Doing Management and Business Research in Irish Organisations: Reflections on Experience

Teresa Brannick, Sean De Burca, Brian Fynes, Liam Glynn and Laurence O'Connell* Introduction The relationship between ideas/theory, practical `business and management experiences' and evidence/empirical research is a complex and much disputed issue. This paper through reflection on three different research experiences highlights the problematic and complex nature of doing research in Irish Organisations. Firstly, a theoretical methodological framework is briefly outlined and secondly, practical experiences from three research projects are commented upon within the a prior assumptions underpinning the framework. An important fundamental issue that needs to be considered is the question as to what is meant by scientific knowledge and truth and how does this differ from common sense knowledge. These issues are keenly debated in the philosophy of science where they are studied in a field known as the theory of knowledge or epistemology. Without scientific research, one person's guess is as good as another's and, as a result, personal opinion rules the day. This paper acknowledges differences in research orientations/perspectives and suggests that these differences emerge from the interplay between the three core components of the research process. These components are 1 ) dependency on existing theory, 2) the timing and specification of the research question and 3) the collection and analysis of empirical evidence. The key interplay issue is how sequential, linear or holistic the research process evolves. This in turn is a derivative of the degree of reflexivity between the development of the research question, the collection and analysis of empirical data and how central existing theoretical knowledge is in steering the research process (Brannick and Roche, 1997). A Theoretical Methodological Framework Epistemology and Theoretical Perspective The philosophy of science has produced useful principles relating to epistemology and ontology which include some basic assumptions that constitute the philosophical underpinnings of theory. This in turn enables us to understand science and differing forms of explanation. Epistemology (the grounds for knowledge) and ontology (the nature of the world) can be assessed along a fairly arbitrary continua moving from a realist to a relativist perspective. A realist ontology assumes that individuals have direct, unmediated access to an external reality which is the real world. A relativist ontology presupposes that individuals do not have direct access to the real world - language, culture and other distortions are interposed. A realist epistemology assumes that it is possible to obtain hard, secure, objective knowledge about a single external reality. A relativist position assumes that people's knowledge of the world is highly individual, subjective and difficult to access. Their knowledge is meaningful in its own terms and generalisations and universally valid findings are unattainable. Today two major traditions exist, the empiricist with a realist ontology and epistemology, and the hermeneutic with relativist ontology and a realist epistemology. The empiricist tradition seeks to explain human action while the hermeneutic tradition seeks to understand human realities. The empiricist tradition, sometimes referred to as the deductive-nomological or hypothetico-deductive approach, relies on the coveringlaw model of science. To explain, is to identify the relevant generalisations which cover the event/case to be explained. A researcher studying a business research topic within this tradition appeals to laws generated by previous research or attempts to formulate new law-like statements on the basis of empirical data. What is crucial is the process by which those ideas are tested. The understanding or hermeneutic tradition attempts to understand social reality by interpreting the meanings shared by the social group or held by social actors. …