Qualitative Research and Theory Development: Mystery As Method

by Mats Alvesson, Dan Karreman

Empirical data is one of the cornerstones of knowledge in the social sciences. And yet, the researcher often takes it for granted, reserving his or her imaginative faculties for finding a theory that fits the data. This revealing account of the theory-data relationship calls this faith in data into question and establishes a reflexive framework and vocabulary to explore the creative, political and philosophical elements of data production. Rather than thinking about the theory-data ′fit′, Alvesson and Karreman will encourage you to consider the research process as one of theory-data interplay, asking if creative empirical material can challenge established theory and inspire new lines of development, and if breakdowns and mysteries encountered in research can be a constructive rather than destructive process. They will encourage you to think critically about empirical data in terms of construction rather than verification, and most importantly they will encourage you to develop theory that is interesting and novel, rather than naive or irrelevant, making this title essential reading for those who often find the traditional vocabulary and frameworks of social science research obvious or simplistic.

144 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Mats Alvesson är professor vid Lunds universitet och arbetar även vid University of Queensland, Australien, och City University, London. Han forskar och skriver om bland annat organisationskultur, ledarskap, identitet i organisationer och kvalitativ forskning och intresserar sig för fenomenet funktionell dumhet.

Reviews

[Roy · Rating 3 out of 5]

In a weak, but not particularly subtle, attempt at subverting it, this book explicates exactly what I deem to be the fundamental problem with academia nowadays. A problem that is a fundamental and important starting point for the exact sciences; is of relevance, but not focus, for the social sciences; and has even permeated the humanities, with only philosophy, and perhaps literary studies, left as small bastions where it plays an only just not predominant role.

Namely, that contemporary academia is only about confirmation, validation and description; rather than generation and creation. The demands of efficiency have truly contaminated academia to the degree that it functions as a self-sustaining mechanism. As a closed loop. Nothing new comes in, let alone comes out.

The only new things that come out, come from the people that never really belonged to the mechanism in the first place, but have used it only to sharpen their own wit, and leave.

The fact that this book, apparently, has value in being published shows, to me, for the disastrous state the social sciences are in. To the average graduate student in philosophy, and hopefully to most in the humanities in general, the approach of research as “solving mysteries” as discussed in this book — as looking for breakdown moments in theories (either those devised by the researcher him/herself, or those encountered in the research he/she does) — is utterly and completely intuitive and instinctive. Granted, the lack of awareness thereof often results in overly ambitious research projects (guilty!), but how else are we going to figure out anything interesting and deeply valuable? Meaningful?

The piecemeal style of at the very least 90% of contemporary academic production (production!!!) — here described as “fill-in-the-gap”, looking for gaps in research and filling those, resulting in a style that only adds confirmation of minor facts, not even to the discovery of those facts themselves — is more akin to assembly line factory work, than it is to what academia used to be about. Indeed, theorisation, generation, creation; and only then, confirmation, affirmation, validation and application. Production has never been part of academia, but the single-minded reign of terror by efficiency thought — a miscarriage of pure, and therewith unbalanced, rationality — has made production the end of academia, nonetheless. Even academia!

I’m so glad I finally finished this piece. I was not interested in it anymore after about the second or third chapter. But because it would be a relatively easy addition to my reading list, and my tendency to finish things that I start, as well as my belief that a text can only be properly understood when having read it whole, I figured I would continue. It was holding me back from more interesting things, but it had the almost moral obligation over me of being related to my first MA thesis.

Now, I see the value of reading this, the value for me. Although I recognise that the authors are on the ‘good’ side, this book has shown me exactly what I — quite truthfully, and that is a rarity — hate; not efficiency per se, but efficiency as anti-creativity in relation to the search for truth. Academia used to be the protected bulwark in which truth was honestly and authentically aimed for, but now it has become just another factory, another bastion of empty production, alongside the business world (which used to have a beauty to it, when trade still connected people, rather than having money as the be-all-end-all), and government administration (which at some point truly serves the people, but has now devolved into nothing other than a means for giving intelligent, but uncreative, people something to do every day).

I don’t think I will ever give a purely academic work of contemporary provenance more than 4 stars. This is more like 3,5 stars to me, though, as it does show for a beautiful intention, and proper potential.

[Cristian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un libro que merece la pena para el debate dentro de la comunidad de investigadores, especialmente dentro de las ciencias sociales. No creo que diga nada nuevo, en realidad me extrañó el hecho de que este punto de vista sea algo "novedoso", pero honestamente tampoco me sorprende que la comunidad académica (básicamente la internacional o al menos en occidente) aún no haya salido del todo del agujero neo-positivista que pretende mantener el desarrollo investigador como una carrera económica, un mero acto de "rellenar espacios huecos" en el repertorio académico, como lo denominan los autores.

La teoría es a la vez prometedora e idealista. Mats y Dan llevan años escribiendo sobre economía y sociología, algo que probablemente los conviertan en una diana para las críticas de los humanistas que poseen metodologías propias. Sin embargo su idea es simple: Los datos no hablan por sí solos, no podemos esperar que juzguen afirmativa o negativamente nuestras presunciones, tampoco podemos esperar que los datos nos den las respuestas sobre como proceder. Los datos empíricos y la teoría deben interactuar. Las paradojas, las incongruencias, los problemas de vocabulario son nuestros amigos, no nuestros enemigos, porque cuando tenemos un problema, tenemos un misterio que resolver. Este misterio nos ofrece nuevas perspectivas, nuevas ideas, nuevos campos donde actuar. Así, nuestros esquemas y patrones nunca estarán finalizados, una nueva ola de teorías destruirá las antiguas, pero los investigadores seguiremos deconstruyendo, creando y percibiendo nuevas maneras de acercarnos a la realidad del mundo.

El libro nos anima a no ser investigadores tímidos, pero a la vez es demasiado optimista con que podamos serlo a todas horas. Acercarnos a nuestro estudio íntimamente, con nuevos vocabularios, subjetivamente, defamiliarizado con el campo de estudio que siempre hemos tenido junto a nosotros, darle otra vuelta, no parar de hacer preguntas y resolver problemas con una imaginación disciplinada. Lo más interesante cae como una bomba en el primer capítulo, mientras que el resto se desarrolla más relajadamente, y aunque no soy muy fan del modelo de repetición de la misma idea en el resto de capítulos pero desde otra perspectiva, el capítulo 6 ofrece buenos consejos para usar este método en prácticas de trabajo de campo.

Probablemente exista un libro mejor ordenado y diseñado que este, pero aún no lo he encontrado, así que por ahora esto valdrá.

[Catalina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Alvesson and Kärreman’s (A&K) main argument present with regards to research as a mystery is that research is an interplay between theory and empirical materials. Furthermore, the ideal question/topic would be interesting, reflective, build on previous theoretical insight, while adding to existing knowledge in the field. The whole process should be done with a critical look at not only empirical material, but also established theories. Perhaps one of the most important concepts in A & K’s work is breakdown in understanding, tightly connected with problematization and looking at objects of study and validating theories with a fresh perspective, challenging assumptions. The positive and main aspect of A & K is that they do not prioritize theory over empirical material, but they emphasize the mutual dependence of the two: theory would stay in the realm of ideas were it not confirmed by empirical research, while data alone cannot formulate a theory without construction and language and previous theories in the field.