Search results

We propose that management scholars can improve their research by triangulating alternative philosophies of science to gain a richer and more holistic understanding of complex managerial problems. We illustrate the proposition by triangulating with three scientific philosophies – positivism, postmodernism, and critical realism – to design a study in response to a debate in the sociology of professions. After summarizing and applying positivism, postmodernism, and critical realism to reveal their differing research approaches, we discuss how to deal with the convergent and divergent information often produced by triangulating philosophies of science. Although common views of triangulation emphasize reliability by focusing on convergent information from different methods, we emphasize validity by discussing how divergent information from different methods reveal important aspects and values of a complex phenomenon that often go unrecognized without triangulation.

The purpose of this short reflection is to allow for an informed use of both phenomenography and phenomenology in information studies and cognate fields.

The paper apprises uses of phenomenography found particularly in accounts of information literacy commonly describing phenomenography as distinct from phenomenology.

Both phenomenography and phenomenology continue to hold much credence in methods applied across scores of academic fields, with information studies being among those in the vanguard. Claims displaying differences of phenomenography from phenomenology are misleading and incomplete descriptions of phenomenology.

The paper presents newer materials on the origins of phenomenography and phenomenology to advocate for tighter relationships between and clearer applications of these methods in information studies and beyond.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that have faced and do now face marketing scholars through the lens of one scholar who entered the field in early 1970s and who continues to observe the developments in the world and in the disciplines of marketing and consumer research.

Historical journey through the trials and tribulations of one scholar as well as the developments in marketing and consumer research as experienced from this scholar’s point of view. A story of how this one scholar’s ideas and impressions grew out of his experiences.

Challenges against introduction of new perspectives and ideas have existed in the disciplines of marketing and consumer research, and they continue to exist.

This is only a personal history of experiences one scholar has had in the field.

For marketing and consumer research disciplines to positively contribute to humanity’s growth and search for meaning, how scholars in the field think of their disciplines, their relationship to ideologies and the purposes for their existence as scholars may need a radical change.

Considering the challenges faced and possibility of alternative modes of scholarship and knowledge generation, as well as the recognition of the key positional advantage of marketing and consumer research scholars in contemporary culture for understanding the human condition, will help humanity’s quest for a world with greater peacefulness and harmony.

The paper presents a perspective of disciplinary history not often heard in the mainstream media of the two disciplines.

How can action research be made more rigorous? We discuss in this paper action research, positivism and some major criticisms of action research by positivists. We then examine issues relating the conduct of IS research in organisations through multiple iterations in the action research cycle proposed by Susman and Evered. We argue that the progress through iterations allows the researcher to gradually broaden the research scope and in consequence add generality to the research findings. A brief illustrative case is provided with a study on groupware introduction in a large civil engineering company. In the light of this illustrative case we contend that effective application of the iterative approach to action research has the potential to bring research rigour up closer to standards acceptable by positivists and yet preserve the elements that characterise action research as such.

A multidimensional understanding of human nature based on biology can provide a very useful framework of analysis and bring some understanding and coherence to the very fragmented perspectives within moral, political, and legal philosophy. A useful four-part framework of analysis can be based on the evolution of the brain as described by Paul MacLean (1973, 1990) and Sir John Eccles (1989). A similar pattern of development of our mental and moral capacities through experience in childhood was also described by Jean Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1981). This multidimensional understanding of human nature considers the individual, social, rational, and metaphysical perspectives. Because this four-part multidimensional understanding of human nature is based on a naturalized epistemology related to the development of our mental capacities in both evolution and through experience, this pattern can be seen across a wide variety of disciplines. Medical ethics, US constitutional democracy, and legal philosophy will be used as examples of the usefulness of this multidimensional understanding of human nature.

Organizational researchers live in two worlds. The first demands and rewards speculations about how to improve performance. The second demands and rewards adherence to rigorous standards of scholarship (March & Sutton, 1997, p. 698).Those of us who study organizations and are professors of management work on the front lines, so to speak, where the beliefs we have about how to improve managerial performance get passed directly on to practitioners. The question is, What right do we have to put our beliefs in a privileged position? Beliefs, by definition, are supposed to be true. According to Webster’s (1996) a belief is a conviction about the truth of some statement and/or reality of some phenomenon, especially when based on examination of evidence. Are all of our lectures based on consensually agreed upon evidentiary standards? What are these standards and who should maintain them?

In his preface to the English edition of K&HI, Habermas described a main trajectory of his book as an exercise “to recover the forgotten experience of reflection,” all the more difficult and crucial because of the stronghold that positivism had achieved. “That we disavow reflection is positivism” (p. vii). For some of us, the demonstrated message that followed this announcement was a signal to purgation; for, we had often heard the call to positivism's table but had rarely felt that its offering equated with dining well. For some of us, reflection was “a concept in philosophy” and, as more than one advisor had assured us, pre-scientific. For some of us, lacking any but a grammar school understanding of Narcissus, reflection had been only the superficiality of mirroring. Habermas’ exercise showed that it was much more, even as we sometimes struggled to find our way through his negotiations of the unfamiliar depth.

This study demonstrates how individual paradigms implicate the questions asked, methods used and results drawn in association with a common object of study in human information behavior (HIB) research – the relationship between uncertainty and decision-making.

The author uses textual case studies to examine uncertainty and decision-making through the framework of four paradigms used in HIB research: positivism, cognitivism, collectivism and constructionism and suggests deconstructionism as a paradigm which raises new questions around this topic.

Positivistic approaches to uncertainty are often systems oriented; cognitive approaches are often user-oriented; collectivist approaches are intersubjective; and constructionist approaches blend a subjective and intersubjective research orientation. Deconstructionism raises new questions around ethics and responsibility in relation to decision-making, and the author therefore situates it as a new paradigmatic approach for this topic in HIB research.

Despite the presence of research aimed at recognizing and defining paradigms in HIB research, a comparative micro-examination of how individual paradigms implicate a specific research topic has yet to be conducted. Each paradigm uniquely shapes the ways in which uncertainty and decision-making are characterized, but the four central ones examined here have thus far left out questions of ethics and responsibility as being core elements of decision-making as tied to uncertainty. Therefore, this paper introduces deconstructionism as a paradigm new to HIB uncertainty research, arguing that it provides an important and novel complication of existent research questions and approaches.

This paper aims to explore the interplay between methods and methodologies in the field of international relations (IR) over the 100 years of its lifetime reflecting on the relationship between the rise of new research methods and the rise of new methodologies.

This paper looks in retrospect into the field’s great debates using a historiography approach. It maps chronologically the interplay of methods and methodology throughout the stages of the development of the study of IR.

This paper argues that inspite of narratives of triumph being common in the field, the coexistence of competing research methods and methodologies is the defining feature of the field. All theories, all methods and all methodologies have undergone a process of criticism, self-criticism and change. New methodologies have not necessarily accompanied the rise of new research methods in the field.

Drawing a map of the field’s methodologies and methods reveals necessarily its dynamism and its plurality. An honest map of the field is one that highlights not only theoretical differences but also ontological, epistemological and methodological differences embedded in the field’s debates.