Content uploaded by Mark NK Saunders
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark NK Saunders on Aug 25, 2024
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)
© Pearson Professional Limited 1997
© Pearson Education Limited 2000, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2016
© Mark N.K. Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill 2019
© Mark N.K. Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill 2023
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, visitwww.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
Cover image: © 2022 Mark N.K. Saunders, Île de Stuhan, La Trinité-sur-Mer, Brittany, France
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
v
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 23
Case1:Areflectivejournal?...Aboutresearch?...
Where do I even begin? 25
Emily A Morrison
Self-check answers 27
Contents
viii
2 Generating a research idea and developing
your research proposal 28
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 28
2.1 Introduction 28
2.2 Characteristics of good research ideas 30
2.3 Generating research ideas 33
2.4 Refining research ideas 40
2.5 Developing your overarching research question 42
2.6 Writing a research aim and set of research objectives 45
2.7 The importance of theory 48
2.8 The need for a research proposal 55
2.9 Structuring your research proposal 57
2.10 Summary 62
Self-check questions 63
Review and discussion questions 63
Progressing your research project: Choosing a research topic and
developing your research proposal 64
References 64
Further reading 66
Case 2: Keza’s research aim formulation 67
Adina Dudau
Self-check answers 69
3 Critically reviewing the literature 72
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 72
3.1 Introduction 72
3.2 Being ‘critical’ and the purposes and forms of review 75
3.3 The content and structure of a critical review 80
3.4 Literature sources 83
3.5 Planning your literature search 91
3.6 Conducting your literature search 94
3.7 Reading critically and evaluating the literature 105
3.8 Note-taking and referencing 107
3.9 Using systematic review 110
3.10 Drafting the critical review 113
3.11 A note about plagiarism 116
3.12 Summary 117
Contents
ix
Self-check questions 118
Review and discussion questions 119
Progressing your research project: Critically reviewing
the literature 120
References 120
Further reading 122
Case 3: Shaping powerful questions when reviewing
the literature 123
Mat Hughes
Self-check answers 126
4 Understanding research philosophy and
approaches to theory development 128
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis, Adrian Thornhill and
Alexandra Bristow
Learning outcomes 128
4.1 Introduction 128
4.2 The philosophical underpinnings of business and management 131
4.3 Research paradigms 140
4.4 Five management philosophies 145
4.5 Approaches to theory development 154
4.6 Summary 161
Self-check questions 163
Review and discussion questions 163
Progressing your research project: Heightening your Awareness
of your Research Philosophy (HARP) 163
References 167
Further reading 170
Case 4: Working out your philosophical assumptions 171
Natasha Mauthner
Self-check answers 174
5 Formulating the research design 176
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 176
5.1 Introduction 176
5.2 Achieving a coherent research design 178
5.3 The research purpose 179
5.4 Methodological choice: choosing a quantitative, qualitative
or mixed methods research design 181
Contents
x
5.5 Developing a coherent research strategy 191
5.6 Considering time horizons 212
5.7 Anticipating potential ethical issues 213
5.8 Assessing the quality of research design 214
5.9 Recognishing your role as researcher 220
5.10 Summary 222
Self-check questions 223
Review and discussion questions 224
Progressing your research project: Deciding on your
research design 224
References 225
Further reading 228
Case 5: Internationalizing strategy: Developing small firms
and their local communities via engaged scholarship 229
Fariba Darabi and Jonathan M Scott
Self-check answers 231
6 Negotiating access and research ethics 234
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 234
6.1 Introduction 234
6.2 Characteristics of access 236
6.3 Researcher status 240
6.4 Internet-mediated access 242
6.5 Strategies to gain access 245
6.6 Research ethics and acting ethically 253
6.7 Ethical issues at specific research stages 262
6.8 Data protection principles 274
6.9 Summary 276
Self-check questions 277
Review and discussion questions 278
Progressing your research project: Negotiating access
and addressing ethical issues 278
References 279
Further reading 280
Case 6: Onboarding practices and employee retention 281
Josephine LaPointe
Self-check answers 284
Contents
xi
7 Selecting samples 288
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 288
7.1 Introduction 289
7.2 The need to sample 291
7.3 An overview of sampling procedures 293
7.4 Probability sampling – sampling frame 295
7.5 Probability sampling – sample size 297
7.6 Probability sampling – procedures 304
7.7 Probability sampling – representativeness 312
7.8 Non-probability sampling – sample size 313
7.9 Non-probability sampling – procedures 316
7.10 Mixed and multi-stage sampling designs 325
7.11 Summary 327
Self-check questions 328
Review and discussion questions 331
Progressing your research project: Using sampling as part of your
research 332
References 332
Further reading 334
Case 7: Female ride share app drivers’ careers in Tehran 335
Mina Beigi, Shahrzad Nayyeri and Melika Shirmohamma
Self-check answers 337
8 Obtaining and evaluating secondary data 342
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 342
8.1 Introduction 342
8.2 Types of secondary data and uses in research 345
8.3 Advantages of secondary data 358
8.4 Disadvantages of secondary data 360
8.5 Searching for and locating secondary data 364
8.6 Evaluating and selecting secondary data sources 370
8.7 Summary 378
Self-check questions 379
Review and discussion questions 380
Progressing your research project: Assessing utility, selecting and
incorporating secondary data in your research 381
References 381
Further reading 384
Contents
xii
Case 8: Investigating refugees’ challenges in setting
up a business 385
Megan Miralles, Marc Stierand and Viktor Dörfler
Self-check answers 387
9 Collecting primary data using
observation 390
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 390
9.1 Introduction 390
9.2 Observation choices 392
9.3 Participant observation 400
9.4 Structured observation 410
9.5 Internet-mediated observation 418
9.6 Recording video 422
9.7 Creating static images 426
9.8 Audio recording 429
9.9 Summary 431
Self-check questions 432
Review and discussion questions 433
Progressing your research project: Deciding on the
appropriateness of observation 433
References 434
Further reading 435
Case 9: Observing leadership and team dynamics
using simulation 436
Trevor Morrow
Self-check answers 438
10 Collecting primary data using interviews
and diaries 440
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 440
10.1 Introduction 440
10.2 Standardisation and structure in questioning 442
10.3 Interview mediums and modes 448
10.4 The potential of semi-structured and in-depth interviews 450
10.5 Data quality issues and evaluating interviewing practice 452
Contents
xiii
10.6 Preparing for semi-structured or in-depth interviewing 459
10.7 Conducting one-to-one face-to-face interviews 465
10.8 Conducting one-to-one online interviews 477
10.9 Conducting one-to-one telephone interviews 479
10.10 Conducting group interviews and focus groups 481
10.11 Conducting visual interviews 485
10.12 Using diaries and diary studies 488
10.13 Summary 494
Self-check questions 494
Review and discussion questions 496
Progressing your research project: Using research interviews and
research diaries 497
References 497
Further reading 500
Case 10: Conducting audio diaries of work-life conflict 501
Catherine Cassell
Self-check answers 503
11 Collecting primary data using
questionnaires 506
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 506
11.1 Introduction 506
11.2 Questionnaires: an overview 509
11.3 Deciding what data need to be collected 514
11.4 Questionnaire validity and reliability 520
11.5 Designing individual questions 523
11.6 Designing the questionnaire 539
11.7 Pilot testing 548
11.8 Distributing the questionnaire 549
11.9 Summary 557
Self-check questions 558
Review and discussion questions 560
Progressing your research project: Using questionnaires
in your research 560
References 561
Further reading 563
Case 11: Assessing the utility of questionnaire scales 564
Sarah Forbes
Self-check answers 566
Contents
xiv
12 Analysing data quantitatively 572
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis, Adrian Thornhill
and Catherine Wang
Learning outcomes 572
12.1 Introduction 572
12.2 Data types and precision of measurement 575
12.3 Preparing data for quantitative analysis 579
12.4 Data entry and checking 585
12.5 Exploring and presenting data: an overview 590
12.6 Exploring and presenting individual variables 593
12.7 Exploring and comparing two or more variables 602
12.8 Describing data using statistics 607
12.9 Statistical tests’ assumptions and hypothesis testing 613
12.10 Examining associations and differences 621
12.11 Assessing the strength of relationships 626
12.12 Making predictions 630
12.13 Examining trends 634
12.14 Summary 636
Self-check questions 637
Review and discussion questions 639
Progressing your research project: Analysing your
data quantitatively 640
References 640
Further reading 642
Case 12: High performance work practices in SMEs 643
Maura Sheehan and Mark NK Saunders
Self-check answers 647
13 Analysing data qualitatively 650
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 650
13.1 Introduction 651
13.2 Analysing qualitative data, diversity and interactive
processes 652
13.3 Choosing a qualitative analysis technique 655
13.4 Preparing data for analysis 657
13.5 Aids to help analysis 661
13.6 Thematic Analysis 664
13.7 Template Analysis 675
13.8 Explanation Building and Testing 678
Contents
xv
13.9 Grounded Theory Method 682
13.10 Narrative Analysis 687
13.11 Discourse analysis 690
13.12 Visual analysis 694
13.13 Data display and analysis 702
13.14 Using CAQDAS 704
13.15 Summary 707
Self-check questions 708
Review and discussion question 708
Progressing your research project: Analysing your
data qualitatively 709
References 710
Further reading 711
Case 13: What makes a good project tutor? 713
Neve Abgeller
Self-check answers 715
14 Writing and presenting the project report 718
Mark NK Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Learning outcomes 718
14.1 Introduction 718
14.2 Undertaking writing 720
14.3 Reporting approaches and report structures: an overview 724
14.4 The traditional (academic) report structure 726
14.5 Alternative (academic) report structures 736
14.6 The consultancy (practitioner) report 743
14.7 Ensuring clarity and accessibility 744
14.8 Developing an appropriate writing style 746
14.9 Meeting the assessment criteria 751
14.10 Writing a reflective essay or section 752
14.11 Presentations 753
14.12 Summary 760
Self-check questions 760
Review and discussion questions 761
Progressing your research project: Writing your project report 761
References 762
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 FigureP.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 (Chapters8, 9, 10 and 11);
• those associated with data analysis (Chapters12 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 Chapter1 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 Chapter14 on
writing prior to starting to draft your critical review of the literature (Chapter3).
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 (Chapters3 and 14), followed by Chapter8, which
introduces you to the range of secondary data sources available that might be of use for
other assignments (FigureP.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
xx
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 (Chapters9, 10 and 11);
• those associated with data analysis (Chapters12 and 13).
In addition, we would recommend that you re-read Chapter14 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 Section1.5 on keeping
a reflective diary or notebook and Sections14.2–14.10 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 Chapters2–13 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 Chapter14
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: Chapter1 now includes a discussion of
responsible business research; Chapter2 contains considerably more detail on developing
research questions including using the AbC (Abstract, Context) rule; Chapter4 now consid-
ers the interrelationships between paradigms and philosophies in more depth; Chapter 5
now considers engaged scholarship; Chapter6 now considers Internet mediated access and
associated issues of ethics in more detail; Chapter7 discusses using purchased database
lists and volunteer panels alongside more detailed discussions of sample size; Chapter9
contains enlarged sections on using researcher and informant created videos, static images
and audio recordings in observation; Chapter10 has a new section on evaluating interview
practice looking at conversational space mapping and language cleanliness; Chapter11
now provides an overview of scale development; Chapter13 includes more detail on tran-
scription and thematic coding, including using the Gioia method; Chapter14 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
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
PL
AT
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:
AHuman 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
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 Figure4.1.
(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
(Sections4.2, 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 Chapters6–13. Section4.2 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 (Section4.3), before looking in more
detail at five research philosophies commonly adopted by its researchers (Section4.4). 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’
Source: © 2022 Mark NK Saunders; developed from Saunders et al. 2019
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 (Section1.5), 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 (Figure4.2).
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
Source: ©2021 Alexandra Bristow and Mark N.K. Saunders
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 Section4.4, 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 (Chapter10) suggests you value data collected
through personal interaction with your participants more highly than views expressed
through responses to an anonymous questionnaire (Chapter11). 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 (Sections6.5–6.7).
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. Table4.1 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) (Table4.1).
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
3
Subjectivism
Ontology • What is the nature of
reality?
• What is the world like?
Real
External
One true reality
(universalism)
Granular (things)
Order
3
3
3
3
3
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
3
3
3
3
3
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
3
3
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 Box4.1). 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 Box4.1).
Subjectivism
Subjectivism incorporates assumptions of the arts and humanities (Table4.1), 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 4.2Focus on research in the news
Abridged from: ‘Why do entrepreneurs get such a bad rap?’, Janan Ganesh (2017) Financial
Times 25 August. Copyright © 2017 The Financial Times Ltd
*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 (Box4.3). 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).
Table4.2 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 ...
3
The radical change perspective ...
... advocates the status quo
3
... advocates radical change
... looks for order
3
... looks for conflict
... looks for consensus
3
... questions domination
... looks for integration and
cohesion
3
... looks for contradiction
... seeks solidarity
3
... seeks emancipation
... sees the satisfaction of needs
3
... sees deprivation
... sees the actual
3
... 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 (Figure4.3). 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 (Box4.4). 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 (Section4.4), 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
(Table4.1) and within paradigms (Figure4.3). You will see later (Section4.4) 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 Figure4.4. 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 (Table4.3).
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 (Table4.3). 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 Section4.5). The hypotheses
developed, as in Box4.5, 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 (Chapter11) in which the respondent self-selects from responses
predetermined by the researcher, and in-depth interviews (Chapter10). 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 (Table4.3). 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-
tion4.5). 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 (Figure4.5).
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 (Figure4.5). 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
be
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
(Table4.3). 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 (Box4.6). 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 (Box4.4). 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 (Table4.3). 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 (Table4.3). 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 (Table4.3). 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 (Table4.3; Box4.7). 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 Section5.3). 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
(Chapter5), 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 Table4.4 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 (Figure4.1), 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
(Table4.4). 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 (Table4.4). 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 (Table4.4).
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 Section5.11.
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 (Sections7.2
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 Section5.11.
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 Chapter10).
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 (Table4.4).
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 (Box4.8).
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 (Chapter5), 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 Section4.4 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 reexive 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 rened questions
about how you see research. It will not provide you
with a denitive 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.
*HARP and all materials relating to HARP are copyright © 2014, 2022 A. Bristow and M.N.K. Saunders
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.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Byindicating your agreement or disagreement with
each statement youcan discover your similarities and
differences withdifferent aspects of each research
philosophy. Following the completion of HARP, refer
to the scoring keytocalculate 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 specic
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 reections, 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
Further reading
Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015) InterViews (3rd edn). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter 3 provides
an accessible discussion of the epistemological issues associated with interviewing.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (2016) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Abingdon:
Routledge. This is an excellent facsimile of the original 1979 book on paradigms which goes into
far more detail than space has allowed in this chapter.
Hatch, M.J. and Yanow, D. (2008) ‘Methodology by metaphor: Ways of seeing in painting and
research’, Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 23–44. A really enjoyable paper that uses
the metaphor of paintings by Rembrandt and Pollock to explain differences between realism and
interpretivism.
Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008) An Introduction to Critical Management Research. London:
Sage. This contains an excellent chapter on pragmatism as well as going into considerable detail
on other philosophies, including postmodernism, and theoretical perspectives not covered in this
chapter (for example, feminism and queer theory).
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. This chapter offers an
excellent and insightful discussion of deduction, induction and abduction, particularly in relation
to qualitative research.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2011) Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 32: Philosophy and
Organization Theory. Bradford: Emerald Publishing. This book offers excellent in-depth reading
about the role of philosophy in management research, and about individual philosophies, includ-
ing pragmatism, interpretivism (hermeneutics and phenomenology) and postmodernism. There is
also a chapter about combining (triangulating) philosophies.
References
171171
Case 4: Working out your philosophical assumptions
Case 4
Working out your philosophical assumptions
During her undergraduate degree, Ailsa
had a baby and became interested in the
question of how women combine tertiary
education with raising a child and the
extent to which universities support such
students. Now, for her master’s degree
research project, she wishes to explore
these questions further.
Ailsa is deciding how best to approach
her project. She is drawn to qualita-
tive methods, and in-depth interviews in
particular, because she has always been
fascinated by people’s stories. She has
also been reading about feminist research
and how it emphasises ‘giving voice’ to
women, creating close relationships with
them, and co-creating knowledge (Jaggar,
2016; Mauthner, 2020a). Ailsa feels that a feminist approach would work well for her study
because she wants to take the experiences of students like her as the starting point for her
research and use them to help universities develop better support mechanisms for students
experiencing pregnancy and motherhood.
She discusses these ideas with her friend Jasmin who is doing a PhD on female entrepre-
neurs using a feminist perspective. Jasmin tells her about the importance of being ‘reflexive’
when you do research, and how feminists – and other researchers – see this as an important
part of the research process. Jasmin explains that reflexivity is when the researcher recog-
nises how her subjectivity, social location, biography, worldview, conceptual frameworks and
philosophical assumptions influence your research question and how you do your research
(Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). This makes a lot of sense to Ailsa as she knows that her own
experiences of pregnancy and motherhood as a student have informed her choice of research
topic. She can also see how her personality, combined with feminist ideas, are shaping how
she is approaching her study, the method she wants to use and the kinds of relationships she
wants to build with the women in her study. She particularly likes the way reflexivity will fore-
ground her own role, as the researcher, in co-producing knowledge with these students.
But Ailsa is less sure about what her philosophical assumptions are, let alone how they will
impact on her study. She asks two friends, Jamal and Duncan, who are also doing master’s
degrees how they are approaching this issue. They both say that research philosophies are not
important. They just want to get on with the research. What is the point in worrying about
these abstract ideas, they ask her. What difference will it make to her research project? Ailsa
isn’t really sure how to answer these questions, but she recalls Jasmin explaining that research
philosophies do matter because they influence the kinds of research questions that you ask,
what you take as your object of study, and how you decide to study it. Jasmin also told her
that even if she didn’t state her research philosophy explicitly it would still shape her research
but in invisible ways (Mauthner, 2020b). This has convinced Ailsa that she needs to try to
understand better this aspect of her research.
She reads about research philosophies in several textbooks; makes a list of different
philosophical approaches; and completes the HARP (Heightening Awareness of Research
RossHelen/Shutterstock
172
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
What is ontology?
Ontology refers to the assumptions that researchers make about the nature of the reality that
they are studying.
What is the ‘reality’ that I am studying in my project?
The experiences of female students having a baby while at university and their perceptions of
university support mechanisms.
What do I think is the nature of this reality?
I am not sure. I am not sure I even understand the question.
Do I think there is a universal, fixed, singular experience of students having a baby
while at university?
This is my translation of what I think ‘objectivism’ means. Another word used to refer to this
seems to be ‘realism’. My answer to this question is no, I don’t think so, because women will
have lots of different experiences of having a baby and of the support provided by universities.
Do I think that the women’s experiences are specific and particular to each one of
them and that there are therefore multiple experiences?
This is my translation of what I think ‘subjectivism’ means. And my answer to this question
is yes. I also think that their experiences change over time, and that they will have different
experiences of the support provided (or not) by universities.
On the basis of these questions what do I think my ontological position is?
I think it is subjectivism.
What is epistemology?
Epistemology refers to the assumptions that researchers make about how knowledge of the
reality that they are studying is produced and justified.
How am I developing knowledge about the women’s experiences in my study?
I am interviewing them to get their accounts of their experiences.
Do I think that these interview accounts are giving objective facts about their
experiences?
This is my translation of what I think ‘positivism’ means. My answer to this question is no, I
don’t think so. I think that women will give me their subjective interpretations of their experi-
ences and will probably be making sense of their experiences as they talk to me about them. I
have noticed that this is what I do. Talking about my thoughts and feelings is a way of making
sense of them. I also think that I am interpreting their stories in a particular way – some things
they say will resonate with my own experiences and maybe I will pay more attention to those
parts of their accounts. So, I think that I am also involved in interpreting their stories. I think
this is partly what reflexivity means.
Do I think that women’s interview accounts are subjective interpretations of these
experiences?
This is my translation of what I think ‘subjectivism’ means in relation to epistemology. And
yes, as I said above, I think that the female students are forming opinions and attributing
meaning to their experiences and what has happened to them.
On the basis of these questions what do I think my epistemological position is?
I think that my epistemological position is subjectivism.
Philosophy) quiz (see: ‘Progressing your research project’ for Chapter4). She feels over-
whelmed by the number of philosophical positions and terms ending in ‘ism’, and struggles to
grasp the differences between them. Ailsa decides to try to translate these abstract ideas into a
series of concrete questions and apply them to her particular project to help her work out her
philosophical position:
Ailsa’s questions for working out her philosophical position
References
173173
Additional case studies
These are available via this book’s companion website:
www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders.
They are:
• Marketing music products alongside emerging digital music channels (focussing on the
importance of ontology, epistemology, intepretivist and positivist philosophies);
• Consultancy research for a not-for-profit organisation (focusing on pragmatism and
differences between this and post-positivist and interpretivist philosophies);
• Organisational learning in an English regional theatre (focusing on the importance of
axiology and the interpretivist philosophy);
• Chinese tourists and their duty-free shopping in Guam (focusing on the positivist phi-
losophy and the need for researcher independence).
• In search of research philosophy (focusing on the use and interpretation of the HARP
reflexive tool).
W
E
B
Ailsa concludes that her ontological and epistemological positions are subjectivism and her
overall philosophy is interpretivism. She is unsure though about whether and how she can
bring together an interpretivist philosophy with a feminist perspective. She has also been
reading about research paradigms and she is wondering what paradigm will be compatible
with her interpretive and feminist approach. She will ask her friend Jasmin and her lecturer
for advice on these questions, but at least she feels that she has made a start. She has a bet-
ter understanding of various philosophical terms and positions, and most importantly, how to
apply this knowledge to her particular study.
References
Jaggar, A. (2016) ‘Introduction: The project of feminist methodology’, in Just Methods: An Interdisci-
plinary Feminist Reader. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. vii–xiii.
Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A. (2003) ‘Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative
data analysis’, Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 413–31.
Mauthner, N.S. (2020a) ‘Feminist methods’, in Paul Atkinson, Sara Delamont, Alexandru Cernat,
Joseph W. Sakshaug and Richard A. Williams (eds) SAGE Research Methods Foundations. London:
Sage. http://methods.sagepub.com/foundations http://dx.doi.org/9781529749021
Mauthner, N.S. (2020b) ‘Research philosophies and why they matter’, in Keith Townsend, Mark N.K.
Saunders, Rebecca Loudoun and Emily Morrison (eds). How to Keep Your Doctorate on Track:
Insights from Students’ and Supervisors’ Experiences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.
76–86.
Questions
1 Ailsa is excited that she’s beginning to understand research philosophies and why they mat-
ter. What might she tell her two sceptical friends, Jamal and Duncan, to convince them that
it is important to reflect on and explain their philosophical assumptions?
2 What might Ailsa’s friend Jasmin say about bringing together an interpretivist philosophy
with a feminist perspective?
3 How might Ailsa’s tutor advise her on choosing a research paradigm that fits with an inter-
pretivist approach?
Case 4: Working out your philosophical assumptions
174
Self-check answers
4.1 Probably the most realistic hypothesis here would be ‘consumers of “Snackers” chocolate
bars did not notice the difference between the current bar and its reduced weight succes-
sor’. Doubtless that is what the Snackers’ manufacturer would want confirmed!
4.2 Although you can see and touch a manager, you are only seeing and touching another
human being. The point is that the role of the manager is a socially constructed concept.
What counts as ‘a manager’ will differ between different national and organisational
cultures and will differ over time. Indeed, the concept of the manager as we generally
understand it is a relatively recent human invention, arriving at the same time as the for-
mal organisation in the past couple of hundred years.
4.3 The researcher working in the radical humanist or structuralist paradigms may argue that
they expect managers to prefer recommendations that do not involve radical change
because radical change may involve changing managers! Radicalism implies root-and-
branch investigation and possible change, and most of us prefer ‘fine-tuning’ within the
framework of what exists already, particularly if change threatens our vested interests.
4.4 The question implies an either/or choice. But as you work through this chapter (and, in
particular, the next one on deciding your research design), you will see that life is rarely so
clear-cut! Perhaps the main factor that would cause you to review the appropriateness of
the deductive approach would be that the data you collected might suggest an important
hypothesis, which you did not envisage when you framed your research objectives and
hypotheses. This may entail going further with the data collection, perhaps by engaging
in some qualitative work, which would yield further data to answer the new hypothesis.
Get ahead using resources on the companion website at:
www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders.
• Improve your IBM SPSS Statistics and research analysis with practice tutorials.
• Save time researching on the Internet with the Smarter Online Searching Guide.
• Test your progress using self-assessment questions.
• Follow live links to useful websites.
W
E
B
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development