University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Management Department Faculty Publications Management Department 1984 An Emic Perspective and Ethnoscience Methods for Organizational Research Nancy C. Morey University of Nebraska - Lincoln Fred Luthans University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons, and the Strategic Management Policy Commons Morey, Nancy C. and Luthans, Fred, "An Emic Perspective and Ethnoscience Methods for Organizational Research" (1984). Management Department Faculty Publications. 175. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/175 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. cAcademy of Management Review, 1984, Vol. 9, No. 1, 27-36. An Emic Perspective and Ethnoscience Methods for Organizational Research1 NANCY C. MOREY FRED LUTHANS University of Nebraska, Lincoln This paper is in answer to the call for new, innovative perspectives and methodologies for organizational research. Although the approach here falls within the subjectivelidiographic/qualitative/insider set of methodologies rather than the objective/nomothetic/quantitative/outsider set, there is the potential to bridge the gap between the two sets. Coming largely from an- thropology, the emic perspective is explained; the specific steps for ethno- science analyses are summarized; and examples and implications are given. The last few years have seen an increasing call for that is imposed on the subject (i.e., external and ob- innovative and broadening methodologies for orga- jective), or is it a product of the cognitions of the nizational research. For example, Hackman, in subject (i.e., internal and subjective)? Obviously, an writing the introductions to a series of volumes on organizational researcher following the subjectivist innovations in methodology for organizational re- view will take a different approach from that of the search, states: researcher following the objectivist view. The methodologies used in research on organizations This basic split in orientations to research can be have been far too limited and conventional.... Be- expressed in a variety of dichotomies. One such di- cause the need for higher quality organizational re- chotomy is found in the terms "idiographic" versus search is pressing, now may be the time to try to break through the constraints of traditional methodologies "nomothetic." Luthans and Davis (1982) describe a and seek new approaches to organizational research nomothetic perspective as one that is group-centered (1982, p. 8). and uses standardized, controlled environmental con- texts and quantitative methods to establish general Contrasting Views of laws. They describe an idiographic perspective as one Social Science Research that is individual-centered and uses naturalistic en- vironmental contexts and qualitative methods to rec- Although there are many issues involved in this awakened interest in research methodologies, Bur- ognize the particular and unique experience of the rell and Morgan (1979) identify one of the most basic. subject. Another, more limited dichotomy is the In their distinction between the subjectivist and the qualitative versus quantitative. Qualitative research objectivist approaches to science, a common theme implies an idiographic, particularistic perspective of can be found in the majority of suggestions for new science. Quantitative research with statistical analyses perspectives and methods for organizational research. of data takes a nomothetic, generalizing perspective As they explain it, the issue revolves around certain of science. Still another dichotomy can be found in basic assumptions about what it is that organizational the distinction between the terms "insider" and "out- researchers are investigating and how they should go sider. " An insider's perspective of science would take about it. Is the "reality" of investigation something the view of the organizational participant in research; the outsider's orientation would take the nonpartici- 'The research leading to this paper was supported in part by pant "scientific" researcher's view. the Organizational Effectiveness Research Group, Office of Naval There frequently is a subtle shift in extensions of Research (Code 442), under Contract No. N00014-80-C-0554; NR the terminology of these different dichotomies, and 170-913 (Fred Luthans, principal investigator). the terms often become merged and used interchange- 27 ably. Thus, the contrasting views can be clustered in- Methodological Concerns to the terms subjective/idiographic/qualitative/in- Questionnaires are the most convenient and wide- sider and the terms objective/nomothetic/quantita- ly used technique of data gathering for objec- tive/outsider. Use of any one term in the set often tive/nomothetic/quantitative/outsider studies. conjures up all the implications that the others have Recently, some organizational theorists have been for whoever makes the distinctions. When the im- critical of the overuse of questionnaires (Dubin, 1982) plied dichotomies are accepted on faith, too often and the reliability and validity of standardized ques- there is an associated distinction between "good" and tionnaires widely used in organizational research "bad" science/research. Where the value is applied (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; Schriesheim, Bannister, depends on the "camp" of the particular scholar. & Money, 1979). Questionnaires also are being criti- Traditionally, the vast majority of organizational cized by advocates of qualitative techniques for a researchers have been objectivist/nomothetic/quan- variety of failings in design, results, and usability titative/outsider advocates. Only very recently has the (Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982). Among the subjectivist/idiographic/qualitative/insider perspec- proposed alternatives, or supplements, to question- tive been recognized. naires has been the call for observation techniques The potential and real disagreements among or- (Dubin, 1982; Luthans & Davis, 1982). Dubin (1982), ganizational researchers over these contrasting ap- for instance, urges organizational researchers to ex- proaches are unfortunate and can lead to neglect of amine their past and return to some of the more fruit- common interests and understanding on both sides. ful participant observation techniques that were used This paper presents the modest proposal that a gen- in classic studies in the field. A growing, but still erally ignored research perspective and set of tech- relatively small, number of organizational researchers niques from anthropology may help organizational are taking this advice. Examples can be found in the researchers overcome some of the problems associ- works of Bussom, Larson, and Vicars (1981), Kot- ated with these disagreements and also may meet ter (1982), and Van Maanen and his colleagues some of the goals for organizational research pro- (1982). In addition to observation techniques per se, posed by advocates of new methodologies. It is the role of qualitative methodology in general is recognized that both the subjectivist/idio- receiving more attention. For example, Van Maanen graphic/qualitative/insider and the objectivist/ et al.'s (1982) recent book and a 1979 issue of the nomothetic/quantitative/outsider camps present le- Administrative Science Quarterly show some of the gitimate methodologies for organizational research. wide ranging possibilities for different kinds of qualitative research in organizational studies. The authors also feel strongly that these should not Despite these suggested alternatives, it must be be considered mutually exclusive approaches. remembered that critics of questionnaires want more In the interest of forging a rapprochement between than just observation and qualitative techniques. advocates of the contrasting views, presented here are These are just the surface arguments and proposed an emic perspective and a specific set of ethnoscience alternatives. More importantly is an expansion of techniques from anthropology that show particular organizational research that will take account of the promise for being both qualitative and idiographic "insider's" view of the organization. For example, in field applications, but with potential for quan- Pfeffer calls for a distinction between two levels of tification and nomothetic explanatory analysis. These analysis of organizations: (1) the level concerned with techniques offer insider, subjective data of immediate prediction of actions taken within organizations (out- practical utility for practicing managers and re- sider's) and (2) that concerned with predicting and searchers and also combine this with data gathering understanding how such organizational activities are techniques that can be objectified, and thus be adap- "perceived, interpreted, and legitimated" (insider's) table to more traditional methodological analysis and (1981, p. 8). As another example, Evered and Louis conclusions. A brief review of recent literature (1981) specifically call for attention to the insider's discussing methodological issues in organizational view and