ESTABA EL NEGRITO AQUEL

Figure 5.2 illustrates the research philosophy, which is also known as the research paradigm. It establishes a set of practices or guides on how to carry out research and make decisions (Guba, 1990). Moreover, a paradigm refers to a set of shared assumptions, values, concepts, and practices comprising a method to view reality for society (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 107) suggested that paradigms are fundamental belief systems that cannot be proved or disproved.

136

The idea of a paradigm is helpful for conceptualising the change process (Porras and Silvers, 1991). Reeves (1999) suggested that a paradigm has its own perspectives and assumptions about knowledge; it focuses on different views of the social world. Patton (2004, p. 20) mentioned that a paradigm is “a world view, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world”. Since this study is about understanding organisational change, which is closely related to capturing the different views of the real world and involves significant social interaction, selecting an appropriate paradigm that reflects these elements and captures these distinct views is crucial to this research. Moreover, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) mentioned that a research paradigm is a systematic investigation in which data are collected, analysed, and interpreted to understand, describe, predict or control an educational or psychological phenomenon or to empower individuals in such contexts. The theoretical framework, as distinct from a theory, is sometimes referred to as the paradigm (Mertens, 2005; Bogdan and Biklen, 1998) and this influences the way knowledge is studied and interpreted. The choice of paradigm lays down the intent, motivation, and expectations for the research. Without nominating a paradigm as the first step, there is no basis for the subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature, or research design. A number of theoretical paradigms are discussed in the literature such as positivist (and postpositivist), constructivist, interpretivist, transformative, emancipator, critical, pragmatism, and deconstructivist (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).

The constructivism and interpretivism research paradigms were examined to assess their suitability for this study. Wildermuth (1993) noted that contrary to positivism, interpretivists allege that the social world encompasses activities, relationships, and influences that cannot be measured objectively. Interpretivists highlight that the social world is prone to “subjective interpretation” manipulated by personal situations; therefore, several dissimilar personal situations could result in deviating or conflicting interpretations of the same event (Thomas, 2004). Moreover, interpretivists believe in living in a world with various realities and refute the supposition that social sciences research can espouse the measurement or theory testing approach (Wildermuth, 1993; Thomas, 2004).

Mertens (2005) mentioned that the interpretivism paradigm emerged from the philosophy of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, Wihelm Dilthey's work, and the study

137

of other German philosophers called hermeneutics, suggesting that “reality is socially constructed”. Cohen and Manion (1994) highlighted that interpretivist approaches aim to understand “the world of human experience”. Creswell (1998) suggested that research participants construct reality. In another study, Creswell (2003) pointed out that the views of participants are important when the researcher investigates the case study under consideration and that through their backgrounds and experiences they recognise the impact of the study. Since this research investigates organisational change and involves capturing different views (confronted with a divergence of ideologies) from the real world through social interaction, the interpretivism research paradigm is most suitable, as interpretivism examines the rationale of human action by recognising the way individuals interpret this world (Sexton, 2003).

The interpretivism paradigm regards organisational reality as a social construct (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and states that reality by its very nature is subjective not objective. Burrel and Morgan (1979, p. 4) defined reality as “a socially constructed system of shared meanings”. Organisational reality is progressively constructed through social interactions by individuals gradually regulating their ideas and perceptions (Vas and Lejeune, 2004). Interpretivism is part of a broad philosophy according to which reality is socially constructed. In order to understand reality, we need to understand the meaning people attach to events, objects, and relationships, which essentially suggests that social reality is not given but rather constructed as a result of people's interpretations and interactions. The main concern of social constructivism is justice about power, relationships and so on.

Since the contextualist approach belongs to the constructivism paradigm (Girginov and Hills, 2009), it is believed, for this study, that it is an interpretivist approach because it emphasises the importance of context and the role of the managers interpretations of change. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) suggested that the interpretivism paradigm refers to a loose collection of assumptions, concepts, or propositions that are logically related and influence both research and thinking. Some authors prefer to discuss the interpretivism framework in terms of “knowledge claims” (Creswell, 2003), epistemology or ontology, or even research methodologies (Neuman, 2000) rather than referring to paradigms. The interpretivism paradigm facilitates the means to better understand and reconstruct a participant's constructs, which affect his or her actions.

138

The interpretivist approach is based on qualitative methods of data collection and analysis and blending qualitative and quantitative methods; moreover, quantitative evidence can be used in a way that is based on the qualitative collection of data, which helps understanding (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Following the interpretivism paradigm raises a few ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues that relate to the nature and role of theory in research. Alsaqer (2006) suggested that reality is “multiple” and “pluralistic”; it is constructed by the social actions, language, and artefacts generated by research participants. Interpretivists choose to take a subjectivist perspective, which is enforced by a human condition; it is also the sole means of unveiling the constructions or knowledge held by individuals. In cases where realities need to be captured from the intellect or opinion of respondents, the only way to acquire them is by subjective interaction (Guba, 1990). In the context of organisational change, the interpretivism paradigm focuses on the viewpoints or opinions of respondents. It considers a variety of interpretations of respondents reflecting their goals and interests similar to how a metaphor is often regarded as only a device for embellishing discourse but its significance is much greater (Morgan, 2006, pp. 4–5).

Morgan (2006) provided eight metaphors for understanding an organisation including machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instrument of domination. This is in order to highlight the value of interpretations because using metaphors implies a way of thinking and seeing that allows for a general understanding of our world. Moreover, a metaphor applies a formative influence not only on science or on our language, but also on the way we think and express our views and opinions on a daily basis.Metaphors help organisations by creating and describing shared reality. They also provide opportunities for organisational scholars to assist managers and agents of change by identifying and effectively managing unconscious factors that affect organisations (Morgan, 2006). Moreover, metaphors, as imagery devices, provide meaning to deepen understanding in all aspects of life (Morgan, 1996). They also provide meaning through causing unconscious emotional associations which influence our values and beliefs (Charteris- Black, 2005). For example, in one of the metaphors, Morgan (2006) mentioned organisations as machines. This metaphor creates valuable insights into how an organisation is structured to achieve predetermined results. However, it is incomplete as it ignores human aspects and is biased since it elevates the importance of rational and

139

structural dimensions; moreover, it is misleading as the organisation is not a machine and can never really be designed, structured, and controlled as a set of inanimate parts (Morgan, 2006, pp. 4–5).

This provides a valuable viewpoint and rationale for using the interpretivist paradigm in this study, since there is a probability of encountering diverging social realities in the three organisations studied. This research refers to five metaphors from Morgan (2006) including organisations as machine, organism, brain, culture, and as political systems. These metaphors are relevant to this study due to its nature. The purpose of using metaphor in this study is both to gain better understanding by covering all aspects that relate to organisational change, as well as to organise the investigation, thus making the research valuable. These five metaphors are helpful because of their three potential uses: to help describe the nature and focus of the field (such as current and potential officials, coaches, and players), to help communicate complex aspects of the field to those within three organisations, and to highlight differences of opinion, and as such to contribute to discussions to advance the field.

In order to assess the usability of research paradigms, a search was conducted for the application of these paradigms in the research area of organisational change and sports as shown in Table 5.1 which illustrates the various types of paradigms used in different domains, such as organisational change, management and policymaking, and sports. It shows that most authors adopt the interpretivism paradigm when conducting research in the area of organisational change of sports, because this paradigm is considered to be the most suitable for studies dealing with interpretation (extracting information from human minds) when using qualitative methods for data analysis.

140

Table 5.1 Research paradigms used in studying organisational change

Domain Positivism Postpositivism Critical

Theory Interpretivism Organisational change Smith (2009) Enero (2005) Erdogan (2008) Alsaqer (2006) Discourse disability sport Hung (2005)

Resistance to change Vas and Lejeune

(2004) Disability sport policy network Thomas (2004) Organisational change Gilmore (2001) Partington (1997) Pellegrinelli (2000)

Football management Carter (2000)

Sports tourism Reeves (1999)

The interpretivism paradigm is a natural choice for research related to organisational change, as organisational reality is constructed by the social interactions of individuals and gradually modified through thoughts and perceptions (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Interpretivism is the most suitable choice for this study not only because it is the one most scholars have chosen but also because organisational change is a social phenomenon and cannot be comprehensively captured in reality unless the beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions of those undergoing the change are accurately understood and interpreted. Moreover, each of the four paradigms mentioned earlier in this section are characterised by the way in which the three questions about ontology, epistemology, and methodology are answered. Ontology refers to “how the things really are” and “how things really work” (Guba, 1990, p. 18). It is what you take reality to be. Within the realm of the interpretivism paradigm, ontology refers to the reality that occurs in various mental beliefs or constructions that are based either on social or on personal experiences and strongly depend on the person they belong to. Such insights into reality

141

can be achieved through the analysis of participants in the context of the reality of their lives, including analysing their actions and communications.

Epistemology refers to “the nature of relationship between the inquirer and the knowable” (Guba, 1990, p. 18). Epistemology is concerned with what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study (Saunders et al., 2003). It deals with the nature, probability, and general scope of knowledge. Within the realm of the interpretivism paradigm, epistemology refers to the blended interactions between the researcher and participants that yield findings as the investigation proceeds. In this thesis, multiple sources of evidence are used including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. In order to realise the interpretivist ontology, case study is the most suitable approach, as it facilitates not only using several sources of evidence, but also analysing them in various contexts such as political, social, economic, organisational, and cultural (Saunders et al., 2003). It is also in line with the contextualist approach concerned with understanding change in context as mentioned in Chapter 4.

Methodology refers to how the inquirer should go about finding out knowledge. This research adopts a case study approach that uses various qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations, and documentary analysis. Table 5.2 highlights the ontological, epistemological, and methodological methods that are adopted in this research.

142

Table 5.2 Ontological, epistemological, and methodological methods adopted

Ontology

Understanding how things really are and how things really work according to various beliefs or social constructions in disability sport organisations in the UAE. It is achieved through the analysis of participants in the context of the reality of their lives including their actions and communications in various UAE disability sport organisations.

Epistemology

This research adopted blended interactions between the researcher and the participants from various disability sport organisation in the UAE to yield findings. The participants were selected based on their experience and knowledge.

Methodology

Case study approach was adopted using various qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observations, and documentary analysis.