Correlaciones

In the critical theory paradigm, reality is virtual or historical, derived from social contexts (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As such, it assumes apprehensive social realities that incorporate historically situated structures, where the researcher aims at “critiquing and transforming the existing social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender values” (Perry et al., 1999, p. 17).

Critical theory researchers include Marxists, feminists and action researchers. Research enquiries in this paradigm include long-term ethnographic and historical studies of organisational processes and structures. According to Guba and Lincoln (1994), assumptions are essentially subjective, and thus, knowledge is grounded in social and historical routines. Knowledge is value dependent and not value free.

Within this paradigm, the researcher is described as a “transformative intellectual” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 112), that is, someone wishing to change the world in which the participants live (Brown, 1997; Perry et al. 1997). In other words, the research has the tendency to transform the participants by changing their attitudes and current practices. Hence, the process depends on the expertise, experience and ability of the researcher, with the aim to transform ignorance and misconception into a new, informed perception (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

3.2.3 Constructivism

The constructivist paradigm maintains that “there are multiple versions of reality and as a result there can be no singular truth” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 112; Perry et al., 1999, p. 785-802). Therefore, it holds that individuals or groups construct realities

118 that are based on their own perceptions of reality (Perry et al., 1999). Guba and Lincoln (1994) assert that:

…realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature … and dependent for their form and content on the individual person or groups holding the constructions.

Hence, reality is a mental construct of individuals or groups, which occurs between the researcher and participants during the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The findings of the research are created between the investigator and the subject during the enquiry, and knowledge becomes those constructs for which there is general consensus (Perry et al., 1999). Within this paradigm, the researcher is described as a “passionate participant” and the findings may be a creation or a synthesis of what the researcher has discovered during the research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 11).

3.2.4 Realism

The realist paradigm suggests that the external reality is probably true, rather than completely true, and therefore, there is a real world to be discovered even if it is only imperfectly and probabilistically apprehensible (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In comparison to constructivists and critical theorists who assert that there are many realities, realists maintain that there is only one reality, although several perceptions of that reality must be triangulated to obtain a better picture of it (Perry et al., 1999).

Therefore, realists acknowledge the difference between the world and particular perceptions of it, and the pre-eminent importance of that world. According to Perry et al. (1999), the ultimate aim of the critical realist is to arrive at an imperfect understanding of the common reality of a system in which many people operate independently.

119 Another significant difference is that researchers within the realist paradigm focus on methodology which allows them to explore, develop new insights and understand a phenomenon, in order to add to the body of knowledge, rather than to test and prove (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Yin, 2014). Thus, the data gathering tools, such as, convergent interviews and case studies, are qualitative in nature and rely less on statistical proof and more on a convergence of understanding (Perry, 1998; Perry et al., 1999; Shipman, 2014; Yin, 2014).

Critical realism was articulated and refined by Roy Bhaskar in several works. He initially presented the idea as a corrective to both positivism and relativism as explanatory models of scientific practice. According to Bhaskar (1978), within the realist paradigm, the world can be distinguished as having three domains of reality, namely, mechanisms, events and experiences. Thee domains have been described as follows (Bhaskar, 1978, p. 13; Outhwaite, 1983, p. 322; Tsoukas, 1989, p. 53):

 Real domain: processes that generate events, in which generative mechanisms or causal powers exist independently with a tendency to produce patterns of observable events under contingent conditions.

 Actual domain: patterns of events occur whether observed or not.

 Empirical domain: experiences may be obtained by direct observations.

Hence, the goal of research within the realist paradigm is the discovery of these observable or non-observable structures and mechanisms that underlie events and experiences (Tsoukas, 1989).

120 3.2.5 The paradigm applied in this research: Realism

In any research, the paradigm explains the philosophical assumptions about the nature of knowledge and can be measured (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Morgan, 1990; Smircich, 1983). However, there is no universally accepted paradigm for any form of research, and the discussion and debate continues as to which paradigm and which methodology is best to conduct research (Patton, 2002; Perry, 1998; Smircich, 1983; Yin, 2014). No single paradigm or methodology can meet the needs of all researchers and research questions, due to “our diverse, complex and changing contemporary society” (Cunningham, 1993, p. 71). Babbie (2012) argues that the various approaches compensate for the weaknesses of others and paradigms are not discarded. According to Merriam (2014) there is “almost no consistency about this aspect of research”. Kuhn (1996, cited in Gray, 2013) described this issue as a “paradigm crisis”. However, depending on the context, some paradigms and methodologies are more suitable than others.

In this thesis, realism has been adopted for various reasons. The realism paradigm suggests that external reality is probably true, rather than completely true. Therefore, the belief is that the real world cannot be known with absolute certainty or systematically and consistently measured, and rather can be imperfectly measured (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). According to Healy and Perry (2000), within a critical realism framework, both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are appropriate for researching the underlying mechanisms that drive actions and events.

The realism ontology is suitable for this research as the major aim is to study and examine the behaviours of individuals in relation to change management in organisations. Figure 3.2 below shows the suitability of critical realism for this

121 research. This is supported by Perry et al. (1999) who suggest that naturalistic methods, such as, case studies and unstructured or semi-structured in-depth interviews, are acceptable and relevant within the paradigm, as are descriptive statistics and statistical analyses, such as, those derived from structural equation modelling and other techniques.

Figure 3.2: The qualitative – quantitative research continuum

Source: Bisman (2010), adapted from the previous versions by Bright (1991, p. 25) and Wiersma (1995, p. 14).

In this study, organisational change is considered the reality, which has been experienced and researched by other scholars in relation to its factors and dimensions, and their perceptions are some of the many “windows” that elucidate this reality (Perry et al., 1999, p. 18). This research employs the grounded theory approach proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1990), which is consistent with the realist approach and which uses the extant literature during the initial stages.

Naturalistic Scientific

Qualitative Quantitative

Case study

Experiment Ethnography Quasi experiment

Historical Survey

In-depth interview

Exploratory Explanatory

Interpretive Post-positivism Positivist/Mechanistic Idiographic Critical realism Nomothetic

122

3.3

Epistemology

Epistemology is closely related to ontology and its consideration of what constitutes reality. Epistemology considers the most appropriate ways of enquiring into the nature of the world (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson, 2008), and “what is knowledge and what are the sources and limits of knowledge” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p. 14). Epistemology is concerned with the theory of knowledge, especially its methods, validation and the possible ways of gaining knowledge of social reality. Blaikie (2003, p.8) describes epistemology as, “the theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge”, which encompasses a set of claims or assumptions about the possible ways to gain knowledge of reality. In other words, how what exists may be known, what can be known, and what criteria must be satisfied in order to be described as knowledge.

Similarly, Chia (2002, p. 6) describes epistemology as “how and what it is possible to know”, and emphasises the need to reflect on methods and standards through which reliable and verifiable knowledge is produced. Moreover, Hatch and Cunliffe (2006, p. 11) refer to epistemology as “knowing how you can know”, and expand this by asking how knowledge is generated, what criteria discriminate good knowledge from bad knowledge, and how reality should be represented or described.

These authors also highlight the inter-dependent relationship between epistemology and ontology, and how these inform and depend upon each other. Given this important link, it is essential to understand the position of the researcher. If the researcher holds certain ontological positions or assumptions, these may influence his/her epistemological choices and the final ideas or conclusions drawn. In other words, this depicts the relationship between the enquirer and the knowledge.

123 Therefore, epistemology focuses on the knowledge gathering process and, to some extent, is also concerned with the development of new theories or models that supersede existing theories or models. As mentioned above, Blaikie (2003, p. 3) describes epistemology as, “claims about how what is assumed to exist can be known”, and refers to the set of questions designed by the researcher to draw out an explanation and provide an answer (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). According to Goldman (2000), the aim is to elicit the true answer from those who have the knowledge. Although differing variants of epistemology exist in social sciences research, the four most accepted typologies are as follows:

1. Objectivism.

2. Social constructionism or subjectivism. 3. Relativism.

4. Quine’s naturalism.

Each of these typologies relates to one of the existing competing paradigms, and choosing one of these epistemological positions leads to selecting and employing a particular methodology. Obviously, different epistemological positions can lead to different views of the same social phenomenon. These four epistemological perspectives are described in the following sections.

3.3.1 Objectivism

Objectivism contends that social entity and phenomena have an existence that is external to social actors (Bryman, 2008; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). Objectivism postulates that objects have “intrinsic meaning” that exists apart from the “operation of any consciousness” (Crotty, 1998, p. 8). Therefore, in this approach, the world and its relationships are concrete, and as such, reality is external,

124 research is conducted at a distance independent of the object of the research, and phenomena that cannot be observed are disregarded (Morgan & Smircich, 1980). The major assumptions of objectivism are as follows (Jonassen, 1992; Lakoff, 1987):

 There is a real world consisting of entities structured according to their properties and relations. The categorisation of these entities is based on their properties.

 The ‘real’ is fully and correctly structured so that it can be modelled.

 Symbols are representations of reality and can only be meaningful to the degree that they correspond to reality.

 The human mind processes abstract symbols in a computer-like fashion so that it mirrors nature.

 Human thought is ‘symbol manipulation’ and is independent of the human organism.

 The meaning of the world exists objectively, independent of the human mind and is external to the knower.

According to Crotty (1998, p.8) applying the “right way” helps to discover the “objective truth” as these are objectified in the people we study.