Percibiendo la necesidad de expresión y recibir afecto 1 Buscando afecto

It focuses on the meanings that research subjects attach to social phenomena in an attempt by the researcher to understand what is happening and why is it happening. It is about understanding the differences between humans in our role and social actors (Saunders et al., 2009).

Many social scientists have argued that with regards to business and management, the social world is too complex to be able to create a series of generalisations (Saunders et al., 2009). It is because physical sciences deal with objects which are outside us, whereas social sciences deal with actions and behaviour which are generated from within the human mind and they interpret the action of others with whom they interact, and this interpretation leads to interpretivism to adjustment of their meanings and actions. According to Saunders et al. (2009), interpretivism refers to the way we humans make sense of the world around us, which bears many different perceptions of the way we judge, think and feel about organisational operation such as organisation behaviour, marketing, and human resource management. Crossan (2003) agreed with them, suggesting that interpretivism understands the relationship between an individual’s behaviours, attitudes, external structures and social-cultural issues. To conclude, there are fundamental differences between the natural sciences and the societies, unlike the positivism philosophical stand. Therefore the logic and methods of the natural sciences do not apply to the study of societies and human behaviours. It focuses more on investigating and understanding the meanings that people give to their actions and how that impact on the research findings. The contrasting implication of these philosophies is summarised in table 17.

139

Table 17: Contrasting implications of positivism and interpretivism (Adapted from Easterby-Smith al 2015, p. 55)

Positivism Interpretivism

The observer Must be independent Is part of what is being observed

Human interests Should be irrelevant Are the main drivers of science

Explanations Must demonstrate causality Aim to increase general understanding of the situation

Research progresses through

Hypotheses and deductions Gathering rich data from which ideas are induced

Concepts Need to be operationalised so that they can be measured

Should incorporate stakeholder perspectives

Units of analysis Should be reduced to simplest terms

May include the complexity of ‘whole’ situations

Generalisation through Statistical probability Theoretical abstraction

Sampling requires Large numbers selected at random

Small numbers of cases chosen for specific reasons

3.3.4. Realism

Easterby et al. (2015) suggested that it is a belief based on the natural and social sciences. It should apply the same kinds of approach to the collection of data and to explain the commitment to the view that there is an external reality to which scientists direct their attention. It is another philosophical position which relates to scientific enquiry similar to positivist. Realism is identical to positivism as they both assume a scientific approach to the development of knowledge. The essence of this philosophy is that our minds tell us that reality is the truth and objects do exist independently of the human mind (Saunders et al., 2009). There are two types of realism: direct realism and critical realism. Direct realism is based on how we view the world, which will

140

depend on our experiences for accuracy. Saunders et al. (2009) said that it is a ‘what you see is what you get’ scenario.

In contrast, Critical realism is argued that what we see can be deceiving depending on our experiences and how we view the world may not be the real world directly. It refers to what we experience are sensations in how our senses portray the world accurately, the images of the things in the real world, not the things directly. Bhaskar (1989) explained that the researchers would only be able to understand what is going on in the social world if they understand the social structures that have given rise to the phenomena that they are trying to know in other words, what we see is only part of the bigger picture. He suggested that they can identify what they do not see through the practical and theoretical processes of social sciences. Thus, Critical Realism’s position is that the knowledge of reality is a result of social condition and cannot be understood independently of social actors involved in the knowledge derivation process (Dobson, 2002).

The Direct realism perspective would suggest the world is relatively unchanging that it operates, in the business context, at one level or organisation. Critical Realism, on the other hand, would recognise the importance of the multi-level study, i.e. example individual, the group or organisation. Each of these levels can change the researcher’s understanding of that which is being studied. It would be the consequence of the existence of a greater variety of structures, procedures and processes and these structures, procedures and processes have to interact with one another. Therefore, they would argue that the critical realism’s position that the social world is continually changing is working more in line with the purpose of business and management research which is too often is to understand the reason for phenomena as a precursor to recommendation check.By evaluating the link between epistemology and ontology

141

suggested that positivism fits appropriately with realism ontologies, and Social constructionism fits well with nominalism. There is a clear distinction between a stronger and more standard version of positivism and Social constructionism.The term ‘normal’ constructionism refers to those who construct their knowledge while accepting the existence of independent, objective knowledge; whereas active constructivism census that there is no deferent between personal and social knowledge (Ernst, 1996). Table 11 shows the research methodological implications of the difference each of the epistemologies outlined in this chapter. The table below is used to summarise and clarify the epistemologies and ontologies link with the research philosophies. It will help the researcher to use as criteria when deciding which philosophy stand is relevant to the research study.

The advantages and disadvantages relating to these different philosophies are summarised in table 18. Whereas, Table 19 is illustrating a comparison of three major research philosophies used in management researches, linked to the assumptions of ontology, epistemology and axiology.

142

Table 18: Advantages and disadvantages of positivism, Interpretivism and Realism approach to research (Adapted from Saunders et al. 2009).

Positivism Interpretivism Realism

Advantages

1. Economical collection of a large amount of data 2. The clear theoretical

focus for the research at the outset

3. Greater opportunity for the researcher to retain control of the research process 4. Easily comparable

data

1. Facilitates understanding of how and why 2. Enables researcher

to be alive to changes which occur during the research process 3. Good at understanding social processes 1. Accepts value of multiple data 2. Enables general actions beyond the present sample 3. Greater efficiency including outsourcing potential Disadvantages 1. Inflexible – direction often cannot be

changed once data

collection has

started.

2. Weak at

understanding social processes.

3. Often does not

discover the

meanings people

attach to social

phenomena.

1. Data can be time- consuming

2. Data analysis is

difficult

3. The researcher has to live with the

uncertainty that

clear patterns may not emerge 4. Generally perceived as less credible by non-researchers 1. Requires large samples 2. Cannot accommodate institutional and cultural differences 3. Problems reconciling discrepant information

Table 19: Comparison of four research philosophies in management research

Positivism Realism Interprevism

Ontology: the researcher’s view of the nature of reality or being

External, objective and

independent of social

factors

Is objective. Exists

independently of

human thought and

beliefs or knowledge of their existence (realist), but is interpreted through social conditioning (Critical realist) Socially constructed, subjective, may change, multiple

143 Epistemology: the research’s view regarding what constitutes acceptable knowledge Only observable

phenomena can provide credible data, facts. Focus on causality and law-like generalisations, reducing phenomena to simplest elements

Observable phenomena provide credible data means inaccuracies in sensation (direct realism). Alternatively, phenomena create sensations which are open to misinterpretation (critical realism). Focus on explaining within a context or contexts Subjective meanings and social phenomena. Focus upon details of the situation, a reality behind these details, subjective meanings motivating actions

Axiology: the researcher’s view of the role of values in research

Research is undertaking in a value-free way; the researcher is independent of data and maintains an objective stance.

Research is value- laden; the researcher is biased by world views, culture experiences and upbringing. These will impact on the research.

Research is value bound; the researcher is part of what is being researched, cannot be separated and so will be subjective

Data collection techniques most often used

Highly structured, large samples, measurement, quantitative, but can use qualitative

Methods chosen must fit the subject matter, quantitative or qualitative

Small samples, in- depth investigations, qualitative

Source: Adapted from Saunders et al. (2009, pp. 119).