The restrictive meaning of methodology and cause in management research: a conceptual critique

AIM The aim of this paper is to question and challenge two separate but related misunderstandings and so misuses of concepts central to the conduct of research. The argued misunderstandings and misuses apply to research in... [ view full abstract ]

AIM

The aim of this paper is to question and challenge two separate but related misunderstandings and so misuses of concepts central to the conduct of research. The argued misunderstandings and misuses apply to research in any field but have become accepted in management and organisation research to the extent that they are now part of the established and conventional view of what constitutes acceptable research in those disciplines. It will be argued that this status of convention has detrimental impact on not just what and how management research is conducted but also, as a consequence of that, on what is published. Both of these have implications for and related impact on two additional factors. First, academic careers, and in particular early career researchers when those at that stage are under additional pressures (Mills, Trehan and Stewart, 2014). Second, on connections between research and practice, again at a time when the research practice gap is argued to be in need of closing (Currie, Davies and Ferlie, 2016).

DESIGN

The paper is essentially a conceptual analysis of the meaning attributed to two terms central to the conduct of management research. As such, there is no empirical research or data, apart from what might be described as documentary analysis of leading textbooks on conduct of research in business and management, and organisation studies; e.g. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016); Bryman and Bell (2015). Relatedly, there are no research questions, except perhaps the following:

 -what alternative meanings could be attached to the concepts of ‘cause’ and of ‘methodology’ in management research?

-what benefits might arise from applying these alternative meanings?

The approach then is a critique of what have become ‘taken for granted’ meanings of the terms; a critical analysis of the implications of perpetuation of the meanings for conduct of research projects in management and for academic careers; provision of some alternative meanings of the terms; and speculation (as that is all that is possible at this stage) of the potential benefits of accepting the alternative meanings.  

FINDINGS

As indicated, the two terms of interest are ‘cause’ and ‘methodology’. It will be argued that the latter is misapplied by associating it with two related terms, and at two levels. The associated terms are quantitative and qualitative, and the two levels are research design and research method. In other words, the paper will argue that the terms quantitative or qualitative research design, and the terms quantitative or qualitative research method are worse than meaningless. They are meaningless because they make no sense; they are in fact nonsense. They are worse than meaningless because they lead researchers to avoid designs and methods which could be helpful in addressing their research questions; or indeed in deciding and formulating their research questions in the first place.

It will be further argued that the acceptance of the terms and their status as conventions, lead researchers to have to spend wasted time on justifying their designs and use of methods. At a more macro level, they have also diverted researchers into inventing and justifying alternative approaches and designs such as ‘mixed methods’. The paper will suggest that many, if not most, questions that will be of interest and value in management research would benefit from adopting designs that currently have to be justified by reference to the arguments supporting the separate, perhaps even special case, of mixed methods design. The position adopted and argued in the paper will be that so called mixed methods is a perfectly natural and obvious design for research questions in business and management projects.

The second term of interest; that of ‘cause’; currently has similar detrimental effects on conduct of research in management and organisation studies. Its sister term ‘causal analysis’ is, within the conventions now established in the leading textbooks, associated with what that convention calls quantitative design, or quantitative methodology. This association restricts seeking understanding of causal relationships to studies applying a positivist philosophy of research, and designs which apply so called quantitative methods. In doing so, the implication is that the other major design of qualitative research, and associated qualitative methods, has no interest in causal relationships. This leads in turn to researchers working in that tradition to utilise alternative word and concepts such as ‘connections’ and ‘relationships’ (though not statistical or causal) in order to avoid the forbidden and ‘tainted’ term causal. This in turn, as will be argued, is associated with the postmodern turn in management and organisation studies, in part driven by the rejection of grand narratives such as those offered by Keynes in economics, Marx in sociology and Freud in psychology. The argument will be made that rejection of grand narratives rests on a particular and restricted understanding of causal relationships; one which is, logically, not the only one available to researching and understanding causal relationships in social action.

Alternative meanings of methodology as it relates to research design and selection and application of research methods, will be offered in the paper. So too will alternative conceptualisations of causal relationships. Both of these will be argued to open up broader, wider and more useful possibilities for formulation of research questions and for design of research projects.

LIMITATIONS

As a conceptual paper, there is a lack of empirical data. There is also a limited number and range of examples of projects applying the alternative meanings; i.e. those of the author.

IMPLICATIONS

As indicated, implications for research design will be fully identified and discussed. So too will the implications for early career researchers who, it will be argued, are being educated and socialised into a restricted view and understanding of what constitutes appropriate and rigorous research in business, management and organisation studies. These implications have both practical and social significance; e.g. for advancing the practice of management and for academic careers.  

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the author’s knowledge, the critique applied in the paper has not been made other than by the author; in teaching research methods to doctoral students for example. It is the case that the alternative meanings argued to be more beneficial are original to the author. The value of the critique, and the alternative conceptualisations of the terms, is threefold. First, they will stimulate debate on what constitutes appropriate research topics, research questions and research designs in management research. Second, that debate and, depending on their acceptance, the alternative meanings will open up possibilities for new foci and for ways of doing research. Third, this in turn may have beneficial impact on academic careers, especially of early career researchers.

REFERENCES

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2015), Business Research Methods (4th edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Currie, G., Davies, J., and Ferlie, E. (2016). A call for university-based business schools to "lower their walls" collaborating with other academic departments in pursuit of social value. Academy Of Management Learning and Education, 15, 742-755.

Mills, S., Trehan, K. & Stewart, J., (2014). Academics in Pursuit of the Part-time Doctorate: Pressures and Support issues Associated with the Career Development of Business and Management Academics. Human Resource Development International, 17(4), 438–458.

Saunders MNK, Lewis P and Thornhill A (2016) Research Methods for Business Students (7^th edition), Harlow:  Pearson Education