Trabajo en equipo

Before social research can be undertaken one must select the philosophical approach to be taken, however variations in definition for philosophical terms create challenges. “Positivism”

for example can be found used as representing an entire philosophical perspective or simply an epistemology (Hollis 1994, pp.41–42). In this section therefore the usage of these terms here is clarified below, drawing from the well-accepted conventions of Burrell and Morgan (1979).

Ontology A theory as to the nature of reality, in other words: what exists. The principal point of discussion is whether there exists an objective social truth (knowledge about concrete social structures “exists” ready to collect, realism) or whether reality exists only for the individual as artificial concepts which are given shared names (nominalism) (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Since it defines what can exist, ontology is the foundation for all later considerations (Holden and Lynch, 2004).

Epistemology How knowledge can be obtained or experienced. It is necessarily coupled to ontology, since one cannot “know” what one does not accept exists. Can one

“know” social reality by hypothesising, testing and measuring it (positivism) or is it individual and can only be understood by interpreting the positions of others? The latter position is occasionally referred to as “interpretive”

epistemology, however this will cause confusion with interpretivism as a paradigm (see below) thus the Burrell and Morgan (1979) adoption of the general term anti-positivism is useful.

Voluntarism and Determinism (Agency)

Is a person constrained by their surroundings: are they an “actor” with free will to choose how to act (voluntarism), or an “agent” playing out their role in a social structure (determinism)? Hollis (1994, p.107) actually places this in ontological terms: one accepts individualism (the individual exists) or holism (social structures exist) whereas Burrell and Morgan (1979) place it

external to ontology. Between these extremes, Jones et al., (2004) note that Giddens’ Structuration Theory acknowledges both that the human is affected by structure (by learned and reproduced behaviours) but makes choices which – albeit potentially with consequences – they are free to have made differently.

Methodology and Method

“Methodology” will be used to describe the underlying logic of the research approach, whereas “method” will refer to the specific techniques.

Nomothetic approaches look at the general behaviour of groups, considering the individual to be a member of that group and affected by common laws.

These approaches are often linked to systematic measurement and testing of hypotheses, and hence are frequently linked to the positivist epistemology of natural science. Ideographic approaches focus on the individual, aiming to produce a full description of a particular case and recognising its uniqueness, without necessarily taking a highly regimented and reproducible empirical approach (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.6; Gibbs 2007, pp.5–6).

A study will choose methods which produce the type of data which aligns with the chosen methodology. A nomothetic methodology will tend to desire the production of quantitative data, to demonstrate correlations between observable variables, observe trends or test hypotheses. It will therefore favour methods which produce population data minimising the role of the individual, such as the survey. Ideographic studies will conversely look to observe and collect the idiosyncrasies of the specific case, such as by interview (Burrell and Morgan 1979, pp.6–7).

Method selection is output-specific. To review the performance of a drug it is desirable to remove any bias or placebo effect from the results. Where understanding is less well developed and the question less distinct, numerical data cannot completely explain nuance in the meaning and intention of actions, for example what it means to contract the relevant illness (Flick, 2009).

Paradigm Clearly ontology, epistemology and methodology are linked. Taking the nominalist ontology that there is no objective truth but then adopting a positivist epistemology, to measure and test reality objectively, creates an internally inconsistent position. Some authors have therefore identified paradigms which describe a reasonably coherent philosophical approach, analogues of political parties or schools of thought, grouped for convenience of reference (Burrell and Morgan 1979, pp.23–24). As these authors state (p.36), this is far looser than the Kuhnian paradigm which defines the exclusive mindset for a generation. They suggest that sociological positions can be classified on two independent dimensions, which together give four paradigms. The first dimension (“subjective–objective”, illustrated in Fig. 4) is an axis between a natural science approach to social questions (sociological positivism) and requiring understanding from within rather than describing from without (derived from German Idealism).

Nominalism Ontology Realism

Anti-positivism Epistemology Positivism

Voluntarism Human Nature Determinism

Ideographic Methodology Nomothetic

SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE

Fig. 4: Subjective–Objective dimension (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.3).

The second dimension, shown in Table 1, considers order and conflict; work might account for the status quo with well-established and integrated elements, whereas other work will describe change, instability and coercion rather than consensus. Since well-ordered change can be part of the maintenance of the status quo, they draw the distinction between regulation (which can include integrated processes of evolution) and radical change (which is an agitation).

Regulation Radical Change

(a) The status quo (a) Radical change

(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) Deprivation

(g) Actuality (g) Potentiality

Table 1:Regulation–Radical Change dimension

(Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.18)

* In other words, whether the system is geared towards the satisfaction of individual needs.

The poles of these two dimensions produce four paradigms, shown in Fig. 5:

Radical Humanist

Radical Structuralist

Interpretive Functionalist

SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE

REGULATIONRADICAL CHANGE

Fig. 5: A model of four sociological paradigms (from Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.22).

Chua (1986) rejects both such strict dichotomies and the separation of Radical Humanism and Radical Structuralism, preferring mainstream and interpretative positions (akin to functionalist and interpretative paradigms above) with the Critical tradition as the final perspective. Critical perspectives are distinguished by emancipation and ethical evaluation; interactions are viewed in terms of their restrictive effects on the individual, who cannot reach their full potential due to structures of domination (Chua, 1986).