realism rules ok: scientific paradigms in marketing ... - ANZMAC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REALISM RULES OK: SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS IN MARKETING RESEARCH ABOUT NETWORKS ABSTRACT This paper addresses the issue of scientific paradigms in marketing research about networks. It begins with an overview of a ‘rapprochement’ model suggested for network research by Borch and Arthur (1995) which attempts to integrate both objective and subjective research. We argue that their two-dimensional approach could be extended to include the realism paradigm that separates the objective, positivist dimension and the subjective, interpretive dimension. Characteristics of that paradigm are described and its appropriateness for case study research is established. Key words: business networks, scientific paradigms, realism 1948
INTRODUCTION In recent years, research about business and marketing strategy has been criticised for not capturing real-world complexity (for example, Pettigrew 1987). Borch and Arthur (1995) suggest that a mix of objectivist and subjectivist methodologies can help address criticisms like these. We suggest that the mix involves more than methodological considerations - it involves a reconsideration of all three aspects of scientific paradigms used for marketing research. This paper has three sections. In the first section, the Borch and Arthur (1995) suggestion about methodologies is revisited. Then, four scientific paradigms are discussed in terms of ontology and epistemology, as well as methodology. Reasons why the realism paradigm is the most appropriate for some marketing research like that about networks, are then addressed. Finally, the case study research methodology within the realism paradigm is examined. Borch and Arthur’s (1995) ‘Rapprochemont’ Methodology The objectivist approach is predicated on explaining and predicting phenomena, while the subjectivist approach emphasises describing and understanding phenomena. Borch and Arthur (1995, p. 423) claim that both approaches should be used, arguing a mixed methodology would “contribute to the richness of the new strategic management models”. Their bipolar approach to research is common, for example, Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (1991) share it. In brief, their methodology aims to blend the rigour of the scientific validity of objectivist research with the contextual elements and insights of subjectivist research (Borch and Arthur 1995, p. 425). We suggest that their blend of two approaches could be replaced with one approach, the third approach of realism. This third approach involves a reconsideration of all three elements of scientific paradigms - ontology, epistemology and methodology - and not just methodology. This issue of scientific paradigms is addressed next. The Four Scientific Paradigms Researchers operate within a scientific paradigm that is either explicit or implicit. A paradigm is an overall conceptual framework within which a researcher may work, that is, a paradigm can be regarded as the “basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator” (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 105). Philosophical assumptions which support the four different paradigms of social science relating to ontology, epistemology and methodology are summarised in Table 1. In effect Table 1 summarises the following discussion. 1949
Page 1: Theme: Firms & Networks REALISM RUL
Page 5 and 6: treating respondents as independent
Page 7 and 8: constructivism, and is the subjecti
Page 9 and 10: Case Study Methodology Justificatio
Page 11 and 12: some propositions that could be tes
Page 13: Orlikowski, W. J. and Baroudi, J.J.

realism rules ok: scientific paradigms in marketing ... - ANZMAC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?