Why the epistemologies of trust researchers matter

Abstract

In this thought piece we take stock of and evaluate the nature of knowledge production in the field of trust research by examining the epistemologies of 167 leading trust scholars, who responded to a short survey. Following a brief review of major epistemological perspectives we discuss the nature of the prevalent views and their geographical distribution within our field. We call on trust researchers to engage in epistemological reflection, develop their own awareness of alternative epistemologies, and ensure their work draws on and cites relevant research contrary to their preferred epistemological approach. To support this we ask editors of relevant journals to foster pluralism in trust research, publishing work from a range of epistemologies. ACKOWLEDGEMENTWe are grateful to Don Ferrin, Peter Ping Li and Guido Möllering for their valuable comments and insight on an earlier draft.

Research into employee trust: epistemological foundations and paradigmatic boundaries

“…The majority of this research is psychologically positivist in nature, by which we mean an attempt to make statements about employee trust that are objective, generalisable and value free in nature by drawing on the application of scientific methods. In this regard, our analysis resonates with trust researchers' self‐perceptions discussed by Isaeva et al (). Positivism in employee trust research involves using a hypo‐deductive method, the operationalisation of variables and the collection and manipulation of quantitative data to prove or disprove hypotheses through experimental design or large‐scale surveys, often using students as human subjects.…”

“…Echoing the conclusions of Isaeva et al (), we noted the dominance of positivist epistemology inherent in most studies analysed here. Given their positivistic nature, most of the studies could be located in the functionalist space.…”

“…We contend that this dominant functionalist perspective, heavily influenced by American industrial and organisational psychology, and OB research, precludes deeper questioning of the relevance of employee trust in light of critiques of ‘soft’ HR as a ‘failed project’ (Thompson, ). While recognising that positivist epistemology and functionalism have an important place in HRM research (Pfeffer, ), we echo Isaeva et al 's () call for trust researchers to engage in greater reflexivity. We argue that trust researchers would benefit from identifying the ontological, epistemological and axiological foundations of their research with a view to asking different questions and employing different approaches to studying employee trust.…”

“…We have treated sociological paradigms as 'a classificatory scheme rather than a revelation of the deep structure of social theory' and approached the analysis of employee trust studies by using Burrell and Morgan's framework as 'a sorting device', using their criteria. However, in contrast to Isaeva et al (2015), we did not ask the authors to interpret their epistemological underpinnings of their work, because our working assumption, in line with Burrell and Morgan, is that many authors are locked into particular meta-theoretical allegiances from which it is difficult to become detached. Instead, we evaluated their published works according to the criteria established by Burrell and Morgan. We recognise however that using a citation count as a criterion of selection of papers can disadvantage more recent papers and that the number of citations is not always indicative of how influential is a given article in the field of trust research.…”

What happened to Popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings

“…A deep and engaging positivism -non-positivism dialogue (which currently tends to be, rather, a one-way monologue) might well be highly needed (Isaeva, Bachmann, Bristow, & Saunders, 2015), but integrating contrasting epistemologies is very difficult, and even impossible according to many (but see Schultz & Hatch, 1996).…”