93
6
In Pursuit of the Paradigm
‘Listen, sir, it’s fine telling us how the atom works. But what we really want to know is how the atom should work!’
(Mintzberg, Quinn and Ghoshal, 1998) This chapter considers the research design and methodology appropri- ate to the rationale and issues raised in the introduction of this book.
Phenomenological methods were selected because of their ability and tradition in the study of culture and cultural issues. The chapter briefly explores the frictions between positivistic and phenomenological para- digms and proposes a framework for enquiry that will provide emergent patterns and themes that contribute to a theoretical foundation and conceptualization in combination with the understanding of previous literature and comment.
Methodological approach
The qualitative research process is a set of ideas and a framework (the- ory, ontology) in the form of propositions or questions (epistemology) to be examined in specific ways (methodology, analysis) that the researcher, in simple terms, collects empirical materials bearing on the question, analyzes and writes about them (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
This could include the use and collection of a variety of empirical materials such as the case study, personal experience, introspection and interview, observational, historical and visual texts to describe and seek meanings from the real events involving human interaction.
Qualitative research employs a wide range of these interrelated interpret- ive practices to attempt a better understanding of the subject matter at hand:
Qualitative researchers use ethnographic prose, historical narratives, first-person accounts, still photographs, life histories, fictionalized
‘facts’, biographical and autobiographical materials, among others.
Quantitative researchers use mathematical models, statistical tables, and graphs, and usually write about their research in impersonal, third-person prose. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000: 10)
A qualitative approach to research is widely used in a variety of domains including health care, public health, anthropology, sociology, psychology, business studies, political science, public administration, change management, human resources and organizational studies, crimi- nology, communication, computer science, family studies and policy research. Scientific assumptions of objectivity and truth have long weakened qualitative approaches and early qualitative researchers reported participant observation through the use of quasi-statistics (Becker, Geer, Hughes and Strauss, 1961). Qualitative approaches have been increasingly used in business disciplines over the past forty years.
Assumptions that qualitative research could produce only descriptive case studies rather than theory development began to be challenged at this time. These challenges led to the grounded theory approach that confronted the quantitative research paradigm and proposed a legitimate alternative approach to research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The debate about the respective virtues of positivism and phenomenology remains lively in academic circles. Some positivists and post positivists perceive their approach as objective and scientific, and therefore reasoned and truthful; some phenomenological researchers reject positivist and post positivist criteria as a so-called scientific approach that stifles verisimili- tude, dialogue, and management praxis (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). It is possibly more helpful to say that positivist methods are one way to tell a story and phenomenological methods are another way. Neither positivist nor phenomenological method is exclusively better or worse, but it can be said that both are certainly different.
This debate is acknowledged by discussion in the majority of publica- tions on research methods. There are many sides to the debate and these occasionally surface in academic journals such as between Pfeffer (1993; 1995) and Van Maanen (1995a; 1995b). The arguments of Pfeffer and Van Maanen address different elements of the research paradigm.
On the one hand, there is the search for a more formal and organized approach to research in order to compete with other fields (Pfeffer, 1993), an agreed and established format (Pfeffer, 1995), whereas on the other hand, there is the representation of reality through the use of
In Pursuit of the Paradigm 95 language or rhetoric to raise theories and understanding and their con- text in organizations (Van Maanen, 1995a). Van Maanen (1995b: 691) suggests that ‘learning to cope with and perhaps learn from one another is a most critical matter’ and impresses the importance of sharing rather than an obsession with ‘our own claustrophobic ways with each of us camped by our own totem pole.’
The attempts to promote a qualitative approach tend to remain polar- ized between those who presume ‘truth’ over opinion and bias (Carey, 1989; Schwandt, 1997) whilst ignoring the ‘moral and political commit- ments in their own contingent work’ (Carey, 1989: 104). Even the claims of some researchers to be atheoretical are stymied by the insist- ence of positivist and post positivist reviewers in the peer review system that exists. The preservation of ‘scientific’ objectivity, the acceptability of ‘convention’, and the need to publish are persuasive influences on the acceptable approach to research in business disciplines. These approaches are directed by dominant paradigms and methods and key actors (Kuhn, 1962; Freidson, 1985) and in order to publish or to obtain funding, it is necessary to adapt to the control of the elite members of the academic profession (Greenwood and Levin, 2000). It has been suggested that the rise of training facilities separated from academic institutions in the USA is the result of such elitism (Eurich, 1985;
Greenwood and Levin, 2000). This has been described as ‘cultural pedagogy’ (Kincheloe, 1995; Giroux, 1997; McLaren, 1997; Berry, 1998) to underline the limited access to the ‘understanding’ provided by a
‘scientific’ approach in pursuit of ‘truth’.
This is fertile ground for the growth of a deep division not only between the academic as a researcher, but also between academic and practitioner, the application of process and the impact and relevance of research to management practice. After all, every practitioner is either potentially or actually engaged in valuable action research based on participation and observation. This debate, however, is not the prime subject of this book although some broad differences in emphasis of each method are briefly discussed as a background to the particular methodology employed. Whilst reflecting on qualitative methods in the sociological arena, Nisbet (1976: 3) observes ‘that none of the great themes which have provided continuing challenge and also theoretical foundation for sociologists during the last century was ever reached through anything resembling what we are today fond of identifying as
“scientific method”’. There are some good reasons suggested for the less scientific approach to this research because it suggests an alternative approach to the well-established process of segmentation, targeting and
positioning as well as seeking the wider implications of positioning as a determinant of strategy rather than the result of a communications exercise to manipulate the mind of the customer.
Wolcott (1991: 50) cites a useful description by anthropologist Michael Agar of writing narrative description and the forming of a descriptive account: ‘You learn something (“collect some data”), then you try to make sense of it (“analysis”), then you go back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new experience (“collect more data”), then you refine your interpretation (“more analysis”), and so on’
(Agar, 1980: 9). This is an approach to building a theory or proposition of what actually happens as an alternative to a purely statistical approach to the social interaction that determines the entity of the business interaction. Sometimes the more scientific approach cannot take account of the more naturalistic aspects of events in business: ‘The research craft is enhanced by respect for error and surprise, storytelling, research poetry, emotion, common sense, firsthand learning, and research colleagues’ (Daft, 1983: 544).
A phenomenological approach does take a practical look at events within organizations. This requires time and patience in the study of events and it is a means of observing practitioners as an integral part of the business process. These are matters of practical concern to the practitioner that often define the difference between his/her success or failure both within and outside the business. There is therefore consid- erable interest in the perceived benefits of phenomenological practice as a more comprehensive means of enhancing performance, judgments and decisions of the practising manager: ‘practitioners can contribute to research and theory . . . by pointing out problem areas they experience in practice that have not been sufficiently addressed by current theory’
(Bartunek, 1983: 310).
The nature of qualitative research leads to a loss in precision in the strictest sense but that ‘the loss in precision may not be all bad . . . an interpretation system is an awesomely complex human social activity that may not be amenable to precise measurement at this point in development . . . to design a model that is precise and accurate may be to forego the phenomenon of interest’ (Daft and Weick, 1984: 294). The lack of ‘scientific’ certainty is not primary but ‘success should be meas- ured only in terms of raising issues – not in terms of settling them’
(Smircich and Stubbart, 1985: 735) whilst methodologies are directed by dominant paradigms and key actors (Freidson, 1985). The influence of congratulatory self-importance and lack of real practical experience in some academic research should not be underestimated. As Smircich and Stubbart (1985: 728) identify:
In Pursuit of the Paradigm 97 A strong tradition in scientific writing has been the insistence on the third person and the passive voice. These depersonalize the arguments and lend an aura of ‘objectivity’ and ‘consistency’ to the research account. But the interpretive perspective highlights personal involve- ment with knowledge; it emphasizes that knowledge is standpoint dependent’.
Both qualitative and quantitative researchers ‘think they know some- thing about society worth telling to others, and they use a variety of forms, media and means to communicate their ideas and findings’
(Becker, 1986: 122). ‘The ethnographer’s performance tale is always allegorical, a symbolic tale, a parable which is not just a record of human experience. This tale is a means of experience, a method of empowerment’
(Denzin, 2003: 253). The maintenance of ‘scientific’ objectivity and the professional pressures to publish is a persuasive influence on an accept- able approach to research in business disciplines. Convention is a powerful means of maintaining the status quo. A paradigm, or interpre- tive framework, is a ‘basic set of beliefs that guides action’ (Guba, 1990: 17) and interpretivism arose from recognition that human sciences were fundamentally different from natural sciences. This led to a division between positivism that looked for clarification through causal explan- ations of social, behavioural and physical phenomena, and under- standing of human actions through meanings that constitute those actions. Qualitative research is aimed at discovering different aspects from quantitative research. These have been described by a variety of authors: ‘Any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 17): ‘What information most appropriately will answer specific research questions, and which strategies are most effective for obtaining it’ (LeCompte and Preissle, 1993: 30). ‘Methods are generic, not field-limited’ (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 3).
More recently, even proponents of alternative approaches are reported to have hardened their own positions and beliefs. Strauss claims that grounded theory is verificational (Charmaz, 1995) and Glaser remains in the positivist camp through the discovery of data and the step by step coding and comparative methods (Charmaz, 2000). It is, however, worth emphasizing that each method has detractors and supporters and this is itself a stimulus to further discussion of the worth of various theories and propositions that arise in a field that has no immutable laws that can pre- dict with certainty what will happen when human animals are involved.
Business and marketing is not predictive, it operates as a means of assisting judgement and decision-making in the practical application of a particular
social system. Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997: 1057), in a study of textual construction and influence on scientific contribution in organizational studies, detect ‘a tension and struggle involving authors’ human commit- ments as scientists and their adherence to particular philosophical ideas .. . texts do not simply array “facts” and evidence logically. . .attempt to develop an approach to the construction of knowledge that is sophisti- cated, insightful, reasoned, and creative’. The methodology of qualitative research cannot be applied in a rote manner although it is important to provide ‘a sense of vision, where it is that the analyst wants to go with the research’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 8). Method, that is to say, the techniques and procedures, furnish the means for bringing that vision into reality. Kemmis and McTaggart (2000: 582–3) make the observation that
‘a science of practice must itself be a practice . .. the differences among research perspectives are not due to questions of the machinery of research (research techniques) alone; they are also differences of standpoint that reveal something of the location of the researcher in the research act’.
Sayr (2001) identifies three broad approaches to the analysis of verbal data: the philosophical approach takes account of the context of the data; thematic analysis translates qualified data into quantified data in a search for patterns and themes; and code development breaks text down into manageable units in a process of reduction. The analysis of documents can use concept development analysis using deconstruction techniques to probe thought processes and penetrate meaningful reac- tions to the stimulus. Interpretivism has been identified severally in this review of methodological approach (Agar, 1980; Daft and Weick, 1984;
Smircich and Stubbart, 1985; Guba, 1990; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000) as a means of analysis of verbal data in phenomenology. Interpretivism uses the investigator as a translator who tries to translate concepts from one context into those appropriate to another context (Sayr, 2001). This might include the use of hermeneutics to contextualize meanings and arrive at a holistic interpretation, as well as semiotics and structural criti- cism that are helpful in giving insight to signs, symbols and artefacts.
However, it is important not to lose sight of the usefulness of construc- tivism in the interpretation of verbal data. Some critical issues between positivism and constructivism include the possibility that control of research resides solely with the former, whereas in the latter it is shared between the inquirer and the participants and the ‘voices’ of the partici- pants are acknowledged. The result of creating a montage or pastiche through the use and collection of a variety of empirical materials
‘invites viewers to construct interpretations that build on one another as the scene unfolds’ resulting in ‘an emergent construction’ (Denzin
In Pursuit of the Paradigm 99 and Lincoln, 2000: 5). Constructivism relies on the assumption that the world consists of a social construction of knowledge and researchers immerse themselves in and share a culture that can be described through ethnographic data or narrative and analyzed for themes or regular patterns. Subjectivism assumes an individual construction of reality through a personalized experience (Sayr, 2001).
Some differences between constructivism and positivism are identified by Lincoln and Guba (2000) including most importantly the elements of revelation, passion, values, resocialization and altruism on the one hand, over the alleged establishment of facts or ‘laws’, the approach of the ‘dis- interested scientist’, and a dispassionate and technical approach on the other.
There are plainly opportunities and benefits for the increased sharing of environments by researchers and practitioners that span existing mutual interest and provide wider impact on the field of interest. There are some advantages to one form of enquiry over the other form of enquiry depending on the circumstances and the purpose. Sometimes the choice has as much to do with opportunity for study as the ability to choose the means of study. On other occasions it is a reversion to experience and convention, a pragmatic choice of the ease and wish to publish, or simply the favouring of one methodology over the other on account of personality, social skills and personal choice.
This research is concerned with the search for and the development of a theory or paradigm based on the context and rationale advocated in Part I. The term ‘naturalistic’ has several aliases including postposi- tivistic, ethnographic, phenomenological, subjective, case study, quali- tative, hermeneutic and humanistic (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The study seeks a revised concept of strategic positioning and this suggests the need for an ontological approach based on qualitative and generic methods (Miles and Huberman, 1994) with the benefits of emerging issues and interpretations from the verificational nature of qualitative research (Charmaz, 1995) and the use of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). A generic approach within a qualitative framework will use a variety of phenomenological methods in order to gain the best conceptual understanding and these are discussed in the next section.