What Does It Mean to be Objective?

Research_Methodology_A_Project_Guide_for_Universit..._----_Pages_51_to_75.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >What Does It Mean to be Objective?

51C h A P t e r 4

r e f e r e n c e s

References are very important. They establish the credibility of your arguments and indicate their main sources. Social science research- ers have developed standard procedures for writing references. If your references deviate very much from the standard guidelines, this will reduce the quality of the project. This section of the chapter provides you with some guidelines on how to write references.

References can be classified into two types. There are citations in the text (or footnotes) and there is a list of references or biliography at the end of the project. Most universities recommend that students use the Harvard style citation. I have provided some examples of the Harvard style referencing below as a guide.

fIf the article or book you are referencing is written by one author, you must list the author’s name and the year of publication, as in the example below.

Kuada (1994) suggests that culture impacts managerial behaviour.

fIf you are quoting the exact words from the author, you must add the page on which the quote appears, as shown below:

Kuada (1994:50) states that “an individual manager’s behaviour will be determined by influences from his socio-cultural and organizatio- nal environment”.

fIf the reference is from two or three authors, you must write the last names of the all the authors followed by the year of publica- tion, as shown in the example below:

Kuada, John, and John Kuada. Research Methodology : A Project Guide for University Students, Samfundslitteratur, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/indwes/detail.action?docID=3400854. Created from indwes on 2021-03-31 17:40:16.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

52 s t r u C t u r e o F y o u r P r o j e C t r e P o r t

Kuada and Sørensen (2000) suggest that internationalization of firms can be viewed from both upstream and downstream perspec- tives.

fIf the reference is from three or more authors, you write the last name of the first author followed by et al (in italics) and the year of publication. But you must remember to write the names of all the authors when preparing the list of references at the end of the report. See the example in the box below.

Blumberg et al. (2005) provide a detailed discussion of mixed met- hods research.

You must present a list of all the references you have used in your project at the end of the report. The list must be presented in alpha- betical order using the last names of the authors. The bibliography at the end of this book illustrates how to write your list of references.

C i t i n g s o u r c e s f r o m t h e I n t e r n e t

There are no major differences between citing an Internet source and citing a book or a journal article, but you must remember to in- clude the URL (the Web site address) at the end of the citation, fol- lowed by the date of access (i.e., the date you accessed the Internet source). It is advisable to copy and paste the URL to be sure that the address you have given is accurate. Most supervisors are uncomfort- able with citations of documents for which no authors have been named. Please check with your supervisor if you intend to use such sources, and receive a clearance from him or her before you do so. Furthermore, some supervisors do not consider Wikipedia a reliable source that students can use. Again, check this with your supervisor.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

53C h A P t e r 4

d e C I d I n g o n t h e C o n t e n t s o F y o u r C h A P t e r s A n d P A r A g r A P h s

The list of questions presented in box 4.3 can provide you with some guidelines on how to structure the chapters and paragraphs in your project.

B o x 4 . 3 . g u i d e l i n e s f o r s t r u c t u r i n g C h a p t e r s a n d P a r a g r a p h s

▶ What kinds of information should we present in the chapter we are now writing?

▶ What is the relationship between this chapter and other chapters in the report?

▶ Have we drawn the reader's attention to the content and struc- ture of the chapter?

▶ Can we justify the inclusion of the ideas and materials we are pre- senting (i.e., how detailed should the presentation be)?

▶ Has the central point come out clearly in our writing? ▶ Has the discussion in the chapter covered the mainstream view-

points on the issue, or have we been too narrow in our selection of viewpoints?

▶ Are we critical enough in this presentation, or are we merely re- producing other peoples' viewpoints without a critical assess- ment of their relevance to the issues we are investigating?

▶ Have we made our personal standpoints on these issues clear enough in the paragraphs, sections, and the whole chapter?

k e y P o I n t s

This chapter highlights the importance of project structure. A well- structured project helps readers follow the arguments that students make and identifies the common thread that links the arguments and the logical progression of thoughts underlining them. A good structure also helps you remain focused throughout the writing pro- cess and therefore helps to save time. You must pay attention to the following:

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

54 s t r u C t u r e o F y o u r P r o j e C t r e P o r t

fSpend sufficient time on planning the structure of the project. fBe critical about what you write. The number of pages you write is not the main criterion for assessing the quality of your project. fAlways make sure that what you write contributes to addressing the research issues your project seeks to investigate.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

PA r t 2 P r o j e C t d e s I g n A n d t h e o r e t I C A l

P l At F o r m

The research design is imperative to any academic research and, for that matter, a university student’s project. It is the link between the research issues, the theories, the methods, and the results of the pro- ject. An important aspect of this link is the paradigmatic grounding of the project.

Part two introduces some of the key issues you must bear in mind when designing your project and choosing your theories and meth- ods. It explains some of the fundamental concepts in the philosophy of science and how these concepts can guide you in making appro- priate choices and adopting a scientific approach to your project. It consists of three chapters. Chapter five discusses how important re- search design is to your project. Chapter six informs you about the different types of theories in social science and the role of theories in your project. Chapter seven discusses metatheories, paradigms, and philosophy of science, and how they can help you write a good pro- ject.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

57C h A P t e r 5

ChAP T ER 5 r e s e A r C h d e s I g n

I n t r o d u C t I o n

Research design is the action plan or blueprint of your research. It should provide a logical sequence of activities that allows the reader of your project to see the connections between the research ques- tions that you have posed in the introductory chapter of the project, the approach that you adopt to address the questions, the assump- tions underlying your approach, how you collect and analyse your data, as well as your findings and conclusions. These choices require careful deliberation.

As we shall see in chapter seven, the metatheoretical (or paradig- matic) foundation of the project has a strong influence on the overall strategy of the project. But you are allowed to use whatever strate- gies, methods, or empirical materials at hand in order to fulfil the objectives of your investigations. That is, you can piece together and combine methods that serve your research purpose. The important thing for you to do is to explain what you have done and why you have made the various choices in your research design. You must also be aware of the limitations that various choices impose on your research, and discuss these limitations in your project.

This chapter draws attention to the fundamental concepts used in the literature to describe the issues that you should consider with re- gard to research design. It also provides you with guidelines on how to decide on an appropriate research approach.

t h e F o u r l e v e l s o F u n d e r s t A n d I n g

Most research methodology textbooks in social science identify four

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

58 r e s e A r C h d e s I g n

levels in a research design process. These levels feed into each other as illustrated in figure 5.1.

Philosophical/Theoretical Viewpoints Discussing issues of ontology

Epistemological Choice Views on how knowledge about the research should be understood

Methodological Decisions Discussion of overall approach to the researh

Choice of Methods and Techniques Description of data collection tools and reasons for their choice

F i g . 5 .1 . S t r u c t u r e a n d L e v e l s o f D i s c u s s i o n i n a M e t h o d o l o g y C h a p t e r

l e v e l 1 : t h e P h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l Ontology is a term used by philosophy of science scholars to describe the nature of what the researcher seeks to know (i.e., the “knowable” or “reality”). The social world that social science scholars investigate is usually seen from two broad perspectives. For some scholars the social world is real and external to an individual human being and therefore imposes itself on his or her consciousness. Other scholars hold the view that every individual creates his or her own social

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

59C h A P t e r 5

world. To these scholars the social world is subjectively constructed and therefore a product of human cognition.

Ontology also relates to how researchers see the relationship be- tween human beings and their environment (i.e., a researcher’s view of human nature). Some researchers see the social environment as being outside the individual. Other researchers hold the view that human beings and the social environment codetermine each other.

In sum, assumptions that you make about human beings and the environment will define your perception of reality. This perception, in turn, underlies what you will consider as a truth and how knowl- edge about this truth should be acquired.

l e v e l 2 : e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l e v e l

Epistemology is a term that describes the nature of knowledge and the means of knowing (i.e., “how we know what we know” or what we conceive as a truth). Some scholars hold the view that it is possi- ble (as external observers) to know the truth about a specific social world. Others maintain that the social world can only be under- stood by occupying the frame of reference of the individual actor whom the researcher seeks to study; that is, the social world must be studied intersubjectively.

l e v e l 3 : m e t h o d o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h

Methodology describes the reasons underlying the choice and use of specific methods in the research process (i.e., how you may go about gaining the knowledge you desire). If you assume that the social world can be objectively observed from outside, you will adopt a methodology that focuses on an examination of relationships, but if you assume that the social world can only be understood by obtain- ing first-hand knowledge of the persons under investigation, you will opt for a methodology that focuses on individuals’ interpreta- tions of the world as they experience it.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

60 r e s e A r C h d e s I g n

l e v e l 4 : m e t h o d s a n d te c h n i q u e s

This level requires you to describe the specific data collection meth- ods and techniques you adopt in your study. You must also inform your readers about the problems you faced in the data collection process and how you solved these problems. For example, if you choose to conduct interviews, you must indicate what interviewing techniques you have used and in what sort of setting the interviews have been conducted. You must also show the link between the methods selected and the problem formulation, as well as the con- sistency between the methods and the three levels of understanding described above (i.e., the ontological perspectives, the epistemologi- cal considerations, and the methodological approaches) (see Crotty, 1998 for elaboration).

e x C l u s I v e v e r s u s C o m P l e m e n t A r y A P P r o A C h e s

There is a controversy in the research methodology literature as to whether researchers can see reality only from an objective (i.e., ex- ternal) or subjective (i.e., socially constructed) perspective, or whether reality can be seen from both perspectives in the same pro- ject. In other words, should researchers consider the two views of re- ality as mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot be combined) or should researchers see them as complementary (i.e., their combinations are useful and insightful)? As indicated above, the way you view reality will influence other aspects of your research design.

Following Rossman and Wilson (1985), researchers can be grouped into three categories, depending on their views on reality. One category of researchers holds the view that the objective and subjective perspectives on reality are mutually exclusive. In other words, the root assumptions on which each of the two perspectives is grounded are very different and must not be blended. Researchers adopting this viewpoint are labelled purists in the literature.

Another category of researchers adopt a flexible attitude to the two perspectives. These researchers argue that all social phenomena

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

61C h A P t e r 5

have many sides and interpretations. It is therefore useful to com- bine both objective and subjective perspectives on reality in a single research project in order to gain a deeper insight into the research issue that is being studied. In other words, the objective and subjec- tive perspectives are best seen as points on a continuum rather than as alternative perspectives. But the degree of emphasis on objective or subjective dimensions of reality must depend on every research situation. In some research situations, researchers may lean more to- ward objectivist views of reality; in some situations, the subjective views may be preferable; and in other situations, some combination of objectivist and subjectivist views of reality may be appropriate. Researchers endorsing this view are labelled situationalists in the lit- erature.

The third category of researchers holds the view that the nature of research issues and the objectives of an investigation should deter- mine the view of reality that a researcher adopts. These researchers are labelled pragmatists. They neither accept nor reject the notion that the two perspectives on reality can be combined or used sepa- rately. They simply say that the nature of the research task rather than the research situation must decide what view of reality you may consider to be appropriate. Some tasks are suitable for an objectivist view of reality while other tasks may be suitable for a subjectivist view. If your problem formulation shows that an objective or a sub- jective perspective of reality is appropriate, you must make a choice. Furthermore, you may also combine two or more views of reality in a single project if the problem formulation shows that a combination of views is appropriate in providing the best insight.

One can say that there are simply nuanced differences between the situationalist and the pragmatist researcher, but while the situa- tionalist may be more inclined to use a combination of perspectives in a given project, the pragmatist is more likely to select one per- spective (without rejecting a combined approach). The purist, on the other hand, rejects combinations under all circumstances.

The discussions above suggest that you need to state explicitly if

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

62 r e s e A r C h d e s I g n

your understanding of reality (and how to apply it in research) fol- lows the views of a purist, a situationalist, or a pragmatist. You must also provide arguments that justify your views and discuss them with your supervisor.

k e y P o I n t s

This chapter emphasises the need for you to develop a comprehen- sive strategy for your research. The results you obtain from your in- vestigations will depend on your views on the following four issues:

fHow reality must be perceived (i.e., objective or subjective, or a combination of both) fHow you should go about acquiring knowledge about that reality fWhether you are interested in finding universal truths in your study or seeking to gain unique understanding and interpreta- tions of the social reality you investigate fThe specific methods and techniques you adopt to gain that knowledge

You need to reflect upon and discuss which of these views you sub- scribe to and how your choices will influence the results of your study.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

63C h A P t e r 6

ChAP T ER 6 t h e r o l e o F t h e o r I e s I n y o u r P r o j e C t

I n t r o d u C t I o n

An important requirement in your project work is that you must demonstrate a good understanding of what other people have writ- ten about the issues central to your own investigation; that is, your project must be grounded in existing knowledge about your subject. To do so, you need to review the existing literature that is relevant to your problem statements. The literature review forms the theoretical foundation of your study.

Some students find this literature review to be unnecessary, par- ticularly if they are much more interested in solving what they con- sider to be mainly a practical business, social, or institutional prob- lem. It is true that your future employers will be much more inter- ested in practical and workable solutions to the problems that you face at work, but the PBL approach to education is that good knowl- edge of the existing theories in a particular field of study will im- prove students’ understanding and analysis of the specific issues that they will be confronted with in real-life situations.

The aim of this chapter is therefore to emphasise the importance of theories and to draw your attention to the various types of theo- ries that exist in the social science literature. It also discusses the roles that theories play in solving social science problems and pro- vides you with some guidelines on how to conduct your literature review.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

64 t h e r o l e o F t h e o r I e s I n y o u r P r o j e C t

w h A t I s A t h e o r y ?

The meaning of the word theory varies with the context in which it is used. In social science, theories may be defined as series of sys- tematic inter-related statements or generalisations that explain and/ or anticipate developments in a specific context or phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1998:15) define theory as “a set of well-devel- oped concepts related through statements of relationship which to- gether constitute an integrated framework that can be used to ex- plain or predict phenomena”.

Thus, theory provides the language, the concepts, and assump- tions that help researchers to make sense of the phenomenon that they seek to investigate. It enables researchers to connect the issues they are investigating to the existing body of knowledge in the area.

C l A s s I F I C A t I o n o F t h e o r I e s

There are different classifications of theories in the social science lit- erature. One of the well-known classifications identifies the follow- ing four levels of theory:

fMetatheories fGrand theories fMidrange theories fMicrotheories

Metatheories describe the broad philosophical assumptions con- cerning reality that are accepted in social science as clearly demar- cated boundaries of thought in a particular field of study. An adop- tion of a metatheoretical position in particular research therefore implies commitment of the researcher to conceptual assumptions underlying that metatheory. For example, cultural studies are usu- ally based on different metatheoretical assumptions. Some scholars conceive culture as a component of a social system aimed at fulfill-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

65C h A P t e r 6

ing specific social functions (i.e., a functionalist perspective of cul- ture); others see it as a product of historical evolution (i.e., social dif- fusionist perspective); yet others see it as an outcome of human cog- nition (i.e., ideational perspective). See Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) for an elaboration.

As indicated in chapter five, these assumptions are embedded in the ontological, epistemological, and methodological views of the researcher. In other words, metatheories serve the following pur- poses:

1. clarifying the general assumptions underlying a subject matter; 2. specifying the important problems faced in undertaking investi-

gations; 3. and specifying what are acceptable methods.

The concept of metatheories is frequently used interchangeably with the concept of paradigm (see chapter seven).

A grand theory is defined as an all-inclusive unified theory that seeks to explain social behaviour, social organization, and social change in human experience. It normally provides the key concepts and principles of the social science discipline and is therefore con- sistent with the dominant metatheories or paradigms of the disci- pline. For example, grand theory in economics defines the laws of scarcity and needs as well as the relationship between demand, sup- ply, and pricing. Feminism, marxism, and democracy are also grand theories in political science with crossdisciplinary implications for other social science disciplines.

Grand theories may also be found in specific fields of study. For example, one grand theory in cultural studies is that there are uni- versally identifiable dimensions of culture that can be found in all societies and groups. Cultures can therefore be compared on the ba- sis of these universal dimensions and the manner in which they evolve over time in the history of a society (see Hofstede, 2001). An

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

66 t h e r o l e o F t h e o r I e s I n y o u r P r o j e C t

alternative grand theory is that culture is socially constructed and continuously negotiated among groups of people. As such it cannot be studied by using universal dimensions (see Gullestrup, 2006).

Midrange theory is a term that emerged in sociological studies in the 1940s (frequently associated with the work of Robert K. Merton). It represents theories that connect grand theories with empirical ev- idence. It consists of limited sets of assumptions from which specific hypotheses are logically derived and confirmed by empirical investi- gation (see Merton, 1968). Thus, when you engage in literature re- view, you are mostly discussing midrange theories. For example, if you adopt a universalist approach to cultural studies, you will re- view the works of scholars that have adopted this approach in spe- cific empirical investigations and use their findings to justify your hypothesis formulation. Similarly, if you adopt a social constructiv- ist approach to your cultural research, you will justify your argu- ments by using studies that have adopted this approach.

As students you can aspire to develop midrange theories, as a way of providing general statements from your empirical investigations, if your research design enables you to do so. In doing so you will be contributing to the extension of the existing boundaries of your spe- cific fields of research and at the same time deepening your under- standings of the core content of the subjects that you are studying.

Microtheories constitute the lowest level of theories. They focus on individuals or small groups located in specific contexts. As such ex- planations found in microtheories are of limited generalization on their own. They can, however, constitute essential inputs in the gen- eration of new perspectives and theory development. Some scholars use case studies to generate microtheories that are then further de- veloped through multiple case studies to become important inputs in midrange theory formulation.

Again, continuing with the example with cultural studies, you may undertake an investigation of the culture of a sports organisa- tion (e.g., a football club) in a particular community. You may gain a good understanding of how the culture of that club has developed

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

67C h A P t e r 6

over time and how it has influenced the accepted rules of behaviour in the club. Though this investigation cannot be generalized across all football clubs in a particular country, it can produce useful in- puts into how football clubs in small communities may be investi- gated.

Your awareness of the differences in the levels of theory informs your readers that you understand the nuances in the research you are doing. This also helps in positioning your own work within the existing body of work in the field.

u s e o F t h e o r I e s

Theories are found in the literature that you read. Each of the levels of theory listed above will play a different role in your project. The metatheories define the philosophical foundations of your project (i.e., paradigms as discussed in chapter seven). The grand theories define the boundaries of your subject of investigation. They combine with the metatheories to establish the platform on which you will base your research. But much of the discussion in your theoretical chapters will draw on midrange theories. Through studying previ- ous work done on your topic, you will become acquainted with the mainstream concepts used in the literature to describe your problem and its constituent elements. Thus, when you do your literature re- view you are mostly engaged in a discussion of midrange theories.

Midrange theories can also be used to develop variables to ana- lyse and the connections between them: an analytical framework. They therefore help you identify what kind of information you re- quire for the analysis and what is the most appropriate means of ac- quiring this information. Without such an analytical framework you will risk drowning in a sea of information, since you will be un- able to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant.

There are, however, many competing theories within each subject area. An essential task in the project work process is for you to dis- cuss most of the leading theories that attempt to explain the prob-

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

68 t h e r o l e o F t h e o r I e s I n y o u r P r o j e C t

lem of interest, comparing the strengths of the arguments underly- ing them and their empirical foundation. In this process of discus- sion, it is important to draw on the views of other writers in the field who have undertaken similar investigations. Such discussions will sharpen your understanding of the theories as well as their limita- tions in explaining the problems you are investigating.

All the theories that you use in your research need not be dis- cussed in a single chapter. If you decide to use multiple sets of theo- ries, each set can be discussed in a separate chapter. You can then write another separate chapter to synthesise the discussions in the preceeding theoretical chapters and use this chapter to present your overall analytical framework for the project.

g u I d e l I n e s F o r l I t e r A t u r e r e v I e w

It is important for you to read the most recent literature that reflects the most recent knowledge on the topic you choose to write on. It is also important to read published studies in journals in addition to textbooks. Box 6.1 provides a list of questions that can guide you in your review of the existing literature.

B o x 6 .1 . g u i d e l i n e s f o r l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w

▶ What are the main concepts and ideas in the book or article that I have read?

▶ Do the author's ideas agree with or corroborate ideas I have come across in other articles or books? Or do the ideas differ from them? What are the points of agreement and/or differen- ces?

▶ How do I explain the differences in the viewpoints? ▶ Is there any agreement among the authors on the definition of

concepts and angles of perception? ▶ Which of these concepts, ideas, and conclusions do I find rele-

vant to our own work and why?

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

69C h A P t e r 6

In reviewing the literature, three main factors need to be carefully examined:

fThe date of publication and the years in which the researcher has collected the data used. fThe country in which the study has been conducted (if it is an em- pirical piece of work). fThe metatheoretical approach adopted by the researcher and the data collection methods used (see chapter seven for elaboration).

Remember that what you read in previous studies is usually a snap- shot of the phenomenon that other researchers have investigated— in other words, what they have found in a given context and at a given point in time. Since you are likely to use the knowledge in that study within a different timeframe, it is important for you to exam- ine the validity and relevance of the knowledge at the time of the publication of the article or book that you have read.

The research setting (i.e., the country where the writer collected his or her data) is also important to note since it provides an idea about the context of the knowledge presented. For example, a study done about export promotion in an African country may not reflect requirements for export sector development in Denmark.

k e y P o I n t s

The theory chapters in your project are essential. They serve the fol- lowing purposes:

fThey demonstrate your understanding of the current body of knowledge in your chosen field of study. fThey provide you with a philosophical foundation on which you can ground your study. fThey constitute an important part of the overall research design of the project.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

70 t h e r o l e o F t h e o r I e s I n y o u r P r o j e C t

Remember that there are different levels of theory in the literature. This chapter has drawn your attention to metatheories, grand theo- ries, midrange theories, and microtheories. These levels of theory play different roles in your study.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

71C h A P t e r 7

ChAP T ER 7 m e tAt h e o r I e s , PA r A d I g m s , A n d P h I l o s o P h y o F s C I e n C e

I n t r o d u C t I o n

Philosophy of science scholars have argued that whether or not a re- searcher is aware of it, and whether or not assumptions are stated, the choice of research questions and the presumed adequacy of re- search methods in addressing such questions conveys an adherence to fundamental prior assumptions relating to ontology, epistemol- ogy, views on human nature, and methodology (see chapter five). Researchers that explicitly articulate these assumptions help them- selves in reflecting on their work and help their readers to make bet- ter sense of it. The concept of paradigm is now accepted in the phi- losophy of science literature as providing a summary description of these assumptions. Thus, the concept of paradigm is often used in- terchangeably with metatheory.

The aim of this chapter is to provide you with an overview of some of the most widely adopted classifications of paradigms. They should help you to understand assumptions underlying the argu- ments in the research papers and books that you read in connection with your project. They also provide you with inspirations for devel- oping your own assumptions. In this way you will be able to ground your own study on solid philosophical foundations, by building on established academic traditions and thoughts.

t h e C o n C e P t o F P A r A d I g m

In its modern usage, the term paradigm is attributed to Kuhn (1970) who presented a theory of the structure of scientific revolutions to

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

72 m e t A t h e o r I e s , P A r A d I g m s , A n d P h I l o s o P h y o F s C I e n C e

describe waves of research in a given scientific field. Kuhn argues that every field of research is characterised by a set of common un- derstandings of what kind of phenomenon is being studied, the kinds of questions that are useful to ask about the phenomenon, how researchers should structure their approach to answering their research questions, and how the results should be interpreted. These common characteristics constitute a paradigm. He argues further that science does not progress only from a gradual accumulation of facts, but also by successive waves of thought that fundamentally re- frame ideas. These ideas may be overlapping in the short run, but over time they tend to alter the nature of what researchers take to be facts. As previously stated, most scholars of philosophy of science define paradigms in terms of four sets of assumptions: ontological, epistemological, methodological, and assumptions about human na- ture (see chapter five).

o B j e C t I v e - s u B j e C t I v e P e r s P e C t I v e s I n s o C I A l s C I e n C e

The discussions of paradigms in social science have been influenced by a general distinction between objective and subjective approaches to research, which Andersen (1990) sees as two polar perspectives. He labels them as the positivistic paradigm and the interpretive para- digm, respectively. Burrell and Morgan (1979) compare the two di- vergent perspectives in terms of their ontology, epistemology, hu- man nature, and methodology. The differences are presented in fig- ure 7.1.

dimensions the objeCtivist approaCh

the subjeCtivist approaCh

ontology Realism Nominalism

epistemology Positivism Antipositivism

human nature Determinism Voluntarism

methodology Nomothetic Idiographic

F i g . 7.1 . T h e O b j e c t i v i s t - S u b j e c t i v i s t D i s p o s i t i o n s i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

73C h A P t e r 7

Following Fast and Clark (1998), realism postulates that the social world is real and external to individual cognition; that is, the world is made up of hard, tangible, and relatively immutable structures. Nominalism, on the other hand, assumes that reality is constructed by individuals in interaction with each other and is presented in the form of names, labels, and concepts. One can therefore speak of multiple realities in social science.

Positivism reflects an epistemology that seeks to explain and pre- dict what happens in the social world with an emphasis on regulari- ties and causal relationships between its constituent elements. The positivist researcher believes that any social science researcher can be objective and conduct his or her investigations as an external ob- server. He or she can therefore study the constituent parts of a social phenomenon in order to understand the whole; that is, the positivist looks for regularities and causal relationships to understand and predict the social world.

Antipositivism, on the other hand, takes various forms but mostly assumes that the social world is essentially relativistic (e.g., socially constructed) and can only be understood from the standpoint of in- dividuals directly involved in the social activities under investiga- tion. Scholars adopting this viewpoint are uncomfortable with the notion that social science research can generate objective knowledge of any kind.

While the nomothetic approach encourages studies that are based on systematic protocol and techniques such as survey methods, the ideographic approach sees reality in terms of symbols and ideas. Scholars adopting the latter approach therefore emphasise analyses of the everyday flow of life of those investigated. This is a kind of an- thropological approach, or an action research, through which the researcher “gets inside” the situation by getting close to the people he or she is studying and by allowing them to tell their own stories rather than responding to predefined questions. This approach therefore endorses the use of such techniques as diaries, biographies, and participant-observations.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

74 m e t A t h e o r I e s , P A r A d I g m s , A n d P h I l o s o P h y o F s C I e n C e

Many methodology textbooks describe the objectivist types of re- search with the label positivism and the subjectivist research is la- belled interpretivism. As indicated above, the positivist paradigm assumes that all social phenomena can be explained by observing their causes and effects. This implies that existing theories can form the bases for hypotheses that provide a priori explanations for a given social phenomenon. These hypotheses can then be tested to verify or falsify the theories. This approach is generally referred to in the literature as the hypothetico-deductive method. Interpretivism takes an opposite viewpoint. It subscribes to understanding a given social world from the points of view of people being studied and the intentions underlying their behaviour. It therefore uses the induc- tive method, basing conclusions on specific observations rather than logical arguments that may not necessarily be supported by empiri- cal evidence.

But not all researchers consider this classification to be very use- ful. For example, Deetz (1996) argues that the meaning of the objec- tive-subjective labels is socially contrived and the objective practices are, in a sense, the most subjective forms of research. His reasoning is that in objective research, concepts and methods are held a priori and constitute projections of a researcher’s own ways of encounter- ing the world. In other words, the researcher does not engage in any critical reflection over his or her work process and does not contem- plate possible alternative perspectives on the social world that he or she seeks to understand.

C l A s s I F I C A t I o n s o F P A r A d I g m s I n s o C I A l s C I e n C e

The objective-subjective debate has produced a number of typolo- gies of paradigms. Three of the most popular typologies are pre- sented in this chapter. Two factors have influenced this selection. First, the three classifications are those commonly found in the so- cial science methodology textbooks used in Scandinavian colleges

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

75C h A P t e r 7

and universities. Second, all the classifications have strong roots in classical sociological studies. They are:

fthe FISI classification (covering functionalism, interpretivism, structuralism, and interactionism); fthe RRIF classification (covering radical humanism, radical struc- turalism, interpretivism, and functionalism), fand Abnor and Bjerke’s classification of six paradigms and three research approaches.

Each of the paradigms described in the chapter considers some re- search issues to be more important than others; thus, your choice of paradigm will influence how you define and explain research issues in your project. In other words, as you read the root assumptions underlying these paradigms, reflect on how they relate to the as- sumptions of the theories you intend to use in your project. Such re- flections will improve your understanding of the theories. As you reflect on these theories, you must examine the degrees of consist- ency between your own assumptions and those held by the authors of the theories. Where discrepancies are noted, you must discuss the implications of such discrepancies for your investigations.

t h e F I s I C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

Scholars of sociology in the nineteenth and early mid-twentieth cen- turies (e.g., Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton) have emphasised the importance of studying social phenomena in terms of structures, functions, and interactions. In general, these scholars argue that social facts have existences outside individual actions. As such, they can be studied with positivist epis- temology and its associated methodological arrangements. The FISI classification of paradigms (see figure 7.2) provides a simple classifi- cation of the root assumptions of their work.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 2 . S

a m

fu n d sl

itt e ra

tu r.

A ll

ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .