Plurality of Epistemological Paradigms

In this section we look at the researcher’s position in relation to the paradigms presented earlier. We discuss whether researchers have to choose between paradigms, or whether, to the contrary, they have a degree of freedom to tailor their own position. To answer these questions, researchers need to think about the position they wish to adopt in relation to the problem of paradigm incom­mensurability. According to McKinley and Mone (1998: 170) incommensur­ability can be defined ‘as occurring when there are logically or normatively incompatible schools of thought, and no consensually acknowledged reference system exists for deciding between them’.

The coexistence of positivist, interpretativist and constructivist paradigms in works in organizational science may be seen as either a sign of the imma­turity of this science, or as an opportunity for researchers working within this discipline. Kuhn (1970) holds that the presence of a single paradigm charac­terizes normal science, while the coexistence of different paradigms can be symptomatic of periods of scientific revolution. However, researchers in organi­zational theory tend to see plurality as an opportunity, and approach this plu­rality using a number of standpoints or strategies. On the basis of work done by Scherer (1998), we can point to three main positions possible. In the view of certain authors (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Jackson and Carter, 1991), who advocate isolationism, a researcher must choose one of the paradigms and stick to it. Others (Lee, 1991; Pfeffer, 1993; Donaldson, 1997), who advocate integra­tion, say we should direct our efforts towards seeking a common standard. For those who advocate a multi-paradigm approach (Weaver and Gioia, 1994; Schultz and Hatch, 1996), dialogue between paradigms is possible and even desirable.

Isolationists argue that the different paradigms that exist within organiza­tional theory cannot be reconciled – that no dialogue is possible between them, and should not even be attempted. ‘There is no common measure among para­digms of inquiry, so that representatives of opposed paradigms live in different worlds, hold mutually exclusive beliefs, use different vocabularies, etc.’ (Weaver and Gioia, 1994: 565). Here, the fragmentation of organizational science can be explained in part by the fact that researchers voluntarily adopt a particular paradigm – in the view of Burrell and Morgan (1979), adopting a paradigm is a veritable act of faith.

Many authors insist that integration and the establishment of a reference paradigm is the only guarantee of true scientific progress (Pfeffer, 1993; Lee, 1991; Donaldson, 1997). They argue that consensus about a paradigm is a pre­condition for the development of organizational science, and that fragmenta­tion is an obstacle to this. Lee (1991) proposes an integrated framework that reconciles the three levels of understanding: a subjective understanding, an interpretive understanding and a positivist understanding. Donaldson (1997), meanwhile, proposes a reintegration of frameworks under the hegemony of a positivist paradigm.

It is often said that much research in organizational science borrows ele­ments from different paradigms, thus obtaining what could be called a mixed epistemological position. Miles and Huberman (1984a) give an example of a moderate positivist position.

An example of moderate positivism

It is good for researchers to make their preferences clear. All too often, the reader has to intuit whether the author is, for example, operating from the stand­point of a logical positivist, a symbolic interactionist, or a social phenomeno- logist. These people all look differently at the world of social affairs and social science. We think of ourselves as logical positivists who recognize and try to atone for the limitations of that approach. Soft-nosed logical positivism, maybe . . . We believe that social phenomena exist not only in the mind but also in the objective world – and that there are some lawful and reasonably stable relationships to be found among them. In part, of course, these phenomena exist objectively in the world because people construe them in common or agreed-upon ways, so those perceptions are crucial in understanding why social behavior takes the form it does. Still, even if people do not themselves apprehend the same analyt­ical constructs as those derived by researchers, this does not make such con­structs invalid or contrived. Given our belief in social regularities, there is a corollary: Our task is to express them as precisely as possible, attending to their range and generality and to the local and historical contingencies under which they occur.

(Miles and Huberman, 1984a: 19)

Advocates of the multi-paradigm perspective maintain, meanwhile, that dialogue between paradigms is not only possible but necessary to advance our understanding of social phenomena. Weaver and Gioia state that:

A successful multi-paradigm perspective must explain how different theoretical approaches might be related, but must do so (a) while preserving genuine multiplicity (e.g. the relatedness does not involve the reduction of one approach to another) and, (b), without uncritically embracing the disunifying paradigms paradigm (i.e. the increasingly entrenched view of organizational inquiry that – by appealing to the incommensurability thesis – purports unalterably to divide the field into mutually exclusive and contradictory metatheoretical camps).

(Weaver and Gioia, 1994: 566)

According to this perspective, works that propose different methodologies enable dialogue between paradigms. For instance, Hassard (1991) considered the case of Britain’s Fire Brigade from the standpoint of the four paradigms identified by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Similarly, Schultz and Hatch (1996) presented a new multi-paradigm strategy based on an interplay between para­digms. By examining research into organizational culture, Schultz and Hatch revealed connections and contrasts between paradigms, and thus provided a foundation for new interpretations of culture.

Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.