Reference no: EM1348315 , Length: 750 Words
According to your text, epistemology is a 'general set of assumptions about the best ways of inquiring into the nature of the world' (Easterby-Smith, et al., 2012, p.17). Epistemology addresses questions such as:
- What is knowledge?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- How do we know what we know?
- Is it possible to have knowledge at all?
In research, an epistemological stance will influence how you choose a research topic as well as the methodology and methods you use. Review the resources this week to explore the role of epistemology in research.
In a 750-1,000 word response, post your answers to the following questions to the Discussion Board
In what ways does the choice of an epistemological perspective or stance influence the formulation of a management research problem?
Reference:
Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Jackson, R. (2012) Management Research.4th edition.SAGE.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION
"'It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data'. arthurconandoyle
The relationship between data and theory is an issue that has been hotly debated by phi- losophers for many centuries. Failure to think through such philosophical issues, while not necessarily fatal, can seriously affect the quality of management research, and they are central to the notion of research design. The aim of this chapter is therefore to consider the main philosophical positions that underlie the designs of management research - in other words, how do philosophical factors affect the overall arrangements that enable satisfactory outcomes from the research activity?
There are at least three reasons why an understanding of philosophical issues is very useful. First, it can help to clarify research designs. This not only involves considering what kind of evidence is required and how it is to be gathered and interpreted, but also how this will provide good answers to the basic questions being investigated in the research. Second, knowledge of philosophy can help the researcher to recognize which designs will work and which will not. It should enable him or her to avoid going up too many blind alleys and should indicate the limitations of particular approaches. Third, it can help the researcher identify, and even cre- ate, designs that may be outside his or her past experience. It may also suggest how to adapt research designs according to the constraints of different subject or knowledge structures.
Arguments, criticisms and debates are central to the progress of philosophy. It is unfortu- nate that within the social sciences such debates sometimes take the form of denigrating the other point of view, or of completely ignoring its existence. We believe that it is important to understand both sides of an argument because research problems often require eclectic designs that draw from more than one tradition. Thus we try to provide a balanced view of the differ- ent philosophical positions underlying research methods and designs here; to do this we have had to return to some of the original sources of these positions. Therefore the chapter starts by reviewing some key debates among philosophers of the natural sciences and social sciences. Then we explore these philosophies further, and review a number of alternative positions.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATES
Most of the central debates among philosophers concern matters of ontology and epistemol- ogy. Ontology is about the nature of reality and existence; epistemology is about the best ways of enquiring into the nature of the world. Scientists and social scientists generally draw from different ontological and epistemological assumptions when developing their methodologies for conducting research. Sometimes they do this consciously and deliberately; more often they simply follow the traditions passed on by those who trained them. For example, most of the time medical researchers can simply follow the procedures of scientific research when develop- ing new drugs, and they rarely need to reflect on the nature of the human soul - unless of course they are using human embryos to conduct research into the therapeutic value of stem cell treat- ments. In which case the differing views about when human 'life' begins are very important.
Similarly, social researchers often follow the traditions of their training without dwell- ing on more fundamental issues. We think this is a shame. Awareness of philosophical
assumptions can both increase the quality of research and contribute to the creativity of the researcher. Furthermore, there is much confusion among researchers about the distinction between terms such as epistemology and ontology, and hence in this section we will try to establish some clarity around these terms.
The essence of ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods and techniques is summarized in Table 2.1, and in the icon above we illustrate the relationship between these four terms using the metaphor of a tree as explained at the end of the last chapter. In this case it is the trunk of a tree that has four rings. It is the outer ring, the bark, which repre- sents the methods and techniques adopted in a research project, such as interviews and questionnaires. These are the most obvious and visible features of a project, but they depend on decisions and assumptions about methodology, epistemology and ontology which lie behind the scenes, and which are progressively less visible. So we will start with ontology, represented by the central core, or heartwood of the tree, and then we will work outwards. Since the second half of the book is concerned with the choice and application of individual methods we will concentrate in this chapter on ontology, epistemology and methodology.
ONTOLOGY: FROM REALISM TO NOMINALISM
The first term, ontology, is the starting point for most of the debates among philosophers. Although there are strong parallels between the debates within the natural sciences and the social sciences, there are also differences. Thus among philosophers of natural science the
debate is between realism and relativism. There are several varieties of realism. A tradi- tional position emphasizes that the world is concrete and external, and that science can only progress through observations that have a direct correspondence to the phenomena being investigated. This extreme position has been modified by philosophers of science in recent decades who point out the difference between the laws of physics and nature, and the knowl- edge or theories that scientists have about these laws. This position is labelled by Bhaskar as transcendental realism, which assumes that 'the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry exist and act (for the most part) quite independently of scientists and their activity' (1989: 12).
The next position along the continuum (see Table 2.2) is internal realism. This assumes that there is a single reality, but asserts that it is never possible for scientists to access that reality directly, and it is only possible to gather indirect evidence of what is going on in fundamental physical processes (Putnam, 1987). A nice illustration is provided by the 'bubble chamber', which was developed in the 1950s to track the paths of sub-atomic particles during experiments. The bubble chamber is a tank filled with an unstable transparent liquid such as superheated hydrogen; as these high energy particles pass through the chamber they boil the liquid, leaving a track of tiny bubbles, which can be photographed immediately. Thus the bubbles provide a visible record of the activity of sub-atomic particles, which cannot otherwise be 'seen' directly. The problems of observation at this level were summarized more formally by the Indeterminacy Principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, which states that, 'The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa'. Thus it is never possible to obtain full and objective information about the state of a body because the act of experimentation itself will determine the observed state of the phenomenon being studied. Any attempt to measure the location of an electron will, for example, affect its velocity.
Internal realism does accept, however, that scientific laws once discovered are absolute and independent of further observations. The position of relativism goes a stage further in suggesting that scientific laws are not simply out there to be discovered, but that they are created by people. It has been strongly influenced by the work of Latour and Woolgar (1979) who have studied the way scien- tific ideas evolve within research laboratories and noted the amount of debate and discussion that takes place about how to explain observed patterns and phenomena. People hold different views, and their ability to gain acceptance from others may depend on their status and past reputation. Thus the 'truth' of a particular idea or theory is reached through discussion and agreement between the main protagonists. Furthermore, Knorr-Cetina (1983) points out that the acceptance of a particular theory, and hence the 'closure' of a scientific debate, may be highly influenced by the politics of business and commercial resources.
EXAMPLE 2.1
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a series of reports in 1990 which argued that global warming represented a very serious threat to human civiliza- tion. But their own data also showed a period of global warming about 1000 years ago, when vineyards were widespread in Britain. This opened a question about whether current signs of global warming are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burnt by humans, or whether they are just part of natural cycles of global climate change.
The current debate about climate change is a good example of the potential for debate around the significance of 'scientific' evidence (see Example 2.1). Although the same evi- dence is potentially available to all protagonists, no single piece of evidence is accepted as definitive by all, and both supporters and sceptics of the climate change hypothesis tend to select evidence that specifically supports their own views. In addition there are very strong entrenched interests - oil companies, environmentalists and national governments - which see their political and economic interests bound up with one or another outcome from the debate. The relativist position assumes that there may never be a definitive answer to the climate change debate, just different accommodations as the interests of different groups interact with the gradual accumulation and acceptance of scientific evidence. We shall return to some of these political and ethical issues in Chapter 4.
Realist scientists have responded vigorously to the relativist challenge by arguing that even if scientists work through social and political networks, the truth of scientific laws is quite independent of the process of discovery. Richard Dawkins, the biologist, famously comments that even the most dedicated relativist does not believe, when flying at 40,000 feet in a Boeing 747, that the laws of physics which hold the jet in the air are mere constructs of the imagination (Irwin, 1994).
Within social science there have been similar debates, although primarily between the positions of internal realism, relativism and nominalism. Of course, within the social sciences, we are interested in the behaviour of people rather than inanimate objects. And this leads to debate about whether the assumptions and methods of natural science are appropriate to be used in the social sciences (Blaikie, 2007). The answer in our view depends both on the topic of enquiry and the preferences of the individual researcher. Therefore concepts such as social class and racial discrimination can be treated as real phenomena, which exist independently of the researcher and which have real conse- quences for the life chances and career success of people of different classes or gender. In both cases it can be difficult to agree what these concepts mean or how to measure them, but such disagreements do not alter the reality of their consequences. This indicates the internal realist position.
From a relativist ontology it is accepted that social class and racial discrimination are defined and experienced differently by different people, and this will depend greatly on the classes or races to which they belong and the contexts or countries in which they live. Thus there is no single reality that can somehow be discovered, but many perspectives on the issue. The relativist position assumes that different observers may have different viewpoints and as Collins (1983: 88) says, 'what counts for the truth can vary from place to place and from time to time'.
The position of nominalism goes further by suggesting that the labels and names we attach to experiences and events are crucial. Postmodern authors, such as Cooper and Burrell (1988), envisage social life as paradoxical and indeterminate, and argue that social reality is no more than the creation of people through language and discourse (Cunliffe, 2001). From this position there is no truth; and the interesting questions concern how peo- ple attempt to establish different versions of truth. Thus, the idea of 'social class' is often used as an explanation of why some people (and families) are systematically more success- ful than others. For some it provides a critique of the way privilege is maintained through educational and employment institutions; for others it may provide a justification of the superiority or some classes (or castes) over others. Similarly, following the racial discrimi- nation line, the label 'institutional racism' provided a sharp critique of the internal practices of the Metropolitan Police following their botched investigation into the murder in London of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
These four ontological positions are summarized below in Table 2.2.
We can illustrate these different positions with two examples, one physical and the other social. First, consider the game of snooker. A realist view of snooker would concentrate on mapping the locations, trajectories and ricochets of different balls, and how the rules of snooker lead to games being won or lost. The internal realist would see a more complex picture: balls do not necessarily follow the principles of classical mechanics: they may be spun or jumped, different tables will behave in different ways, and the technical abilities of players will affect the outcome. Moving to the relativist position, we would focus less on the mechanics of the game, and more on the strategies of the players, and how they manoeuvre the balls to gain advantage over opponents. From a nominalist perspective, the focus could be on the way the rules evolve over time, on who controls the finances of the professional game, or the way careers are forged.
The second example, which is more relevant to business, is the notion of corporate profit. A realist view will assume that there is a single figure which represents the difference between income and expenditure, and that the accounts posted by companies at the year-end are nor- mally accurate. The internal realist will see a more complex position: the boundaries may be permeable with acquisitions and divestments taking place during the previous year, highly diverse activities may be woven into single threads, and decisions will be taken about how to divide ongoing activities between one year and the next. Thus the profit figure posted will be just an approximation of the 'true' profit of the company. From a relativist position it would be recognized that profit is just one indicator of corporate health and other indicators, such as sales growth, innovation rates or stock market valuations may be equally relevant - with no one view taking precedence. The nominalist perspective will draw attention to the way profit figures are constructed from many operational decisions about what to show or hide, and at corporate levels may well be manipulated to ensure that directors maximize their annual bonus payments.
EPISTEMOLOGY: POSITIVISM VERSUS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
As indicated above, epistemology is about different ways of inquiring into the nature of the physical and social worlds. It has formed the ground for a sustained debate among social scientists, which has focused around the respective merits of two contrasting views
of how social science research should be conducted: positivism and social construction- ism.1 Each of these positions has to some extent been elevated into a stereotype, often by the opposing side. Although we can draw up comprehensive lists of philosophical assumptions and methodological implications associated with each position, there is no single philoso- pher who ascribes to all aspects of one particular view. Indeed, occasionally an author from one side produces ideas that belong more neatly to those of the other side.
Also when we look at the actual practice of research, as we shall see below, even self- confessed extremists do not hold consistently to one position or the other. And although there has been a gradual trend from positivism towards constructionism since the early 1980s, there are many researchers, both in management and social science research, who deliberately com- bine methods from both traditions. We elaborate on these two traditions below.
Positivism
The key idea of positivism is that the social world exists externally, and that its properties should be measured through objective methods, rather than being inferred subjectively through sensation, reflection or intuition. The nineteenth-century French philosopher, Auguste Comte (1853: 3), was the first person to encapsulate this view, saying: 'All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but that which is based on observed facts'. This statement contains two assumptions: first, an onto- logical assumption, that reality is external and objective; and second, an epistemological assumption, that knowledge is only of significance if it is based on observations of this external reality. This has a number of implications, although not all of them were proposed by Comte (see Table 2.3).
It is worth repeating that these propositions are not simply the view of any single phi- losopher; they are a collection of points that have come to be associated with the positiv- ist viewpoint. Some 'positivists' would disagree with some of these statements. Comte, for example, did not agree with the principle of reductionism. Wittgenstein argued strongly in his early work that all factual propositions can be reduced to elementary propositions that are completely independent of one another. But in his later work he challenged his earlier view on the grounds that elementary propositions, such as colours, could still be logically related to each other (Pears, 1971). So philosophers within one school not only disagree with each other; they may also disagree with themselves over time.
The view that positivism provides the best way of investigating human and social behav- iour originated as a reaction to metaphysical speculation (Aiken, 1956). As such, this philosophy has developed into a distinctive paradigm over the last 150 years. The term 'paradigm' came into vogue among social scientists, particularly through the work of Kuhn (1962) who used it to describe the progress of scientific discoveries in practice, rather than how they are subsequently reconstructed within text books and academic journals. Most of the time, according to Kuhn, science progresses in tiny steps, which refine and extend what is already 'known'. But occasionally experiments start to produce results that do not fit into existing theories and patterns. Then, perhaps many years later, a Galileo or Einstein
TABLE 2.3 Philosophical assumptions of positivism ? Independence: the observer must be independent from what is being observed.
? Value-freedom: the choice of what to study, and how to study it, can be determined by objective criteria rather than by human beliefs and interests.
? Causality: the aim of the social sciences should be to identify causal explanations and fundamental laws that explain regularities in human social behaviour.
? Hypothesis and deduction: science proceeds through a process of hypothesizing fundamental laws and then deducing what kinds of observations will demonstrate the truth or falsity of these hypotheses.
? Operationalization: concepts need to be defined in ways that enable facts to be measured quantitatively. ? Reductionism: problems as a whole are better understood if they are reduced into the simplest
possible elements.
? Generalization: in order to move from the specific to the general it is necessary to select random samples of sufficient size, from which inferences may be drawn about the wider population.
? Cross-sectional analysis: such regularities can most easily be identified by making comparisons of variations across samples.
proposes a new way of looking at things, which can account for both the old and the new observations. It is evident from these examples, and from the illustration given in Chapter 1, that major scientific advances are not produced by a logical and incremental application of scientific method. They result from independent and creative thinking that goes beyond the boundaries of existing ideas. The result of this is a 'scientific revolution', which not only provides new theories, but which may also alter radically the way people see the world, and the kind of questions that scientists consider are important to investigate. The combination of new theories and questions is referred to as a new paradigm.
Social constructionism
The new paradigm that has been developed by philosophers during the last half-century, largely in reaction to the application of positivism to the social sciences, stems from the view that 'reality' is not objective and exterior, but is socially constructed and given mean- ing by people. The idea of social constructionism then, as developed by authors such as Berger and Luckman (1966), Watzlawick (1984) and Shotter (1993), focuses on the ways that people make sense of the world especially through sharing their experiences with others via the medium of language. Social constructionism is one of a group of approaches that Habermas (1970) has referred to as interpretive methods. We will touch on these, and a number of other approaches, in the course of this and the following chapter.
What, then, is the essence of social constructionism? First, it is the idea, as mentioned above, that 'reality' is determined by people rather than by objective and external factors. Hence the task of the social scientist should not be to gather facts and measure how often certain patterns occur, but to appreciate the different constructions and meanings that
people place upon their experience. The focus should be on what people, individually and col- lectively, are thinking and feeling, and attention should be paid to the ways they communicate with each other, whether verbally or non-verbally. We should therefore try to understand and appreciate the different experiences that people have, rather than search for external causes and fundamental laws to explain behaviour. Human action arises from the sense that people make of different situations, rather than as a direct response to external stimuli.
The methods of social constructionist research can be contrasted directly with the eight features of classical positivist research. They are summarized in Table 2.4. Again, it should be emphasized that these represent a composite picture rather than the viewpoint of any single author.
The implications of holding these different views may be seen, for example, in the way researchers can study managerial stress. The positivist would start with the assumption that occupational stress exists and then would formulate measures of stress experienced by a large number of managers in order to relate them to external causes such as organizational changes, interpersonal conflicts or critical performance reviews. Measures of stress could be based on standardized verbal reports from the managers or on physiological factors such as blood pressure. The social constructionist would be interested in the aspects of work that managers consider 'stressful', and perhaps in the strategies that they develop for managing these aspects. He or she would therefore arrange to talk with a few managers about their
jobs, about the aspects they find more, or less, difficult, and would attempt to gather stories
about incidents that they had experienced as stressful.
LINKING ONTOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY
It should be clear by now that there is a link between epistemology and ontology, with positivism fitting with realist ontologies, and constructionism fitting with nominalism. We also introduce here a distinction between stronger and more normal versions of positivism and constructionism. With regard to positivism, this follows the distinction introduced by the Oxford philosopher A.J. Ayer ([1936] 1971: 50) between statements that are respectively either directly, or only indirectly, verifiable. The idea of 'normal' constructionism refers to those who construct their own knowledge, while accepting the existence of independent, objective knowledge; whereas strong constructionism assumes that there is no difference between individual and social knowledge (Ernst, 1996).
The correspondence is therefore summarized in Table 2.5, where positivism and con- structionism are linked to internal realist and relativist ontologies, while strong positivism and strong constructionism are linked to the realist and nominalist ontologies. However, we
take the argument further by suggesting that with the weaker versions of both epistemolo- gies, there are overlaps in these positions, and the methodologies that follow from them combine different features of each. The table therefore summarizes the main methodologies under the four main positions, and we explain these further below.
In the strong positivist position it is assumed that there is a reality which exists independ- ently of the observer, and hence the job of the researcher is to discover the laws and theories that explain this reality. This is most readily achieved through the design of experiments that eliminate alternative explanations and allow key factors to be measured precisely in order to verify or falsify predetermined hypotheses. On the other hand, less strong versions of positivism accept that reality cannot be accessed directly. The research therefore needs to infer the nature of this reality indirectly through conducting surveys of large samples of individuals, activities or organizations. Data will normally be expressed in quantitative form, but this may be supplemented by qualitative data. This should enable patterns and regularities in behaviour to be identified, thus allowing propositions to be tested and new ideas to be developed. Even so, it is only a matter of probability that the views collected will provide an accurate indication of the underlying situation.
From the constructionist position, the assumption is that there may be many different reali- ties, and hence the researcher needs to gather multiple perspectives through a mixture of quali- tative and quantitative methods and to gather the views and experiences of diverse individuals and observers. This is sometimes described as triangulation, based on the idea that a ship's navigator wishing to identify his or her position (before the invention of GPS) would take com- pass bearings on three different landmarks and would then draw lines on the chart from these points thus producing a small triangle that would indicate the position of the vessel.
The story from the strong constructionist perspective is different again because it assumes there is no pre-existing reality, and the aim of the researcher should be to understand how peo- ple invent structures to help them make sense of what is going on around them. Consequently, much attention is given to the use of language and conversations between people as they cre- ate their own meanings. Researchers following this path are encouraged to be critical of the way meanings can be imposed by the more powerful on the less powerful. Furthermore, the recognition that the observer can never be separated from the sense-making process means that researchers acknowledge that theories which apply to the subjects of their work must also be relevant to themselves. Such reflexive approaches to methodology are recognized as being particularly relevant when studies are considering power and cultural differences (Anderson, 1993; Easterby-Smith and Malina, 1999; Cunliffe, 2003).
Spot the epistemology!
Researchers normally betray their epistemology in the language they use. Here are seven brief statements of the aims of different papers. Which is which? What clues did you spot?
1 'We advance research on absorptive capacity by extending and empirically validating the conceptual distinction between potential and realized absorptive capacity' (Jansen, Van den Bosch and Volberda, 2005: 1000).
2 'This paper develops a holistic model of the overall process, by integrating knowledge oriented, routine oriented, and social/context of perspectives' (Hong, Easterby-Smith and Snell, 2006: 1027).
3 'This article contributes to the study of managerial agency in the absorption of new knowledge and skills ... Empirical data are drawn from a longitudinal study of a ...' (Jones, 2006: 355).
4 'We (also) examine the influence of tacit and explicit knowledge on IJV performance. We find that relational embeddedness has a stronger influence on the transfer of tacit knowledge than it has on the transfer of explicit knowledge' (Dhanaraj et al., 2004).
5 'These findings can be explained by elements of JCT and social exchange theory. As expected, when both LMX quality and empowerment were low the most negative outcomes resulted, and in general, when both variables were high the most positive outcomes resulted' (Harris, Wheeler and Kacmar, 2009: 397).
6 'Organizational routines are ubiquitous, yet their contribution to organizing has been underappreciated. Our longitudinal, inductive study traces the relationship between organizational routines and organizational schemata in a new research institution' (Rerup and Feldman, 2011: 577).
7 'This brings me to a discussion of the credibility performance of agency-client relations. In some respects the very structure of a corporation can be seen in how it arranges performances ... Like an individual, a corporation may be seen as a performer ...' (Moeran, 2005: 917).
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE MAIN TRADITIONS
Here we summarize some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. This should help the researcher to choose which methods and aspects are most likely to be of help in a given situation. In the case of quantitative methods and the positivist paradigm, the main strengths are that they can provide wide coverage of the range of situations, they can be fast and economical and, particularly when statistics are aggregated from large samples, they may be of considerable relevance to policy decisions. On the debit side, these methods tend to be rather inflexible and artificial; they are not very effective in understanding processes or the significance that people attach to actions; they are not very helpful in generating theories; and because they focus on what is, or what has been recently, they make it hard for the policy-maker to infer what changes and actions should take place in the future. In addition, much of the data gathered may not be relevant to real decisions even though it can still be used to support the covert goals of decision-makers.
The strengths and weaknesses of the social constructionist paradigm and associated quali- tative methods are fairly complementary. Thus they have strengths in their ability to look at change processes over time, to understand people's meanings, to adjust to new issues and
ideas as they emerge, and to contribute to the evolution of new theories. They also provide a way of gathering data, which is seen as natural rather than artificial. There are, of course, weaknesses. Data collection can take up a great deal of time and resources, and the analysis and interpretation of data may be very difficult, and this depends on the intimate, tacit knowl- edge of the researchers. Qualitative studies often feel very untidy because it is harder to control their pace, progress and end points. There is also the problem that many people, especially policy-makers, may give low credibility to studies based on apparently 'subjective' opinions.
It is tempting, then, to see the relativist position as a useful compromise, which can combine the strengths, and avoid the limitations, of each. But it is not that simple: the rel- ativist position is distinct and has its own strengths and weaknesses. The main strengths are that: it accepts the value of using multiple sources of data and perspectives; it enables generalizations to be made beyond the boundaries of the situation under study; and it can be conducted efficiently, for example, through outsourcing any survey work to specialized agencies. The weaknesses are that: large samples are required if results are to have cred- ibility, and this may be costly; the requirement for standardization means it may not be able to deal effectively with the cultural and institutional differences found within inter- national studies; and it may be hard to reconcile discrepant sources of data that point to different conclusions.
OVERVIEWS OF OTHER PHILOSOPHIES
Up to this point, we have reviewed the fundamental philosophical positions that under- lie the practice of management research. We have discussed and evaluated them openly in order to provide options for the researcher depending on the situation and his or her interests. However, there are also a number of discrete philosophical positions, which have been worked out as coherent schools of thought and which, to some extent, exclude other positions. We have already mentioned critical realism in passing, and this will be one of a number of positions to which numbers of social researchers will adhere. Hence it seems important to explain a little more about these philosophical frameworks since they represent relatively coherent ways of thinking, which are pro- moted by influential proponents. In this section, we cover, in alphabetical order: criti- cal realism, critical theory, feminism, hermeneutics, postmodernism, pragmatism and structuration theory.
Critical realism
Over the last two decades critical realism has been adopted by a number of management and organizational researchers because it provides a compromise position between the stronger versions of positivism and constructionism. It starts with a realist ontology, which recognizes social conditions (such as class or wealth) as having real consequences whether or not they are observed and then incorporates a relativist thread, which recognizes that social life is both generated by the actions of individuals, and also has an external impact on them (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000).
A key feature of critical realism is the idea of a 'structured ontology', which differenti- ates between three levels: the empirical domain, which comprises the experiences and perceptions that people have; the actual, which comprises events and actions that take place whether or not they are observed or detected; and the real, which comprises causal powers and mechanisms that cannot be detected directly, but which have real conse- quences for people and society (Bhaskar, 1978: 13). These three domains correspond roughly to three of our ontological positions, respectively relativism, internal realism and realism.
Two other features are important in critical realism. First is the idea that causality exists as potential, rather than the automatic correlation of events that is normally associated with strong positivism. Second is the idea, drawn partly from critical theory, that many of these underlying mechanisms do not work in the interests of ordinary people and employees, and that greater awareness of their underlying causes will provide potential for emancipation from their effects.
The implications for management research are therefore that it has an agenda which may be critical of the status quo, and also that it recognizes and differentiates between different levels of phenomena, leading to an eclectic approach to research methods. There are relatively few research studies that have adopted the methods of critical real- ism whole-heartedly, but many draw on its ideas to structure processes of data collection and analysis.
Critical theory started as an intellectual movement, also known as the Frankfurt School, which sought to critique the effects of society and technology on human development. The key figure in this movement is Habermas (1970) who argues that society leads to inequali- ties and alienation; yet this is invisible to people who do not realize what is taking place. He therefore argues that there is a degree of irrationality in capitalist society which creates a false consciousness regarding wants and needs. Thus people are seduced into wanting consumer products that they don't really need.
Habermas also identifies clear differences between the natural and social sciences: the former being based on sense experiences, and the latter on communicative experiences. This means that although understanding in the natural sciences is one-way (monologic), where scientists observe inanimate objects, in the social sciences communication should be two-way (dialogic), with both researchers and the researched trying to make sense of the situation. Hence he suggests that it is only through dialogue that social scientists will be able to work effectively. Another important point introduced by Habermas (1970) is the idea that knowledge is determined by interests and that very often it is the more power- ful people in society who determine what is regarded as 'true'. Consequently, truth should be reached through discussion and rational consensus, rather than being imposed by one group over another.
Critical theory has several implications in management and organizational research. It casts a sceptical eye on the motives and impact of powerful groups and individuals, which in an emancipatory way shows a concern for the interests of the least powerful members. Of course awareness of the way that knowledge is determined by political processes is of increasing relevance - especially within the so-called knowledge inten- sive organizations.
Feminism
Feminism is critical of the status quo, but from a very specific angle: that women's experi- ences have been undervalued by society and by scientific enquiry. From a philosophical view it contains a strong critique of science on the grounds that women's perspectives have been ignored by most scientific enquiry, in at least five aspects (Blaikie, 2007): there are very few women employed within science; there is gender bias in the definition of research problems; there is bias in the design and interpretation of research; there are too many rigid dualisms in male-dominated science; and science is not as rational and objective as it claims to be. Furthermore it is claimed that similar processes operate in the social sciences especially with structured interviews, which create a status difference between the interviewer and respondent, even when the interviewer is a woman (Cotterill, 1992). In particular it is emphasized that external knowledge is impossible and we must there- fore understand human behaviour from within, through understanding the experiences of women themselves.
There is also an emancipatory agenda to feminism, although in relation to (social) sci- ence, there is a split between epistemologies known as 'feminist empiricism' and 'feminist
standpoint'. The former assumes that the problem is not with science itself, but with the way it is conducted, therefore there is a need to rectify the norms and procedures of the natural sciences and the social sciences so that they incorporate a gendered perspective. The femi- nist standpoint, on the other hand, is more radical. It suggests that social science and its methods are fundamentally flawed, and it needs to be completely rethought. In particular, it needs to include issues of power dynamics and gender differences, and should make a far greater use of subjective experiences and the procedures of reflexivity.
The relevance of feminism to management research is not only that it provides a spot- light on the historical and continuing inequalities of women working in most organizations, but it also provides sensitivity to other areas of discrimination within organizational life, which may be caused by other factors such as race or age.
Hermeneutics
Although hermeneutics were originally developed by Protestant groups in seventeenth- century Germany as a means of interpreting the Bible, the theory still has some relevance to management research. Essentially it provides insight into ways of interpreting textual material, which can comprise both formal written texts and spoken words that can be recorded. Two of the best-known proponents of hermeneutics are Gadamer (1989) and Ricoeur (1981).
Gadamer is particularly concerned about the context within which texts are written. He points out that contemporary interpretations of earlier texts are influenced by the culture in which the interpreter is located, so in order to understand a particular text one must try to understand what is going on in the world of the writer at the time that the text is written. Ricoeur argues that when reading any text there is bound to be a gap between the author and the reader due to temporal differences - which he refers to as 'distanciation'. Ideally, there needs to be some kind of discourse between the author and the reader at the same point in time, but in the case of historical texts this is no longer possible. We therefore have to be aware that there may be no single, and correct, interpretation of a particular text, because both the writing and the reading will be context-dependent.
From the viewpoint of management research, some of the insights from herme- neutics have obvious relevance if the researcher wishes to analyse corporate documents such as annual reports. In this case, instead of, for example, conducting a content analysis of statements about the environment in annual reports for 1980, 1990 and 2000, one would need to analyse references in each report separately in relation to the social, economic and political context at each point of time. Thus the analysis would be between context-based observations, rather than simple additions and enumerations of mentions.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism first came to wide academic attention with the English publication of Jean-Franc¸oisLyotard's (1984) book, The Postmodern Condition, although the term had
been used intermittently in relation to literary criticism since 1926 (Chia, 2008). A loose cluster of other, mainly French, philosophers have been associated with the development of ideas around postmodernity, including Derrida (1978) and Foucault (1979).
There are three key ideas to postmodernism. First, it provides a critique of scientific progress, suggesting that it is not necessarily a good thing. Thus scientific progress is discon- tinuous and contested, rather than being linear and continuous. Lyotard, for example, exam- ines the impacts of computerization on the control of knowledge, and demonstrates how technology enables many large corporations to become more powerful than states. Second, it is associated with a somewhat experimental movement in architecture and the arts, which seeks to redress the excesses of modernism, for example the bleak concrete architecture of the 1960s. Thus postmodern architecture tends to be very eclectic, drawing upon different traditions and ideas, and therefore avoiding the large-scale regularity of modern architec- ture. Third, as we have discussed above, it contains an ontological position, which is opposed to realism, though it is sometimes dismissed as supporting relativism and mere nihilism.
There are several implications for management research. First, the opposition to sys- tematic control and regularity leads to an emphasis on flux and flexibility. Thus, postmod- ernists do not see organizations as static and monolithic, and this makes their perspective particularly appropriate for studying organizational dynamics and change. Second, the opposition to realism places an emphasis on the invisible elements and processes of organi- zations, including tacit knowledge and the informal processes of decision-making. Finally, postmodernism retains a critical edge and is sceptical about the role and motivation of large industrial organizations, and questions whether they are of lasting value to society.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism originated in the writings of early twentieth-century American philosophers, particularly William James ([1907] 1979) and John Dewey (1916). It is often seen as a com- promise position between internal realism and relativism: it does not accept that there are pre-determined theories or frameworks that shape knowledge and truth; nor can people construct their own truths out of nothing. The key point is that any meaning structures must come from the lived experience of individuals. Dewey, in particular, talks about the need to balance concrete and abstract on one hand, and reflection and observation on the other.
Perhaps it is no coincidence, since Dewey was an educationalist, that pragmatism has had a significant impact on theories of learning within organizations. The Kolb Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984) adopts a pragmatic approach, suggesting that learning takes place as a continual movement from concrete experience, to reflective observation, to abstract conceptualization, to active experimentation and back to concrete experience. It is also consistent with the original thinking of James that organizational theorists have adopted elements of pragmatism because it offers a synthesis between features often regarded as irreconcilable dualisms, such as positivism and anti-positivism (Brandi and Elkjaer, 2008).
Pragmatism is a valuable perspective in management research because it focuses on processes that are particularly relevant to studies of knowledge and learning, and its impact on methods can be seen in the tradition and methods of grounded theory, which we will discuss in some detail in the next chapter.
Structuration theory
Structuration theory is most associated with the work of Anthony Giddens (1984), where he develops the idea of 'duality of structure', in that structure and agency should not be regarded as pre-ordained. Instead, he suggests that structures are created and recreated through social action and the agency of individuals, and structure then guides and con- strains individual agency. Hence, there is a continual interaction between social structure and social action.
Philosophically, he is at pains to point out that the laws of science and social science are fundamentally different, because the former are potentially universal, while the latter depend upon the context (including both structure and action) in which things are taking place. He is also concerned about the use of language, pointing out that words are not pre- cisely 'representational', and their use depends on agreement about their meaning, which may be the product of debates and reinterpretations. Because language is essentially prob- lematic he therefore advocates that social scientists should try to avoid specialist language, because it potentially obscures and creates confusion for outsiders. In order to commu- nicate insights from social science he suggests that social scientists should attempt to use common sense language in the normal course of their work.
From the viewpoint of management research, structuration theory has relevance to understanding the relationships between employees and the organizations within which they work, or between communications and the information systems that are supposed to facilitate them. In other words, it can throw light on aspects of organizations where there is some kind of structural duality.
Overview
In figure 2.1 we provide a sketch of how these six philosophies relate to each other against the basic ontological dimension introduced earlier in this chapter. The positions are intended to be indicative rather than precise mappings.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have concentrated on philosophies that underlie management research, and our main aim has been to help the reader identify philosophical assumptions underlying other people's work, and to understand how they might influence and assist his or her own research endeavours. At this point we can emphasize four key points/lessons:
All researchers hold philosophical assumptions, although these are often tacit rather than explicit positions.
Researchers need to be aware of their own philosophical assumptions.
The strongest philosophical contrast is between realist and nominalist ontologies.
There is often correspondence between ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies.
So far, the discussion has been inevitably theoretical. In the next chapter we will start to work on how these philosophical positions influence specific research methods, and will provide a number of illus- trations and practical exercises to assist in developing your own research plans or designs.