Construcción Matriz DOFA:

The research paradigm, the ontology, epistemology and methodology determines how a researcher defines social entities, and the relationship between the investigated social entity and the researcher. In addition, it defines how to conduct a research project to find evidence for the investigated phenomenon (Guba, 1990). In general, a research paradigm embraces a school of thoughts or a set of beliefs about the real world and how research should be performed in line with this world view and to extend the body of knowledge (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Since many different paradigms exist, the researcher needs to understand the differences and to decide which one to follow (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

This decision influences the purpose and the function of the research, the research strategy, the research design, the planning, the methodology and the interpretation of the results that lead into concepts and theories (Creswell, 2009). Paradigms define also the reasoning to reach a conclusion that the researcher uses to infer or argument about the investigated phenomena such as inductive or deductive (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Paradigms manifest differently among the scientific fields and disciplines. For instance in the field of social science and more specific in the study of society and organizations, positions are divided into the objectivist, which sees the organization as a real entity that consists of structures and processes that exists independent from social actors (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

In contrary the subjectivist, sees the organization as socially constructed entity created by individuals according to Burrell and Morgan (1979). They distinguish four basic paradigms, the functionalist, interpretivist, radical humanist and the radical structuralist. Each paradigm views a society or an organization, as part of the society, differently. They are mutually exclusive according to Burrell and Morgan (1979), which means a synthesis of these paradigms is not possible.

The functionalist paradigm has its roots in sociological positivism rationalizing an organization using methods of natural science to understand order, stability and equilibrium in society and the effect of regulations and control (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). In other words a functionalist understands the social world composed of empirical identifiable and measurable units using methods from natural science to study them (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

The interpretive paradigm investigates about explanations of the social world based on subjective experience. This paradigm searches an understanding of the social world from the individual’s point of view constructed by the individual. This social world exists through sharing of meaning between the subjects and therefore can only be approached through these subjective interpretation of this meaning (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

The radical humanist views the social world similar to the interpretivist, but with an emphasis on the ideological substructures and consciousness of the subject. This means, the radical humanist is interested in the ideological constraints that influence human beings and how this could change society. The radical structuralist focusses on structural changes and the influence on society and social formation for instance through political or economic crises. Hence, a research paradigm in social science also draws a picture of reality and the social entities within, which includes an ontological and an epistemological orientation that defines the nature of things as explained above.

With the paradigm decision, a researcher also decides about his or her ontological and epistemological position. A large number of literature describes contrasting philosophical positions such as positivism and constructionism or interpretivism or also called anti-positivism, which emphasises the essential differences between these world views (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Kemper, 1981). A positivist follows the tradition of natural science based on sensory perception, causality, objectivity, observations, empirical experiments and measurements to formulate hypotheses, and to test and verify theories and laws (Bryman & Bell, 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In other words, according to Kemper (1981) a positivist investigates about social phenomena based on biological and

physical categories and social structure, power and status that determines the behaviour of human beings such as emotions. A positivist aims to reduce the complexity of measurable reality into smaller portions to create a model about it and to allow a reduction into dependent and independent variables to determine cause and effect and to measure and control (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Positivists place themselves outside the observed unit of investigation, aiming an inquiry free of values, using mainly quantitative methods such as statistical analysis of data to infer the validity of theories, to generalize phenomena or to deduce new laws to explain an objective reality (Creswell, 2009; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In other words, a positivist believes that the real world could be decomposed into its basic elements, which would allow understanding the world and every phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A constructionist understands the real world quite differently from a positivist view and postulates different methodologies to investigate in this reality. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979) an anti-positivist studies the social world from the view of the studied individual acting within a real-life setting. The researcher’s position of an anti-positivist is not an external observer, but a part of the study participating directly in the investigation (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). A constructionist following Berger and Luckmann (1966) looks from a different perspective on a subjective reality that is constructed by individuals dependent on their experience, perception, interaction with other individuals, the social environment, history, values, cultural settings, subjective sense making, context and situation the individuals live in. In addition, a constructionist rejects the importance of biological and physical categories explaining human behaviour and rather determined by social norms and the situation they are involved (Kemper, 1981). The constructionist aims to understand the complexity of different perspectives rather than reducing the phenomena into simplified categories and places him or herself as part of the inquiry (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). In other words, the constructionist studies individuals in their context and agrees that he or she is part of this environment (Creswell, 2009).

Hence, the researcher’s interpretation of the phenomena is influenced by the researcher’s personal experience and biography and the environment. As a consequence, the researcher is part of the investigated unit (Creswell, 2009). The social constructionist emphasises the construction of meaning within the social interaction process among individuals concerning verbal and non-verbal communication, but also the influence of historical and cultural aspects of the individuals (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Interpretivism follows similar epistemological grounds as constructionism (Bryman & Bell, 2011). However, interpretivism postulates that the real world can only be perceived and understood through the interpretation of human being’s mental realities (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The subjective interpretations and meaning of words

is used as a key of explaining them in social action utilizing descriptive analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This means, reality exists only as mental interpretations of human beings dependent on social context, social interaction and lived experience (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

The research methods applied in the constructionist world view are based on an ideographic approach according to Burrell and Morgan (1979), which aims to gain knowledge directly from the studied subject. This includes qualitative methods, which means the researcher collects data in the field interacting with the studied individuals, asking questions using interviews and inductively interprets the meaning of the results, develops new theories or extends existing ones (Creswell, 2009).

The decision about the paradigm this thesis follows was determined to one part by the philosophical position of the researcher, but also by the investigated subject. The integration of social media technologies in collective judgment and decision-making processes in organizational business environments is a rather new topic in the scientific field (Merchant, 2012). Theories and empirical studies about different aspects such as decision- making theory, organizational behaviour, the social impact of information technology and social media exist, but the combination and the application to the subject of investigation, which are the individuals within an organization, are not well established. This suggests the application of a research methodology that follows an exploratory approach, suitable to contribute and advance already existing research and theory to increase the body of knowledge about an emerging phenomenon rather than following a theory testing or falsification approach (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

The second aspect is the focus of this study to gain a deep understanding about the complex collective decision-making process, influenced by social interaction of individuals in formal and less formal settings, mediated by information technology within an organizational context. This subject could be investigated either using quantitative methods such as surveys or qualitative such as interviews. A statistical approach asking a population about their experience with social media and decision-making could provide general aspects of usage and utilization within this population. This could show statistical trends in society and organizations about the distribution of social media in organizations, the fields of application and a basic understanding about their acceptance and general problems of integration.

However, to understand the complex social processes how individuals construct their reality, interact and collaborate, utilizing information technology in their working environment, influenced by organizational culture and social settings asks for qualitative methods. Therefore, the researcher needs to approach the social environment of the studied individuals, analysing their

behaviour within conversations, conducting interviews and investigating in the cultural context and structures of an organization. The way information technology evolved, how individuals in organizations learn about the application of social media influencing the interaction of individuals requires an understanding about their views. Further topics to understand are how this changes behaviour, the construction of meaning that influences their contributions, their choices and their decisions. During conversations with the investigated individuals, details could surface about how social media changes the way of interaction, but also what leads to avoidance or acceptance of their application within the working environment, dependent on the social settings. This research followed three questions explained by Guba (1990) to define the position, worldview and the paradigm. The first question is about the ontological view about what the nature of reality is. Second the epistemological question about the relationship between the unit of investigation and the researcher and finally the question about the methodology, how the inquiry is conducted. Following these questions, this thesis is based on a social constructionist world view and the paradigm linked to it because (a) the researcher believes in the subjective construction of meaning of the world, arising from the interaction with an existing real world and human beings and their interpretation, (b) the aim of this research is to understand a phenomenon from the views of the examined individuals within a complex real life setting, (c) the research results rely on the experience of the individuals that could unfold important details during conversations in qualitative interviews, and (d) the topic is rather new with a small number of research and theories available. In order to understand social phenomena from a constructionist worldview the results gathered from investigations are based on methods such as qualitative interviews, focus groups, ethnography, case studies, discourse and conversation analysis or observation, following the hermeneutic- phenomenological tradition and methods of interpretative understanding (Laverty, 2008). Following Heidegger, Macquarrie, and Robinson (1962) and van Manen (2010) hermeneutic-phenomenology is the study of human beings, their lived experience and their historical background that influences their perception and creation of meaning. Besides the understanding of how human beings experience reality, hermeneutic-phenomenology emphasis what this means to them (van Manen, 2010). In other words, individuals create their own meaning of the real world in the process of interaction. Therefore, hermeneutic-phenomenology examines human beings behaviour and focusses on verbal and non-verbal communication, analysing, and interpreting the meaning of language and its use (Annells, 1996). In the social process of constructing reality from a constructionist perspective interaction among individuals takes place by using language in different forms of communication (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Hence, to understand social phenomena the

investigation about meaning of verbal and non-verbal language allows the researcher to analyse, compare and interpret how reality is constructed. The focus of this research is to investigate and explore about how human beings interact in formal and less formal social settings using computer- mediated communication and collaboration within the process of collective decision-making. The investigated objects of this research are individuals, their behaviour, perception, interaction and their lived experience influenced by their historical background, organizational culture and the environment. In other words, the aim of this thesis is to answer the research question by gaining an understanding about the social process in its complexity, which requires from the researcher’s point of view an approach that allows engaging the individual and the researcher in an explorative process. Therefore, the research strategy applies a qualitative research approach based mainly on multiple case studies, semi-structured interviews and documentary data.