The drunkard’s search: Looking for ‘HRM’ in all the wrong places

Abstract

and Key Results• Specific concerns have been raised about the ontologies and epistemologies that have dominated HRM research and the concomitant ubiquity of positivistic research methodologies. These concerns have also given rise to calls for more pioneering research framed within alternative paradigms. This paper considers the theoretical and practical value of alternative approaches to the study ofHRM.• Results show, drawing on interpretive studies ofHRM rooted in different epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies that a composite body of HRM scholarship is needed, where dominant and emerging approaches to the study ofHRM are mutually supportive.

Research Approaches in e-HRM: Categorisation and Analysis

“…The first view can be characterised by the assumptions of realism, determinism, objectivism, nomology and quantitative orientation, whereas the second view considers the opposing concepts of constructivism, indeterminism and qualitative orientation. This dichotomy of world views is mostly mapped by a very common bisection of research approaches into (post-)positive research and interpretive research, which can be frequently found in contributions in both parent disciplines, i.e., IS (e.g., Lee 1991;Niehaves 2007) and HR research (e.g., Anderson 2004;McKenna et al 2008). Given that any categorisation should meet the (partially competing) requirements of offering a lucid and complete set of internally homogeneous and externally separable categories, this simple categorisation offers obvious advantages.…”

“…Additionally, given that this categorisation directly maps the controversial assumptions of many of the above criteria, both categories are also clearly separable. However, both categories lack complete internal homogeneity because there are different strands of interpretive research (e.g., Klein and Myers 1999;McKenna et al 2008) and at least two different strands of (post-) positive research (e.g., Goles and Hirschheim 2000;Myers and Klein 2011). Moreover, whether this categorisation is complete is questionable because additional research approaches are discussed.…”

“…The interpretive research approach (also ''interpretivism'', ''interpretative research '', ''[social] constructivism'') is more common in both e-HRM parent disciplines (e.g., Klein and Myers 1999;McKenna et al 2008). In particular, interpretivism is regarded as a more customary approach in the context of e-HRM research and there is a stock of papers that can be classified as ''interpretive''.…”

“…In particular, interpretivism is regarded as a more customary approach in the context of e-HRM research and there is a stock of papers that can be classified as ''interpretive''. Again, however, interpretivism does not constitute a highly homogeneous approach but shows heterogeneity, and, for instance, hermeutics, phenomenology or ethnography constitute different interpretive strands (e.g., Klein and Myers 1999;McKenna et al 2008). The constitutive characteristics of interpretive research refer to assumptions on the existence of being, the relation of knowing and being, and the objectives and methods of research.…”

“…The interpretations of different researchers could be consistent. However, given that interpretations are inevitably subjective, they could also clearly and lastingly differ-thereby leading to the possibility of several ''different realities'' (e.g., McKenna et al 2008;Walsham 1995). This evidently classifies interpretive epistemology as a constructivist approach.…”