in the Department of Business Strategy and

Innovation at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

Professor Catherine Cassell is Executive Dean of the Faculty of Business, Durham Uni-

versity Business School, UK.

Dr Fariba Darabi is a Senior Lecturer in International Business at the Business, Technol-

ogy and Engineering College, Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Dr Viktor Dörfler is Senior Lecturer in Information & Knowledge Management at the

University of Strathclyde Business School, UK.

Dr Adina I Dudau is a Senior Lecturer in Management at the Adam Smith Business School,

University of Glasgow, UK.

Dr Sarah Forbes is a Senior Lecturer in the People, Operations and Marketing Group at

the School for Business and Society, University of York, UK.

Dr Mat Hughes is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the School of Business

and Economics, Loughborough University, UK.

Joséphine Lapointe is a Postgraduate Researcher in the Department of Management at

Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK.

Professor Natasha Mauthner is Professor of Social Science Philosophy and Method, and

Director of Research, at the Newcastle University Business School, UK.

Megane Miralles is a Research Associate at the Institute of Business Creativity at

Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western

Switzerland.

Dr Emily A Morrison is an Organizational Effectiveness and Development Advisor for

a US Government agency in Washington, DC, having served as an assistant professor for

11 years at The George Washington University.

Contributors

xxvii

Professor Trevor Morrow is Professor of Management Practice and Director of On-line and

Digital Learning at University of Aberdeen Business School, Scotland

Dr Shahrzad Nayyeri is an Assistant Professor at the Research Center of Management &

Productivity Studies Center at the Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.

Dr Jonathan M Scott is a Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management at the Waikato Manage-

ment School, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Professor Maura Sheehan is Professor in International Management and Co-Director, The

International Centre for Management and Governance Research (ICMGR), The Business

School, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.

Dr Melika Shirmohamma is an Assistant Professor in Human Resource Development

in the Department of Human Development and Consumer Sciences at the University of

Houston, USA.

Dr Marc Stierand is an Associate Professor of Service Management and the Director of

the Institute of Business Creativity at Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, HES-SO University of

Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland.

Professor Catherine L Wang is Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at Brunel Busi-

ness School, Brunel University.

128

Introduction

Much of this book is concerned with the way in which you collect data to answer your research

question(s) and meet your aim and objectives. Many people plan their research in relation to a

question that needs to be answered or a problem that needs to be solved. They then think about

what data they need and the procedures they use to collect them. You are not therefore unusual

if early on in your research you consider whether you should, for example, use an online ques-

tionnaire or undertake telephone interviews. However, procedures to collect your data belong

in the centre of the research ‘onion’, the diagram we use to depict a range of factors underlying

the choices about data access, ethics, sample selection, collection and analysis in Figure4.1.

(You may find that there is much terminology that is new to you in this diagram – do not worry

Understanding research philosophy and

approaches to theory development

Learning outcomes

By the end of this chapter you should be able to:

• explain the relevance of ontology, epistemology and axiology to busi-

ness research;

• describe the main research paradigms that are significant for business

research;

• explain the relevance for business research of philosophical positions

such as positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism and

pragmatism;

• reflect on your own epistemological, ontological and axiological stance;

• reflect on and articulate your own philosophical position and approach

to theory development in relation to your research;

• distinguish between deductive, inductive, abductive and retroductive

approaches to theory development.

4.1

Chapter 4

129

about it for now, we will take you through it all as you progress through the book.) In coming

to this central core, you need to outline your philosophy, justifying your methodological choice,

your research strategy so that others can see that your research should be taken seriously (Crotty

1998). But beware, although there are clear links between your philosophy, approach to theory

development and, for example, data collection procedures, these are not deterministic. Conse-

quently, just drawing a straight line from a particular philosophy to the centre of the research

onion may not reveal the most appropriate approach to theory development, methodological

choice or strategy. Rather you need to understand and explain which specific aspects of the

outer layers of the onion are important to your research, rather than just peel and throw away!

This chapter is concerned principally with the outer two of the onion’s layers: philosophy

(Sections4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) and approach to theory development (Section 4.5). In Chapter 5

we examine the layers we call methodological choice, strategy and time horizon. The sixth

layer (procedures and techniques) is dealt with in Chapters6–13. Section4.2 introduces you

to the philosophical underpinnings of business and management, considering different forms

of assumptions. We then consider different research paradigms, these are the underlying basic

and taken-for-granted assumptions of business research (Section4.3), before looking in more

detail at five research philosophies commonly adopted by its researchers (Section4.4). In the

final section (4.5) we consider three approaches to theory development.

At the end of the chapter in the section ‘Progressing your research project’, you will find a

reflexive tool (HARP) designed by Bristow and Saunders. This will help you to make your values

and assumptions more explicit, explain them using the language of research philosophy, and con-

sider the potential fit between your own beliefs and those of major philosophies used in business

and management research. We encourage you to reflect on your own beliefs and assumptions

in relation to these five philosophies and the research design you will develop to undertake your

research. This is important as it will help you determine those questions that you consider mean-

ingful and the data collection procedures and analysis techniques well suited to answering them.

Decolonisation: beliefs, assumptions

and life-oppressing decisions

Our own beliefs and assumptions about how the world

operates affect both the data we gather and how we

interpret that data. For countries that have been col-

onised, this is evident in the dominance of settlers’

views over those of the indigenous peoples and the

need for remedy through decolonisation. Modern Aus-

tralia, for example, was founded on western, colonial

systems that did not include Indigenous First Nation

Australians’ knowledges, cultures, rights practices and

laws, inflicting life-changing trauma on these peoples.

In his book Dark Emu Bruce Pascoe (2018) offers

a compelling insight of pre-colonial Aboriginal soci-

ety. Using data from records of and writings by early

explorers and colonists, he reveals Indigenous Aus-

tralians had, over thousands of years, developed

sophisticated systems of food production and land

management, cultivating and irrigating crops and liv-

ing in villages. This he contrasts with the colonialist’s

labelling of them as hunter-gathers.

Pascoe argues that early colonialists selectively

filtered data interpreting it to fit their prejudices.

These Europeans believed in their own superiority

in science, economy and religion; considering it was

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

130

their duty to spread their version of

civilisation including the word of

(their) God to heathens in return for

the wealth of the colonised lands.

Pascoe argues that these taken-

for-granted assumptions allowed

Europeans to justify taking posses-

sion of the land as, by denying the

existence of an economy, they were

denying the right of the original

peoples to their land.

He supports his argument rein-

terpreting a variety of data includ-

ing records, diaries and published

narratives by the first European

colonialists. In one of these, colo-

nialist James Kirby observes a

series of weirs built in what is now

known as the Murray River system.

These he describes in considerable

detail revealing how these weirs

were used to direct and support

catching of fish. Yet, Kirby (1897)

subsequently interpreted what

he had seen as indolence and

laziness.This and interpretations

based on similar assumptions

drawn from European culture and

civilisation have, until recently,

been privileged in accounts of

Australian history, ignoring or

undervaluing considerably the

voices of the Aboriginal and Tor-

res Strait Islander First Nations

peoples and their own cultures,

the oldest living cultures on earth. Decolonialisa-

tion looks to reverse and rectify this privileging of

certain interpretations.

Just as colonialists’ beliefs and assumptions

affected how they interpreted what they saw in

Australia and other colonised lands, our own belief

systems and associated taken-for-granted assump-

tions can impact on our interpretations in the

research we pursue. We need to recognise and be

aware of these and the impact they have on how we

shape and understand our research questions, the

methods we use and the interpretations we make of

our findings.

The philosophical underpinnings of business and management

131

The philosophical underpinnings of business

and management

What is research philosophy and why is it important?

The term research philosophy refers to a system of beliefs and assumptions about the

development of knowledge. Although this sounds rather profound, it is precisely what you

are doing when embarking on research: developing knowledge in a particular field. The

knowledge development you are embarking upon may not be as dramatic as a new theory

of human motivation, but even addressing a specific problem in a particular organisation

you are, nonetheless, developing new knowledge. Your research philosophy sets out the

world view within which your research is conducted. As shown in the opening vignette,

the assumptions of the world view within which research is undertaken are important,

impacting which data are privileged and how they are interpreted.

Whether or not you are consciously aware of them, at every stage in your research you

will make a number of types of assumptions (Burrell and Morgan 2016). These include

(but are not limited to) assumptions about the realities you encounter in your research

(ontological assumptions), about human knowledge (epistemological assumptions), and

about the extent and ways your own values influence your research process (axiological

assumptions). These assumptions inevitably shape how you understand your research

questions, the methods you use and how you interpret your findings (Crotty 1998).

A well-thought-out and consistent set of assumptions will constitute a credible research

Figure 4.1 The ‘research onion’

Longitudinal

Deduction

Abduction

Induction

Positivism

Critical

Realism

Interpretivism

Postmodernism

Pragmatism

Philosophy

Approach to theory development

Methodological choice

Strategy(ies)

Time horizon

Procedures and techniques

access,

ethics, sample

selection, data

collection and

analysis

Cross-sectional

Experiment

Survey

Action

Research

Archival

Research

Case

Study

Ethnography

Grounded

Theory

Narrative

Inquiry

Mono-method

quantitative

Mono-method

qualitative

Multi-method

quantitative

Multi-method

qualitative

Mixed method

simple

Mixed method

complex

4.2

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

132

philosophy and will shape your choice of research question. It will underpin your method-

ological choice, research strategy and data collection procedures and analysis techniques

and how you report your findings, discussion and conclusion. This will allow you to design

a coherent research project, in which all elements of research fit together. Johnson and

Clark (2006) note that, as business and management researchers, we need to be aware of

the philosophical commitments we make through our choice of research strategy, since

this will have a significant impact on what we do and how we understand what it is

we are investigating. Crucially, you need to ensure your epistemological and ontological

assumptions are consistent with your research design and methods used. Without this, it

is unlikely you will generate trustworthy and useful research findings.

You may or may not have already thought about your own beliefs about the nature of

the world around you, what constitutes acceptable and desirable knowledge, or the extent

to which you believe it necessary to remain detached from your research data. The process

of exploring and understanding your own research philosophy requires you to hone the

skill of reflexivity (Section1.5), that is to question your own thinking and actions, and

learn to examine your own beliefs with the same scrutiny as you would apply to the beliefs

of others (Corlett and Mavin 2018). This may sound daunting, but we all do this in our

day-to-day lives when we learn from our mistakes. As a researcher, you need to develop

reflexivity, to become aware of and actively shape the relationship between your own

beliefs and assumptions (your philosophical position) and how you design and undertake

your research (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2018).

You may be wondering about the best way to start this reflexive process. In part, your

exploration of your philosophical position and how to translate it into a coherent research

practice will be influenced by practical considerations, such as your own and your project

tutor’s subject area, the time and finances available for your research project, and what

access you can negotiate to data. There are two things that you can do to start making a

more active and informed philosophical choice:

• begin asking yourself questions about your research beliefs and assumptions (the reflex-

ive tool at the end of the chapter – HARP – will help here);

• familiarise yourself with major research philosophies within business and management

by reading the rest of this chapter (and any further philosophical reading you wish to

explore);

This dual course of action will help set in motion the development of your research

philosophy, which you can then express through your research design (Figure4.2).

And now, a word of warning. Although every research project is underpinned by

particular philosophical assumptions, these are often unreported in journal articles, the

reader being left to interpret them from the methods used. In contrast, like O’Gorman and

MacIntosh (2015) we consider it important that you make your philosophical commit-

ment explicit, outlining the implications of the associated assumptions for your chosen

methods. Through doing this you can signal clearly to your readers the bases from which

your research was undertaken, your claims made, and within which it should be judged.

Is there a best philosophy for business and

management research?

You may be wondering at this stage whether you could take a shortcut, and simply

adopt ‘the best’ philosophy for business and management research. One problem with

such a shortcut would be the possibility of discovering a clash between ‘the best’

philosophy and your own beliefs and assumptions. Another problem would be that

The philosophical underpinnings of business and management

133

business and management researchers do not agree about one best philosophy (Tsoukas

and Knudsen 2003).

In terms of developing your own philosophy and designing your research project, it is

important to recognise that philosophical disagreements are an intrinsic part of business

and management research. When business and management emerged as an academic dis-

cipline in the twentieth century, it drew its theoretical base from a mixture of disciplines in

the social sciences (e.g. sociology, psychology, economics), natural sciences (e.g. chemis-

try, biology), applied sciences (e.g. engineering, statistics), humanities (e.g. literary theory,

linguistics, history, philosophy) and the domain of organisational practice (Starbuck 2003).

In drawing on these disciplines, it absorbed the various associated philosophies, dividing

and defining them, and resulting in the coexistence of multiple research philosophies and

methodologies we see today.

Business and management scholars have spent long decades debating whether this

multiplicity of research philosophies, paradigms and methodologies is desirable, and have

reached no agreement. Instead, two opposing perspectives have emerged: pluralism and

unificationism. Unificationists see business and management as fragmented and argue that

this fragmentation prevents the field from becoming more like a true scientific discipline.

They advocate unification of management research under one strong research philosophy,

paradigm and methodology (Pfeffer 1993). Pluralists see the diversity of the field as help-

ful, arguing that it enriches business and management (Knudsen 2003).

In this chapter, we take a pluralist approach and suggest that each research philosophy

and paradigm contribute something unique and valuable to business and management

research, representing a different and distinctive ‘way of seeing’ organisational realities

(Morgan 2006). However, we believe that you need to be aware of the depth of difference

and disagreements between these distinct philosophies. This will help you to both outline

and justify your own philosophical choices in relation to your chosen research method.

Figure 4.2 Developing your research philosophy as a reflexive

process

Beliefs and

assumptions

Research

philosophies

Research design

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

134

Ontological, epistemological and axiological

assumptions

Before we discuss individual research philosophies in Section4.4, we need to be able to

distinguish between them. We do this by considering the differences in the assumptions

typically made by scholars working within each philosophy. To keep things relatively sim-

ple, we look at three types of research assumptions to distinguish research philosophies:

ontological, epistemological and axiological. There are, of course, other types of assump-

tions that are relevant to research design and research philosophies – when you use the

HARP tool at the end of this chapter, you will spot some of them. For example, researchers

differ in terms of how free they believe individuals are to change their lives and the world

around them, and conversely how constraining the societal structures are on the lives and

actions of individuals. These are known as structure and agency assumptions.

Ontology refers to assumptions about the nature of reality. In this chapter’s opening

vignette, we saw how colonialists made specific assumptions regarding the realities of

First Nation Australians, perceiving them as hunter-gatherers and lazy. Although this

may seem far removed from your intended research project, your ontological assump-

tions shape the way in which you see and study your research objects. In business and

management these objects include organisations, management, individuals’ working lives

and organisational events and artefacts. Your ontology therefore determines how you see

the world of business and management and, therefore, your choice of what to research

for your research project.

Imagine you wanted to research resistance to organisational change. For a long time,

business and management scholars made the ontological assumption that resistance to

change was highly damaging to organisations. They argued it was a kind of organisational

misbehaviour and happened when change programmes went wrong. Consequently, they

focused their research on how this phenomenon could be eliminated, looking for types

of employee that were most likely to resist change and management actions that could

prevent or stop resistance. More recently, some researchers have started to view this con-

cept differently, resulting in a new strand of research. These researchers see resistance

as a phenomenon that happens all the time whenever organisational change takes place,

and that benefits organisations by addressing problematic aspects of change programmes.

Their different ontological assumptions mean they focus on how resistance to change

can best be harnessed to benefit organisations, rather than looking for ways to eliminate

resistance (Thomas and Hardy 2011).

Epistemology refers to assumptions about knowledge, what constitutes acceptable,

valid and legitimate knowledge, and how we can communicate knowledge to others (Bur-

rell and Morgan 2016). Whereas ontology may initially seem rather abstract, the relevance

of epistemology is more obvious. The multidisciplinary context of business and manage-

ment means that different types of knowledge – ranging from numerical data to textual

and visual data, and from facts to (as we see in the opening vignette) narratives and sto-

ries – can all be considered legitimate. Consequently, different business and management

researchers adopt different epistemologies in their research, including projects based on

archival research and autobiographical accounts (Martí and Fernández 2013), narratives

(Gabriel et al. 2013) and films (Griffin et al. 2017).

This variety of epistemologies gives you a large choice of methods. However, it is

important to understand the implications of different epistemological assumptions in

relation to your choice of method(s) and the strengths and limitations of subsequent

research findings. For example, the (positivist) assumption that objective facts offer the

The philosophical underpinnings of business and management

135

best scientific evidence is likely, but not certain, to result in the choice of quantitative

research methods. Within this, the subsequent research findings are likely to be consid-

ered objective and generalisable. However, they will also be less likely to offer a rich and

complex view of organisational realities, account for the differences in individual contexts

and experiences or, perhaps, propose a radically new understanding of the world than if

you based your research on a different view of knowledge. In other words, despite this

diversity, it is your own epistemological assumptions (and arguably those of your project

tutor) that will govern what you consider legitimate for your research.

Axiology refers to the role of values and ethics in the research process. We see this in

the opening vignette where European colonialists felt it their duty to spread their version of

civilisation, including the word of their God, to heathens. One of the key axiological choices

that you will face as a researcher is the extent to which you wish to view the impact of

your own values and beliefs on your research as a positive thing. Consequently, you will

need to decide how you deal with both your own values and those of the people you are

researching. For example, you may believe, as Heron (1996) argues, that our values are the

guiding reason for all human action, and that while it is inevitable that you will incorporate

your values during the process, it is crucially important that you explicitly recognise and

reflect on these as you conduct and write up your research. Choosing one topic rather than

another suggests you think one of the topics is more important. Your research philosophy

is a reflection of your values, as is your choice of data collection procedures. For example,

conducting a study where you place greatest importance on data collected using video

internet mediated or face to face interviews (Chapter10) suggests you value data collected

through personal interaction with your participants more highly than views expressed

through responses to an anonymous questionnaire (Chapter11). Whatever your view, it

is important, as Heron (1996) argues, to demonstrate your axiological skill by being able

to articulate your values as a basis for making judgements about what research you are

conducting and how you go about doing it.

Some of our students have found it helpful to write their own statement of personal

values in relation to the topic they are studying. For example, for the topic of career devel-

opment, your personal values may dictate that you believe developing their career is an

individual’s responsibility. In finance, a researcher may believe (hold the value) that as

much information as possible should be available to as many stakeholders as possible.

Writing a statement of personal values can help heighten your awareness of value judge-

ments you are making in drawing conclusions from your data. Being clear about your own

value position can also help you in deciding what is appropriate ethically and explaining

this in the event of queries about decisions you have made (Sections6.5–6.7).

Philosophical assumptions as multi-dimensional

continua

Now you are familiar with some types of assumptions that research philosophies make,

you need to be able to distinguish between them. Earlier in this chapter we discussed the

emergence of business and management as a discipline and how it absorbed a range of

philosophies from natural sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities. Although this

offers philosophical and methodological choice, it also means business and management

research philosophies are scattered along a multidimensional set of continua (Niglas 2010)

between two opposing extremes. Table4.1 summarises the continua and their objectivist

and subjectivist extremes in relation to the types of philosophical assumptions that we

have just discussed.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

136

Objectivism

Objectivism incorporates the assumptions of the natural sciences, arguing that the social

reality we research is external to us and others (referred to as social actors) (Table4.1).

This means that, ontologically, objectivism embraces realism, which, in its most extreme

form, considers social entities to be like physical entities of the natural world, in so far as

they exist independently of how we think of them, label them, or even of our awareness

of them. Because the interpretations and experiences of social actors do not influence the

existence of the social world according to this view, an objectivist in the most extreme

form believes that there is only one true social reality experienced by all social actors. This

social world is made up of solid, granular and relatively unchanging ‘things’, including

major social structures such as family, religion and the economy into which individuals

are born (Burrell and Morgan 2016).

Assumption

type

Questions Continua with two sets of extremes

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Ontology • What is the nature of

reality?

• What is the world like?

Real

External

One true reality

(universalism)

Granular (things)

Order

Nominal/decided by

convention

Socially constructed

Multiple realities

(relativism)

Flowing (processes)

Chaos

Epistemology • How can we know what

we know?

• What is considered

acceptable knowledge?

• What constitutes good-

quality data?

• What kinds of

contribution to

knowledge can be made?

Adopt assumptions

of the natural

scientist

Facts

Numbers

Observable

phenomena

Law-like

generalisations

Adopt the

assumptions of the

arts and humanities

Opinions

Written, spoken and

visual accounts

Attributed meanings

Individuals and con-

texts, specifics

Axiology • What is the role of values

in research?

• Should we try to be

morally-neutral when we

do research, or should

we let our values shape

research? How should we

deal with the values of

research participants?

Value-free

Detachment

Value-bound

Integral and reflexive

Table 4.1 Philosophical assumptions and the objectivism – subjectivism dimension

The philosophical underpinnings of business and management

137

From an objectivist viewpoint, social and physical phenomena exist independently of

individuals’ views of them and tend to be universal and enduring in character.

Consequently, it makes sense to study them in the same way as a natural scientist

would study nature. Epistemologically, objectivists seek to discover ‘the truth’ about the

social world, through the medium of observable, measurable facts, from which law-like

generalisations can be drawn about the universal social reality. Axiologically, since the

social entities and social actors exist independently of each other, objectivists strive to keep

their research free of values, which they believe could bias their findings. They therefore

also try to remain detached from their own values and beliefs throughout a rigorous sci-

entific research process.

You may argue that management is an objective entity and decide to adopt an objec-

tivist stance to the study of particular aspects of management in a specific organisation

(see John in Box4.1). In order to justify this, you would say that the managers in your

organisation have job descriptions which prescribe their duties, there are operating

procedures to which they are supposed to adhere, they are part of a formal structure

which locates them in a hierarchy with people reporting to them and they in turn report

to more senior managers. This view emphasises the structural aspects of management

and assumes that management is similar in all organisations. Aspects of the structure

in which management operates may differ, but the essence of the function is very much

the same in all organisations. More generally if you took this ontological stance, the aim

of your research would be to discover the laws that govern management behaviour to

predict how management would act in the future. You would also attempt to lay aside

any beliefs you may have developed from interacting with individual managers in the

past, in order to avoid these experiences colouring your conclusions about management

in general.

Alternatively, you may prefer to consider the objective aspects of management as less

important than the way in which managers attach their own individual meanings to their

jobs and the way they think that those jobs should be performed. This approach would

be much more subjectivist (see Emma in Box4.1).

Subjectivism

Subjectivism incorporates assumptions of the arts and humanities (Table4.1), asserting

that social reality is made from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors

(people). Ontologically, subjectivism embraces nominalism (also sometimes called con-

ventionalism). Nominalism, in its most extreme form, considers that the order and

structures of social phenomena we study (and the phenomena themselves) are created

by us as researchers and by other social actors through use of language, conceptual

categories, perceptions and consequent actions. For nominalists, there is no underly-

ing reality to the social world beyond what people (social actors) attribute to it, and,

because each person experiences and perceives reality differently, it makes more sense

to talk about multiple realities rather than a single reality that is the same for everyone

(Burrell and Morgan 2016). A less extreme version of this is social constructionism.

This puts forward that reality is constructed through social interaction in which social

actors create partially shared meanings and realities, in other words reality is con-

structed intersubjectively.

As social interactions between actors are a continual process, social phenomena are

in a constant state of flux and revision. This means it is necessary as a researcher to

study a situation in detail, including historical, geographical and socio-cultural contexts

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

138

Box 4.1

Focus on student

research

A management exodus at ChemCo

As part of a major organisational change, all the man-

agers in the marketing department of the chemical

manufacturer ChemCo left the organisation. They

were replaced by new managers who were thought

to be more in tune with the more commercially aggres-

sive new culture that the organisation was trying to

create. The new managers entering the organisation

filled the roles of the managers who had left and had

essentially the same formal job duties and procedures

as their predecessors.

John wanted to study the role of management in

ChemCo and in particular the way in which managers

liaised with external stakeholders. He decided to use

the new managers in the marketing department as his

research ‘subjects’.

In his research proposal he outlined briefly his

research philosophy. He defined his ontological posi-

tion as that of the objectivist. His reasoning was

that management in ChemCo had a reality that was

separate from the managers who inhabited that real-

ity. He pointed to the fact that the formal manage-

ment structure at ChemCo was largely unchanged

from that which was practised by the managers who

had left the organisation. The process of management

would continue in largely the same way in spite of the

change in personnel.

Emma also wanted to study the role of manage-

ment in ChemCo; however, she wanted to approach

her research from a subjectivist perspective. In her

research proposal, Emma pointed out that even

though the formal management structure at ChemCo

remained the same, the demographics of the new

management workforce were very different. Whereas

the managers who had left the company had been

mostly close to retirement age, male and white, the

new managers were typically young and much more

gender- and ethnically-diverse. Taken together with

ChemCo’s emphasis on the new organisational cul-

ture, this led Emma to question whether the formal

job descriptions and processes were still interpreted

by the new managers in the same way. Emma there-

fore decided to focus her research on the old and new

managers’ interpretations of organisational and mana-

gerial practices.

in order to understand what is happening or how realities are being experienced. Unlike

an objectivist researcher who seeks to discover universal facts and laws governing social

behaviour, the subjectivist researcher is interested in different opinions and narratives

that can help to account for different social realities of different social actors. Subjectivists

believe that as they actively contribute to the creation and use of these data they cannot

detach themselves from their own values. They therefore openly acknowledge and actively

reflect on and question their own values ( Cunliffe (2003) calls this ‘radical reflexivity’)

and incorporate these within their research.

Let us suppose that you have decided to research the portrayal of entrepreneurs by the

media. Media producers, like other social actors, may interpret the situations which they are

filming differently as a consequence of their own view of the world. Their different interpre-

tations are likely to affect their actions and the nature of the films and television programmes

they produce. From a subjectivist view, the media producers’ portrayals you are studying

are a product of these producers’ interaction with their environments and their seeking to

make sense of it through their interpretation of events and the meanings that they draw from

these events. As a subjectivist researcher, it is your role to seek to understand the different

realities of the media producers in order to be able to make sense of and understand their

portrayals of entrepreneurs in a way that is meaningful ( Box 4.2 ), all the while reflecting

on why you as a researcher might yourself be more drawn towards or convinced by some

media portrayals rather than others. All this is some way from the objectivist position that

being an entrepreneur is an objective reality that is the same for everyone, and that there is

The philosophical underpinnings of business and management

139

only one correct way of perceiving that reality, regardless of who is doing the perceiving. The

subjectivist view is that the portrayal of entrepreneurship is constructed through the social

interactions between entrepreneurs, media narratives, and those who are reading, watching

or writing about those narratives. The portrayal of entrepreneurship is continually being

revised as a result of this, even as we write these words and you read them. In other words,

at no time is there a definitive entity called ‘entrepreneur’. Entrepreneurs are experienced

differently by different media producers and other social actors (including researchers) and,

as an aggregate, the resultant portrayal is likely to be constantly changing.

Why do entrepreneurs get such

a bad rap?

By Janan Ganesh

Nothing brings on early mid-life ennui* like watching friends set up their own busi-

nesses. When one describes his new venture to me, all forms of salaried life seem blood-

less all of a sudden. It is not the prospect of riches (you can marry into that stuff) or

even the freedom – I am less answerable to legal duties, bureaucratic wrangles, early

mornings, late-night panics and the ordeal of managing people than he will ever be.

It is the blend of fun and high stakes. Every decision matters (above all recruitment) and

is his to make. To imagine a product into being, to work in a field of personal interest, to

influence the way people live: not all entrepreneurs do these things, but the ones who do

need only break even to end up somewhere near the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

And then they turn on the television and see a crew of spivs vying to impress a jaded

martinet flanked by two stern-faced lieutenants. Criticism of The Apprentice, with

its desolate picture of entrepreneurial life, is neither new nor effective. If there is

something medieval about the show’s idiots-in-a-cage concept, then viewers do not

seem to mind. The new series of the UK version that starts this autumn is the 17th.

An alumnus of the American version now governs the US.

As entertainment, it dazzles. As a portrait of business, it is poison. All commerce is

shown as a racket spuriously dignified with mortifying TED-speak. ‘Don’t tell me the

sky’s the limit,’ one boardroom Voltaire said, ‘when there are footprints on the Moon.’

The content of each ‘task’ matters less than the distribution of blame after the fact.

To the artful bluffer, the spoils. Real-life business is full of ineloquent but impressive

people. The Apprentice rewards the opposite. Its corporate veneer is such a sham: it is

a superb show about politics.

By itself, though, The Apprentice is not the problem. The problem is that The Appren-

tice is all there is. You can watch TV from January to December without seeing a heroic

or even benign account of money being made – one that does not involve a plagiarised

product, a betrayed friend, a hoodwinked customer or a corner flagrantly cut.

Box 4.2Focus on research in the news

Abridged from: ‘Why do entrepreneurs get such a bad rap?’, Janan Ganesh (2017) Financial

*Feeling of dissatisfaction arising from having nothing interesting or exciting to do. The word is

often used in relation to a person’s job.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

140

Research paradigms

Another dimension that can help you to differentiate between research philosophies relates

to the political or ideological orientation of researchers towards the social world they

investigate. This dimension has two opposing poles or extremes. Burrell and Morgan

(2016) call these extremes ‘sociology of regulation’ (for short, regulation) and ‘sociology

of radical change’ (simply, radical change). As we will see later, by combining the regula-

tion and radical change dimension with the objectivisim-subjectivism dimension Burrell

and Morgan develop four sociological (research) paradigms for organisational analysis.

Regulation and radical change

Researchers working within the regulation perspective are concerned primarily with the need

for the regulation of societies and human behaviour. They assume an underlying unity and

cohesiveness of societal systems and structures. Much of business and management research

can be classed as regulation research that seeks to suggest how organisational affairs may

be improved within the framework of how things are done at present, rather than radically

challenging the current position (Box4.3). However, you may wish to do research precisely

because you want to fundamentally question the way things are done in organisations, and,

through your research, offer insights that would help to change the organisational and social

worlds. In this case, you would be researching within the radical change perspective. Radical

change research approaches organisational problems from the viewpoint of overturning the

existing state of affairs. Such research is often visionary and utopian, being concerned with

what is possible and alternatives to the accepted current position (Burrell and Morgan 2016).

Table4.2 summarises the differences between the regulation and radical change perspectives.

Much of business and management research undertaken from within the radical change

perspective would fall within the area of management known as Critical Management

Studies (CMS). CMS researchers question not only the behaviour of individual managers

but also the very societal systems within which that behaviour is situated. CMS research

challenges their taken-for-granted acceptance of ‘the best’ or ‘the only available’ ways of

organising societies and organisations (Fournier and Grey 2000). It therefore attempts to

expose the problems and weaknesses, as well as the damaging effects, of these dominant

ideas and practices.

The regulation perspective ...

The radical change perspective ...

... advocates the status quo

... advocates radical change

... looks for order

... looks for conflict

... looks for consensus

... questions domination

... looks for integration and

cohesion

... looks for contradiction

... seeks solidarity

... seeks emancipation

... sees the satisfaction of needs

... sees deprivation

... sees the actual

... sees the potential

Source: Developed from Burrell and Morgan (2016)

Table 4.2 The regulation–radical change dimension

4.3

Research paradigms

141

CMS researchers also challenge dominant organisational ideas and practices, including

‘management’ itself. In his book Against Management: Organization in the Age of Mana-

gerialism, Martin Parker (2002) challenges the acceptance of management. Parker starts

by acknowledging just how difficult and almost unthinkable it is to be against something

like management, which shapes so completely our everyday lives in today’s world. It is

one thing, he writes, to question some aspects of management, or some of its effects, so

that we can learn how to do management better. It is a completely different and much

harder thing to be against management itself, as a whole and categorically – it is a bit

like opposing buildings, society or air. Nevertheless, Parker insists, it is the latter, radical

questioning of management that is the purpose of his book. Just because management is

everywhere, he writes, does not mean that management is necessary or good, or that it is

not worthwhile being against it.

Parker builds his radical critique by questioning three key assumptions typically made

about management:

• management is part of scientific thought that allows human beings increasing control

over their environment;

• management increases control over people;

• management is the best way to control people.

Questioning these assumptions might suggest that management is damaging to organi-

sations and societies. For example, it might emphasise that the environment does not

always benefit from being controlled by people, and that controlling employees in manage-

rial ways is not necessarily good for organisations. Once fundamental assumptions about

management are questioned, researchers are freer to think about proposing alternative

ideas and practices, paving the way for radical societal change.

Sociological paradigms for organisational analysis

In their book Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (2016), Burrell and

Morgan combine the objectivist–subjectivist continuum with a regulation–radical change

continuum to create a 2 * 2 matrix of four distinct and rival ‘paradigms’ of organisa-

tional analysis (Figure4.3). In their interpretation (and also as we use the term here)

Figure 4.3 Four (research) paradigms for organisational analysis

Source: Developed from Burrell and Morgan (2016) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis

RADICAL CHANGE

REGULATION

SUBJECTIVIST OBJECTIVIST

Radical

humanist

Radical

structuralist

Interpretive Functionalist

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

142

a paradigm is a set of basic and taken-for-granted assumptions which underwrite the

frame of reference, mode of theorising and ways of working in which a group operates.

The matrix’s four paradigms represent four different ways of viewing the social and

organisational world.

In the bottom right corner of the matrix is the functionalist paradigm . This is located

on the objectivist and regulation dimensions and is the paradigm within which most

business and management research operates. Research in this paradigm is concerned

with rational explanations and developing sets of recommendations within the current

structures. Functionalist theories and models of management, such as business process

re-engineering, are often generalised to other contexts, the idea being that they can be

used universally providing they are correctly implemented and monitored ( Kelemen and

Rumens 2008 ). A key assumption you would be making here as a researcher is that

organisations are rational entities, in which rational explanations offer solutions to rational

problems. Research projects might include an evaluation study of a communication strat-

egy to assess its effectiveness and to offer recommendations for improvement. Research

carried out within the functionalist paradigm is most likely to be underpinned by a posi-

tivist research philosophy ( Section 4.4 ), this type of research often being referred to as

‘positivist-functionalist’.

Box 4.3

Focus on student

research

Researching the employees’

understandings of psychological

contract violation

Working within an interpretive paradigm, Robyn

believed that reality is socially constructed, subjective

and could be perceived in different ways by different

people. While reading for her master’s programme

she had been surprised by how many of the research

papers she read on the psychological contract (an

individual’s belief regarding the terms and condi-

tions of a reciprocal agreement between themselves

and another) focused on aggregate findings rather

than the specific context of each individual situation.

She considered that these researchers often ignored

the individualistic and subjective nature of contracts

as well as individuals’ interpretations and responses.

Robyn therefore decided her research would be con-

cerned with what individual employees interpreted as

employers’ psychological contract violations, and how

they understood the impact of violations on their own

attitudes and behaviours. Based on a thorough review

of the literature she developed three objectives:

• to provide a new understanding of how

individuals interpreted their psychological

contracts as being violated;

• to ascertain the ways in which individuals felt their

attitudes towards their employer changed as a

result of these violations;

• to explore attitudinal and behavioural

consequences of this violation from the

employees’ perspective.

Robyn argued in her methodology chapter that,

as a subjectivist, she was concerned with understand-

ing what her research participants perceived to be

the reality of their psychological contract violation as

they constructed it. She stated her assumption that

every action and reaction was based in a context that

was interpreted by the participant as she or he made

sense of what had happened. It was her participants’

perceptions and their emotional reactions to these

perceptions that would then inform their actions.

Robyn also made clear in the methodology chapter

that her research was concerned primarily with find-

ing the meaning and emotions that each participant

attached to their psychological contract violation and

their reactions, rather than changing what happened

in organisations. This she equated with the regulatory

perspective.

Research paradigms

143

The bottom left corner of the matrix represents the interpretive paradigm. The primary

focus of research undertaken within this paradigm is the way we as humans attempt to

make sense of the world around us (Box4.4). The concern you would have working

within this paradigm would be to understand the fundamental meanings attached to

organisational life. Far from emphasising rationality, it may be that the principal focus you

have here is discovering multiple subjectivities. Concern with studying an organisation’s

communication strategy may focus on understanding the ways in which it fails due to

unforeseen reasons, maybe reasons which are not apparent even to those involved with

the strategy. This is likely to take you into the realm of the organisation’s politics and

the way in which power is used. Your concern here would be to become involved in the

organisation’s everyday activities in order to understand and explain what is going on,

rather than change things (Kelemen and Rumens 2008).

In the top right corner of the matrix, combining objectivist and radical change, is the

radical structuralist paradigm. Here your concern would be to approach your research

with a view to achieving fundamental change based upon an analysis of organisational

phenomena such as structural power relationships and patterns of conflict. You would

be involved in understanding structural patterns within work organisations such as hier-

archies and reporting relationships and the extent to which these may produce structural

domination and oppression. You would adopt an objectivist perspective due to your con-

cern with objective entities. Research undertaken within the radical structuralist paradigm

Box 4.4

Focus on

management

research

Understanding meanings of power

through interpretative research

In their article in Human Relations, Berber and Acar

(2020) explore what having power means to individu-

als at work. The authors argue that while there have

been countless studies on the sources and uses of

power at work, such studies have mostly focused on

organisational structures and policies. Instead, Berber

and Acar want to acknowledge the role of individuals

as knowers of their own experiences. The authors do

not seek to make generalisable claims but rather are

interested in the richness of different interpretations

of ‘power’ as a phenomenon that can offer a new

understanding of power in organisations.

Berber and Acar use interpretative phenom-

enological analysis (IPA) which is designed to help

researchers develop an in-depth understanding of

phenomena through their participants’ subjective

perspectives relating to their lived experiences (Smith

et al, 2012). In IPA a relatively small number of par-

ticipants’ perspectives are explored intensively and in

great detail (Larkin et al, 2006). Berber and Acar’s

analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with

11 participants selected to represent a homogenous

group, so that divergence and convergence of dif-

ferent views can be observed, and the richness of

individual accounts can be maintained. Berber and

Acar also analyse their participants’ discussion of a

short case about an overlord, which formed part of

the interviews.

IPA helps Berber and Acar identify key themes that

explain how their participants ‘craft’ their own versions

of power at work. The themes point to a clear divide

among their demographically homogenous group

between ‘position-based power holders’ and ‘territory

holders’. Berber and Acar present their findings first

thematically, illustrating the themes with interview

extracts, and then focusing on two particular individu-

als’ narratives to explore their experiences in-depth.

This enables the authors to develop the concept of

‘power crafting’ as a conceptual contribution, posi-

tioning it in relation to previous understandings of

power in organisations.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

144

is often underpinned by a critical realist philosophy (Section4.4), although such research-

ers differentiate themselves from extreme objectivists.

Finally, the radical humanist paradigm is located within the subjectivist and radical

change dimensions. As we noted earlier, the radical change dimension adopts a critical

perspective on organisational life. It emphasises both the political nature of organisational

realities and the consequences that one’s words and deeds have upon others (Kelemen

and Rumens 2008). Working within this paradigm you would be concerned with chang-

ing the status quo. As with the radical structuralist paradigm, your primary focus would

concern the issues of power and politics, domination and oppression. However, you would

approach these concerns from within a subjectivist ontology, which would lead you to

emphasise the importance of social construction, language, processes, and instability of

structures and meanings in organisational realities.

Burrell and Morgan’s (2016) book, although contentious, has been highly influential

in terms of how organisational scholarship is seen. One of the most strongly disputed

aspects of their work is the idea of incommensurability: the assertion that the four para-

digms contain mutually incompatible assumptions and therefore cannot be combined. This

debate is often referred to as ‘paradigm wars’ and has implications for thinking about the

relationship between paradigms and research philosophies.

Research paradigms and research philosophy

Whether or not you think that different research paradigms can be combined will depend

to some extent on your own research philosophy and, going back to our discussion of

philosophies as a set of assumptions, the extremity of your views on these continua

(Table4.1) and within paradigms (Figure4.3). You will see later (Section4.4) that prag-

matists seek to overcome dichotomies such as objectivism–subjectivism in their research,

and as such are quite likely to engage in multi-paradigmatic research. Critical realists,

who are less objectivist than positivists, embrace ‘epistemological relativism’, which may

include more subjectivist as well as objectivist research, ranging from radical structuralism

to radical humanism. Burrell and Morgan’s four paradigms for organisational analysis can

therefore act as a helpful tool for mapping different research philosophies. This highlights

that the connections between paradigms and research philosophies need to be seen in

terms of philosophical affinity rather than equivocality, being treated with some caution

and reflexivity. You will find such reflexivity easier as you become familiar with individual

research philosophies.

There are good reasons to find the relationship between research paradigms and

research philosophies confusing. In management research there tends to be little agree-

ment about labels in general, and the labels ‘paradigms’ and ‘philosophies’ (and often

others like ‘approaches’ and ‘schools of thought’) are sometimes used interchangeably

to describe assumptions researchers make in their work. Alongside the substantial body

of literature in which Burrell and Morgan’s (2016) four sociological research paradigms

are taken as the more-or-less enduring foundation of the management field, and in which

a ‘research paradigm’ is taken to be specifically one of the four paradigms described by

Burrell and Morgan, there is other research in which the term ‘paradigm’ is treated much

more loosely. As a result, you may find yourself reading about, for example, the ‘paradigm’

(rather than ‘philosophy’) of positivism (see e.g. Lincoln et al. 2018).

In a similar way, you may find yourself reading about ideas that seem to cross the

boundary between a ‘paradigm’ and a ‘philosophy’ (and also perhaps cross over into a

‘methodology’). One example of this is the participatory inquiry – an intellectual posi-

tion that emphasises experiential and practical learning and knowing, and the active

Five management philosophies

145

involvement of research participants in the making of knowledge throughout the research

process. Heron and Reason (1997) call the participatory inquiry a ‘paradigm’ and use it

to critique Guba and Lincoln’s earlier (1994) work on competing paradigms. Heron and

Reason also describe the ontological, epistemological and axiological foundations of the

participatory inquiry (as well as its methodological implications), as we do with five man-

agement philosophies in this chapter.

Given this confusion of labels and philosophical ideas we have summarised the defini-

tions we use in Figure4.4. As you develop as a researcher, you will continue to further

your knowledge through reading and experience, and will begin to form your own opin-

ions about which labels and debates matter to you personally. For now, if you are just

starting out on your research journey, putting some of this complexity on hold (but being

aware that it exists) and using our definitions offer a good starting point. Being more

familiar with the basics can also help you interpret more complex issues. For example,

being familiar with the pragmatist research philosophy can help you spot how pragmatism

tends to underpin and inform participatory action research.

Five management philosophies

In this section, we discuss five major philosophies in business and management: positiv-

ism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism and pragmatism (Table4.3).

Positivism

We introduced the research philosophy of positivism briefly in our discussion of objectiv-

ism and functionalism earlier in this chapter. Positivism relates to the philosophical stance

of the natural scientist and entails working with an observable social reality to produce

law-like generalisations. It promises unambiguous and accurate knowledge and originates

in the works of Francis Bacon, Auguste Comte and the early twentieth-century group of

philosophers and scientists known as the Vienna Circle. The label positivism refers to

the importance of what is ‘posited’ – i.e. ‘given’. This emphasises the positivist focus on

strictly scientific empiricist method designed to yield pure data and facts uninfluenced by

4.4

Figure 4.4 Paradigms, philosophy and methodology definitions

Paradigm

Set of basic and

taken-for-granted

assumptions

underwriting the

frame of reference,

mode of theorizing

and ways of working

in which a group

operates

Research

paradigm

One of 4 rival

paradigms of

organizational

analysis combining

objectivist-

subjectivist and

regulation-radical

change dimensions

Research

philosophy

System of beliefs and

assumptions about

what constitutes

acceptable, valid and

legitimate

knowledge; the

nature of reality or

being, and the role

of values and ethics

in relation to

research

Research

methodology

Theory of how

research should be

undertaken including

the theoretical and

philosophical

assumptions upon

which it is based and

implications of these

for the method(s)

adopted

Interconnections

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

146

Ontology (nature of

reality or being)

Epistemology (what

constitutes acceptable

knowledge)

Axiology (role of values) Typical methods

Positivism

Real, external,

independent

One true reality

(universalism)

Granular (things)

Ordered

Scientific method

Observable and measur-

able facts

Law-like generalisations

Numbers

Causal explanation

and prediction as

contribution

Value-free research

Researcher is detached,

neutral and independent

of what is researched

Researcher maintains

objective stance

Typically deductive,

highly structured, large

samples, measurement,

typically quantitative

methods of analysis, but

a range of data can be

analysed

Critical realism

Stratified/layered (the

empirical, the actual and

the real)

External, independent

Intransient

Objective structures

Causal mechanisms

Epistemological

relativism

Knowledge historically

situated and transient

Facts are social

constructions

Historical causal expla-

nation as contribution

Value-laden research

Researcher acknowl-

edges bias by world

views, cultural experi-

ence and upbringing

Researcher tries to mini-

mise bias and errors

Researcher is as objec-

tive as possible

Retroductive, in-depth

historically situated

analysis of pre-existing

structures and emerging

agency

Range of methods and

data types to fit subject

matter

Interpretivism

Complex, rich

Socially constructed

through culture and

language

Multiple meanings,

interpretations, realities

Flux of processes,

experiences, practices

Theories and concepts

too simplistic

Focus on narratives,

stories, perceptions and

interpretations

New understandings

and worldviews as

contribution

Value-bound research

Researchers are part

of what is researched,

subjective

Researcher interpreta-

tions key to contribution

Researcher reflexive

Typically inductive

Small samples,

in-depth investigations,

qualitative methods of

analysis, but a range of

data can be interpreted

Postmodernism

Nominal

Complex, rich

Socially constructed

through power relations

Some meanings,

interpretations, realities

are dominated and

silenced by others

Flux of processes,

experiences, practices

What counts as ‘truth’

and ‘knowledge’ is

decided by dominant

ideologies

Focus on absences,

silences and oppressed/

repressed meanings,

interpretations and

voices

Exposure of power rela-

tions and challenge

of dominant views as

contribution

Value-constituted

research

Researcher and research

embedded in power

relations

Some research narra-

tives are repressed and

silenced at the expense

of others

Researcher radically

reflexive

Typically deconstructive

– reading texts and reali-

ties against themselves

In-depth investigations

of anomalies, silences

and absences

Range of data types,

typically qualitative

methods of analysis

Table 4.3 Comparison of five research philosophies in business and management research

Five management philosophies

147

human interpretation or bias (Table4.3). Today there is a ‘bewildering array of positiv-

isms’, Crotty (1998) noting as many as 12 varieties.

If you were to adopt an extreme positivist position, you would see organisations and

other social entities as real in the same way as physical objects and natural phenomena

are real. Epistemologically you would focus on discovering observable and measurable

facts and patterns, and only phenomena that you can observe and measure would lead

to the production of credible and meaningful data (Crotty 1998). You would look for

causal relationships in your data to create law-like generalisations like those produced by

scientists. You would use these universal rules and laws to help you explain and predict

behaviour and events in organisations.

As a positivist researcher you might use existing theory to develop hypotheses. These

are statements providing hypothetical explanations that can be tested and confirmed, in

whole or part, or refuted, leading to the further development of theory which then may

be tested by further research. However, this does not mean that, as a positivist, you nec-

essarily have to start with existing theory. All natural sciences have developed from an

engagement with the world in which data were collected and observations made prior to

hypotheses being formulated and tested. In fact, the original positivists emphasised the

importance of inductive research due to the importance of empirical data, even though

nowadays positivist research tends to be deductive (see Section4.5). The hypotheses

developed, as in Box4.5, would lead to the gathering of facts (rather than impressions)

that would provide the basis for subsequent hypothesis testing.

As a positivist you would try to remain neutral and detached from your research and

data in order to avoid influencing your findings. This means that you would undertake

research, as far as possible, in a value-free way. For positivists, this is a plausible position,

because of the measurable, quantifiable data that they collect. They claim to be external

to the process of data collection as there is little that can be done to alter the substance

of the data collected. Consider, for example, the differences between data collected using

an online questionnaire (Chapter11) in which the respondent self-selects from responses

predetermined by the researcher, and in-depth interviews (Chapter10). In the online

questionnaire, the researcher determines the list of possible responses as part of the design

process. Subsequent to this she or he can claim that her or his values do not influence

the answers given by the respondent. In contrast, an in-depth interview necessitates the

researcher framing the questions in relation to each participant and interpreting their

answers. Unlike in a questionnaire, these questions are unlikely to be asked in exactly the

same way. Rather the interviewer exercises judgment in what to ask to collect participant-

led accounts that are as rich as possible.

Pragmatism

Complex, rich, external

‘Reality’ is the practical

consequences of ideas

Flux of processes,

experiences and

practices

Practical meaning of

knowledge in specific

contexts

‘True’ theories and

knowledge are those

that enable successful

action

Focus on problems,

practices and relevance

Problem solving and

informed future practice

as contribution

Value-driven research

Research initiated and

sustained by researcher’s

doubts and beliefs

Researcher reflexive

Following research

problem and research

question

Range of methods:

mixed, multiple,

qualitative, quantitative,

action research

Emphasis on practical

solutions and outcomes

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

148

Positivist researchers are likely to use a highly structured methodology in order to facili-

tate replication. Furthermore, the emphasis will be on quantifiable observations that lend

themselves to statistical analysis ( Box 4.5 ). However, as you will read in later chapters,

sometimes positivist research extends itself to other data collection methods and seeks

to quantify qualitative data, for example by applying hypothesis testing to data originally

collected in in-depth interviews.

You may believe that excluding our own values as researchers is impossible. Even a

researcher adopting a positivist stance exercises choice in the issue to study, the research

objectives to pursue and the data to collect. Indeed, it could be argued the decision to try

to adopt a value-free perspective suggests the existence of a certain value position! How

can a researcher completely avoid influencing what is researched, even using methods

considered ‘objective’, when she or he formulates the questions in the questionnaire or

sets the parameters and conditions of the experiment? And therefore, how can a researcher

stop their personal views developing into biases that prejudice their research?

If you are following this line of thinking, you are treading in the footsteps of many

scholars and thinkers who have critiqued positivism. Some of these thinkers – most

famously Karl Popper – have become associated with a philosophical movement called

postpositivism, which has sought to both question positivism and reform it to address

critique. The questioning of positivism has also contributed to the development of the

other four research philosophies we discuss below.

Critical realism

It is important not to confuse the philosophy of critical realism with the more extreme

form of realism underpinning the positivist philosophy. The latter, sometimes known as

direct realism (or naïve empirical scientific realism), says that what you see is what you

get: what we experience through our senses portrays the world accurately. By contrast, the

philosophy of critical realism focuses on explaining what we see and experience, in terms

Box 4.5

Focus on student

research

The development of hypotheses

Brett was conducting a piece of research for his project

on the economic benefits of working from home dur-

ing the Covid-19 pandemic. He studied the literature

on home working and read two dissertations in his

university’s library that dealt with the same phenom-

enon, albeit that they did not relate specifically to the

pandemic. As a result of his reading, Brett developed

a number of theoretical propositions, each of which

contained specific hypotheses. One of his propositions

related to the potential increased costs associated with

home working.

THEORETICAL PROPOSITION: Increased costs may

negate the productivity gains from home working.

From this he developed four SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES:

1 Increased costs for computer hardware, software,

telecommunications equipment and office furni-

ture will negate the productivity gains from home

working.

2 Home workers will require additional information-

technology and wellbeing support, which will

negate the productivity gains from home working.

3 Increased supervisory requirements will negate the

productivity gains from home working.

4 Reduced face-to-face access by home workers

to colleagues will result in lost opportunities to

increase efficiencies, which will negate the pro-

ductivity gains from home working.

Five management philosophies

149

of the underlying structures of reality that shape the observable events. Critical realism

originated in the late twentieth century in the work of Roy Bhaskar, as a response to both

positivist direct realism and postmodernist nominalism (discussed later), and occupies a

middle ground between these two positions (Reed 2005).

For critical realists, reality is the most important philosophical consideration, a struc-

tured and layered ontology being crucial (Fleetwood 2005). Critical realists see reality

as external and independent, but not directly accessible through our observation and

knowledge of it (Table4.3). Rather, what we experience is ‘the empirical’, in other words

sensations, which are some of the manifestations of the things in the real world, rather

than the actual things. Critical realists highlight how often our senses deceive us. When

you next watch a cricket match on television you are likely to see an advertisement for the

sponsor on the actual playing surface. This advertisement appears to be standing upright

on the pitch. However, this is an illusion. It is, in fact, painted on the grass. So we see

sensations, which are representations of what is real.

Critical realism claims there are two steps to understanding the world. First, there are

the sensations and events we experience. Second, there is the mental processing that goes

on sometime after the experience, when we ‘reason backwards’ from our experiences to

the underlying reality that might have caused them (this reasoning backwards is essen-

tially abductive, but is often called ‘retroduction’ by critical realists (Reed 2005) – see Sec-

tion4.5). Direct realism says that the first step is enough. To pursue our cricket example,

the umpire who is a direct realist would say about her or his umpiring decisions: ‘I give

them as they are!’ The umpire who is a critical realist would say: ‘I give them as I see

them!’ Critical realists would point out that what the umpire has observed (the ‘Empirical’)

is only a small part of everything that he or she could have seen; a small fraction of the

sum total of the ‘Actual’ events that are occurring at any one point in time (Figure4.5).

A player may, perhaps, have obscured the umpire’s view of another player committing a

foul. Critical realists would emphasise that what the umpire has not seen are the underly-

ing causes (the ‘Real’) of a situation (Figure4.5). For example, was a head-butt a real,

intentional foul, or an accident? The umpire cannot experience the real significance of the

situation directly. Rather, she or he has to use her/his sensory data of the ‘Empirical’ as

observed and use reasoning to work it out.

Figure 4.5 Critical realist’s stratified ontology

Source: Developed from Bhaskar (2008)

the

Empirical:

Events that

are actually

observed or

experienced

the Actual:

Events and

non-events

generated

by the

Real; may

or may not

observed

the Real:

Causal

structures

and

mechanisms

with

enduring

properties

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

150

If you believe that, as researchers, we need to look for the bigger picture of which we

see only a small part, you may be leaning towards the critical realist philosophy. Bhaskar

(2011) argues that we will only be able to understand what is going on in the social world

if we understand the social structures that have given rise to the phenomena that we

are trying to understand. He writes that we can identify what we do not see through the

practical and theoretical processes of the social sciences. Critical realist research therefore

focuses on providing an explanation for observable organisational events by looking for

the underlying causes and mechanisms through which deep social structures shape every-

day organisational life. Due to this focus, much of critical realist research takes the form

of in-depth historical analysis of social and organisational structures, and how they have

changed over time (Reed 2005).

Within their focus on the historical analysis of structures, critical realists embrace

epistemological relativism (Reed 2005), a (mildly) subjectivist approach to knowledge.

Epistemological relativism recognises that knowledge is historically situated (in other

words, it is a product of its time and is specific to it), and that social facts are social con-

structions agreed on by people rather than existing independently (Bhaskar 2008). This

implies critical realist notions of causality cannot be reduced to statistical correlations and

quantitative methods, and a range of methods is acceptable (Reed 2005). A critical realist’s

axiological position follows from the recognition that our knowledge of reality is a result of

social conditioning (e.g. we know that if the cricket player runs into an advertisement that

is actually standing up he or she will fall over!) and cannot be understood independently

of the social actors involved. This means that, as a critical realist researcher, you would

strive to be aware of the ways in which your socio-cultural background and experiences

might influence your research, and would seek to minimise such biases and be as objec-

tive as possible.

Interpretivism

Interpretivism, like critical realism, developed as a critique of positivism but from a

subjectivist perspective. Interpretivism emphasises that humans are different from

physical phenomena because they create meanings. Interpretivists study these mean-

ings. Interpretivism emerged in early- and mid-twentieth-century Europe, in the work

of German, French and occasionally English thinkers, and is formed of several strands,

most notably hermeneutics, phenomenology and symbolic interactionism (Crotty 1998).

Interpretivists argue that human beings and their social worlds cannot be studied in the

same way as physical phenomena, and that therefore social sciences research needs

to be different from natural sciences research rather than trying to emulate the latter

(Table4.3). As different people of different cultural backgrounds, under different cir-

cumstances and at different times make different meanings, and so create and experi-

ence different social realities, interpretivists are critical of the positivist attempts to

discover definite, universal ‘laws’ that apply to everybody. Rather they believe rich

insights into humanity are lost if such complexity is reduced entirely to a series of law-

like generalisations.

The purpose of interpretivist research is to create new, richer understandings and inter-

pretations of social worlds and contexts. For business and management researchers, this

means looking at organisations from the perspectives of different groups of people. They

would argue that the ways in which, for example, the CEO, board directors, managers,

warehouse assistants and cleaners of a large online retail company see and experience the

organisation are different, so much so that they could arguably be seen as experiencing

Five management philosophies

151

different workplace realities. If research focuses on the experiences that are common to

all at all times, much of the richness of the differences between them and their individual

circumstances will be lost, and the understanding of the organisation that the research

delivers will reflect this. Furthermore, differences that make organisations complex are not

simply constrained to different organisational roles. Male or female employees, or those

from different ethnic/cultural backgrounds, may experience workplaces in different ways.

Interpretations of what on the surface appears to be the same thing (such as a particular

product, process, or outcome) can differ between historical or geographical contexts.

Interpretivist researchers try to take account of this complexity by collecting what is

meaningful to their research participants (Box4.6). Different strands of interpretivism

place slightly different emphasis on how to do this in practice, so phenomenologists,

who study existence, focus on participants’ lived experiences; that is, the participants’

recollections and interpretations of those experiences (Box4.4). Hermeneuticists focus

on the study of cultural artefacts such as texts, symbols, stories, and images. Symbolic

interactionists, whose tradition derives from pragmatist thinking (discussed later in this

section) and who see meaning as something that emerges out of interactions between

people, focus on the observation and analysis of social interaction such as conversations,

meetings, and teamwork. In general, interpretivists emphasise the importance of language,

culture and history (Crotty 1998) in the shaping of our interpretations and experiences of

organisational and social worlds.

With its focus on complexity, richness, multiple interpretations and meaning-making,

interpretivism is explicitly subjectivist. An axiological implication of this is that interpretiv-

ists recognise that their interpretation of research materials and data, and thus their own

values and beliefs, play an important role in the research process. Crucial to the inter-

pretivist philosophy is the researcher adopting an empathetic stance. The challenge for

the interpretivist is to enter the social world of the research participants and understand

that world from their point of view. Some would argue the interpretivist perspective is

highly appropriate in the case of business and management research. Not only are busi-

ness situations complex, they are often unique, at least in terms of context. They reflect

a particular set of circumstances and interactions involving individuals coming together

at a specific time.

Box 4.6

Focus on

management

research

Emotional journeys when initiating

workplace improvements

Bindl’s (2019) research on proactive employees who

initiate improvement at work sought to understand

their emotional journeys when making things hap-

pen. In her qualitative study she adopted an interpre-

tivist philosophy, immersing herself in the data as she

alternated between collection, analysis and theoris-

ing. Her paper in Human Relations outlines how she

investigated a multinational company’s service centre

employers’ and managers’ emotional experiences to

develop theory. Derived from data from 60 face-to-

face interviews with 39 participants about their expe-

riences and overt observations from shadowing 15

participants, Bindl argues that her findings provide an

in-depth account in the service centre of emotional

experiences the process of engaging in proactivity.

These reveal that employees’ journeys took alterna-

tive emotional paths, giving rise to either frustration,

fear or excitement, joy and pride; and impacting dif-

ferently on their future willingness to be proactive.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

152

Postmodernism

Postmodernism (not to be confused with postmodernity, which denotes a particular his-

torical era) emphasises the role of language and of power relations, seeking to question

accepted ways of thinking and give voice to alternative marginalised views (Table4.3). It

emerged in the late twentieth century and has been most closely associated with the work

of French philosophers Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles

Deleuze, Félix Guattari and Jean Baudrillard. Postmodernism is historically entangled

with the intellectual movement of poststructuralism. As the differences in focus between

postmodernism and poststructuralism are subtle and have become less discernible over

time, in this chapter we will focus on one label, postmodernism.

Postmodernists go even further than interpretivists in their critique of positivism and

objectivism, attributing even more importance to the role of language (Table4.3). They

reject the modern objectivist, realist ontology of things, and instead emphasise the chaotic

primacy of flux, movement, fluidity and change. They believe that any sense of order is

provisional and foundationless, and can only be brought about through our language

with its categories and classifications (Chia 2003). At the same time they recognise that

language is always partial and inadequate. In particular, it always marginalises, suppresses

and excludes aspects of what it claims to describe, while privileging and emphasising

other aspects. As there is no order to the social world beyond that which we give to it

through language, there is no abstract way of determining the ‘right’ or the ‘true’ way to

describe the world. Instead, what is generally considered to be ‘right’ and ‘true’ is decided

collectively. These collective ‘choices’, in turn, are shaped by the power relations and by

the ideologies that dominate particular contexts (Foucault 2020). This does not mean the

dominant ways of thinking are necessarily the ‘best’ – only that they are seen as such at

a particular point in time by particular groups of people. Other perspectives that are sup-

pressed are potentially just as valuable and have the power to create alternative worlds

and truths.

Postmodernist researchers seek to expose and question the power relations that

sustain dominant realities (Calás and Smircich 2018). This takes the form of ‘decon-

structing’ (taking apart) these realities, as if they were texts, to search for instabilities

within their widely accepted truths, and for what has not been discussed – absences

and silences created in the shadow of such truths (Derrida 2016). Postmodernists strive

to make what has been left out or excluded more visible by the deconstruction of what

counts as ‘reality’ into ideologies and power relations that underpin it, as you would

dismantle an old building into the bricks and mortar that make it up. The goal of post-

modern research is therefore to radically challenge the established ways of thinking and

knowing (Kilduff and Mehra 1997) and to give voice and legitimacy to the suppressed

and marginalised ways of seeing and knowing that have been previously excluded

(Chia 2003).

As a postmodernist researcher, you would, instead of approaching the organisational

world as constituted by things and entities such as ‘management’, ‘performance’ and

‘resources’, focus on the ongoing processes of organising, managing and ordering that

constitute such entities. You would challenge organisational concepts and theories, and

seek to demonstrate what perspectives and realities they exclude and leave silent and

whose interests they serve. You would be open to the deconstruction of any forms of data

– texts, images, conversations, voices and numbers. Like interpretivists, you would be

undertaking in-depth investigations of organisational realities. Fundamental to postmod-

ernist research is the recognition that power relations between the researcher and research

Five management philosophies

153

subjects shape the knowledge created as part of the research process. As power relations

cannot be avoided, it is crucial for researchers to be open about their moral and ethical

positions (Calás and Smircich 2018), and thus you would strive to be radically reflexive

about your own thinking and writing (Cunliffe 2003).

Pragmatism

By now you may be thinking: do these differences in assumptions really matter? The

proponents of the philosophies discussed above would say that they do, as they delineate

fundamentally different ways of seeing the world and carrying out research. However,

you may be feeling differently. If you are becoming impatient with the battle of onto-

logical, epistemological and axiological assumptions between the different philosophies,

if you are questioning their relevance, and if you would rather get on with research

that would focus on making a difference to organisational practice, you may be lean-

ing towards the philosophy of pragmatism. However, you need to be sure that you are

not treating pragmatism as an escape route from the challenge of understanding other

philosophies!

Pragmatism asserts that concepts are only relevant where they support action (Kele-

men and Rumens 2008). Pragmatism originated in the late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-

century USA in the work of philosophers Charles Pierce, William James and John Dewey.

It strives to reconcile both objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, accurate and

rigorous knowledge and different contextualised experiences (Table4.3). It does this by

considering theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses and research findings not in an abstract

form, but in terms of the roles they play as instruments of thought and action, and in terms

of their practical consequences in specific contexts (Table4.3; Box4.7). Reality matters

to pragmatists as practical effects of ideas, and knowledge is valued for enabling actions

to be carried out successfully.

For a pragmatist, research starts with a problem, and aims to contribute practical

solutions that inform future practice. Researcher values drive the reflexive process of

inquiry, which is initiated by doubt and a sense that something is wrong or out of place,

and which recreates belief when the problem has been resolved (Elkjaer and Simpson

2011). As pragmatists are more interested in practical outcomes than abstract distinc-

tions, their research may have considerable variation in terms of how ‘objectivist’ or

‘subjectivist’ it turns out to be. If you were to undertake pragmatist research, this would

mean that the most important determinant for your research design and strategy would

be the research problem that you would try to address, and your research question. Your

research question, in turn, would be likely to incorporate the pragmatist emphasis of

practical outcomes.

If a research problem does not suggest unambiguously that one particular type of

knowledge or method should be adopted, this only confirms the pragmatist’s view that it

is perfectly possible to work with different types of knowledge and methods. This reflects

a recurring theme in this book – that multiple methods are often possible, and possibly

highly appropriate, within one study (see Section5.3). Pragmatists recognise that there

are many different ways of interpreting the world and undertaking research, that no single

point of view can ever give the entire picture and that there may be multiple realities. This

does not mean that pragmatists always use multiple methods; rather they use the method

or methods that enable credible, well-founded, reliable and relevant data to be collected

that advance the research (Kelemen and Rumens 2008).

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

154

Box 4.7

Focus on

management

research

Researching accounting practices

In an article in the Journal of Applied Accounting,

Rutherford (2016) highlights the schism between

accounting practices and accounting research. Within

this he comments that for over four decades academ-

ics have undertaken relatively little ‘classical account-

ing research’ (p. 119), that is research on practices of

accounting such as financial reporting. Rutherford notes

that one barrier to academics undertaking such research

is the lack of a theoretical base. This, he argues, can be

overcome by using pragmatism as the underpinning

for theorisation, thereby providing a clear philosophical

justification for research to improve practice. Resump-

tion of such research would, he considers, contribute

positively to future accounting standard-setting.

Approaches to theory development

We emphasised that answering your research question will involve the use of theory

( Chapter 2). That theory may or may not be made explicit in the design of the research

(Chapter5), although it will usually be made explicit in your presentation of the findings

and conclusions. The extent to which answering your research question involves theory

testing or theory building raises an important issue regarding the design of your research

project. This is often portrayed as two contrasting approaches to the reasoning you adopt:

deductive or inductive; although as we highlight in Table4.4 reasoning can, alternatively, be

abductive. Deductive reasoning occurs when the conclusion is derived logically from a set of

theory-derived premises, the conclusion being true when all the premises are true (Ketokivi

and Mantere 2010). For example, our research might ask: to what extent is demand likely

to exceed supply for a soon-to-be-launched new mobile phone? We form three premises:

• that retailers have been allocated limited stock of the new mobile phones by the

manufacturer;

• that customers’ demand for the phones exceeds supply;

• that retailers allow customers to pre-order the phones.

If these premises are true we can deduce that the conclusion that online will have

‘sold’ their entire allocation of the new mobile phone by the release day will also be true.

In contrast, in inductive reasoning there is a gap in the logic argument between the

conclusion and the premises observed, the conclusion being ‘judged’ to be supported by

the observations made (Ketokivi and Mantere 2010). Returning to our question regarding

the likely demand for a soon-to-be-launched mobile phone, we would start with observa-

tions about the forthcoming launch. Our observed premises would be:

• that news media are reporting that retailers are complaining about only being allocated

limited stock of the new mobile phone by manufacturers;

• that news media are reporting that demand for the phones will exceed supply;

• that retailers are allowing customers to pre-order the phones.

Based on these observations, we have good reason to believe retailers’ demand will

have exceeded supply and they will have ‘sold’ their entire allocation of the new mobile

phone by the release day. However, although our conclusion is supported by our observa-

tions, it is not guaranteed. In the past, manufacturers have launched new phones which

have had underwhelming sales (Griffin 2019).

4.5

Approaches to theory development

155

There is also a third approach to theory development that is just as common in research,

abductive reasoning, which begins with a ‘surprising fact’ being observed (Ketokivi and

Mantere 2010). This surprising fact is the conclusion rather than a premise. Based on this

conclusion, a set of possible premises is determined that is considered sufficient or nearly

sufficient to explain the conclusion. It is reasoned that, if this set of premises were true,

then the conclusion would be true as a matter of course. Because the set of premises is suf-

ficient (or nearly sufficient) to generate the conclusion, this provides reason to believe that

it is also true. Returning once again to our example of the likely retail demand for a soon-

to-be-launched new mobile phone, a surprising fact (conclusion) might be that retailers are

reported in the news media as stating they will have no remaining stock of the new mobile

phone for sale on the day of its release. However, if the retailers are allowing customers

to pre-order the mobile phone prior to its release then it would not be surprising if these

retailers had already sold their allocation of phones. Therefore, using abductive reasoning,

the possibility that retailers have no remaining stock on the day of release is reasonable.

Building on these three approaches to theory development (Figure4.1), if your research

starts with theory, often developed from your reading of the academic literature, and

you design a research strategy to test the theory, you are using a deductive approach

(Table4.4). Conversely, if your research starts by collecting data to explore a phenomenon

and you generate or build theory (often in the form of a conceptual framework), then you

are using an inductive approach (Table4.4). Where you are collecting data to explore a

phenomenon, identify themes and explain patterns, to generate a new or modify an exist-

ing theory that you subsequently test through additional data collection, you are using an

abductive approach (Table4.4).

Deduction Induction Abduction

Logic In a deductive inference,

when the premises are

true, the conclusion

must also be true

In an inductive inference,

known premises are used

to generate untested

conclusions

In an abductive inference, known

premises are used to generate

testable conclusions

Generalisability Generalising from the

general to the specific

Generalising from the

specific to the general

Generalising from the interactions

between the specific and the

general

Use of data Data collection is used

to evaluate propositions

or hypotheses related to

an existing theory

Data collection is used

to explore a phenom-

enon, identify themes

and patterns and create

a conceptual framework

Data collection is used to explore

a phenomenon, identify themes

and patterns, locate these in a

conceptual framework and test

this through subsequent data

collection and so forth

Theory Theory falsification or

verification

Theory generation and

building

Theory generation or modification;

incorporating existing theory

where appropriate, to build new

theory or modify existing theory

Philosophical

underpinning*

Positivism

(Pragmatism)

Interpretivism

(Critical realism)

(Postmodernism)

(Pragmatism)

(Interpretivism)

Critical realism

Postmodernism

Pragmatism

* brackets indicate use is less frequent within this philosophy

Table 4.4 Deduction, induction and abduction: from reason to research

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

156

The next three sub-sections explore the differences and similarities between these three

approaches and their implications for your research.

Deduction

As noted earlier, deduction owes much to what we would think of as scientific research.

It involves the development of a theory that is then subjected to a rigorous test through

a series of propositions. As such, it is the dominant approach to theory development in

natural science research, where laws present the basis of explanation, allow the anticipa-

tion of phenomena, predict their occurrence and therefore permit them to be controlled.

Blaikie and Priest (2019) list sequential steps through which a deductive approach will

progress:

1 Put forward a tentative idea, a premise, a hypothesis (a testable proposition about the

relationship between two or more concepts or variables) or set of hypotheses to form

a theory.

2 By using existing literature, or by specifying the conditions under which the theory is

expected to hold, deduce a testable proposition or number of propositions.

3 Examine the premises and the logic of the argument that produced them, comparing

this argument with existing theories to see if it offers an advance in understanding. If

it does, then continue.

4 Test the premises by collecting appropriate data to measure the concepts or variables

and analysing them.

5 If the results of the analysis are not consistent with the premises (the tests fail!), the

theory is false and must either be rejected or modified and the process restarted.

6 If the results of the analysis are consistent with the premises then the theory is

corroborated.

Deduction possesses several important characteristics. First, there is the search to

explain causal relationships between concepts and variables. It may be that your research

question is: Why is there high employee absenteeism in a retail store? After reading about

absence patterns in the academic literature you develop a theory that there is a relationship

between absence, the age of workers and length of service. Consequently, you develop a

number of hypotheses, including one which states absenteeism is significantly more likely

to be prevalent among younger workers and another which states absenteeism is signifi-

cantly more likely to be prevalent among workers who have been employed by the organi-

sation for a relatively short period of time. To test these hypotheses you collect quantitative

data. (This is not to say that a deductive approach may not use qualitative data.) It may be

there are important differences in the way work is arranged in different stores: therefore

you would need to specify precisely the conditions under which your theory is likely to

hold and collect appropriate data within these conditions. By doing this you would help to

ensure that any change in absenteeism was a function of worker age and length of service

rather than any other aspect of the store, for example the way employees were managed.

Your research would use a highly structured methodology to facilitate replication, an

important issue to ensure reliability, as we emphasise in Section5.11.

An additional important characteristic of deduction is that concepts need to be opera-

tionalised to enable facts to be measured, often quantitatively. In our example, one vari-

able needing to be measured is absenteeism. Just what constitutes absenteeism would

have to be strictly defined: an absence for a complete day would probably count, but

what about absence for two hours? In addition, what would constitute a ‘short period of

employment’ and ‘younger’ employees? What is happening here is that the principle of

Approaches to theory development

157

reductionism is being followed. This holds problems as a whole are better understood if

they are reduced to the simplest possible elements.

The final characteristic of deduction is generalisation. In order to be able to generalise

it is necessary to select our sample carefully and for it to be of sufficient size (Sections7.2

and 7.3). In our example above, research at a particular store would allow us only to

make inferences about that store; it would be dangerous to predict that worker youth and

short length of service lead to absenteeism in all cases. This is discussed in more detail

in Section5.11.

As a scientific approach that emphasises structure, quantification, generalisability and

testable hypotheses, the deductive approach is most likely to be underpinned by the posi-

tivist research philosophy.

Induction

An alternative approach to answering the question and developing theory on retail store

employee absenteeism would be to start by interviewing a sample of the employees and

their line managers about the experience of working at the store. The purpose here would

be to get a feel of what was going on, so as to understand better the nature of employee

absenteeism. Your task then would be to make sense of the interview data you collected

through your analysis. The result of this analysis would be the formulation of a theory,

often expressed as a conceptual framework. This may be that there is a relationship

between absence and the length of time an employee has worked for the retail store.

Alternatively, you may discover that there are other competing reasons for absence that

may or may not be related to employee age or length of service. You may end up with the

same theory, but your reasoning uses an inductive approach: theory follows data rather

than vice versa, as with deduction.

We noted earlier that deduction has its origins in research in the natural sciences.

However, the emergence of the social sciences in the twentieth century led social science

researchers to be wary of deduction. They were critical of a reasoning approach that ena-

bled a cause–effect link to be made between particular variables without an understanding

of the way in which humans interpreted their social world. Developing such an under-

standing is, of course, the strength of an inductive approach. In our absenteeism example,

if you were adopting an inductive approach you would be treating employees as humans

whose attendance is a consequence of how they perceive their work experience, rather

than as unthinking research objects responding mechanistically to certain circumstances.

Followers of induction criticise deduction’s tendency to construct a rigid methodology

that does not permit alternative explanations of what is going on. In that sense, there is

an air of finality about the choice of theory and definition of the hypothesis in deduction.

Alternative theories may be suggested, but these would be within the limits set by the

highly structured research design. In this respect, a significant characteristic of the absen-

teeism research design noted earlier is the operationalisation of concepts. As we saw in

the absenteeism example, age was precisely defined. However, a less structured approach

might reveal alternative explanations of the absenteeism–age relationship denied by a

more strict definition.

Research using an inductive approach to reasoning is likely to be particularly concerned

with the context in which such events take place. Therefore, the study of a small sample of

subjects might be more appropriate than a large number as with the deductive approach.

Researchers in this tradition are more likely to work with qualitative data and to use a

variety of methods to collect these data in order to establish different views of phenomena

(as will be seen in Chapter10).

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

158

Due to its connection to humanities and its emphasis on the importance of subjective

interpretations, the inductive approach is most likely to be informed by the interpretivist

philosophy (Table4.4).

Abduction

Instead of moving from theory to data (as in deduction) or data to theory (as in induc-

tion), an abductive approach moves between data and theory, making comparisons and

interpretations, in effect combining deduction and induction (Suddaby 2006). Although

Arthur Conon Doyle (1989) refers to the detective Sherlock Holmes as using deduction,

he is actually using abduction. An abductive researcher, in a similar manner to Sherlock

Holmes ‘selects or invents a provisional hypothesis to explain a particular empirical case

or dataset...and pursu[es] this hypothesis through further investigation’ (Kennedy and

Thornberg 2018: 52). Abductive theory development is therefore open and sensitive to

data while also using pre-existing theories for inspiration and to help identify and interpret

patterns. This, as we have noted earlier, matches what many business and management

researchers actually do. It begins with the observation of a surprising phenomenon or

fact; it then works out a plausible theory of how this could have occurred. Van Maanen et

al. (2007) note that some plausible theories can account for what is observed better than

others and it is these theories that will help lead to more surprises. These, they argue, can

occur at any stage in the research process, including when writing your project report! Van

Maanen et al. also stress that deduction and induction complement abduction as logics for

testing plausible theories.

Box 4.8

Focus on

management

research

Developing empirical knowledge

and theory abductively through

engaged research

Participative and engaged research, in which research par-

ticipants play an active role in co-designing the research

project with researchers, often requires an abductive

research approach. In their paper in Management Learn-

ing, Bristow and colleagues (2021) draw on their engaged

ethnography (Cunliffe and Scaratti 2017; Van de Ven

2007) in a major city policing organisation to explore the

politics of organisational learning. The authors explain

that the engaged nature of their project meant that they

were deeply embedded in the police organisation they

were researching and also themselves implicated in the

politics of learning of which they write. Conversely, the

police officers, staff and senior leaders in their study con-

tributed to shaping their study through ongoing negotia-

tion of the direction and themes that emerged during

the course of the project. This has also led to a succession

of theoretical lenses that were adopted and developed

through an iterative, abductive process.

Bristow and colleagues note the importance of mul-

tiple sources of data (observation notes, semi-struc-

tured interviews and organisational documents) and

multiple points of reference (within the research team

itself and among their policing colleagues) for empiri-

cal themes and conceptual frameworks to gain reso-

nance through multiple abductive cycles. This process,

the authors argue, has enabled them to develop theory

(a dialectical approach to the politics of learning) in a

way that is better able to reflect the complexities of

organisational life. In turn, their emergent theoretical

lens has enabled them to explore how four different

political modalities of learning interplay in complex and

contradictory ways within the policing organisation,

thus helping them make an empirical as well as a theo-

retical contribution to knowledge.

Approaches to theory development

159

Applying an abductive approach to our research on the reasons for high employee

absenteeism in a retail store would mean obtaining data that were sufficiently detailed and

rich to allow us to explore the phenomenon and identify and explain themes and patterns

regarding employee absenteeism. We would then try to integrate these explanations in an

overall conceptual framework, thereby developing a theory of employee absenteeism in

a retail store. This we would test using evidence provided by existing data and new data,

revising as necessary (Box4.8).

Due to the flexibility of the abductive approach, it can be used by researchers from

within a number of different research philosophies. In fact, some would argue that because

pure deduction or pure induction are so difficult (or even impossible) to achieve, most

management researchers in practice use at least some element of abduction. However, a

well-developed abductive approach is most likely to be underpinned by pragmatism or

postmodernism, and can also be underpinned by critical realism.

The abductive approach is sometimes called ‘retroduction’. In fact, retroduction is

believed to be the original label for what has become known as abduction through cor-

rupt translation and misunderstanding of older philosophical texts (Peirce 1896). Apart

from this trivia, the notion ‘retroduction’ may be important to you as a researcher if your

chosen research philosophy is critical realism. Critical realists often choose to describe

their approach as retroductive in order to emphasise the historical aspect of their research,

where they would start with a surprising phenomenon in the present and move backwards

in time in order to identify the underlying mechanisms and structures that might have

produced it (Reed 2005).

Choosing an approach to theory development

At this stage you may be asking yourself: So what? Why is the choice that I make about

my approach to theory development so important? Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) suggest

three reasons. First, it enables you to take a more informed decision about your research

design (Chapter5), which is more than just the procedures by which data are collected

and techniques by which they are analysed. It is the overall configuration of a piece of

research involving questions about what kind of evidence is gathered and from where,

and how such evidence is interpreted in order to provide good answers to your initial

research question.

Second, it will help you to think about those research strategies and methodological

choices that will work for you and, crucially, those that will not. For example, if you are

particularly interested in understanding why something is happening, rather than being

able to describe what is happening, it may be more appropriate to undertake your research

inductively rather than deductively.

Third, Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) argue that knowledge of the different research

traditions enables you to adapt your research design to cater for constraints. These may

be practical, involving, say, limited access to data, or they may arise from a lack of prior

knowledge of the subject. You simply may not be in a position to frame a hypothesis

because you have insufficient understanding of the topic to do this.

So far, when discussing induction and deduction we have conveyed the impression

that there are rigid divisions between deduction and induction. This would be misleading.

As we have seen in our discussion of abduction, it is possible to combine deduction and

induction within the same piece of research. It is also, in our experience, often advanta-

geous to do so, although often one approach or another is dominant.

At this point you may be wondering whether your reasoning will be predominantly

deductive, inductive or abductive. The honest answer is, ‘it depends’. In particular, it

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

160

depends on your research philosophy, the emphasis of the research ( Box 4.9 ) and the

nature of the research topic. Different philosophies tend to lead researchers to different

approaches: so positivists tend to deduction, interpretivists to induction, and postmodern-

ists, pragmatists and critical realists to abduction (although critical realists would often call

their approach ‘retroduction’) ( Table 4.4 ). A topic on which there is a wealth of literature

from which you can define a theoretical framework and a hypothesis lends itself more

readily to deduction. With research into a topic that is new, is exciting much debate and

on which there is little existing literature, it may be more appropriate to work inductively

by generating data and analysing and reflecting upon what theoretical themes the data

are suggesting. Alternatively, a topic about which there is a wealth of information in one

context but far less in the context in which you are researching may lend itself to an abduc-

tive approach, enabling you to modify an existing theory.

The time you have available will be an issue. Deductive research can be quicker to

complete, albeit that time must be devoted to setting up the study prior to data collec-

tion and analysis. Data collection is often based on ‘one take’. It is normally possible to

predict the time schedules accurately. On the other hand, abductive and, particularly,

inductive research can be much more protracted. Often the ideas, based on a much longer

period of data collection and analysis, emerge gradually. This leads to another important

consideration, the extent to which you are prepared to indulge in risk. Deduction can be

a lower-risk strategy, although there are risks, such as the non-return of questionnaires.

With induction and abduction, you have to live with the uncertainty about when and how

useful and interesting data patterns and theory will emerge. Finally, there is the question

of audience. In our experience, managers are usually most familiar with deduction and

more likely to put faith in the conclusions emanating from this approach. You may also

wish to consider the preferences of the person marking your research report. We all have

our preferences about the approach to adopt.

Box 4.9

Focus on student

research

Deductive, inductive and abductive

research

Sadie decided to conduct a research project to answer

the question: To what extent does violence at work

affect the stress levels of staff and why? She consid-

ered the different ways she would approach the work

were she to adopt:

• the deductive approach;

• the inductive approach;

• the abductive approach.

If she adopted a deductive approach to her

reasoning, she would have to:

1 start with the hypothesis that staff work-

ing directly with the public are more likely to

experience the threat or reality of violence and

resultant stress;

2 decide to research a population in which she

would have expected to find evidence of violence,

for example, a sizeable social security office;

3 administer a questionnaire to a large sample of

staff in order to establish the extent of violence

(either actually experienced or threatened) and

the levels of stress experienced by them;

4 be particularly careful about how she defined

violence;

5 standardise the stress responses of the staff,

for example, days off sick or sessions with a

counsellor.

If she adopted an inductive approach then she

might have decided to interview a sample of staff who

had been subjected to violence at work. She might

have been interested in their feelings about the events

that they had experienced, how they coped with the

Summary

161

This last point suggests that not all your decisions about the approach to reasoning

should always be practically based. Hakim (2000) uses an architectural metaphor to illus-

trate this. She introduces the notion of the researcher’s preferred style, which, rather like

the architect’s, may reflect ‘the architect’s own preferences and ideas...and the stylistic

preferences of those who pay for the work and have to live with the final result’ (Hakim

2000: 1). This echoes the feelings of Buchanan et al. (2013: 59), who argue that ‘needs,

interests and preferences (of the researcher)...are typically overlooked but are central

to the progress of fieldwork’. However, a note of caution. While researchers often refine

their research questions as the research progresses, changing completely the essence of

the research question can be problematic, if only because you only have a limited amount

of time to complete your research project. Ensuring that the essence of the research ques-

tion does not change is particularly important if it has been defined by an organisation,

for example, as a consultancy project they wish you to undertake.

Summary

• The term ‘research philosophies’ refers to systems of beliefs and assumptions about the devel-

opment of knowledge. This means that your research philosophy contains important assump-

tions about the way in which you view the world. These assumptions shape all aspects of your

research projects.

• To understand your research philosophy, you need to develop the skill of reflexivity, which

means asking yourself questions about your beliefs and assumptions, and treating these with

the same scrutiny as you would apply to the beliefs of others.

• From the pluralist perspective adopted in this book, there is no single ‘best’ business and

management research philosophy. Each philosophy contributes a unique and valuable way of

seeing the organisational world.

• All research philosophies make at least three major types of assumption: ontological, episte-

mological and axiological. We can distinguish different philosophies by the differences and

similarities in their ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions.

• Ontology concerns researchers’ assumptions about the nature of the world and reality.

Ontological assumptions you make determine what research objects and phenomena you

focus on, and how you see and approach them.

• Epistemology concerns assumptions about knowledge – how we know what we say we

know, what constitutes acceptable, valid and legitimate knowledge, and how we can

4.6

problems they experienced and their views about the

possible causes of the violence.

If she adopted an abductive approach, she might

have developed a conceptual model on the basis of

her interviews. She might then have used this model

to develop a series of hypotheses and designed a ques-

tionnaire to collect data from a sample of staff with

which to test these hypotheses. Based on analyses of

these data she might then have refined her conceptual

model.

All approaches would have yielded valuable data

about this problem (indeed, within this abductive

approach, both inductive and deductive approaches

would have been used at different stages) and sup-

ported theory development. Sadie concluded that no

approach should be thought of as better than the

others. Each is better at different things. Sadie real-

ised that she needed to decide where her research

emphasis lay and choose her research approach

accordingly.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

162

communicate knowledge to fellow human beings. Epistemological assumptions you make

determine what sort of contribution to knowledge you can make as a result of your research.

• Axiology refers to the role of values and ethics within the research process, which incor-

porates questions about how we, as researchers, deal with our own values and also with

those of our research participants.

• Research philosophies can be differentiated in terms of where their assumptions fall on an

objectivism–subjectivism continua.

• Objectivism incorporates assumptions of the natural sciences. It entails realist ontology

(which holds that social entities exist in reality external to and independent from social

actors), epistemology focused on the discovery of truth by means of observable, measurable

facts, and claims to have a value-free, detached axiology.

• Subjectivism incorporates assumptions of the arts and humanities. It entails nominalist ontol-

ogy (which holds that social phenomena are created through the language, perceptions and

consequent actions of social actors), epistemology focused on the social actors’ opinions,

narratives, interpretations, perceptions that convey these social realities, and claims to have

a value-bound, reflexive axiology.

• Management and business research can be understood in terms of Burrell and Morgan’s

(2016) four social research paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical structuralist and radi-

cal humanist. These paradigms add the dimension of the political rationale for research to the

objectivism–subjectivism continua.

• We have discussed five major philosophies: positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmod-

ernism and pragmatism.

• Positivism relates to the philosophical stance of the natural scientist. This entails working

with an observable social reality and the end product can be law-like generalisations similar

to those in the physical and natural sciences.

• Critical realism focuses on explaining what we see and experience in terms of the underly-

ing structures of reality that shape the observable events. Critical realists tend to undertake

historical analyses of changing or enduring societal and organisational structures, using a

variety of methods.

• Interpretivism is a subjectivist philosophy, which emphasises that human beings are different

from physical phenomena because they create meanings. Interpretivists study meanings to

create new, richer understandings of organisational realities. Empirically, interpretivists focus

on individuals’ lived experiences and cultural artefacts, and seek to include their participants’

as well as their own interpretations into their research.

• Postmodernism emphasises the world-making role of language and power relations. Post-

modernists seek to question the accepted ways of thinking and give voice to alternative

worldviews that have been marginalised and silenced by dominant perspectives. Postmod-

ernists deconstruct data to expose the instabilities and absences within them. Postmodernist

axiology is radically reflexive.

• Pragmatist ontology, epistemology and axiology are focused on improving practice. Pragma-

tists adopt a wide range of research strategies, the choice of which is driven by the specific

nature of their research problems.

• There are three main approaches to theory development: deduction, induction and abduction.

• With deduction, a theory and hypothesis (or hypotheses) are developed and a research

strategy designed to test the hypothesis.

• With induction, data are collected and a theory developed as a result of the data analysis.

• With abduction (sometimes referred to as retroduction by critical realists), data are used to

explore a phenomenon, identify themes and explain patterns, to generate a new or modify

an existing theory which is subsequently tested, often through additional data collection.

Review and discussion questions

163

Self-check questions

Help with these questions is available at the end of the chapter.

4.1 You have decided to undertake a project and have defined the main research question as

‘What are the opinions of consumers on a 10 per cent reduction in weight, with the price

remaining the same, of “Snackers” chocolate bars?’ Write a hypothesis that you could

test in your project.

4.2 Why may it be argued that the concept of ‘the manager’ is socially constructed rather

than ‘real’?

4.3 Why are the radical research paradigms relevant in business and management research,

given that most managers would say that the purpose of organisational investigation is to

develop recommendations for action to solve problems without radical change?

4.4 You have chosen to undertake your research project following a deductive approach.

What factors may cause you to work inductively, although working deductively is your

preferred choice?

Review and discussion questions

4.5 Visit an online database or your university library and obtain a copy of a research-based ref-

ereed journal article that you think will be of use to an assignment you are currently working

on. Read this article carefully. From within which philosophical perspective do you think this

article is written? Use Section4.4 to help you develop a clear justification for your answer.

4.6 Think about the last assignment you undertook for your course. In undertaking this

assignment, were you predominantly inductive, deductive or abductive? Discuss your

thoughts with a friend who also undertook this assignment.

4.7 Agree with a friend to watch the same television documentary.

a To what extent is the documentary inductive, deductive or abductive in its use of data?

b Is the documentary based on positivist, critical realist, interpretivist, postmodernist or

pragmatist assumptions?

c Do not forget to make notes regarding your reasons for your answers to each of these

questions and to discuss your answers with your friend.

Progressing your

research project

Heightening your Awareness of

your Research Philosophy (HARP)*

HARP is a reexive tool that has been designed

by Bristow and Saunders to help you explore your

research philosophy. It is just a starting point for

enabling you to ask yourself more rened questions

about how you see research. It will not provide you

with a denitive answer to the question ‘What is

my research philosophy?’ Rather it will give you an

indication as to where your views are similar to and

different from those of ve major philosophical tradi-

tions discussed in this chapter. Do not be surprised

if your views are similar to more than one tradition.

Such potential tensions are an ideal opportunity to

inquire into and examine your beliefs further.

HARP consists of six sections each comprising ve

statements (a total of 30 statements). Each section

considers one aspect of philosophical beliefs (ontol-

ogy, epistemology, axiology, purpose of research,

meaningfulness of data and structure/agency). Each

statement epitomises a particular research philoso-

phy’s position in relation to that particular aspect.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

164

Progressing your research project (continued)

Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP)

HARP statements

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statements

below. There are no wrong answers.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Slightly Agree

Slightly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Your views on the nature of reality (ontology)

1Organisations are real, just like physical objects. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

2Events in organisations are caused by deeper, underlying

mechanisms.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

3The social world we inhabit is a world of multiple meanings,

interpretations and realities.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

4‘Organisation’ is not a solid and static thing but a flux of collective

processes and practices.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

5‘Real’ aspects of organisations are those that impact on

organisational practices.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Your views on knowledge and what constitutes acceptable knowledge (epistemology)

6Organisational research should provide scientific, objective, accurate

and valid explanations of how the organisational world really

works.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

7Theories and concepts never offer completely certain knowledge,

but researchers can use rational thought to decide which theories

and concepts are better than others.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

8Concepts and theories are too simplistic to capture the full richness

of the world.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

9What generally counts as ‘real’, ‘true’ and ‘valid’ is determined by

politically dominant points of view.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

10 Acceptable knowledge is that which enables things to be done

successfully.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Your views on the role of values in research (axiology)

11 Researchers’ values and beliefs must be excluded from the research. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

12 Researchers must try to be as objective and realistic as they can. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

13 Researchers’ values and beliefs are key to their interpretations of

the social world.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Byindicating your agreement or disagreement with

each statement youcan discover your similarities and

differences withdifferent aspects of each research

philosophy. Following the completion of HARP, refer

to the scoring keytocalculate your score and interpret

your answer.

Review and discussion questions

165

HARP statements

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statements

below. There are no wrong answers.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Slightly Agree

Slightly Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

14 Researchers should openly and critically discuss their own values and

beliefs.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

15 Research shapes and is shaped by what the researcher believes and

doubts.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Your views on the purpose of research

16 The purpose of research is to discover facts and regularities, and

predict future events.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

17 The purpose of organisational research is to offer an explanation of

how and why organisations and societies are structured.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

18 The purpose of research is to create new understandings that allow

people to see the world in new ways.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

19 The purpose of research is to examine and question the power

relations that sustain conventional thinking and practices.

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

20 The purpose of research is to solve problems and improve future

practice.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

Your views on what constitutes meaningful data

21 Things that cannot be measured have no meaning for the purposes

of research.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

22 Organisational theories and findings should be evaluated in terms of

their explanatory power of the causes of organisational behaviour.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

23 To be meaningful, research must include participants’ own

interpretations of their experiences, as well as researchers’

interpretations.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

24 Absences and silences in the world around us are at least as

important as what is prominent and obvious.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

25 Meaning emerges out of our practical, experimental and critical

engagement with the world.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

Your views on the nature of structure and agency

26 Human behaviour is determined by natural forces. ❑❑❑❑❑❑

27 People’s choices and actions are always limited by the social norms,

rules and traditions in which they are located.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

28 Individuals’ meaning-making is always specific to their experiences,

culture and history.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

29 Structure, order and form are human constructions. ❑❑❑❑❑❑

30 People can use routines and customs creatively to instigate

innovation and change.

❑❑❑❑❑❑

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

166

Progressing your research project (continued)

Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP)

Your answer scores

Give yourself the points as indicated below for each

answer within each philosophical tradition. The

different philosophies are represented by specic

questions in the HARP as indicated below. Fill each

philosophy table with your answer scores, then

total up the numbers for each philosophy. (For

your reference, in the tables below, the letters in

brackets indicate whether the question tests your

agreement with the ontological, epistemological,

axiological, purpose of research, meaningfulness of

data and structure and agency aspects of research

philosophy.)

Each answer you gave is given a number of

points as shown in the table below:

Strongly

agree

Agree

Slightly

agree

Slightly

disagree

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

3 2 1 −1 −2 −3

Positivism: Questions 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26

Question

1 (ontology)

6 (epistemology)

11 (axiology)

16 (purpose)

21 (data)

26 (structure/agency)

Total

Answer

score

Critical Realism: Questions 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27

Question

2 (ontology)

7 (epistemology)

12 (axiology)

17 (purpose)

22 (data)

27 (structure/agency)

Total

Answer

score

Interpretivism: Questions 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28

Question

3 (ontology)

8 (epistemology)

13 (axiology)

18 (purpose)

23 (data)

28 (structure/agency)

Total

Answer

score

Postmodernism: Questions 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29

Question

4 (ontology)

9 (epistemology)

14 (axiology)

19 (purpose)

24 (data)

29 (structure/agency)

Total

Answer

score

References

167

Pragmatism: Questions 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30

Question

5 (ontology)

10 (epistemology)

15 (axiology)

20 (purpose)

25 (data)

30 (structure/agency)

Total

Answer

score

Reflection

Now, for the rst of what will almost certainly be

many philosophical reections, consider the following

questions regarding how you scored yourself.

1 Do you have an outright philosophical winner? Or

do you have a close contention between two or

more philosophies?

2 Why do you think this is?

3 Which philosophy do you disagree with the most?

4 Why do you think this is?

References

Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2018) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research

(3rd edn). London: Sage.

Berber, A. and Acar, A. G. (2020) ‘Power crafting at work: A phenomenological study on individual

differences’, Human Relations. Online First.

Bhaskar, R. (2008) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso (originally published by Harvester Press

1978).

Bhaskar, R. (2011) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Abingdon:

Routledge (originally published by Verso 1989).

Bindl, U.K. (2019) ‘Work-related proactivity through the lens of narratives: Investigating emotional

journeys in the process of making things happen’, Human Relations, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 615–45.

Blaikie, N. and Priest, J. (2019) Designing Social Research (3rd edn). Cambridge: Polity.

Bristow, A., Tomkins, L. and Hartley, J. (2021) ‘A dialectical approach to the politics of

learning in a major city police organization’, Management Learning. Available at DOI

10.1177/1350507621991996 [Accessed 5 Feb. 2021].

Buchanan, D., Boddy, D. and McCalman, J. (2013) ‘Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting

back’, in A. Bryman (ed.) Doing Research in Organisations. London: Routledge, pp. 53–67 (origi-

nally published by Routledge 1988).

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (2016) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Abingdon:

Routledge (originally published by Heinemann 1979).

Calás, M. and Smircich, L. (2018) Postmodern Management Theory. Abingdon: Routledge. (Originally

published by Ashgate/Dartmouth 1997).

Chia, R. (2003) ‘Organization theory as a postmodern science’, in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds)

The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, pp. 113–40.

Corlett, S. and Mavin, S. (2018) ‘Reflexivity and researcher positionality’, in C. Cassell, A.L. Cunliffe

and G. Grandy (eds) Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods: History and Tradi-

tions. London: Sage, pp. 377–99.

Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research. London: Sage.

Cunliffe. A.L. (2003) ‘Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities’, Human

Relations, Vol. 56, pp. 983–1003.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

168

Cunliffe. A.L. and Scaratti, G. (2017) ‘Embedding impact in engaged research: Developing socially

useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No.

1, pp. 29–44.

Derrida J. (2016) Of Grammatology (40th Anniversary Edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press (originally published 1976).

Doyle, A.C. (1989) The Complete Sherlock Holmes. London: Wordsworth (originally published as

separate stories from 1887 onwards).

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. and Lowe, A. (2012) Management Research (4th edn).

London: Sage.

Elkjaer, B. and Simpson, B. (2011) ‘Pragmatism: A lived and living philosophy. What can it offer to

contemporary organization theory?’, in H. Tsoukas and R. Chia (eds) Philosophy and Organization

Theory. Bradford: Emerald Publishing, pp. 55–84.

Fleetwood, S. (2005) ‘Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspec-

tive’, Organization, Vol. 12, pp. 197–222.

Foucault, M. (2020) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. London: Penguin Classics. (originally

published by Editions Gallimard 1976).

Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000) ‘At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical man-

agement studies’, Human Relations, Vol. 53, pp. 7–32.

Gabriel, Y., Gray, D.E. and Goregaokar, H. (2013) ‘Job loss and its aftermath among managers and

professionals: Wounded, fragmented and flexible’, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 27, pp.

56–72.

Griffin, M., Harding, N. and Learmonth, M. (2017). ‘Whistle while you work? Disney animation,

organizational readiness and gendered subjugation.’ Organization Studies, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.

869–94.

Griffith, E. (2019) ‘The biggest smart phone fails of the decade’, PC Mag UK. Available at: https://

uk.pcmag.com/old-news/123723/the-biggest-smartphone-fails-of-the-decade [Accessed 23

December 2020].

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in N.K. Denzin

and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105–116.

Hakim, C. (2000) Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research (2nd edn).

London: Routledge.

Heron, J. (1996) Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition. London: Sage.

Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997) ‘A participatory inquiry paradigm’, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 3,

pp. 274–94.

Johnson, P. and Clark, M. (2006) ‘Editors’ introduction: Mapping the terrain: An overview of business

and management research methodologies’, in P. Johnson and M. Clark (eds) Business and Man-

agement Research Methodologies. London: Sage, pp. xxv–vi.

Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008) An Introduction to Critical Management Research. London:

Sage.

Kennedy B.L. and Thornberg, R. (2018) ‘Deduction, induction and abduction’, in U. Flick (ed.) The

Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. London: Sage, pp. 49–64.

Ketokivi, M. and Mantere, S. (2010) ‘Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational

research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 315–33.

Kilduff, M. and Mehra, A. (1997) ‘Postmodernism and organizational research’, The Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 453–81.

Kirby, J. (1897) Old Times in the Bush of Australia: Trials and Experiences of Early Bush Life in Victoria

during the Forties. Melbourne: Roberts and Co. Melbourne. [Accessed 21 December 2020 from

Hathi Trust Digital Library, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433082451661].

References

169

Knudsen, C. (2003) ‘Pluralism, scientific progress, and the structure of organization theory’, in H.

Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical

Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262–86.

Larkin, M., Watts, S. and Clifton, E. (2006) Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenom-

enological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 102–20.

Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. (2018) ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and

emerging confluences revisited’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research (5th edn). Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 108–50.

Martí, I. and Fernández, P. (2013) ‘The institutional work of oppression and resistance: Learning from

the Holocaust’, Organization Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 1195–223.

Morgan, G. (2006) Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (originally published in 1986).

Niglas, K. (2010) ‘The multidimensional model of research methodology: An integrated set of con-

tinua’, in A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) The Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and

Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 215–36.

O’Gorman, K. and MacIntosh, R. (2015) Research Methods for Business and Management (2nd edi-

tion). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.

Parker, M. (2002) Against Management. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Pascoe, B. (2018) Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. London: Scribe

Publications.

Peirce, C.S. (1896 [c.]) Lessons of the History of Science. MS [R] 1288. Commens: Digital Companion

to C.S. Peirce, available at http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/retroduction [Accessed 11

Sept. 2018].

Pfeffer, J. (1993) ‘Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a

dependent variable’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 599–620.

Reed, M. (2005) ‘Reflections on the “realist turn” in organization and management studies’, Journal

of Management Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 1621–44.

Rutherford, B.A. (2016) ‘Articulating accounting principles’, Journal of Applied Accounting Research,

Vol.17, No. 2, pp. 118–35.

Saunders, M.N.K, Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods for Business Students (8th edi-

tion) Harlow: Pearson.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2012) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method

and Research. London: Sage.

Starbuck, W. (2003) ‘The origins of organization theory’, in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds) The

Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not’, Academy of Management Jour-

nal, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 633–43.

Thomas, R. and Hardy, C. (2011) ‘Reframing resistance to organizational change’, Scandinavian Jour-

nal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 322–31.

Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (2003) The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical

Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J.B. and Mitchell, T.R. (2007) ‘The interplay between theory and method’,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1145–54.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development

170

Research Methods for Business Students

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Choosing the Right Institution of Higher Education Could Really Be Tough!

KEPEMIMPINAN SPIRITUAL (SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP) GURU SEKOLAH DASAR DALAM PEMBENTUKAN KARAKTER PESERTA...

Advertising psychology and research. An introductory book

Cross-Media Authentication and Verification: Emerging Research and Opportunities