Content uploaded by Mark NK Saunders
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark NK Saunders on Jan 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH METHODS
EIGHTH EDITION
RESEARCH METHODS
EIGHTH 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
F01 Research Methods for Business 08787 Contents.indd 3 30/01/2019 19:14
Pearson Education Limited
KAO Two
KAO Park
Harlow CM17 9NA
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1279 623623
Web: www.pearson.com/uk
First published under the Pitman Publishing imprint in 1997
Second edition published 2000
Third edition published 2003
Fourth edition published 2007
Fifth edition published 2009
Sixth edition published 2012
Seventh edition published 2016
Eighth edition published 2019
© Pearson Professional Limited 1997
© Pearson Education Limited 2000, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2016
© Mark N.K. Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill 2019
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.
ISBN: 978-1-292-20878-7
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 Saunders, Philip Lewis,
Adrian Thornhill.
Description: Eighth Edition. | New York : Pearson, [2019] | Revised edition
of the authors’ Research methods for business students, 2015.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018058370| ISBN 9781292208787 (print) | ISBN 9781292208800
(pdf) | ISBN 9781292208794 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Business--Research. | Business--Research--Data processing.
Classification: LCC HD30.4 .S28 2019 | DDC 650.072--dc23
LC record available at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lccn.loc.gov_2018058
370&d=DwIFAg&c=0YLnzTkWOdJlub_y7qAx8Q&r=zKTI3XC-TUJM0AsOJA2Iy8zK9anF7moqCccCkWx
1Ygs&m=aFJFa_On9Bwi_ZE496eRa0RzNQg4o0hbQsJmY60F4S4&s=jnj_MFTdyrU7pKlt5YX8gCup6Yt
YmmqllMUMXs1Og7w&e=
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
23 22 21 20 19
Front cover image ©
Print edition typeset in 9.5/12 ITC Slimbach Std by Pearson CSC
Printed and bound by L.E.G.O. S.p.A., Italy
NOTE THAT ANY PAGE CROSS REFERENCES REFER TO THE PRINT EDITION
F01 Research Methods for Business 08787 Contents.indd 4 30/01/2019 19:14
Introduction
Much of this book is concerned with the way in which you collect data to answer your research
question(s). 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 tech-
niques they use to collect them. You are not therefore unusual if early on in your research you
consider whether you should, for example, use a questionnaire or undertake interviews. How-
ever, how you collect your data belongs in the centre of the research ‘onion’, the diagram we
use to depict the issues underlying the choice of data collection techniques and analysis proce-
dures in Figure4.1. (You may find that there is much terminology that is new to you in this
diagram – do not worry 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 explain why you made the choice you
did so that others can see that your research should be taken seriously (Crotty 1998). Conse-
quently there are important outer layers of the onion that you need to understand and explain
rather than just peel and throw away!
4.1
Understanding research philosophy and
approaches to theory development
Chapter 4
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter you should be able to:
• define ontology, epistemology and axiology, and explain their relevance
to business research;
• reflect on your own epistemological, ontological and axiological stance;
• understand 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 and articulate your own philosophical position in relation to
your research;
• distinguish between deductive, inductive, abductive and retroductive
approaches to theory development.
128
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 128 29/01/2019 14:45
This chapter is concerned principally with the outer two of the onion’s layers: philosophy
(Sections4.2, 4.3 and4.4) and approach to theory development (Section4.5). In Chapter5 we
examine the layers we call methodological choice, strategy and time horizon. The sixth layer
(data collection and analysis) is dealt with in Chapters7–13.
129
Brexit: beliefs,
assumptions
and life-
changing
decisions
Our own beliefs and
assumptions about
what is important
affect the decisions we
make throughout our
lives. Some of our
decisions and the
research we undertake
to inform them can
prove life-changing,
not only for ourselves,
but also for the wider
society in which we
live.
On the 23rd of June 2016 the British electorate voted
by a majority to leave the European Union, setting the
course for what is now known as ‘Brexit’. Brexit is set
to dramatically reshape the laws, norms and practices
of UK-based individuals and organisations.
In the media and academic commentary on Brexit,
much has been made of the different values and
assumptions of voters, non-voters and politicians on
both sides of the EU Referendum campaign and how
they may have affected the outcome. For example,
many ‘Leavers’ and ‘Remainers’ understood the reality
of the EU and its membership in very different ways –
some perceiving the EU as an overly-bureaucratic and
expensive institution that limited UK sovereignty, with
others seeing the EU as offering legal protections for
workplace rights and the environment, and the free-
dom of trade and movement throughout Member
States. These assumptions informed each side’s cam-
paigns prior to the referendum vote with regards to
the ways in which ‘facts’ and ‘knowledge’ about Brexit
were used, some of which were challenged as unwar-
ranted or even misleading in its aftermath. Addition-
ally, some parts of the electorate felt that they and
their values had been ignored by mainstream politi-
cians and so used their votes to protest, while others
assumed their individual votes (and values) did not
matter so chose not to vote.
Just as our beliefs and assumptions affect our deci-
sions in everyday life, they can also have an important
impact on the business and management research we
decide to pursue and the methodology and methods
we use.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 129 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
130
The philosophical underpinnings
of business and management
What is research philosophy?
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.
Whether you are consciously aware of them or not, 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
philosophy, which will underpin your methodological choice, research strategy and data
4.2
Figure 4.1 The ‘research onion’
Source: ©2018 Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill
Positivism
Pragmatism
Critical
realism
Interpre -
-tivism
Abduction
Deduction
Induction
Mono
method
qualitative
Mono method
quantitative
Multi-
method
quantitative
Multi-
method
qualitative
Mixed method
simple
Mixed method
complex
Experiment
Survey
Archival
Research
Case Study
Ethnography
Action Research
Grounded
Theory
Narrative
Inquiry
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Data
collection
and data
analysis
Philosophy
Approach to
theory developmen
t
Methodological
choice
Strategy(ies)
Time horizon
Techniques and
procedures
Postmod-
-ernism
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 130 29/01/2019 14:45
The philosophical underpinnings of business and management
131
collection techniques and analysis procedures. 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 philo-
sophical 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.
Prior to undertaking a research methods module, few of our students have thought
about their own beliefs about the nature of the world around them, what constitutes
acceptable and desirable knowledge, or the extent to which they believe it necessary to
remain detached from their research data. The process of exploring and understanding
your own research philosophy requires you to hone the skill of reflexivity, that is to ques-
tion 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 (Haynes 2012). This may sound daunt-
ing, 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 philosophical position and how you undertake your research
(Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009).
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. However, 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;
• familiarise yourself with major research philosophies within business and
management.
This section introduces you to the philosophical underpinnings of business and man-
agement, and Section4.4 to five research philosophies commonly adopted by its research-
ers. We will encourage you to reflect on your own beliefs and assumptions in relation to
these five philosophies and the research design you will use to undertake your research
(Figure4.2). The chapter will also help you to outline your philosophy and justify it in
relation to the alternatives you could have adopted (Johnson and Clark 2006). Through
this you will be better equipped to explain and justify your methodological choice, research
strategy and data collection procedures and analysis techniques.
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 to help you start thinking
about your values and beliefs in relation to research. This will help you to make your
values and assumptions more explicit, explain them using the language of research phi-
losophy, and consider the potential fit between your own beliefs and those of major phi-
losophies used in business and management research.
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 business and manage-
ment researchers do not agree about one best philosophy (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003).
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 131 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
132
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
discipline 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. chem-
istry, biology), applied sciences (e.g. engineering, statistics), humanities (e.g. literary
theory, linguistics, history, philosophy) and the domain of organisational practice ( Star-
buck 2003 ). In drawing on these disciplines it absorbed the various associated philoso-
phies, 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: plural-
ism and unificationism. Unificationists see business and management as fragmented,
and argue that this fragmentation prevents it 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 helpful, arguing that it enriches business and management ( Knudsen 2003 ).
In this chapter, we take a pluralist approach and suggest that each research philoso-
phy and paradigm contribute something unique and valuable to business and manage-
ment 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
Source: ©2018 Alexandra Bristow and Mark Saunders
Beliefs and
assumptions
Research
philosophies
Research design
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 132 29/01/2019 14:45
The philosophical underpinnings of business and management
133
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 assump-
tions typically made by scholars working within each philosophy. To keep things rela-
tively simple, we look at three types of research assumptions to distinguish research
philosophies: ontology, epistemology and axiology. There are, of course, other types of
assumptions 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 voters made different assumptions regarding the realities of the UK’s
European Union membership, some perceiving it as over-bureaucratic whilst others saw
it as providing legal protections for workplace rights and the environment. Although this
may seem abstract and far removed from your intended research project, your ontological
assumptions 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 the management actions that could
prevent or stop resistance. More recently, some researchers have started to view the con-
cept of resistance to change differently, resulting in a new strand of research. These
researchers see resistance as a phenomenon that happens all the time whenever organi-
sational change takes place, and that benefits organisations by addressing problematic
aspects of change programmes. Their different ontological assumptions mean that 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). In the opening vignette we saw that voters made assumptions
about the acceptability and legitimacy of data presented by both the campaign for the UK
to leave and the campaign for the UK to remain in the European Union. Whereas ontology
may initially seem rather abstract, the relevance of epistemology is more obvious. The
multidisciplinary context of business and management means that different types of
knowledge – ranging from numerical data to textual and visual data, from facts to opin-
ions, and including narratives and stories – 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 fictional literature
(De Cock and Land 2006).
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 133 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
134
This variety of epistemologies gives you a large choice of methods. However, it is
important to understand the implications of different epistemological assumptions in rela-
tion 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 best scien-
tific evidence is likely, but not exclusively, to result in the choice of quantitative research
methods. Within this, the subsequent research findings are likely to be considered objec-
tive 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 diver-
sity, 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. We see this in the opening vignette where
parts of the electorate felt their values have been ignored by mainstream politicians. 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 that 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
techniques. For example, conducting a study where you place greatest importance on data
collected using face-to-face interviews (Sections10.5 to 10.8) or ethnography as a research
strategy (Section5.6) 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 mak-
ing 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).
Objectivism and subjectivism
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 that business and manage-
ment 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 three types of philosophical assump-
tions that we have just discussed.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 134 29/01/2019 14:45
The philosophical underpinnings of business and management
135
Objectivism incorporates the assumptions of the natural sciences, arguing that the
social reality that 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).
From an objectivist viewpoint, social and physical phenomena exist independently of
individuals’ views of them and tend to be universal and enduring in character. Conse-
quently, it makes sense to study them in the same way as a natural scientist would study
Assumption type Questions Continua with two sets of extremes
Objectivism 3Subjectivism
Ontology • What is the nature of
reality?
• What is the world like?
• For example:
– What are organisa-
tions like?
– What is it like being in
organisations?
– What is it like being a
manager or being
managed?
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 contribu-
tion 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 val-
ues 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 as a multidimensional set of continua
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 135 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
136
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 scientific
research process.
The social phenomenon of management can be researched in an objectivist way
( Box 4.1 ). You may argue that management is an objective entity and decide to adopt an
objectivist stance to the study of particular aspects of management in a specific organisa-
tion. 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 hier-
archy 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. 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
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
the ChemCo’s emphasis on the new organisational
culture, this led Emma to question whether the formal
job descriptions and processes were still interpreted by
the new managers in the same way. Emma therefore
decided to focus her research on the old and new
managers’ interpretations of organisational and mana-
gerial practices.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 136 29/01/2019 14:45
The philosophical underpinnings of business and management
137
individual managers in the past, in order to avoid these experiences colouring your conclu-
sions 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.
Subjectivism incorporates assumptions of the arts and humanities (Table4.1), assert-
ing that social reality is made from the perceptions and consequent actions of social
actors (people). Ontologically, subjectivism embraces nominalism (also sometimes called
conventionalism). 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 cat-
egories, perceptions and consequent actions. For nominalists, there is no underlying
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 constructed
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
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. Subjectiv-
ists believe that as they actively use 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 dif-
ferent interpretations 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 (Box4.2). All this is some way from the objectivist position that being
an entrepreneur has a reality that is separate from the media producers who perceive
that reality. The subjectivist view is that the portrayal of entrepreneurship is constructed
through the social interactions between media producers and entrepreneurs and is
continually being revised as a result of this. In other words, at no time is there a defini-
tive entity called ‘entrepreneur’. Entrepreneurs are experienced differently by different
media producers and, as an aggregate, the resultant portrayal is likely to be constantly
changing.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 137 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
138
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
bloodless 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 inter-
est, 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 some-
thing medieval about the show’s idiots-in-a-cage concept, then viewers do not seem to
mind. The new series of the UK version that starts this autumn is the 17th. An alumnus
of the American version now governs the US.
As entertainment, it dazzles. As a portrait of business, it is poison. All commerce is
shown as a racket spuriously dignified with mortifying TED-speak. “Don’t tell me the
sky’s the limit,” one boardroom Voltaire said, “when there are footprints on the Moon.”
The content of each “task” matters less than the distribution of blame after the fact.
To the artful bluffer, the spoils. Real-life business is full of ineloquent but impressive
people. The Apprentice rewards the opposite. Its corporate veneer is such a sham: it is
a superb show about politics.
By itself, though, The Apprentice is not the problem. The problem is that The Appren-
tice is all there is. You can watch TV from January to December without seeing a heroic
or even benign account of money being made – one that does not involve a plagiarised
product, a betrayed friend, a hoodwinked customer or a corner flagrantly cut.
Box 4.2 Focus on research in the news
Abridged from: ‘Why do entrepreneurs get such a bad rap?’, Janan Ganesh (2017) Financial 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.
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 inves-
tigate. Like the objectivism–subjectivism dimension, this ideological 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).
4.3
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 138 29/01/2019 14:45
Research paradigms
139
Regulation and radical change perspectives
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 manage-
ment research can be classed as regulation research that seeks to suggest how organisa-
tional affairs may be improved within the framework of how things are done at present,
rather than radically challenging the current position. 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 (Box4.3). 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
therefore 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.
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 is it 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 differ-
ent 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.
The regulation perspective ... 3The 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
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 139 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
140
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 organisational
analysis (Figure4.3). In their interpretation (and also as we use the term here) a paradigm
is a set of basic and taken-for-granted assumptions which underwrite the frame of refer-
ence, 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 busi-
ness and management research operates. Research in this paradigm is concerned with
rational explanations and developing sets of recommendations within the current struc-
tures. 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
Figure 4.3 Four paradigms for organisational analysis
Source: Developed from Burrell and Morgan (2016) Social Paradigms and Organisational Analysis
Radical change
Regulation
Subjectivist Objectivist
Radical
humanist
Radical
structuralist
Interpretive Functionalist
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 140 29/01/2019 14:45
Research paradigms
141
organisations are rational entities, in which rational explanations offer solutions to rational
problems. Research projects could include an evaluation study of a communication strat-
egy to assess its effectiveness and to make recommendations for improvement. Research
carried out within the functionalist paradigm is most likely to be underpinned by the posi-
tivist research philosophy ( Section 4.3 ), this type of research often being referred to as
‘positivist-functionalist’.
The bottom left corner of the matrix represents the interpretive paradigm . The primary
focus of research undertaken within this paradigm is the way we as humans attempt to
make sense of the world around us ( Box 4.4 ). The concern you would have working within
this paradigm would be to understand the fundamental meanings attached to organisa-
tional 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 com-
munication strategy may focus on understanding the ways in which it fails due to unfore-
seen 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 organisa-
tion’s everyday activities in order to understand and explain what is going on, rather than
change things ( Kelemen and Rumens 2008 ).
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 indi-
vidual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions 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 individu-
als 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 conse-
quences of this violation from the employees’
perspective.
Robyn argued in her methodology chapter that, as
a subjectivist, she was concerned with understanding
what her research participants perceived to be the real-
ity of their psychological contract violation as they con-
structed it. She stated her assumption that every action
and reaction was based in a context that was inter-
preted by the participant as she or he made sense of
what had happened. It was her participants’ percep-
tions and their emotional reactions to these percep-
tions that would then inform their actions. Robyn also
made clear in the methodology chapter that her
research was concerned primarily with finding the
meaning and emotions that each participant attached
to their psychological contract violation and their reac-
tions, rather than changing what happened in organi-
sations. This she equated with the regulatory
perspective.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 141 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
142
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 hierar-
chies 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
is often underpinned by a critical realist philosophy ( Section 4.3 ), 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 its political nature and the conse-
quences that one’s words and deeds have upon others ( Kelemen and Rumens 2008 ).
Working within this paradigm you would be concerned with changing 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
Box 4.4
Focus on
management
research
Engaged research as a new form of
participatory action research:
developing socially useful
knowledge
In their 2017 British Journal of Management article,
Cunliffe and Scaratti aim to reimagine the relevance of
management scholarship by exploring a new form of
participatory action research they call ‘engaged
research’. This form of research, they say, is focused
on being ‘socially useful’ by enabling a dialogue
between conceptual and practical forms of knowl-
edge, and ensuring that an exchange of ideas between
practitioners and academic researchers shapes the
whole research process (they call this ‘dialogical
sensemaking’).
Cunliffe and Scaratti explain that, methodologi-
cally, engaged research means continuously crossing
many traditional research boundaries, involving much
movement between researchers, participants and
many types of data: conversational, artefactual, tex-
tual, visual etc., depending on how various research
participants negotiate, reinterpret and reconfigure
their practical knowledge.
Cunliffe and Scaratti illustrate this with reference to
their research into the problems faced by a non-profit
social work centre in Milan, as the centre attempted to
balance their work of hosting Romanian families with
their commitment to working with other community
groups. This research was problem-oriented (academic
researchers were asked by the social work centre to
help resolve a particular issue) and aimed at producing
social change. Instead of acting as detached ‘experts’,
researchers worked as dialogue facilitators in a series
of meetings held over the course of a year, and involv-
ing themselves, social workers dealing with Romanian
families, and representatives of other community
groups.
Cunliffe and Scaratti argue that their study high-
lights the need for the development of specific
researcher skills and identities relevant to the shift in
researcher roles that engaged research entails.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 142 29/01/2019 14:45
Research paradigms
143
of their work is the idea of incommensurability: the assertion that the four paradigms
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.
Paradigms and research philosophies
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 and understand-
ing their relationships to different research paradigms. This highlights the fact that the
connections between paradigms and research philosophies need to be seen in terms of
philosophical affinity rather than equivocality, and should be 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
etal.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 position
that emphasises experiential and practical learning and knowing, and the active involve-
ment 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 management phi-
losophies in this chapter.
You may wonder how you should deal with this confusion of labels and philosophical
ideas. As you develop as a researcher, you will continue to further your knowledge through
reading and experience, and will begin to form your own opinions 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) whilst
you come to understand the basic principles would be a good starting point. Being more
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 143 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
144
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 (Figure4.1).
Positivism
We introduced the research philosophy of positivism briefly in the 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 human
interpretation or bias (Table4.3). Today there is a ‘bewildering array of positivisms’, some
counting as many as 12 varieties (Crotty 1998).
4.4
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 independ-
ent 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 anal-
ysis of pre-existing struc-
tures and emerging
agency
Range of methods and
data types to fit subject
matter
Table 4.3 Comparison of five research philosophical positions in business and management research
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 144 29/01/2019 14:45
Five management philosophies
145
Ontology
(nature of reality or
being)
Epistemology
(what constitutes
acceptable knowledge)
Axiology
(role of values)
Typical methods
Interpretivism
Complex, rich
Socially constructed
through culture and
language
Multiple meanings,
interpretations, realities
Flux of processes, experi-
ences, practices
Theories and concepts
too simplistic
Focus on narratives, sto-
ries, 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 inves-
tigations, qualitative
methods of analysis, but
a range of data can be
interpreted
Postmodernism
Nominal
Complex, rich
Socially constructed
through power relations
Some meanings, inter-
pretations, realities are
dominated and silenced
by others
Flux of processes, experi-
ences, 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 narratives
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
Pragmatism
Complex, rich, external
‘Reality’ is the practical
consequences of ideas
Flux of processes, experi-
ences and practices
Practical meaning of
knowledge in specific
contexts
‘True’ theories and
knowledge are those
that enable successful
action
Focus on problems, prac-
tices 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 prob-
lem and research
question
Range of methods:
mixed, multiple, qualita-
tive, quantitative, action
research
Emphasis on practical
solutions and outcomes
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 regularities, 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 scien-
tists. You would use these universal rules and laws to help you to explain and predict
behaviour and events in organisations.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 145 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
146
As a positivist researcher you might use existing theory to develop hypotheses. These
statements provide 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 necessarily
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 positiv-
ist research tends to be deductive (see Section 4.5 ). The hypotheses developed, as in
Box 4.5 , would lead to the gathering of facts (rather than impressions) that would provide
the basis for subsequent hypothesis testing.
As a positivist you would also 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
Internet questionnaire ( Chapter 11 ) in which the respondent self-selects from responses
predetermined by the researcher, and in-depth interviews ( Chapter 10 ). In the Internet
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 her or his judgment in what to ask to collect
participant-led accounts that are as rich as possible.
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
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 for
software developers. He studied the literature on
home working and read two dissertations in his uni-
versity’s library that dealt with the same phenomenon,
albeit that they did not relate specifically to software
developers. 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 and telecommunications equipment will
negate the productivity gains from home working.
2 Home workers will require additional support
from on-site employees, for example technicians,
which will negate the productivity gains from
home working.
3 Work displaced to other employees and/or
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.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 146 29/01/2019 14:45
Five management philosophies
147
objectives to pursue and the data to collect. Indeed, it could be argued that the decision
to try to adopt a value-free perspective suggests the existence of a certain value
position!
Positivist researchers are likely to use a highly structured methodology in order to
facilitate replication. Furthermore, the emphasis will be on quantifiable observations that
lend themselves to statistical analysis (Box4.5). However, as you will read in later chap-
ters, 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.
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 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 knowl-
edge of it (Table4.3). Rather, what we experience is ‘the empirical’, in other words sensa-
tions, 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 or rugby 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 what we
see are 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
Section4.5). Direct realism says that the first step is enough. To pursue our cricket (or
rugby) 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
(Figure4.4). 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 underlying causes (the ‘Real’) of a situation (Figure4.4). For example, was a head-
butt a real, intentional foul, or an accident? The umpire cannot experience the real signifi-
cance 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.
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
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 147 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
148
(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 practi-
cal 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 eve-
ryday 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 episte-
mological relativism (Reed 2005), a (mildly) subjectivist approach to knowledge. Epistemo-
logical 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 constructions agreed
on by people rather than existing independently (Bhaskar 2008). This implies that critical
realist notions of causality cannot be reduced to statistical correlations and quantitative
methods, and that a range of methods is acceptable (Reed 2005). A critical realist’s axiologi-
cal position follows from the recognition that our knowledge of reality is a result of social
conditioning (e.g. we know that if the rugby 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 objective as possible.
Interpretivism
Interpretivism, like critical realism, developed as a critique of positivism but from a sub-
jectivist perspective. Interpretivism emphasises that humans are different from physical
phenomena because they create meanings. Interpretivists study these meanings. Interpre-
tivism 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). Interpretivism
argues that human beings and their social worlds cannot be studied in the same way as
Figure 4.4 Critical realist 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
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 148 29/01/2019 14:45
Five management philosophies
149
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 circumstances and at different
times make different meanings, and so create and experience different social realities,
interpretivists are critical of the positivist attempts to discover definite, universal ‘laws’
that apply to everybody. Rather they believe that 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
interpretations 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, for example, that the ways in which the CEO, board directors, manag-
ers, shop assistants, cleaners and customers see and experience a large retail company are
different, so much so that they could arguably be seen as experiencing 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 contained to
different organisational roles. Male or female employees or customers, or those from dif-
ferent ethnic/cultural backgrounds, may experience workplaces, services or events in
different ways. Interpretations of what on the surface appears to be the same thing (such
as a luxury product) 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. Different strands of interpretivism place slightly
different emphasis on how to do this in practice, so phenomenologists, who study exist-
ence, focus on participants’ lived experience; that is, the participants’ recollections and
interpretations of those experiences. Hermeneuticists focus on the study of cultural arte-
facts 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 interpretivists
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 interpretivist phi-
losophy is that the researcher has to adopt 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 business situa-
tions 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.
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
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 149 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
150
the intellectual movement of poststructuralism. As the differences in focus between post-
modernism 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 1991). This does not mean that 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 suppressed 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 1997). This takes the form of ‘deconstructing’ (tak-
ing 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 postmodern research is therefore
to challenge radically 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 phenomena. Fundamental to postmodernist
research is the recognition that power relations between the researcher and research sub-
jects 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 1997), 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 pro-
ponents 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 ontological,
epistemological and axiological assumptions between the different philosophies, if you are
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 150 29/01/2019 14:45
Five management philosophies
151
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 leaning towards the philoso-
phy of pragmatism. However, you need to be sure that you are not treating pragmatism
as an escape route from the challenge of understanding other philosophies!
Pragmatism asserts that concepts are only relevant where they support action ( Kele-
men and Rumens 2008 ). Pragmatism originated in the late-nineteenth–early-twentieth-
century USA in the work of philosophers Charles Pierce, William James and John Dewey.
It strives to reconcile both objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, accurate and
rigorous knowledge and different contextualised experiences ( Table 4.3 ). It does this by
considering theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses and research findings not in an abstract
form, but in terms of the roles they play as instruments of thought and action, and in terms
of their practical consequences in specific contexts ( Table 4.3 ; Box 4.6 ). 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 solu-
tions 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 prag-
matists are more interested in practical outcomes than abstract distinctions, 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 impor-
tant determinant for your research design and strategy would be the research problem that
you would try to address, and your research question. Your research question, in turn,
would be likely to incorporate the pragmatist emphasis of practical outcomes.
If a research problem does not suggest unambiguously that one particular type of
knowledge or method should be adopted, this only confirms the pragmatist’s view that it
is perfectly possible to work with different types of knowledge and methods. This reflects
a recurring theme in this book – that multiple methods are often possible, and possibly
highly appropriate, within one study (see Section 5.3 ). Pragmatists recognise that there
are many different ways of interpreting the world and undertaking research, that no single
point of view can ever give the entire picture and that there may be multiple realities. This
does not mean that pragmatists always use multiple methods; rather they use the method
or methods that enable credible, well-founded, reliable and relevant data to be collected
that advance the research ( Kelemen and Rumens 2008 ).
Box 4.6
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
academics have undertaken relatively little “classical
accounting research” (page 119 ), that is research on
practices of accounting such as financial reporting.
Rutherford notes that one barrier to academics under-
taking 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 research to improve
practice. Resumption of such research would, he con-
siders, contribute positively to future accounting
standard-setting.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 151 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
152
Approaches to theory development
We emphasised that your research project will involve the use of theory (Chapter2). 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 your research is concerned with theory testing or theory building raises
an important question regarding the design of your research project. This is often por-
trayed 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 may concern likely online retail sales of a soon-to-be-
launched new mobile phone. We form three premises:
• that online retailers have been allocated limited stock of the new mobile phones by the
manufacturer;
• that customers’ demand for the phones exceeds supply;
• that online retailers allow customers to pre-order the phones.
If these premises are true we can deduce that the conclusion that online retailers 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 example of the likely
online retail sales of 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 online 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 online retailers are allowing customers to pre-order the phones.
Based on these observations, we have good reason to believe online retailers will have
‘sold’ their entire allocation of the new mobile phone by the release day. However, although
our conclusion is supported by our observations, it is not guaranteed. In the past, manufac-
turers have launched new phones which have had underwhelming sales (Mangalindan 2014).
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
sufficient (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 online retail sales of
a soon-to-be-launched new mobile phone, a surprising fact (conclusion) might be that
online 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 online 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 online retailers have no remaining stock on the
day of release is reasonable.
4.5
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 152 29/01/2019 14:45
Approaches to theory development
153
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 which you subsequently test through additional data collection, you are using
an abductive approach (Table4.4).
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 research approach in the natural sci-
ences, where laws present the basis of explanation, allow the anticipation of phenomena,
predict their occurrence and therefore permit them to be controlled.
Blaikie (2010) lists six 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.
Deduction Induction Abduction
Logic In a deductive infer-
ence, when the prem-
ises are true, the
conclusion must also
be true
In an inductive infer-
ence, known premises
are used to generate
untested conclusions
In an abductive inference, known
premises are used to generate test-
able 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 proposi-
tions or hypotheses
related to an existing
theory
Data collection is used
to explore a phenome-
non, 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 concep-
tual framework and test this
through subsequent data collec-
tion 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
Table 4.4 Deduction, induction and abduction: from reason to research
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 153 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
154
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 you wish to establish
the reasons for 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 that absenteeism is significantly more likely to be
prevalent among younger workers and another which states that absenteeism is significantly
more likely to be prevalent among workers who have been employed by the organisation
for a relatively short period of time. To test this proposition you collect quantitative data.
(This is not to say that a deductive approach may not use qualitative data.) It may be that
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 in which people 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 in a way that enables facts to be measured, often quantitatively. In our example,
one variable that needs 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
reductionism is being followed. This holds that 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 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
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 154 29/01/2019 14:45
Approaches to theory development
155
going on, so as to understand better the nature of the problem. 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 a person
has worked for the retail store. Alternatively, you may discover that there are other com-
peting reasons for absence that may or may not be related to worker age or length of
service. You may end up with the same theory, but your reasoning to produce that theory
is using 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 argue that it is more realistic to
treat workers as humans whose attendance behaviour is a consequence of the way in
which they perceive their work experience, rather than as if they were unthinking research
objects who respond in a mechanistic way to certain circumstances.
Followers of induction would also criticise deduction because of its 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. Alternative theories may be suggested by deduction.
However, these would be within the limits set by the highly structured research
design. In this respect, a significant characteristic of the absenteeism research design
noted above is that of the operationalisation of concepts. As we saw in the absentee-
ism example, age was precisely defined. However, a less structured approach might
reveal alternative explanations of the absenteeism–age relationship denied by a
stricter definition of age.
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).
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.
Abduction
Instead of moving from theory to data (as in deduction) or data to theory (as in induction),
an abductive approach moves back and forth, in effect combining deduction and induction
(Suddaby 2006). This, as we have noted earlier, matches what many business and man-
agement researchers actually do. Abduction begins with the observation of a ‘surprising
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 uncover more ‘surprising
facts’. These surprises, they argue, can occur at any stage in the research process, includ-
ing when writing your project report! Van Maanen et al. also stress that deduction and
induction complement abduction as logics for testing plausible theories.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 155 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
156
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 building up a theory of employee absenteeism in
a retail store. This we would test using evidence provided by existing data and new data
and revise as necessary ( Box 4.7 ).
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 corrupt
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 ).
Box 4.7
Focus on
management
research
Developing empirical knowledge
and theory abductively
In their paper on the working lives of Critical Manage-
ment Studies (CMS), early-career academics, Bristow
and colleagues (2017) analyse 24 semi-structured
interviews with participants working in UK business
schools. The dual purpose of their research is to, firstly,
add to the empirical understanding of their partici-
pants’ predicament as they navigate the tensions
between business schools’ pressures and their personal
CMS commitments, and, secondly, to contribute to the
dialectical theory of organisational resistance and com-
pliance. As this dual purpose required repeated oscil-
lation between theory and data, their approach is
abductive, combining both inductive and deductive
elements.
The authors’ starting point was a surprising fact –
their own and their participants’ experiences of start-
ing their first academic jobs, which were different from
what was described in the existing literature on early
career academics. Bristow et al. believed that the dia-
lectical approach to resistance and compliance could
help to better explore the complexities of the early-
career experiences, so they used the theory to design
broad interview questions. However, they also wanted
to capture their participants’ own understandings of
themselves as resisters and compliers, so in the inter-
views the pre-prepared questions were used as a loose
guide rather than a rigid structure, and interviewees
were encouraged to talk at length about each subject.
In this way, themes and issues were enabled to emerge
in the interviews inductively.
Following the interviews, the authors collectively
negotiated the inductively derived themes and issues,
and mapped them against the pre-prepared theoreti-
cal framework, changing and modifying the latter in
the process. This enabled them to make a theoretical
as well as an empirical contribution.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 156 29/01/2019 14:45
Approaches to theory development
157
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 techniques by which data are collected
and procedures 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
choice 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 tradi-
tions 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
depends on your research philosophy, the emphasis of the research (Box4.8) 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’). 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 generat-
ing data and analysing and reflecting upon what theoretical themes the data are suggest-
ing. 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 abductive
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 collection
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, have to 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 fear that no useful data patterns
and theory will emerge. Finally, there is the question of audience. In our experience, most
managers are familiar with deduction and much more likely to put faith in the conclusions
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 157 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
158
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.
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. Whilst researchers often refine
their research questions as the research progresses, it is important that your preferences
do not lead to you changing completely the essence of the research question, if only
because you only have a limited amount of time to complete your research project. Ensur-
ing that the essence of the research question 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.
Box 4.8
Focus on student
research
Deductive, inductive and abductive
research
Sadie decided to conduct a research project on vio-
lence at work and its effects on the stress levels of
staff. She considered 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 reason-
ing, she would have to:
1 start with the hypothesis that staff working
directly with the public are more likely to experi-
ence 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 vio-
lence, 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 some 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 prob-
lems they experienced and their views about the pos-
sible causes of the violence.
If she adopted an abductive approach, she might
have developed a conceptual model on the basis of her
interview. She might then have used this model to
develop a series of hypotheses and designed a ques-
tionnaire to collect data 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
were used at different stages). No approach should be
thought of as better than the others. They are better
at different things. It depends where her research
emphasis lies.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 158 29/01/2019 14:45
159
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 man-
agement 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 com-
municate knowledge to fellow human beings. Epistemological assumptions you make deter-
mines 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 incorpo-
rates 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 the
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
ontology (which holds that social phenomena are created through the language, percep-
tions 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 radical
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 underlying
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.
4.6
Summary
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 159 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
160
• 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. Prag-
matists 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, data are used to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and explain pat-
terns, to generate a new or modify an existing theory which is subsequently tested, often
through additional data collection.
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
refereed 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 Section4.2 to help you develop a clear justification
for your answer.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 160 29/01/2019 14:45
161
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 reflexive tool that has been designed by
Bristow and Saunders to help you explore your
research philosophy. It is just a starting point for ena-
bling you to ask yourself more refined questions
about how you see research. It will not provide you
with a definitive answer to the question ‘What is my
research philosophy?’ Rather it will give you an indica-
tion as to where your views are similar to and differ-
ent from those of five major philosophical traditions
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 five
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 philosophy’s
position in relation to that particular aspect. By indicat-
ing your agreement or disagreement with each state-
ment you can discover your similarities and differences
with different aspects of each research philosophy.
Following the completion of HARP, refer to the scoring
key to calculate your score and interpret your answer.
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)
1 Organisations are real, just like physical objects. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
2 Events in organisations are caused by deeper, underlying mechanisms. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
3 The 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
HARP and all materials relating to HARP are copyright © 2014 A. Bristow and M.N.K. Saunders
Review and discussion questions
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 161 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
162
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 knowledge and what constitutes acceptable knowledge (epistemology)
6 Organisational research should provide scientific, objective,
accurate and valid explanations of how the organisational world
really works.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
7 Theories and concepts never offer completely certain knowledge,
but researchers can use rational thought to decide which theories
and concepts are better than others.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
8 Concepts and theories are too simplistic to capture the full richness
of the world. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
9 What 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Progressing your research project (continued)
Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP)
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 162 29/01/2019 14:45
163
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 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Now please complete the scoring key below.
Your answer scores
Give yourself the points as indicated below for each
answer within each philosophical tradition. The dif-
ferent philosophies are represented by specific ques-
tions in the HARP as indicated below. Fill each
philosophy table with your answer scores, then total
up the numbers for each philosophy. (For your refer-
ence, in the tables below, the letters in brackets indi-
cate 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
Review and discussion questions
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 163 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
164
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
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 first of what will almost certainly be
many philosophical reflections, 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?
Progressing your research project (continued)
Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP)
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 164 29/01/2019 14:45
165
References
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research
(2nd edn). London: Sage.
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).
Blaikie, N. (2010) Designing Social Research (2nd edn). Cambridge: Polity.
Bristow, A., Robinson, S.K. and Ratle, O. (2017) ‘Being an Early-Career CMS Academic in the Context
of Insecurity and “Excellence’’: The Dialectics of Resistance and Compliance’, Organization Studies,
Vol 38(9), pp. 1185–1207.
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. (1997) Postmodern Management Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
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
University Press, pp. 113–40.
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.
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(1),
pp. 29–44.
De Cock, C. and Land, C. (2006) ‘Organization/Literature: Exploring the seam’, Organization Studies,
Vol. 27, pp. 517–35.
Derrida J. (2016) Of Grammatology (40th Anniversary Edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press (originally published 1976).
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. (1991) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. London: Penguin Books.
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 pro-
fessionals: Wounded, fragmented and flexible’, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 27, pp. 56–72.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in N. K. Denzin &
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.
References
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 165 29/01/2019 14:45
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
166
Haynes, K. (2012) ‘Reflexivity in qualitative research’, in C. Cassell and B. Lee (eds) Challenges and
Controversies in Management Research. New York: 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, Issue 3,
pp. 274–294.
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–iv.
Kelemen, M. and Rumens, N. (2008) An Introduction to Critical Management Research. London:
Sage.
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.
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.
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. 108–150.
Mangalindan, J.P. (2014) ‘Why Amazon’s fire phone failed’, Fortune. Available at http://fortune.
com/2014/09/29/why-amazons-fire-phone-failed [Accessed 24 January 2018].
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.
Parker, M. (2002) Against Management. Cambridge: Polity Press.
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. 118–135.
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.
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.
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 166 29/01/2019 14:45
167
Case 4: In search of a research philosophy
Further reading
Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015) InterViews (3rd edn). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Chapter3 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 which 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 theoretical perspectives not covered in this chapter, including postmodernism, feminism
and queer theory.
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.
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (2003) The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical
Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This book has in-depth chapters on positivism, inter-
pretivism and postmodernism. It also has a chapter about pluralism in the field of management.
Case 4
In search of a research philosophy
After working for a decade in industry,
returning to university to study for a Mas-
ters degree was not as easy as Janet had
anticipated. Whilst she was being awarded
good marks on the assignments for a num-
ber of her taught Modules, she found the
research methods module quite challeng-
ing. Furthermore, she felt daunted at the
prospect of completing the module assign-
ment, which required her, as part of her
research proposal, to outline and justify her
research philosophy.
To begin with, Janet reread the research
philosophy chapter in her module text-
book. At the beginning of the module, she
had found the descriptions of such terms as ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodol-
ogy, confusing and difficult to understand. Now, after rereading the chapter, attending a semi-
nar with her lecturer and discussing the concepts with other students in the coffee bar, she felt
she was slowly making sense of such terms in her own mind.
167
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 167 29/01/2019 14:45
168
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
However, despite this, Janet was still not clear as to how she might write about her research
philosophy. The more Janet read around the subject and reflected on both the characteristics
of different research philosophies discussed within the textbooks and her own values and
beliefs, the more confused and frustrated she became. It seemed to Janet that each of the
research philosophies outlined in the research methods textbooks had aspects that matched
her values and how she viewed research and yet also had aspects with which she disagreed.
The possibility of outlining and justifying her research philosophy seemed to be receding rather
than becoming more obvious.
About this time Janet was encouraged by her lecturer to complete the HARP (Heightening
Awareness of Research Philosophy) quiz to help her reflect on her research assumptions and
research philosophy (you can find a copy in the section ‘Progressing your research project’
towards the end of Chapter4). Whilst she was at first sceptical, Janet was intrigued and com-
pleted the quiz, which asked her to think about her assumptions and beliefs. Working out her
scores, she found that she scored 10 for pragmatism, 9 for critical realism, 6 for positivism, 5
for postmodernism and 4 for interpretivism. She plotted these on a radar graph (FigureC4.1).
Janet was surprised at the results. For example, she had expected a higher score for positiv-
ism and was similarly amazed that her score for postmodernism and interpretivism were higher
than zero. She was further surprised and to an extent confused that she did not have a clear
philosophical preference, having high scores for both pragmatism and critical realism. This puz-
zled Janet. Having gained some awareness of the concept of research philosophies building on
particular assumptions and beliefs, she questioned the possibility of holding more than one
Figure C4.1 Radar Graph of HARP Scores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Positivism
Critical realis
m
InterpretivismPostmodernism
P
ragmatism
0
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 168 29/01/2019 14:45
169
philosophical position at the same time. She decided to ask her lecturer whether it might be
considered possible to have multiple philosophical research positions.
As she contemplated these complex and challenging issues, Janet felt that she was becom-
ing increasingly aware of the impact of her own research philosophy on her research design.
Moreover, Janet felt that she was beginning to understand that not only should her research
design and data collection and analysis methods be consistent with her research philosophy,
but also that the method or methods used by researchers are indicative of their research phi-
losophy. Janet was enthused and encouraged as she now recognized why her lecturer had
emphasised the need to identify her own research philosophy.
Janet realised that she still had a lot of work to do to ensure the research design for her
project was consistent with her research philosophy. However, she now felt more confident of
her ability to undertake this task and that she had taken a major step forward in her long
research journey. Having been prompted to reflect on her own values, beliefs and assumptions –
and the HARP quiz, Janet felt that she had begun to gain some awareness of how a research-
er’s perspective influences their choice of research topic and research question, their approach
to theory development, methodological choice, data collection and analysis methods, as well
as research outcomes (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009; Mir et al., 2016). Moreover, Janet’s
increasing awareness of her own values and research philosophy, and her ability to be reflex-
ive, meant she felt more empowered to assess other researchers’ work and their claimed con-
tributions to knowledge (Cunliffe, 2003; Mir et al. 2016).
Later, over coffee, Janet had a thought-provoking discussion about research philosophies
with her friend Brad, a doctoral research student. This, she felt, contributed significantly
toward her developing capacity for reflexivity. After some debate about how certain research
methods tended to be associated with particular research philosophies (Westwood and Clegg,
2003; Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009; Mir et al., 2016), she began to wonder whether the way
in which HARP had been framed, designed and intended to be used represented a particular
philosophical perspective. Enthused and intrigued, Janet decided to undertake further reading
and discuss her ideas with Brad. She recognised that although she had only just begun to
understand her own assumptions and research philosophy, she could now complete her
research proposal.
References
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research
(2nd edn.). London: SAGE.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003) ‘Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities’,
Human Relations, 56 (8): 983–1003.
Mir, R., H. Willmott, H. and Greenwood, M. (Eds.) (2016) The Routledge Companion to Philosophy in
Organization Studies. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds.) (2003) Debating Organizations: Point-Counterpoint in Organiza-
tion Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Questions
1 If you have not done so already, complete HARP for yourself. Use the questions at the end of
the Chapter4’s ‘Progressing your research project’ to reflect on your research philosophy.
Discuss your answers with a colleague.
2 Why was it important for Janet to identify her research assumptions? Why is it important for
you to reflect on your own assumptions?
3 Imagine you are Janet’s tutor and answer her question, ‘Is it possible to have more than one
philosophical position?’
Case 4: In search of a research philosophy
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 169 29/01/2019 14:45
170
Chapter 4 Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development
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
Case study extension question:
4 To what extent do you consider the way HARP is framed and designed and is intended to be
used represents a particular philosophical perspective? Give reasons for your answer.
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
formal 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.Learning outcomes
Additional case studies relating to material covered in this chapter are available via
this book’s companion website: www.pearsoned.co.uk/saunders.
They are:
• Marketing music products alongside emerging digital music channels.
• Consultancy research for a not-for-profit organisation.
• Organisational learning in an English regional theatre.
• Chinese tourists and their duty-free shopping in Guam.
W
E
B
CONFIDENTIAL: Uncorrected WIP proof, NOT for circulation or distribution. © Pearson Education.
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 170 29/01/2019 14:45
M04 Research Methods for Business 08787.indd 171 29/01/2019 14:45
