Beyond positivism: Toward a pluralistic approach to studying “real” teams

Abstract

To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.

Is conflict useful after all? A scenario experiment on the antecedents and consequences of task and relationship conflict in military settings

“…Future studies should use vignettes that allow a better separation of task and relationship conflict, and collect data on multiple time points of conflict and team and individual-level outcomes to check reciprocal patterns of influence. As team members may have unique conflict experiences, using designs capturing these experiences is of worth (Nyein et al, 2020;Park et al, 2020). Third, we have measured all outcome variables using self-reports.…”

“…Literature to date shows that team members may have unique conflict experiences (Park et al , 2020) and different perceptions of the existence, intensity and form of team conflict (i.e. multiple realities) (Nyein et al , 2020) and emotions. The inconsistent empirical evidences on the differential effects of different types of conflict on team and individual-level outcomes impede the provision of clear managerial prescriptions and led researchers to suggest further investigations (De Wit et al , 2012).…”

Critical positions: Situating critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology

“…For instance, personality and individual differences such as intelligence and aptitude have been mainstays of W-O psychology literature, but while these have often been critiqued for their methodological or theoretical misuses (e.g., Deary et al, 2000), more rare are treatments of the ideological and political foundations of individual difference research (e.g., Emre, 2018;Rose, 1998). As another example, group and team interactions are sites where social controls are established and subjectivities constructed but most W-O literature often treats them in their functional and cognitive-affective implication (cf., Nyein et al, 2020), rather than as microsociological laboratories; here again, critical perspectives are sorely needed. These are just two of many possible examples of the areas within W-O psychology that would benefit from a critical research agenda.…”

Mapping Team Dynamics Through Retrospective Team Events Analysis

“…Research funding institutions and citizens are increasingly demanding responsible dialogic spaces in which social-scientific researchers and their participants can co-create knowledge that contributes positively to society (Banks et al, 2016; George et al, 2016; Soler & Gómez, 2020; Van der Ven, 2007). R-TEAM does enable engaged team scholarship (Van der Ven, 2007) as it increases the probability of generating new theoretical insights sooner and in close cooperation with, and relevant to, the respondents (Nyein et al, 2020). R-TEAM is therefore also a learning intervention for the participating teams and their leaders (Edmondson et al, 2001; Kayes et al, 2005; Myers, 2018; 2021).…”