Caracterización textural y química de materiales adsorbentes

It can be argued that social research is essential to the ultimate success of a master’s thesis. Both the general stance towards the world and the specific problems of the research methods have to be considered carefully during this process. Writing a master’s thesis involves the reflections in which we, as researchers, ground our investigation. Basically, we need to ensure that our ontological and epistemological considerations and methods for data collection, analysis and interpretation are closely aligned. The primary choices made in this thesis are influenced by our ontological and epistemological positions, which mean that they are expressed rather implicit than explicit through methodology and the general approach. Marsh & Furlong (2002) emphasize that the ontological and epistemological positions are pivotal to one’s research, because they shape the approach to theory and the specific methods employed (Marsh & Furlong 2002: 17). In the following sections, we will demonstrate how our ontological and epistemological stances are grounded in our beliefs about the social world.

Page 31 of 102

3.1.1. The Ontological Position of Constructionism

Ontology is the science or theory of reality, and the central question within this philosophy is whether social entities can be considered objective with a reality external to social actors, or if social entities should be considered social constructions built from the perceptions and actions of social actors. These two positions are respectively referred to as objectivism and constructionism (Bryman 2012: 32).

Where the ontological position of objectivism implies that social phenomena confront us as external factors that are beyond our reach or influence, constructionism invites the researcher to consider the ways in which social reality is an ongoing accomplishment of social actors rather than something external to them and something that totally constrains them (Ibid: 33). Constructionism implies that social phenomena are constructed by social actors through interactions and conversations that do not exist independently from the participating people. Entities such as organizations, cultures and contexts are neither fixed nor homogenous, but individuals instead have to construct and re- construct their understanding of them (Ibid).

In line with the reality and context of this thesis, the constructionist approach influences the research process. According to Coombs (2012), a crisis is a socially constructed phenomenon created by both the organization in crisis and the perceptions of key stakeholders (Section 2.3.1). In other words, a crisis cannot be perceived objectively because the organization in crisis and its key stakeholders interpret the crisis differently and may disagree on several factors such as attribution of crisis responsibility, level of reputational threat and so forth. The reality of the crisis is created first and foremost by the MAS, as it provides information to the general public through various channels. However, since a crisis is often perceived as being a socially constructed phenomenon, the perceptions of MAS’ stakeholders cannot be neglected or overlooked. Constructionism asserts that crises and their meanings are continually being constructed by not only the organization in crisis, but also by other social actors. Moreover, crises are not only restricted to being produced through social interaction – they are in a constant state of revision. By embracing this ontological position, we should be capable of investigating the communication effort carried out by MAS from both an organizational and a stakeholder perspective.

As we have illuminated so far, the ontology of constructionism suggests that social reality is an ongoing accomplishment constructed by social actors. But how do we reach an understanding of such a worldview? We will provide an answer to this question in the following section.

Page 32 of 102

3.1.2. The Epistemological Position of Interpretivism

According to Bryman (2012), “(…) epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief” (Bryman 2012: 27). In other words, epistemology is the different forms of knowledge that can be employed to understand social realities more in-depth. A returning issue in this context is the question whether the social world can and should be studied in accordance with the same principles and procedures as the natural sciences (Ibid).

As a result of this ongoing discussion, two major distinctions have to be made. The positions that affirm the importance of imitating the natural sciences are perpetually associated with the

epistemological positions of positivism and realism (including empirical realism and critical realism). Although these positions are best thought of as general epistemological approaches in their own rights, they occupy similar intellectual spaces in two important respects. Both positivism and realism share the belief that the natural and social sciences can and should apply the same approaches to the collection and explanation of data. Further, they also share a commitment to the view that there is an external objective reality that is separate from our understanding of it (Ibid: 28). Generally, the positivist and realist traditions emphasize that it is possible to acquire

knowledge about the world objectively.

In contradiction to the epistemological positions of positivism and realism, our worldview is affected by the social constructions of reality and based on subjective observations where personal values influence the research process. Our epistemological position is thus inspired by

‘interpretivism’, which is an alternative denotation to the positivist orthodoxy that has dominated the philosophy for decades. The interpretivist approach respects the differences between people and the objects of the natural sciences, and it therefore requires the social scientists to grasp the

subjective meaning of social action (Ibid: 30). There is a general tendency for social researchers to include Max Weber’s (1947) notion of ‘verstehen’, ‘the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition’, and ‘symbolic interactionism’ in the intellectual heritage of interpretivism. Verstehen and the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition share certain similarities with an emphasis upon social actions as being meaningful to actors coupled with the rejection of positivism (Ibid). There is also a tendency among researchers to view symbolic interactionism as occupying the same intellectual spaces, but the parallelism should not be exaggerated. Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach within sociology that has distinctive epistemological implications, where interaction takes place in such a way that the individual is continually interpreting the symbolic meaning of his or her environment and acts on the basis of this imputed meaning (Ibid: 31).

Page 33 of 102

Instead, we have been influenced by the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition where especially Alfred Schutz’s (1962) initial applications of phenomenological ideas have been a source of inspiration to conduct an investigation of MAS’ crisis communication. By embracing Schutz’ hermeneuctic-phenomenological position, we should be capable of gaining access to the common- sense thinking of both MAS and its customers and interpreting their actions and their social world from their viewpoints (Ibid: 30).