Relational Methods in Organization Studies: A Critical Overview

  • Mustafa Özbilgin
  • Joana Vassilopoulou


Organizational studies research often falls into the trap of dealing with individuals, organizations, and the macro context in which they are placed independently. Relational perspectives seek to counteract this tendency in organization studies by proposing an approach to research which captures the complexity of organizational phenomena by exploring them as irreducibly interconnected sets of relationships. In this chapter, we do not only examine the essentials of ontology and epistemology of relational methods but also provide examples from field studies which are underpinned by relational thinking.


Organization studies Relational methods Relational thinking 


  1. Ariss, A. A. (2009). Careers of Skilled Immigrants: A Study of the Capital Accumulation and Deployment Experiences of the Lebanese in France. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  2. Blyler, M., & Coff, R. W. (2003). Dynamic Capabilities, Social Capital, and Rent Appropriation: Ties That Split Pies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(7), 677–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottero, W., & Irwin, S. (2003). Locating Difference: Class, ‘Race’ and Gender, and the Shaping of Social Inequalities. The Sociological Review, 51(4), 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction (trans: Niche, R.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (2003). Participant Objectivation. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges Between R&D Researchers Across Organizational Boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouwen, R. (1998). Relational Construction of Meaning in Emerging Organization Contexts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in Organizational Research: Exploring the Space Between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building Social Capital: Civil Attitudes and Behavior of Public Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer, R. M., Conrad, C. A., & King, M. C. (2002). The Complexities and Potential of Theorizing Gender, Caste, Race and Class. Feminist Economics, 8(2), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou (trans: Kaufmann, W.). Edinburgh: Clark.Google Scholar
  14. Buris, V. (2004). The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt, R. S. (1997). The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanzo, L. A. (2006). Knowledge Integration in Turbulent Environments: A Relational Perspective. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 221–243). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Cowan, G., & Khatchadourian, D. (2003). Empathy, Ways of Knowing, and Interdependence as Mediators of Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Women of Color at the Center: Selections from the Third National Conference on Women of Color and the Law: Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women Color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Saussure, F. (1966). Introduction. In C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, & A. Riedlinger (Eds.), Course in General Linguistics (pp. 645–657). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Everett, J. (2002). Organizational Research and the Praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feinman, J. (2009). Insurance Relationship as Relational Contract and the Fairly Debatable Rule for First-Party Bad Faith. Law Review, 46, 553–572.Google Scholar
  23. Forson, C. (2007). Social Embeddedness, ‘Choices’ and Constraints in Small Business Start-up: Black Women in Business. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary University London, London.Google Scholar
  24. Game, A. M. (2008). Negative Emotions in Supervisory Relationships: The Role of Relational Models. Human Relations, 63(3), 355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia, J. G., Cartwright, B., Winston, S. M., & Borzuchowska, B. (2003). A Transcultural Integrative Model for Ethical Decision Making in Counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(3), 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry: Tensions and Transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscapes of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 575–610). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Pearls, Pith and Provocation: Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoffer Gittel, J. (2006). Relational Coordination: Coordinating Work Through Relationships of Shared Goals, Shared Knowledge and Mutual Respect. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 74–94). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. İnal, G. (2008). A Comparative Study of the Reasons for and Means of Setting-up a Small Business: The Case of Turkish Cypriot Restaurateurs and Lawyers in North Cyprus and Britain. PhD Thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  30. Keddy, B., Gregor, F., Foster, S., & Denney, D. (1999). Theorizing about Nurses’ Work Lives: The Personal and Professional Aftermath of Living with Healthcare ‘Reform’. Nursing Inquiry, 6, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwon, S.-Y. (2001). Codependence and Interdependence: Cross-Cultural Reappraisal of Boundaries and Relationality. Pastoral Psychology, 50(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kyriakidou, O. (2006). Identity Orientation and Networking: A Relational Framework for Understanding Attitudes Toward Change Implementation. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 28–55). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kyriakidou, O., & Özbilgin, M. (2006). Introduction. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 1–7). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Layder, D. (1990). The Realist Image in Social Science. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Layder, D. (1993). New Strategies in Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mahon, J. F., Heugens, P. P. M. A., & Lamertz, K. (2004). Social Networks and Non-market Strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 4(2), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malach Pines, A. (2006). Stress and Burnout: A Relational Perspective. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 95–111). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Massey, D. (2004). The Political Challenge of Relational Space: Introduction to the Vega Symposium. Geografiska Annaler, 86(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mauthner, N., & Doucet, A. (2000). Reflections on a Voice-centred Relational Method: Analysing Maternal and Domestic Voices. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives (pp. 119–146). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDowell, L. (2004). Masculinity, Identity and Labour Market Change: Some Reflections on the Implications of Thinking Relationally about Difference and the Politics of Inclusion. Geografiska Annaler, 86(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mohr, J. W. (2000, August). Bourdieu’s Relational Method in Theory and Practice. Paper Presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings. In a Special Session organized by David Swartz entitled ‘Cultural Producers and Politics: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, J. A. (2004). Beyond Small-is-Beautiful: A Buddhist and Feminist Analysis of Ethics and Business (Global Development and Environment Institute Working Paper, No. 04-01).Google Scholar
  44. Özbilgin, M. (1998). A Cross-National Study of Sex Equality in the Financial Services Sector in Turkey and Britain. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  45. Özbilgin, M. (2006). Relational Methods in Organisation Studies. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 244–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Paliadelis, P., & Cruickshank, M. (2008). Using a Voice-Centered Relational Method of Data Analysis in a Feminist Study Exploring the Working World of Nursing Unit Managers. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1444–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peetz, D. (2002). Decollectivist Strategies in Oceania. Relations Industrielle, 57(2), 252–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perry, P., & Shotwell, A. (2009). Relational Understanding and White Antiracist Praxis. Sociological Theory, 27(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potter, G. (2000). For Bourdieu, Against Alexander: Reality and Reduction. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(2), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prasad, P., & Pringle, J. K. (2006). Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Pullman, M. E., & Gross, M. A. (2003). Welcome to Your Experience: Where You Can Check Out Ant Time You’d Like, But You can Never Leave. Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 215–223.Google Scholar
  52. Schumacher, R. (1999, March 9). Need for Speed. Intelligent Enterprise, 2(4), 50–52.Google Scholar
  53. Schwandt, D. R., Ayvaz, M. T., & Gorman, M. D. (2006). Relational Perspectives on Collective Learning and Knowledge Creation. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational Perspectives in Organizational Studies (pp. 56–73). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Somers, M. R. (1998). Symposium on Historical Sociology and Rational Choice Theory: “We’re No Angels”: Realism, Rational Choice and Relationality in Social Science. The American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 722–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Storrie, R. (2003). Equivalence Personhood and Relationality: Processes of Relatedness Among the Hoti of Venezuelan Guiana. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Tietel, E. (2000). The Interview as a Relational Space. Forum: Qualitative Social Research – Theories, Methods Applications, 1(3), 1–12.Google Scholar
  58. Tyner, J. A. (2002). Geographics of Identity: The Migrant Experiences of Filipinas in Northeast Ohio. Asian Pacific Viewpoint, 43(3), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tyson, L. (1996). Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Vassilopoulou, J. (2011). Understanding the Habitus of Managing Ethnic Diversity in Germany. A Multilevel Relational Study. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  61. Weskott, M. (1990). Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences. In J. McCarl Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences (p. 471). London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  62. Willmott, R. (1999). Structure, Agency and School Effectiveness: Researching a ‘Failing’ School. Educational Studies, 25(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zietlow, R. E. (2000). Beyond the Pronoun: Toward and Anti-Subordinating Method of Process. Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 10(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Özbilgin
    • 1
  • Joana Vassilopoulou
    • 1
  1. 1.Brunel UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations