ANESTESIA GENERAL

Every piece of research should begin with a philosophical discussion—a discourse to create a solid foundation that underpins the work that follows. It has been said that, “questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm” (Guba and Lincoln 1994: 105), as such, this section will begin with the definition of the belief system at the core of the investigation (Saunders et al. 2007).

The research literature is abundant with varying definitions of ontological paradigms and epistemological taxonomies. Aligning the research questions within the most suitable ontological and epistemological contexts, the most common being positivism, relativism, and social constructionism, is an awkward but important process. Appropriate discussions help clarify research design, which in turn provides a forum to consider the type of evidence required, how it is to be gathered, and how it is to be interpreted. It also helps recognise research designs that will work and, equally importantly, those that will not.

Quantitative methods have dominated the social science past (Hammersley 1999), using observable data in order to ascertain truth. As the approach progressed and developed, two sub-cultures emerged arguing the nature of the observable data, one advocated it should be deep and rich, the other, that it should be hard and ‘generalisable’ (Sieber 1973). Since 1960 (Hammersley 1999), the qualitative research method has developed as a means to understand the living world as a reflection of culture and social reality (Kvale 1996). Currently, the

qualitative approach is seen as being largely subjective, providing a deep understanding, but lacking in generality, while the quantitative approach is seen as lacking in depth of understanding and, at times, too general.

This research began with the ontological assumption that, within the context of the study, reality is “socially constructed and given meaning by people” (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002: 29). Subjective reality (see Berger and Luckman 1966; Watzlawick 1984; Shotter 1993) makes sense of the world through language and discussion and the sharing of knowledge and experience, and opposes the detached and unwieldy nature of the positivist approach (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002).

Understanding and explaining experiences from those engaged in the scenario planning process is at the crux of the study. Consequently, the sense that arises from various situations is of critical importance. Table 3.4 (below) highlights the differences between the positivist and social contructionist research designs. The implications favoured by this research are in bold, with the reasons why in the ensuing paragraph:

Table 3.4 - Contrasting implications of positivism and social constructionism

Positivism Social Constructionism

The Observer Must be independent Is part of what is being observed Human Interests Should be irrelevant Are the main drivers of science Explanations Must demonstrate causality Aim to increase general _{understanding of the situation} Research progresses

through Hypotheses and deductions Gathering rich data from which ideas are induced Concepts Need to be operationalized so _{that they can be measured} Should incorporate stakeholder _perspectives Units of analysis Should be reduced to simplest _terms May include the complexity of _{‘whole’ situations} Generalization

through Statistical probability Theoretical abstraction

Sampling Requires Large numbers selected randomly Small numbers of cases chosen _{for specific reasons}

After much consideration it was decided that the researcher should be kept independent to the study. Because the focal point of the research is the way in which scenario planning informs the planning process, and therefore the management of the process by the steering group and the subsequent effects on strategy, it is important that the researcher should observe but not be involved with the process. While this is more in line with positivism, the necessity to observe the human interest (as the main driver of the research) lies in a more relativist/social constructionist paradigm. Similarly, while causality will be looked for, its purpose is to increase general understanding of community planning in Fife as a means to learn more about how scenario planning is used to inform the planning process. This leaning towards understanding over explanation is another characteristic of the social constructionist paradigm.

Typically, quantitative research uses logic of deduction, while qualitative uses one of induction (Blaikie 2000). Given the nature of the research question (how does an organisation use scenario planning to inform the strategic planning process?), and the problem it addresses (the lack of empirical and theoretical understanding of the scenario-to- strategy process), this study will begin with post priori assumptions, using real-world data, perspectives, concepts and models to allow theories to emerge (Gummesson 2000). The nature of the research question suits an inductive approach, as opposed to a positivistic, deductive approach. Another feature of the positivist perspective is that it tends to reduce data and units of analysis down to their smallest and simplest terms. While this has many advantages for scientific and experimental studies, this piece of research needs to embrace the complexity of the whole situation and thus requires an approach more in line with relativism and social constructionism.

The positivist approach is where knowledge, in an objective sense, is “totally independent of anybody’s claim to know; it is also independent of anybody’s belief, or disposition to assent; or to assert; or to act” (Popper 1972: 109). It creates a-textual theories, understood and accepted through empirical observation (Ackroyd 1996). It is also guided by theoretical inconsistencies or by gaps between theory and fact. As such, it is suited to research problems that require the examination of fact, not the exploration of opinion. Consequently, while a

positivist approach would suit a question about how many companies in the FTSE 100 used scenario planning and the reasons why, it would not suit the descriptive and exploratory nature of this particular research, which drives at understanding more thoroughly how an organisation uses scenario planning to inform an organisation’s strategic planning process. The classical, scientific methods tend to be focused and usually attempt to reduce variables down to their smallest components, which often compromises and loses the ‘real’ meaning. Scientific methods also tend to be more apt at making statistical generalisations (Morris 2003), and thus less flexible and generally unsuitable for understanding processes (Maylor and Blackmon 2005), which are central to the longitudinal examination of the role of scenario planning process within a wider community planning process. It is for these reasons that the positivistic approach was deemed unsuitable.

It became apparent that the social constructionist paradigm provided the most suitable epistemological position from which to carry out this research. The notion that ‘reality’ is constantly being created and re-created has the capacity to provide the greatest insight into the process and how the activities involved change, and are changed by, the process. Aspects of relativism were also appealing, for example, the notion that structures exist, are in place and can be mapped out. However, through understanding reality as an enacted world (Smircich and Stubbart 1985), social constructionism offered a sound ontological and epistemological backbone to study scenario-informed strategic planning. Although many of the philosophical positions in social science epistemologies are relatively ‘pure’ versions, the apparent incompatibility of the beliefs can be overcome in the actual research and methodology employed. For example, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) categorises the following as aims of the social science epistemology and their corresponding relevance in the particular paradigm. Again, elements central to this study are in bold, and, as is shown, there is a crossover of suitability in the relativism and social constructionism paradigms:

Table 3.5 - Methodological implications of different epistemologies Social Science Epistemologies Social Science Epistemologies Relativism Social Constructionism Elements of Methods

Aims Exposure Invention

Starting Points Suppositions Meanings

Designs Triangulation Reflexivity

Techniques Survey Conversation

Analysis/Interpretation Probability Sense-making

Outcomes Correlation Understanding

Source: Adapted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002: 34)

Much of the literatures (for example Thietart 2001) suggest that it is too tempting to see a relativist position as the safe middle-ground between positivism and social constructivism because it combines the strengths and avoid the limitations of both approaches. While this is a true failing well worth avoiding, the truth of the statement and the seeming simplicity and convenience of it is also what gives the paradigm credence. It does fill an expansive gap between the two more extreme positions. However, to protect this research from falling into a trap of convenience, the strengths and weaknesses of the relativist and constructionist positions were weighed against each other (see Table 3.6) and a decision was made based upon the purpose of the thesis, the central research question, and the theoretical base of the thesis. As was shown in the literature review, while suppositions were highlighted that assumed a connection between scenario planning and organisational performance and thus social progress, there is a lack of empirical research on the engagement of scenario planning within the wider strategic planning process. Thus the purpose is to carry out an empirical analysis of the scenario-informed strategic planning process, and the method is guided by the central research question, how does an organisation use scenario planning to inform the strategic planning process? Therefore, in reference to the first elements of Table 3.5 (above), although the aim is one of exposure, and the starting point is both suppositions and meanings, the design is one of reflexivity, the techniques shall focus on conversation and activity, the analysis will done through sensemaking, and the goal is understanding, the research is mostly social constructionist in nature.

Table 3.6 - The strengths & weaknesses of relativism and social constructionism

Relativism Social Constructionism

Strengths

Accepts values of multiple sources

of data and perspectives Has the ability to look at change process over time Strengths Enables wider generalisations Understands meanings and can adjust to _{new issues and ideas} Strengths

Can be done efficiently Contributes to the evolution of new _theories

Weaknesses

Large samples are required to

establish credibility Data collection takes a lot of time and resources Weaknesses

The requirements of standardisation make it less able to deal with cultural and institutional differences

Analysis and Interpretation may be very difficult

Weaknesses

Hard to reconcile discrepant sources of data which point to different conclusions

Hard to control pace and progress and end points of research

Weaknesses

Hard to reconcile discrepant sources of data which point to different

conclusions Low credibility is given to subjective _{opinions by policymakers.} Source:Adapted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002: 42)

Establishing validity in relation to the social constructionist perspective is an important issue, especially considering the ontological need to create research procedures that accurately represent reality (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). Construct validity (the accurate measure of reality) or validity; internal validity (the elimination of bias and effects of extraneous variables) or reliability; and external validity (defining domains to which results may be generalised) or generalizability, are the three main fronts from which to fight scrutiny. By choosing the case-study method, many of the criticisms of validity (which will be dealt with in section 3.6) are defended in accordance with Yin’s (1994) position. With regard to construct validity, Yin stresses the importance of multiple sources of evidence (section 3.7 will describe the multiple data sources used in this research); for internal validity he stresses the importance of building cases over time in order to expel alternative explanations—this case study has been built over a period of three years allowing for many instances of reflection and consideration of alternative explanations. Finally, for external validity, he points out that case studies rely on analytic rather than statistical generalisations (Yin 1994). In this instance, much of the valuable and unique contribution of the case study lies in its descriptiveness and analysis of the process and is thus not concerned with statistical generalisation—although it should be acknowledged that using a statistical method is an alternative way to conduct research into this area, and may prove to be a fruitful area of further enquiry.

From the very first philosophical considerations of this research, there has been a straddling of the often murky line between a relativist and constructivist position. Yin, whose case method will lie at the empirical heart of this thesis, agrees. In his defence of construct and internal validity, he takes a relativist position, however, his response to external validity is more closely aligned with the constructivist position (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002).

This piece of research has its epistemological roots in a social constructionist paradigm; however the boundaries of that paradigm required stretching. One of the main points of dispute, as is seen above, is the involvement of the researcher. A characteristic of the social constructionism paradigm is the involved role of the researcher. While an acknowledgment is made between the researcher and the object, and the concomitant fact that reality will never be independent of the observer within the context of the relativist paradigm (Thietart 2001), the research sought independence from the subject in so far as to acknowledge that the object has its own essence. This ‘dialogue’ between paradigms is, in some instances, desirable (Thietart 2001) and has many advocates (Weaver and Gioia 1994; Schultz and Hatch 1996). After considering these points, as well as Easterby-Smith et al.’s (2002: 57) matrix of research designs, Yin’s (1994) case study methodology emerged as a research design ideally suited to the ontological and epistemological understanding that reality and knowledge is socially constructed.