A note on SWOT analysis under different research philosophy perspectives

A note on SWOT analysis under different research philosophy perspectives (information from perplexity.ai)

My question 1: "Would the SWOT analysis in strategic management of a company differ when the underlying perspectives of research philosophy (i.e. positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism and critical realism) are different?"

The reply: "The SWOT analysis in strategic management can indeed differ depending on the underlying research philosophy—such as positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, or critical realism—because each philosophy shapes how reality is perceived, what is considered valid knowledge, and how data is interpreted.

How Research Philosophies Influence SWOT Analysis

1. Positivism

• Positivism focuses on observable, measurable facts and tends to treat the business environment as objective and stable.

• Under positivism, SWOT analysis is likely to be conducted with an emphasis on quantifiable data and clear-cut categorizations of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The analysis assumes that these factors can be objectively identified and measured, leading to predictive and prescriptive strategic decisions.

• This approach aligns with traditional SWOT methods that inventory and calculate factors affecting the company in a somewhat static manner.

2. Interpretivism

• Interpretivism emphasizes understanding the subjective meanings and experiences of individuals within the organization and its environment.

• SWOT analysis from this perspective would involve deeper qualitative insights, recognizing that strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are socially constructed and may vary depending on stakeholders' perceptions.

• The analysis would be less about fixed lists and more about interpreting how different actors understand and interact with these factors, potentially leading to a more nuanced and context-specific strategic approach.

3. Pragmatism

• Pragmatism focuses on practical outcomes and the usefulness of ideas and methods in solving problems.

• A pragmatic SWOT analysis would be flexible, combining quantitative and qualitative data, and adapting the framework to fit the specific strategic questions and context.

• It values actionable insights and may integrate multiple perspectives to generate strategies that work in practice, rather than adhering strictly to any one philosophical stance.

4. Critical Realism

• Critical realism posits a layered reality: the empirical (what is observed), the actual (events that occur whether observed or not), and the real (underlying structures and mechanisms that generate events).

• From this perspective, SWOT analysis goes beyond surface-level factors to explore deeper generative mechanisms influencing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

• It recognizes that the organizational environment is an open, dynamic system where prediction is limited and strategy formation must be adaptive and learning-oriented.

• This leads to a more complex and evolving SWOT analysis that acknowledges uncertainty and the provisional nature of strategic knowledge, focusing on uncovering hidden causal factors rather than just cataloging observable elements.

Summary Table 

Research Philosophy	View of Reality & Knowledge	Implications for SWOT Analysis
Positivism	Objective, measurable facts	Quantitative, fixed lists, predictive
Interpretivism	Subjective meanings	Qualitative, context-dependent, interpretive
Pragmatism	Practical, outcome-focused	Flexible, mixed methods, action-oriented
Critical Realism	Layered reality, underlying mechanisms	Deep analysis, dynamic, learning-focused, acknowledges uncertainty

 Conclusion

Yes, the SWOT analysis in strategic management will differ depending on the underlying research philosophy because each philosophy influences how data is collected, interpreted, and applied in strategy formation. Traditional SWOT tends to align with positivism, focusing on observable factors. In contrast, interpretivism and critical realism encourage deeper, more nuanced, and dynamic analyses that consider subjective meanings and underlying causal mechanisms. Pragmatism offers a flexible, practical approach integrating multiple perspectives. Thus, the choice of research philosophy shapes not only the content but also the process and purpose of SWOT analysis in strategic management."

My question 2: "Which research philosophy perspective (i.e. positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism and critical realism) is more appropriate when conducting a SWOT analysis for a company in the process introducing a controversial turnaround exercise under a dynamic, hostile and conflictual internal and external corporate environment?"

The reply: "For a company undergoing a controversial turnaround exercise in a dynamic, hostile, and conflictual internal and external environment, the most appropriate research philosophy perspective for conducting a SWOT analysis is critical realism.

Reasons Why Critical Realism Is Most Appropriate

• Layered and dynamic reality: Critical realism acknowledges that reality consists of multiple layers—the observable events, the actual happenings, and the deeper underlying structures and mechanisms driving those events. This is crucial in a hostile and conflictual environment where surface-level factors may not fully explain the complexities involved in the turnaround process.

• Focus on underlying causes: It allows the analysis to go beyond just listing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to exploring the root causes and generative mechanisms behind them, which is essential in understanding and managing conflict and controversy.

• Recognition of uncertainty and change: Critical realism accepts that the environment is dynamic and unpredictable, which fits well with the volatile conditions of a turnaround in a hostile context. This philosophy supports adaptive and learning-oriented strategic management rather than fixed or purely predictive approaches.

• Strategic capability emphasis: As highlighted in correlative and evolutionary SWOT approaches, opportunities and threats are “potential” and depend on the organization's strategic capabilities to leverage strengths and manage weaknesses, which aligns with critical realism’s emphasis on causality and agency in complex environments.

Why Other Philosophies Are Less Suitable

• Positivism assumes a stable, objective reality and relies on measurable data, which may oversimplify or miss the nuanced, conflictual dynamics of a controversial turnaround.

• Interpretivism focuses on subjective meanings and stakeholder perceptions, which is valuable but may lack the structural analysis needed to uncover deeper systemic issues in a hostile environment.

• Pragmatism emphasizes practical outcomes and flexibility, which is useful but may not fully address the complexity of underlying causal mechanisms and power dynamics in conflictual settings.

Summary 

Philosophy	Suitability for Controversial Turnaround in Hostile Environment
Critical Realism	Most suitable: explores deep causes, embraces complexity, uncertainty, and dynamic change
Positivism	Less suitable: assumes stable, measurable reality, may oversimplify complex conflicts
Interpretivism	Useful for understanding perceptions but may lack structural depth
Pragmatism	Flexible and practical but less focused on uncovering underlying systemic causes

 

Therefore, critical realism provides the most robust philosophical foundation for conducting a SWOT analysis in such challenging and dynamic corporate contexts, enabling a more comprehensive and adaptive strategic approach."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.