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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1 Basic belief systems of alternative inquiry paradigms Paradigm Item Positivism Realism Critical theory Constructivism Ontology naïve critical realism: historical realism: critical realism: reality is “real” but “virtual” reality relativism: reality is real only imperfectly shaped by social, multiple local and and and economic, ethnic, specific apprehensible probabilistically political, cultural, “constructed” apprehensible and and gender values, realities so triangulation crystallised over from many sources time is required to try to know it Epistemology objectivist: findings true modified subjectivist: subjectivist: objectivist: value mediated created findings findings probably findings true Methodology experiments/ case dialogic/dialectical: hermeneutical / surveys: studies/convergent researcher is a dialectical: verification interviewing: “transformative researcher is a of triangulation, intellectual” who “passionate hypotheses: interpretation of changes the social participant” chiefly research issues by world within which within the world quantitative qualitative and participants live being investigated methods quantitative methods such as structural equation modeling Note: Essentially, ontology is 'reality', epistemology is the relationship between that reality and the researcher and methodology is the technique used by the researcher to discover that reality. Source: Perry, Alizadeh and Riege, (1996, p. 547) based on Guba and Lincoln (1994). Positivism. Positivists assume that natural and social sciences measure independent facts about a single apprehensible reality composed of discrete elements whose nature can be known and categorised (Guba and Lincoln 1994; Tsoukas 1989). The objectives of the research inquiry often include the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables that are consistent across time and context. The primary data collection techniques include controlled experiments and sample surveys which are outcome oriented and assume natural laws and mechanisms, with the primary mode of the research inquiry being theory-testing or deduction. Data is usually collected in a structured manner with the researcher not intervening in the phenomenon of interest and seeking for theory testing in value-free or hopefully value-free generalisations. In other words, the data and its analysis are value-free and data does not change because they are being observed. That is, researchers view the world through a ‘one way mirror’ (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 110). Even in nuclear physics where particles cannot be directly observed, uncertainty in results is a methodological issue and not an ontological one - different observers using the same methodology should obtain similar results. All these assumptions of positivism are appropriate in a natural science, for example, every zoologist in the world will count the same number of bones in a dead kingfisher. However, a positivist view is inappropriate when approaching a social science phenomenon like networks which involves humans and their real-life experiences, for 1950
treating respondents as independent objects “ignores their ability to reflect on problem situations, and act upon this” (Robson 1993, p. 60). That is, positivists separate themselves from the world they study, while researchers within the three other paradigms acknowledge that they have to participate in real-world life to some extent so as to better understand and express its emergent properties and features (Denzin 1983; Gilmore and Carson 1996). Furthermore, social science researchers should not seek to provide causal explanations within a closed system as a positivist would. Instead, they should consider the complex nature of reality and the research problem, reflecting, forming and revising meanings and structures from managerial experiences and how these problems appear to managers (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). To approach this task, social science researchers could operate within the non-positivist scientific paradigms introduced next. Critical theory and constructivism. The second paradigm, critical theory, assumes apprehensive social realities, incorporating historically situated structures. Critical theory researchers aim at critiquing and transforming social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender values. Examples of critical theory researchers are Marxists, feminists and action researchers. Thus research inquiries are often long-term ethnographic and historical studies of organisational processes and structures. Assumptions are essentially subjective and hence knowledge is grounded in social and historical routines and is therefore value-dependent and not value-free (Guba and Lincoln 1994). However, this paradigm is not appropriate for marketing research unless the researcher aims to be a “transformative intellectual” who liberates people from their historical mental, emotional and social structures (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 112). For example, most business network research aims at understanding the actions of the decisionmakers rather than changing them or their approaches to strategy formulation. The third paradigm, constructivism, adopts a relativism ontology. An example of a constructivist would be a psychologist or a researcher of organisational culture. From a constructivist's perspective, truth is a construction which refers to a particular belief system held in a particular context. Realities appear as multiple realities which are socially and experientially based, intangible mental constructions of individual persons. Meaning has more value than measurement, for perception itself is the most important reality. Like critical theory, constructivism enquires about the ideologies and values which lie behind a finding. Researching this created knowledge depends on the interaction between interviewer and respondent, that is, the researcher has to be a “passionate participant”' during his or her field work (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p. 112). This constructivist approach may be suitable for some social science research like that about religion, beauty or prejudice but it is rarely appropriate for business research because the approach excludes concerns about the clearly real economic and technological dimensions of business (Hunt 1991). For example, when BHP recently closed a major plant, the decision was based not only on “beliefs” but included constructs that were measurable such as present and past profit levels and plant capacities. But these measurable constructs were difficult to measure and they were not 1951
Page 1 and 2: Theme: Firms & Networks REALISM RUL
Page 3: INTRODUCTION In recent years, resea
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?