Ever had too much team time? It makes you long for a solo vacation on a desert island.
Introduction One of the major claims made regarding qualitative methods is that they diverge from scientific explanation models in terms of the need for hypothesis testing. A scientific hypothesis is based on a background theory, typically assuming the form of a proposition whose validity depends on empirical confirmation.
Otherwise, a hypothesis is nothing but an imaginative conjecture. Moreover, when researchers do not obtain empirical confirmation for their hypothesis, the theory in question or part of it may not be able to predict relevant aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. Their primary interest is to achieve understanding Verstehen of a particular situation, or individuals, or groups of individual, or sub cultures, etc.
In summary, qualitative methods are primarily inductive, in contrast to the deductive methods of experimental science. The debate centers around how we justify that what we know is valid. More specifically, induction is the form of reasoning based on empirical observation in the process of developing scientific laws and theories.
Thus, induction negotiates the relationship between empirical reality and its theorization, in addition to the production and validation of knowledge. For example, qualitative methods have been accused of reflecting the problems pointed out by philosophers of science e.
In other words, qualitative researchers tend to prioritize logic emerging from experience, preferring to expand their knowledge from it as opposed to using a priori, deductive, concepts. Qualitative researchers have for decades reacted to this distorted view of the field e.
Of the many examples that could be cited, I highlight grounded theory methodology GTM. There are differences among researchers using this approach e. GTM rests in a state of permanent tension between 1. What is the role of theory in qualitative research?
Alternatively, what function do empirical data play in the theorizing process? Answering these questions is important for the continuing advancement of qualitative methods as well as the inclusion of this field in the discussions of similar issues that have been witnessed in the philosophy of science.
As a starting point, I recapitulate the main characteristics of the so-called problem of induction, arguing that it raises important questions regarding the value of theory in science.
Next, I review ways of describing the theory-empirical data relationship that have been proposed in order to address the problem of induction in the realm of the philosophy of science.
Against this backdrop, I discuss how qualitative researchers have dealt with the question of induction, using a "generic analytic cycle" common to qualitative methods as an illustration.
In the last sections, I propose reconsidering the role of theory in qualitative research. I argue for the need to recover a substantial definition of theory in these studies. According to HUME there are two primary ways to validate knowledge: Knowing facts is equivalent to identifying their causes and effects.
However, observing facts, describing them in their manifestation, does not amount to science. There must be a leap from the visible to the invisible, and herein lies induction: The inductive leap allows us, based on singular facts, to create statements about sets of facts and their future behavior.implications of organizational culture are reviewed from different perspectives, and Cliffe’s cultural themes are addressed with the use of Scholes’ cultural web and Hofstede’s onion diagram model of organizational culture.
Generally speaking, organizational culture is the " set theory " of important values, beliefs, and understandings that members share in common; culture provides better (or the best) ways of. The learning organization.
Just what constitutes a ‘learning organization is a matter of some debate. We explore some of the themes that have emerged in the literature and the contributions of key thinkers like Donald Schon and Peter Senge.
Themes of the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Research Network.
Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience.
From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. A THREE-COMPONENT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT John P.
Meyer Natalie J. Alien The University of Western Ontario Diversity in the conceptualization and measurement of organizational com- mitment has made it difficult to interpret the results of an accumulating body of research.