Research Questions - Alvesson & Orgen - Problematization

Question 1

Name three characteristics of interesting and influential theories.

Answer 1

• seen as true
• seen as challenging the assumptions underlying existing theories in some significant way
• it must differ significantly from, and at the same time be connected to, established literature in order to be seen as meaningful

Question 2

How does one generates RQs through problematization ?

Answer 2

By identifying and challenging the assumptions underlying existing theories (ex. social constructionism, postmodernism, feminism, critical theory)
- established ways rarely express this ambitious and systematic attempts —> instead, they mainly try to identify/create gaps in existing literature that need to be filled

Question 3

What is a theory ?

Answer 3

= a statement of relations among concepts within a boundary set of assumptions and constraints. It is no more than a linguistic device used to organise a complex empirical world

• always based on and bounded by researchers’ assumptions about the subject matter in question
• understanding the assumptions that underpin existing theories is important
  = without understanding the assumptions that underlie existing theories, it is not possible to problematize them and, based on that, to construct research questions that may lead to the development of more interesting and influential theories

Question 4

What is a purpose of a theory ?

Answer 4

to organise (parsimoniously) and to communicate (clearly)

Question 5

What is a gap-spotting method ?

Answer 5

= it develops existing management literature through systematic and incremental additions - and identifying and addressing more significant gaps

It rarely involves a simple identification of obvious gaps in a given body of literature -> it consists of complex, constructive, creative processes and arranges existing studies in specific ways
- use “ready-made” theories by master thinkers
- aim to defend or reinforce a preferred position but do not offer new points of departure
a gap = can also be defined by specific negotiations between researchers, editors, reviewers about what studies actually constitute existing literature and what is lacking from that domain of literature

Question 6

Is gap-spotting important ?

Answer 6

Gap-spotting is important (it develops existing management literature through systematic and incremental additions - and identifying and addressing more significant gaps) yet it doesn’t challenge existing theories and most likely doesn’t produce high-impact theories
==> it is therefore vital to support and strengthen attempts at more deliberate, systematic, and ambitious problematization, both as a research ideal and as a methodology for constructing research questions

Question 7

What are possible explanation of a vast use of gap-spotting method of developing RQs ? (2)

Answer 7

Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997)

• the highest chance that researches get published is when they argue that existing literature is either incomplete or had overlooked an important perspective and that those gaps needed to be filled
• a contribution - providing a superior study that was able to correct faulty or inadequate existing literature

Political context
- challenging assumptions that underlie existing studies os often risky —> it means questioning existing power relations in a scientific field —> it might result in upsetting colleagues, reviewers, editors =>reduces chances of being published

Question 8

What is problematization ?

Answer 8

= a methodology for challenging assumptions underlying existing literature and, based on that, to formulate RQs that might lead to more interesting and influential theories
- gap-spotting and problematization are not mutually exclusive ( Any problematization of a literature domain calls for some scrutiny of particular debates, critiques, and possibly earlier challenges of assumptions in the domain, and most gap-spotting efforts involve some form of modest problematization)
= challenging the assumptions that underlie not only others’ but also one’s own theoretical position and, based on that, to construct novel research questions (knowledge is uncertain, truths or theories cannot be accepted as given)

Question 9

How does Foucault define problematization ?

Answer 9

Problematization is first and foremost an “endeavour to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of what is already known” (1985)

= it questions the necessary presupposi-tions researchers make about a subject matter in order to develop the specific theory about it.

Question 10

What is the risk of problematization ?

Answer 10

the risk of perpetual problematization—overproblematization—leading to a sense of fatigue and a deficit of positive results

Question 11

Two key questions need to be answered regarding assumptions.

Answer 11

First, what types of assumptions are relevant to consider?
Second, how can these assumptions be identified, articulated, and challenged in a way that is likely to lead to
the development of an interesting theory?

Question 12

Name five types/sets of assumptions ?

Answer 12

In-house
Root metaphor
Paradigm assumption
Ideology assumption
Field assumption

Question 13

Describe in-house assumptions.

Answer 13

In-house assumptions = exist within a particular school of thought in the sense that they are shared and accepted as unproblematic by its advocates.
Ex. If we were to question the trait theory assumption that leadership is defined less by the trait of the leader than by the social context, we would challenge an in-house assumption of leadership

Question 14

Describe root assumptions.

Answer 14

Root metaphor = assumptions are associated with broader images of a particular subject matter
Ex. it is common to see organizations as “cultures” in terms of a unitary set of values and beliefs shared by organization members. However, at the root metaphor level, authors have questioned a sumptions around unity, uniqueness, and consensus, and they have emphasized differentiation, fragmentation, discontinuity, and ambiguity as key elements in culture

Question 15

Describe paradigmatic assumptions.

Answer 15

The ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions that underlie a specific literature can be characterized as paradigmatic assumptions
Ex. by adopt- ing an interpretive perspective on professional competence, Sandberg (2000) challenged the dualist ontology underlying the prevalent rationalistic school, which conceptualizes professional competence as consisting of two separate entities: a set of attributes possessed by the worker and a separate set of work activities. However, from an interpretive approach, competence does not consist of two separate entities; instead, person and work form an inseparable relation through the lived experience of work. Such a questioning enabled Sandberg to provide an alternative assumption ground and, based on that, to generate new research ques- tions about professional competence

Question 16

Describe ideology assumptions

Answer 16

Ideology assumptions = various political-, moral-, and gender-related assumptions held about the subject matter.
Ex. researchers conducting studies of work should not proceed from the question “Why don’t workers work harder?” and then investigate norms about a reasonable work performance; instead, they should ask, “Why do people work as hard as they do?” In a similar vein, Sievers (1986) challenged existing theories of motivation by suggesting that instead of asking how people can be motivated in organizations, they should ask why people need to be motivated at all if they experience their jobs as meaningful

Question 17

Describe field assumptions.

Answer 17

Field assumptions = a broader set of as-sumptions about a specific subject matter that are shared by several different schools of thought within a paradigm, and sometimes even across paradigms and disciplines
Ex. labor process theorists and poststructural-oriented critical management scholars agree that there is something called “management” and an ideology or discourse of managerialism, which should be critically addressed. However, in debates each of these schools of thought claims to have privileged access to an insightful understanding of management

Question 18

Tell something about central methodological principles and name all 6 of them.

Answer 18

= important elements to consider in the problematization process
- process is considerably more iterative than linear

(1) identifying a domain of literature
(2) identifying and articulating assumptions underlying this domain, (3) evaluating them
(4) developing an alternative assumption ground
(5) considering it in relation to its audience
(6) evaluating the alternative assumption ground.

Question 19

Problematization - (1) identifying a domain of literature

Answer 19

• be less concerned with covering all possible studies within a field than uncritically reproducing the assumptions informing these studies
• Problematization research typically in-volves a more narrow literature coverage and in-depth readings of key texts, with the specific aim of identifying and challenging the assumptions underlying the specific literature domain targeted
• make a broad references to major or typical studies and to scrutinize possible problematization in relevant work
• consider - the actual domain targeted and the specific texts chosen for deep readingsa) path-defining study - focus on an exemplar that plays a key role in a literature domain - later investigate whether all the assumptions found are interesting to challenge
  b) concentrate on one summary or a few authoritative summaries - given that they are not covering too much
  c) look at the few more recent, influential and respected pieces covering some variation in a particular domain of literature

These options need to be supplemented with broader readings, the in-depth reading of the selected texts is the focal point

Question 20

Problematization - (2) identifying and articulating assumptions underlying this domain

Answer 20

Assumptions underlying a specific domain of literature are rarely formulated as McGregorian theory X versus theory Y alternatives - such explicitly formulated assumptions have more the character of “postulations.”

It is the assumptions that mostly remain implicit or weakly articulated that are the main target in the
problematization methodology.

In-house assumptions can be identified by scrutinizing internal debates and the interfaces between a specific group of authors who frequently refer to each other and neighboring areas, moderately relating one’s work to the focused group’s work, and mainly using a similar narrative style and vocabulary

Root metaphor assumptions can be explored by (1) identifying the basic image or metaphor of social reality informing a text or school and (2) detecting or producing alternative possible confrontational metaphors.

Identification of paradigm assumptions normally calls for some familiarity with an alternative world view, without being stuck in the latter

Ideological assumptions can also be explored by being aware of positions very different from the focal one in terms of interests, focus, identifications, values, and ethical commitments. One tactic would be to read and interpret an example of what appears to be positive and worth taking seriously as a problem to be addressed or as a solution to be embraced. Another tactic would be to view something negative (e.g., repressive) as perhaps innocent or even positive (e.g., laissez-faire leadership as a source of autonomy).

Field assumptions are difficult to identify because “everyone” shares them, and, thus, they are rarely thematized in research texts. One option is to search across theoretical schools and intellectual camps to see whether they have anything in common regarding the conceptualisation of the particular subject matter in question. Another option is to look at debates and critiques between seemingly very different positions and focus on what they are not addressing—that is, the common consensual ground not being debated. Looking at other fields may also be valuable in getting some perspective

Question 21

Problematization - (3) evaluating articulated assumptions

Answer 21

• not all assumptions are worthy of being problematised
• “What is the theoretical potential of challenging a particular assumption?”
• “Truth” in any of the several avail- able senses is also an important criterion to consider
• Theoretical fruitfulness, novelty, and provocative capacity
• to what extent a challenge of the identified assumptions can inspire new areas of research
• how they form the basis for other established knowledge areas or a dominant line of thinking that
• timing ( Many critical perspectives may, for example, be able to inspire problematization for some time but may later establish a new set of unchallenged assumptions—a source of application rather than drivers for rethinking)

Question 22

Problematization - (4) developing an alternative assumption ground

Answer 22

• useful to consult available critical and reflexive literature, representatives of competing schools, and various
  forms of heuristic tools
• independence from these and should move be-yond already available counter assumptions.
• no predefined answers available - new questions offer starting points for new answers

Question 23

Problematization - (5) considering assumptions in relation to its audience

Answer 23

• a complex issue because the ”audience” typically is not a unitary group - not one but multiple audiences/subgroups - and the assumptions held by one audience may differ from the assumptions held by another audience
  It is important as well to recognise the politics involved - understanding research politics— who will lose or win when a specific assumption is challenged? Similarly, what type of challenge can an audience accept cognitively and emotionally? In other words, how can assumptions be challenged without upsetting dominant groups, which hold them so strongly that they ignore the critique or even prevent one’s study from being published?

       Here problematization of in-house and root metaphor assumptions probably will often be received more positively (less defensively) than problematization of ideology, paradigm, or field assumptions.

Question 24

Problematization - (6) evaluating the alternative assumption ground

Answer 24

Davis (1971) suggests three responses that can be used to evaluate to what extent an alternative assumption ground is likely to generate a theory that will be regarded as interesting.

a) That’s obvious! If the set of alternative assumptions to a large extent confirms the assumptions held by the targeted audiences— what they already assume to be the case about the subject matter—it will be regarded as obvious by many
b) It’s absurd!- alternative assumption ground denies all the assumptions held by the targeted audiences, it is likely that it will be regarded as unbelievable. Both of the above responses indicate that the alternative assumption ground is likely to be unsuccessful.
c) That’s interesting! This is the ideal response. According to Davis and other advocates of ”interesting theories” the experience of ”this is interesting” occurs when the alternative assumption ground accepts some and denies some of the assumptions held by the targeted audiences. Because they are curious and willing to listen, the audiences may take the new idea or challenge seriously

• consider its rhetorical appeal ex. politeness - various politeness strategies (such as acknowledging other researchers for their contribution to the field) to reduce the risk of upsetting the academics they were criticising
• the aesthetic dimensions of the alternative assumption ground are also central in composing an appealing and convincing argument - it is important to work with metaphors that are appealing and concepts and formulations that are challenging and provocative

Question 25

Problematization seems to be particularly relevant in situations of (2):

Answer 25

1/ political domination - where a social interest bias and/or political factors govern knowledge production rather than good ideas - also the domination of a particular school of thought can stifle new ideas and call for politically motivated problematizations.
2/ cognitive closure - especially salient in research areas where a particular world view has colonized the researchers - often limited critical debate and there are few counter ideas because deviant voices are silenced and people have to come up with alternative views. It seems particularly important to avoid a gap-spotting, extend-the-literature logic here.
The benefits of rejuvenating the field may be high, although the task is not an easy one.