Introduction
The relationship between theory and method of research, and how the two effectually contribute to the overall success of a research, has been an increasingly discussed subject. This, according to Van Maanen et al. (2007, p.1145-1147), is majorly based on the fact that these two interdependently function in facilitating success. In most instances, theories are used as building blocks that provide background information on the kind of research that is to be conducted and the purpose that is to be achieved. Once this is found, an apt method of research is chosen.
Despite this close connection and their close dependency, Van Maanen et al. (2007, p.1145) say that “Theory and method, while generating much descriptive, prescriptive, and critical literature, are often treated as conceptually independent.” Essentially, this is the reason even during research, the two concepts are always treated variably (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p.1155-1157).
In this paper, the major focus is going to be on doing a circumspective analysis of the relationship between theory and method based on research done on positive organizational behavior by Fitzgerald and Oliver (2006). In doing so, the interrelations between the theory and method of the research, and whether the two fittingly blended to produce apt research, will be succinctly detailed in this paper.
Issues related to the epistemological and ontological Premises of the research, formulation, and representation of the theoretical model, the research criteria that was used in the research and critical aspects of the theory used in the research, among many other necessary details, will also be duly given in the course of this paper.
Criteria for the Theory, Issues Related To Theory Development and Theory-Method Fit
Preliminarily, it is worth beginning by stating that, usually, theories are scholarly evaluated on criteria like consistency, clarity, preciseness, readability, and logic (Van Maanen et al., 2007, p.1145; and Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007, p.1265-1267). With regards to the research on positive organizational behavior which was done by Fitzgerald and Oliver, these issues panned out variably in the bid to establish a fitting theory-method relationship. Some of these main issues are detailed below.
To begin with, the theory in the research paper by Fitzgerald and Oliver (2006) was developed with regards to the role of the Shadow in augmenting positive organizational behavior. In the context of the paper, “Shadow” was defined as “a censored feeling and cognition” (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2006, p.3). Here, censored was used to refer to “any attempted regulation of cognition and/or emotion, conscious or unconscious, by self or others where its expression is considered to not fit with accepted cultural or group norms” (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2006, p.3).
In assessing the role of shadow in promoting positive organizational behavior (POB), four aspects were put into central focus (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2006, p.2).
. Firstly, there was a review of the impact of the shadow of an individual or group of people on POB. Secondly, the nature of emotionality, rationality, and contingency of the shadows and their intricacies, about their shadow aspects, was duly reviewed. Thirdly, an analytical discussion was conducted on the relationship between emotions, cultures and group norms. Fourthly, and lastly, a descriptive analysis discussing the ramifications of not integrating the shadow concept was done.
Through the above in-depth analyses that were done by Fitzgerald and Oliver, consistency in studying the concept of the shadow, about POB, was established. Also, dividing the analysis topically and categorizing them appropriately ensured that there were preciseness and easy readability for the study. For instance, in the fourth analysis (which has been outlined above) where consequences of not integrating the shadow concept were done; precise answers on the shadow concept and its importance were delineated (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2006, p.2).
About theory development, Alvesson & Kärreman (2007, p.1265), say that most researchers tend to prefer two methods; speculative thinking and empirical observation. After using any of the above two methods, a careful analysis of what has been observed or speculated is done (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p.1155-1160).
In the research by Fitzgerald and Oliver, both these two theory development methods were blended to ensure that fitting research was done. To explicate the usage of both developments method, Fitzgerald and Oliver (2006, p.5) report of the empirical research conducted by Anderson and Jap (2005) where it was discovered that “the seeds of destruction of a relationship appear to be sewn within the same characteristics” which were initially placed to help to empower the relationship. As a result, these characteristics became the weakest links in the organization thus leading to a myriad of other organizational problems. Examples of observations done in the paper are exhibited between pages 13 and 15 of the articles by Fitzgerald and Oliver.
Having made followed good theory criteria and made a proper choice of a theoretical framework for the research; a fitting method of research was duly selected. In summary, it can thus be said that there was a fit in the research’s theory-method.
Epistemological and Ontological Premises
In the paper by Fitzgerald and Oliver, an extensive discussion is made on a series of propositions made regarding the facets of positive organizational behavior and individual or collective shadows of people in an organization. It is upon such discussions on these constitutes, and other related ideas as well as concepts of POB, that the epistemological and ontological premises of the paper are based on.
The shadow is fundamentally viewed as an important element of organizational knowledge that needs to be duly recognized by the management if at all they want to enhance the development of POB (Fitzgerald & Oliver, 2006, p.2-4).
According to Fitzgerald and Oliver (2006, p.4), each central concern of POB has a shadow side that is inherently important to the organization. For example, optimism—which is considered as the heart of POB—also has its fair share of limitations and drawbacks (p.4-5). A good explication here is that, in organizations, some employees may be shy in vocalizing their feelings and articulating their wants if they consider it against the organization’s rules on optimism. In effect, this impedes progress should always be enhanced in each organization (p.5-7).
Additionally, the meaning, experience, and tendencies of happenings in an organization, with regards to POB, are normally shaped by cultural beliefs in society, organizational beliefs, individual norm or even group behaviors. This, according to Fitzgerald and Oliver (2006, p.6), is based on the fact that every culture normally has its set of rules, regulations, linguistic representations and legal beliefs on life in general which guide them. For this reason, Locke (2007, p.868) says that such issues should be importantly considered by organizations when dealing with researches of this nature.
Formulation and Representation of the Theoretical Model
Just like theories, Van Maanen et al. (2007, p.1145) says that models also have a logical sequence in which they operate in. Therefore, in the representation and formulation of theoretical models of any given research, Maanen and his fellow authors say that appropriate measures should be taken so that there is a precision in the logics.
On a noteworthy point, “Rules of sampling, observational recording, statistical assumptions, interviewing techniques, and mathematical procedures can be learned independently of theoretical content” (Maanen et al., 2007, p.1145). This simply means that the formulation and representation of the theoretical model of any research can be done easily since the theoretical and method aspects of the research can be separated when need be, and thus worked on independently (p.1145-1150).
In the research by Fitzgerald and Oliver, the separation was done on some aspects like data collection and presentation. However, in other areas, the separation was impossible because theoretical aspects of the research needed to be inter-linked with the method of research. As a result, the formulated theoretical model was professionally accommodative of the task at hand; thus facilitating the success of the research and achievement of research objectives with regards to POB and the shadow concept.
Conclusion
From the discussions above, it is undoubtedly clear that connecting theories and methods of research is a vital endeavor in business research. However, over time, several complexities have arisen in the dynamic social world we live in today. It is, therefore, crucial that we learn from well-conducted researches like that of Fitzgerald and Oliver. It is only by doing so that we can easily better our studies and researches.
References
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1265-1281.
Edmondson, A., & McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1155-1179.
Fitzgerald, S. P., & Oliver, C. (2006). Walking the dark side of positive organizational behavior: Appreciating the role of the shadow. Paper presented at the Southern Management Association.
Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33 (6), 867-890.
Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J., & Mitchell, T. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1145-1154.