Research tasks must take account of both ontological and epistemological considerations if they are going to add to existing knowledge bases (Creswell, 2007; Bryman and Bell, 2007). In broad terms ontological issues revolve around the nature of reality and ask when something can be considered to be ‘real’ (Creswell, 2007). Theorists argue that something can be considered to be
141 real when it is constructed in the minds of the actors involved in the situation (Guba and Lincoln, 1988). Based on this understanding it can therefore be suggested that reality is a product of the minds of ‘actors’ themselves rather than something which exists separately. This view is very much considered to be part of the ‘relativist’ school of thought, which is discussed in detail alongside the competing ontological positions of ‘representationalism’ and ‘nominalism’ (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008, p62).
Representationalists are said to believe that whether phenomena are concrete or not, it is only possible for researchers to gather indirect evidence of what might be going on in certain processes or systems (Putnam, 1987). As a result of this, ‘truth’ within research studies requires the verification of predictions; while facts might be concrete, representationalists believe they cannot be directly accessed. Relativists, given the information in the previous paragraph, argue that ‘facts’ will depend on the viewpoint of the observer while ‘truth’ is determined by finding a consensus between different viewpoints. This is due to the underlying belief that reality is essentially a product of the mind (Easterby- Smith et al, 2008). Nominalists attack both representationalists and relativists (Cooper, 1992) by arguing that it is actually the labels and names that individuals attach to experiences and events which are crucial. Nominalists therefore suggest that “what counts for the truth can vary from place to place and from time to time” (Collins, 1983, p88). Nominalists essentially believe that facts are human creations and that ‘truth’ in any given situation will depend on who establishes them.
142 Given previous discussions (section 1.2.1) regarding the nature of the idea, the ontological position of this study sits somewhere between the relativist and nominalist schools of thought. Ideas were said to be ‘objects of the mind’, or ‘vague mental reconstructions of perceptions’ (Magee, 2001). This means that ideas and the conditions which lead to their production may only be accessed indirectly, hence the belief that ‘truth’ may only be determined by aggregating various viewpoints and that what counts for truth may well vary from place to place and from time to time (Collins, 1983). During the literature review it was highlighted that there are many different understandings of creative idea generation and therefore the ‘facts’ within this study are likely to be both human creations and dependent on the viewpoint of the observer. Furthermore, the research questions themselves refer to ‘common understandings’ and the ‘reality of organisational life’, it can therefore be argued that ‘truth’ in this study will be determined through the aggregation of various different viewpoints. With all of these issues in mind there is evidence to support the view that ontologically speaking, the position of this study is somewhere between the relativist and nominalist schools of thought. Alongside ontological considerations management research literature highlights that epistemological issues are also of crucial importance.
Epistemological issues concern the question of what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008). At a basic level the literature review and the research questions that were ultimately developed from it, demonstrate that this study is concerned with qualitative rather than quantitative information. Qualitative research generally revolves around ‘words’ and ‘meanings’ while quantitative research generally focuses on
143 ‘numbers’ and the focused analysis of data as set down within the principals of the natural sciences (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Building from the above, preliminary studies (i.e. the exploratory study) discovered that every individual has a different interpretation of creativity. This finding was supported in the literature review where it was found that there are two wide schools of thought regarding creative idea generation. It can be argued that the subject matter surrounding this field is abstract, socially formed and full of personal constructs, as demonstrated by the plethora of meanings and understandings (see, for example, Amabile et al, 1996; Chaharbaghi and Cripps, 2007; Johnson, 2010; Klijn and Tomic, 2010; Penaluna et al, 2010) covered in the last chapter. It is crucial to understand that there are fundamental differences between knowledge in the natural and social sciences (Bryman and Bell, 2007). There is a debate regarding whether or not the social world can and should be studied with the same principles, procedures and ethos of the natural sciences (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008). Indeed, knowledge in the social sciences has meaning for human beings and therefore human action is meaningful (Bryman and Bell, 2007), lending credence to the understanding that scientific methods may well not be suitable for social research.
Knowledge in this study can arguably be defined according to the principles set down by Castells (2000). Knowledge in the information age is not an ‘object’ but is instead a series of networks and flows. It is a process not a product, and is produced not in the minds of individuals but in the interactions between people (Castells, 2000). This view resonates with the findings of the literature
144 review where many different interpretations of the various factors in the conceptual model were discussed. Based on this judgement it can be argued that knowledge in the domain of creative idea generation is socially constructed, abstract and interspersed with personal understandings. With this important point in mind, the role of the social scientist is to gain access to individual’s ‘common sense thinking’ and hence interpret their actions and the social world from their point of view (Bryman and Bell, 2007). This discussion again reinforces the belief that the ontological position of this study is somewhere between the relativist and nominalist schools of thought.
Having constructed this understanding management research literature (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Easterby-Smith et al, 2008; Howell, 2013) also details various understandings of research philosophies. These now need to be examined in some detail.