Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Naïve Expertise: Spacious Alternative to the Standard Account of Method

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The standard account of method (SAM) describes business and management research as a choice between “two traditions”: “qualitative “phenomenological” interpretivism” and “quantitative ‘scientific’ positivism”; each the enemy of the other. Students assemble “advantages and disadvantages” of each, pledge their allegiance, or a preference for “mixed method” (wishing for a “truce” in the “paradigm war”). In our increasingly Fordist academies, these variants attract grade-weightings of typically 20%, defined by “marking schemes” which are also standardised. Fordism is the management strategy of standardisation, deskilling, low unit-cost, simple assembly and central control. We argue that SAM “Fordises” the intellect and confounds our experience that inquiry entails the greatest customisation humanly possible. Moreover, unlike Ford’s River Rouge plant, SAM is plagued by faults: thousands of category mistakes caused by collapsing unrelated methodological dimensions into one simple-looking yet multiply mistaken dichotomy. Happily, natural language facilitates myriad methodological distinctions which untutored inquirers articulate with more facility, pluralism and precision than SAM. By providing better labelling for their easy instincts, naïve inquirers can recognise and revel in what they did not know.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. This paper developed from workshops facilitated by the author at the Developing Philosophy of Management Conference St Anne’s College Oxford 26–29 June 2002 and at the Practicing Philosophy of Management Conference St Anne’s College 7–11 July 2004. The author thanks Nigel Laurie for his helpful comments and guidance

  2. As set out by R D Laing (1970, Knots London: Penguin) this situation could end well for Jack and for Jill, now that a third party has indicated it, particularly if Jack and Jill have roughly equal authority to speak and to question each other. Once he realises he knows something, Jack might ask Jill if she knows it too; but only if he does not fear her. This paper suggest that, typically, when it comes to methodology, students are ‘Jacks’ and that ‘Jack’ and ‘Jill’ can also only escape the problem (which they do not know they have) if Jill was to stop trying to teach Jack what it is that she is convinced that she knows. This done, Jack and Jill might recognise that they are about equally expert in what it is that they have both taken-for-granted

  3. Or at least an attempt in this direction; see Barthes, R (1977) ‘The Death of the Author’ in Heath S (trans) Image, Music, Text Noonday Press

  4. Definitions and examples illustrating these technical terms will are given later.

  5. The accusation that enlightenment scholarship opposes the rational and the emotional does not sit well with Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiment nor with Humes dictum that reason is and ought to be ‘the slave of the passions’. See also Dalton M (1959) Men Who Manage: Fusion of Feeling and Theory in Administration New York: Wiley

  6. Just as a single black swan unsettles the proposition that ‘all swans are white’.

  7. Using Figure 1, picture the ‘Morse’ hoverfly as having moved to a front-and-centre position just inside the door, but still near floor-level. However it still makes excursions rightwards in the expectation that some witnesses will be telling lies.

  8. Of which “slicing-theory’ and Morse are just two

  9. Klein M (1946) ‘Notes on some Schizoid Mechanisms’ The International Journal of Psychoalalyisis 29 pp 113–123

  10. Saunders M N K, Lewis P and Thornhill A (2000) Research Methods for Business Students London: Pitman pp85-6, 90

  11. Giddens A (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method New York: Basic Books; Bryman A (2001) Social Research Methods Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 11–16, 20; Remenyi D, Williams B, Money B and Swartz E (1998/ 2002) Doing Research in Business and Management; an Introduction to Process and Method, London: Sage; Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R and Lowe A (1991) Management Research: an Introduction London: Sage p27; Raimond P (1993) Management Projects London: Chapman Hall; Evered R and Louis M R (1991) “Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside” in Smith C N and Dainty P The Management Research Handbook London: Routledge; Gummesson E (1991/2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research London: Sage pl53; Knights D (1992) “Changing Spaces: the Disruptive Impact of a New Epistemological Location for the Study of Management’ Academy of Management Review 17 pp514-536; Haralambos M and Holdbourn M (2000) Sociology Themes and Perspectives London: Collins; Bilton X Bonnett K, Jones P Skinner D, Stanworth M and Webster A (1981/1996) Introductory Sociology (3rd ed) Basingstoke: Macmillan pp83-4, 92, 95–97, 109; Jankowicz A D (1995) Business Research Projects London: Thomson pp273-4 and pp 112–3 in the 2000 edition; Thomas A B (1993) Controversies in Management London: Routledge; Rubenowitz S (1980) Utrendings-och forskningsmetodik Gothenburg: Scandinavian University; Reason P and Rowan J (1981) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook New York: Wiley; Woolgar S (1993) Science: The Very Idea London: Routledge; Walker R (1985) (ed) Applied Qualitative Research Vermont: Gower pp9-17; Burrell G, and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis London: Heinemann pp227-255; Hussey J and Hussey R (1997) Business Research: a practical guide for undergraduate and post graduate students Basingstoke: Palgrave pp47-8,51-61 and Hughes J A (1976) Sociological Analysis: Methods of Discovery London: Nelson

  12. Alvesson M and Deetz (2000) Doing Critical Management Research London: Sage; Gill J and Johnson P (1991) Research Methods for Managers London: Paul Chapman; Anderson S (1981) Positivism kontra hermeneutik Uddevalla: Korpen p82 also Gummesson E (1991/ 2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research London: Sage

  13. Ghauri P Gronhaug K, and Kristianslund I (1995) Research Methods in Business Studies New York: Prentice Hall p84

  14. Burrell and Morgan op cit p228, 253, emphasis added

  15. Hughes J A (1990) The Philosophy of Social Research (2nd ed) Harlow: Longman pp89-114

  16. Chia R (2002) “The Production of Management Knowledge: Philosophical Underpinnings of Research Design in Partington D Essential Skills for Management Research London: Sage pp7-9 (emphasis added) 7–9 (emphasis added)

  17. Kelliher F (2005) ‘Interpretivism and the Pursuit of Research Legitimation; an integrated approach to single case design The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 3, 2 pl23

  18. Reason and Rowan op cit cited by Raimond op cit ppl 11–112

  19. Garrick, J. and Clegg, S. (2001) ‘Stressed-Out Knowledge Workers in Performative Times: A Postmodern Take on Project Based Learning’ in Management Learning 4, 5 119–134

  20. Raimond op cit p110, 56

  21. Reason and Rowan op cit ppxiv-xvi cited by Raimond op cit pp113-114)

  22. Raimond op cit p115

  23. Raimond op cit p115, pp114-116

  24. Warwick D P (1982) “Tea Room Trade: Means and Ends in Social Research’ in Bulmer M (ed) Social Research Ethics London: Macmillan

  25. Gravitational laws were useful fictions, he thought: useful because they enable successful predictions; fictions, because all that can be really known about ‘gravity’, is the experience of its effect on one’s body

  26. Reason P (ed) (1988) Human Inquiry in Action; Developments in New Paradigm Research London: Sage

  27. Riessman CK (1993) Narrative Analysis Newbury Park: Sage

  28. Chia R (2002) “The Production of Management Knowledge: Philosophical Underpinnings of Research Design in Partington D Essential Skills for Management Research London: Sage

  29. Robson C (2002) Real World Research Maiden: Blackwell

  30. Alvesson M and Willmott H (1996) Making Sense of Management London: Sage

  31. Bryman A (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research London: Unwin Hyman p45

  32. Deetz S (2003) “Reclaiming the Legacy of the Linguistic Turn Organization 10, 3 pp421-429

  33. Knights D (1992) “Changing Spaces: the Disruptive Impact of a New Epistemological Location for the Study of Management’ Academy of Management Review 17 pp514-536

  34. Brooks M G and Brooks J G (1999) ‘The Courage to be Constructivist’ Educational Leadership 57, 3 ppl8-24

  35. Doolin B and McLeod L (2005) ‘Towards Critical Interpretivism in IS Research in Howcroft D and Trauth EM (eds) Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

  36. Mitchell C L (2007) ‘Interpretive Strengths and the Traditional Left and Right’ paper to the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas 9–11 March

  37. See http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/heideggerthenazi.htm, also Farias V (1991) Heidegger and Nazism Temple University Press. Interpretivism has multiple sources, many of which embrace freedom. for example West Coast sociologists of the 1960s rejected the determinism of Parson’s ‘structural-functional’ sociology, protesting, rightly, that it left too little room for individual ‘agency’. Therefore, it would be unfair to make too much of the stain left on the interpretivist project by Heidegger’s notorious authoritarianism, racism and admiration of Hitler. Moreover all projects have to be animated by passion, including a passion for fair representation of a field of study. However the frequency and passion given to the claim that interpretivism is all-to-the-good and that positivism is all-to-the-bad, attracts suspicion. Pleasurable denunciation of the ‘positivist’ Other, reported in this paper, has no intellectual kinship with Heidegger’s loathing for Germany’s fantastical ‘Non-Aryan enemies. (Racism is banal and has no intellectual basis.) But I suspect that categorically-unfair-fervent-loathing of the positivist phantom, has some psycho-dynamic content that is not so different to Heidegger’s heated disposition. That is, bellicose characterisation of two camps, an ‘us’ and a ‘them’, which so disfigures and distorts methodological writing, represents a persistent human psychic pleasure, which has on occasion placed innocent people in concentration camps and murdered them. Aristotle’s theories about intelligent and unintelligent feelings could be extended to account for our intelligent and unintelligent feelings about theories.

  38. Sheehan T (1988) ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’ The New York Review of Books XXXV, 10 June 16th pp38-47

  39. Alvesson M and Willmott H (2002) “Identity and Regulation as Organisational Control: Producing the Appropriate Individual’ The Journal of Management Studies 39: 5 July p39

  40. Positivists would call these “One-tailed Hypotheses’

  41. Keller E F (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science New Haven: Yale University Press

  42. Woolgar op cit

  43. Raimond op cit

  44. Jankowicz A D (2000) Business Research Projects London: Thomson p114

  45. Evered R and Louis M R (1991) “Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside” in Smith C N and Dainty P The Management Research Handbook London: Routledge p7

  46. Hussey and Hussey op cit p73

  47. Alvesson and Willmott op cit p621

  48. Dainty P (1991) “Management field research using repertory grid technique: problems and possibilities’ in Smith C N and Dainty P The Management Research Handbook London: Routledge p60

  49. Chia op cit p17

  50. Pawson R (1989) “Methodology’ in Haralambos M (ed) Developments in Sociology Volume 5 Ormskirk: Causeway Press

  51. Walker op cit 13–17

  52. Op cit, also Podsakoff P M and Dalton D R (1991) “Research methodology in organization studies’ in Smith C N and Dainty P (ed) The Management Research Handbook London: Routledge

  53. Roth W D and Mehta J D (2002) “The Rashomon Effect; Combining Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events’ Sociological Methods and Research 31, 2 pp 131–173

  54. Dainty op cit p56, 65

  55. Evered and Lewis op cit

  56. Bryman op cit

  57. Hussey and Hussey op cit p72, 74

  58. Saunders et al op cit; similarly Silverman D (1993) Qualitative Research; Theory, Method and Practices London: Sage pp21-22; Gray D E (2009) Doing Research in the Real World (2nd ed) London: Sage

  59. Easterby-Smith et al p43

  60. Ibid p27

  61. Deetz op cit p426

  62. A “perspective’ cannot be made from “being muti-perspectival’. Research cannot be “interactive’ and distant and “multi-perspectival’ and have the “single perspective’ which Deetz treats as defining positivism. “Engagement’ and “blended assumptions’ would not be possible if positivism and interpretivism were “polar’ (Hussey and Hussey, op cit p49). If positivism stood opposite interpretivism, reconciliation would be impossible. The literal and metaphorical meaning of “hybrid’, “opposites’, “polar’, “mix’ and “blend’ prevent amalgamation. The following distinctions are also difficult to follow: ‘Positivism‖[t]he purpose of enquiry is to build theories; these are general statements which validly explain phenomena.’ “Constructivism… The purpose of enquiry is to gain sufficient understanding to predict future outcomes’ (Jankowiicz, op cit 2000, p113). The problem is that both statements fit positivism, but probably the second one fits it better than the first. It is also difficult to see what difference the following distinction refers to: “Positivism… Phenomena can be analysed in terms of variables’ “Constructivism… Phenomena can be analysed in terms of issues’ (p113). ‘Variables’ and ‘issues’ are compatible with positivist epistemology, which might consider, say, absenteeism from work both as a variable and as an issue. As a variable is anything that varies, it is hard to imagine how a ‘constructivist’ could avoid consideration of variables. Finally, if positivism and constructivism could be distinguished, they would constitute variables in research design.

  63. Examples of indisputable, yet uninformative deductions are often given in the following form: ‘If object a) has greater mass than object b) and object b) has greater mass than object c), then object a) has greater mass than object c)’. The deduction is certainty true, but it does not say much. According to Popper, theories which account for variations across many dependent variables are particularly vulnerable to falsification by the evidence of experience. Brave and risky testable theories are more informative and more valuable than low-risk theories

  64. Quotation from Francis Bacon’s First Book of Aphorisms, in Hollis M (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science; An introduction Cambridge: Cambridge University p66

  65. Francis Bacon, cited in Hess M (1964) ‘Francis Bacon’ in A Critical History of Western Philosophy’ O’Connor D J (ed) London: Macmillan: London 1964, ppl44, from Bacon F (1858/9) The Works of Francis Bacon Vol 5, 56 p432 R L Ellis and J Spedding (eds) London. See also Urbach, P (1982) ‘Francis Bacon as a Precursor to Popper’ British Journal of Philosophy 33 pp113-132

  66. Reynolds M (1881) Engine Driving Life or Stirring Adventures and Incidents in the Lives of Locomotive Engine-Drivers London: Crosby Lockwood and Co p122

  67. Keat R and Urry J (1975/1982) Social Theory as Science London: Routledge and Kegan Paul pp15-16 (emphasis added). For an excellent history of ideas in sociology see Coser L (1977) Masters of Sociological Thought: ideas in a social and historical context (2nd ed) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; similarly Easthope G (1974) A History of Social Research Methods London: Longman

  68. Miller J (2001) “Space and Time in Natural Language: Some parallels between Spatial and Temporal Expressions in English and Russian in Stroinska M (ed) Relative Points of View; Linguistic Representations of Culture Oxford: Berghahn

  69. By email.

  70. Heidegger M (1962) Being and Time Macquarrie J and Robinson E (trans) London: SCM Press

  71. Dreyfus H L (1979) What Computers Can’t Do Harper Colophone Books

  72. www.mythsandlogos.com/Klein.html

  73. du Gay P (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work London: Sage p46

Download references

Authors
  1. Stephen Lloyd Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, S.L. Naïve Expertise: Spacious Alternative to the Standard Account of Method. Philos. of Manag. 9, 95–133 (2010). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010937

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010937

Keywords

Search

Navigation