Las relaciones con los grupos de interés o stakeholders

Following the theme set in the above paragraphs, this section first offers definitions of the main components of a paradigm, namely ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology and then moves on to explain how polarity in assumptions of the components, and the resulting intermediate concepts, are reflected in different schools of thought, or paradigms.

3.2.1.1

O

Ontology defines the fundamental assumptions about the nature of existence based on how people perceive “reality” or the “knowable” (Guba, 1990). Ontological debates have, on one extreme, reality as a singular, verifiable fact and, on the other, a multiplicity of realities which are inevitably socially constructed. These

105 accept universals as mind-independent objects existing independently of any perceiving consciousness. The social world external to individual cognition is independent of the individual and is not created by him/her but exists „out there‟. This imposes the assumption of pre-existence of the social world where the individual is born into it. Not every existing entity is known to the individual and therefore there are thus far no names for the unknown but it does not preclude its existence and remains only to be investigated. This assumption of social world brings it in tune with the natural world (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

Nominalists, on the other hand, refute the concept of universals, and construe

reality by grouping objects together and „naming‟ them on the basis of their perceptions of those objects. This is to say that nominalists assume that the social world external to human cognition is a mere structuralisation of reality through assigning names, labels, and concepts to individual perceptions of the social world. The „names‟ assigned to these perceptions merely serve as conventional tools for creating an understanding of, and describing, the social world (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). A „name‟ or a „metaphor‟ for an object, process, concept, or anything else is as „real‟ or „true‟ as an individual‟s or society‟s „belief‟ in it. It can be summarised that according to nominalism the reality of social phenomena to be investigated is a product of the individual‟s mind.

A related but different concept to nominalism, widely accepted as the other

extreme of realism, is relativism which assumes all truth or reality to be relative as

opposed to absolute (Guba, 1990). Consequently, all criteria of judgement in research are relative to the individuals and the situations involved. Knowledge and truth depend on a worldview, which is subjective, therefore all truths are equal:

106 your „truth‟ is as true as my „truth‟. This implies that perceptions of truth and moral values are relative to the person or group holding them. Thus, there are many possible interpretations of any inquiry resulting in different constructions of reality, without a single foundational process for identifying ultimate truth or falsity. This dictates a continuous research process to search for more sophisticated and better informed constructions that unearth the multiple realities which exist in the minds of individuals (Guba, 1990).

3.2.1.2

E

Epistemology defines the researcher‟s perception of the origin, nature, methods of acquisition of, and limits to, human knowledge. It attempts to provide answers to the questions of what is deemed as knowledge, where does it come from, how is it acquired, what people know, and how do they know what they know.

According to Burrell and Morgan‟s model (1979) Anti-positivism and Positivism

are taken as the two extremes in epistemology. Anti-positivists, hold the view that

all investigation is subjective since perception of reality varies with individuals,

and “truth” is not conformity to objective reality but rather a consensus arrived at through informed and sophisticated constructions. All observations are theory- and value-laden. „Facts‟ collected and arrived at during investigation only hold their meaning within the value framework used and therefore cannot be treated as objective assessment of propositions. Phenomena are context-based and can only be understood within the context studied which renders them un-generalisable to other research settings since a holistic view of the context is necessary to appreciate them (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).

107

Positivism, on the other hand, seeks to “explain and predict what happens in the

social world by searching for regularities and causal relationships between its constituent elements” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 5). The positivist believes that it is possible to observe the world in a natural objective manner, and practices as an objectivist with the assumption that reality exists and truth can be unearthed

through investigation. A positivist directs questions to nature in the hope of

finding true answers that appear elusive and need to be searched scientifically. In

this way social world is akin to a natural world where scientific knowledge is acquired by logically deducing hypotheses built on a set of carefully designed and operationally defined concepts and variables and then testing for the truth (or falsification) of those hypotheses to arrive at universal laws that can be generalised to other contexts. Thus, genuine knowledge is only that which can be verified and is based directly on experience.

3.2.1.3

H

N

Human nature here involves the assumption of similarity over a period of time, or the range of human behaviour that remains constant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts. According to Burrell and Morgan (1979) “this debate revolves around the issue of what model of man is reflected in any given social-scientific theory” (p. 6). Thus, it sets forward assumptions of human behaviour under the influence of his environment, or the relationship between man and society. It is important to understand the nature of human actions when studying social sciences because it improves our understanding of why people do what they do and social science researchers must adopt a stance “implicitly or

108 explicitly” to assign meanings to human action and to understand and explain the findings of their investigation.

In an epistemological objectivity-subjectivity debate, with the two taken as

extremes, human action is regarded by the objectivist as governed by stimuli in the

environment where man simply responds to his surroundings and by the

subjectivist as an outcome of the culture man is a part of and the meanings

assigned to actions and values by that culture.

Burrell and Morgan (1979) set forward two extremes of human nature. On the one

extreme they see man as a voluntarist with a completely free will and able to

make decisions independently of the society. In this regard, man is in complete control of his environment and is not dictated by it. On the other extreme, man is

seen as a determinist or responder whose actions are determined completely by

the stimuli in the environment and the various stimuli he encounters condition his responses so that actions become predictable, and a pattern of causal relationships can be identified. Therefore, man is seen as a slave to the environment.

3.2.1.4

M

Methodology, or a set of procedures or methods adopted to conduct research, is governed strongly by the researcher‟s ontological and epistemological views. Researchers must decide how they will go about collecting information to find the solutions they seek to their research problem(s).

Burrell and Morgan (1979) present the ideographic-nomothetic theory which

provides two extremes on the continuum for selecting a methodology for research

109 assumption that reality is a socially constructed product of human mind and therefore requires a first-hand knowledge of the researched in order to gain an insight into his/her perceptions of reality. The focus of the investigation is on individuals in particular circumstances. Thus a researcher must get close to the subject or become a part of the situation and not only explore its background and life history in detail but also allow the subject to reveal its „inner self‟ in order to build a holistic picture of the subject and its context and understand the „relative reality‟.

Nomothetic approach, on the other hand, follows the ontological realism

assumption that the social world, like the natural world, is concrete and independent of human consciousness and therefore investigation must follow the scientific methods of research where hypotheses are set and rigorous tests are conducted to search for verifiable and generalisable laws that explain pre-existing but unknown „truths‟.