Advanced Research Methods part A (Qualitative)
Literature:
Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (eds.) (2012) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core
Methods and current challenges. London: Sage. Chapters: 2, 12, 22, 19, 17, 20, 26, 23, 24,
5, 6.
Langley, A. & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy
and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6, p. 201-235.
Index
Lecture 1. Introduction to qualitative research ................................................................... 2
Lecture 2. Approaches to qualitative research ................................................................... 6
Q&A lecture 2 ...................................................................................................................... 9
Lecture 3. Data collection ................................................................................................. 10
Q&A lecture 3 .................................................................................................................... 13
Lecture 4. Data analysis I ................................................................................................. 14
Q&A lecture 4 .................................................................................................................... 19
Lecture 5. Analysis II: From data to concepts .................................................................. 20
,Lecture 1. Introduction to qualitative research
→ Book chapter 2
What are research methods about? Create an optimal fit between the goal of the research
(question), the characteristics of the data and the characteristics of the analytical procedures
applied. → The essence of validity and reliability considerations guiding research (design)
decisions.
Introduction to Philosophy of Science
Underlying philosophies have practical consequences for: your topic, focus of study,
what you see as ‘data’, how you collect data and how you write up your research accounts
(methods, results).
➔ It is better to choose a philosophy of science than to inherit one by default.
➔ As in the rest of the world and academia in general, we don’t agree necessarily on which
philosophy should be the one we depart from – assuming we are even aware that there
are other philosophies, hence this is reflected in our teaching. Yes, you have been taught
quantitative and qualitative methods before, but even within these to research techniques
academics disagree on how research should be conducted. Often, you are unconsciously
taught in one particular philosophy. During a master, we want you to learn to look at
matter, including research methods!, from different perspectives and learn to accept that
different perspectives exist and will always exist. The trick is to understand where people
are coming from and to understand their ‘language’, so that you can communicate with
others. What I teach you regarding qualitative research methods will stem mostly from a
relativist perspective (a mixture of interpretivist/qualitative neo-positivist/critical realist
perspectives). Some researchers, in our department (OD&D) and the school agree on the
underlying beliefs; others do not and take a more positivist stance. This is often implicitly
reflected in the way we teach and what we decide to teach, and how we define a
research question and approach the quest for collecting and analysing data. I want you to
become more aware of that (not necessarily to agree with me) and make an informed
decision for yourself when you conduct your MT research.
Epistemology
Episteme: ‘knowledge’ or ‘science’
Logos: ‘knowledge’, ‘information’, ‘theory’, or ‘account’
(B) Epistemology = study of criteria by which we know what does (not) constitute warranted
or scientific knowledge – when do we call something ‘truth’ and how do we know whether or
not some claim, including our own, is true or false?
➔ Positivist/realist perspective: there are certain criteria that connect reality to our
(theoretical) statements, (inductive verification: empiricists: the sensory experience is the
sole source of reliable knowledge: for example, if all dogs we have observed are smart,
than we conclude that all dogs are smart or deductive falsification: ratio is the true source
of knowledge, if all dogs are smart, and a particular animal that we see is a dog, the dog
is smart).
➔ Relativist/subjectivist (general term for a set of alternative philosophies that emerged in
reaction to, or in denial of, positivist/realist stance): there is no privileged epistemology;
due to different and incommensurable discourses; it dependents on the practical
consequences and thus researcher needs to clarify the context and why certain methods
were chosen
, Ontology
Ontos: ‘being’
Logos: ‘knowledge’, ‘information’, ‘theory’, or ‘account’
Ontology = dealing with the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence: is it
real or illusory? Does a certain phenomenon exist without our knowing and perceiving it?
If there would be no one on this planet and a tree would fall down, would it make a noise?
➔ Realist/positivist: it exists, ‘out there’, independent of our perceptual or cognitive
structures. This reality exists, it is real, and it is potentially awaiting our discoverance.
Exam stress is something that exists for real. (The world of the senses, rejection of the
metaphysical).
➔ Subjectivist (relativist): reality is socially constructed. Exam stress is something that
does not exist in individuals and groups, rather it would be something created through our
everyday talk. What we take to be a social reality is a creation, or projection, of our
consciousness and cognition.
God’s eye frame of reference/the positive researcher = the knower (researcher) is a passive
observer of the world, is independent of the empirical findings, the mind can mirror the
empirical reality, and language is value free, provides a means to mirror and correspond to
the empirical reality;
Participant frame of reference/the relativist researcher = the knower (researcher) is in the
world and cannot stand outside his/her socio-linguistic constructs to view it objectively;
language is self-referential. This presupposes language’s value and interest-laden nature.
The researcher should participate with others to interpret findings, is influenced by others
and discusses with others through a certain language or discourse, which in turn
determines/affects how the researcher observes the world/phenomenon. It is thus important
that the researcher(s) reflect on their own possible subjectivity and how that might affect their
results.
Main theories of philosophy of science
Positivism/Rationalism (quantitative)
1920s Vienna Circle: Science should focus on only directly observable phenome (eliminate
all metaphysical entities, implying ontological neutrality), privileging science (physics) as a
model for all other sciences). Theories should be tested, hypotheticodeductive fashion by
their confrontation with the facts neutrally gathered from observable external world
Qualitative neo-positivism
Something in the middle between positivist and relativist stance: has been called a
‘qualitative positivism’ or neo-empiricism. Theory-neutral observational language, it is
possible to neutrally apprehend the facts out there. What is out there is presumed to be
independent of the knower and accessible to the trained researcher (if following correct
procedures).
Relativism (qualitative)
Thomas Kuhn: Historical/sociological analyses instead of normative approach. Normal
science establishes the working of a discipline withing one framework. Anomalies lead into
crisis and revolution. A new paradigm with new protagonists is established. Critical voices
on role of science: critique of the dominance of scientific concept of truth, for them the
relevance is that there is a unity of insight and impact. Both participants and researcher are
subjects of the research process, emphasis on social process of scientific discovery.
Literature:
Symon, G. & Cassell, C. (eds.) (2012) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core
Methods and current challenges. London: Sage. Chapters: 2, 12, 22, 19, 17, 20, 26, 23, 24,
5, 6.
Langley, A. & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy
and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6, p. 201-235.
Index
Lecture 1. Introduction to qualitative research ................................................................... 2
Lecture 2. Approaches to qualitative research ................................................................... 6
Q&A lecture 2 ...................................................................................................................... 9
Lecture 3. Data collection ................................................................................................. 10
Q&A lecture 3 .................................................................................................................... 13
Lecture 4. Data analysis I ................................................................................................. 14
Q&A lecture 4 .................................................................................................................... 19
Lecture 5. Analysis II: From data to concepts .................................................................. 20
,Lecture 1. Introduction to qualitative research
→ Book chapter 2
What are research methods about? Create an optimal fit between the goal of the research
(question), the characteristics of the data and the characteristics of the analytical procedures
applied. → The essence of validity and reliability considerations guiding research (design)
decisions.
Introduction to Philosophy of Science
Underlying philosophies have practical consequences for: your topic, focus of study,
what you see as ‘data’, how you collect data and how you write up your research accounts
(methods, results).
➔ It is better to choose a philosophy of science than to inherit one by default.
➔ As in the rest of the world and academia in general, we don’t agree necessarily on which
philosophy should be the one we depart from – assuming we are even aware that there
are other philosophies, hence this is reflected in our teaching. Yes, you have been taught
quantitative and qualitative methods before, but even within these to research techniques
academics disagree on how research should be conducted. Often, you are unconsciously
taught in one particular philosophy. During a master, we want you to learn to look at
matter, including research methods!, from different perspectives and learn to accept that
different perspectives exist and will always exist. The trick is to understand where people
are coming from and to understand their ‘language’, so that you can communicate with
others. What I teach you regarding qualitative research methods will stem mostly from a
relativist perspective (a mixture of interpretivist/qualitative neo-positivist/critical realist
perspectives). Some researchers, in our department (OD&D) and the school agree on the
underlying beliefs; others do not and take a more positivist stance. This is often implicitly
reflected in the way we teach and what we decide to teach, and how we define a
research question and approach the quest for collecting and analysing data. I want you to
become more aware of that (not necessarily to agree with me) and make an informed
decision for yourself when you conduct your MT research.
Epistemology
Episteme: ‘knowledge’ or ‘science’
Logos: ‘knowledge’, ‘information’, ‘theory’, or ‘account’
(B) Epistemology = study of criteria by which we know what does (not) constitute warranted
or scientific knowledge – when do we call something ‘truth’ and how do we know whether or
not some claim, including our own, is true or false?
➔ Positivist/realist perspective: there are certain criteria that connect reality to our
(theoretical) statements, (inductive verification: empiricists: the sensory experience is the
sole source of reliable knowledge: for example, if all dogs we have observed are smart,
than we conclude that all dogs are smart or deductive falsification: ratio is the true source
of knowledge, if all dogs are smart, and a particular animal that we see is a dog, the dog
is smart).
➔ Relativist/subjectivist (general term for a set of alternative philosophies that emerged in
reaction to, or in denial of, positivist/realist stance): there is no privileged epistemology;
due to different and incommensurable discourses; it dependents on the practical
consequences and thus researcher needs to clarify the context and why certain methods
were chosen
, Ontology
Ontos: ‘being’
Logos: ‘knowledge’, ‘information’, ‘theory’, or ‘account’
Ontology = dealing with the essence of phenomena and the nature of their existence: is it
real or illusory? Does a certain phenomenon exist without our knowing and perceiving it?
If there would be no one on this planet and a tree would fall down, would it make a noise?
➔ Realist/positivist: it exists, ‘out there’, independent of our perceptual or cognitive
structures. This reality exists, it is real, and it is potentially awaiting our discoverance.
Exam stress is something that exists for real. (The world of the senses, rejection of the
metaphysical).
➔ Subjectivist (relativist): reality is socially constructed. Exam stress is something that
does not exist in individuals and groups, rather it would be something created through our
everyday talk. What we take to be a social reality is a creation, or projection, of our
consciousness and cognition.
God’s eye frame of reference/the positive researcher = the knower (researcher) is a passive
observer of the world, is independent of the empirical findings, the mind can mirror the
empirical reality, and language is value free, provides a means to mirror and correspond to
the empirical reality;
Participant frame of reference/the relativist researcher = the knower (researcher) is in the
world and cannot stand outside his/her socio-linguistic constructs to view it objectively;
language is self-referential. This presupposes language’s value and interest-laden nature.
The researcher should participate with others to interpret findings, is influenced by others
and discusses with others through a certain language or discourse, which in turn
determines/affects how the researcher observes the world/phenomenon. It is thus important
that the researcher(s) reflect on their own possible subjectivity and how that might affect their
results.
Main theories of philosophy of science
Positivism/Rationalism (quantitative)
1920s Vienna Circle: Science should focus on only directly observable phenome (eliminate
all metaphysical entities, implying ontological neutrality), privileging science (physics) as a
model for all other sciences). Theories should be tested, hypotheticodeductive fashion by
their confrontation with the facts neutrally gathered from observable external world
Qualitative neo-positivism
Something in the middle between positivist and relativist stance: has been called a
‘qualitative positivism’ or neo-empiricism. Theory-neutral observational language, it is
possible to neutrally apprehend the facts out there. What is out there is presumed to be
independent of the knower and accessible to the trained researcher (if following correct
procedures).
Relativism (qualitative)
Thomas Kuhn: Historical/sociological analyses instead of normative approach. Normal
science establishes the working of a discipline withing one framework. Anomalies lead into
crisis and revolution. A new paradigm with new protagonists is established. Critical voices
on role of science: critique of the dominance of scientific concept of truth, for them the
relevance is that there is a unity of insight and impact. Both participants and researcher are
subjects of the research process, emphasis on social process of scientific discovery.
