Discussion post which includes 500 words using both the chapter material which is attached in the post as well as additional external sources.

7 METHODICAL PROCEDURES

In this chapter we present a number of different techniques, which by the methodical
procedures (see Figure 1.10) for the different views can be designed as effective methods
for creating knowledge. The chapter also takes up issues around validity, reliability and
objectivity. Presented here are some techniques that are specific for different
methodological views as well, techniques that in several respects characterize these
different views and their actions in the study area.

PROCEDURES AS LESSONS IN HARMONY

The description of the different methodological views has, for defensible reasons, not
followed a completely uniform line. One methodological view is not like another, which means
that we need somewhat different ways of describing them. We would like to add to this
treatment a bit before we proceed.
The descriptions of the first two views – the analytical view (Chapter 4) and the systems

view (Chapter 5) – were illustrated, among other things, with examples of different theories
and results to which they have led. This was less appropriate for the actors view (Chapter 6);
there we referred to metatheories, which are not comparable to the theories of the other two
views. This is explained by the presumptions or lack of presumptions about reality made by the
various views. From this it also follows that the analytical view and the systems view, to a
greater extent than the actors view, stress the importance of charting earlier studies and their
results within a given field of research/consulting/investigation before the next study is
undertaken.
This will be fairly obvious if we consider the following. If reality is presumed to be filled

with facts, interest will of necessity be directed toward how this objective and/or subjective
factive reality appears, that is, the researcher/consultant/investigator aims at using or
developing reproduction theories. If we instead presume, as in the actors view, that reality is
basically a social construction dependent upon us as observers/actors, interest will be
directed toward the way this reality is constructed, that is, the
researcher/consultant/investigator aims at developing construction theories. But the actors
view, as we know, also “reproduces” a social reality by using its descriptive and ideal-
typified languages. These constructions are called metatheories because they not only include
these languages (their own construction), but are also the prerequisites of their development.
This could be perceived as the actors view going one step further than the other two views

(it brings an understanding of, or depicts, both the construction of reality and its appearance).

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

But this opinion is wrong insofar as the other two views’ conceptions of reality and science do
not presume a construction process – reality as such is a given. In this sense we cannot say that
one view goes further than another.
At the same time we should point out that the proponents of the actors view claim that they

can go further (or rather deeper) by presuming reality to be a social construction. What they
are saying is that it is not until one realizes that reality is and will remain a social construction
that many of the unsolved problems of business (and of society in general) can be studied. It is
pointless for us to argue for or against this opinion here. What we can say, however, is that the
different conceptions of reality that are associated with our views lead to different ways of
doing research/consulting/investigation and to differently created worlds of knowledge, in both
practice and theory; whether any view can go further or deeper than another view can only be
decided by reflecting on the different conceptions of reality. The question thus becomes: can
you go further – can you explain and understand more – by changing (changing yourself) to
another view’s conception of reality, instead of staying with the one being used? This leads to
something we have already pointed out: “You can never establish empirically which view is
the best one.”
Because we are attempting, as far as possible, to present each of the views on its own terms,

it becomes necessary to let the descriptions of the different views vary. The reason we have
devoted so much time to ultimate presumptions is because we hope through this book on
methodology to create conditions for independent and critical thinking in the reader. The reality
that creators of knowledge face when conducting a study is not exactly the reality described in
textbooks. Modifications must therefore always be made to textbook presentations. These
modifications cannot be made without first having gained an insight into the ultimate
presumptions on which a view is based. Otherwise it would be like opening and changing a
car’s gearbox without understanding the “presumptions” on which it is based, namely, its
relations to the engine, the road, and the use of the car generally.
We mentioned earlier that methodology’s task is to clarify how different methodological

views and study areas harmonize in terms of problem formulations,
research/consulting/investigation plans, methods and techniques. Because it is not possible to
define this “harmonology” in advance in an “instrumental” way, methodology will to a great
extent be about developing the insight and understanding that make it possible for creators of
knowledge to develop some degree of “harmonology” on their own.
The presentation so far has aimed at producing independent and critical thinking about what

the three methodological views try to achieve and under what circumstances they should be
used. These are necessary prerequisites for developing an operative paradigm. An operative
paradigm cannot be developed just from technique centered knowledge and associated skills;
also necessary are a deep insight into, and feeling for, that which is being studied and for how
the “tools/processes” the creator of knowledge uses for orientation are related to ultimate
presumptions (the foundation of any methodological view). This is because the purpose of an
operative paradigm is to create a fit between ultimate presumptions about a methodological
view and the nature of the study area (see Figure 7.1).

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

Figure 7.1 Operative Paradigms Create Fit

OPERATIVE PARADIGMS

In the introductory chapter of this book, we described how scientific theory uses the paradigm
concept to describe the relation between ultimate presumptions and concrete methodological
views. In the same way, we proposed our idea of being able to describe the relation between a
methodological view and an area under study by using the operative paradigm concept.
Through this concept, which is determined in terms of methodical procedure and methodics,
we have acquired a means of communication that will allow us to compare various studies,
reports, essays, and the like. If this can function as a bridge of language commonality among
the proponents of various methodological views, we have come very far on the way to both a
better understanding and a better communication within the area of methodology, which
continues to be characterized by a high degree of conceptual confusion. This becomes
especially important with the intensification of knowledge in production, service, marketing,
and other areas in business.
To invest resources strategically in developing knowledge without making it clear in

advance what the knowledge is knowledge about – that is, what ultimate presumptions it is
based on – would not be cost effective (more about this kind of “knowledge audit” in the final
chapter). Therefore, we can expect an increasing interest in the questions that methodology
addresses.
In our earlier descriptions of the operative paradigm concept we stressed its character of

aspiring to fitness, in other words, that it might function as a general instrument for testing
relations between a chosen methodological view and the actual study area. From this it follows
naturally that the development, as well as the form, of the operative paradigm will be different
for each of the three methodological approaches (in the text from now on we use both the
concepts of view and approach, alternating depending on whether we are referring to the view
as such or to its use in practical application – the use of either one concept or the other is,
however, not something which the reader needs to attach any greater importance to than has
already been stated).
If we were to describe the development of an operative paradigm in each of the approaches

in terms of their degree of formalism and instrumentalism, we would find that the analytical
approach ranks highest, the actors approach ranks lowest and the systems approach is
somewhere in between. This, of course, would also characterize when in a study the operative
paradigm is ready as well as its final form. Because of its greater degree of formalism and
instrumentalism, the analytical view considers the development of an operative paradigm as

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

less problematic. The analytical approach, as we know, operates with a greater number of a
priori starting points than the other approaches, which leads to its operative paradigm being
ready relatively early in a study. This also indicates that the operative paradigm in an actors
approach study will not be complete until the study is complete: an actors approach operative
paradigm is developed gradually over the course of a study. The time for developing the
operative paradigm in the systems approach varies between these two points, depending on the
circumstances of a given study.
What happens in the development of an operative paradigm can, as mentioned before, be

divided up and described in terms of methodical procedures and methodics. We remind the
reader of our definitions:

Methodical Procedure: the way in which researchers (or any other creators of
knowledge) arrange, develop, and/or modify any technique, theory, or previous result in a
methodological approach, or, alternatively, develop a new technique.

Methodics: the way in which researchers (or any other creators of knowledge) relate and
arrange the techniques-become-methods in their study plans, and the way in which a study
is actually approached.

Researchers/consultants/investigators, just like other people, have access to a number of means
in their work. These means vary. There are physical means like paper and pen, microscope,
computer, and the like; what we might call instruments or tools. Among the tools used by
creators of knowledge we can also count the special terminology available for the purpose of
creating knowledge. In business we have a set of such terms, such as costs and revenues,
budget, manager, brand, segmentation.
By a technique we mean the way in which a subactivity of creating knowledge is carried

out. The tools just mentioned (and others) will be useful in this context. When a sample is taken
(a technique), a random numbers table (a tool) can be used. When a personal interview is
carried out (a technique), a digital recorder (a tool) can be used. Furthermore, the interview
must be conducted in a terminology (a further tool) that the respondent can understand.
One could also say that available techniques are the alternative actions open to the creators

of knowledge. Part of their work may also be to develop new techniques, increasing the
number of alternative actions available.
The interesting question is, of course: When should the researcher/consultant/investigator

carry out, for instance, a face-to-face interview, where should it take place and how should it
be arranged? If we also keep in mind why a technique is used, we have four questions with
which we can assess techniques. In other words, if for each technique we ask:

When?
Where?
How?
Why?

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

a specific technique should be used, we arrive at the level of methods. We maintain that a
technique in itself is worthless. A technique has no value until it becomes a method. To turn a
technique into a method or to develop a new technique into a method is what we call a
methodical procedure (please note: adapting and possibly modifying previous results and
theories is also referred to as methodical procedures). This implies a serious answer to the
four questions above.
Whether a new technique is to be developed, or which technique is to be chosen and how it

might be modified, are determined by:

the methodological view chosen
the character of the study area.

It is to some extent possible to examine in principle what a technique should look like in
relation to a particular methodological view. But it is not until it is related to the study area that
a technique takes on its definite shape, that is, becomes a method.
In other words, the methodological view and the character of the study area (e.g. which

problem and/or opportunity seems to be at hand) will determine the rules for choosing,
arranging and developing techniques into methods, that is, the alternative actions to create
knowledge.
The connections between techniques and methodological approaches – in other words, the

development of methodical procedures – are the subject of this chapter.
From methodical procedures we take a further step when we come to methodics. We then

come to the study plan as a whole, and to the actual conduction of the study. This will be
illustrated in Chapter 9.
There are major differences among methodological approaches as far as methodical

procedures are concerned, but the differences are even greater for methodics. Methodical
procedures and methodics go hand in hand. In practice they cannot be fully separated.
Every methodical procedure pays attention to its background, the methodics of which it is,

or will be, a part. Any methodics would be empty if it did not contain seriously prepared
methodical procedures. Nevertheless, in this chapter we will treat only methodical procedures
and how they can be related to various methodological approaches. We do this in order to
initiate the reader gradually into understanding the relations among the methodological view,
the operative paradigm, methodical procedures and methodics – in other words, the
development of an operative paradigm.
We believe that an exchange between “theory” (this chapter) and “practice” (Chapter 8,

“Methods in Language and Action”) is useful for continued learning. After reading Chapters 9
to 12, where we deal with methodics vis-à-vis our methodological approaches (in Chapter 9 in
theory, in Chapters 10, 11 and 12 in practice), we are confident that the reader will have a
practical and consistent methodological orientation.
We begin by reviewing what are considered to be “common” groups of techniques:

1. selection techniques (for units of study)

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

2. traditional data collection techniques
3. measurement and reliability techniques
4. validation techniques.

Even if our three methodological approaches often regard/make use of these groups of
techniques differently (sometimes even define them differently), we believe they constitute
something of a common ground for every effort to create knowledge. We are aware that several
groups of techniques are thus excluded, for instance:

a. techniques for making definitions
b. techniques for relating to previous knowledge
c. mathematical and logical techniques
d. application techniques.

We covered techniques for making definitions in the illustrations of the basic concepts of the
three methodological views presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. Techniques for relating to
previous knowledge were brought up at the ends of these same chapters. Mathematical and
logical techniques belong primarily to the analytical view (see brief discussion in Chapter 4),
and will be considered later in this chapter when we treat techniques specific to the various
methodological approaches (e.g. sampling). The differences in application techniques for
each of the views should be clear after reading the examples.
After treating some “common” techniques, we will further clarify the differences among our

methodological views. This will be done within the framework of one approach at a time, by
specifically describing:

For the analytical approach:

sampling
validation techniques

For the systems approach:

historical studies
case studies

For the actors approach:

dialogue
language development

We treat these techniques separately even though they could be used in more than one
methodological approach (but with modification, and often after redefinition). For instance,

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

validation techniques are presented in the group of “common” techniques as well as under
“specific” techniques.
This chapter ends with a reflection of how our three methodological views position

themselves in relation to the problem of objectivity.

SOME “COMMON” GROUPS OF TECHNIQUES

Techniques for selecting units of study

In this section we provide certain general principles for using techniques to select units to be
studied when creating knowledge. We will not go into deep mathematical or statistical aspects
(they belong mainly to the analytical approach, which we will come back to). Our goal here is
only to present a sufficient basis for understanding the different methodological views’ relation
to such techniques.
Every study (no matter which view it uses) wants to reach certain results, even if they are

only preliminary. Reality (no matter how it is defined) can never be encompassed in its
entirety. In every effort to create knowledge we can attempt to study, explain, and/or
understand only a part of it. This part we can define as “a piece of history” (i.e. a temporal
limitation) or “a piece of the existing state” (i.e. a spatial limitation). No matter how we do it,
our area of interest becomes limited, that is, we must select only what seems relevant for the
study.
In the analytical view reality is seen as a great number of independent units, which means

that statistical sampling theory can be a decisive means for achieving the ambitions of the view
(we will return to this theory in further detail). Representativity (i.e. how selected units
represent the larger totality that is to be described or explained) becomes crucial for whether
or not the research ambition will be generalizable. Finding the average and the pattern around
this average is what every analytically based person trying to create knowledge aims for. If
this is the case, it means that when the description or the explanation of the selected units is
present, the description and the explanation of the area of interest as a whole is also present.
The principle of independent units of study is not accepted by the systems view. A systems-

based person trying to create knowledge perceives his or her reality as consisting of systems,
which by definition means dependent relations on the one hand, and sometimes partly unique
cases on the other. The concept of representativity, in a strictly statistical sense, is therefore
not valid for the systems view in general. It is therefore common to work with case studies
here (more on these later). Another reason for working with case studies in the systems
approach is simply that from a practical point of departure, analyses of complex objects
require extensive effort. The cases studied by the systems creator of knowledge cannot be
selected on the principle that they will represent all other systems (in the sense of being
constructed the same, or of behaving the same way). Nevertheless, in the meaning given them
by the systems view, they can represent a certain type of system (if the intention is to study a
system type). So, the real systems selected for study within the systems approach usually

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

follow other principles:

They are versatile and can therefore bring comprehensive light to phenomena being
studied.
They are interesting in the sense of leading the development in some direction. This
could mean that we will look for unique, or at least divergent, cases.

The concept of representativity is rarely used in the systems approach.
Because the actors view is primarily interested in specifying the meaning and the

construction of social phenomena, starting from its inherent egological sphere, the talk about
representativity is of less interest here too, and can even be seen as invalid. According to the
actors view, representativity makes no sense in a socially constructed reality because it
represents only shallow clichés of statistically generalized situational “tones of meaning” (see
the subheading “Denotation of conceptual meaning and scientific language” in Chapter 6). The
concept of representativity is therefore extremely rare in the actors approach. It is customary,
however, to apply principles similar to those used for selecting cases in the systems approach
when selecting individual companies in the actors approach. When selecting individual actors
within those companies or elsewhere, some of the following principles, alone or in
combination, are usually applied:

recommended selection
understanding selection
problem/opportunity-oriented selection.

A recommended selection means letting different actors recommend other interesting actors.
By an understanding selection we mean a selection of actors who, in the diagnostic
development of understanding, turn out to be important in some way. A problem/opportunity-
oriented selection means choosing individuals who are in some way connected to the
problem/opportunity being studied. These people may not have been seen as important in the
diagnostic development of understanding, but in order to get a versatile description of the
significance of the problem/opportunity and possibly raise the level of understanding, certain
actors are nevertheless chosen. This might in turn raise the level of understanding with which
new selections will be made, but now as understanding selections. In other words, there is
often an extensive interchange between these three types of selection.

Traditional techniques for collecting data

There are two main categories of traditional techniques for collecting data.

using material previously collected, so-called secondary information
collecting new data, so-called primary information.

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

Primary information can be collected in three ways:

direct observations
interviews
experiments.

Secondary information

When using secondary information, the creator of knowledge often faces two problems:

1. Compatibility. Previously collected or secondary information might have been collected
for another purpose, from another perspective, and so on. Existing data may therefore be
classified differently or start from a different measurement scale and/or from other
definitions. Consequently, these data might not be compatible with those the
researcher/consultant/investigator wants.

2. Trustworthiness. Researchers/consultants/investigators can be unsure about the extent to
which previously collected data are correct.

Primary information: Direct observation

You are observing when you conduct a face-to-face interview. Studies of secondary
information, including viewing all types of recording or listening to recordings, are also a kind
of observation. Both of these cases are what we might call indirect observation (and/or
listening). Direct observation, on the other hand, consists of a situation of creating knowledge
that, as a whole, is arranged around observing what happens in the present. Four types of
direct observation can be differentiated, as shown in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Types of Direct Observation

A situation with “complete observation” is difficult to achieve. It is technically complicated
to arrange a situation in which you can observe without those being observed knowing it. It is

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. ProQuest Ebook Central http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from indwes on 2021-04-07 23:19:32.

C
o
p
yr

ig
h
t
©

2
0
0
8
.
S

A
G

E
P

u
b
lic

a
tio

n
s.

A
ll

ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se

rv
e
d
.

also morally questionable whether a researcher/consultant/investigator should observe people
without their knowledge and consent. Another technical problem, of course, is that you can
directly observe only what is happening here and now (including directly observing something
taking place “there”, if you have a camera pointed …