Se derogan los artículos:

According to Creswell (1998, p. 74) a paradigm is “a basic set of assumptions that guides the research inquiries”. Burrell and Morgan (1979) provided a framework for understanding the choice of paradigm in social science empirical research. Their framework was built on two aspects, namely: the beliefs of the researcher about: (i) the subjective-objective nature of the social world; and (ii) the regulation-radical change nature of society. These dimensions of social science research are represented diagrammatically in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) Schema for Analysing Assumptions about the Nature of Social Science Research

The Subjective-Objective Dimensions Subjectivist Approach to

Social Science

Objective Approach to Social Science

Ontology

Epistemology

Human Nature

Methodology

Source: Adopted from Burrell and Morgan, (1979, p. 3).

The subjective-objective dimension of social science research is based on four paradigms social theory research, and these depend in turn on assumptions made by the researcher about the nature of social science and the nature of society. These assumptions deal with:

(i) ontology; (ii) epistemology; (iii) human nature; and (iv) methodology (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Ontology has been defined by Grix (2002) as “the starting point of all research” (p. 177): and “the image of social reality upon which a theory is based” (p. 177).

More directly, Ryan et al. (2002) argued that ontology is “the study of existence” (p.13) while Blaikie (2000) provided a short description of ontological assumptions and stated that

“ontological assumptions [are] concerned with what we believe constitutes social reality”

(p. 8). In this context, ontological assumptions are clearly concerned with the belief of the researcher about the nature of reality. Burrell and Morgan (1979) explained the nature of the reality as focusing on:

Nominalism Realism

Anti-positivism Positivism

Voluntarism Detrminism

Ideographic Nomothetic

“Whether the ‘reality’ to be investigated is external to the individual - imposing itself on individual consciousness from without - or the product of individual consciousness; whether ‘reality’ is of an ‘objective’ nature, or the product of individual cognition; whether ‘reality’ is a given ‘out there’ in the world, or the product of one’s mind” (p.1).

Burrell and Morgan (1979) argued that discussions about ontology primarily focus on the continuum between two distinct positions, nominalism and realism. The authors highlighted that a nominalism perspective views researchers as not being independent from their prior experiences while the social world is unreal and has no real structure; it is comprised of names or concepts or labels that are used to describe things, because what is known about reality is generated from individual consciousness and cognition. In contrast, a realist ontological position involves a belief that what the senses show us as reality is the

‘truth’; thus, objects have an existence independent of the human mind (Saunders et al., 2007).

The second assumption relates to epistemology. According to Blaikie (2000) epistemology is concerned with:

“the theory of knowledge, especially in regard to its methods, validation and the possible ways of gaining knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be” (p. 8).

More specifically, the notion is concerned with identifying the constituents of knowledge (Saunders et al., 2007) and therefore relates to the grounding of knowledge and how researchers might begin to understand the social world (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Burrell and Morgan also distinguished between two extreme positions regarding epistemological assumptions, in this case regarding:

“whether knowledge is something which can be acquired on one hand (positivism), or is something which has to be personally experienced on the other (anti-positivism)” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, P. 2).

Accordingly, epistemology can be understood as a continuum with extremes representing positivist and anti-positivist positions. A positivist approach follows an objectivist epistemology, whereby knowledge is seen as existing independently of the researcher. In

contrast, an anti-positivist approach follows a subjectivist epistemology which believes that the social world can only be understood from the point of view of a researcher who is involved directly in the activities which are to be studied (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

The third assumption relates to human nature, in particular the relationship between human beings and their environment. Burrell and Morgan argued that while such a relationship is affected by ontological and epistemological assumptions in practice, in theoretical terms it is separate. Determinism and voluntarism represent the two extreme positions in this context. Determinism views human beings and their experiences as being influenced by their environment, while, voluntarism argues that “man is completely autonomous and free-willed” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 6).

The fourth assumption concerns the researcher’s view about methodology. The term methodology refers to “the theory of how research should be undertaken” (Saunders et al., 2003, p. 2). According to Burrell and Morgan (1979) different ontologies, epistemologies and views of human nature lead to different methodologies being adopted by social science researchers. Crotty (1998) explained methodology as:

“…the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (p. 3).

Thus, methodology influences the research design that guides researchers in choosing the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to their research questions (Crotty, 1998). Two extreme approaches have been identified regarding methodology, namely: “the nomothetic” approach, which makes use of positivistic (objectivist) methodologies where the social world is seen as being similar to the natural world and data can be gathered through the use of protocols and procedures that stem from the physical sciences; and the “ideographic” approach, which is phenomenological (subjectivist)

(Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The nomothetic method has been described by Burrell and Morgan, (1979) as being:

“epitomised in the natural sciences, which focus upon the process of testing hypotheses in accordance with the canons of scientific rigour. It is preoccupied with the construction of scientific tests and use of quantitative techniques for the analysis of data. Surveys, questionnaires, personality tests and standardised research instruments of all kinds are prominent among the tools which comprise nomothetic methodology” (p. 6-7).

In contrast, an Ideographic approach views knowledge as something that has to be individually experienced; data can be collected through adopting qualitative research techniques such as interviews and case studies (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

Burrell and Morgan introduced two dimensions to explain the way in which society is structured: (i) the sociology of regulation; and (ii) the sociology of radical change; they argued that these reflect the attitude of the scientists to order and conflict in society.

Regulation and radical change is then related to the sociology of regulation as follows:

“…the writings of theories who are primarily concerned to provide explanations of society in terms which emphasise its underlying unity and cohesiveness. It is a sociology which is essentially concerned with the need for regulation in human affairs” Burrell and Morgan (1979), (p.17).

In contrast, the sociology of radical change is concerned with providing “explanations for radical change, deep-seated structural conflict, modes of domination, and structural contradiction which its theories see as characterising modern society” (p. 17). The fundamental differences between these two positions and a pictorial representation of the regulation-radical change structure is shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: The Regulation-Radical Change Dimension

(b) Social Order (b) Structural Conflict

(c) Consensus (c) Modes of Domination

(d) Social Integration and Cohesion (d) Contradiction

(e) Solidarity (e) Emancipation

(f) Need Satisfaction (f) Depravation

(g) Actuality (g) potentiality

Note: Reproduced from Burrell and Morgan, (1979, p. 18).

Based on the seven elements presented in Figure 5.2, Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggested several aspects and interpretations of the nature of society across a sociological spectrum.

Encompassing a range of points of view that may exist between researchers in terms of their assumptions about how society is ordered and the emphasis on change in the research question being examined.

Burrell and Morgan (1979) merged the subjective-objective and regulation-radical change dimensions and created a two-by-two matrix for their analysis; this resulted in four distinct paradigms emerging namely: functionalist, interpretive, radical structuralist and humanist.

The authors noted that these paradigms are mutually exclusive in the sense that a researcher cannot be located in more than one paradigm at any point in time since, in applying the assumption of one paradigm, this automatically means that the assumption of all other paradigms are rejected.⁵⁷ Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggested in this context that:

57 Chua (1986) expressed a different point of view regarding the categorisation of accounting research, classifying the research into “mainstream accounting”, “interpretive” and “critical” forms. Her alternative classification scheme was based on three sets of beliefs: (i) beliefs about knowledge; (ii) beliefs about physical and social reality; and (iii) the relationship between accounting theory and practice. Epistemological and methodological assumptions were argued to represent two sets of beliefs about the nature of knowledge, while assumptions about ontology, human intention, rationality and social relations underpin beliefs about physical and social reality. In terms of the relationship between theory and practice, Chua (1986, p. 610) suggested that “mainstream accounting researchers insist upon a means-end dichotomy. That is, accountants should deal only with observations of the most “efficient and effective” means of meeting the informational needs of a maker but should not involve themselves with moral judgments about the decision-maker’s needs or goals.”

“Each of the paradigms shares a common set of features with its neighbours on the horizontal and vertical axis in terms of one of the two dimensions but differentiated on the other dimension. For this reason they should be viewed as contiguous but separate-contiguous because the differentiation is of sufficient importance to warrant treatment of the paradigms as four distinct entities. The four paradigms define fundamentally different perspectives for the analysis of social phenomena. They approach this endeavour from contrasting standpoints and generate quite different concepts and analytical tools” (p. 23).

According to Burrell and Morgan (1979), the nature of social-scientific reality depends upon which paradigm is used. Figure 5.2 below illustrates Burrell and Morgan’s paradigms.

Figure 5.2: Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) Matrix for the Analysis of Social Theory

The Sociology of Radical Change

Subjective

Radical Human

Radical Structuralist

Objective Interpretive Functionalist

The Sociology of Regulation

Note: Reproduced from Burrell and Morgan, (1979, p. 22).

The functionalist paradigm is the result of combining objectivist and regulatory dimensions and is focused on providing explanations of the social order from an objective perspective.

Researchers located in this paradigm tend to adopt a realist ontology, a positivist epistemology, a deterministic model of human nature, and nomothetic methodology.

According to Burrell and Morgan (1979) the functionalist paradigm assumes that the:

“Social world is composed of relatively concrete empirical artefacts and relationships which can be identified, studied and measured through approaches derived from the natural sciences” (p. 16).

Accordingly, the functionalist paradigm sees accounting and business phenomena as concrete real-world relations possessing regularities and causal relationships that are amenable to scientific explanation and prediction (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2005).

Combining together a subjectivist approach with an appreciation of regulation leads to an interpretive paradigm, which considers peoples’ perceptions of reality when trying to explain and understand the fundamental meanings of a phenomenon in the social world.

Thus, an interpretive approach to social science typically encompasses a nominalist ontology, an anti-positivist epistemology, a voluntarist view of human nature and ideographic methodology. Interpretive research observes the activities of individuals in order to achieve a better understanding of society (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

The radical humanist paradigm is arrived at following combining the subjective and radical change dimensions. Radical humanists see the world in subjectivist terms and focus on changing society by ‘eliminating constraints on human beings’ (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

Thus, their view of the social world is based on adopting a nominalist ontology, an anti-positivist epistemology, a voluntarist view of human nature and an ideographic methodology (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The final position, radical structuralism is derived from combining together the radical change and objectivism dimensions.

Therefore, this paradigm is unlike the radical humanist paradigm because it views the world from an objectivist standpoint and typically focuses on changing the universal structures and social order. Those taking this stance understand the social world from a standpoint which tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

The phenomenon being studied in this dissertation is financial disclosure practice in Kuwaiti non-financial listed firms. In particular, the research examines the level of disclosure in the annual reports of Kuwaiti non-financial listed firms and explores the perceptions of interested parties regarding these practices. Thus, the study seeks to understand and explore the issues under investigation without attempting to radically change the status quo. Therefore, this research is located in the sociology of regulation zone, which sees a meaningful place for regulation of accounting matters; according to

Burrell and Morgan (1979) this type of study can only be functionalist or interpretive in nature. Thus, the radical humanist and radical structuralist paradigms are rejected as they are located within the sociology of radical change.

The level of financial disclosure in annual reports of Kuwaiti non-financial listed firms is seen by the researcher here as an important phenomena that is worthy of investigation.

Furthermore, the researcher views the disclosure of accounting matters as objective information that represents a common reality to individuals; these accounting disclosures are not seen as subjective or unique from the point of view of interested parties. Therefore, the researcher locates the present study mainly in the functionalist paradigm of Burrell and Morgan’s matrix; however, an interpretive element is acknowledged within the analysis.

Following the functionalist approach, realist ontology, a positivist epistemology, a deterministic model of human nature and nomothetic methodology are adopted.

After the researcher has determined one side in the paradigm matrix presented by Burrell and Morgan, he or she is required to select a suitable method to address his/her research questions. According to the substantive literature, the choice of qualitative versus quantitative methods is one of the most fundamental distinctions to be made in research methodology (Bailey, 1978). Quantitative research is considered to be highly structured, objective, and generally uses quantitative measurement, while qualitative research focuses on the details of phenomenon and the reality behind these details; it is thus often considered to be more subjective (Collis and Hussey, 2003).

According to Marshall and Rossman (1989), researchers should use the approach which will best assist in answering the research questions under investigation. The types of phenomenon being examined, the nature of the population being studied and the overall objectives of the research are basic elements which influence the choice between

qualitative and/or quantitative methods (Mariamposlki, 2001). Accordingly, based on the questions being addressed and the objectives of this research - as well as the world views of the researcher - a predominantly quantitative approach was considered to be most suitable for this thesis.