Ontology in Business Management Research

Ontology in Business Management Research

Ontology, as a branch of philosophy, delves into the nature of being, existence, and the categories of being. Its application in business management research is both profound and necessary. The term Ontology in Business Management Research represents an intellectual framework that guides how researchers conceive of the nature of reality in the context of business phenomena. In this comprehensive examination, we will explore the philosophical underpinnings of ontology, its relevance to business management research, and the implications of adopting a clear ontological viewpoint in this field.


Understanding Ontology in Philosophy

At its core, ontology in philosophy concerns itself with questions about what exists and how those entities can be grouped, related, and differentiated. It is a sub-discipline of metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space. Ontology addresses questions like “What is existence?” and “What is the nature of reality?” (Chalmers, 2009).


The Significance of Ontology in Business Management Research

In the context of Ontology in Business Management Research, the concept takes on a slightly different nuance. Here, it refers to the set of assumptions researchers make about the nature of reality within the scope of business phenomena. These assumptions guide the choice of research methods, the interpretation of data, and the general approach to understanding business problems (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Adopting a clear ontological viewpoint is crucial for several reasons:

  1. Framework for Research: Ontology in business management research provides a fundamental framework that shapes how research questions are formulated and addressed. It influences the methodology and the interpretation of results. Without a clear ontological stance, research may lack coherence and depth (Gioia & Pitre, 1990).
  2. Consistency and Clarity: A consistent ontological viewpoint ensures clarity in the research process. Researchers are better able to articulate the assumptions underpinning their studies, which is crucial for peer review and scholarly discourse (Kuhn, 1962).
  3. Comparability of Research: When researchers adopt a clear ontological perspective, it facilitates the comparison and synthesis of findings across different studies. This comparability is essential for building a cumulative body of knowledge in business management (Popper, 1959).
  4. Theoretical Development: A clear ontological perspective aids in the development and refinement of theories in business management. Theories are grounded in assumptions about the nature of reality, and these assumptions need to be explicit to enhance the theory’s relevance and applicability (Whetten, 1989).

Ontological Perspectives in Business Management Research

The field of business management research often oscillates between two primary ontological perspectives:

  1. Realism: This perspective assumes an objective reality that exists independently of human beliefs or perceptions. In “Ontology in Business Management Research,” realism posits that business phenomena can be observed and measured objectively (Hunt, 1991).
  2. Constructivism: Contrary to realism, constructivism argues that reality is socially constructed, and knowledge is a product of social processes and interactions. In this view, “Ontology in Business Management Research” focuses on understanding how individuals and groups construct their social reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

Practical Implications of Ontology in Business Management Research

The choice between realism and constructivism (or other ontological positions) has practical implications:

  1. Methodological Choices: Ontology influences the choice of research methods. Realism often aligns with quantitative methods, whereas constructivism tends to favor qualitative approaches (Creswell, 2013).
  2. Approach to Data Analysis: Ontological perspectives shape how researchers interpret data. In realism, data analysis might focus on objective patterns and trends, while constructivism might emphasize subjective interpretations and meanings (Silverman, 2013).
  3. Theory Building: The ontological standpoint influences how theories are developed and tested in business management. Different ontologies lead to different types of theories and models, each with unique strengths and limitations (Sutton & Staw, 1995).

Challenges and Debates in Adopting an Ontological Viewpoint

Despite its importance, adopting a clear ontological viewpoint in “Ontology in Business Management Research” is not without challenges. Researchers often face debates regarding:

  1. Choosing an Ontological Position: Deciding on an ontological position can be challenging, particularly in interdisciplinary research where different fields may have differing ontological stances (Klein & Myers, 1999).
  2. Balancing Different Perspectives: Researchers may struggle to balance objectivity and subjectivity, especially in fields where both realist and constructivist approaches are valid (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
  3. Communicating Assumptions: Clearly articulating ontological assumptions in research publications can be challenging but is essential for the transparency and validity of the research (Seale, 1999).


In conclusion, “Ontology in Business Management Research” is a vital consideration for scholars in the field. A clear ontological stance provides a foundation for research design, methodology, and theory development. It ensures consistency, clarity, and comparability in research endeavors. As business management research continues to evolve, the importance of a well-defined ontological perspective cannot be overstated. Future research should focus on exploring and articulating these ontological assumptions, fostering a deeper understanding of business phenomena and contributing to the advancement of the field.


  1. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.
  2. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann.
  3. Chalmers, D. J. (2009). Ontology. In The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
  5. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584-602.
  6. Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science. South-Western Pub.
  7. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
  8. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  9. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.
  10. Seale, C. (1999). The Quality of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
  11. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publications.
  12. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.
  13. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490-49