1. Prepared by: Enrique, Lihong, John, Jongkuk
Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: “Inquiry from the Inside” And “Inquiry from the Outside” Roger Evered & Meryl Reis Louis (1981) AMR 6(3):
Prepared by:
Enrique, Lihong, John, Jongkuk

2. First, let’s recall some work
Transaction costs theory
Positive agency theory
Resource-based view
Barnard’s “The Functions of the Executives”
So, what we have learned?
Values used to evaluate firms? Or
Methods to study firms? Or
Solutions to some problems we have to deal with?
----”There seems to be tacit commitment to particular modes of inquiry.”

3. Some Personal Experience
Organizational participants need to understand the particular organizational situation in order to act intelligently and effectively
“Detached-observer” type of research has little relevance
Messy, iterative groping rather than idealized scientific method
Purpose of organizational participant vs. that of observer
Knowledge-yielding character: inquiry and valid knowledge

4. Two Modes of Inquiry

5. How Do They Differ?

6. Related Dichotomies From-the-outside inquiry and positivism
From-the-inside inquiry and a bunch of analogies
The degree of physical and psychological immersion of the researcher is the critical feature

7. Implications for Research Practice
Pros of the two modes
From-the-outside is more suited to theory testing and developing universal statements
From-the-inside is more useful for exploring organizational phenomena and generating tentative concepts and theories
Cons of the two modes
From-the-outside overlooks critical features that often render the results epistemologically valueless
From-the-inside lacks precision, rigor or credibility in its findings
----The need to develop a new kind of science integrating rigor, standardization, relevancy and “groundedness”

8. Implications for Research Practice