ESFConference “International Perspectives in Qualitative Research Methods”
May4-6, 2010
London
Applying Max Weber’s “ideal type” for cross-cultural research of organizational management
Pavel Sorokin
State University – Higher School of Economics
Moscow, Russia
The development of world’s economy and business has long ago pointed out the necessity of examining national specifics of various “business cultures”. G. Hofstede, M. Bond, K. S. Cameron, R. E. Quinn and other researches are well-known for their contributions to this field of study. Several global research programs of a comparative perspective are established in different countries, linking continents (one of the most recent and significant projects called MEADOW,
Unfortunately, the number and scale of the surveys conducted does not guarantee high reliability of the outcome received. The survey’s results may not be acceptable from the statistical point of view and the selection of respondents is also not always valid. The reflection of such confuses can be seen in the latest paper of Jeffrey Blodgett, Aysen Bakir and Gregory Rose “Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework”[ Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35) / 763].
We suggest that the researcher’s basic methodological and methodical orientations may have significant influence on the problem.
These fundamental positions in the research methodology may be divided in two groups:
1) Massive quantitative research
2) Case-study
The main way of treating this problem relies mostly upon quantitative methods: a researcher first analyses quantitative empirical data and then deduces some theoretical model, which serves as the basis for comparison of, for example, organizational management in different socio-cultural environments.Although this approach has its advantages in revealing comparable macro quantitative characteristics, it is limited as regards fixing the qualitative features of cultures.
Mass quantitative surveys may be very representative. However the new knowledge they bring is likely to be superficial. Taking into account that social organization of business and organizational management are highly delicate and complex subjects of study the sketchy character of the quantitative analysis may limit the quality and value of the research results significantly.
The difficulties of applying quantitative methods to the cross-cultural research should be given special attention. When analyzing respondents’ answers the researcher can not always guarantee the full elimination of the “culture” effect. That is we cannot be totally secure from the influence of the respondent’s culture on the process of interpretation and understanding the questions. For example reflecting on the results of the European comparative research of the organizational behavior Danish author states:
“It is not clear to which extent the differences in work organization between European countries can be explained by industrial characteristics of the firms or by the differences in social and cultural features and the specifics of the society’s historical development” [AnthonyArundel, EdwardLorenz, Bengt-A°keLundvallandAntoineValeyre, HowEurope’seconomieslearn: acomparisonofworkorganizationandinnovationmodefortheEU-15, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 16, Number 6, p.1187].
In the mentioned survey the focus of research was located within the borders of Europe. Obviously the cross-cultural research of a transcontinental nature hides much bigger risks of that sort. Without the simple and consistent preliminary hypotheses and clear systematical vision of the object the analyzing of the quantitative data in a cross-cultural survey may be significantly less effective.
One of the main problems of the quantitative surveys in the field of management and business is that authors often tend to focus on the respondents’ estimative opinions regards what “should be” and what “would be” instead of paying more attention to revealing “what really happens” in the practices of employee’s everyday life in business organization. Even in the case of the studying of the practices respondents are often asked mostly about their opinions regards how these practices are existing and how they should exist. These methodological problems of contemporary quantitative surveys and the ways for solving them are closely dealt with in StateUniversity –Higher University of Economics. The achievements made in this field in Russia are related first of all to Prof. Azer Efendiev, Prof E. Balabanova and others.
Case-studies, on the one hand, enable researcher to analyze the phenomenon deeply, exploring various details and aspects of it (by using both quantitative and qualitative methods). On the other hand, case-studies are strictly limited by the particular object of research.
The method of “Ideal types” proposed in the early XX century by German sociologist Max Weber enables researcher to conduct mass quantitative surveys at the same time providing the higher interpretative potential for the results making them less superficial. The main idea of the method is that before the empirical part of the research author generates simple and logically consistent model of the real object. That model, “Ideal type”, describing major qualitative characteristics of the object serves as a starting point for the further stages of research. Empirical survey is organized correspondingly to the ideal model. The results of the empirical part are then related and compared to those anticipated on the base of “Ideal type”. Finally the “gap” between the parameters of real and ideal objects is measured and analyzed.
The advantages of the “Ideal type” method comparing to the more traditional quantitative survey is that when applied correctly and in a consecutive order it guarantees the internal logical congruence of the research results. Compared to the case-studies Max Weber’s method empowers us to overstep the limitation of only one or two concrete objects of empirical investigation. The complex nature of the “Ideal type” method is reflected in the dependence of its effectiveness on the adequacy of the “Ideal type” generated. This is where the author’s competency, experience and qualification are important and where the qualitative methods could be highly instrumental.
We consider “Ideal type” method to be very prospective when applied to the cross-cultural research in social sciences and in particular in the fields of organizational management and business’ social organization.
As an example of the applying “Ideal type” method for the empirical study we are planning to employ the “ideal type” of the “rational bureaucracy” to explore the field of organizational management in Russia and in Denmark in our future research.