• Define criteria of quality in the four key epistemological perspectives: naturalism, critical realism, post-structuralism and immanence
• Exemplify how these criteria of quality are translated into actual empirical analysis
• Explain how one ensures consistency between research problem and the epistemological perspective plus the choice of methods in empirical analysis
• Critically reflect on an empirical essay of their own writing (from another course) by showing the ability to identify their own researcher position, the normative criteria they bring in, and the implicit comparisons they make
• Explain the nature of the iterative process between theoretical framework and empirical data in an analysis

This course gives an overview of different epistemological positions and their relationship to the idea of quality and normative criteria for empirical analysis.  The course combines the reading of programmatic texts that suggest criteria for “good” analysis with a close reading of actual empirical studies. The purpose is to solidify the students’ ability to argue for, discuss, and practice consistent and reflexive criteria of quality in empirical analysis. The course assumes that the students are familiar with the basics of qualitative methods and moves from there into a deeper and more reflexive practice of analysis.
The first part of the course will present four key epistemological perspectives: positivism, critical realism, post-structuralism and transcendental empiricism. It will also introduce key discussions about normative criteria for doing analysis: How are notions of “quality” tied up with the object of study, the position of the researcher, the implicit comparisons that drive analysis, the degree of iteration between theory and data etc.? Based on these different ways of relating to the field of study and establishing criteria of quality, the second part of the course focuses on close readings of actual empirical analyses, primarily from organization theory. Here, the students are expected to scrutinize and discuss the way in which the writers engage with the field and position themselves as researchers. What kind of analytical “moves” can be identified in each of the texts and what normative criteria for analysis are implied in the text?
In the final part of the course, the students will be working closely with their own empirical analysis. Here, the intention is to intertwine the teaching closely with the course in Organizational Philosophy, including its case-material and visits to organizations. Drawing on the first part of the course, we will work through drafts written by the course participants to discuss questions about epistemology, decipher the analytical move attempted in the texts and reflect on the criteria of quality.
Altogether, the course serves to equip the students with methodological and analytical skills to engage in concrete empirical settings, both academically and practically. Familiarity with methodological tools and the ability to argue for quality in analysis represents an important qualification in any kind of knowledge work and is relevant in a number of activities ranging from consulting, strategy work, management and research.

Lecture Plan:
PART 1: Epistemology
1.      Epistemology and Criteria of Quality

Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000): On reflexive interpretation – the play of interpretive levels. In: Reflexive Methodology – new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

Seale, Clive (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Chapter 1: Why Quality Matters. Chapter 3: Trust, Truth and Philosophy. Chapter 5: Guiding Ideals.
 
2.      Varied concepts and return of the empirical
 
Jensen, Casper Bruun. (Forthcoming 2013) “Continuous Variations: The Conceptual and the Empirical” Science, Technology and Human Values (Special issue on The Conceptual and the Empirical
 
Adkins, L. and Lury, C. (2009) Introduction: What Is the Empirical?European Journal of Social Theory12: 5-20
 
 
3.      Researcher position
 
Haraway, Donna (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women – the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Chapter 9: Situated Knowledges p. 150-183.
 
Mol, Annemarie (2002) The Body Multiple – Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press. Chapter 1 “doing Disease” p. 1-27 
 
 
 
4.      (Implicit) comparisons
 
Nader, Laura (1994) Comparative consciousness. In: R. Borofsky (ed.): Assessing Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw-Hill: 86-96
 
Strathern, Marilyn (2011) Binary License. Common Knowledge 17(1), 8-103
Maurer, B. Implementing Empirical Knowledge in Anthropology and Islamic Accountancy. In Ong, a & Collier, S.j. Global assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems
 
 
 
5.      Engaging with the field – perfect fit or empirical resistance?
 
Latour, B. (2004): “How to talk about the body, the normative dimensions of science studies”. Body and Society, 10 (2-3), 20.
 
Serres: M. (1979): The Algebra of Literature: The Wolf´s Game. In: Harari, J.V. (ed.): Textual Strategies: Perspectives in post-structuralist criticism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
 
 
 
 
Part 2: Empirical readings
 
6.      Naturalism and engineering managers
 
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000): Reflexive Methodology – new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage, pp. 12-51
 
Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W. (1939) Management and the Worker. New York: Wiley. Introduction.
 
 
 
7.      Freud and management
 
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000): Reflexive Methodology – new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage, pp. 124-147.
 
Trist, E. and Bamford, K. (1951) Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human Relations 4, 3-38


 
 
8.      CMS – Lacan, Hardt & Negri
 
Cederstrom, C. and Fleming, P. (2012) Dead Man Working.  Alresford: Zero Books. Chapter 1-2, pp. 9-19
Hoedemaekers, C. Traversing the empty promise: management, subjectivity and the Other's desire. Journal of Organizational Change Management22(2), 181-202.

9.      CMS – poststructuralism
 
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000): Reflexive Methodology – new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage, pp. 167-199
 
Willmott, H.(1993): Strength is Ignorance, Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations. In: Journal of Management Studies 30(4), 515-552.
 
 
10.      Lateral and comparative analyses
 
Deleuze, G (2004): Difference and RepetitionContinuum books, New York. Chapter III The Image of Thought 164-214
 
Strathern, M. (2006): “Bullet Proofing: A Tale from the United Kingdom” in Annelise Riles ed. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 181-205.
 
Gorm Hansen, B (2012) Beyond the boundary – Science, industry and managing symbiosis. Bulletin of Science Technology SocietyDecember 2011 vol. 31 no. 6 493-505
 
 
Part 3: Practicing the craft of empirical analysis
 
 
11.      Workshop – practicing analysis based on earlier student papers
 
Alvesson,M. and Kärreman,D. (2007) Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review 32: 1265–1281.