On Revolutionizing Methodology

Abstract

In a previous issue of Interfaces, Robert A. Raitt presented an interesting and thought-provoking article on the necessity to revolutionize our methodology [Raitt, Robert A. 1974. Must we revolutionize our methodology. Interfaces 4 1–10.]. The article was a welcome addition to the literature because it suggests there remain some management scientists who are concerned with the more philosophical aspects of the discipline. On the other hand, it is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, it questions the advisability of the methodological bias that presently exists, especially in behavioral-management science. Second, it courageously challenges the established value system of science by arguing that the criteria upon which scientific validity should be evaluated are pragmatism and utility [Raitt, 1974, p. 9]. This paper does not propose to refute Mr. Raitt's proposed criteria. Obviously, the end of scientific analysis is a question of social philosophy and there is considerable support for his philosophical perspective [11]. Instead, our objective is to examine, in detail, the implications of the suggested revolution and offer some observations on the possible outcome of such a revolutionary methodological upheaval. Before beginning, however, let me note that the term methodology, as I shall use the term and as Mr. Raitt has apparently used it, is more than technique. It is instead “the logic of methods” and serves as a judge of the numerous variations of inductive and deductive systems with regard to their scientific validity.