Research paradigm: Critical Realism in Burrell and Morgan quadrants


Published on

The presentation question if there is a place for critical realism (CR) within Burrell and Morgan Quadrants for organisation research

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Research paradigm: Critical Realism in Burrell and Morgan quadrants

  1. 1. Research paradigm: Critical Realism in Burrell and Morgan quadrants? Laban Bagui 7 th february 2011
  2. 2. Getting into research <ul><li>Looking for meanings </li></ul>Is love more important ? What is this or what is this all about? Picture extracted from ‘Planet of the Apes’ Charlton Heston & Linda Harrison (1968)
  3. 3. Surprising reality <ul><li>Is this or he or she really doing that? </li></ul>
  4. 4. Some research approaches <ul><li>Scientific approaches to introspection (nomothetic vs ideographic) </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>It is necessity to ground the research in a canvas in order to render it consistent </li></ul>
  6. 6. Research Paradigm <ul><li>“ The identification of the underlying basis that is used to construct a scientific investigation (Kraus, 2005); </li></ul><ul><li>“ a loose collection of logically held together assumptions, concepts, and propositions that orientates thinking and research” (Bogdan & Biklan, 1982). </li></ul><ul><li>“ basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 105). </li></ul>
  7. 7. Paradigm components <ul><li>Epistemological debate (anti-positivism vs positivism) </li></ul><ul><li>Ontological debate (Nominalism vs realism or Constructivism vs Observation) </li></ul><ul><li>Methodological debate (Nomothetic vs Ideographic) </li></ul><ul><li>The human nature debate (volontarism vs determinism) </li></ul><ul><li>The nature of social science (holistic vs specific) </li></ul><ul><li>The nature of information science (qualitative vs quantitative) </li></ul><ul><li>Various related assumptions (Basic accepted belief) </li></ul><ul><li>Other stuff (Generalisability, validity, value... ) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Paradigms in Social research <ul><li>Functionalist Paradigm (objective-regulation) </li></ul><ul><li>This has been the primary paradigm for organizational study. It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behavior through hypothesis testing. </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretive Paradigm (subjective-regulation) </li></ul><ul><li>This paradigm &quot;seeks to explain the stability of behavior from the individual's viewpoint&quot;. Researchers in this paradigm try to observe &quot;on-going processes&quot; to better understand individual behavior and the &quot;spiritual nature of the world&quot;. </li></ul><ul><li>Radical Humanist Paradigm (subjective-radical change) </li></ul><ul><li>Theorists in this paradigm are mainly concerned with releasing social constraints that limit human potential. They see the current dominant ideologies as separating people from their &quot;true selves&quot;. They use this paradigm to justify desire for revolutionary change. It's largely anti-organization in scope. </li></ul><ul><li>Radical Structuralist Paradigm (objective-radical change) </li></ul><ul><li>Based on this paradigm, theorists see inherent structural conflicts within society that generate constant change through political and economic crises. This has been the fundamental paradigm of Marx, Engles, and Lenin. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Four paradigms for the analysis of social theory. (Burrell and Morgan, 1979:22) SOCIOLOGY OF RADICAL CHANGE SUBJECTIVE Radical humanist Radical structuralist OBJECTIVE Interpretevist Funtionalist SOCIOLOGY OF REGULATION
  10. 10. Critical Realism <ul><li>Meaning making research </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative and quantitative as complementary </li></ul><ul><li>Reality is a result of social conditioning and can not be understood independently of the social actors involved in the knowledge derivation process </li></ul>
  11. 11. Some references <ul><li>Bhaskar, R.1978. A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. 1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. </li></ul><ul><li>Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann, 1-37 </li></ul><ul><li>Cronje JC.2006.Paradigms regained: toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. ETR&D 54(4) 387-416 </li></ul><ul><li>Guba, E.G and Lincoln, Y.S .1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin N.K. And Lincoln Y.S (eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand oaks. CA: Sage. 105-117 </li></ul><ul><li>Egbo, B. 2005. Emergent paradigm: Critical realism and transformative research in educational administration. McGill journal of education. 40(2). 267-284 </li></ul><ul><li>Krauss, S. T. 2005. Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer . The Qualitative Report 10 (4) 758-770 </li></ul>