Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | J | Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Neglected perspectives in work and organizational psychology.

Article Excerpt
It has been argued that work and organizational (w/o) psychology in the UK has been dominated by natural science models of the research process and by measurement through surveys and statistical analysis (Johnson & Cassell, 2001; Symon & Cassell, 1998). Past editors of JOOP have argued that the journal would benefit from publishing a wider range of relevant research work (e.g. Arnold, 2004; Sparrow, 1999)--work which may have different underlying philosophical commitments and draw on different kinds of methodologies. While we are beginning to discuss the possibility of different philosophical perspectives (e.g. Anderson, 1998; Johnson & Cassell, 2001), there are few studies informed by different underlying assumptions published in the main journals of our discipline (Cassell & Symon, 2006). This special section provides a forum for the publication of such studies with the aim of stimulating the further development of such approaches within w/o psychology.

Initially, it is important to be clear about what this special section is not about. What will clearly not be found in this special section are articles that adopt a normative orientation or ground their expectations, analysis or conclusions in any form of positivism. By this we mean, the papers presented here do not privilege objectivity or determinism or make claims to identifying generalizable 'truths' about the nature of the world. In other words, in contrast to most research published in w/o psychology, the researchers are not seeking to apply the assumptions of the natural sciences to the exploration of topics in the social sciences (Woolgar, 1996).

In addition, by 'neglected perspectives' we do not mean simply 'qualitative research'. There is a debate concerning the use of qualitative methods within w/o psychology (e.g. Cassell & Symon, 2006), and this is not unrelated to the aims and content of this special section. However, non-positivist research is not synonymous with qualitative research. Indeed, Prasad and Prasad (2002) argue that, in the area of organizational research, we may be more likely to see 'qualitative positivism' than qualitative research informed by other epistemological perspectives. While the contributors to this special section all have utilized what would be termed 'qualitative methods' these are not the lynchpin of their articles but more a by-product of their different philosophical perspectives.

In this editorial, we wish briefly to outline some of the perspectives currently 'neglected' by w/o psychology, outline arguments for encouraging a more diverse research arena and provide a brief overview of the papers included in this special section.

Alternative and neglected perspectives

By 'neglected perspectives', we mean studies that draw on alternative conceptualizations of the nature of the world, the nature of knowledge and our purpose and goals in conducting 'research', and that has not tended to feature in the major w/o psychology publications of recent years. There are many such alternatives of course and numerous scholars have attempted to categorize the different approaches there might be (e.g. Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). There has been considerable debate in the management and organizational studies literature concerning the merits and demerits of such categorizations (e.g. Hassard & Kelemen, 2002; Jackson & Carter, 1991; Winmott, 1993). Alvesson and Deetz seek to counter some of the perceived problems of such groupings in their own categorization, indicating that this should be seen only as 'interesting ways to call attention to similarities and differences that...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!