Intuition: scientific, non-scientific or unscientific?

Dörfler, Viktor; Bas, Alina

doi:10.4337/9781788979757.00033

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, it is all about sensing while sensemaking is suspended. (cf Dörfler and Bas, 2020a) Phenomenological psychological reduction, in turn, only requires the researchers (Giorgi, 1997) to suspend their "belief in the existence of what presents itself in the life-world. Instead the focus is on the subjective appearances and meanings" (Finlay, 2008b, p 3).…”

Section: Bracketing Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bracketing: a phenomenological theory applied through transpersonal reflexivity

Dörfler

Stierand

2020

JOCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to improve our understanding of bracketing, one of the most central philosophical and theoretical constructs of phenomenology, as a theory of mind. Furthermore, we wanted to showcase how this theoretical construct can be implemented as a methodological tool.Design/methodology/approachIn this study we have adopted an approach similar to a qualitative meta-synthesis, comparing the emergent patterns of two empirical projects, seeking synergies and contradictions and looking for additional insights from new emerging patterns.FindingsOn a philosophical level, we have found that bracketing, as a theoretical construct, is not about the achievement of objectivity; quite to the contrary, it embraces subjectivity and puts it centre-stage. On a theoretical level, we have achieved a better understanding of Husserl's phenomenology, as a theory of mind. On a methodological level, we have achieved a powerful way of supplementing and/or clarifying research findings, by using a theoretical construct as a methodological tool.Originality/valueOur paper contributes to the phenomenology literature at a philosophical, theoretical and methodological level, by offering a better understanding and a novel implementation of one of the central theoretical constructs of phenomenology.

show abstract

Section: Bracketing Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bracketing: a phenomenological theory applied through transpersonal reflexivity

Dörfler

Stierand

2020

JOCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing on earlier arguments (e.g. Dörfler and Bas, 2020) and findings from psychological experiments, it was concluded that intuitions have a high potential to be valid when they are based on expertise and experience in the research area, build on large sets of input data, and result from immersion in those data. All of this often holds true for researchers' intuitions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many aspects of intuition are still contested and underexplored (Baldacchino et al, 2015;Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith, 2018;Sinclair, 2010). Nevertheless, there is consensus about some of its key features (Dörfler and Ackermann, 2012;Dörfler and Bas, 2020;Dörfler and Stierand, 2017). In contrast with analytical processing, intuitive processing is seen as a rather fast, spontaneous process that does not follow the rules of logic; in contrast with an analytically derived outcome, an intuitive outcome is tacit and holistic, and intuitors feel confident about it, despite lacking evidence.…”

Section: The Concept Of Intuitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the organizational context, results on the validity of intuition are mixed (for reviews see Akinci and Sadler-Smith, 2012;Baldacchino et al, 2015;Dörfler and Bas, 2020). A closer look at extant findings suggests differences due to levels of expertise: it seems that novices' intuitions cannot be trusted, while experts' intuitions can reveal highly valid outcomes (Dörfler and Ackermann, 2012;Dörfler and Bas, 2020;Dörfler and Stierand, 2017). This interpretation is in line with the findings from the above-mentioned psychological experiments because these experiments simulated high levels of expertise: the 'large amounts of incoming data' (e.g.…”

Section: The Validity Of Intuitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In conclusion, there is broad agreement in the literature that expertise is a necessary condition for valid intuitions (Dörfler and Ackermann, 2012;Dörfler and Stierand, 2017;Sinclair and Ashkanasy, 2005). Moreover, empirical findings from various sources imply that expert's intuitions also have a high potential to be valid (Dörfler and Bas, 2020).…”

Section: The Validity Of Intuitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

No need to hide: Acknowledging the researcher’s intuition in empirical organizational research

Kump

2021

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experts on organizational research methods have begun to highlight the importance of researchers’ intuition (i.e. ‘direct knowing’) and have called for more genuine method sections that acknowledge its use. However, using intuition contradicts established research standards of traceability. Hence, when intuition was involved in the research process, researchers must choose between reporting its role, thereby risking the impression of lacking scholarly rigor, and downplaying its role, thereby writing less-than-honest research reports. This article aims to provide a solution to this dilemma by conceptually exploring how intuition can be integrated in research such that scholarly rigor is maintained. Building on Weick’s distinction of creative imagination and validation, it argues that intuition can be legitimately seized if its functioning principles are taken into account and its outcomes are later validated through analytical procedures. The article synthesizes theoretical assumptions and empirical findings on characteristics of intuition with discussions of organizational research methods to derive implications on (1) points in the research process where researchers’ intuitions may be legitimately included and (2) possible types of intuitive outcomes that may be reported. This may contribute to both more genuine method sections and more rigorous research that systematically validates intuition, instead of hiding it.

show abstract

What Every CEO Should Know About AI

Dörfler

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dr Viktor Dörfler combines his background in developing and implementing AI with scholarly research on knowledge and cultivating talent to address misconceptions about AI. The Element explains what AI can and cannot do, carefully delineating facts from beliefs or wishful thinking. Filled with examples, this practical Element provokes thinking. The purpose is to help CEOs figure out how to make the best use of AI, suggesting how to extract AI's greatest value through appropriate task allocation between human experts and AI. The author challenges the attribution of characteristics like understanding, thinking, and creativity to AI, supporting his argument with the ideas of the finest AI philosophers. He also discusses in depth one of the most sensitive AI-related topics: ethics. The readers are encouraged to make up their own minds about AI and draw their own conclusions rather than accepting opinions from people with vested interests or an agenda.

show abstract

Intuition: scientific, non-scientific or unscientific?

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Bracketing: a phenomenological theory applied through transpersonal reflexivity

Bracketing: a phenomenological theory applied through transpersonal reflexivity

No need to hide: Acknowledging the researcher’s intuition in empirical organizational research

What Every CEO Should Know About AI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About