Philosophical assumptions typically associated with qualitative research

Philosophical assumptions typically associated with qualitative research

Introduction

“60 per cent of management problems are due to faulty communication”

Peter Drucker (cited in Quirke, 2008, p14)

This is a shocking fact. If only managers could communicate more effectively,

organisations would immediately be transformed, presumably with very significant results

that benefit employees, the organisation and the wider economy. But how factual or true

is this? Is it actually possible to say that a specific number of problems are generally

caused by faulty communication? And what do we mean by “faulty communication?” In

this paper, questions such as these are unpicked, using an epistemological background

that leads on to a discussion of the use a qualitative approach to management research.

At the outset, is worth noting that an investigation into philosophical assumptions for

research can be likened to entering a semantic minefield. Terms are fluid, for example,

social constructionist/interpretivist and realist/relativist. They are sometimes used

interchangeably and positions can therefore be difficult to pin down (Bryman and Bell,

2007, p16). This is exacerbated by inconsistencies. As Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and

Jackson observe (2008, p57), “even self-confessed extremists do not hold consistently to

one position or the other.” Safety in an epistemological position, such as positivism, is

precarious, with vigorous debate and argument from different paradigms that can

sometimes “take the form of denigrating the other point of view, or of completely ignoring

its existence” (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008, p56).

1 | P a g eCopyright Kevin Ruck

Epistemological underpinnings of positivist, realist and interpretivist paradigms

The epistemological approach to research reflects a researcher’s beliefs or “worldview”

(Cresswell, 2009, p6) though this may not always be explicit (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe

and Jackson, 2008, p63). According to Crotty (1998, p4), epistemology drives research;

it is the starting point that leads on to the theoretical perspective, which leads to the

methodology and then the methods used. Research methods are consequently

“characteristic” of the epistemological position (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson,

2008, p62). This is most evident in the assertion that “there is a fundamental difference

between the subject matter of the natural sciences and the social sciences and that an

epistemology is required that will reflect and capitalize upon that difference” (Bryman and

Bell, 2007, p20). It is this thinking that has led to the positivist/interpretivist and

quantitative/qualitative divide.

The positivist position is associated with natural science based upon discovery,

hypotheses, experiments, measurement, verification/falsification, and causality

(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008, p63). In effect, the philosophical

assumption is that there is a social reality that is external and objective and “data,

evidence, and rational considerations shape knowledge” (Cresswell, 2009, p7). This is

associated primarily with a quantitative research methodology. However, data,

evidence, and rational considerations are also intrinsic to a qualitative methodology,

albeit from a more reflective than objective perspective. The term “rational” here is

loaded, as it may be used to imply more useful, “scientific” and therefore credible

thinking. To investigate this point more fully, it is informative to briefly explore the

philosophy of knowledge itself.

Audi (2003) sets out the primary sources of knowledge as perception, memory,

consciousness, reason and testimony. Taking perception as one facet, seeing, however,

is not always believing, as Audi highlights (2003, p22), “there is reason to doubt that

simple perceiving must produce any belief at all.” Clearly some “seeing” can and does


inform belief (for example, that grass is green), however, other instances of seeing may

not. As Audi points out (2003, p23), “not everything we see……demands or even evokes

a cognitive response; one entailing belief formation.” This principle of knowledge

generation has important consequences for positivism when applied to management

research as a social science. Objectivity and laws in a world of human meaning that is

the world of work may be illusionary. The claim that “60 per cent of management

problems are due to faulty communication” needs to be re-evaluated in this context as an

observable, measurable, truthful, analysis of a (or the) cause of management problems.

There is also a more fundamental challenge to positivism, in that natural scientific laws

themselves are not permanently fixed. They can take time to become accepted, usually

through academic and political debate (Latour and Woolgar, 1979) cited in Easterby-

Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2008, p61). A contemporary example of this is the debate

about the science of climate change (Dessler and Parson, 2010).

So, in both natural and social sciences, an alternative relativist (or realist) position allows

for observers to have different viewpoints (unlike positivism); “what counts for the truth

can vary from place to place and from time to time” (Collins, 1983) cited in Easterby-

Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2008, p62). Relativism is linked to exposure, propositions,

triangulation, survey, probability, and correlation (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson,

2008, pp62-3). This sets it apart from positivism, with its allegiance to experimentation

that removes alternative explanations. It does however, remain firm to the position that

social science can be investigated in the same way as natural science and there is an

external reality (Bell and Bryman, 2007, p 18). Relativism, therefore, together with

positivism is grounded in the belief that knowledge is rooted in external reality and this

sets both positions apart from interpretivism.


Interpretivism (or social constructionism in Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008)

is founded on knowledge generated through subjective meaning (Bell and Bryman, 2007,

19), based within social realms, from an internal perspective (Kemmis and McTaggart,

2003, p 336). The difference between a positivist and an interpretivist position is

summarised by Bryman and Bell (2007, pp17-18) as a focus on explanation (in

positivism) in contrast to understanding (in interpretivism). Interpretivism is therefore

underpinned by a belief that the study of people and workplaces requires an entirely

different approach to the study of natural sciences. The philosophical underpinning is

drawn from a range of intellectual thinking, including phenomenology and symbolic

interactionism (Bryman and Bell, 2007, pp18-21). There is no assumption as to any pre-

existing reality and a priority given to the use of language and the creation of meaning.

This results in research methodologies that incorporate meanings, reflexivity,

conversation, sense-making and understanding (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson,

2008, p63).

Potential relationship of paradigms to qualitative research

According to Denzin and Linclon (2003, p 33), qualitative researchers “work within

relativist ontologies (multiple constructed realities)” and “interpretive epistemologies (the

knower and the known interact and shape one another).” Examples of qualitative

research include an analysis of Richard Branson’s leadership through subjective

meaning (Grint, 2000) cited in Bryman and Bell (2007, p19) and managerial behaviour

(Dalton, 1959) cited in Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2008, p68-70). In the latter

case, for example, there were no hypotheses or theories to check; the research was

born purely out of personal confusions for the researcher.


Kemmis and McTaggart, (2003, p 358) suggest that the relationship of paradigms to

research can be summarised in a matrix based on individual/social and

objective/subjective axes, as shown in figure 1.

The individual The social

Objective Quantitative, correlational-

experimental methods.

Psychometric and observational

techniques, tests, interaction

schedules.

Quantitative, correlational-experimental

methods. Observation techniques,

sociometrics, systems analysis, social

ecology.

Subjective Qualitative, interpretive methods.

Clinical analysis, interview,

questionnaire, diaries, journals, self-

report, introspection.

Qualitative, interpretive, historical

methods. Discourse analysis, document

analysis.

Figure 1 Methods and Techniques Characteristic of Different Approaches to the Study of

Practice, Adapted from Kemmis and McTaggart, (2003, p 358).

This suggests that an objective (i.e. positivist) perspective is intrinsically linked to

quantitative not qualitative research. However, at the social level, observation techniques

are also associated with qualitative research. It is the epistemological basis for the

research that differentiates how observation is used, either as the basis for verification of

an external reality or as the basis for understanding the meanings created in the social

situation under study. A subjective (i.e. interpretivist) perspective is intrinsically linked to

qualitative research, with research techniques differing at the individual and social levels.


However, in practice, the distinction between a positivist and interpretivist philosophy

often breaks down when a research design is established (Burrell and Morgan, 1979)

cited in Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2008, p70). This leads some academics to

highlight the potential of mixed methods (Cresswell, 2003). However, as Easterby-Smith,

Thorpe and Jackson, (2008, p71) point out, there are “reservations about mixing

methods when they represent very distinct ontologies” and “there are difficulties when

different kinds of data say contradictory things about the same phenomena”. Others

(Jackson and Carter, 1991) cited in Bryman and Bell (2007, p 26) go further and argue

that a “synthesis between paradigms cannot be achieved.”

Objectivity is often used to support an interpretivist approach to research. Koester (2006,

pp16-20) argues that quantitative corpus linguistic methods can be used effectively

alongside discourse analysis within a qualitative research design. The rationale is that a

quantitative approach is useful to process large collections of texts with literally hundreds

of millions of words. In Dalton’s research into managerial behaviour, highlighted earlier,

quantitative data such as salaries of managers was also included. So, despite the

epistemological differences between positivism and interpretivism, researchers are

employing research methods associated with both paradigms. Indeed, Cresswell (2009,

p203) argues that mixed methods on social and human sciences are gaining popularity

and “there is more insight to be gained from the combination of both qualitative and

quantitative research than either form by itself”. This does not, however, address the

issue of competing epistemologies.

Appropriate circumstances for using a qualitative research design


The question, “what are the appropriate circumstances for using a qualitative research

design?” is directly linked to the epistemological dichotomy between objectivity and

subjectivity as the basis for knowledge. It can, perhaps, be simply argued that positivism

is appropriate for natural science (though that can be contested) and interpretivism is

appropriate for human and social science (though practice suggests that quantitative

methods are very much used in these fields). Kemmis and McTaggart, (2003, p379)

state that, “the competition between these positions has become fruitless; it is clear that

they are incommensurable, and that “Truth” sides with no one view”. Others suggest that

different paradigms can be used to focus on different aspects of research. For example,

Hassard (1991) cited in Bryman and Bell (2003, p27) links a functionalist paradigm with

job motivation and an interpretive paradigm with work routines. It is, though, not clear

why a positivist approach is “right” and an interpretivist approach “wrong” when it comes

to exploring job motivation. Indeed, it could be argued that motivation is more

appropriately investigated from a subjective understanding perspective, given the

multiple factors that contribute to it. Attempts to “pigeon-hole” aspects of management as

being legitimately researched by either a positivist or an interpretivist paradigm are

missing the point. Academics working from an interpretivist epistemology argue that

motivation as a human activity is not an “external reality” that can be tested in an

experimental way. This also applies to the original statement posited at the outset of this

paper that, “60 per cent of management problems are due to faulty communication”. The

assertion, couched as it is in positivist terms, is not a verifiable reality, more one insight

into communication and management problems that is one way of understanding

management alongside many other ways of understanding.

Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, (2008, p 63) argue that social constructivism is a

self-reflexive epistemology and as such this approach is “particularly relevant when


studies are considering power and cultural differences.” Though they acknowledge that

the philosophical positions discussed are “pure” versions, this again falls into the trap

that some aspects of management are more appropriate for an interpretivist

epistemology than others. This raises the philosophical possibility of “impure” versions of

epistemologies and begs the question about which aspects of management can be

treated more as positivist (i.e. have an external reality that can be verified) than others.

By implication, any aspect of management that is not related to power and cultural

difference is, according to this line of thought, less appropriately researched from an

interpretivist paradigm and that is a very large field of inquiry. This narrow view of

aspects of management that are best researched from an interpretivist approach is

perhaps why Daymon and Holloway (2002, p9) reveal that “mainstream research on

managed communication is essentially realist in its tenor, appropriating primarily

quantitative methods of investigation.” If there is one area of management that would

clearly lend itself to an interpretivist epistemology and a qualitative research approach, it

is managed communication, based as it is on language and meaning. Yet, it seems that

a quantitative approach is used. Daymon and Holloway (2002, p9) do, however,

acknowledge that “qualitative studies appear to be gaining a foothold in the

communication, marketing and management literature.” In conclusion, Easterby-Smith,

Thorpe and Jackson (2008, p63) state that, “although the basic beliefs may be quite

incompatible, when one comes down to the actual research methods and techniques

used by researchers the differences are by no means so clear and distinct.” The reasons

for this are unclear and in themselves are worthy of exploration.

Summary

This paper has briefly explored the epistemologies related to positivism, realism and

interpretivism and their relevance to management research. It sets out associations


between positivism and realism and the differences in these positions with interpretivism,

based on objectivity/subjectivity and explanation/understanding dichotomies. The

assumptions that are often typically associated with a qualitative research design

originate from an interpretivist epistemology, focused on meaning established in

language and conversation, where there is a recognition that there are no pre-existing

realities and the observer can never be removed from the sense-making process.

In theory, an interpretivist epistemology and a qualitative research is the appropriate

method of enquiry for all human and social sciences, as they are, as some argue,

uniquely different from natural science. However, academics also argue that specific

topics of management research are more appropriate for a qualitative research design

than others, and in practice quantitative research, or a mixed approach, is often used.

This suggests that the competing epistemologies underpinning positivism and

interpretivisim are either hard and fast, but simply not adhered to when it comes to

conducting research; the seduction of different techniques overrides epistemological

drivers. Or, alternatively, the epistemologies themselves are not mutually exclusive; they

are “impure”, contested, and blur. However, given the very distinct nature of each this is

a difficult philosophical position to maintain.

References

Audi, R (2003) Epistemology, A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of

Knowledge, Second Edition, Abingdon: Routledge

Bryman, A. and Bell, E (2007) Business Research Methods, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford


University Press

Burrell, G., and Morgan, G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Aldershot:

Gower

Collins, H. M. (1983) “An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific

knowledge”. In K.D Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds) Science

Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage

Cresswell, J. W (2009) Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed methods

Approaches, Third Edition, London: Sage

Dalton, M (1959) Men who Manage: Fusion of Feeling and Theory in

Administration, New York: Wiley

Daymon, C and Holloway, I (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and

Marketing Communications, London: Routledge

Denzin, N., K. and Lincoln, Y., S (2003) “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative

Research”. In Denzin and Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative

Enquiry, Second Edition, London: Sage

Dessler, A. E, and Parson, E. A. (2010) The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, 2nd Edition,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Easterby_Smith, M., Thorpe, R.,

and Jackson. P.R.

(2008) Management Research, Third Edition, London: Sage

Grint, K (2000) The Arts of Leadership, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hassard, J (1991) “Ethnomethodology and Organizational Research: An

Introduction”. In J Hassard and D. Pym (eds) The Theory and

Philosophy of Organisations, London: Routledge

Jackson, N., and Carter, P. (1991) In Defence of Paradigm Incommensurability, Organisation

Studies, 12 (1): 109-27.

Kemmis, S and McTaggart, R (2003) “Participatory Action Research”. In Denzin and Lincoln (eds)

Strategies of Qualitative Enquiry, Second Edition, London: Sage

Koester, A (2006) Investigating Workplace Discourse, Abingdon: Routledge

Latour and Woolgar (1979)

Quirke, B. (2008) Making the Connections, Second Edition, Aldershot: Gower


Documents

Philosophical assumptions typically associated with qualitative research