This essay explores the integration of positivism and phenomenology to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge creation in research. It argues that combining these two extreme epistemological positions can enhance the depth and breadth of insights while avoiding methodological distractions. The concept of triangulation is proposed as a method to validate findings through diverse approaches, ensuring a more accurate representation of social phenomena.

1. A Quest for Depth and Breadth of Insight through
Combination of Positivism and Phenomenology
By:
Dr. Awais e Siraj, Managing Director and CEO
Genzee Solutions, Islamabad, Pakistan
Introduction and Framework
Positivism and phenomenology are two extreme positions of epistemology.
Positivism is objective information whereas phenomenology is subjective. Each
has been argued as a great contrivance to knowledge creation by its enthusiasts.
However, positivism or phenomenology is never sufficient in respective solitude
to provide enough depth and breadth required for reaching an optimum
ontological solution because of the ‘extreme’ position each one occupies on the
spectrum. The argument put forward in this essay is that the end itself is far more
important than the means thus unnecessary deliberations concentrating on
methodology which can potentially distract and distort the core issue of
exploration must be avoided. It is argued that a better approach is to combine the
two extreme methods somewhere close to the middle of spectrum to avoid
unwarranted loss of energy and passion of researcher and get maximum output
in the form of information, data and knowledge. A combination of both will also
help in building the confidence of the researcher so as to make sure that no
possible stone has been left unturned to reach a conclusive line of reasoning.
Therefore, only a research carried out using multiple methodologies, a variety of
sources, numerous observers and an assortment of theoretical perspectives
should provide and the depth and breadth necessary.
Discussion
The Greek word epistemology consists of two parts: episteme – meaning
knowledge and logy – meaning mind. In short it is the study of “how we can know
what we think we know”. (CLMS M1, U2: 10) Among many competing positions
of epistemology, positivism and phenomenology are at two extremes and
therefore a source of major debate.
Positivism, as defined by Alan Bryman (2008: 697) is “an epistemological
position that advocates the application of the methods of natural sciences to the
study of social reality and beyond”. Positivists stand for value – free and objective
science free of personal, religious or political values and assume that social and
cultural forces influencing human activity are independent of human cognitive
thinking. The core concept revolves around systematic observation and rational
thinking in order to eliminate biases and prejudices. Positivism sees social
science as an “organized method for combining deductive logic with precise
empirical observations of individual behavior in order to rediscover and confirm a
set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of
human activity” (Neuman & Kreugar: 2003) Turner (1985) defends positivist
1

2. approach by saying that “social universe is amenable to the development of
abstract laws that can be tested through the careful collection of data”.
Positivism is a “theory – testing” position and positivists believe that social
researchers are scientists. Positivists hold the view that “what you measure is
what you get” and “what gets measured is what gets done” and “what gets done
once can be imitated over and over” or “if you cannot measure it, it does not
exist”. The common word here is ‘measurement’. In order to collect credible and
‘measurable’ information from a positivist perspective, the researcher has to work
hard in the ‘designing’ stages of research and need to make all attempts to make
research tools (questionnaire etc.) as specific and measurable as possible. This
stance of positivism results in a collection of impartial, objective and unprejudiced
findings in research.
Positivists are at the advantage of collecting large amounts of data because of
their clear, concise and simple tools. The data thus collected can be processed
through sophisticated analytical tools. With a clear theoretical converge on
research right from the inception, the researcher finds it easy to latch on to the
undertaking till its completion. The data obtained is thus akin to an existing
research or is itself comparable to ‘measurable’ indicators. This method mimics
natural sciences research. However, by reducing people to numbers, positivists
tend to disconnect lives of human beings through the use of abstract laws and
formulas. Inflexibility is the core hindrance for positivism. Once the researcher
has started the process of data collection, it becomes almost impossible to
change the course en route. Another shortcoming of positivism that has received
a lot of attention from philosophers is its inability to understand, record and
incorporate the social and cognitive processes that continue to dominate the
mind of the subject under study. The core aim or a social researcher is to explore
and discover the ‘social phenomenon’ and positivism does not provide a good
source for its investigation.
Phenomenology is defined as “a philosophy that is concerned with the
question of how individuals make sense of the world around them and how in
particular the philosopher should bracket out preconceptions concerning his of
her grasp of that world”. (Bryman: 2008: 697) Phenomenology is just the
converse of positivism. While the entire convergence of concentration in
positivism is objectivity, phenomenology takes human ‘values’ as their god.
Given that values cannot be measured, a phenomenologist would study human
subjects as something more than the sum of its parts. Phenomenology is a
“theory – building” proposition and phenomenologist take into account the human
capacity of thinking, cognition, perceptivity, and reasoning at different time –
frames, stages of life and mental states being held by the humans.
Phenomenology bolsters our empirical credence and know-how by making us
cognizant of the fact that our consciousness also has to justify the evidence
available in objective form through justification. According to Husserl “The
2

3. critique of knowledge seeks to clarify, to bring to light, the essence of knowledge
and the legitimacy of its claim to validity, a claim that belongs to its
essence”.(Husserl 1931) From this perspective a phenomenologists task,
therefore is to highlight and substantiate the authenticity if claims by knowledge
rather than producing the knowledge per se. Phenomenology is a source of good
reason against cynic arguments not consisting of propositions of which we have
knowledge, rather in propositions about epistemological considerations and
classifications under which they are categorized. Phenomenology is not
responsible for deciding the knowledge that we have except what relates to our
perspicacity.
The natural sciences produce knowledge, without knowing knowledge per se
whereas phenomenological inquiries contribute significantly to knowledge. It is
not required to be impregnable in our beliefs, but also understand why we are
impregnable. A similar set of question is relevant to our understanding of
epistemology and ontology. It is, in short, the desire to know the cognitive
relationship of the world around us. Phenomenology therefore is a discipline with
its own subject matter which is of fundamental philosophical concern. It has
established its worth by proving its “scientificity” against criticism which is driven
pure philosophically thus making more sense because of the fact that
philosophical explanations stand closely with our cultural heritage of the
understanding of science and knowledge and helps in clarifying a host of unclear
and unsolved enigmas.
A phenomenologist would be at the advantage of gaining deeper insight of
the inquisitive nature of sociological challenges. Malcolm Williams argues that
phenomenological process of research forms the basis of interpretavist research
and the data can help in understanding ‘bigger picture’ through the process of
generalization. “Moderatum” is the term used by Williams in this context as he
believes that the foundation of interpretavist research is essentially ‘moderate’.
Phenomenological studies are helpful in explaining the thoughts and ideas of
human attitude. They also safeguard the contemplations and contentions which
form an inherent way of thinking. Phenomenologists do not focus on objects with
physical existence and rather look at thoughts, familiarity or manifestations. It can
be argued that perception is not a limitation to knowledge creation. It is therefore
essential for the scientific methods to be all-embracing in order to embody this
knowledge. However, knowledge based purely on perception and beyond
perception brings with it the danger of being fictitious about objects of reality and
hence undermines the core objective of knowledge creation.
All conjectures related to discernment focus strongly on measurable objectives
and objectivity. The activists of objectivity tend to focus strongly on
independence and neutrality of the objects under study. Hence it is imperative on
phenomenology to provide us with ‘knowledge about knowledge’. This is required
to make its philosophy rational and close to the understanding of nature and
science. It must protect its “naturality” and thus protect itself from distortions
3

4. resulting from philosophical debates. Moreover, it needs to protect and preserve
its identity against counterfeit thinking and philosophy. Another flip side could be
that phenomenology, also referred to as ‘inductivism’ has serious consequences
at the analysis stage due to the ‘qualitative’ and extensive nature of collected and
recorded responses.
Selection of a positivist or phenomenological approach for research
methodology can have serious bearing on the epistemological foundation of
research design. The epistemological concerns can range from implications of
knowledge to limitations and biases. The fundamental question however is that
whether this approach is going to get the desired outcomes of research or not. If
yes, the approach (Whether positivist or phenomenological) does not matter. If
no, the entire exercise may prove futile and useless.
The perpetual debate of positivist and phenomenological, deductive and
inductive, qualitative and qualitative is mystifying and perplexing. It is always
interesting to take certain epistemological position on either of them to
understand the underlying concepts better. In reality, however, none of these
positions is nifty at its extreme. Throughout the entire process of research, it is
always to be kept in mind that using a certain methodology can have serious
insinuation on the knowledge we engender. These methods are dissonant to one
another and hence this trepidation needs to be acknowledged in order to reach
the desired destination yet using different approaches.
Researchers do normally make an attempt to find a middle ground. They may
try to find a ‘deeper’ meaning in a heavily numerical data. On the other hand, it is
quite possible to look for ‘similar’ or ‘comparable’ responses from the
respondents in qualitative data and some statistical analysis of the same is
carried out and conclusions drawn. The critique for such departure from the
position could be arduous from the intransigent positivist or phenomenologist but
there is no straightforward riposte to this. However there are possibilities that
both positivist and phenomenologists would be open to listening and entertaining
arguments as to why these positions were conflated provided the underpinning
epistemological debate is handled astutely.
The argument between positivism and relativism (phenomenology) would not
make sense unless it has its underpinning on Ontology or “what exists in social
reality”? If accurate knowledge about how the world operates has already been
created, the impact of this on positivism and relativism during conduct of
research will only emanate when negative influences of both begin to peeve the
process itself. Too much muse on epistemological issues of positivism and
relativism will push ontological considerations in the nether. It is therefore
imperative that epistemology and ontology go hand in hand in order to produce
‘valid knowledge’ of a ‘valid world’ and not ‘valid knowledge’ of an ‘invalid world’.
4

5. The argument of realists that positivists and relativists while focusing too much
on knowledge creation, tend to move far away from reality. The empirical
cogitation of positivism can discover knowledge which is ‘measurable’ while
leaving out what cannot be measured. On the other hand, in the absence of
‘external objective measure’, relativism falls into ensnare though in such a case
both positivism and relativism are valid. Beginning with ‘nature of existence’ and
then trying to understand the world and look for better and valid knowledge is the
first step towards accurate and unembellished results in a research, argue
realists.
It was because of these enigmas (described above) that the concept of
triangulation was coined at the outset with the core objective of enhancing the
authenticity of quantitative data of a study. The initial idea was to search for
overlapping areas of conformity in the inquiry result using a variety of techniques
and measuring processes. “Greater confidence in research findings” is the
ultimate objective of any researcher and therefore the concept of triangulation
was preferred where more than one method could be deployed to measure the
research outcome. Triangulation is “The use of more than one method or source
of data in the study of a social phenomenon so that findings may be cross
checked”.(Bryman 2008: 700)
Denzin (1989) refers to triangulation as a method using “multiple observers,
theoretical perspectives, sources of data and methodologies”. Triangulation is not
limited in its capacity and can be incorporated in any research to counter – check
findings from both qualitative and quantitative research. However, it needs to be
remembered that triangulation though is not the only methodology for using
mixed methods research.
Triangulation is considerably helpful in collating and consummating data
obtained from disparate, methodical and dissimilar methods obtained by different
researchers, sources and theories. However this concept of substantiation of
triangulation was vehemently criticized recently. Leading among them was
Blaikie (1991) who argues that different epistemological and ontological
assumptions are underpinning empirical data collection procedures and therefore
in order for different procedures and a variety of methods to converge, they have
to be associated to similar methodology. A non – conformist group (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000; Fielding and Fielding 1986) is of the view that deepness of
understanding and span of any study is augmented through the use of a variety
of techniques. Therefore, triangulation is a substitute to authentication but not an
authentication stratagem.
Contemporary elucidation of triangulation considers it as an apposite mode of
exploring divergence in research conclusion (Flick, 2004; Seale 1999).
Triangulation also earned respect through its ability to bridge the gap between
positivism and phenomenology (Flick 2002; Kelle & Erzberger, 2004). In its
expanded role, triangulation is now seen as a source of authentication of
5

6. congregating research findings. Moreover, its competence to inculcate differing
viewpoints to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the matter being
investigated can never by underrated.
Akin to the misapprehended classicist contemplation on qualitative and
quantitative methods in social and educational research literature, triangulation is
now seen as methodical use of numerous and diversified techniques to reach a
better comprehension of issue at hand. (Pring 2000; Smith 1994). In the
beginning, the predicament of impediments in both positivist and
phenomenological position led to the emergence of triangulation where it became
possible to analyze the same problem by means of three incongruent methods.
This can possibly help to differentiate between false positive and false negative
results emanating out of each method disjointedly applied. The philosophy of
triangulation is to settle and remove the discrepancies caused by method
selection.
It is sometimes possible that application of both positivism and
phenomenology produces weak and statistically insignificant data. In such a case
Hammond (2005: 240) suggests that “each approach has its own limitations or
‘imperfections’ which can be compensated for by using an alternate method.
Using an amalgamation of methods minimizes the prejudices of each method
and thus help in better understanding and interpretation of data. Another group of
researchers (Harkness et al.) suggest that in order to get as close to reality as
possible, it is good to use as many tools as possible as all tools are deficient in
their capacity in one way or the other. Using more than one tool can help bridge
the gaps. When dealing with social subjects (humans) it is necessary to consider
the dynamism of life while not forgetting the inert. While qualitative research
incorporates dynamism, quantitative research tends to register and incorporate
unvarying constants. Since life is a mixture of both, it helps to combine both
research methods. Phenomenology helps in gaining profound insights in social
contexts. Researchers would use this information and process to develop their
questions and questionnaires for quantitative data collection in order to develop a
more informed in insightful tool. Likewise, responses from quantitative tools can
be used to develop to qualitative instruments and questions.
In a quantitative research, where sometimes the findings are misleading or
flabbergasting, a qualitative analysis can definitely help in understanding the
framework and perspectives better. Likewise researchers may some collect loads
of quantitative data but find it hard to explain in terms understandable by readers.
In such cases, qualitative data collected from the subjects can not only help in
substantiating the findings but also give appropriate words and explanations to
trends and correlations emerging out of it.
Research data is not for the use of researchers alone. It is sometimes used by
policy makers and decision makers on a regional, national or international level
to plead cases relating to formulate strategy, guiding principles and procedures.
6

7. A set of hard core data in such cases may not provide enough elucidation and
enlightenment to bolster a line of reasoning. In such a case, qualitative data will
enhance the insight of readers and help them understanding the underpinning
phenomenon of behavior, demonstrated actions and conduct. Such a treatise is
like showing the way to a deeper understanding of sensitive social issues.
Triangulation is not a one way traffic i.e. substantiating quantitative data with
qualitative research. It can be the other way round as well. Findings derived from
a qualitative research can be put to test through a quantitative study or
experimentation. Tripp et al (2002) conducted a study on 88 students of MBA
who were required to give details of a revenge event they experienced or
observed lately. In their qualitative study, they found out that the in most of the
cases, revenge did similar amount of damage as the original act of vengeance
and the means to revenge were of a similar nature as the original act. On the
basis of this, they designed a follow – up study using an experiment model. In
one aspect, the results substantiated the original claim by showing a positive
relationship. However, in the other part, they showed a negative relationship
(Symmetry of vengeful acts with original harmful act). Thus application of two
methods of research helped in testing their findings.
With the purpose of ensuring veracity of data, researchers are expected to use
both positivism and phenomenology in their research. This could be for a variety
of reasons. At some organizations it may be mandatory to collect only data which
can be verified and scrutinized by the senior management. In this case, an
intelligent researcher would like to develop a quantitative tool though it may not
form part of the original research but in order to ‘get through; to the real
respondents, this is deemed necessary. The interest and preference of the
assessors like supervisors, external and internal examiners, policy makers and
research funding agencies may tend to believe that true and credible information
is only collectible through the use of both the methods. In this case, it is crucial
for the researcher to subjugate to such requirements.
Skeptics of social science and research per se are sometimes vocal in arguing
that researchers can always find what they want to find and reach a conclusion
that they already have in mind. In real life, this many not be true. There could be
many reasons for this. One possibility is that the methodology adopted was not
suitable and therefore the results came out surprising. If this is the case, the most
suitable alternate would be use the mixed method approach in order to recoup
with minimal damage.
Triangulation, whether intentional or unintentional, tend to end up in findings
that may not corroborate with one another. When faced with such a dilemma,
one approach is to regard one set of findings as eventual. (Newby 1977: 127)
Newby also argued that in case of conflicting set of data, findings from a
qualitative finding combined with researcher’s experience and insight can be
7

8. ‘instinctively trusted’. However, preferring one set of data over the other without
rhyme or reason may not prove healthy for a triangulation approach.
Triangulation is a formula for convergence. This shift underscores the input of
philosophical and theoretical disparities in techniques leading to empirical
findings. Another dilemma of triangulation is the question of how to distinguish
between genuine differences in research findings and anomalies caused by use
of a specific research method. Moreover, what strategy is to be adapted if the
differences are found true?
All researchers do not necessarily have the skills and training to undertake
qualitative and quantitative training simultaneously and with same degree of
proficiency. The incapacities of researchers may act as impediment to
assimilation. However, a researcher may take this incapacity into a challenge
and make serious attempts to become adroit at all methods of research.
A common – sense belief is that too much information from a variety of
method will lead to better results. This may not, however be true in research. It is
worth noting that the ascendancy of triangulation or mixed methods research has
not yet been established over a single method. Like any single method research,
the mixed method research has to be competently and comprehensively
sketched and carried out. The quality of findings would depend on the quality of
design and not on the number of methods deployed to embark on research.
Summary and Conclusion
The emergent acceptance of mixed methods research has paved way to
practical considerations instead of unnecessary debates. These debates, though
give consideration, are far from over. It seems that intransigent positivists and
phenomenologists have compromised on deliberations of qualitative and
quantitative research methods in substitution of ‘systematic’ reviews of literature.
The debate in now turned in a different direction. Supporters of quantitative
research are delighted that systematic (a replicable, scientific and transparent
process as described by Tranfield et al 2003:209) review of literature promotes
and supports a positivist approach. This does not glee the phenomenologists
who now tend to believe that traditional narrative reviews of literature serves their
purpose better. Positivists remain exultant in ‘meta – analysis’ and
phenomenologists find all their gratification in ‘meta – ethnography”.
Lately, the social science philosophers have lifted the overbearing of
epistemology and ontology from research methods by understanding the fact that
research methods are mere tools and techniques of data collection and analysis
rather. They are a means to an end rather than an end itself. Simultaneously,
social scientists who were previously very rigid on qualitative data (or feminists)
have been flexible about accepting the fact that quantitative data is also of use
and relevance in social research.
8

9. The research questions and instruments of all methods deployed have to be
seamlessly amalgamated into each other with great degree of sagacity and
prudence. Mixed methods must not be adopted because ‘more is better’ as this
may lead to ‘paralysis by analysis’. It must also be remembered that mixed
methods would require all-embracing utilization of resources and there is a great
danger that this will dilute the research effort and spread them too wide and too
thin.
Research carried out using mixed methods must aim at reaching a sum of
more than its parts. (O’Cathain et al. 2007) The greatest tribulation in mixed
method research is to assimilate statistics and findings from both qualitative and
quantitative components of research. (Bryman 2007) The sine qua non is that
mixed methods should be applied only at appropriate place and time e.g. to
enhance credibility of research or to secure buy – in from decision makers of
research funding or to learn different techniques of research per se. While there
is increasing fondness for this approach, critics are still rampant. Unfortunately
criticism has to be dealt with extreme degree of caution owing to underpinning
epistemological and ontological concerns.
As there was no right or wrong answer to choosing between positivism and
phenomenology, triangulation or mixed methods seem to provide the most
advantageous position. The core issue still is an understanding of
epistemological and ontological issues. Whatever method leads the researcher to
the creation of knowledge of what exists in reality should be adopted to provide
both depth and breadth of insight.
9

10. ANNEXURE:
Hammersley’s Classification of Approaches to Mixed Methods Research:
Hammersley (1996) has proposed three approaches to mixed methods research:
1. Triangulation: This refers to the use of quantitative research to corroborate
qualitative research findings or vice versa.
2. Facilitation: This approach arises when one research strategy in employed
in order to aid research using the other research strategy.
3. Complimentarity: This approach occurs when two research strategies are
employed in order that different aspects of an investigation can be
dovetailed.
Adapted from Bryman Alan: Social Research Methods, 3rd Edition, Oxford
Press, pp 607.
Morgan’s Classification of Approaches to Mixed Methods Research:
Morgan (1998b) has proposed 4 approaches to mixed methods research. His
classification is based on two criteria:
1. The Priority Decision: How far is a qualitative or a quantitiative method the
principal data gathering tool?
2. The Sequence Decision: Which method precedes which? In other words,
does the qualitative method precede the quantitative one or vice versa?
The criteria yield 4 possible types:
Priority
Quantitative Qualitative
M1 M2
Preliminary
Sequence
Follow - Up M3 M4
10

11. This is an interesting approach to take, but the chief difficulty with this scheme
is that it relies upon being able to identify both (a) that either quantitative or
qualitative research had priority in research and (b) that one was preliminary
to the other.
Adapted from Bryman Alan: Social Research Methods, 3rd Edition, Oxford
Press, pp 607.
11

12. REFERENCES:
1. Agnes Ma & Brahm Norwich, Triangulation and Theoretical Understanding, Int. J.
Social Research Methodology, Vol. 10, No. 3, July 2007, pp. 211–226
2. Andrew C. Wicks R. Edward Freeman, Organization Studies and the New
Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics,
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE A'OI. 9, No. 2, March-April 1998
3. Blaikie, N. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality
and Quantity, 25, 115–136.
4. Bryman A., Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition, 2008.
5. CLMS, (1.2) Doctorate in Social Sciences, Module 1
6. Cox, Julie Wolfram, Hassard, John, Triangulation in Organizational Research: A
Re-Presentation, Organization; Jan2005, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p109-133, 25p
7. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act. A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Erzberger C., Prein G., Triangulation: Valididyt and Empirically-Based
Hypothesis Construction, Quality and Quantity 1997, 31: 141 – 154
10. Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
12. Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff,
& I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). London:
Sage.
13. Fox Vernon R. Peering Into the Foundations of Inquiry: An Ontology of
Conscious Experience Along Husserlian Lines, Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psy. Vol. 25, No. 2, 2005
14. Hammond C., (2005) The Wider Benefits of Adult Learning: An Illustration of the
Advantages of Multi – Method Research, International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 239 – 55.
15. Harkness, S., Moscardino, U., Bermudez, M. R., Zylickz, P. O., Welles-Nystrom,
B., Blom, M., Parmar, M., Axia, G., Palacios, J., and Super, C. M. (2006) Mixed
Methods in International Collaboration Research: The Experiences of
International Study of Parents, Children and Schools, Cross Cultural Research,
40: 65 – 82
16. Husserl, E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, (W. R. B.
Gibson, trans.) New York: The Macmillan Co. 1931.
17. Kelle, U., & Erzberger, C. (2004). Qualitative and quantitative methods: Not in
opposition. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to
qualitative research (pp. 172–177). London: Sage.
18. Koeber C., Corporate Restructuring, Downsizing and the Middle Class: The
Process and Meaning of Worker Displacement in the ‘New’ Economy, Qualitative
Sociology 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2: pp 217 – 246
19. Kopinak J.K., The Use of Triangulation in a Study of Refugee Well – Being,
Quality and Quantity, 33: 169 – 183, 1999
20. Neuman Lawrance W. & Kreuger L. W., Social Work Research Methods:
Qualitative and Quantitative Applications, Pearson Education Inc. 2003
12

13. 21. Newby, H., (1977) “In the Field: Reflections on the Study of Suffolk Farm
Workers’, in C. Bell and H. Newby (eds.) Doing Sociological Research (London:
Allen and Unwin)
22. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., and Nicholl, J. (2007) ‘Integration and Publication as
Indicators of “Yield” from Mixed Methods Studies’, Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1:147 – 63.
23. Paul S. MacDonald, Current Approaches to Phenomenology, Review Discussion,
Murdoch University, Inquiry, 44, 101–124.
24. Pring, R. (2000). The ‘false dualism’ of educational research. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 34(2), 247–260.
25. Sanders P. Phenomenology: A New Way of Viewing Organizational Research,
Academy of Management Review 1982, Vol. 7. No. 3, 353-360
26. Schwab M., The Fate of Phenomenology in Deconstruction: Derrida and Husserl*
Inquiry, Vol. 49, No. 4, 353–379, August 2006
27. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465–478.
28. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P., ‘Towards and Methodology for
Developing Evidence Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic
Review’, British Journal of Management, 14: 207 – 22.
29. Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., and Aquino K., (2002) Poetic Justice or Petty Jealousy?
The Aesthetics of Revenge, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 89:966 – 84
30. Turner, Jonathan H. In Defense of Positivism, Sociological Theory, 1985
31. Walter H., Husserl, Phenomenology, and Foundationalism, Inquiry, Vol. 51, No. 2,
194–216, April 2008
32. Williams M., Interpretation and Generalization, Sociology 2000, 34: 3: pp 209-
224
33. Williams M., Science and Social Science: An Introduction, Routledge, 2000
13