Exploration Process to the Construction of Knowledge

In management research, empirical methods – various forms of observation, interviews, investigations, simulations or quasi-experimentation, or a combi­nation of various techniques (multi-methods) – are used more frequently to explore and to develop new theoretical constructs than in testing them (Snow and Thomas, 1994). While the exploration process itself does not presuppose a choice of either a qualitative or a quantitative methodological design, qualita­tive methodologies are more commonly employed, being more efficient as far as the finality of the research is concerned (see Chapter 4). Similarly, explo­ration does not limit the epistemological choices available to the researcher – who can explore from either a positivist or a constructivist perspective, for example.

1. Theoretical Exploration

Theoretical exploration consists in developing a connection between two or more theoretical fields that have not been linked previously in other works. These fields or disciplines do not have to be totally circumscribed by the researcher, however. In fact, researchers can only focus on a limited area of a field or disci­pline – that which seems to be the most relevant to their research subject.

The researcher will select and employ a certain number of theoretical elements in each of the fields (or disciplines) studied, and in so doing will delimit the conceptual framework of the research. Exploration is carried out at the level of the newly established connections between the fields or disciplines under study. At this point results are expected either to complete, or round off, an incomplete explanation, or to advance another understanding altogether.

Example: Grammatical models and organizational processes

Pentland (1995) explores theoretically the possible usefulness of the grammatical metaphor to describe and conceptualize organizational processes in an original way. Drawing on writings in both organizational theory and linguistics, Pentland establishes a parallel between grammatical and organizational processes by making analogies between these two distinct disciplines. He shows how grammatical mod­els represent an opportunity for management research because they constitute a new way to describe sequences of actions that are characteristic of organizational processes. By relating culture, institutional structures and coordination techniques to actions, routines and possible organizational processes, he shows the strong explicative power grammatical models hold for research in management. The principal interest of such models (and of Pentland’s theoretical exploration) lies in the explicit connection between the structural characteristics of a context and the organizational processes possible in that context.

Theoretical exploration necessitates an inductive method, which may lead researchers to propose analogies between a number of theoretic fields. The explo­ration must, though, remain relevant to the field in which they are working.

2. Empirical Exploration

The empirical method involves exploring a phenomenon from a tabula rasa (clean slate) starting point – putting aside all prior knowledge we have of the subject at hand. This method theoretically enables a researcher to develop ‘anew’ – and independently – existing knowledge about a subject. Empirical exploration employs a purely inductive logical method, which favors, in theory, the development of new inferences.

In practice, this method is not used in management in the strict tabula rasa sense. Its applicability to such research is limited. Researchers cannot throw off their prior understandings and beliefs entirely. They cannot see all there is to be seen, but only that which they know how to see. Researchers’ personalities, previous experience, and even the way their minds are structured, all influence their perception.

Our observations, even the most unchecked, are guided by what we are able to see and by what we are prepared to see. It is very difficult, even utopian, to argue that we can truly make a clean slate of our knowledge. We cannot hope to carry out research with the eyes of a newborn baby, with no a priori assump­tions about the world. Even the paradigm selected comes into question here. Rather than representing a thought-out choice, this may say more about the personality of the researcher, and his or her aspirations or natural affinities.

Empirical exploration remains useful, however, when researchers investi­gate little-known, or even totally unknown, phenomena. Inductive inferences are appropriate when there is no available base of potentially useful knowl­edge, as they permit researchers to make sense of observations of which they know nothing about.

An ethnologist who discovers a hitherto unknown people can employ an empirical explorative method to determine the rules of their society, and to try to understand their language and beliefs. If, however, studies have already been made of a people, or it is known that links exist between them and known civilizations, the ethnologist will have little to gain by employing such a method. To do so would in all likelihood amount to ‘reinventing the wheel’ – a lot of time could be spent on exploring phenomena about which much is already known. Miles and Huberman (1984a) warn researchers in management who are eager to rid themselves of the scientific knowledge at their disposal against precisely such a situation.

In management, ethnographic methods make it possible to explore little- known phenomena without having to establish a rigid conceptual framework from the outset. This leaves the researcher the possibility of discovering new links or different explanations. These methods are based on the principle of the researcher’s immersion in the context.

Example: Initiating change in an organization

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) carried out a two-and-a-half-year-long ethnographic study looking at how change was initiated within an organization; in this case an American university. The results of this interpretative search were twofold. An initial analysis highlighted four phases in the process of the initiation of change – envisioning, signaling, revisioning and energizing. Two underlying logics (sense­making and sense-giving) then explained this process, and these played a part in the creation, by the actors, of the new organizational order.

The authors proposed a new conceptual framework (sense-making and sense­giving) to understand the process of the initiation of change. This emerged from a second analysis carried out in the light of the four phases identified in the first analysis. Their theoretical framework thus sprang directly from their data – Gioia and Chittipeddi had not constructed an initial theoretical framework, which would have guided not only their data collection but also their analysis. Instead they followed a methodological design that was very close to ethnographic methods (participant and neutral observation, a long immersion in a context). The technique of narrating journalistically what they observed enabled the first result to emerge (the identification of four phases of the process). The authors made a conscious effort to center their research on inductive reasoning; they even sought to avoid the premature formulation of hypotheses, which they would then have been tempted to test. The second level of analysis aims at conceptualization; a study of the ‘history’ of this change, from a theoretical perspective.

As empirical exploration is not molded around an initial conceptual frame­work, it is in a sense a ‘back-to-front’ research method in comparison to tradi­tional research in management (in which an initial theoretical design guides and influences the exploration).

3. Hybrid Exploration

Hybrid exploration consists in continually shifting between observations and theoretical knowledge throughout the research process. The researcher begins by putting forward concepts to which the literature relevant to the subject of the research is progressively integrated. This theoretical knowledge will be used in making sense of the empirical observations collected in the course of the research. In this sense the method is deductive.

Hybrid exploration is a method that permits the researcher to enrich or expand upon existent knowledge of a subject. Such research tends towards a strong theoretical realism, and the production of theoretical constructs firmly rooted in the facts at hand (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

The problem of contextualization usually arises at some time during the explorative process. Although there is nothing to oblige researchers to test the results of their explorations, many authors (in particular, Glaser and Strauss) encourage researchers to formulate their new theoretical frameworks in such a way that they can be tested. In other words, although the new conceptualiza­tion they have produced relates to the particular environment they studied, it has hopefully emerged through a strict and systematic approach (methodologi­cal design) which the researcher should be able to explain and justify. It may then be tested in other similar or comparable contexts. It is, however, advisable to take certain precautions when putting a produced theoretical element to the test in contexts other than that from which it originally emerged. Most impor­tantly, the researcher must clearly define the a priori typology of the context in which it applies.

Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.