What are the major similarities and differences in how a Business/public administrator committed to a positivist perspective and one committed to the interpretivist or phenomenological perspective would approach the task of understanding and acting in Business/public organizations?
Written by Wasim Al-Habil
The purpose of this essay is to discuss the manner in which a Business/public administrator committed to a positivist perspective and one committed to an interpretivist or phenomenological perspective would approach the task of understanding and acting in Business/public organizations. The essay will highlight the differences between the two approaches by discussing their underpinnings and shortcomings as logics of inquiry. The similarities between the two approaches will then be discussed drawing heavily on the work of Weber (2004) who argues that the two have more similarities than differences. Lastly, it will be argued that given the problems that one may encounter when using the positivist approach to understand and act in Business/public organizations, the interpretive or phenomenological perspective is more suitable to such an endeavor.
Underpinning of the Positivist Approach:
Positivism or explanatory research is premised on the desire to draw a distinction between discovery and validation, the belief in neutral observations, value free ideal of scientific knowledge and the belief in the methodological unity of sciences. The proponents of this approach believe that there is an objective reality that exists beyond the human mind. Therefore, embracing scientific methods of research to analyze and resolve problems identified within the society’s socio-economic and political spheres, is deemed to be a plausible way of eliminating arbitrary decisions based on values, preconceived ideas, selfish interests and
others. According to White (1999), explanatory research strives to build theories that explain and predict natural and social events as it uses both deductive-nomological and inductive-probabilistic models of explanation and prediction.
An administrator committed to a positivist approach will therefore strive to establish causal relationships between variables as well as try to make predictions on the basis of how variables affect one another. A causal relationship is based on the assumption that one variable causes the other one to behave in a certain manner whereas predictability is premised on the assumption that if something happens or occurs, then something else will follow. Establishing a causal relationship between variables calls for the formulation of a set of hypotheses, which are then tested using the data collected. In this vein, the study of an institution as a collective phenomenon is reduced to the study of attributes of individuals.
In pursuit of objectivity, neutrality, rationality and applicability, the values, ideologies, perceptions and ideas of the researcher or administrator are deemed to play no role in the way they explain and predict certain phenomena within the organizations. The administrator is expected to detach himself or herself from the subjects of their study even though they (administrators) determine the ends of the social and political processes or the best and most efficient alternative(s) needed to address the identified problems or any other issue at hand. In other words, the administrator has to rely on his or her scientific knowledge and skills to make recommendations and decisions about the things that need to be done and how they should be done.
In this vein, Fay (1975) states aptly that the administrators “determine the technically best course of action to adopt in order to implement a decision or achieve a goal” (p 14). He goes further to state that, “Here the policy scientist doesn’t merely clarify the possible outcomes of certain courses of action, he actually chooses the most efficient course of action in terms of the available scientific information (p 14, italics in the original). In selecting the best alternative, the administrator will do an aggregation of costs and benefits on the basis of the causal relationship established between variables. Technical rationality is therefore supreme under the positivist approach in terms of deciding what has to be done within the organization, by whom and how.
Shortcoming of Positivism:
Emphasis on scientific knowledge results in the experts or professionals monopolizing the decision-making process within organizations, a situation that Fay (1975) refers to as dominance of policy scientists. McSwite (1997) calls it the dominance of Men of Reason while Alexander and Richmond (2007), borrowing a leaf from the works of Waldo (1948) call it the rule by the experts or the philosopher kings. The recommendations made by the researchers are insulated from Business/public scrutiny thus tempting Fay (1975)to contend that it leads to impoverishment of political debates. Citizens are marginalized from the decision-making process because they do not possess the requisite scientific skills and know ledge and are therefore deemed not to be fit to make enlightened contributions.
Due to the fundamental differences existing between the physical and social sciences, one may argue that the use of scientific techniques and methods to understand and act in Business/public organizations is very problematic. Even though the importance of science cannot be downplayed within our societies, it is a fundamental mistake to think that all administrative matters can be handled in a scientific way. Business/public organizations are inherently political, thus making it impossible for one to separate facts from values. Even though objectivity is highly desirable, it is very difficult to attain within Business/public organizations since we do not have clear-cut answers to the problems and issues that make Business/public organizations “Business/public”. In this vein, Stivers (2003) implores us to not that
Business/public administration is Business/public not because it takes place in government agencies or because these agencies don’t have stockholders and don’t make profit. There is something profoundly open – un-resolvable - about Business/public administrative work, which can be traced to the kinds of questions it addresses and the kinds of problems it tackles, which are not just “messy” but “Business/public” in the sense that they are of shared concern and endlessly arguable (p.243).
According to Waldo (1984), scientific methods can be used to resolve some issues within the field of Business/public administration but should not be embraced blindly as doing so will amount to an error of judgment. His contention is that since administrative study is suffused with questions of value, such questions are not amenable to scientific treatment. Waldo (1984) argues that, “I hold it to be a fundamental error that “if a science of cause and effect could be worked out, it would be possible to tell what government should do and when the response should be made” (p 171). He goes further to state that, “If mechanical cause and effect were obtained in the realm of human affairs no one would need to tell the government what to do; what it does would be predetermined, fixed, and invariable (p.171).
By the same token, Spicer (2004) contends that no matter how hard we try to separate facts from values, the task remains impossible to achieve given the fact that “much of the vocabulary we use in Business/publicadministration acquitres meaning only in the context of particularl mental frameworks or categoties of thought that we have come to use over time in thinking about and making sense of government actions” (P.354). He goes further to argue that
The meaning of such words as “Business/public administration,”“government”, “constitution,”“law,”“democracy,”“citizen,” and legislature are inherently ambiguous, and they are never precise or neutral in any scientific sense. They are inevitably tied, in the final analysis, to what sort of institution we believe government is, can be, or, for that matter, ought to be (Spicer, 2004, p. 354)
It is in view of the foregoing that Spicer (2004) concludes his argument by saying that, “No matter how neutral we try to be, whenever we think about human action in a governmental setting, our thinking is likely to reflect some sort of past vision of politics, ethics, and humanity” (p.354).
Interpretive or phenomenological perspective:
According to Fay (1975), an interpretive approach is premised on the realization that a large part of the vocabulary of social science is made up of action concepts which are used to describe doings. These action concepts are used to “describe behavior which is done with a purpose such that one can ask, what is its point, aim or intent, or what was the person trying to do, desiring or meaning” (Fay, 1975, p 71). The actors are expected to provide the researcher with the meaning and the understanding that they attach to their actions, lest he or she reaches a wrong conclusion about the actions that he or she has observed.
Interpretivism is based on the belief that there is no objective reality out there. Administrators and researchers committed to this method believe that reality is socially constructed. Reality is not something that exists outside the researcher as it is the case under the positivist perspective. For the interpretivists, reality is determined by the lived experiences, values, norms, culture and social background of both the researchers and the observed people. Researchers are therefore expected to make a concerted effort to clearly understand the actions and behavior of the observed people. They cannot detach themselves from the group, as there is need for them to interact and listen to the stories told by the people that they are studying. White (1999) explains the underpinnings of interpretive approach succinctly when he states that
Interpretive research is concerned with the meanings that people attach to norms, rules, and values that regulate their interactions. Care is taken not to impose a previous understanding of norms, rules, and values on others but rather to understand their beliefs and actions from their point of view. The focus is not only on what they tell us directly about the reasons for their beliefs and actions but also on the social practices that underlie them. Social practice gives meaning to social action (p. 49).
Interaction between the researcher and the observed is important as the meanings and importance attached to the actions performed by the latter need to be internalized by the former such that he or she should be able to communicate them back to the group. In other words, a consensus can be reached if the researcher can explain the actions and behavior of the group in the same way as presented to him or her by members of that group. Hence, mutual exchange of views and knowledge regarding a particular phenomenon is viewed as one of the important building blocks of the interpretive approach. Fay (1975) summarizes this point bystating that, “By ‘reliving’ or ‘identifying with’ his subjects, the social scientist was supposed to be able to discern their mental states and therefore reveal the (mental) causes of the actions he observed” (p 73).
In this vein, Hummel (1990) reminds us that managers within Business/public organizations handle and resolve issues through storytelling where they share experiences with their staff. As far as Hummel is concerned, people need to understand the problem before they can think of possible solutions that can be used to resolve it. Prior understanding of the issue or phenomenon at hand does not seem to be very important under the positivist perspective, as it is the case under interpretive perspective. Hence, the objection by Hummel (1990) that “In both policy formulation and management, raw scientific data cannot become accepted into policymakers’ or managers’ realities unless these data are first given a place in the unfolding story of policymaking and managing” (p. 304).
Hummel (1991) goes further to state that problems within Business/public organizations and the society at large occur as a result of interactions between people. Since different people are likely to have different interpretations of what is happening, active participation of the concerned parties in unpacking the identified problems as well as how they can be resolved, not scientific knowledge, is the most important strategy that Business/public managers can embrace to reach a consensus with their staff. Intersubjectivity and not objectivity, is important in terms of addressing problems within the field of Business/public administration more especially that people are “placed in the organization that their roles give them specific perspectives and responsibilities that are not necessarily compatible” (p. 33).
Shortcoming of the interpretive Perspective:
In view of the fact that the administrator committed to the interpretive approach has to relive the experiences of the observed group, he or she ends up being an integral part of the group thus making it difficult for him or her to move back and assess in an objective way the meanings and understandings of the group’s actions. In other words, the administrator may end up failing to detach himself or herself from thegroup and therefore fail to assess and analyze the group’s actions without being biased. The conclusions reached are likely to be littered with one’s values and personal convictions regarding the organizations studied.
Along the same vein, the administrator will be constrained in terms of moving beyond understanding and internalizing the meanings and reasons attached to the actions of the studied group. It becomes difficult for the administrator to suggest different things to the group in an attempt to help them do things in a different way. Even more constraining is the fact that the observations made by the administrator cannot be generalized to the whole population. This can be attributed to the fact that societies are made up of complex groups with different and sometimes conflicting needs and desires. Therefore, what applies to one organization may be totally rejected by other groups, thus making it difficult for one to make general statements basing on the observations of one group.
Similarities between the Two Approaches:
Despite the differences between the two approaches as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, they have similarities that are worth noting. Regarding their ontology, Weber (2004) contends that the two are similar in the sense that they are premised on the belief that there is some kind of reality that exists beyond our perceptions of it. He goes further to state that both approaches seek to enhance our understanding of the world and they “appreciate that they bring biases and prejudices to the research they undertake and that the research methods they use have strengths and weaknesses” (Weber, 2004, p vi). As far as Weber is concerned, the difference between these approaches is that they “use a different genre to report their research” (p.vi) given the fact that the interpretivists make their personal biases and assumptions explicit whereas the positivists pay little attention to them when describing their research.
As logics of inquiry, both approaches strive to build knowledge about the world we live in. In their attempt to make sense of the world, the positivists believe that “human experience of the world reflects an objective, independent reality and that this reality provides the foundation for human knowledge” whereas the interpretivists believe that “knowledge is built through social construction of the world” (Weber, 2004, p. vi). Despite the differences in the nature of reality that they believe exists, Weber contends that they both “accept that the artifacts they build to understand the world (theories, frameworks, constructs, etc) are socially constructed” (p vi). These socially constructed artifacts imply that positivists and interpretivists accept that “the research processes they use, and the objects they research are inextricably related” (p. vi).
By the same token, Weber is of the view that even though the notion of truth as embraced by the positivists and interpretivists may be approached and understood from different perspectives, it ought to be recognized that the artifacts used by both researchers to understand the world are nothing but a representation of their preconceptions about the world. Such preconceptions are without any doubt fallible, hence they have to be tested against “lived experience” which is basically the data collected. It is through the collected data under both approaches that one can evaluate his or her pre-understandings as well as refine them iteratively until they match the experience of the data collected.
Why Interpretivism is More Suitable than Positivism:
One of the most important things that positivists fail to take into consideration is the politics, power relations and competition that characterize Business/public organizations. Norton Long (1946) states that Business/public organizations are constantly involved in a power struggle with other organizations, be they Business/public or private. They also have to contend with political interference owing to the fact that they (organizations) are in most cases created through statutes passed by the politicians. Hence, Long argues that organizations can survive in their turbulent environments if Business/public administrators fully understand the power dynamics, the resourcesat their disposal and the environment within which they operate. According to Long, “The lifeblood of administration is power. Its attainment, maintenance, increase, dissipation, and loss are subjects the practitioner and student can ill afford to neglect” (Long, 1946, p.103).