Kyi Phyu Nyein, Jesse R. Caylor, Ngoc S. Duong, T. Fry, Jessica L. Wildman
{"title":"Beyond positivism: Toward a pluralistic approach to studying “real” teams","authors":"Kyi Phyu Nyein, Jesse R. Caylor, Ngoc S. Duong, T. Fry, Jessica L. Wildman","doi":"10.1177/2041386620915593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"112 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620915593","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620915593","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.
期刊介绍:
Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.