Prepared by: Enrique, Lihong, John, Jongkuk

1. Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: “Inquiry from the Inside” And “Inquiry from the Outside” Roger Evered & Meryl Reis Louis (1981) AMR 6(3): 385-395 Prepared by: Enrique, Lihong, John, Jongkuk

2. First, let’s recall some work • Transaction costs theory • Positive agency theory • Resource-based view • Barnard’s “The Functions of the Executives” • So, what we have learned? • Values used to evaluate firms? Or • Methods to study firms? Or • Solutions to some problems we have to deal with? ----”There seems to be tacit commitment to particular modes of inquiry.”

3. Some Personal Experience • Organizational participants need to understand the particular organizational situation in order to act intelligently and effectively • “Detached-observer” type of research has little relevance • Messy, iterative groping rather than idealized scientific method • Purpose of organizational participant vs. that of observer • Knowledge-yielding character: inquiry and valid knowledge

4. Two Modes of Inquiry

5. How Do They Differ?

6. Related Dichotomies • From-the-outside inquiry and positivism • From-the-inside inquiry and a bunch of analogies • The degree of physical and psychological immersion of the researcher is the critical feature

7. Implications for Research Practice • Pros of the two modes • From-the-outside is more suited to theory testing and developing universal statements • From-the-inside is more useful for exploring organizational phenomena and generating tentative concepts and theories • Cons of the two modes • From-the-outside overlooks critical features that often render the results epistemologically valueless • From-the-inside lacks precision, rigor or credibility in its findings ----The need to develop a new kind of science integrating rigor, standardization, relevancy and “groundedness”

8. Implications for Research Practice