MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

for example, which caused so much strife for them – were observable
realities, their approach to management was, I felt, socially
constructed.
I had never really studied realism seriously when I was studying the
philosophy of social science. It had seemed so easy to opt for the
centre ground and I felt that I would be looking for what Blaikie (1993)
suggests could be an excuse for sloppy research, by-passing the
intricacies of philosophical debate. When I did return to it, however, I
found a philosophical approach expressed very much in the terms that
I had outlined in the reference above to my First Review paper. For
example, Miles and Huberman (1994:4) outline their realist approach
as follows:-‘Unlike researchers in physics, we must contend with
institutions, structures, practices and conventions that people
reproduce and transform. Human meanings and intentions are worked
out within the frameworks of these social structures – structures that
are invisible but nonetheless real. In other words, social phenomena,
such as language, decisions, conflicts and hierarchies, exist objectively
in the world and exert strong influences over human activities because
people construe them in common ways. Things that are believed
become real and can be inquired into.’
It seemed to me that I had finally found a philosophical approach which
did explain my view of the nature of reality, that there were observable
realities in society but that other phenomena were socially constructed.
Furthermore, I could espouse that philosophical position not because it
was a soft option but because I had acquired sufficient self-knowledge
to enable me to explain my true beliefs.
Realism
Realism is a relatively recent philosophical approach and, like most
philosophies, has different emphases and approaches and has
generated a good deal of critical attention. It accepts the notion that an
‘actual’ world exists which has immutable features. But realists have an
interpretative belief that social actors give meaning to the world. In the
words of Layder (1993:16) ‘a central feature of realism is its attempt to
preserve a ‘scientific’ attitude to social analysis at the same time as
recognising the importance of actors’ meanings and in some way
incorporating them into research.’
Bhaskar (1975:56) proposed that experiences, events and
mechanisms constituted three overlapping domains of reality; those of
the empirical, the actual and the real. The empirical domain consists of
events which can be observed, such as a trade union conference. The
actual domain consists of real events, the possibility of whose
existence is accepted even if they are not directly observed – perhaps
the stages which a delegate to a union conference goes through in
forming a view of how to react to a proposition of importance to the
management of a union. The real domain consists of the underlying
structures and mechanisms which produce the events – perhaps the
56