The philosophy of a toolist
YEE CHOY LEONG
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Faculty of Economics and Management
Department of Management and Marketing
Research in business management is always criticised for lack of industrial relevance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). Many researchers are inclined to use more established methods such as survey, econometric, or modelling (Carter, Sanders, & Dong, 2008; Christensen & Sundahl, 2001; Tranfield, 2002). A survey maximizes generalizability but lacks precision and realism, and left little room for research on emerging problems and solutions that cannot be surveyed (Carter, et al., 2008; Scandura & William, 2000). Companies have a real need to improve their performance, but it is unlikely that this survey method will contribute greatly in these areas (Platts, 1993). As a result, the field of business management are in danger of becoming irrelevant. In this paper, a new methodology, ‘toolism’, is proposed to overcome the problem. The new methodology incorporated consultation approach, multiple case study methodology (Yin, 1984), action research (Rapoport, 1970), process approach (Platts, 1993) and grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to effectively capture and analyse Mode 2 (application) knowledge (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotony, Schwartzman, Scott, & Trow, 1994). Mode 2 knowledge in a practical sense is very difficult for researcher to capture, and neglecting these information might created different interpretation of the findings. Unfortunately, many researchers had chosen to simplify the findings and not to take this difficult-to-capture knowledge for analysis. As a result, the outputs produced from a research could be of little value, if it is not reflecting the true use of practitioners. If this is so, the research community lives in isolation in an ivory tower to appreciate their own theories without being understood by the practising community. Worst still, if the researchers fond of using a more obvious but spurious variable than a right but harder to capture ones, this may mislead the practising community.
Philosophical Position and Theoretical Foundation of Toolism
The philosophy of one’s research is about the way in which the researcher views the world. Today, there is an ongoing debate in the field of management about choice of research philosophy between two competing paradigms: positivism and interpretivism. A positivist assumes that the social world can be measured objectively. A positivist is a system of philosophy based on things that can be seen or proved such as cars, machines, or furniture (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The second philosophical position, interpretivism, proposes that reality is actually socially constructed and must therefore be inferred from the meanings of the social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The first philosophy gives rise to scientific knowledge, and the second contributes to philosophical understanding. The debate is always framed in terms of a choice between the generation of knowledge is either more towards science (Positivism) or social science (interpretivism). However, there are other important kinds of knowledge beyond these two apparent dichotomies. It is known as Mode 2 (knowledge produced in the context of application). A great amount of research currently underway is of this kind of knowledge generation (Tranfield, 2002). According to Gibbon et al. (1994), Mode 1 refers to traditional modes of knowledge production according to accepted disciplinary criteria and influenced by the norms of scientific enquiry such as from the paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Mode 2 builds on scientific and philosophical knowledge. This new accumulation of knowledge is outside the boundaries of established science, but always drawing on science and social science to solve problems in the world of practice (Tranfield, 2002). This form of knowledge generation is usually associated with real industry application. In a real practical situation, management researchers are adopting a more pragmatic view by solving real life practical problems in a real world. Managers are concern about solution of problems rather than research philosophy or knowledge generation. Solution to problems is considered as practical knowledge. Practical knowledge is also accepted as one type of knowledge (Gibbon et al., 1994), but may be difficult to generate. The generation of practical knowledge may view this research from a different perspective and thus it has a different epistemological position. Research aims to generate practical knowledge may be treated as an ‘applied science’. The question now is whether we treat the field of management as science, social science, or applied science.
Is management ‘science’, ‘social science’ or ‘applied science’? Traditionally, much of the research into the field of management has been done within a positivism (natural science) and interpretivism (social science) paradigms. Treating management as science, a positivist considers data on tangible objects and their physical movements which is more to the position of the natural scientist (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Positivist concerns whether or not the social world can be studied according to the same principles as the natural sciences. At the position of natural science, a researcher is comfortable with the collection and analysis of observable facts. The epistemological position of positivism affirms the importance of imitating the natural sciences whereby the role of research is to test theories (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Knowledge is based upon the observation of phenomena, their explanation and ultimately prediction. Research method involves experimentation and control of variables with a key test of repeatability and generalisation of results.
When addressed from the viewpoint of a social science discipline, the interpretivist concerns with the feelings and attitudes of the social actors. Interpretivism is an epistemology that advocates that it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in their roles as social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The study of social world requires a different logic of research procedure, one that emphasise how human as importance social actors make sense of the world. The research strategy in this sense requires the distinction between people and the objects of the natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action. Social science is based upon the opinions of the social actors, their explanation and ultimately prediction (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Research method involves case study and interview.
Both philosophical positions discussed above emphasise the importance of generating knowledge that answering the questions of ‘why’. When addressed from the viewpoint of an applied science discipline, the ‘how to’ questions rather than ‘why’ questions predominate. The toolism developed from this research viewing management as an applied science and has a different epistemological position. Toolists in an applied science perspective concern about practical solution to the real world problems. The research is answering the questions of ‘how to’ rather than ‘why’, whereby it concerns with using scientific knowledge, and applying it to the problem of designing and building objects, artefacts or systems.
Knowledge generation in Toolism. The purpose of research is to generate knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. Traditionally, positivism and interpretivism are the two paradigms of knowledge generation in research. Knowledge generation in Toolism has taken a different perspective beyond these two apparent dichotomies and formed a new paradigm system. The development of useful knowledge relies on the development and acceptance of new paradigm systems. Kuhn (1962) defined paradigm as a set of scientific beliefs that make up a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested, evaluated and revised. Kuhn argues that the history of science shows that scientific change occurs in series of ‘revolution’ in which older ‘paradigms’ are overthrown by new paradigms that may be incompatible or even incommensurate with pre-existing knowledge. Once a paradigm has emerged, researchers continue to generate knowledge around the cycle of observation-classification-theory development track. A new paradigm makes assumptions about the function and purpose of scientific research in investigating the real world and results in the generation of a quite different type of analysis as it seeks to address specific industrial problems in a different way. Thus, the generation of knowledge in a new paradigm system has a different way of viewing the world. Table 1 lists the differences between the traditional paradigms: positivism and interpretivism with a new methodology system, toolism. The comparison summarises characteristics that have been discussed so far. It enables us to differentiate between the three systems. It also allows me to envisage a new way of seeing the world in research and generate new knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. I have no intention to substitute a previous paradigm system, but rather to complement the existing paradigms and enrich the world with application knowledge.
In fact, the characteristics of any one paradigm become a matter of degree, rather than a clear distinction. I believe much of the research in the field of management has traditionally been done with an epistemology bias. As a result, researchers should try to mix research methods because the findings provide broader insight into issues being investigated and triangulate the findings. Most research aims to develop descriptive or normative theories. Toolism is taking a different epistemological stance. It concerns with application knowledge and addresses the question of ‘how to’ design new things or solve practical problems. The aim of this paradigm is to create knowledge within an applied science regime rather than traditional science or social science paradigms. Research of this type sets out to develop and test tool, and then to operationalise the frameworks or theories, and finally provide managers with practical approaches to improving their work or operations. Testing the tool in this sense does not have the same type of rigour as testing in the true scientific sense. This is mainly because there is no control over extraneous. According to toolist, the tool is not independent of the test, and the test is not repeatable. However, in the realm of toolism, industrial managers more concern about practical results and are more interested in development and improvement than in the more experimental trial testing required by the principles of natural science. Thus the testing becomes as much a refining and developing activity as a verification activity. This clearly illustrates the gap which still exists between toolism and the rigorous positivist paradigm. The scientist will clearly feel uncomfortable with toolism approach. However, because the tool methodology was developed to meet the requirements of managers and as such is much more akin to the paradigm of the natural sciences (i.e. hypothesise and test), than to the more descriptive work typical of many of the social sciences. If the ‘positivism’ and the ‘interpretivism’ are put at two extremes on a continuum, toolism will lay in between these two extremes and is located closer to positivism. In general, the generation of practical knowledge according to toolism has taken a combination position. For example, the research needs to take hard evident and observable fact like the natural scientist (positivism), to take the view points of its social actors (interpretivism), and helping the social actors to understand their world better and to solve their problems (toolism). In other words, these different paradigms can sometimes coexist in the same study and complement one another. I strongly encourage management researchers to widen their horizons to embrace a different type of knowledge generation system with applying the toolism methodology in their research.
Toolism can be used as an effective research and management tool, to collect/capture network strategic data for the development of a framework and improvement of operations. It combines the consultation workshop approach to provide a new way of generating useful and relevant data from companies’ managers. In other words, it allows academics to acquire and structure data on strategic network issues from the companies’ managers. It proved successful in helping company managers to generate relevant strategic information for decision making. It enables integration of company managers’ views, allows communications and clarification of information, and facilitates the identification of the most important network strategy connections having traded-off those less important ones. These unique features are rarely found in the literature. By using inputs from the managers in the workshop, toolism allows the collection of more accurate and valid data for analysis. This shows that the research tool provides greater benefit and capability in the collection of useful and relevant information than a conventional case studies method that relies mainly on interviews and secondary data.
The main benefit of toolism process is that it results in Mode 2 knowledge that is directly applicable to industry. Practising managers can use this knowledge without having to modify or adapt it to their situations. Furthermore, toolism is not only relevant to practitioners but follows the systematic enquiry of scientific research method. The combine methodology generates relevant data from practical experiences meeting both the practical and academic requirement. The documented outputs using toolism could be retrieved for future usage. Further improvement of the tool will enable it to capture data that cannot be captured initially. In other words, the advancement in technology enables new knowledge discoveries and development.
YEE CHOY LEONG
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Faculty of Economics and Management
Department of Management and Marketing
Research in business management is always criticised for lack of industrial relevance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). Many researchers are inclined to use more established methods such as survey, econometric, or modelling (Carter, Sanders, & Dong, 2008; Christensen & Sundahl, 2001; Tranfield, 2002). A survey maximizes generalizability but lacks precision and realism, and left little room for research on emerging problems and solutions that cannot be surveyed (Carter, et al., 2008; Scandura & William, 2000). Companies have a real need to improve their performance, but it is unlikely that this survey method will contribute greatly in these areas (Platts, 1993). As a result, the field of business management are in danger of becoming irrelevant. In this paper, a new methodology, ‘toolism’, is proposed to overcome the problem. The new methodology incorporated consultation approach, multiple case study methodology (Yin, 1984), action research (Rapoport, 1970), process approach (Platts, 1993) and grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to effectively capture and analyse Mode 2 (application) knowledge (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotony, Schwartzman, Scott, & Trow, 1994). Mode 2 knowledge in a practical sense is very difficult for researcher to capture, and neglecting these information might created different interpretation of the findings. Unfortunately, many researchers had chosen to simplify the findings and not to take this difficult-to-capture knowledge for analysis. As a result, the outputs produced from a research could be of little value, if it is not reflecting the true use of practitioners. If this is so, the research community lives in isolation in an ivory tower to appreciate their own theories without being understood by the practising community. Worst still, if the researchers fond of using a more obvious but spurious variable than a right but harder to capture ones, this may mislead the practising community.
Philosophical Position and Theoretical Foundation of Toolism
The philosophy of one’s research is about the way in which the researcher views the world. Today, there is an ongoing debate in the field of management about choice of research philosophy between two competing paradigms: positivism and interpretivism. A positivist assumes that the social world can be measured objectively. A positivist is a system of philosophy based on things that can be seen or proved such as cars, machines, or furniture (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The second philosophical position, interpretivism, proposes that reality is actually socially constructed and must therefore be inferred from the meanings of the social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The first philosophy gives rise to scientific knowledge, and the second contributes to philosophical understanding. The debate is always framed in terms of a choice between the generation of knowledge is either more towards science (Positivism) or social science (interpretivism). However, there are other important kinds of knowledge beyond these two apparent dichotomies. It is known as Mode 2 (knowledge produced in the context of application). A great amount of research currently underway is of this kind of knowledge generation (Tranfield, 2002). According to Gibbon et al. (1994), Mode 1 refers to traditional modes of knowledge production according to accepted disciplinary criteria and influenced by the norms of scientific enquiry such as from the paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Mode 2 builds on scientific and philosophical knowledge. This new accumulation of knowledge is outside the boundaries of established science, but always drawing on science and social science to solve problems in the world of practice (Tranfield, 2002). This form of knowledge generation is usually associated with real industry application. In a real practical situation, management researchers are adopting a more pragmatic view by solving real life practical problems in a real world. Managers are concern about solution of problems rather than research philosophy or knowledge generation. Solution to problems is considered as practical knowledge. Practical knowledge is also accepted as one type of knowledge (Gibbon et al., 1994), but may be difficult to generate. The generation of practical knowledge may view this research from a different perspective and thus it has a different epistemological position. Research aims to generate practical knowledge may be treated as an ‘applied science’. The question now is whether we treat the field of management as science, social science, or applied science.
Is management ‘science’, ‘social science’ or ‘applied science’? Traditionally, much of the research into the field of management has been done within a positivism (natural science) and interpretivism (social science) paradigms. Treating management as science, a positivist considers data on tangible objects and their physical movements which is more to the position of the natural scientist (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Positivist concerns whether or not the social world can be studied according to the same principles as the natural sciences. At the position of natural science, a researcher is comfortable with the collection and analysis of observable facts. The epistemological position of positivism affirms the importance of imitating the natural sciences whereby the role of research is to test theories (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Knowledge is based upon the observation of phenomena, their explanation and ultimately prediction. Research method involves experimentation and control of variables with a key test of repeatability and generalisation of results.
When addressed from the viewpoint of a social science discipline, the interpretivist concerns with the feelings and attitudes of the social actors. Interpretivism is an epistemology that advocates that it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in their roles as social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The study of social world requires a different logic of research procedure, one that emphasise how human as importance social actors make sense of the world. The research strategy in this sense requires the distinction between people and the objects of the natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action. Social science is based upon the opinions of the social actors, their explanation and ultimately prediction (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Research method involves case study and interview.
Both philosophical positions discussed above emphasise the importance of generating knowledge that answering the questions of ‘why’. When addressed from the viewpoint of an applied science discipline, the ‘how to’ questions rather than ‘why’ questions predominate. The toolism developed from this research viewing management as an applied science and has a different epistemological position. Toolists in an applied science perspective concern about practical solution to the real world problems. The research is answering the questions of ‘how to’ rather than ‘why’, whereby it concerns with using scientific knowledge, and applying it to the problem of designing and building objects, artefacts or systems.
Knowledge generation in Toolism. The purpose of research is to generate knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. Traditionally, positivism and interpretivism are the two paradigms of knowledge generation in research. Knowledge generation in Toolism has taken a different perspective beyond these two apparent dichotomies and formed a new paradigm system. The development of useful knowledge relies on the development and acceptance of new paradigm systems. Kuhn (1962) defined paradigm as a set of scientific beliefs that make up a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested, evaluated and revised. Kuhn argues that the history of science shows that scientific change occurs in series of ‘revolution’ in which older ‘paradigms’ are overthrown by new paradigms that may be incompatible or even incommensurate with pre-existing knowledge. Once a paradigm has emerged, researchers continue to generate knowledge around the cycle of observation-classification-theory development track. A new paradigm makes assumptions about the function and purpose of scientific research in investigating the real world and results in the generation of a quite different type of analysis as it seeks to address specific industrial problems in a different way. Thus, the generation of knowledge in a new paradigm system has a different way of viewing the world. Table 1 lists the differences between the traditional paradigms: positivism and interpretivism with a new methodology system, toolism. The comparison summarises characteristics that have been discussed so far. It enables us to differentiate between the three systems. It also allows me to envisage a new way of seeing the world in research and generate new knowledge to enrich the current body of knowledge. I have no intention to substitute a previous paradigm system, but rather to complement the existing paradigms and enrich the world with application knowledge.
In fact, the characteristics of any one paradigm become a matter of degree, rather than a clear distinction. I believe much of the research in the field of management has traditionally been done with an epistemology bias. As a result, researchers should try to mix research methods because the findings provide broader insight into issues being investigated and triangulate the findings. Most research aims to develop descriptive or normative theories. Toolism is taking a different epistemological stance. It concerns with application knowledge and addresses the question of ‘how to’ design new things or solve practical problems. The aim of this paradigm is to create knowledge within an applied science regime rather than traditional science or social science paradigms. Research of this type sets out to develop and test tool, and then to operationalise the frameworks or theories, and finally provide managers with practical approaches to improving their work or operations. Testing the tool in this sense does not have the same type of rigour as testing in the true scientific sense. This is mainly because there is no control over extraneous. According to toolist, the tool is not independent of the test, and the test is not repeatable. However, in the realm of toolism, industrial managers more concern about practical results and are more interested in development and improvement than in the more experimental trial testing required by the principles of natural science. Thus the testing becomes as much a refining and developing activity as a verification activity. This clearly illustrates the gap which still exists between toolism and the rigorous positivist paradigm. The scientist will clearly feel uncomfortable with toolism approach. However, because the tool methodology was developed to meet the requirements of managers and as such is much more akin to the paradigm of the natural sciences (i.e. hypothesise and test), than to the more descriptive work typical of many of the social sciences. If the ‘positivism’ and the ‘interpretivism’ are put at two extremes on a continuum, toolism will lay in between these two extremes and is located closer to positivism. In general, the generation of practical knowledge according to toolism has taken a combination position. For example, the research needs to take hard evident and observable fact like the natural scientist (positivism), to take the view points of its social actors (interpretivism), and helping the social actors to understand their world better and to solve their problems (toolism). In other words, these different paradigms can sometimes coexist in the same study and complement one another. I strongly encourage management researchers to widen their horizons to embrace a different type of knowledge generation system with applying the toolism methodology in their research.
Toolism can be used as an effective research and management tool, to collect/capture network strategic data for the development of a framework and improvement of operations. It combines the consultation workshop approach to provide a new way of generating useful and relevant data from companies’ managers. In other words, it allows academics to acquire and structure data on strategic network issues from the companies’ managers. It proved successful in helping company managers to generate relevant strategic information for decision making. It enables integration of company managers’ views, allows communications and clarification of information, and facilitates the identification of the most important network strategy connections having traded-off those less important ones. These unique features are rarely found in the literature. By using inputs from the managers in the workshop, toolism allows the collection of more accurate and valid data for analysis. This shows that the research tool provides greater benefit and capability in the collection of useful and relevant information than a conventional case studies method that relies mainly on interviews and secondary data.
The main benefit of toolism process is that it results in Mode 2 knowledge that is directly applicable to industry. Practising managers can use this knowledge without having to modify or adapt it to their situations. Furthermore, toolism is not only relevant to practitioners but follows the systematic enquiry of scientific research method. The combine methodology generates relevant data from practical experiences meeting both the practical and academic requirement. The documented outputs using toolism could be retrieved for future usage. Further improvement of the tool will enable it to capture data that cannot be captured initially. In other words, the advancement in technology enables new knowledge discoveries and development.
