2011 generating research questions through problematization amr tx 8

GENERATING RESEARCH QUESTIONSTHROUGH PROBLEMATIZATION

MATS ALVESSONUniversity of Lund and University of Queensland

JORGEN SANDBERGUniversity of Queensland

It is increasingly recognized that what makes a theory interesting and influential isthat it challenges our assumptions in some significant way. However, establishedways for arriving at research questions mean spotting or constructing gaps in existingtheories rather than challenging their assumptions. We propose problematization asa methodology for identifying and challenging assumptions underlying existing lit-erature and, based on that, formulating research questions that are likely to lead tomore influential theories.

As researchers, we all want to produce inter-esting and influential theories. The dominantview is that a theory becomes influential if it isregarded as true. However, in his seminal studyDavis (1971) showed that what makes a theorynotable, and sometimes even famous (Davis,1986), is not only that it is seen as true but also,and more important, that it is seen as challeng-ing the assumptions underlying existing theo-ries in some significant way. During the last fourdecades, a large number of researchers withinmanagement and the social sciences have con-firmed and elaborated Davis’s original thesis invarious ways (e.g., Astley, 1985; Bartunek, Rynes,& Ireland, 2006; Black, 2000; Campbell, Daft, &Hulin, 1982; Daft, 1983; Daft, Griffin, & Yates,1987; Daft & Lewin, 1990; Davis, 1999; Hargens,2000; Lundberg, 1976; Miner, 1984; Mohr, 1982;Weick, 1989, 2001; Wicker, 1985). For example,McKinley, Mone, and Moon (1999) showed thatfor a theory to receive attention and establish anew theoretical school, it must differ signifi-cantly from, and at the same time be connectedto, established literature in order to be seen asmeaningful. Likewise, Bartunek et al.’s study ofwhat the board members of the Academy ofManagement Journal considered to be particu-larly interesting empirical articles provided“support for Davis’s (1971) arguments regardingtheory: empirical articles that challenge currentassumptions are also particularly likely to beviewed as interesting” (2006: 12).

Generating research questions through prob-lematizion, in the sense of identifying and chal-

lenging the assumptions underlying existingtheories, therefore appears to be a central ingre-dient in the development of more interestingand influential theories within managementstudies. However, established ways of generat-ing research questions rarely express more am-bitious and systematic attempts to challengethe assumptions underlying existing theories(Barrett & Walsham, 2004; Bartunek et al., 2006;Clark & Wright, 2009; Johnson, 2003; Locke &Golden-Biddle, 1997; Sandberg & Alvesson,2011). Instead, they mainly try to identify or cre-ate gaps in existing literature that need to befilled. It is common to refer either positively ormildly critically to earlier studies in order to“extend . . . this literature” (Westphal & Khanna,2003: 363), to “address this gap in the literature”(Musson & Tietze, 2004: 1301), to “fill this gap”(Luscher & Lewis, 2008: 221), to point at themesthat others “have not paid particular attentionto” (Thornborrow & Brown, 2009: 356), or to “callfor more empirical research” (Ewenstein &Whyte, 2009: 7). Such “gap-spotting” means thatthe assumptions underlying existing literaturefor the most part remain unchallenged in theformulation of research questions. In otherwords, gap-spotting tends to underproblematizeexisting literature and, thus, reinforces ratherthan challenges already influential theories.

There are, however, an increasing number ofresearch orientations that directly or indirectlyencourage problematization, such as certainversions of social constructionism, postmodern-ism, feminism, and critical theory. Since the pri-

� Academy of Management Review2011, Vol. 36, No. 2, 247–271.

247Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

mary aim of many of these orientations is todisrupt rather than build upon and extend anestablished body of literature, it could be ar-gued that they tend to overproblematize the re-search undertaken. In particular, these orienta-tions tend to emphasize the “capacity to disturband threaten the stability of positive forms ofmanagement science” (Knights, 1992: 533) as away to highlight what is ”wrong” (e.g., mislead-ing or dangerous) with existing knowledge(Deetz, 1996)—that is, ”negative” knowledge isthe aim (Knights, 1992). For a large majority ofresearchers with a more ”positive” researchagenda—with the aim of advancing knowledgeof a specific subject matter—such overprob-lematization is often seen as inappropriate andunhelpful (Parker, 1991; Rorty, 1992).

Our aim in this study is to integrate the posi-tive and the negative research agenda by devel-oping and proposing problematization as amethodology for identifying and challenging as-sumptions that underlie existing theories and,based on that, generating research questionsthat lead to the development of more interestingand influential theories within managementstudies. To be more specific, (1) we develop atypology of what types of assumptions can beproblematized in existing theories, and (2) wepropose a set of methodological principles forhow this can be done.

We focus only on problematizing assumptionsthat underlie existing literature as a way to con-struct research questions. We do not discusshow other aspects of the research process, suchas general interest, relevance for practitioners,choice of case, and unexpected empirical find-ings, may influence the research objective and,thus, the formulation of research questions.There is also a large and overlapping body ofliterature on reflexivity dealing with key as-pects of research (e.g., Alvesson, Hardy, & Har-ley, 2008; Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009; Hardy &Clegg, 1997; Lynch, 2000; Westwood & Clegg,2003). Since our emphasis is on how to work withreflexivity when formulating research ques-tions, we only marginally address other issuesof reflexivity in research, such as invokingawareness of the researcher him/herself, therole of rhetoric, and ongoing constructions ofreality in the research process. An exception isthe theme of the sociopolitical context of re-search, which is a key issue for how researchers

relate to existing work (Alvesson, Hardy, & Har-ley, 2008).

The article is structured as follows. We beginby placing problematization in its methodologi-cal context by discussing prevalent ways of gen-erating research questions from existing litera-ture. Against this background, we elaborate andpropose problematization as a methodology forgenerating research questions, in four steps: (1)we describe the aim and focal point of the meth-odology as challenging assumptions underlyingexisting literature; (2) we elaborate a typologyconsisting of five broad types of assumptionsthat are open for problematization in existingtheory; (3) we develop a set of methodologicalprinciples for identifying, articulating, and chal-lenging assumptions underlying existing litera-ture; and (4) we examine how the developedmethodology can be used for generating re-search questions by applying it to Dutton, Duke-rich, and Harquail’s (1994) well-known articleabout organizational identity. Finally, we dis-cuss what contributions the methodology canmake to theory development within manage-ment studies.

GAP-SPOTTING: THE PREVALENT WAY OFGENERATING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A wide range of studies points to importantingredients involved in formulating good re-search questions (e.g., Abbott, 2004; Astley, 1985;Becker, 1998; Davis, 1971, 1986; Frost & Stablein,1992; Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997; Mills, 1959;Smith & Hitt, 2005; Starbuck, 2006; Van de Ven,2007; Weick, 1989). However, few of these studieshave focused specifically on how researchersconstruct research questions by reviewing andcriticizing existing literature. For example,while Abbott (2004) offers an array of heuristictools and Becker (1998) suggests a set of tricks ofthe trade for coming up with new researchideas, these heuristics and tricks “are not spe-cifically aimed at any particular phase or aspectof the research process” (Abbott, 2004: 112).

Prevalent Ways of Constructing ResearchQuestions from Existing Literature

A study that comes close to how researchersconstruct research questions from research textsis Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997) investiga-tion of how researchers create an opportunity for

248 AprilAcademy of Management Review

contribution in scholarly journals. They con-ducted an empirical investigation of eighty-twoqualitative articles published in the Administra-tive Science Quarterly (sixty-one studies) andthe Academy of Management Journal (twenty-one studies) between 1976 and 1996. All of thestudies, except eight, created opportunities forcontribution by arguing that existing literaturewas either incomplete or had overlooked an im-portant perspective and that those were gapsthat needed to be filled. The remaining eightarticles claimed that existing literature wasmisleading in the way it produced knowledgeabout a specific topic. A contribution then de-pended on providing a superior study that wasable to correct faulty or inadequate existing lit-erature. These findings by Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) have been confirmed in more re-cent studies in the areas of information systems(Barrett & Walsham, 2004) and marketing (John-son, 2003).

In a more current study of management jour-nals, we specifically investigated how manage-ment researchers constructed research ques-tions from existing literature (Sandberg &Alvesson, 2011). In contrast to Locke and Golden-Biddle’s, our study comprised a broader set ofjournals and a mix of qualitative and quantita-tive studies. We analyzed fifty-two articles fromeight randomly selected issues, between 2003and 2005, of Administrative Science Quarterly,Journal of Management Studies, Organization,and Organization Studies. In all of the studiesinvestigated, researchers generated researchquestions by identifying or constructing specificgaps in existing literature. They tried to eitheridentify competing explanations, to scan foroverlooked areas, or to search for shortages of aparticular theory or perspective in existing liter-ature. Then, based on those gaps, they formu-lated their own research questions.

These studies suggest gap-spotting (i.e., iden-tifying or constructing gaps in existing litera-ture that need to be filled) is the most dominantway of generating research questions from ex-isting literature in management. It is, however,important to note that gap-spotting rarely in-volves a simple identification of obvious gaps ina given body of literature. Instead, it consists ofcomplex, constructive, and sometimes creativeprocesses. As both the Sandberg and Alvesson(2011) and, in particular, Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) studies show, researchers com-

monly construct gaps by arranging existingstudies in specific ways. For example, one wayto create a gap, identified by Locke and Golden-Biddle, is to synthesize coherence in which theresearcher “cite[s] and draw[s] connections be-tween works and investigative streams not typ-ically cited together . . . [which] suggests the ex-istence of underdeveloped research areas”(1997: 1030). A gap in existing literature may alsobe defined by specific negotiations between re-searchers, editors, and reviewers about whatstudies actually constitute existing literatureand what is lacking from that domain of litera-ture (Bedeian, 2003, 2004; Tsang & Frey, 2007).Moreover, gap-spotting is not something fixed; itmay differ in both size and complexity, such asidentifying or constructing fairly narrow gaps tomore significant gaps, which can lead to impor-tant revisions and development of existing liter-ature (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007).

Nevertheless, regardless of variations in sizeand complexity, and regardless of the fact thatresearchers often creatively construct gaps inexisting literature and criticize it for being defi-cient in some way (e.g., for being incomplete,inadequate, inconclusive, or underdeveloped),they rarely challenge the literature’s underlyingassumptions in any significant way. Instead,they build on (or around) existing literature toformulate research questions. In other words,whether researchers merely identify or cre-atively construct gaps in existing literature, theystill adhere to the same purpose—namely, “gap-filling”—that is, adding something to existingliterature, not identifying and challenging itsunderlying assumptions, and, based on that, for-mulating new and original research questions.

The dominance of gap-spotting is not, as onemay assume, confined to quantitative or quali-tative hypothetico-deductive research; it is alsoprevalent within qualitative-inductive research.This is clearly the case in our earlier study(Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011) but particularly no-ticeable in Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997) in-vestigation of eighty-two qualitative studies, ofwhich a large majority had an inductive re-search design. The prevalence of gap-spottingin qualitative inductive research is also evidentin Lee, Mitchell, and Sablynski’s (1999) review ofqualitative research in organizational scienceduring the period 1979 to 1999, as well in Bluhm,Harman, Lee, and Mitchell’s (2010) follow-upstudy of the period 1999 to 2008. And it is further

2011 249Alvesson and Sandberg

substantiated by Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan’s(2007) study of trends in the theoretical contribu-tion and impact of theory-building research andtheory-testing research based on a sample of770 articles published in the Academy of Man-agement Journal between 1963 and 2007. Theirresults indicated “that the typical [inductive re-search] article published in AMJ during our five-decade span either examined effects that hadbeen the subject of prior theorizing or introduceda new mediator or moderator of an existing re-lationship or process” (2007: 1290).

The widespread activity of gap-spotting inqualitative inductive research is further con-firmed in recent editorial advice in the Academyof Management Journal to researchers and re-viewers about what characterizes high-qualityqualitative research. According to the editor, animportant feature of high-quality qualitative in-ductive research is that it discusses “why thisqualitative research is needed. . . . For inductivestudies, articulating one’s motivation not onlyinvolves reviewing the literature to illustratesome ‘gaps’ in prior research, but also explain-ing why it is important to fill this gap. The latteris often forgotten” (Pratt, 2009: 858). In a similarvein, but more generally, based on her twenty-six years as Administrative Science Quarterly’smanaging editor (and her reading of more than19,000 reviews and more than 8,000 decision let-ters), Johanson offers the following core adviceto authors about what journal reviewers expectof the scholarly publication: “If you can’t make aconvincing argument that you are filling an im-portant gap in the literature, you will have ahard time establishing that you have a contri-bution to make to that literature. You might besurprised at how many authors miss this funda-mental point” (2007: 292).

The above findings and studies showing theprevalence of gap-spotting research in manage-ment studies can, of course, be questioned invarious ways. For example, both the Locke andGolden-Biddle (1997) and Sandberg and Alves-son (2011) analyses are based on how research-ers presented their studies in published articles,which might have deviated from how they “re-ally” went about generating their researchquestions. Rhetorical conventions may accountfor how authors present their research in pub-lished texts. Perhaps some researchers prob-lematize the assumptions that underlie existingtheory to generate research questions but use a

gap-spotting rhetoric when presenting their re-search in order to get published (Starbuck, 2003,2006). According to Starbuck, “Authors can in-crease their acceptance of their innovations byportraying them as being incremental enhance-ments of wide-spread beliefs” (2003: 349). (Seealso Bourdieu [1996], Knorr-Cetina [1981], Latourand Woolgar [1979], and Mulkay and Gilbert[1983] for the difference between researchers’work and their publications.)

A closely related explanation of the wide-spread use of gap-spotting is the political con-text in which most management research takesplace (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008;Bourdieu, 2004; McMullen & Shepard, 2006;Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). It is well knownthat tenure, promotion, and funding decisionsare heavily dependent on being able to publishregularly in quality journals. Challenging as-sumptions that underlie existing studies is oftenrisky, since it means questioning existing powerrelations in a scientific field, which may resultin upsetting colleagues, reviewers, and editorsand, thus, may reduce the chances of having anarticle published (Bourdieu, 2004; Breslau, 1997;Starbuck, 2003). Therefore, in order to increasethe chances of being published, many research-ers may carry out gap-spotting rather than moreconsensus-challenging research (McMullen &Shepard, 2006; Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011).

However, given the increased acknowledg-ment that challenging the assumptions underly-ing existing literature is what makes a theoryinteresting, it seems odd if authors in generaldeliberately choose to construct research ques-tions through gap-spotting, or if they try todownplay or conceal a strong contribution bydressing it up in gap-spotting rhetoric. It is alsolikely that reviewers would pick up and chal-lenge a discrepancy between a research pur-pose that was presented in gap-spotting dis-course but produced results that challenged theliterature. Moreover, irrespective of how re-searchers actually go about formulating andreformulating their research questions, and re-gardless of what social and political normsinfluence their presentation in journal articles, itis, as noted in Sandberg and Alvesson, “in thecrafting of the research text that the final re-search question is constructed, which is the onethat specifies the actual contribution of thestudy” (2010: 25). In other words, assumption-challenging research is of limited value if it is


not clearly shown in the published research text.There are, therefore, strong reasons to take theresearch questions as stated in the publishedresearch text very seriously and not regard themas less important than the research questions inoperation during the early stages of the re-search project, which eventually lead up to pub-lication.

Gap-Spotting: An Increasingly DisturbingProblem in Management Studies

The dominance of research seeking the incre-mental gains of gap-spotting has, over the lasttwo decades, increasingly come to be seen as adisturbing problem in management studies. Forexample, in their editorial comments in the in-augural issue of Organization Science, Daft andLewin observed a strong “need for reorienting[organizational] research away from incremen-tal, footnote-on-footnote research as the norm forthe field” (1990: 1). Reflecting back on the yearssince launching Organization Science, Daft andLewin (2008: 177) conceded that their originalmission had not been realized. They reempha-sized the need not to prioritize rigorous empiri-cal research methods but, instead, “new theo-ries and ways of thinking about organizations,coupled with a plausible methodology thatgrounds the theory” (2008: 182).

The outgoing editors of the Journal of Manage-ment Studies made similar observations in theirconcluding reflections on the management field.Based on their six years in office (2003–2008),they commented that while

we along with many other journals have wit-nessed a proliferation of articles submitted, it ishard to conclude that this has been accompaniedby a corresponding increase in papers that addsignificantly to the discipline. More is being pro-duced but the big impact papers remain elu-sive. . . . The emphasis on improving the rigour oftheorizing and of empirical method . . . may haveled to more incremental research questions beingaddressed. . . . [And] the impact of the audit cul-ture and incentive system is likely to affect theextent to which both junior faculty and, some-what surprisingly, highly competent senior fac-ulty (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006) engage in con-sensus-challenging research. The emphasis on“gap filling” seems to assume that we know whatthe boundaries of a field look like and tends todissuade examination of new areas outside thismatrix (Clark & Wright, 2009: 6).

In a similar vein, the editors of the Academy ofManagement Journal argued that while the jour-nal is publishing “technically competent re-search that simultaneously contributes to the-ory . . . [it is] desirable to raise the proportion ofarticles published in AMJ that are regarded asimportant, competently executed, and really in-teresting” (i.e., assumption-challenging studies;Bartunek et al., 2006: 9).

The above editorial observations, along withothers (e.g., Starbuck, 2006), suggest that thescarcity of more interesting and influential the-ories is a serious problem in management stud-ies, and to some extent also in social science asa whole (Delanty, 2005). There seems to be abroadly shared sense in management that thefield is stronger in producing rigor than it is inproducing interesting and influential theories(see also Sutton & Staw, 1995). It is unlikely thatfurther efforts to develop existing or new gap-spotting strategies will overcome the shortageof high-impact research. This is not to say thatgap-spotting research is unimportant. It plays acrucial role in developing existing managementliterature through systematic and incrementaladditions, as well as through identifying andaddressing more significant gaps in it. However,because gap-spotting does not deliberately tryto challenge the assumptions that underlie ex-isting literature, it is less likely to raise the pro-portion of high-impact theories within the man-agement field. It therefore seems vital to supportand strengthen attempts at more deliberate, sys-tematic, and ambitious problematization, bothas a research ideal and as a methodology forconstructing research questions. As an additionto gap-spotting, we aim in this article to developproblematization as a methodology for chal-lenging assumptions underlying existing litera-ture and, based on that, to formulate researchquestions that may lead to more interesting andinfluential theories.

PROBLEMATIZATION AS A METHODOLOGYFOR GENERATING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this section we develop problematizationas a methodology for generating research ques-tions. We first describe the aim and focal pointof the methodology. We then elaborate a typol-ogy that specifies which assumptions are openfor problematization and follow this with a set ofprinciples for identifying, articulating, and chal-


lenging assumptions underlying existing litera-ture and, based on that, constructing researchquestions that will lead to the development ofmore interesting and influential theories.

The Aim of the Problematization Methodology

Although gap-spotting and problematizationare two distinct ways of constructing researchquestions from existing literature, it must berecognized that they are not mutually exclusive(Dewey, 1938; Foucault, 1972; Freire, 1970; Locke& Golden-Biddle, 1997; Mills, 1959). Any prob-lematization of a literature domain calls forsome scrutiny of particular debates, critiques,and possibly earlier challenges of assumptionsin the domain, and most gap-spotting effortsinvolve some form of modest problematization(in the wider sense of the word—i.e., criticalscrutiny). However, we do not see gap-spottingas a genuine form of problematization since itdoes not deliberately try to identify and chal-lenge the assumptions underlying existing liter-ature in the process of constructing researchquestions.

There are stronger elements of problematiza-tion in debates between advocates of variousschools and paradigms (Abbott, 2001, 2004; Bur-rell & Morgan, 1979; Donaldson, 1985; Reed, 1985,2004), as well as within more radical orienta-tions, such as postmodernism and critical the-ory. However, although many of the paradigmwarriors and proponents of more radical orien-tations forcefully critique existing theories, theirproblematizations are often secondary in thesense that they are more or less “ready-made”by master thinkers, such as a Baudrillardian(Grandy & Mills, 2004) or a Foucauldian perspec-tive on a particular field (e.g., Knights & Morgan,1991; Townley, 1993). Similarly, countertexts, likeDonaldson’s (1985), typically aim to defend orreinforce a preferred position but do not offernew points of departure. As Abbott notes, per-spectives with a ready-made stance toward so-cial life often have “stock questions and puzzlesabout it (as in the feminist’s questions ‘whatabout women and social networks?’ ‘what abouta gendered concept of narrative?’ and so on)”(2004: 85).

We therefore do not see such prepackagedproblematization attempts as genuine either,because they apply rather than challenge theliterature they follow, thus mainly reproducing

the assumptions underlying their own perspec-tive. Instead, our idea is to use problematizationas a methodology for challenging the assump-tions that underlie not only others’ but also one’sown theoretical position and, based on that, toconstruct novel research questions. This is not tosay that a problematizer is “blank” or positionfree. Any problematization necessarily takes itspoint of departure within a specific metatheo-retical position (i.e., epistemological and onto-logical stance; Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2004: Chap-ter 1). The ambition is therefore not, nor is itpossible, to totally undo one’s own position;rather, it is to unpack it sufficiently so that someof one’s ordinary held assumptions can be scru-tinized and reconsidered in the process of con-structing novel research questions. This unpack-ing is crucial because, as Slife and Williamsnote,

to truly evaluate and understand the ideas be-hind other ideas, we must have a point of com-parison. We must have some contrast with im-plicit ideas or they will not look like ideas. Theywill look like common sense or truth or axiomsrather than the points of view that they really are(1995: 71).

Hence, instead of spotting gaps within a liter-ature domain or applying a prepackaged prob-lematization to challenge the assumptions ofothers, the aim of the problematization method-ology proposed here is to come up with novelresearch questions through a dialectical interro-gation of one’s own familiar position, otherstances, and the domain of literature targetedfor assumption challenging. In such a method-ology, paradigm and other broader debates,such as behaviorism and culturalism, contextu-alism and noncontexualism, and choice andconstraint (Abbott, 2004: 162–210), and criticalframeworks, such as political (Alvesson & Will-mott, 1996; Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Foucault,1977), linguistic (Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Put-nam, 2004), constructionist (Gergen, 1992; Sand-berg, 2001), and postmodernist (Cooper & Burrell,1988; Deetz, 1992; Knights, 1992; Rosenau, 1992),as well as counterresponses to these (e.g., Don-aldson, 1985; Reed, 2004), are seen as importantmethodological resources to open up and scruti-nize assumptions underlying established theo-ries, including, to some extent, the favorite the-ory of the problematizer. Such a methodologysupports a more reflective scholarly attitude inthe sense that it encourages the researcher not


only to use his or her own favorite theoreticalposition but to start “using different standardstances to question one another . . . [and combin-ing them] into far more complex forms of question-ing than any one of them can produce alone” (Ab-bott, 2004: 87).

Thus, by elaborating and proposing prob-lematization as a methodology for generatingresearch questions, we do not take any particu-lar paradigmatic stance more than we embracethe general and long-held metatheoretical as-sumption within academia that all knowledge isuncertain, truths or theories cannot be acceptedas given, researchers tend to be conformist andparadigm bound (Kuhn, 1970), and theoreticaldevelopments are partly based on rethinkingand challenging fundamental assumptions un-derlying dominating theories (Tsoukas & Knud-sen, 2004). In other words, problematization, aswe define it here, can, in principle, be applied toall theoretical traditions or methodological con-victions and can be used within, and against,all, including the problematizer him/herself.

A Note on Theory

Before elaborating problematization as amethodology for generating research questionsmore specifically, it is important to describewhat we mean by “theory.” Since there are manyviews on theories in the management field(Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007; DiMaggio, 1995;Sutton & Staw, 1995), and since these views arein various ways part of what can and should betargeted for assumption challenging, we are notasserting a strict view on theory. Bacharach’s(1989) definition probably comes closest to thewide-ranging view of theory that we adopt here.He defines theory as

a statement of relations among concepts within aboundary set of assumptions and constraints. It isno more than a linguistic device used to organizea complex empirical world. . . . the purpose of atheoretical statement is twofold: to organize (par-simoniously) and to communicate (clearly) (1989:496).

Except for Bacharach’s broad and open defi-nition of theory, what is particularly close to ourown view is his notion that theories are notfree-floating statements but are always basedon and bounded by researchers’ assumptionsabout the subject matter in question. As Bach-arach notes, the boundary set of assumptions is

critical to grasp, because “if a theory is to beproperly used or tested, the theorist’s implicitassumptions which form the boundaries of thetheory must be understood” (1989: 498). How-ever, understanding the assumptions that un-derpin existing theories is important not onlyfor being able to use and test them but also forbeing able to develop new theories. In partic-ular, without understanding the assumptionsthat underlie existing theories, it is not possi-ble to problematize them and, based on that, toconstruct research questions that may lead tothe development of more interesting and influ-ential theories (e.g., Davis, 1971).

Challenging Assumptions: The Focal Point inGenerating Research Questions ThroughProblematization

But how can we problematize assumptions ina way that generates novel research questions?Although problematization is featured in vari-ous theoretical orientations, such as pragma-tism (Dewey, 1916) and actor-network theory(Callon, 1980), Foucault’s conceptualization is agood starting point (Castels, 1994; Deacon, 2000).According to Foucault, problematization is firstand foremost an “endeavour to know how and towhat extent it might be possible to think differ-ently, instead of what is already known” (1985:9). Such an endeavor does not primarily ques-tion how well some constructs or relationshipsbetween constructs represent a particular sub-ject matter like “motivation” or “diversity.” In-stead, it questions the necessary presupposi-tions researchers make about a subject matterin order to develop the specific theory about it.

As a range of scholars have noted (Bourdieu,1996; Derrida, 1978/1967; Heidegger, 1981/1927;Husserl, 1970/1900 –1901; Merleau-Ponty, 1962/1945), assumptions work as a starting point forknowledge production since they always in-volve some suppositions or, as Gadamer (1994/1960) put it, prejudices about the subject matterin question. For instance, leadership studiespresuppose a set of assumptions that enable usto conceptualize “leadership” as something inthe first place, such as trait theory, emphasizingperson-bound, stable qualities. Without such aninitial understanding of leadership, we wouldhave no idea what to look for, how to design ourstudy, what empirical material to collect, andhow to analyze and theorize leadership. The fo-


cal point in problematization as a methodologyfor generating research questions is therefore toilluminate and challenge those assumptions un-derlying existing theories about a specific sub-ject matter.

In order to develop problematization as amethodology for generating research questions,two key questions need to be answered regard-ing assumptions. First, what types of assump-tions are relevant to consider? Second, how canthese assumptions be identified, articulated,and challenged in a way that is likely to lead tothe development of an interesting theory?Highly relevant here is the growing body ofwork that has focused on “interestingness” intheory development. Although many theorists(e.g., Astley, 1985; Bartunek et al., 2006) havedescribed how a theory can be made more in-teresting by challenging assumptions, Davis(1971) has discussed this most fully, developingan ”index of the interesting.” The index de-scribes twelve different ways in which an audi-ence’s assumptions can be challenged; theseare subsumed in two main categories. The firstcategory (characterization of a single phenome-non) includes those cases in which we assumethat a phenomenon is constituted in a particularway, but in reality it is not, or vice versa; forexample, a phenomenon that many assume tobe disorganized is, in fact, organized. The sec-ond category (relations among multiple phe-nomena) includes those instances in which weassume that there is a particular relation be-tween multiple phenomena when there is not, orvice versa; for instance, phenomena that we as-sume to be correlated are, in reality, uncorre-lated.

While Davis’s index provides a comprehen-sive account of ways in which a theory can chal-lenge an audience’s assumptions, the indexdoes not specify what types of assumptions canbe problematized. It provides only a generaldefinition of assumption in the form of “whatseems to be X is in reality non-X, or what isaccepted as X is actually non-X” (Davis, 1971:313). In particular, such a general definitiondoes not address how assumptions differ in bothdepth (Abbott, 2004; Schein, 1985) and scope(Gouldner, 1970), which are essential to under-stand when constructing research questionsthrough problematization. Nor does the indexprovide any specific principles for how differenttypes of assumptions can be identified, articu-

lated, and challenged. Below we develop a ty-pology of assumptions that specifies what typesof assumptions are available for problematiza-tion when generating research questions, fol-lowed by an elaboration of a set of principles forhow assumptions can be identified and prob-lematized.

A Typology of Assumptions Open forProblematization

While there is a range of different assump-tions within the scientific field, we find it pro-ductive to distinguish five broad sets of assump-tions that differ in both depth and scope. Theseare in-house, root metaphor, paradigm, ideol-ogy, and field assumptions. This categorizationis partly inspired by Morgan’s (1980) differentia-tion between puzzle solving, root metaphors,and paradigms. The typology is also influencedby the paradigm debate where some authorsclaim to have an overview of various worldviews (paradigms), thereby indicating the sig-nificance of the wider arena held together bysome overall ideas and assumptions (Burrell &Morgan, 1979). An interest in ideology assump-tions proceeds from the observation that re-searchers’ engagement in scientific fields likemanagement is in no way neutral regarding hu-man interests and political positioning (Haber-mas, 1972). The notion of field assumption isinspired by scholars who take a broader view ofan academic area (e.g., Bourdieu, 1979; Foucault,1972).

In-house assumptions exist within a particularschool of thought in the sense that they areshared and accepted as unproblematic by itsadvocates. In-house assumptions differ frompuzzle solving in that they refer to a set of ideasheld by a theoretical school about a specificsubject matter, whereas puzzle solving refers tothe particular way of conducting research stip-ulated by that school. An example of in-houseassumptions are trait theories within the ratio-nalistic school, which typically conceptualizesleadership as a set of specific attributes, such asformal knowledge, skills, attitudes, and per-sonal traits possessed by the individual leader(Yukl, 2006). If we were to question the trait the-ory assumption that leadership is defined lessby the trait of the leader than by the socialcontext, we would challenge an in-house as-sumption of leadership.


Root metaphor assumptions are associatedwith broader images of a particular subject mat-ter (Morgan, 1980, 1997). Within managementstudies, for example, it is common to see orga-nizations as “cultures” in terms of a unitary setof values and beliefs shared by organizationmembers. However, at the root metaphor level(Smircich, 1983), authors have questioned as-sumptions around unity, uniqueness, and consen-sus, and they have emphasized differentiation,fragmentation, discontinuity, and ambiguity askey elements in culture (e.g., Martin, 2002; Martin& Meyerson, 1988).

The ontological, epistemological, and meth-odological assumptions that underlie a specificliterature can be characterized as paradigmaticassumptions (cf. Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Kuhn,1970). The challenge of such assumptions is of-ten a central ingredient for generating interest-ing research questions. For example, by adopt-ing an interpretive perspective on professionalcompetence, Sandberg (2000) challenged the du-alist ontology underlying the prevalent ratio-nalistic school, which conceptualizes profes-sional competence as consisting of two separateentities: a set of attributes possessed by theworker and a separate set of work activities.However, from an interpretive approach, compe-tence does not consist of two separate entities;instead, person and work form an inseparablerelation through the lived experience of work.Such a questioning enabled Sandberg to pro-vide an alternative assumption ground and,based on that, to generate new research ques-tions about professional competence.

Ideology assumptions include various politi-cal-, moral-, and gender-related assumptionsheld about the subject matter. Burawoy (1979),for example, suggested that researchers con-ducting studies of work should not proceed fromthe question “Why don’t workers work harder?”and then investigate norms about a reasonablework performance; instead, they should ask,“Why do people work as hard as they do?” In asimilar vein, Sievers (1986) challenged existingtheories of motivation by suggesting that in-stead of asking how people can be motivated inorganizations, they should ask why people needto be motivated at all if they experience theirjobs as meaningful.

Field assumptions are a broader set of as-sumptions about a specific subject matter thatare shared by several different schools of

thought within a paradigm, and sometimes evenacross paradigms and disciplines. Simon’s(1947) work on bounded rationality can perhapsbe seen as a mild but successful identificationand challenge of a field assumption. His chal-lenge of the widely shared assumption that hu-mans are rational decision makers, and the al-ternative assumption of bounded rationality,opened up a range of new and interesting re-search questions and theories. Field assump-tions may also unite antagonistic schools,which, at one level, often present as differentand even oppositional but, at a deeper level,share a set of assumptions about their particu-lar field (cf. Bourdieu, 1979). For example, laborprocess theorists and poststructural-orientedcritical management scholars agree that thereis something called “management” and an ide-ology or discourse of managerialism, whichshould be critically addressed. However, in de-bates each of these schools of thought claims tohave privileged access to an insightful under-standing of management.

Taken together, the typology can be seen as acontinuum of overlapping assumptions open forproblematization, where in-house assumptionsform one end and field assumptions the otherend of the continuum. Challenging in-house as-sumptions can be seen as a minor form of prob-lematization; questioning root metaphor as-sumptions as a more middle-range form; andchallenging paradigm, ideology, and field as-sumptions as a broader and more fundamentalform of problematization. It may seem that chal-lenging any of the three latter types of assump-tions is most likely to generate research ques-tions that may lead to the development of moreinteresting and influential theories. However, achallenge of these broader assumptions mayalso be superficial, since it is difficult to achievedepth when addressing broad intellectual ter-rains. An insightful challenge of an in-house ora root metaphor assumption can be a key part inthe process of developing new theory.

Methodological Principles for Identifying,Articulating, and Challenging Assumptions

As described above, a key task in generatingresearch questions through problematization isto enter a dialectical interrogation betweenone’s own and other metatheoretical stances soas to identify, articulate, and challenge central


assumptions underlying existing literature in away that opens up new areas of inquiry. To beable to problematize assumptions through suchan interrogation, the following methodologicalprinciples are central: (1) identifying a domainof literature, (2) identifying and articulating as-sumptions underlying this domain, (3) evaluat-ing them, (4) developing an alternative assump-tion ground, (5) considering it in relation to itsaudience, and (6) evaluating the alternative as-sumption ground. While we, for the sake of clar-ity, present the principles in a sequential order,the actual problematization process is consider-ably more iterative than linear in character.Moreover, these principles should not be treatedas a list of fixed ingredients in a recipe but,rather, as important elements to consider in theproblematization process. As Deacon (2000)notes, problematization cannot be reduced to amechanical or even strictly analytical proce-dure, since it always involves some kind of cre-ative act. “It is a creation in the sense that, givena certain situation, one cannot infer that pre-cisely this kind of problematization will follow”(2000: 135).

1. Identifying a domain of literature for as-sumption-challenging investigations. It is usu-ally not obvious how to sort and delimit existingstudies into a specific domain of literature andthen relate that literature to one’s own study(Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). This is the caseirrespective of whether one is using gap-spotting or problematization. However, com-pared to gap-spotting research, problematiza-tion efforts are less concerned with covering allpossible studies within a field than uncriticallyreproducing the assumptions informing thesestudies. Problematization research typically in-volves a more narrow literature coverage andin-depth readings of key texts, with the specificaim of identifying and challenging the assump-tions underlying the specific literature domaintargeted. In this sense, the prevailing norm torelate one’s own study to all the relevant litera-ture works against problematization and needsto be resisted. However, it is important to makebroad references to major or typical studies andto scrutinize possible problematization in rele-vant work.

Two interrelated issues are important to con-sider when identifying a domain of literature forproblematization: the actual domain targetedand the specific texts chosen for deep readings

and rereadings. Identifying or constructing a do-main of literature provides the entrance to pick-ing some texts, but careful reading of these mayinspire the revision of the literature domain thatfinally will be the research question target. Onepossibility is to focus on an exemplar—that is, apath-defining study (Abbott, 2001; Kuhn, 1970)—that plays a key role in a literature domain.Given the significance of path-defining studies,such a focus may be productive, although, ofcourse, later work drawing on the path-definingstudy needs to be identified and reviewed inorder to investigate whether all the assumptionsthat one finds potentially interesting to chal-lenge are still in operation. Another option is toconcentrate on one summary or a few authorita-tive summaries, given that they are not coveringtoo much (which may mean that the clues toassumptions are too vague). A third option is tolook at a few more recent, influential, and re-spected pieces, covering some variation in aparticular domain of literature. Although theseoptions need to be supplemented with broaderreadings, the in-depth reading of the selectedtexts is the focal point for the problematizer.

2. Identifying and articulating assumptionsunderlying the chosen domain of literature. As-sumptions underlying a specific domain of lit-erature are rarely formulated as McGregoriantheory X versus theory Y alternatives. Suchexplicitly formulated assumptions have morethe character of “postulations.” As Gouldnernotes, postulations “contain a second set ofassumptions that are unpostulated and unla-beled . . . because they provide the back-ground out of which the postulations in partemerge and . . . not being expressively formu-lated, they remain in the background of thetheorist’s attention” (1970: 29). It is the assump-tions that mostly remain implicit or weaklyarticulated that are the main target in theproblematization methodology. A key issuehere is to transform what are commonly seenas truths or facts into assumptions.

Drawing on the assumption typology outlinedabove, we see a range of methodological tacticsavailable for identifying assumptions in exist-ing literature. In-house assumptions can beidentified by scrutinizing internal debates andthe interfaces between a specific group of au-thors who frequently refer to each other andneighboring areas, moderately relating one’swork to the focused group’s work, and mainly


using a similar narrative style and vocabulary.For example, various authors have challengedthe idea that organizations typically form uni-tary and unique cultures (e.g., Van Maanen &Barley, 1984), or even clear and stable subcul-tures (Martin & Meyerson, 1988), by seeing cul-ture as a process rather than as something sta-ble (Alvesson, 2002).

Root metaphor assumptions can be exploredby (1) identifying the basic image or metaphor ofsocial reality informing a text or school and (2)detecting or producing alternative possible con-frontational metaphors. Morgan’s (1997) Imagesof Organization provides one well-known illus-tration of how metaphors can be used to becomeaware of alternative conceptualizations and,thus, how they can inspire one to articulateone’s own assumptions. Alvesson (1993) picks upthis line, arguing that it is possible to carve outassumptions by looking at the metaphors be-hind the metaphors used (i.e., second-level met-aphors). For example, behind the metaphor thatconceptualizes organization as a politicalarena, one could imagine different views of thisarena, one being a parliamentary democracy(with rules of the game) and another being morelike a jungle, where the political battles are lessdemocratic and rule bound.

Identification of paradigm assumptions nor-mally calls for some familiarity with an alterna-tive world view, without being stuck in the lat-ter. Some existing efforts to map and confrontparadigms may be helpful (e.g., Astley & Van deVen, 1983; Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Deetz, 1996;Donaldson, 1985; Pfeffer, 1982). Although readingabout paradigm debates can be useful, the chal-lenge is not to be caught up in them or by thepositions expressed in those debates. Instead,they should be used as important heuristic toolsto loosen up others’ as well as our own views(Abbott, 2004: 86).

Ideological assumptions can also be exploredby being aware of positions very different fromthe focal one in terms of interests, focus, identi-fications, values, and ethical commitments. Onetactic would be to read and interpret an exam-ple of what appears to be positive and worthtaking seriously as a problem to be addressed oras a solution to be embraced. Another tacticwould be to view something negative (e.g., re-pressive) as perhaps innocent or even positive(e.g., laissez-faire leadership as a source of au-tonomy). Working with the recognition of a mul-

titude of interests and values and the contradic-tions and dilemmas between these could alsobe beneficial. The contradiction between valueslike autonomy and leadership or managerialwork as hierarchical control versus democraticaccountability could exemplify this (Alvesson &Willmott, 1996).

Field assumptions are difficult to identify be-cause “everyone” shares them, and, thus, theyare rarely thematized in research texts. One op-tion is to search across theoretical schools andintellectual camps to see whether they haveanything in common regarding the conceptual-ization of the particular subject matter in ques-tion. Another option is to look at debates andcritiques between seemingly very different po-sitions and focus on what they are not address-ing—that is, the common consensual ground notbeing debated. Looking at other fields may alsobe valuable in getting some perspective. This isto some extent illustrated in this article, sincewe identify and challenge gap-spotting as afield assumption for how to generate researchquestions within management studies (in thisregard, we acknowledge help from Davis [1971],a scholar outside our field).

Although focusing on a specific type of as-sumption may be fruitful, it is often better tovary one’s focus and, at least initially, considerwhat in-house, metaphor, paradigm, ideology,and field assumptions underlie a particular do-main of existing literature. It is also important tofocus on assumptions that may exist at differenttheoretical levels within a targeted study. Thisis because challenging an in-house assumptionrelated to a broader theoretical perspective (e.g.,functionalist perspective, etc.) within the tar-geted study may facilitate the formulation ofmore interesting research questions than chal-lenging an in-house assumption underlying aspecific theory (e.g., trait theory, etc.) within thestudy targeted. It should also be borne in mindthat assumptions are not fixed but are, to someextent, an outcome of how one constructs thenature and scope of the domain of literaturetargeted, and this can be narrowed or broad-ened and can be interpreted in different ways.Hence, the combination of hermeneutical in-depth readings, creative efforts, some boldness,patience, self-critique, support from theoreticalstances other than one’s own, and sometimeseven luck is important in order to identify andarticulate assumptions.


3. Evaluating articulated assumptions. Hav-ing identified and articulated assumptionswithin the chosen literature domain, the prob-lematizer needs to assess them. Certainly not allassumptions are worthy of being problematizedand brought forward as significant researchcontributions—or as key steps in such an enter-prise. The problematizer must therefore contin-ually ask him/herself, “What is the theoreticalpotential of challenging a particular assump-tion?” As a general rule, challenging broaderassumptions, such as paradigm or field assump-tions, is likely to lead to greater impact theories,but these assumptions are often more difficult toidentify and challenge successfully.

An overall but vague consideration for anidentified assumption to be problematizedshould be that it does not contribute signifi-cantly to a “good” understanding of the subjectmatter but is still broadly shared within a re-search area. “Truth” in any of the several avail-able senses is also an important criterion toconsider—that is, an assumption that is seen as“untrue” is then targeted. Empirical evidenceindicating that some assumptions are problem-atic is important here, even though assumptionsseldom can be directly empirically investigatedor tested (Astley, 1985; Kuhn, 1970).

Something true can also be trivial, and astrong insistence on proving that something istrue (where a hypothesis should be verified) canbe constraining (Becker, 1998: 20-24; Starbuck,2006: 99–101). Theoretical fruitfulness, novelty,and provocative capacity can be equally impor-tant to bear in mind—and are typically whatmakes a theory interesting (Astley, 1985). Aclosely related criterion is to what extent a chal-lenge of the identified assumptions can inspirenew areas of research and research programs.The articulated assumptions may also be as-sessed in terms of how they form the basis forother established knowledge areas or a domi-nant line of thinking that tends to produce main-stream effects (e.g., close alternatives).

“Timing” is another consideration. An as-sumption may be productive and inspiring at aspecific time but may gradually become part ofconventional wisdom and lose its power to gen-erate new knowledge. Many critical perspec-tives (poststructuralism, critical managementstudies, feminism, etc.) may, for example, beable to inspire problematization for some timebut may later establish a new set of unchal-

lenged assumptions—a source of applicationrather than drivers for rethinking. Problemati-zating such assumptions may then be neces-sary, either through informed defenses of theproblematized positions (e.g., Donaldson, 1985)or through new or synthesized approaches likeskeptical partial affirmation (e.g., Newton, 1998).

4. Developing an alternative assumptionground. While the formulation of alternative as-sumptions analytically marks a crucial “stage”in problematization, it should not be seen asisolated from the other principles involved. The(re)formulation part extends the earlier parts ofthe process: identifying assumptions calls for atleast an intuitive idea of alternative assump-tions, and success in the former means that thelatter is likely to come through more clearly.

Similar to identifying and articulating exist-ing assumptions, it can be useful to consultavailable critical and reflexive literature, repre-sentatives of competing schools, and variousforms of heuristic tools, such as those offered byAbbott (2004: 110–210), in developing new as-sumptions. As emphasized above, a challengeof existing assumptions should include someindependence from these and should move be-yond already available counterassumptions. Itmay, for example, be tempting to use an inter-pretive stance against functionalist assump-tions, or to replace interpretive humanism withpoststructuralism, but the purpose of this ap-proach is to avoid such moves. Producing newand good research questions means that thereare no predefined answers available; new ques-tions offer starting points for new answers. Sucha problematization is facilitated by temporarilyapplying the dialectical interrogation betweendifferent theoretical stances and the domain ofliterature targeted. The idea is to be inspired byvarious theoretical stances and their resourcesand to use them creatively in order to come upwith something unexpected and novel.

5. Considering assumptions in relation to theaudience. Assumptions to be targeted for chal-lenge must be considered in relation to thegroups who hold them and the general intellec-tual, social, and political situation of a researchcommunity. It is a complex issue because the”audience” typically is not a unitary group—primarily because there are often not one butmultiple audiences, and the assumptions heldby one audience may differ from the assump-tions held by another audience. It is also likely


that one particular audience consists of severalsubgroups, which makes it even harder to spec-ify the potentially relevant audiences. For in-stance, within a specific area, such as strategyor leadership, there is an ambiguous mass ofoverlapping groups, which are difficult to sepa-rate into clear segments. Layperson audiencesmay be even harder to identify and delimit sincethey are usually not as well documented as ac-ademic audiences. One option could be to re-view more popular business magazines thatpractitioners read and perhaps also write for.Apart from literature reviews, it is also impor-tant to talk and listen to both academics andpractitioners in order to understand their viewsof the particular subject matter in question andthe assumptions they hold about it. Sometimesthis leads to revisions of the literature domainone started with.

It is important as well to recognize the politicsinvolved when choosing the assumptions to bechallenged. It is not only a matter of advancingscience but of understanding research politics—who will lose or win when a specific assumptionis challenged? Similarly, what type of challengecan an audience accept cognitively and emo-tionally? In other words, how can assumptionsbe challenged without upsetting dominantgroups, which hold them so strongly that theyignore the critique or even prevent one’s studyfrom being published? Here problematization ofin-house and root metaphor assumptions prob-ably will often be received more positively (lessdefensively) than problematization of ideology,paradigm, or field assumptions.

6. Evaluating the alternative assumptionground. Following the body of work focusing oninterestingness in theory development (e.g., Bar-tunek et al., 2006; Davis, 1971; McKinley et al.,1999), the ultimate indicator of whether a prob-lematization is going to be successful is not somuch rigor and empirical support—althoughthese qualities are part of the picture (sincecredibility is always important)—as it is the ex-perience of “this is interesting.” Davis (1971) sug-gests three responses that can be used to eval-uate to what extent an alternative assumptionground is likely to generate a theory that will beregarded as interesting.

That’s obvious! If the set of alternative as-sumptions to a large extent confirms the as-sumptions held by the targeted audiences—what they already assume to be the case about

the subject matter—it will be regarded as obvi-ous by many.

It’s absurd! If, however, the alternative as-sumption ground denies all the assumptionsheld by the targeted audiences, it is likely that itwill be regarded as unbelievable. Both of theabove responses indicate that the alternativeassumption ground is likely to be unsuccessful.

That’s interesting! This is the ideal response.According to Davis and other advocates of ”in-teresting theories” (e.g., Bartunek et al., 2006;McKinley et al., 1999; Weick, 1989), the experi-ence of ”this is interesting” occurs when thealternative assumption ground accepts someand denies some of the assumptions held by thetargeted audiences. Because they are curiousand willing to listen, the audiences may take thenew idea or challenge seriously. Hence, the lit-mus test for being considered interesting is thatthe alternative assumption ground should fallsomewhere between what is regarded as obvi-ous and absurd.

One could add to the intellectual responserevolving around novelty, surprise, and excite-ment (Abbott, 2004) that it is important to con-sider the perceived fruitfulness or relevance ofthe new research question for developing newresearch programs and for contributing newknowledge having social relevance (Van de Ven,2007). It is also important to consider its rhetor-ical appeal (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007). Acommonly used rhetorical strategy is politeness(Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997; Myers, 1993). Forinstance, all the authors in the texts investi-gated by Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) usedvarious politeness strategies (such as acknowl-edging other researchers for their contributionto the field) to reduce the risk of upsetting theacademics they were criticizing. Similarly, theaesthetic dimensions of the alternative assump-tion ground are also central in composing anappealing and convincing argument (Astley,1985). For instance, to achieve the response of“that’s interesting,” it is important to work withmetaphors that are appealing and concepts andformulations that are challenging and provoca-tive. Examples could be March and Olsen’s(1976) garbage can model of decision makingand Brunsson’s (2003) idea of organized hypoc-risy. It is important as well to test the alternativeassumption ground on various representativesfrom the targeted audiences. How do they react?


The outlined problematization methodology issummarized in Figure 1 and further elaboratedin the next section by applying it to the litera-ture domain of identity constructions in organi-zations. Again, while the actual problematiza-tion process is considerably more organic, forillustrative purposes we follow the six prob-lematization principles outlined above sequen-tially.

AN ILLUSTRATION OF THEPROBLEMATIZATION METHODOLOGY

1. Identifying a Domain of Literature forAssumption-Challenging Investigations

In order to illustrate our problematizationmethodology, we choose to focus primarily onDutton et al.’s (1994) path-setting study, “Orga-nizational Images and Member Identification,”within the domain of identity constructions inorganizations. Although focusing on a key text

offers a good opportunity for in-depth explora-tion of assumptions, it can also lead to limitedresults. Therefore, in order to accomplish abroader relevance, we also consider a few otherinfluential studies in the domain with a some-what different approach (i.e., Ashforth & Mael,1989; Gioia, Schulz, & Corley, 2000; Pratt, 2000;Pratt & Foreman, 2000). There is also a wealth ofother studies that, to various degrees, are rele-vant in problematizing Dutton’s et al.’s text (e.g.,Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008; Brown, 2006;Collinson, 2003; Deetz, 1992; Elsbach, 1999; Fou-cault, 1977, 1980; Haslam, 2004; Jenkins, 2000;Knights & Willmott, 1989; Shotter & Gergen, 1989;Weedon, 1987). However, in order to focus on theelements in the problematization methodology,with the exception of a few occasions, we avoidlooking into how others have raised points ofrelevance for discussing the various issues thatwe address in our problematization of Duttonet al.’s text below.

FIGURE 1The Problematization Methodology and Its Key Elements

Generating novel research questions through a dialectical interrogation of one’s own familiar position, other stances, and the literature domain targeted for assumption challenging

In-house: Assumptions that exist within a specific school of thought

Root metaphor:Broader images of a particular subject matter underlying existing literature

Paradigm:Ontological, epistemological, andmethodological assumptions underlying existing literature

Ideology:Political-, moral-, and gender-related assumptions underlying existing literature

Field:Assumptions about a specific subject matter that are shared across different theoretical schools

Principles for identifying and challenging assumptions 1. Identify a domain of literature: What main bodies of literature and key texts make up the domain?

2. Identify and articulate assumptions: What major assumptions underlie the literature within the identified domain?

3. Evaluate articulated assumptions: Are the identified assumptions worthy to be challenged?

4. Develop alternative assumptions: Whatalternative assumptions can be developed?

5. Relate assumptions to audience: What major audiences hold the challenged assumptions?

6. Evaluate alternative assumptions: Are the alternative assumptions likely to generate a theory that will be regarded as interesting by the audiences targeted?

Aim of the problematization methodology

A typology of assumptions open for problematization


The particular subject matter in Dutton et al.’sstudy is how individuals are attached to socialgroups, which they conceptualize as “memberidentification.” They explain it as follows:

Members vary in how much they identify withtheir work organization. When they identifystrongly with the organization, the attributes theyuse to define the organization also define them.Organizations affect their members through thisidentification process, as shown by the commentsof a 3M salesman, quoted in Garbett (1988: 2): “Ifound out today that it is a lot easer being asalesman for 3M than for a little jobber no onehas ever heard of. When you don’t have to wastetime justifying your existence or explaining whyyou are here, it gives you a certain amount ofself-assurance. And I discovered I came acrosswarmer and friendlier. It made me feel good andenthusiastic to be ‘somebody for a change.’” Thissalesman attributes his new, more positive senseof self to his membership in 3M, a well-knowncompany. What he thinks about his organizationand what he suspects others think about his or-ganization affects the way that he thinks abouthimself as a salesperson (Dutton et al., 1994: 239).

Dutton et al. try to understand member iden-tification by investigating how “a member’s cog-nitive connection with his or her work organiza-tion . . . [derives] from images that each memberhas of the organization” (1994: 239). The first im-age (what the member believes is distinctive,central, and enduring about the organization) isdefined as perceived organizational identity.The second image (what the member believesoutsiders think about the organization) is called“the construed external image” (1994: 239). Dut-ton et al. develop a model of member identifica-tion that suggests that the two organizationalimages “influence the cognitive connection thatmembers create with their organization and thekind of behaviors that follow” (1994: 239). Theirmodel proposes that “members assess the at-tractiveness of these images by how well theimage preserves the continuity of their self-concept, provides distinctiveness, and enhancesself-esteem” (1994: 239). Based on the model, theydevelop a range of propositions about organiza-tional identification. These can be tested, but wehere look at the assumptions behind the propo-sitions.

2. Identifying and Articulating AssumptionsUnderlying the Chosen Domain of Literature

Although Dutton et al. point out explicitly thata central assumption of their study is that peo-

ple’s sense of membership in an organizationshapes their self-concept, very few assumptionson which they base their argument are high-lighted in this way. Instead, the text creates theimpression that its argument and logic aregrounded in specific factors reflecting self-evident truths. For example, the authors claimthat a perceived organizational identity existsin the sense of a member’s having beliefs aboutthe distinctive, central, and enduring attributesof the organization (reflecting Albert andWhetten’s [1985] definition), and that an organi-zational member sometimes defines him/herselfby the same attributes that he or she believesdefine the organization. But these statementscontain assumptions that conceptualize theirsubject matter of how individuals are attachedto organizations in a particular way and are notnecessarily correct or productive.

Let us first consider the statement “a mem-ber’s beliefs about the distinctive, central, andenduring attributes of the organization” (1994:239). One of its assumptions is that people seethemselves as members of an organization, as ifthe latter is like a club or an association, whichpeople join as a positive choice. Another is thatmembers have (1) beliefs (2) about attributes ofthe organization and (3) that these attributes aredistinctive, central, and enduring. Similarly, thestatement “the degree to which a member de-fines him- or herself by the same attributes thathe or she believes define the organization” (1994:239) is also underpinned by a range of assump-tions. One is that individuals and organizationsare constituted by a set of inherent and more orless stable attributes. Another is that the attri-butes of the individual are comparable with theattributes of the organization through a mem-ber’s cognitive connection. Based on those as-sumptions, Dutton et al. conceptualize personand organization as externally related to eachother through an individual’s images of his orher organization and what outsiders think aboutthe organization. This reasoning carries a rangeof paradigmatic assumptions, such as the dual-ist ontological assumption that a person and theworld exist independently of each other (Sand-berg & Targama, 2007: Chapter 2).

Let us briefly compare the Dutton et al. textwith the other selected texts in the domain.Pratt, drawing heavily on Dutton et al., investi-gated “how organizations attempt, succeed, andfail to change how members view themselves in


relation to the organization” (2000: 457). His workdeparts from the emphasis in the literature that“most research [should] focus on how organiza-tions successfully engender strong ties withmembers” and instead should “look at organi-zational conditions that lead to positive, nega-tive, ambivalent and broken identifications”(2000: 457), and at how identification manage-ment is “associated with a variety of identifica-tion types” (2000: 458).

While sharing similar assumptions as Dut-ton et al., Pratt adds to the literature by point-ing out that the individual can change identi-fication states. His claim resonates to someextent with Ashforth’s claim that “identity isperpetual work in progress” (1998: 213), furtherunderscored by Ashforth and Mael’s observa-tion of “the often unique and context-specificdemands of an identity” (1989: 147). In a similarvein, Gioia et al. argue that the “apparentdurability of identity is somewhat illusory”(2000: 64), because it is mainly a matter of “thestability used by organization members to ex-press what they believe the organization tobe” (2000: 64). Hence, while still sharing Duttonet al.’s assumptions that organizational mem-ber identification is a “distinctive and endur-ing characteristic” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989: 154),the above authors express a more dynamicand less organization-focused view of organi-zational identification.

The assumptions held by Dutton et al. (and toa significant degree also by Ashforth & Mael,Gioia et al., and Pratt) can be further elabo-rated and articulated with the help of the as-sumptions typology. For example, their as-sumption that members may have beliefsabout the specific attributes of the organiza-tion can be regarded as an in-house assump-tion among these authors. The assumptionthat individuals are carriers of beliefs canalso be targeted at a paradigmatic level. The“natural” and potentially harmonious rela-tionship between individuals and the (human-like) organization indicated by the overlap ofcharacteristics can be further explored interms of ideology. The very idea that there issomething— constructed or not—such as “or-ganizational identity” or “individual identity”and that they are worthy of investigation mayindicate some field-level assumptions.

3. Evaluating Articulated Assumptions

The assumptions identified above (on mem-bership, fixed perceptions of the individual andthe organization as a thing-like phenomenon,and a perceived similarity between individualand organizational attributes) need to be as-sessed to determine if, and to what extent, theyare worthy of further problematizations. For ex-ample, the assumption that people regard them-selves as members of their work organizationscan be challenged with the more instrumentaland often darker aspects of employment. Onecan thus question Dutton et al.’s ideological as-sumption of an “organizational man” view of apositive and strong link between an employerand a compliant employee with a limited inde-pendent self, using the employment situation asa natural and significant source of identity.Pratt’s (2000) work opens this up to some extentby pointing out less positive identifications, butit still adheres to the assumption that “mem-bers view themselves in relation to the orga-nization” and that issues around identity “canand should be managed” (Pratt & Foreman,2000: 18).

The assumption that members have (1) beliefs(2) about attributes of the organization and (3)that these attributes are distinctive, central, andenduring can also be further questioned. Arepeople’s ways of relating to organizations typi-cally so thing-like? Using an alternative meta-phor, the organization can perhaps be seen as abroad and complex terrain where perceptionsand sentiments are shifting, depending on as-pects, moments, and contexts. For example, “or-ganization” may sometimes refer to colleaguesor to top management; at other times to one’sown department or work or one’s future careerprospects, rewards, and fringe benefits; and,on other occasions, to mass medial represen-tations, products, and HR policies. As Ashcraftand Alvesson (2009) show, people constructand relate to a seemingly straightforward ob-ject like “management” in highly shifting andvaried ways. As an identification target, “theorganization” may be best conceived as mul-tiple and moving. This is also to some extentpointed out by Gioia et al. (2000) and Pratt andForeman (2000), but these authors still assumethe existence of beliefs about the organizationas a whole (and its central, distinct, and endur-ing characteristics), while a counterassumption


could be that such an entity is not what mostpeople primarily relate to.

The assumption that individuals and organi-zations hold similar attributes and generate a“fit” appears to be as problematic and can befurther questioned. The possible connectionmay be considerably more frictional, volatile,and fluid. Ideas of varied identification types(Pratt, 2000), pluralistic beliefs about organiza-tional identity (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), and iden-tity changes reflecting image changes (Gioia etal., 2000) are also relevant to consider here, sincethey give some clues about what assumptionsare worthwhile to problematize further.

4. Developing an Alternative AssumptionGround

We now arrive at the task of developing as-sumptions counter, or at least alternative, to theones identified and articulated through theproblematization above. Similar to the identifi-cation and articulation of the above assump-tions, we can here draw on different theoreticalpositions to play up reference points and re-sources for problematization. One possiblestance is critical theory, which provides at leasttwo alternative assumptions. One proposes thatthe organizational membership assumption is anaive idealization of contemporary work experi-ences in flexible capitalism, strongly downplay-ing lasting relationships and commitment (Sen-nett, 1998) and thereby making organizationalidentification a rare or fragile phenomenon—perhaps a managerial dream rather than some-thing existing on a broader scale. Another andquite different critical theory assumption is thatthe possibility of strong identification with theorganization may mean people become culturaldopes and lose a clear sense of independence inrelation to the employer, who wins the mindsand hearts of employees (Kunda, 1992; Willmott,1993).

A quite different route would be to proceedfrom the economic man assumption about ra-tional maximization of self-interest (Camerer &Fehr, 2006; Henrich et al., 2005), leading to a viewof identification as a tactical resource for self-promotion. A third alternative would be to beinfluenced by a poststructuralist stance, inwhich the assumption of the organization as afixed and one-dimensional object can be chal-lenged by a hyperprocess or fluidity view of

organizations as multidimensional, shape shift-ing, and discursively constituted—a domain ex-hibiting multiple and varied social identities(Chia, 2000). This assumption is different frompositions mainly pointing out changes over time(as expressed, for example, by Gioia et al., 2000,and Pratt, 2000).

The above problematizations, associated with(two versions of) critical theory, economic manthinking, and radical process thinking, offer ref-erence points for alternative assumptions. Weselectively use all in order to develop novel re-search questions. As emphasized, problematiza-tion is best accomplished through using (but notdirectly applying) a broad set of theoreticalstances, offering resources for unpacking andrethinking.

The assumption that postulates a stable androbust degree of perceived similarity betweenindividual and organization could be related toideas on variation, process, and dynamicsaround self-definition and construction of theorganization. The possible meeting points—spaces for establishing a possible “perceivedsimilarity”—may be rare, since most parts ofpeople’s working lives may go on without themcomparing themselves to the employing organi-zation at a more abstract and holistic level. Still,these meeting points may be important. Ratherthan seeing the similarity between individualand organization as static (or only graduallydynamic, as Pratt and Gioia et al. do), one canregard organization and individual as differ-ent traffic of stories (of self and organization),and sometimes these stories may converge—that is, organizational identification temporar-ily occurs.

One possibility here could be that employeesarticulate a positive link between themselvesand their organizations when the context im-plies certain advantages but not when it impliesdisadvantages. Identification is, thus, self-interest driven, a discursive act and typicallytemporal and situation specific, sometimes op-portunistic. The citation of the 3M employee byDutton et al. above illustrates this. Since it canbe an advantage to be a representative of alarge and well-known firm in a certain sale sit-uation, making presentation easier, a positivelink between individual and organization is em-phasized in that situation. Whether the samepositive link—and identification—is expressedwhen corporate bureaucracy or hierarchy (often


mentioned as negative aspects of very largefirms), or the possible harsh performance pres-sure from management, provides the context isperhaps more doubtful. Possible identificationsmay therefore be more area specific and dy-namic, existing in a space that also includessalient moments of alienation or opportunism.Research questions on the perceived unity ormulticontextuality of an organization (if that cat-egory is relevant for people) and how individu-als may couple/decouple themselves at varioustimes and in various domains (settings) maythen be suggested.

Let us sum up alternative assumptions andresearch questions. First, people working in or-ganizations more commonly see themselves asemployees with varying degrees of experiencesof organizational membership. An employee’sway of defining him/herself may be more or lesscongruent, nonrelated to or antagonistic tomeanings used to portray and refer to the orga-nization. Do people see a similarity betweenthemselves and their organization, and if so,how often and when? Perhaps the (rare?) situa-tions where statements of self and organizationseem to be related can be explored as situation-specific construction processes, offering sites foridentity work.

Second, employees do not necessarily havefixed or enduring beliefs only slowly changingover time as an effect of radically new circum-stances, as proposed by Gioia et al. (2000) andPratt (2000). Instead, employees take temporarypositions on their organizational affiliation,such as variation in feelings about membership,being part of an employment contract, and be-ing subordinated to an organizational structure.Perhaps situation, event, and process mattermore than static or enduring images about at-tributes? Do people have/express consistent andunited or shifting and fragmented beliefs/images about self and organization? One canhere imagine a garbage can–like situation,where the individual and various social identi-ties and identification options (organizationalbut also group, occupational, ethnic, gender,and age) plus various subject positions (e.g.,opportunism, alienation, sense of belonging) arein circulation and sometimes come together in avariety of combinations. Occasionally, a posi-tive construction of organizational identity be-comes linked to a positive self-conceptionthrough identification, but perhaps this is a tem-

poral, fragile, and possibly rare position ratherthan a fixed trait?

5. Considering Assumptions in Relation to theAudience

The four previous principles indicate reasonsto reconsider some of the assumptions underly-ing not only Dutton et al.’s approach but alsobroader parts of the organizational identity andidentification domain. A key assumption in thislarge and expanding literature domain (Haslam& Reicher, 2006) is that most employees definethemselves as organizational members, or theymay, given proper (identity) management, do so.This can, of course, motivate various forms ofproblematization—from a strong (paradigmatic)one, aiming at undermining the key belief thatpeople define themselves partly or mainlythrough belonging to an organization (in termsof central, distinctive, and enduring traits), asindicated by the organizational identity andidentification industry, to milder ones, suggest-ing revisions through more limited (in-house)problematizations.

On the one hand, given the heavy investmentsand the structuring of organization studiespartly around identity as a key subfield and akey variable, a strong problematization casemay be seen as irrelevant (absurd) and becomemarginalized. On the other hand, a radical chal-lenge of conventional identity research may beapplauded by various groups that hold moreprocess-sensitive social constructionist assump-tions about identification, although they maynot regard it as particularly novel. However, be-ing taken seriously by the majority of manage-ment scholars and practitioners probably im-plies a less extreme version than that favored bypoststructuralists, which we think our alterna-tive assumption ground expresses. Also, withinthe group whose assumptions are challenged, avariety of responses can be expected. Some ofthese will no doubt be political, since research-ers have vested interests in and identify withtheir theories (Bourdieu, 2004; Bresleau, 1997).

6. Evaluating the Alternative AssumptionGround

The main task of the sixth problematizationprinciple is to assess to what extent the alterna-tive assumption ground can lead to new re-


search questions that have the potential to gen-erate more interesting identity theories. A firststep in such an evaluation is to further explorewhich major audiences are related to the iden-tity field within organization theory and, per-haps, also more broadly in the social sciences.While it is not possible to do so in this article, areview of existing literature on identity in orga-nizations would be central for identifying majoraudience segments, since it would offer mate-rial for how to fine-tune the message. Even with-out reviewing existing literature in detail, animportant audience in our example is likely tobe those who broadly share (consciously or un-consciously) the cognitive psychology perspec-tive on which Dutton et al.’s work is based, to-gether with those favoring a view of the worldmade up by perceptions of stable entities.

When the major audiences are known, we arein a position to use the criteria suggested byDavis: will they regard the alternative assump-tion ground as absurd, irrelevant, or interestingand promising? Although the alternative as-sumption ground suggests that individuals’identification with organizations is far moreweak (or even nonexisting), fluid, and volatilethan assumed by Dutton et al. (and, on thewhole, by many other influential organizationalidentification researchers as well), it does notstrongly question the conceptualization of thesubject matter, member identification, as such.Nor does the alternative set of assumptions pro-vide a deliberate ground attack on the paradig-matic assumptions underlying the cognitiveperspective adopted by Dutton et al. It is there-fore possible that the alternative set of assump-tions will be found as potentially interesting bymany of the audiences addressing organization-al identity and identification from a functional-ist view.

The extent to which more radical social con-structionist audiences will find our alternativeassumptions interesting is questionable, sincethey already embrace some of them. If they weretargeted, the task would be to avoid the “that’sobvious” response, perhaps by emphasizing thecontinuation and development of a particularline of thought (not in itself targeted for prob-lematization). For this audience the problemati-zation of a quite different set of assumptionsthan those of the Dutton et al. text is relevant.

If the alternative assumption ground is likelyto be regarded as interesting by our targeted

audiences, we are in a position to leave theproblematization process and begin to formu-late new research questions. For example, doemployees construct/perceive their employingorganizations in stable ways? And, if so, whenand in what ways, if any, would the personalmeaning be related to (varieties of) self-identityof these possible constructions/perceptions?One could possibly sharpen this question fur-ther. Rather than assuming that employees aremembers with clear and, over at least a shorttime period, fixed beliefs about organizationaldistinctiveness and endurance, one could pro-ceed from the idea that they are (normally) notbest conceptualized as members and couldstudy if, when, why, and how people constructthemselves as members having fixed beliefsabout their employing organizations in relation-ship to themselves. The study of the circulationof self and organizational representations/identity possibilities and garbage can–like con-nections and disconnections could be an inter-esting research task. For example, do peoplemove and, if so, how—between identification asa positive and a negative source of socialidentity—and to what extent are such movesdriven by calculative and exploitative motivesand experience of skeptical distancing (de-identification)?

Studying how employees arrive at and main-tain beliefs that their organizations have traitsthat are distinctive, central, and enduring couldalso be a good research task. Being able to pro-duce a coherent set of such beliefs would not beseen as unproblematic and typical but as a trueaccomplishment, facilitated by an ability toblock out the changing, ambiguous, and frag-mented nature of contemporary organizationallife. Assuming a fluid and nonreified nature ofsocial reality, organizational identity and self-identity, as well as alignment constructions (“Iam similar to my organization”), could beviewed as defragmentation and deprocessual-ization of organizational life, countering themultiple and moving constructions of thethemes included. Interesting, problematization-based research questions would then be asfollows. Do people stabilize themes like orga-nization and self and organizational/self-identification? What are the (rare) conditions andoperations under which experiences of self andorganization can be cognitively frozen and sym-bolically merged? Alternatively expressed,


when and how do positive stories of self andorganization happily merge? The production oforganizational identity as a topic and the moreor less taken-for-granted phenomenon of suchidentification are then placed in a dynamic andfluid context. And the specific construction pro-cesses involved are then opened up for inquiry.

Would the above-generated research ques-tions lead to more interesting and influentialresearch than a study building positively onDutton et al.? There are no guarantees, but if allthe research on this topic is right (e.g., Astley,1985; Bartunek et al., 2006; Black, 2000; Daft et al.,1987; Davis, 1971, 1986, 1999; Hargens, 2000;Weick, 1989, 2001), one could expect that the re-search questions generated through the prob-lematization of assumptions underlying Duttonet al.’s approach are more likely to lead to aninteresting theory than the use of a gap-spottingstrategy to identify or create a gap in their ap-proach that needs to be filled.

When and Why Problematization inGenerating Research Questions?

Given its potential to generate more interest-ing theories, it may be tempting to advocate theproblematization methodology as the key ingre-dient in formulating research questions. Thereare, however, often good reasons to also con-sider various forms of gap-spotting routes, suchas supplementing and enriching other studiesand clarifying issues where there are diverseopinions and incoherent results. Sometimes em-pirical findings play a major role in the formu-lation of the purpose of a study, such as in caseswhen one (re)formulates the research task quitelate in the process (Alvesson & Karreman, 2007).Combinations of various elements/tactics for se-lectively building upon and partially problema-tizing established literature by challenging itsunderlying assumptions are probably more pro-ductive than “purist” approaches. We may alsoremind ourselves of the risk of perpetual prob-lematization— overproblematization—leadingto a sense of fatigue and a deficit of positiveresults, as in the case of postmodernism (e.g.,deconstruction and partly critical theory). Thereis a problem if more energy goes into challeng-ing assumptions than into working out and re-fining or testing well-founded and productiveideas. Having said this, given the strong main-stream tradition of identifying or constructing

gaps in existing literature with the aim of fillingthem, we think there is considerable room for anincreased use of problematization as a method-ology for constructing novel research questionsthat can lead to the development of more inter-esting and influential theories within manage-ment studies.

The proposed methodology seems particu-larly relevant in situations of political domina-tion and cognitive closure that easily followfrom a dominant and established tradition. Thepolitical situation refers to cases where a socialinterest bias and/or political factors governknowledge production rather than good ideas.But also the domination of a particular school ofthought can stifle new ideas and call for politi-cally motivated problematizations. The situa-tion of cognitive closure is especially salient inresearch areas where a particular world viewhas colonized the researchers. In such situationsthere is often limited critical debate and thereare few counterideas because deviant voicesare silenced and people have to come up withalternative views. It seems particularly impor-tant to avoid a gap-spotting, extend-the-litera-ture logic here. The benefits of rejuvenating thefield may be high, although the task is not aneasy one.

CONCLUSION

This study makes two interrelated contribu-tions to theory development within the manage-ment field. First is the identification and dem-onstration of how gap-spotting as the prevalentway of constructing research questions from ex-isting literature leads to a shortage of reallyinteresting and influential studies within man-agement science. In the vocabulary developedin this study, the prevalence of gap-spottingacross intellectual traditions suggests that itconstitutes a field assumption within manage-ment studies. It provides researchers with ashared, and to a large extent taken-for-granted,norm for generating research questions from ex-isting theory (at least as it is presented in pub-lished texts, guiding the actual research contri-bution). However, while gap-spotting plays asignificant role in developing existing manage-ment literature, it reinforces rather than chal-lenges the assumptions underlying establishedtheories and, thus, actually reduces the chancesof producing really interesting theories. Our


identification and articulation of gap-spottingas a field assumption within management cantherefore be seen as an important contributionin itself. It offers a strong signal to the field thatthe grip of gap-spotting as the main way ofconstructing research questions needs to beloosened. At the same time, it encourages re-searchers to go beyond the logic of gap-spottingand to work with alternative ways of generatingresearch questions that may lead to the devel-opment of more interesting theories.

Second, and the main contribution of thisstudy, is the proposed problematization method-ology, which provides a comprehensive and sys-tematic addition to gap-spotting and prepack-aged problematization. Instead of providingdifferent strategies for identifying or construct-ing gaps in existing literature (and then fillingthem) or a prepackaged problematization tochallenge the assumptions of others, this meth-odology enables us—through a dialectical inter-rogation of our own familiar position, other the-oretical stances, and the literature domaintargeted—to identify, articulate, and challengedifferent types of assumptions underlying exist-ing literature and, based on that, to formulateresearch questions that may facilitate the devel-opment of more interesting and influential the-ories.

It does so in two ways. First, it offers specificheuristic support for identifying and challeng-ing assumptions in existing literature throughits typology, consisting of five broad types ofassumptions: in-house, root metaphor, para-digm, ideology, and field assumptions. Second,it provides a set of specific principles for howassumptions in existing theory can be prob-lematized and, based on that, can generatenovel research questions: (1) identifying a do-main of literature for assumption-challenginginvestigations; (2) identifying and articulatingthe assumptions (in-house, root metaphor, para-digm, ideology, and field assumptions) under-pinning existing theory as clearly as possible;(3) assessing them, pointing at shortcomings,problems, and oversights; (4) developing newassumptions and formulating research ques-tions; (5) relating the alternative assumptionground to an identified audience and assessingthe audience’s potential resistance and respon-siveness to it; and (6) evaluating whether thealternative assumptions are likely to generate atheory that will be seen as interesting and craft-

ing the alternative line of inquiry in a dialogicform to increase the likelihood that readers willrespond positively to it.

It is important to emphasize that the proposedmethodology in itself does not guarantee a suc-cessful problematization outcome. A wholerange of other factors, such as creativity, imag-ination, reflexivity, range of knowledge mas-tered, and a broad understanding of differentmetatheoretical standpoints, is also critical.However, taken together, the methodology pre-sented here offers a systematic approach forgenerating more novel research questionsthrough problematization of existing literature.

An important inspiration for this paper wasDavis’s (1971) seminal insight that challengingassumptions is what makes a theory interesting,elaborated in his “index of the interesting.” Ourproblematization methodology extends andgoes beyond Davis’s index in two significantways: (1) compared to Davis’s general definitionof assumption (“We thought it was X but it isreally Y”), the typology of assumptions elabo-rated within the problematization methodologyprovides a more nuanced and enriched specifi-cation of what types of assumptions are avail-able for problematization, and (2) in contrast toDavis, the methodology offers a set of specificprinciples for how to identify, articulate, andchallenge assumptions underlying existing lit-erature and, based on that, to construct interest-ing and novel research questions.

More generally, the problematization method-ology also contributes to more reflective schol-arship in the sense that it counteracts or supple-ments the domination of gap-spotting as aresearch ideal. As a methodology, it encouragesus to produce more novel research questionsand theories by actively questioning and criti-cally scrutinizing established knowledge in ac-ademia and in society at large. It does so byoffering a distinct alternative to the dominantmode of using the literature in a field for formu-lating research questions. Given the currentshortage of interesting and influential theoriesin management studies, the proposed problema-tization methodology seems much needed.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.


Abbott, A. 2004. Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the socialsciences. New York: Norton.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity:Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Alvesson, M. 1993. Cultural perspectives on organizations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alvesson, M. 2002. Understanding organizational culture.London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K., & Thomas, R. 2008. Identity mat-ters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholar-ship in organization studies. Organization, 15: 5–28.

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. 2008. Reflecting onreflexivity: Reappraising practice. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 45: 480–501.

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery:Empirical matters in theory development. Academy ofManagement Review, 32: 1265–1281.

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. 2009. Reflexive methodology(2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. 1996. Making sense of manage-men: A critical introduction. London: Sage.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Alvesson, M. 2009. The moving targets ofdis/identification: Wrestling with the reality of socialconstruction. Working paper, University of Colorado,Denver, and Lund University.

Ashforth, B. 1998. Becoming: How does the process of identi-fication unfold? In D. Whetten & C. Godfrey (Eds.), Iden-tity in organizations: 213–222. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and theorganization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.

Astley, W. G. 1985. Administrative science as socially con-structed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497–513.

Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. 1983. Central perspectivesand debates in organization theory. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 28: 245–273.

Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteriafor evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14:496–515.

Barrett, M., & Walsham, G. 2004. Making contributions frominterpretive case studies: Examining processes of con-struction and use. In B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex III, D. Was-tell, A. T. Wood-Harper, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Informationsystems research: Relevant theory and informed prac-tice: 293–312. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, D. R. 2006. What makesmanagement research interesting, and why does it mat-ter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9–15.

Becker, H. S. 1998. Tricks of the trade: How to think about yourresearch while doing it. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Bedeian, A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: Theproper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 12: 331–338.

Bedeian, A. G. 2004. Peer review and the social constructionof knowledge in the management discipline. Academyof Management Learning & Education, 3: 198–216.

Black, D. 2000. Dreams of pure sociology. Sociological The-ory, 18: 343–367.

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2010.Qualitative research in management: A decade of prog-ress. Journal of Management Studies, accessed at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x/abstract.

Bourdieu, P. 1979. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1996. The rules of art: Genesis and structure ofthe literary field. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of science and reflexivity. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Breslau, D. 1997. Contract shop epistemology: Credibilityand problem construction in applied social science.Social Studies of Science, 27: 363–394.

Brown, A. 2006. A narrative approach to collective identities.Journal of Management Studies, 43: 731–754.

Brunsson, N. 2003. Organized hypocrisy. In B. Czarniawska &G. Sevon (Eds.), The northern lights: Organization theoryin Scandinavia: 201–222. Copenhagen: Liber and Copen-hagen Business Press.

Burawoy, M. 1979. Manufacturing consent. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms andorganisational analysis. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Callon, M. 1980. Struggles and negotiations of what is prob-lematic and what is not: The socio-logics of translation.In K. Knorr, R. Krohn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The socialprocess of scientific investigation: 197–214. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Reidel.

Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. 2006. When does “economic man”dominate social behavior? Science, 6: 47–52.

Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. 1982. What to study:Generating and developing research questions. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Castels, R. 1994. “Problematization” as a mode of readinghistory. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Foucault and the writing ofhistory: 237–252. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chia, R. 2000. Discourse analysis as organizational analysis.Organization, 7: 513–518.

Clark, T., & Wright, M. 2009. So farewell then . . . Reflectionson editing the Journal of Management Studies. Journal ofManagement Studies, 46: 1–9.

Collinson, D. 2003. Identities and insecurities. Organization,10: 527–547.

Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theorybuilding and theory testing: A five-decade study of theAcademy of Management Journal. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 50: 1261–1303.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernismand organizational analysis: An introduction. Organiza-tion Studies, 9: 91–112.


Daft, R. L. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research.Academy of Management Review, 8: 539–546.

Daft, R. L., Griffin, R. W., & Yates, V. 1987. Retrospectiveaccounts of research factors associated with significantand not-so-significant research outcomes. Academy ofManagement Journal, 30: 763–785.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1990. Can organization studiesbegin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? Aneditorial essay. Organization Science, 1: 1–9.

Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 2008. Rigor and relevance in orga-nization studies: Idea migration and academic journalevolution. Organization Science, 19: 177–183.

Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenol-ogy of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology.Philosophy of Social Sciences, 1: 309–344.

Davis, M. S. 1986. That’s classic! The phenomenology andrhetoric of successful social theories. Philosophy ofSocial Sciences, 16: 285–301.

Davis, M. S. 1999. Aphorism and cliches: The generation anddissipation of conceptual charisma. Annual Review ofSociology, 25: 245–269.

Deacon, R. 2000. Theory as practice: Foucault’s concept ofproblematization. Telos, 118: 127–139.

Deetz, S. 1992. Democracy in an age of corporate coloniza-tion: Developments in communication and the politics ofeveryday life. Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

Deetz, S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to or-ganizational science: Rethinking Burrell and Morganand their legacy. Organization Science, 7: 191–207.

Delanty, G. 2005. Social science. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni-versity Press.

Derrida, J. 1978. (First published in 1967.) Edmund Husserl’sorigin of geometry: An introduction. New York: HarvesterPress.

Dewey, J. 1916. Essays in experimental logic. New York:Dover.

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt.

DiMaggio, P. 1995. Comments on “What theory is not.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391–397.

Donaldson, L. 1985. In defence of organization theory. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dutton J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. 1994. Organizationalimages and member identification. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 43: 293–327.

Elsbach, K. 1999. An expanded model of organizational iden-tification. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 163–200.

Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. 2009. Knowledge practices in de-sign. Organization Studies, 30: 7–30.

Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. New York:Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of theprison. New York: Random House.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. New York: PantheonBooks.

Foucault, M. 1985. The use of pleasure: History of sexuality,vol. 2. New York: Vintage Books.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder& Herder.

Frost, P. J., & Stablein, R. E. 1992. Doing exemplary research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gadamer, H.-G. 1994. (First published in 1960.) Truth andmethod. New York: Continuum.

Garbett, T. 1988. How to build a corporation’s identity andproject its image. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Gergen, K. 1992. Organization theory in the postmodern era.In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking organizations:207–226. London: Sage.

Gioia, D., Schulz, M., & Corley, K. 2000. Organizational iden-tity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25: 63–81.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 2007. Composing qualitativeresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gouldner, A. W. 1970. The coming crisis of western sociology.New York: Basic Books.

Grandy, G., & Mills, A. J. 2004. Strategy as simulacra? Aradical reflexive look at the discipline and practice ofstrategy. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 1153–1170.

Grant, D., Hardy, S., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. 2004. The Sagehandbook of organizational discourse. London: Sage.

Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and the human interest. Lon-don: Heinemann.

Hardy, S., & Clegg, S. 1997. Relativity without relativism:Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. Brit-ish Journal of Management, 8: 5–17.

Hargens, L. L. 2000. Using the literature: Reference networks,reference contexts, and the social structure of scholar-ship. American Sociological Review, 65: 846–865.

Haslam, A. 2004. Psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Lon-don: Sage.

Haslam, A., & Reicher, S. 2006. Social identity and the dy-namics of organizational life. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A.Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Identity and the modern organiza-tion: 135–166. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heidegger, M. 1981. (First published in 1927.) Being and time.New York: SCM Press.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis,H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J.,Henrich, A. S., Hill, K., Gil-White, F., Gurven, M., Mar-lowe, F. M., Patton, J. Q., & Tracer, D. 2005. “Economicman” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experi-ments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and BrainSciences, 28: 1–61.

Husserl, E. 1970. (First published in 1900–1901.) Logical inves-tigations, vol. 2. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, R. 2000. Categorization: Identity, social process andepistemology. Current Sociology, 48: 7–25.

Johanson, L. M. 2007. Sitting in your readers’ chair: Attending


to your academic sensemakers. Journal of ManagementInquiry, 16: 290–294.

Johnson, M. S. 2003. Designating opponents in empiricalresearch: The rhetoric of “interestingness” in consumerresearch. Marketing Theory, 3: 477–501.

Knights, D. 1992. Changing spaces: The disruptive impact ofa new epistemological location for the study of manage-ment. Academy of Management Review, 17: 514–536.

Knights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organi-zations, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Stud-ies, 12: 251–273.

Knights, D., & Willmott, H. 1989. Power and subjectivity atwork. Sociology, 23: 535–558.

Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: Anessay on the constructivist and contextual nature of sci-ence. New York: Pergamon Press.

Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering culture: Control and commit-ment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory life: The socialconstruction of scientific facts. London: Sage.

Lee, T., Mitchell, T., & Sablynski, C. 1999. Qualitative re-search in organizational and vocational behavior. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 161–187.

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportuni-ties for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherenceand “problematizing” in organizational studies. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.

Lundberg, C. C. 1976. Hypothesis creation in organizationalbehavior research. Academy of Management Review, 1:5–12.

Luscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational changeand managerial sensemaking: Working through para-dox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–240.

Lynch, M. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtueand source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture &Society, 17: 26–54.

March, J., & Olsen, J. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organi-zations. Bergen: Unversitetsforlaget.

Martin, J. 2002. Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. 1988. Organizational culture andthe denial, channeling and acknowledgment of ambigu-ity. In L. R. Pondy (Ed.), Managing ambiguity andchange: 93–125. New York: Wiley.

McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinantsand development of schools in organization theory.Academy of Management Review, 24: 634–648.

McMullen, J., & Shepard, D. 2006. Encouraging consensus-challenging research in universities. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 43: 1643–1670.

Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. (First published in 1945.) Phenome-nology of perception. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.

Mills, C. W. 1959. The sociological imagination. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Miner, J. B. 1984. The validity and usefulness of theories in anemerging organizational science. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 9: 296–306.

Mohr, B. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solvingin organization theory. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 25: 605–622.

Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organization. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Mulkay, M., & Gilbert, N. G. 1983. Scientists’ theory talk.Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8: 179–197.

Musson, G., & Tietze, S. 2004. Places and spaces: The role ofmetonymy in organizational talk. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 41: 1301–1323.

Myers, G. 1993. Making enemies: How Gould and Lewontincriticize. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose:256–275. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Newton, T. 1998. Theorizing subjectivity in organizations:The failure of Foucauldian studies? Organization Stud-ies, 19: 415–447.

Parker, M. 1991. Post-modern organizations or postmodernorganization theory? Organization Studies, 13: 1–17.

Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organization theory. Cam-bridge, MA: Ballinger.

Pratt, M. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Man-aging identification among Amway distributors. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456–493.

Pratt, M. 2009. From the editors: The lack of a boilerplate:Tips on writing up (and rewriting) qualitative research.Academy of Management Journal, 52: 856–862.

Pratt, M., & Foreman, P. 2000. Classifying responses to mul-tiple organizational identities. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 25: 18–42.

Reed, M. 1985. Re-directions in organizational analysis. Lon-don: Routledge.

Reed, M. 2004. Getting real about organizational discourse.In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.),Handbook of organizational discourse: 413–420. London:Sage.

Rorty, R. 1992. Cosmopolitanism without emancipation: Aresponse to Lyotard. In S. Lash & J. Friedman (Eds.),Modernity & identity: 59–72. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rosenau, P. M. 1992. Post-modernism and the social sciences:Insights, inroads and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Sandberg, J. 2000. Understanding human competence atwork: An interpretive approach. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 43: 9–25.

Sandberg, J. 2001. The constructions of social construction-ism: In S. E. Sjostrand, J. Sandberg, & M. Tyrstrup (Eds.),Invisible management: The social construction of lead-ership: 29–48. London: Thomson.


Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. 2011. Ways of constructing re-search questions: Gap-spotting or problematization?Organization, 18: 23–44.

Sandberg, J., & Targama, A. 2007. Managing understandingin organizations. London: Sage.

Schein, E. 1985. Organization culture and leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sennett, R. 1998. The corrosion of character. New York:Norton.

Shotter, J., & Gergen, K. (Eds.). 1989. Texts of identity. London:Sage.

Sievers, B. 1986. Beyond the surrogate of motivation. Orga-nization Studies, 7: 335–351.

Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative behavior: A study of deci-sion-making processes in administrative organization.New York: Macmillan.

Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. 1995. What’s behind the re-search? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behav-ioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizationalanalysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339–358.

Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (Eds.). 2005. Great minds in man-agement: The process of developing theory. New York:Oxford University Press.

Starbuck, W. H. 2003. Turning lemons into lemonade: Whereis the value in peer reviews? Journal of ManagementInquiry, 12: 344–351.

Starbuck, W. H. 2006. The production of knowledge: The chal-lenge of social science research. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Sutton, R., & Staw, B. 1995. What theory is not. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 40: 371–384.

Thornborrow, T., & Brown, A. 2009. Being regimented: Aspi-ration, discipline and identity work in the British para-chute regiment. Organization Studies, 30: 355–376.

Townley, B. 1993. Foucault, power/knowledge, and its rele-vance for human resource management. Academy ofManagement Review, 18: 518–545.

Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. S. 2007. The as-is journal reviewprocess: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education, 6: 128–136.

Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (Eds.). 2004. The Oxford handbookof organization theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship. A guide fororganizational and social research. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. 1984. Occupational commu-nities: Culture and control in organizations. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 6: 287–365.

Weedon, C. 1987. Feminist practice and poststructuralisttheory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagi-nation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516–531.

Weick, K. E. 2001. Gapping the relevance gap: Fashions meetfundamentalist in management research. British Journalof Management, 12: 71–75.

Westphal, J., & Khanna, P. 2003. Keeping directors in line:Social distancing as a control mechanism in the corpo-rate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 361–398.

Westwood, R., & Clegg, S. 2003. The discourse of organiza-tion studies: Dissensus, politics, and paradigms. In R.Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization:Point-counterpoint in organization studies: 1–43. Oxford:Blackwell.

Wicker, A. W. 1985. Getting out of our conceptual ruts. Amer-ican Psychologist, 40: 1094–1103.

Willmott, H. 1993. Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom:Managing culture in modern organizations. Journal ofManagement Studies, 30: 515–552.

Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Mats Alvesson ([email protected]) is professor of business administration atthe University of Lund and the University of Queensland Business School. He receivedhis Ph.D. from the University of Lund. His research interests include critical theory,gender, power, professional services firms, organizational culture, leadership, iden-tity, organizational image, qualitative methods, and philosophy of science.

Jorgen Sandberg ([email protected]) is a reader in management in theSchool of Business at the University of Queensland and leads its research program,Knowledge in Organizations. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Gothenburg.His research interests include competence and learning in organizations, leadership,practice-based theories, qualitative research methods, and the philosophical under-pinnings of organizational research.


Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

2011 generating research questions through problematization amr tx 8

Business

Transcript of 2011 generating research questions through problematization amr tx 8