Hi Mayuk,

I certainly think that you can approach the (broad) topic of organisational culture using the interpretevist approach. However, it is not the approach which should be the question but rather the specific research question. From the number of studies I have worked with, the research question is the guiding focus that would inform the overall design. How you ask the question and how you refine the details of the research question would certainly determine the philosophy or approach to follow.

However, in general, you certainly can approach that subject using the interpretevist approach or even the pragmatist/realist approach (sort of midway between positivist and interpretevist). Personally, I believe that one approach is not necessarily better than the other but there are certain questions which will definitely align you towards the other. For instance, if your question is about the culture or defining a process in the culture, you certainly can employ qualitative research methodologies. It would be very difficult to uncover this using a quantitative approach and may be to shallow to be of any benefit. I hope it somehow helps.

I agree with Harry that you need to think in terms of specific research questions, and I would add that you should also consider how those questions are linked to the methods you might use. In particular, if you want to take a quantitative approach, then you will need to measure organization culture. There are several available tools for doing that, but the issue at this point is whether those measures would satisfy your basic goals for doing this project.

The pairing of the questions that you want to ask and the appropriate methods for answering those questions will tell you whether you are in a more interpretivist or (post-) positivist position.

hello, 

both methods can be applied - it depends exactly what you want to explore, measure and try to prove..If you want to examine the eg. dynamics, relations, cohesiveness between formal and informal values, then maybe the interpretative method will be the leading one, supported by some quantitative data gathered...

when exploring - and then trying to introduce cultural changes withing enterprise - both methods are not only useful, but essential, 

best, Beata 

I agree with Beeta Stepien opinion. Application of positivist or interpretivist approaches are essential and depends upon situation and setting in which research is being conducted.  Keeping in view of developing country' context, you will need an indepth analysis to draw out themes to further get empirical evidence. in this awake, application of both methods will be fine. Simultaneous application of both quantitative and qualitative perspectives will help understand about choices available to a researcher and meanings carried out by a particular choice. 

Rather than choosing between the two approaches, you might consider a mixed methods approach. If your aim is to develop theory, you might begin with a qualitative/interpretivist approach and then elaborate your initial theoretical insights through collecting & analysing additional quantitative data. Isabelle Walsh's (2013) mixed methods study of IT culture might be of interest as a model in this regard. See attached.

I agree with most said above, especially, that research question should lead methodological decisions. I would also add that there have been several excellent qualitative, interpretative studies in organizational culture, e.g., Kunda, 1992 (?), Kotter & Heskett (1992) etc. The only problem I see is getting them published in good journals. I would suggest that as you decide the methodology also look fro an appropriate outlet.

Both approaches are valuable, of course. Qualitative research can help seed and elaborate theory development about organizational culture, but to quantify the size and reach of cultural patterns, you need quantitative methods and sizable samples.  Mixed methods are useful, but not that easy to pull off for many cultural topics. Some would argue that qualitative methods are the only way to study cultural phenomenon because culture runs deep such that superficial symbols and measures provide very limited reflections of actual cultural beliefs and practices. Values are filtered by environmental factors that influence behavior, often in the short-term.  For example, respondents may report strong values of quality, while incentive structures that reward volume over quality of output may actually result in a different set of cultural practices.  Sound familiar?

I think both are important, depending upon what one is researching. Personally, I like qualitative research due to my limitations in understanding quantitative research concepts. But it would be puerile on my part to claim that qualitative research is better. Especially, most younger scholars prefer quantitative reserach

Refer back to your research questions and objective, and look at page 6 of the article enclosed. See your R.Q & R.O into the figure.3, that hopefully can you give some idea. 

First of all: Your research objectives define the way you have to proceed.  But,  in general terms, I agree with Judith. Why do you have to choose? we could break paradigms: it is time to do it;  you might consider a mixed methods approach. Each method has strengths and combining them, we  can enhance the richness of the results.

I agree with with several other answers, especially those on mixed methods. A methodological triangulation will be very useful, either the positivist approach is applied first and followed by the interpretivist, or both taken concurrently.

The qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are complementary and used together can  produce a more complete understanding of the organizational culture. See:   Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods by YAUCH C. A. and STEUDEL H. J, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 4, October 2003 465-481, DOI: 10.1177/1094428103257362. Personally, I found "interpretive" methodologies and methods better suited for a dynamic view of organizational culture. I prefer to "observe" interactions, role modelling, physical spaces and artefacts and to "listen" to gossiping and stories within organizations. Corporate culture  can be looked at as a network of conversations:how employees see the world and how they talk about it to themselves and others shape the environment of an organization.  Gossip particular  is "more than just idle chatter: it is the key to navigating social worlds” (Winerman 2006, p. 57). It can be a potent tool for forging alliances and ostracising others (Dingfelder, 2006). Trading information and opinions is not trivia, it carries with it trust and intimacy (Stambor, 2006) and helps employees developing trusting relationships and fostering social bonds (see Gianesini G. (2009). Building relationships in the workplace. Organizational Culture and Psychologically Healthy Workplaces, VDM Verlag)  

I would say a qualitative approach probably provides more meaningful information but I would also suggest the use of mixed methods.

Thank you Mayuk for sparking an interesting discussion.

Just to untangle usage of terms:

"Positivism" and "interpretivism" are what could be termed "theoretical perspectives". They come from very different "epistemologies" and determine your choice of methodology and the methods you use. A wonderful book that has helped me understand this is: Crotty, Micheal (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London: Sage.

"Quantitative" and "qualitative", in general, refer to the type or form of "data" you collect. Quantitative dealing more with data that can be quantified or counted. And qualitative dealing with data that ranges from observation, interviews, visual and other forms of non-numerical data. (It can get confusing as some qualitative data can be analyzed quantitatively using such methods as "text mining").

In my field in management studies here in Japan, the norm has been to conduct large-scale surveys based on models developed outside of Japan - mainly the US. There was never any discussion of the theoretical or philosophical underpinnings. But having shifted to conducting an interpretivist-based research design, I have had to defend my methodology that leads to my method which involves collecting qualitative data. In doing so, I have learnt much about what I have discussed above.

I am not sure what discipline you are working in, but in management studies, "corporate culture" is a term commonly used in the literature, by consultants and practitioners in companies. Edgar H. Schein offers his own personal take of the quantitative and qualitative backdrop to investigating corporate culture in the Preface of the New and Revised Edition of "The Corporate Culture Survival Guide". It is a brief preface, and thus very much to the point.

Mixed methods is something that I am just starting to get my head around because of how, in general, quantitative and qualitative methods have been associated with very different theoretical perspectives. However, my take from reading mixed method research literature is that there need not be any conflict between using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis providing it is done in line with the your theoretical stance. 

Finally, as others have stated, tying down your research question that arises out the problem situation you are interested in and the language you use when phrasing the question gives a good idea of the best research design you develop. "Why" questions are very different to "How" and "What" questions.

Organization culture grows within the organization out of interactions amongst various stakeholders, such as, interactions between management and employees, between management and customer, employees and customer, between management and shareholders, finally between organization and society. I feel qualitative approach is better suited for this study.

To acquire information on cultural sphere, whether it is a particular community or an organization, I think, qualitative interpretive method suits more. 

Schein gives an answer: quantitative is more suited to compare cultures between different organizations, or to link one aspect of culture to an outcome (performance, learning, creativity...). Qualitative gives you insight about what a specific culture (and social group) is: its values, its artifacts, its underling assumptions (beliefs). These two methodologies accomplish different things. Also, they reflect an epistemological positioning, and eventually a critical viewpoint (e.g., Alvesson and Willmott). 

As it was stated before, I would go for using both approaches together as joining them You could probably see more complex image of organisational culture. In fact everything depends on what is the main purpose of the research. As Sébastien Dérieux wrote, qualitative methods are better for description of specific culture while quantitative ones allow to comopare some apects. If You want have a deeper insight go for qualitative methods, if comparison of more general features - use quantitative. Good luck.

I would start with a more qualitative approach (case study) and then with empirical surveys rather than with quantitative analyses, since the topic requires a deep study of the unit of analysis.

M. Tomas Folch, G. Ion, Analysing the Organizational Culture of Universities: Two Models, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 34, No. 1, April 2009. It can be a useful paper for further thinking.

It depends on what you are trying to find out - and why you think "culture" is an appropriate term for it. The methods you use will create the phenomenon that you study, and to use triangulation in the hope that you will get a more complete view of some independently existing object is mistaken. If you think that culture is about sensemaking, is interactive, and relational, and evolves as it is reproduced in relational interaction then qualitative methods are the methods to adopt - and especially if you think that culture is differentiated and fragmented as well as displaying unity. Narrative approaches are useful. Qualitative approaches are there to let you see a culture in its own terms. Quantitative approaches are best at allowing comparisons with indicators already familiar outside the culture itself, but always run the risk of either stripping away layers of meaning or condensing polyvalent and polysemous signs and missing key phenomena. In anthropology, where the term originates, culture contains the whole way of life of a people, but what the term indicates within organization studies is usually far narrower. Anthropologists always used some form of quantitative methods where appropriate as they were seeking a comprehensive understanding, but they would not necessarily have embraced quantitative methods to study the aspects of culture that organizational scholars attempt to address.