BAM 2014
This paper is from the BAM 2014 Conference Proceedings
About BAM
The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with international peers.
http://www.bam.ac.uk/
The Meaning of Mixed Methods in Organizational Research: A Neo-Empiricist Perspective
Mixed Methods Research is becoming increasingly popular as an approach to conducting research in the field of business and management (Bryman, 2009) yet since its first inception in the 1960s and 70s (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) and its ascent in the social [and management] sciences’ (Bergman, 2011) is still enmeshed with conceptual problems and notions relating to conventions of design and conceptualization of theoretical bases. Whilst some prominent authors (e.g. Creswell & Plano Clark, Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) suggest moving on from the paradigm debates concerning the need to position Mixed Methods Research (MMR) philosophically, this is still considered an important issue (Bryman, 2009) and one that this developmental paper seeks to add to through the lens of neo-empiricism (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Johnson & Duberley, 2003).
The focus for this paper is to argue that most qualitative interpretive research undertaken in the guise of MMR is fundamentally neo-empiricist in nature. In this sense there is a common philosophical basis that is implicit in much of the research presented as MMR. Thus, offering a potential solution to the apparent difficulty in reconciling Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The aim of this developmental paper is to outline the case for viewing MMR as being conducted predominantly from a neo-empiricist perspective and to provide the theoretical framework upon which to conduct a meta-analysis of published management research that claims to embrace MMR. The next phase of the research, through an analysis of the underpinning research perspectives (implicitly or explicitly argued) of articles published between 20071 and 2013 in 3 / 4* journals will it is anticipated support for the neo-empiricist positioning of much of the cited Mixed methods Research will be established.
It seems that the advocates of MMR are happy to see it as a ‘third methodological movement’ with quantitative methods seen as the first movement and qualitative the second movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Or as a type of research in which researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). However, these ‘definitions’ fail to address the key issues of just what is meant by the terms quantitative and qualitative approaches. As, before one can argue for a third methodological movement the theoretical bases of the first two methodologies needs to be understood.
The key to this paper is the positioning of Mixed Methods as neo-empiricist approaches and the notion that although rival assumptions about the ontological status of human behaviour or action differentiate neo-empiricism from positivism, both theoretical perspectives articulate objective epistemological assumptions combined with realist ontological assumptions concerning reality. The paper firstly outlines what quantitative and qualitative research methodologies embrace and to
1 The Journal of Mixed Methods research was first published in 2007 and is taken as an indicator of MMR’s acceptance as an important research approach. show the plurality with which qualitative research is used is a key to understanding the theoretical positioning of MMR approaches.
Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Methodologies or Methods ‘Mixed methods research is an approach to the research process that is in an ambiguous position’ these are the opening words to Alan Bryman’s (2009:516) influential chapter in the Sage Handbook of Organisational research. Bryman suggests that the ambiguous position concerns firstly the fact that it is has existed, without being necessarily labelled as MMR, in different forms for many years and that a specific interest in it as a methodology has ‘burgeoned’ in relatively recent times. With this increased attention has come, for many, the desire to depict MMR as a distinct research strategy (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkon, 200). Secondly, for Bryman (2009), it is in an ambiguous position due to the ‘growing tendency’ for researchers to refer to it as the combination of qualitative and quantitative research and to the notion that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined within both research ‘paradigms’. It is within this terminology that clarity becomes first obscured, that is, the failure to distinguish between research methods -(referring to types of data collection and research methodologies or strategies for conducting research. This begs the questions of what is qualitative research? And what is quantitative research? The polarisation of research methodologies into these two labels highlights the problems associated with simplistic notions of research as either quantitative or qualitative.
The question of methods is perhaps easier to picture as these refer to types of data, qualitative resting on words and quantitative on numerical data. So before one can accept the argument that ‘MMR is a distinctive Methodology that entails various modes of bringing together Quantitative and Qualitative research’ (p.516) the positioning and understanding of the two research methodologies is of critical importance.
Quantitative research Quantitative research is usually associated with positivistic research methodologies and as such is taken to refer to research that encompasses such procedures as experimental (including quasi-experimental) designs, hypothesis testing, inferential statistics and mathematical modelling (Nodoushani, 2000). This type of management research is characterised by measurement, structured design, control of variables through statistical procedures, with the search for causality, generalization, replication and reliability & validity (Bryman, 2001; Behling, 1980). Thus here quantitative research is defined as that which takes as it bases the idea that behaviour is determined by external forces aligning itself with the strategy of theory testing (deductive logics) as the way to advance knowledge (Popper, 1959).
Qualitative Research Johnson, Buehring, Cassell & Symon (2006:132) state that ‘in some respects qualitative research is defined by what it is not’, That is, qualitative management research is often referred to as the use of non-statistical data collection and analysis techniques, which as they say has been ‘forged’ through the ‘tentative’ links with a share and importantly often a ‘tacit’ rejection of methodological monism.
This rejection of the idea that only one research methodology, that of the natural sciences, is appropriate and capable of providing ‘true’ knowledge (Blaikie, 1993) and that human behaviour should only be conceptualised in a determinist manner is the basis for all so called ‘qualitative research’ approaches. It is normally recognized that most qualitative researchers would be seen to share a commitment to verstehen (Johnson et al., 2006; Gill & Johnson, 2010), this does not explain the heterogeneity evident in qualitative management research… ‘A considerable difference might be seen to underlie the initial appearance of similarity usually invoked by the term ‘qualitative’
The realms of ‘qualitative research’ methodologies, whilst perhaps sharing a commitment to verstehen (Gill & Johnson, 2010), entail competing philosophical commitments. Commitments that rely on different ontological and epistemological perspectives and views of human behaviour and thus present different rationales for what is taken for truth and the logic of the appropriate stances fro engaging with the understanding of the social world.
Paradigm Wars In tracing the history of MMR Creswell & Plano Clark (2009:22) suggest there have been four stages of development. A formative period, associated with early developments of the methodology, focusing mainly of notions of data and methodological triangulation. This was followed by the paradigm debate period which was concerned with theoretical foundations for combining methods. Then a procedural development period, in which attention centred on the design of mixed methods studies with the emphasis switching from the need to reconcile problems associated with philosophical debates to conducting mixed methods research. Lastly, an advocacy as separate design period is identified and concerns the establishment of MMR as a distinctive methodology or strategy, which according to some authors represents a ‘third methodological movement’ with quantitative methods seen as the first movement and qualitative the second movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This positioning as a ‘third paradigm’ is problematic as the issues concerning the philosophical foundations for combining methods have not been resolved. It is to this dilemma that attention is now concentrated.
One of the key problems that MMR has faced in trying to establish itself as a ‘legitimate approach’ (Bryman, 2000) is that combining quantitative and qualitative research has often been seen as difficult to reconcile with respect to the assumed epistemological (and often ontological) status of the two approaches. As has already been suggested, quantitative research is associated with objective notions of epistemology and a correspondence theory of truth (usually labelled positivistic) and qualitative research is taken to encompass interpretive perspectives, which rely on the notion of verstehen ( Gill & Johnson, 2010), which takes the subjectivity of the actor into account. These positions have long been seen as difficult to reconcile on account of supposedly incompatible theoretical positions and paradigm debates are prevalent in the literature.
A great deal has been written by mixed methods researchers in trying to reconcile these differences (Creswell, 2010) and possibly because it has proved difficult to come to any unifying agreement it has led Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) to suggest that today the demarcation of these areas is not so tightly drawn as envisioned in the 1990s’ (p.26). Being cynical, this might be taken as saying we can’t resolve this issue so let us move on, as of course MMR is an important approach! However, this difficulty in reconciling ‘paradigms’ is still apparent and it has been suggested that taking a situational approach, where researchers adapt their methods to the situation is a more pragmatic approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This is in line with Seale’s (1999) suggestion that research should be seen as a craft skill – relatively autonomous from the need to resolve philosophical or epistemological debates, but it can nevertheless draw on these as resources in developing methodological awareness.
This pragmatic stance has, it might be argued, led many researchers to embrace pragmatism as the ‘best philosophical foundation for MMR (Tashoakkori & Teddlie, 2003, 2010, Biesta, 2010, Maxcy, 2003). This, however, is not without its critics as Johnson & Duberley (2000) argue it is difficult to describe pragmatism as a ‘school’ of philosophy since the term is used to describe a variety of different epistemological positions. For example, Biesta (2010) focuses on the pragmatism of Dewey who Johnson & Duberley suggest took the view that knowledge could be true, whereas Rorty pragmatism with social constructionism and the notion that knowledge arises from ‘the language-games of communities of people that are incommensurate with that of other communities’ (Johnson & Duberley, 2000: 158).
Approaches to Qualitative Research In their critical examination of management research Alvesson & Deetz (2000) argue the need to adopt critical orientations towards social and management research as the underlying necessity for understanding social order, and in so doing they usefully demonstrate how much of the interpretive research conducted by social scientists is normative in nature and seeks to develop consensus.
Alvesson & Deetz (2000) draw on social dimensions concerned with consensus and dissensus with respect to the relationship of research to dominant social discourses and the notion of logical emergent and elite a priori origins of concepts and problems. The consensus- dissensus dimension they say draws attention to the relationship of research to existing social orders. Research from the consensus perspective is seen to seek order and treat order production as the dominant feature of natural and social systems and as such ‘the primary goal of the research is to display a discovered order with a high degree of fidelity or verisimilitude’ (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p.26). It is the contention here that aspects of this consensus seeking are the primary focus of much MM research. Thus, as discussed earlier the intention is, through a critical examination of published research in key management journals to explore if this is indeed the case.
The aim of such consensus oriented research is to gain an understanding of how social actors make sense of their social world and in so doing develop theoretical understanding of the social relationships. As Alvesson & Deetz (2000) argue, these are seen as existing in an external social world in ‘a relative fixed state reflecting their real character. Language within the research process is treated as a system of representations to be neutralized and made transparent, used only to display the presumed shared world….. To a large extent through the highlighting of ordering principles, such existing orders are perpetuated. (p.26). The dissensus aspect, however, concerns research which takes as it primary focus an understanding of dominant discourses which consider struggle, conflict and tensions to be the natural state – the key element in critical theory and postmodernist work.
Using the ideas of consensus and dissensus and emergent and elite sources of research, Alvesson & Deetz produce four classes of representational research practices which may be contrasted to the four modes of engagement in management research discussed by Johnson et al. (2006). These four perspectives - Positivism, Neo-empiricism, Critical theory and Affirmative Postmodernism are contrasted in terms of the knowledge-constituting assumptions they entail.
By examining the ontological status of human behaviour, the ontological status of social reality and of epistemology, Johnson et al. (2006) usefully present the methodological commitments these rely on. Through their meaningful analysis it is seen that the term qualitative research is used in a broad sense to capture and encompass three distinct modes of engagement with qualitative methods in management research namely, neo-empiricism, critical theory and affirmative postmodernism and that ‘by accepting the assumptions of one mode of engagement, one always will deny some of the assumptions of alternatives’ (p.135). They go on to suggest that whilst it can be argued that most qualitative researchers would be seen to share a commitment to verstehen, this does not explain the heterogeneity evident in qualitative management research… ‘A considerable difference might be seen to underlie the initial appearance of similarity usually invoked by the term ‘qualitative’
The realms of ‘qualitative research’ methodologies, whilst perhaps sharing a commitment to verstehen (G & J, 2010), entail competing philosophical commitments. Commitments that rely on different ontological and epistemological perspectives and views of human behaviour and thus present different rationales for what is taken for truth and the logic of the appropriate stances for engaging with the understanding of the social world. Thus, the one size fits all approach to qualitative research and the problems with the way subjectivity is treated, has, it may be argued produced the ambiguity and confusion seen to plague MMR.
Importantly, Johnson et al (2006) argue, therefore, that these four modes of engagement are to some degree mutually exclusive in the sense that researchers cannot operate in two modes simultaneously in the same piece of research without some fear of contradiction. This is perhaps at the core of the paradigm war issues with MMR.
1. Key philosophical differences emerge over the significance of human inter- subjectivity in explaining human behaviour and its appropriateness to scientific investigation 2. Different epistemological assumptions – dualisms, objective epistemological perspective suggests the possibility of a theory neutral language where our sensory experience of the objects of an external reality provides the only secure foundation for social scientific knowledge. Whereas a subjective view of epistemology repudiates this possibility as language does not allow access to or representation of reality 3. Ontological status of reality. Realist view is that social reality has an independent existence prior to human cognition. Subjectivist view assumes that what we take to be reality is an output of human cognitive processes. I.e. it is socially constructed.
As has been suggested the key to the proposed research is the positioning of MM research as neo-empiricist. So what is neo-empiricism?
Neo-empiricism. Neo-empiricism (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000: 62) refers to theoretical perspectives that assume the possibility of unbiased and objective collection of qualitative empirical data. Although rival assumptions about the ontological status of human behaviour or action can be seen to differentiate neo-empiricism from positivism, both theoretical perspectives articulate objective epistemological assumptions combined with realist ontological assumptions concerning reality.
In a similar manner to Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, it is suggested here that the quantitative / qualitative distinction employed in discussing MMR is not seen as particularly useful or insightful. As Alvesson & Skölberg (2009) imply the crucial issue for researchers is not the choice between qualitative or quantitative research methods but it is a much more fundamental ontological, epistemological and axiological concerns. Using these terms as distinct alternatives causes confusion when it comes to understanding the underling theoretical positions of different research perspectives and hence the process of representing social reality is not really considered (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000:61)
So to recap, many researchers employing what they call qualitative methodology share with positivist researchers a number of commitments and assumptions concerning an objective view of epistemology and the notion of a theory neutral language (Johnson & Dubberley,2000; Johnson & Clark, 2006). When researchers talk of the subjective nature of their research, they often mistakenly take this to be subjective in the epistemological sense rather than the subjectivity of the social actors. That is, namely an objective external reality exists and its discovery is the aim of the social scientist in such a way as to develop and ‘validate’ authorative theories of social reality. (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000)
When researchers talk of the subjective nature of their research, they often mistakenly take this to be subjective in the epistemological sense rather than the subjectivity of the social actors. It is the use of the term subjective in research that is therefore argued as causing confusion and hence the dilemmas for MMR researchers.
Neo-empiricists would argue that the actors’ subjective realm is not only important to our theoretical explanation of their behaviour but it is also possible to access it, describe it, and hence theoretically use it to explain aspects of human behaviour, in an objective manner. Despite the continuing dominance of hypothetico-deductive methods, the qualitative methods used by neo-empiricists to pursue their interpretive agenda have enabled them to increasingly assert its relevance to business and management research. So of key importance here is the neo-empiricist commitment to verstehen (Gill & Johnson, 2010) that is premised upon the idea that to follow the positivist approaches, that derive from the natural sciences, in the study of the social world is an error because human action, unlike the behaviour of non-sentient objects in the natural world, has an internal subjective logic which must be understood in order to make it intelligible. So here the concern is with researchers who see that they must access members’ internal culturally derived logics in order to explain that behaviour – yet who simultaneously think that this necessarily inductive process may be undertaken in an objective manner so that the ensuing descriptions are not contaminated by the researcher who, as in mainstream positivist research, remains separate from the ‘objects’ of research so as to produce neutral findings. Hence the use of the term neo-empiricist for those management researchers who view the collection of qualitative empirical data as capable of ensuring objective truth in a correspondence sense (see Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 60–74) yet who simultaneously reject falsificationism in favour of the inductive generation of theory ‘grounded’ in observation. The result is a separation of the knower-researcher from his/her inductive descriptions of other actors’ intersubjective cultural experience which awaits discovery.
It is as Johnson et al. (2006) state used to categorize those management researchers who assume the possibility of a theory neutral language, that is the possibility of an unbiased and objective collection of qualitative empirical data and who simultaneously reject falsificationism in favour of induction. Because, such researchers, they argue, use non-quantitative methods within largely positivistic assumptions. They use the term neo-empiricist specifically to refer to those researchers using qualitative data to ‘develop inductively thick descriptions of the patterns in the inter-subjective meanings that actors use to make sense of their everyday worlds and who investigate the implications of those interpretations for social action’ (p.138). Methodologies associated with such philosophically grounded views are those which use qualitative data to develop theory that is grounded in the observations of empirical realities and thus support claims for understandings that more meaningfully reflect the ‘true nature’ of the social order. Grounded Theory approaches, Ethnographic research and Case Study Research might all be regarded as methodologies that adopt such an interpretive agenda. Whilst, it is not always acknowledged or even recognized by the researcher, much interpretative research is argued to follow the logic of neo-empiricism. And the purpose of the research proposed here is to bring to the forefront of debates in MMR the notion that most MMR is conducted from neo-empiricist origins, where the aim of the research (often implicit and not openly discussed) is explain and predict human behaviour and actions.
Conclusions It is the researchers’ implicit assumptions about what they term subjectivity that is the key to making sense of mixed methods approaches. By confusing the notion of the actor’s subjective interpretations embodied through the concept of verstehen with subjective epistemological assumptions the MMR researcher cannot adequately reconcile the philosophical differences. Thus, combining quantitative and qualitative research has been seen as difficult or even as Bryman (2009) suggests illegitimate on epistemological (and often ontological grounds).
Despite, the so called problems associated with epistemological concerns when combining Quantitative and qualitative approaches it is the engagement with knowledge and the purpose of social research that is the key to understanding how mixing methods can be reconciled. If the outcome of the research in using the two methods is premised on the same underpinning notions of epistemology – subjective or objective then it is entirely feasible. It will be further demonstrated through the next phase of the research, the analysis of published accounts of MMR that MMR is fundamentally of a neo-empiricist nature.
This does not negate the pragmatism approach. For adopting such a stance would suggest that notions of epistemology are subjective and that the aim of the research is not as with neo-empiricists to maintain order, but rather to accept the plurality of aims and agendas of the protagonists in the social world of work.
Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S (2000). Doing Critical management Research. London: Sage Alvesson, M. & Skölberg,K. (2009)Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research (2nd ed. London: Sage Bergman, M.M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the ugly in mixed methods research and design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 271-275. Biesta, G. (2010) Pragmatism and the Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Research (2nd Ed.) Bryman, A. (2009). Mixed Methods in Organizational Research. In D.A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (eds) The sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Creswell, J.W.& Plano Clark, V. L (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods research, 2nd Ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2010) Mapping the Landscape of Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Research (2nd Ed.) Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, 4th ed. London: Sage Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (2006) Evaluating qualitative management research: towards a contingency criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), 131-156 Johnson, P. & Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research. London: Sage. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & & Turner, L.A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133. Maxcy, S.J. (2003) Pragmatic Threads in Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences: The Search for Multiple Modes of Inquiry and the End of the Philosophy of Formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Research Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social Research (2nd Ed.)