Algunos elementos de una estrategia alternativa de

Morrow and Brown (1994) suggest that whilst the theoretical and philosophical debates have been intellectually stimulating and challenging, the methodology of critical theory has been neglected. They go on to list four factors that have placed critical theory in a 'vulnerable' position regarding its credibility as a social science perspective. Firstly, the dominance of the natural science method has marginally positioned alternative approaches. Second, critical theory has been so preoccupied with criticising other perspectives and methods that it has not adequately developed its own research programme. Thirdly, as I mentioned in my introductory chapter, the ideological context of research would isolate funding possibilities, particularly I suggest, in an organisational setting. Finally, critical science does not appear to offer what Morrow and Brown call 'psychological gratification' nor practical skills that could be considered useful in a culture of 'tools and techniques' with which the market oriented society seems to be obsessed.

What is clear from the foregoing discussion of the ontological and epistemological aspects of critical theory, is that the methodological approaches marry phenomenological approaches with structural approaches. This implies an interpretive-structuralist (Morrow and Brown 1994) methodology which attends to the meanings that people construe from their

experiences of their social world, which is a construction of historical, political, economic and social contexts.

Forester (1983) claims that a critical analysis of organisations does not call for any radically different methods of research. What is required are interpretive tools such those used in ethnography and analytical tools for making sense of contexts and structures. Thomas (1993) proposes the researcher role of a critical ethnographer which is different from the conventional ethnographer, where the latter observes a culture in order to describe it, the former adopts a normative and political position to raise social consciousness and create change.

Critical ethnographers use methods such as participatory action research (Hall 1981; Whyte 1991), which unlike action research, is not dependent on expert researchers, but on the participation of 'social actors' in the research setting.

Critical ethnography has been defined as:

"....the reflective process of choosing between conceptual alternatives and making value laden judgements of meaning and method to challenge research, policy and other forms of human activity." (Thomas, 1993, p. 4)

The critical ethnographer begins with a value laden approach their work, which would not be regarded as scientific from the positivist viewpoint. It would also cast doubt over whether the research process could be free from distortion and just reflect a 'personal crusade' on the part of the researcher.

However, we could argue, (as Habermas does), that all knowledge reflects a set of values about what is worth studying and why. In critical ethnography these values are surfaced and recognised and should involve a self reflective component, but in positivistic approaches they are suppressed. In my ideological analyses, I have used normative theories of ideology to penetrate the empirical claims brought about by TQM, but another aim of the critical ethnographer is to bring about change in a way that removes or reduces the oppressive regimes that use distorted knowledge for their own ends.

Hammersley (1992; 1995) casts some doubt over the viability of a critical ethnography and critical theory generally, particularly in respect of its central aim of emancipation. The lack of independent grounds forjudging knowledge means that all critical theory can do is help to replace one form of domination for another rather than emancipate. Such a view is

somewhat sceptical in that it fails to recognise that some forms of domination are better than others and could be taken to mean that a deterministview of society is unavoidable. Both

Gramsci (1971) and Freire (1970) countered the deterministic view of society by regarding fatalism as ideologically constructed. Gramsci focused on the notion of hegemony as a world view that moved hegemonic ideas to become part of common sense. There would be a

hegemonic crisis when dominators failed to lead consensus and were left with no alternative but to coerce. As I will later argue there is an interesting parallel between Gramsci's views and the historical events that led to TQM being introduced to Ilford. Freire saw that the ways in which dominating structures were incorporated into a fatalistic passivity amongst the poor and oppressed would be the enemy, which must be fought and struggled against,

significantly through education.

The question of whether one form of domination is better than another and for whom, is linked to the idea of interests which I shall be discussing in my later chapters on ideology. It also raises issues about the idea of a consensus theory of truth and the presence or absence of the notions of praxis.

An approach proposed by Freire (op.cit.) suggests that critical theory approaches could help to create a knowledge of poorly articulated interests that leads to the possibility of praxis. Freire outlines several stages in consciousness growth that leads to critical thought. The first stage is where people are most dominated by 'intransitive thought1, that is they attribute events to fate, luck or perhaps to God. Events are largely seen as beyond their control and influence. The second level of thought is 'semi - transitive' where people have thoughts about actions for change. At this level problems of change are dealt with singularly and out of context. Such people can be led by strong leaders with suitable rhetoric towards changes that are believed to be in their interests.

'Critical transitivity’ is how Freire saw the third and highest development of thought and action, a critical consciousness. Individuals will see themselves as making changes and will feel empowered to think and act on events within the context of power relations. Praxis can only occur when the consequences of action become the object of critical reflection.

This conscientization' is developed by Freire as a theory of knowledge and as an educational philosophy that could dismantle the hegemony of minority interests. Applying Freire's ideas to Ilford, it is likely that as managers of the company we were mostly within the second level of semi-transitive consciousness, where as individuals we all had thoughts about change and went to some length to share them in order to bring about actions. The educational

processes did not align with Freire's pedagogy, but his concept of the 'banking' principle of education, in which people are receptacles to be filled was probably more illustrative of the TQM educational process. Of course, this way of looking at education and knowledge development was not understood nor considered at the time. The pressures of the 'expert' syndrome of positivism focused attention on the content issues of TQM rather than the process of its 'de-reification'. The development of useful knowledge which I regarded as 'practically adequate', was actually construed within non-critical theory context, but this does

not alter the value of considering Freire's analysis in understanding the potential of his methodology in critical theory and praxis.

The idea of participatory research in Ilford.

Although this chapter is concerned with research methodology, I believe it is helpful to try to ground some of the ideas of participatory research by discussing them in the context of Ilford. This discussion offers by way of example, how such ideas may have been seen to work in the company by reinterpreting some of the events as participatory activities. The communications events in particular were situations in which managers, including myself, searched to produce knowledge that would guide us through the implementation of TQM. In this sense at least, all of us as managers were all in a 'researcher' role. These activities will be discussed at length in future chapters.

In the Ilford organisation, 'managers as researchers' were creating a communications environment in which organisational members could legitimately criticise the existing and past ways of managing. They could then go on to develop new ideas about how they should manage in the future. The communications activities were set up by the MD to provide a forum for debate and critique. The ground for these events had been prepared by an educational process which was designed and presented by the DMC on the philosophy of TQM. The withdrawal of PA consultants had left a feeling of dependency amongst the top and senior management and the MD decided that the only way out was to learn for ourselves. The education programmes were three day events covering the principles of TQM, but what was important about them in a change context was not the content of the programme but the way in which it was presented. For the first time, the DMC and Senior managers 'humbled' themselves by announcing that they did not really know what we should be doing, only that what we had been doing was not right and had not produced the

outcomes we wanted. We suffered poor competitiveness high failure rate and scrap in products, poor inter-department and lateral communications, poor morale , poor cost management to list but a few of the perceived deficiencies. TQM was offered as a philosophy of management which seemed right and was certainly different, but more importantly providing the framework for an anti-hegemonic process to begin. Through these educational programmes the climate for critique and positive suggestion was created. It became 'ok' to criticise ourselves and be more inwardly reflective.

The communication events were in a 'Habermasian' sense, developing communicative skills in a structural setting were power and status were specifically addressed and at least partially suspended to create the nearest this organisation could progress to an 'ideal speech

situation', relatively free of coercion and domination. This would also raise organisational members discursive consciousness. However it is important to note that insofar as

questioning the existing hegemony was concerned, a form of counter hegemony had already been put in place through the TQM 'educational events' which preceded the communications events in Ilford. The educational events were three day courses attended by all managers and covered the principles of Total Quality Management. It could be seen that guides for thinking and an implicit agenda had been already planted. The communications events would act as vehicles for the consolidation and further strengthening of a new management order.

The agenda was set by the participants already primed by the educational process and anyone could present their own views and experiences for discussion. The outcomes were an agreed consensus for actions and further experimentation with the introduction of TQM principles. For example in one event, two shop floor supervisors were discussing the benefits they had found in talking to each other in the work place. Such activity would

previously incurred some disciplinary action against one or both supervisors. Communication was only permitted through the managerial hierarchy, a rule which flew in the face of the idea of customer - supplier relationships as being key to improvements.

There was a resemblance between the communication event process and the characteristics of participatory research outlined by Hall (1981, p7):

* The problem originates in the workplace.

* The ultimate goal of the research is fundamental structural transformation and

improvement of the lives of those involved. The beneficiaries are the participants.(To be questioned later).

* Participatory research involves the people in the workplace in the control of the process. * Focus of participatory research is on work with exploited and oppressed groups.

* Central to its role is the strengthening awareness of their own abilities and resources and its support to mobilising or organising.

* The term researcher can refer to the community or workplace persons as well as those with specialised training.

Hall's account of participatory research originates in the Third World where he sees positivist research traditions as contributing yet another form of cultural dependency, this time on Western scientific methods. The reaction of Third World countries has been to develop social science methods that attempts to produce knowledge that "works better in societies where interpretation of reality must take second place to the changing of that reality",(p8). The researcher role is that of a learner and in Ilford's case for the development of indigenous capability to direct change beyond the dependency created by external consultant expertise. Hall reports a similarity between the Gramscian notion of the 'organic intellectual' and the

I

idea of empowerment of people through learning. In Gramsci, the process of hegemony is most successful when the views articulated by the ruling elite are actively taken up and

pursued by the subordinated groups. In the communications events, all managers were responsible for the dissemination of the 'new management ideology' not just from the top down, but upward from the bottom and outward from the centre of the organisation. Each person is an 'intellectual' who :

"participates in a conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct and contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is to bring into being new modes of thought", (Hall, 1981, p9).

Vio Grossi (1981) sees a task of participatory research as a process of ’dis-indoctrination', a means for enabling people to breakout of their current ideology. This creates the 'popular knowledge' which is the hitherto unexpressed knowledge of the ordinary person by

articulating it and reflecting on it, which in Borda's terms is a 'people's science', understood by common people. The dis-indoctrination to break out of current ideology in this case leads to the production of an ideological shift which in hegemonic terms was overdue. The

leadership was approaching a bankruptcy of ideas, and the historical contexts had badly damaged the credibility of the notion of managerial loyalty and the organisation as a central life interest. This state of affairs was brought about by the redundancies and the likelihood that they become the unwitting targets for reorganisation, be transferred, be retrained or dismissed. This is all in the interests of the 'owners' and their economic priorities. Anthony (1977) points out that managers, not workers are the key to productivity and their

commitment and motivation to support the organisation are essential for survival. A high incidence of professional redundancy has led to a greater sense of alienation amongst managers in Ilford, because of the stronger attachments to their employers. The traditional management ideology based on the Protestant work ethic and the idea that hard work would lead to the security and rewards inherent in a managerial career appeared to be in crisis. These consequences of corporate action were of course unintended, but are extremely serious problems in an organisation dependent on its managers for recovery and survival.

Managers participation in the development of a new ideology was an essential process for the needed fundamental change that relies on their commitment and energies. TQM as an ideology represented a set of ideas where the public purpose was to serve the needs of the consumer or customer rather than just the remote shareholder economic demands. Of course profitability was a fundamental component (Seliger 1976) of management ideology which has not changed, but the hegemonic process is managed in a way that integrates the changing social acceptability of the primacy of the customer with the aims of organisation. I have indicated some of the factors that may be used in drawing together a critical view of TQM in Ilford, but how could the methodological approaches to critical theory been of value

in the company? To consider this question in further detail, I will now go on to discuss the implications for a critical methodology in management.