Assignment: Operative Paradigm

Operative Paradigm

by

DBA. Learner

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of

BADM 702 Foundations of Doctoral Research

DATE

Address:	.
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Instructor:
Mentor:

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a personal "operative paradigm" based on a review of the paradigmatic assumptions and concepts involved in each of the three basic methodological approaches in organization and management research. First, a brief review of the three basic methodological approaches in organization and management research is conducted. Second, the preferred personal "operative paradigm" is covered based on the following components: assumptions, concepts, propositions, hypotheses, variables, and operational definitions.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….

Three Methodological Assumptions and Concepts……………………………………………….

My Operative Paradigm…………………………………………………………………………...

Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………………….

Concepts…………………………………………………………………………………………

Propositions………………………………………………………………………………………

Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………………….

Variables………………………………………………………………………………………

Operational Definitions………………………………………………………………………….

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….

References……………………………………………………………………………………….

Three Methodological Assumptions and Concepts

There are three basic methodological approaches in organization and management research according to Arbnor and Bjerke (1997). There are underlying paradigmatic assumptions and concepts in each of the three basic methodological approaches. According to Gephart (1999), the three paradigms or worldviews, which are prominent in contemporary social research, are positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory/postmodernism. Positivism guides the analytical approach, interpretivism guides the systems approach, and critical theory/ postmodernism guides the actors approach. Positivism has become a dominant institutional form in social research while interpretivism and critical theory/postmodernism are increasingly common in management and organizational scholarship but because of their relative newness in application, they are not so well understood (Gephart, 1999).

Arbnor and Bjerke (1997) view the concept of the operative paradigm as a bridge between a methodological approach and a study area. In other words, paradigms are important in how researchers create knowledge about reality. In accordance with the positivist paradigm, the analytical methodological approach attempts to explain knowledge. The researcher assumes it is an objective world which science can 'mirror' with privileged knowledge. In accordance with the interpretivist paradigm, the systems methodological approach assumes it is an intersubjective world, which science can represent with concepts of actors and the social construction of reality. In accordance with the critical theory/postmodernist paradigm, the actors methodological approach assumes that “reality” is structured of contradictions and/or exploitation, which can be objectively known only by removing tacit ideological biases.

Each of the three methodologies is driven by key assumptions. The analytical approach assumes that reality is objective, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, knowledge does not depend on individuals, and parts are explained by verified judgments. The systems approach assumes that much of reality is objectively accessible, that the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts, knowledge depends on interdependent systems, and parts are explained (sometimes understood) by the characteristics of the whole. The actors approach assumes that reality is a social construction, the whole exists only as a meaning of structures that are socially constructed, knowledge depends on individuals, and the whole is understood via the actor's finite provinces of meaning.

In assessing the productivity of the three approaches over the years, Arbnor and Bjerke (1997) have noted that the social sciences have used the analytical approach to accumulate an impressive number of empirical theses to create a significant body of knowledge. But in recent years, the research guided by systems and actors approaches has been increasing in frequency in order to address the gaps in analytical research designs (Mohrman reference here).

The basic paradigmatic assumptions of the analytical approach are to determine a problem, to describe, to explain, to forecast, and to guide. Similar to the analytical approach the basic paradigmatic assumptions of the systems approach are to determine a type of system, to describe, to determine relations, to forecast, and to guide. Contrary to the analytical and the systems approaches the basic paradigmatic assumptions of the actors approach are to denote the conceptual meaning of social phenomena, which can be actors based, structurally based, or dialectically based.

A key strength of the analytical approach is that it strives to find causes that are independent of each other. A vulnerability of the analytical approach is that there is a chance that the effect in question will not take place in the given situation even if the causes are present. A key strength of the systems approach is its synergistic effect. In other words, to discover not only the content of the individual components, but also the way they are put together and interrelate. A vulnerability of the systems approach is that it is not possible to remove any of the factors from a systems picture without risking that the total picture will be seriously affected. A key strength of the actors approach is the appreciation of the symbolic meaning of a shared reality, because the parts that are held in common by the group, organization or entire society constitutes common parts of reality for the inclusive group. A vulnerability of the actors approach is as we continuously reinterpret the sets of meaning that are in play in these relations the meaning tends to become ambiguous. The future of these three methodologies in creating management theory is promising as scholar-practitioners come closer to developing a language for understanding the relationship between the methodological approach and the area to be studied.

A Personal Operative Paradigm

My operative paradigm, or worldview regarding management and organization research, is prominent in contemporary social research. I have come to understand that my view of research has been influenced by the positivist paradigm. Auguste Comte (1789-1857) introduced the "positive" paradigm, which held that social behavior could be studied and understood in a rational and scientific manner in contrast to explanations based in religion or superstition. Sometimes the positivist view is extended to the assumption that human beings act rationally in their daily lives. Post positivism is a view that stresses that observation and measurement cannot be as purely objective as implied by the positivistic image of science. Arbnor and Bjerke state that theorists of science use the paradigm concept to describe basic philosophical conceptions that are of importance to practical research, consulting, and/or investigation (p.14, 1997).

Assumptions

The positivist paradigm assumes an objective world which science can 'mirror' with privileged knowledge. The goal of the paradigm is to uncover truth and facts as quantitatively specified relations among variables. The types of analysis used include experiments; questionnaires; secondary data analysis; quantitatively coded documents; statistical analysis; scaling; and structural equation modeling. Qualitative analysis can also be utilized with grounded theory testing in the positivist paradigm. The positivist paradigm and the analytical approach share key assumptions such as, reality is objective, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, knowledge does not depend on individuals, and parts are explained by verified judgments. Arbnor and Bjerke state because the social world is perceived as equally tangible, concrete, and real by the creator of knowledge, and just as independent of the observer as the natural world that reality becomes an external and objective phenomenon, which allows it to be accurately measured and observed (p.25, 1997). In other words, this means once the researcher gets to know, measures, or observes the different parts of the whole, and then the parts may be combined to get a total picture.

Positivism assumes that the world is objective and therefore within this paradigm the researcher often searches for facts among correlations and associations between variables. Post positivism is an evolution stemming from positivism. Post positivism and positivism are consistent in the assumption that an objective world exists, but at the same time aware that what is captured in the study of variable relations or facts may only be probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. Because of the probabilistic nature of research results in positivism there is a focus on falsification, rather than verification given the complexity of real world organizational behavior problems. Furthermore, it is at times impossible to assess all the possible variables to determine or verify a relationship among variables.

Grounded theory is being utilized more often now, as post positivists try to assess variables and the relationships among the variables in circumstances where quantitative measurement and statistical controls are not possible. Although, grounded theory in post positivism, is still aimed at confirmation, validation, or falsification of hypotheses to uncovering relationships among variables. This is contrary to the use of grounded theory in interpretive research in which case, it is applied to understand important distinctions and patterns to reveal meanings.

Concepts

Researchers using the analytical approach within the positivist paradigm use the following concepts: reality and models; causal relations; explanations and hypotheses; deduction, induction, and verification; operational definitions; the concept of analysis; and ceteris paribus ('other things being equal') according to Arbnor and Bjerke (p.81, 1997).

Propositions

Propositions in the positivist paradigm take the form of statements that affirm or deny something. According to Arbnor and Bjerke (1997), scientists wanted to make the criterion loose enough to incorporate all the possibilities of creating knowledge, therefore to positivists, falsification became the acceptable means to verify a statement.

Hypotheses

The positivist paradigm uses verified hypotheses involving valid, reliable and precisely measured variables. The hypothesis is an expectation about the nature of thing derived from theory. It is a statement about something that should be observed in the real world if the theory is correct. Therefore hypothesis testing and verification, as is utilized in the positivist paradigm, is to determine whether the expectations that a hypothesis represents are indeed found to exist in the real world. Verified hypotheses involving valid, reliable and precisely measured variables

are the most used designs because casual studies are conducted to detect causal relationships and correlational studies are geared toward understanding certain relationships whether descriptive (trying to describe certain phenomena at the workplace) or analytical (focusing on testing hypotheses). These research designs are most closely associated with the analytical methodological approach. The basic paradigmatic assumptions of the analytical approach are to determine a problem, to describe, to explain, to forecast, and to guide. Thus the positivist focus on experimental and quantitative methods used to test and verify hypotheses have been superceded or complemented to some extent by an interest in using qualitative methods to gather broader information outside of readily measured variables.

Variables

Variables are logical groupings of attributes. In the positivist paradigm theories describe relationships that may be logically expected among variables. Often this expectation is causal in nature or involves the notion of causation. Therefore, a person's attributes on one variable are expected to cause, predispose, or encourage a particular attribute on another variable. It is the aim of the analytical methodological approach to discover and interpret relationships among variables. In the construction of a theory in the positivist paradigm, the researcher would derive an expectation about the relationship between the two variable based on what we know about each variable. The theory is constructed of variable language describing the associations that might be logically expected to exist between particular attributes of different variables. In hypothesis testing and in tests of statistical significance, the positivist researcher may conclude that two variables are related after having statistically rejected the null hypothesis.

Operational Definitions

Operationalization in the positivist paradigm is one step beyond conceptualization. In other words, operationalization is the process of developing operational defininitions. An operational definition is the concrete and specific definition of something in terms of the operations by which observations are to be categorized and/or measured. In the positivist paradigm, a feature of the scientific method is the search for evidence based on observation as the basis for knowledge. The term empirical refers to this valuing of observation-based evidence. Therefore, the scientific method seeks truth through observed evidence not through authority, tradition or ideology. According to Arbnor and Bjerke because the social world is perceived as equally tangible, concrete, and real by the creator of knowledge, and just as independent of the observer as the natural world, reality becomes an external and objective phenomenon that allows itself to be accurately measured and observed (p. 25, 1997). Creating knowledge in this category usually takes the form of controlled experiments or surveys that consider only manifest phenomena or phenomena that is possible to describe and or observe. Therefore definitions should be made as operational or measurable as possible. Objective measurements are ideal in the positivist paradigm and analytical methodological approach.

Conclusion

Increasingly, grounded theory is being used by post-positivists to examine and assess variables and their relationships in situations where quantitative measurement and statistical controls are not possible. It is important to note however that the uses of grounded theory in post-positivism are oriented to confirmation and validation or falsification of hypotheses and to uncovering or surfacing relationships among variables, in contrast to uses of grounded theory in interpretive research where it is applied to understand important distinctions and patterns in members' meanings. One can expect that in future, post-positivists will remain concerned with developing methods which preserve contexts and broader meanings associated with data, and in general to try to develop approaches to deal with the other problems with positivist methods which interpretivists and critical postmodernists have identified.

References

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Babbie, E. (2000). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gephart, R. (1999, summer). Paradigms and research methods. Research Methods Forum 4. Retreived October 8, 2003, from http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Mohrman…