IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v62y2011i4d10.1057_jors.2010.31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again

Author

Listed:
  • Z Zhu

    (University of Hull Business School
    Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
    South-China Normal University)

Abstract

Combining multiple methodologies works in practice, but not yet in theory. One of the reasons is that current theorising is dominated by a paradigm mentality, preoccupied with wholesale philosophical legitimation. ‘Paradigm’ and the associated ‘incommensurability’ were once revolutionary heuristic tools; now they are mistaken for the basis of an essentialist foundation. The result is a stifling of intellectual innovation and a diminishing of practical relevance. For OR research to make a positive difference again, it is time to move beyond paradigm-based theorising. After paradigm, there are many opportunities. This paper explores a pragmatist alternative that is action-oriented, multiplicity-embracing, ethically concerned and politically sensitive. Incorporating ontological flexibility, it allows OR workers to enact multiple realities, craft ontology-in-use, weave available methods with situated particulars, justify methodologies based on practical consequences, so as to get jobs done and enhance competences. Promoting ontological flexibility and methodology-in-use is a useful starting point for after-paradigm theorising that supports innovative mixing-methodology practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:62:y:2011:i:4:d:10.1057_jors.2010.31
    DOI: 10.1057/jors.2010.31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jors.2010.31
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/jors.2010.31?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stanley Deetz, 1996. "Crossroads---Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 191-207, April.
    2. R J Ormerod, 2008. "The transformation competence perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(11), pages 1435-1448, November.
    3. J Pollack, 2009. "Multimethodology in series and parallel: strategic planning using hard and soft OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 156-167, February.
    4. P Keys, 2006. "On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 822-829, July.
    5. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.
    6. Eden, Colin & Sims, David, 1979. "On the nature of problems in consulting practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 119-127.
    7. M C Jackson & N Johnston & J Seddon, 2008. "Evaluating systems thinking in housing," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(2), pages 186-197, February.
    8. Keys, P., 1997. "Approaches to understanding the process of OR: Review, critique and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Corbett, Charles J. & Overmeer, Willem J. A. M. & Van Wassenhove, Luk N., 1995. "Strands of practice in OR (the practitioner's dilemma)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 484-499, December.
    10. J Mingers, 2000. "The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(11), pages 1256-1270, November.
    11. Jackson, MC, 1987. "Present positions and future prospects in management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 455-466.
    12. J Mingers, 2005. "‘More dangerous than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer’: a contribution to the Ulrich debate," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 468-474, April.
    13. Wanda J. Orlikowski & Daniel Robey, 1991. "Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 143-169, June.
    14. C Eden & F Ackermann & J M Bryson & G P Richardson & D F Andersen & C B Finn, 2009. "Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 2-13, January.
    15. M Jackson, 2009. "Managing the tensions created by mixing methods: comments for Eden et al from a critical systems perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1297-1299, September.
    16. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    17. Joseph T. Mahoney, 1993. "Strategic Management And Determinism: Sustaining The Conversation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 173-191, January.
    18. M C Jackson, 1999. "Towards coherent pluralism in management science," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 12-22, January.
    19. R Ormerod, 2006. "The history and ideas of pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(8), pages 892-909, August.
    20. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    21. R J Ormerod, 2002. "Should critical realism really be critical for OR? A comment on Mingers (2000): the contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(3), pages 347-351, March.
    22. K Kotiadis & J Mingers, 2006. "Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: the philosophical and practical challenges," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 856-867, July.
    23. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Örsan Şenalp & Gerald Midgley, 2023. "Alexander Bogdanov and the question of unity: An emerging research agenda," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 328-348, March.
    2. Foote, J. & Midgley, G. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. & Hepi, M. & Earl-Goulet, J., 2021. "Systemic evaluation of community environmental management programmes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 207-224.
    3. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    4. Derek Cabrera & Laura Cabrera & Erin Powers, 2015. "A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 534-545, September.
    5. Michael C. Jackson, 2023. "Rebooting the systems approach by applying the thinking of Bogdanov and the pragmatists," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 349-365, March.
    6. Henao, Felipe & Franco, L. Alberto, 2016. "Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 681-696.
    7. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    8. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    9. Michael C. Jackson, 2022. "Critical systems practice 3: Intervene—Flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1014-1023, November.
    10. Slavica P. Petrovic, 2015. "Systemic intervention in creative managing problems in enterprises," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 949-961, October.
    11. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2013. "The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 151-161.
    12. Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah, 2022. "Iterative Refinement of Multi-Method OR Workshop Designs through Boundary Critique: An Analytical Framework and Case Studies in Technology Utilisation," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 345-374, June.
    13. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    14. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    15. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    16. Morgan, Jennifer Sian & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2017. "A toolkit of designs for mixing Discrete Event Simulation and System Dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 907-918.
    17. Lloyd D. N. Tlale & Norma R. A. Romm, 2018. "Systemic Thinking and Practice Toward Facilitating Inclusive Education: Reflections on a Case of Co-Generated Knowledge and Action in South Africa," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 105-120, April.
    18. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    2. Henao, Felipe & Franco, L. Alberto, 2016. "Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 681-696.
    3. R J Ormerod, 2008. "The transformation competence perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(11), pages 1435-1448, November.
    4. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    5. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    6. S A Harwood, 2011. "Mixing methodologies and paradigmatic commensurability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 806-809, April.
    7. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    8. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    9. Richard John Ormerod, 2021. "Pragmatism in professional practice," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 797-816, November.
    10. M Jackson, 2009. "Managing the tensions created by mixing methods: comments for Eden et al from a critical systems perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1297-1299, September.
    11. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    12. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    13. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    14. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    15. J-R Córdoba, 2006. "Using Foucault to analyse ethics in the practice of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1027-1034, September.
    16. D Champion & J M Wilson, 2010. "The impact of contingency factors on validation of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(9), pages 1420-1431, September.
    17. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    18. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    19. Mark G. Edwards, 2014. "Misunderstanding Metatheorizing," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 720-744, November.
    20. W Ulrich, 2007. "Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(8), pages 1109-1113, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:62:y:2011:i:4:d:10.1057_jors.2010.31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.