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|Page
Copyright 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

2|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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.

3|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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.

4|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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. Qualitative, interpretive, historical

Clinical analysis, interview, methods. Discourse analysis, document
questionnaire, diaries, journals, self- analysis.
report, introspection.

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)
5|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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

6|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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

7|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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,

8|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
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
9|Page
Copyright Kevin Ruck
 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., (2008) Management Research, Third Edition, London: Sage
and Jackson. P.R.
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

10 | P a g e
Copyright Kevin Ruck