Research Philosophy Worldviews in Business and Management

Introduction

Ontology, epistemology, and axiology are at the foundation of research philosophy. Ontology is the study of the nature of being. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or how one comes to know things. Axiology is the study of the nature of values. Being, knowledge, and values are intimately connected in business research because they set the stage for how one will ultimately collect and analyze data. They are what help to shape the worldview of the researcher.

Worldviews of research philosophy fall into one of four main categories: positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and realism. Each research philosophy carries its own set of underlying ideas and propositions, along with its own strengths and weaknesses. This paper describes those underlying ideas, strengths, and weaknesses, and examines how worldviews of research have influenced business and organizational research in the past. It also discusses which worldview tends to dominate in the area of business research.

Underlying Ideas and Propositions

The term "research philosophy" refers simply to the "system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge" (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 124). It is important to consider the underlying ideas and propositions of one's research philosophy because, by engaging in research, one creates new knowledge—and one's assumptions and beliefs about how to do that can shape the outcomes of the research. For instance, one's values and views on how one knows reality can determine the methods used in research, which in turn determine the type of data collected and how that data is analyzed. That methodology can then affect the degree to which, and the type of, knowledge created in the final result.

It is not expected that any researcher sets out to conduct research without a set of assumptions. On the contrary, by identifying and defining one's assumptions, the researcher establishes a base of credibility for his or her own research (Saunders et al., 2009). Understanding one's own beliefs, assumptions, and values, however, depends upon the skill of reflexivity (Pillow, 2003). Reflexivity is what enables one to identify and assess the underlying ideas and propositions shaping one's worldview and how they might affect one's research. When it comes to business and management research, there are many underlying ideas and propositions that clash with one another, leading researchers to adopt philosophies that drastically alter the derivation of new knowledge in the field.

Two perspectives on business management that have emerged over the years are the pluralist and the unificationist perspectives. The pluralist worldview holds that diverse views are helpful to the field; unificationists hold that fragmentation of views prevents the field from advancing in a meaningful and coherently scientific manner (Saunders et al., 2009). For the sake of understanding historical impact, a pluralist perspective is often adopted.

Views on the nature of reality, how knowledge is derived, and what values are important also play a significant role in shaping research philosophies. For instance, early researchers in business management assumed that resistance to change was an obstacle to be eliminated; later researchers adopted a different ontological position and viewed resistance to change within an organization as inherently organic—something to be harnessed in order to rethink change management modeling, rather than something to be eliminated altogether (Saunders et al., 2009; Kotter, 2012).

Views on the nature of knowledge are equally important. Facts, statistics, interpretations, stories, direct experience—all of these contribute to knowledge. Yet some research philosophers lean toward a particular type of evidence. For instance, positivists favor statistical data and quantitative research because these offer objective and verifiable conclusions. However, this also means that the knowledge produced will be more limited and narrower than the complex, rich knowledge that can be obtained through qualitative research. Thus, underlying one's worldview is a sense of how one conceives of knowledge and what types of knowledge one seeks.

Views on values also shape worldview. A researcher who wants to interview participants signals that he or she values personal communication and interaction more highly than quantitative data obtained impersonally through a survey. Another researcher might value empirical research, which will incline him or her to adopt a quantitative approach.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Research Philosophy

The strengths of positivism are that it focuses on producing objective, verifiable results. It typically begins with a hypothesis and proceeds with an experiment designed to obtain enough data that the hypothesis may be accepted or rejected. This philosophy usually leads to studies that can be duplicated by following the methodology. For companies seeking verifiable, statistical data, positivism represents a suitable research philosophy. Its main weakness is that it does not support exploratory research; if one does not already have a hypothesis in mind, it is unlikely to be a useful starting point. It is also narrow in its conception and does not support a complex, rich narrative that can explain the various nuances of an organization. The pros of this philosophy are that it supports objectivity and statistical analysis. The cons are that it does not support in-depth analysis or interpretive approaches. Thus, for a researcher seeking simply to understand or explore an issue in an organization, positivism offers little (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of interpretivism are that it allows the researcher to adopt an exploratory approach. There is no need to begin with a hypothesis; in many cases, the hypothesis is constructed at the end of the research, after data have been assembled and analyzed. Interpretivism can lead to knowledge that generates hypotheses to be tested later. The weakness of interpretivism is that it is mainly subjective and relies on the researcher's interpretations; it is more difficult to duplicate and verify the study because sample sizes are usually smaller and unique. It is also not necessarily true that findings from an interpretivist approach can be applied generally across an industry. The pros of this philosophy are that it helps researchers who want to explore an issue or problem without a ready-made hypothesis. The cons are that it does not always offer the kind of objective knowledge that an organization or business might want when making decisions (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of realism are that it provides a middle way between positivism and interpretivism. It can draw on archival research and present a more complicated view of an issue while simultaneously providing objective data that can support statistical analysis. This philosophy posits that facts are social constructions and that bias shaped by worldview and cultural experience influences how knowledge is perceived. It adopts a relativistic epistemological approach to knowledge and therefore embraces a wide range of research methodologies for those interested in studying systems. The weakness of realism is that it often requires extensive, time-consuming research in order to present a full and realistic picture of what is happening in an organization. The pros are that realism bridges objective and subjective experiences to create a fuller sense of an organization's complexity. The cons are that its lack of simplicity can frustrate, rather than assist, decision-making when adopting a big-picture perspective (Saunders et al., 2009).

The strengths of pragmatism are that, like realism, it supports a mixed-methods approach to research and can combine quantitative with qualitative analysis. It focuses on providing knowledge that can be used in the real world and defines knowledge as that which leads to successful outcomes. Its focus is not so much on why something occurs but on how a problem can be fixed (Saunders et al., 2009). It thus supports a problem-solving approach to research. Its main weakness is its inability to explain why a solution works in some cases but not in others. It supports value-driven research and depends upon the reflexivity of the researcher; if this quality is lacking, pragmatism may not supply an adequate worldview. The pros of this philosophy are that it supports identifying a research problem and posing a research question. The cons are that it focuses only on practical applications of knowledge and not on developing a theoretical understanding of universals.

Conclusion

Worldviews of research philosophy are important when conducting research because they shape not only how the research is conducted but also why it is conducted. A worldview that focuses on exploration and interpersonal exchanges will lead a researcher to value exploratory research using qualitative designs. A worldview that favors objective knowledge—albeit within limited windows—will favor quantitative analysis. Worldviews can be combined to allow for a fuller understanding of business research, but there is no guarantee that conflicts will not arise. With a worldview can come personal bias and assumptions that, if left unchecked, might restrict one's willingness to engage with alternative approaches.

References

Cacamis, M. E., & El Asmar, M. (2014). Improving project performance through partnering and emotional intelligence. Practice Periodical on Structural Design & Construction, 19(1), 50–56.

DHS. (2018). AI: Using standards to mitigate risks. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2018_AEP_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.

Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE.

Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.

Sanders, T. (2006). The likeability factor. Three Rivers Press.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and approaches. Research Methods for Business Students, 4(1), 106–135.

Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Spencer, H. (1896). The study of sociology. Appleton.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Taylor, F. W. (1914). Scientific management: Reply from Mr. F. W. Taylor. The Sociological Review, 7(3), 266–269.