The Epistemological Basis for Resolving the Rigor-Relevance Debate in Management Research. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, there has been a debate over how humans can create valid knowledge about the world in which we operate. Plato argued that abstract models within human cognition can be considered valid even if there is no corresponding instance of the phenomena observable in the external environment. Aristotle argued that abstract models must have a corresponding instance of the phenomena they represent that is observable within the external environment. Subsequently, Euclid was one of the first to use the linguistic frame of math to establish a rigorous correspondence between abstract models and real world evidence in his geometric proofs. Since then, scientific breakthroughs and knowledge have emerged from the precise and accurate representations of the external environment made possible within the rigorous linguistics of basic math and Aristotle's scientific method. Today, management research as practiced in accredited business schools has taken sides with Plato, not Aristotle. They operate within their own closed loop of investigation and knowledge generation that is based on abstract models of a theoretic world that is disconnected from the realities of practicing managers. Academics argue that the knowledge they generate is valid because it is "rigorous". Practitioners argue that this "knowledge" is not relevant to the real world in which they operate. Until now, no one has followed the example of Euclid and expanded the frame of math to establish a more rigorous correspondence between the abstract models and the evidence from the external environment. Basic Social Math is a new framework that seeks to change that by reconnecting management research to the real world!

1. Basic Social Math
© 2012 by Jared Lee Hanson
DBA Stage 1 Assessment 
The Epistemological Basis for Resolving the Rigor-Relevance Debate

2. Divided, But ‘Equal’
 Immanuel Kant’s (1781) Epistemology:
“reality is constructed in the mind”
 Ontological Pluralism: no absolute
truth (multiple realities exist)
 Both Positivism and Constructivism
are “Valid” Epistemologies (Phillips
&Oswick, 2012, p37):
 (sets of rules for making sense of the
phenomena we observe in management)
So Why the Debate?

3. Conflicting ‘Realities’
 Academic Reality
#1 Challenge “preventing us from engaging in the uses
serious management problems in organizations: for
“Rigor” as basis
judging legitimacy.
The Research-Practice Practitioner Reality
Gap:
That our research is not relevant to society.”
uses “Relevance” as
basis for judging
- Anne S. Tsui, (2012) Academy of Management President
legitimacy.

4. Irreconcilable Differences?
20+ years of
 Survey/ Statistical
debating and
Methods
no resolution…
“No observational study can definitively  Therefore, Not Like
establishare valid.” (Phillipset al, 2010,2012)
“Both causality” (O’Brien &Oswick, 639) Physical Science!
Why?
 Interview/
Observation
Where’s the
Methods
Problem?

5. Is Ontological Pluralism Scientific?
Is there a difference
between:
“The objectivityDoes “Rigor” =their numerical precision
attributed to Legitimacy
}
Can Sophisticated Math, Statistics, or Advancedby the
inescapably rests on subjective decisions made Analytics
or
The internal,
Determine Whichthe questionnaires and the participants who are
researchers designing ‘Reality’ is Legitimate Science, not Art?
‘constructed’
asked to choose the verbal anchor that best Legitimacy? experience of
Does “Relevance” = represents their
realities
the target phenomenon” (Sandelowski 2009).
} & the external,
NO! They can’t. Hence, no truth in ontological pluralism.
‘material’ reality?

6. conomics Psychology Education Truth = “Ideal Speech Situation”
Economics Psychology Education Economics Psychology Education
Communist Culture Islamic Culture American Culture
 Habermas (1971):
Which one is the ‘ideal
speech situation’?
ябълка apple  What’s the source of
conflict &
miscommunication?
 Where is alignment needed
to create ‘ideal speech’?
} 
Sense-making What happens to ‘truth’
and ‘meaning’ when the
rules are here. rules don’t align?

7. Bridging the Philosophical Divide
 Frankfurt School: Theory
must inform practice, but
“researchers and practitioners represent information in different
[the ‘reality’ of] practice
ways and use different language and strategies (Kelemen&Bansal, 2002;
must also inform theory.
Kieser&Leiner, 2009),
 Austrian Economics: logical
deduction from “irrefutable
and researchers and practitioners have different epistemological
facts,” not probabilistic
stances (Rousseau, Manning, &Denyer, 2008; Shrivastava&Mitroff, 1984).” (Bansal, Bertels,
modeling…instead isolate
Ewart, MacConnachie, and O’Brien, 2012)
logical processes of action.

8. Neuroscience & Experiential Learning
 Is there more than one
building behind the frames?
 Nested Relationships of
Emotion, Cognition,Learning,
&Social Decision Making
Management Decision Making (Immordino-Yang &Damasio 2007, Kolb
1975, Lund-Dean & Jolly, 2012)
 Conceptual Alignment:
“Decision making is a
fundamental particle of
management” (Noonan 2007)
via Socially-Constructed, Cultural Narratives or The Narrative of Empirical Evidence?

9. New Theory of the Mind
 Did you konwyuorbiarn is diongclalcuus
to decdoetihsmssaege?
 Physiology studies: 80% of the nerves going into the
visual cortex of the braincome from areas associated with
memory, while only 20% come from the eyes
(Gawande 2008).

10. New Epistemological Frame
 Meaning Rigorously Anchored
& Corresponded to Empirical
Evidence from Material Reality
 The Material Reality of Practice
Sets the Rules for Legitimacy:
Ontological Unity (single set of
rules that can represent all the complexity)
 Theory & Methods have to ‘fly’ in practice
= Rigor + Relevance = End of Debate!

11. Alignment = Scalable Dynamics
 Going for “theoretic
What if… we align rules generalization” of the
set of rules (Meredith 1998)
to empirics before we (epistemology)
calculate meaning?  Not the “assumptive
generalization” of
statistical modeling
(Meredith 1998)
LXXVIII 78  Single set of rules that
- XLIV }
vs. Statistical
- 44
Epistemology
rules are here.
assumptions
theoretically applies
across all contexts and
scales of systemic size.
(ontological unity)
are here.

12. The Choice is Ours…
Status Quo: Innovation:
Innovation Brings
 Do we keep ontological pluralism & New Tools  Do we seek ontological unity & start
continue framing mgmt research in
framing mgmt research in the narrative of
socially-constructed narratives: That Extend
label same phenomena in different ways & Our Vision: empirical evidencefrom the singular,
translate between ‘multiple realities’ of material reality of practice to bring alignment
cultures (GLOBE, Hofstede, etc.)? before calculations of meaning?
 = “intellectual progress entails much more of  = harnessing the power of abstraction
the nudging, pushing, competing, and linguistic rigor of basic math to
and convincing that mark Kuhnian-style calculate meaning consistently across
scientific systems (Kuhn, 1970).” (Devinney& cultures and scales of systemic size.
Siegel 2012)
Microscope of Neuroscience Telescope of Complexity Science

13. Research Proposition

 Put this new epistemological frame to the
“Abstraction is the key, recognizing
test in a cross-cultural, change-management
that ordersa Participant-Observer. and
program as arriving at a warehouse
people calling to purchase airline tickets
 can be described in fundamentally
Ethnographic Field Study to test if empirical
rules same way.
the generalize across cultures in practice.
 Can managers reconcile conflicting views of
 “While the actual business problems are
stakeholders by anchoring to the empirical
quite different, when abstracted they
dynamics of learning and decision making
rather than to socially-constructed, cultural
can be studiedto navigate uncertainties
narratives in order together.” (Boyd
2007)
and foster change in complex operations?

14. Video Intro to Research Context
Viewable at: https://vimeo.com/47904479 password: “socialmath”

15. Methodology
 Ethnographic Case Study
 Researcher as Participant-Observer: Both Documenting
& Directing Managerial Activities (Experimental Interventions)
 Documenting Examples of Conflict in the Operation and
Impact of New Epistemological Framing on Resolution
 Extensive Use of Video Recording to Document Initial
Conditions, Interventions, & Outcomes. (Signed Consent Obtained
from Participants for Audio/Video Usage)

16. Questions?
 Other Feedback?