Burrell and Morgans

Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis*

*Heinemann, London, 1979

Main 4 debates in Sociology

Is reality given or is it a product of the mind? Must one experience something to understand it? Do humans have free will or are we determined by our environment? Is understanding best achieved though the scientific method or direct experience?

Assumptions of the nature of social science

Ontological Ontologicalis reality external from conscious or a product of individual consciousness? Epistemological Epistemologicalhow can knowledge be acquired and how can the truth be found? Human natureare we products of our environments or nature do we create our environments? Methodological Methodologicalwhat methods of inquiry are appropriate for finding truth? Objectivists search for universal laws to explain reality and relationships between elements. Subjectivists focus on how individuals create, modify and interpret the world. They see nature as more relativistic Axiological Axiologicalwhat is the role of values in research? Are researchers value-free vs. value-laden valuevalue-

Ontology: Nominalism vs. Realism

Nominalism assumes that society is relative and the social world is names, concepts and labels that make individual structure reality Realism assumes that the real world has hard, intangible structures that exist irrespective of our labels. The social world exists separate from the individuals perception of it.

Epistemology: Positivism vs. AntiAntiPositivism

Positivism seeks to explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for patterns and relationships. Hypotheses are developed and tested AntiAnti-positivism rejects that observing behavior can help people understand it. Social science cannot create true objective knowledge of any kind.

Human Nature: Voluntarism vs. Determinism

Determinism sees man as being determined by the situation and environment he is in Voluntarism sees man is completely autonomous and possessing free will

Method: Ideographic vs. Nomothetic

Ideographic focuses on detailed observation of society Nomothetic involves hypotheses testing and employs methods such as surveys and other standardized research tools

Axiological: Value free vs. Value laden

ValueValue-free contends that researchers can conduct research without the imposition of values ValueValue-laden contends this is simply impossible

Assumptions about Society*

Two theories about society: order and conflict
Order or integrationist view sees society as relatively stable and based on consensus Conflict or coercion view sees society as constantly changing and disintegrating

* Based on Dahrendorfs (1959) sociological theory

The Emergence of Paradigms

Kuhn defines paradigms as: universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners (Kuhn, 1970; p. viii) Burrell and Morgan use the term as a: commonality of perspective which binds the work of a group of theorists together (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; p. 23) Burrell and Morgan define four paradigms: functionalism, interpretivism, radical structuralism and radical humanism. Others, humanism. such as Chua (1986), prefer three primary alternatives: positivism (and its various forms neofuncitonalism, postpostivism, etc.), interpretivism (hermeneutics, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, etc.), and critical (Marxism, Critical Social Theory, etc.)

Sociology of radical change

Radical Humanism
French existentialism Anarchistic individualism Critical theory

Radical Structuralism
Contemporary Mediterranean Marxism Russian Social Theory Critical theory

Subjective

Objective

Interpretivism
Phenomenology Hermeneutics Phenomenological sociology Interpretive sociology

Functionalism
Integrative theory Social system theory Objectivism Interactionism and social action theory Functionalist sociology
The Burrell and Morgan Framework (1979)

Sociology of regulation

The 4 paradigms of social science

Functionalist paradigmobjective/regulation paradigm Interpretive paradigmsubjective/regulation paradigm Radical humanist paradigmsubjective / paradigm radical change Radical structuralist paradigmobjective / paradigm radical change

Functionalist paradigm
Primary paradigm for organizational study Assumes rational human action and believes one can understand behavior through hypothesis testing

Interpretive paradigm
Seeks to explain the stability of behavior from the individual's viewpoint Researchers attempt to observe on-going onprocesses to better understand individual behavior and the spiritual nature of the world

Radical humanist paradigm

Concerned with releasing social constraints that limit human potential They see the current dominant ideologies as separating people from their true selves This paradigm is used to justify radical change It is anti-organizational in scope anti-

Radical structuralist paradigm

Theorists see inherent structural conflicts within society that generate constant change through political and economic crisis This is the fundamental paradigm of Marx, Engles and Lenin

Sociological Positivism vs. German Idealism

Sociological positivism applies models and methods from the natural sciences to the social sciences German idealism sees reality in the spirit or idea and rejects the scientific method to understanding behavior

Classification Criteria

Positivist

Interpretivist

Critical

Beliefs about physical and social reality

There is a single, tangible, fragmentable phenomenon of interest and there is a unique best description of any aspect of that phenomenon. (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991)

Social world is not given. It is produced and reinforced through human actions and interactions. Interpretations of reality change with time, circumstances, objectives and constituencies.

Humans become alienated from their potential by prevailing economic, political and cultural authority. Social reality is produced by humans, but also exists objectively and dominates human experience. What it has been, what it is becoming and what it is not (Chua, 1986). Interpretation of social world is not enough. Objective analysis of circumstances is possible through the lenses of theoretical framework.

Beliefs about the notion of knowledge

Deductive logic to discover unilateral, causal generalized relationships, predict patterns of behavior across situations (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).

Involves getting inside the world of those generating the social process. The models are not unidirectional, but are circular or reciprocally interacting models of causality. No a priori researcher-imposed formulations of structure, function and attribution are assumed.

Beliefs about the relationship between knowledge and empirical world

If the appropriate general laws are known and the relevant initial conditions can be manipulated, we can produce a desired state of affairs, natural or social. (McCarthy, 1978) Research is value free.

Knowledge is never value-free. Weak constructionist view, the researcher merely describes the phenomenon in words of the actors. In the strong view, the researchers interpretations intervene with the actual meaning of the world, thus the researcher is in part, enacting the social reality of the actors.

Can transform both the actor and the researcher. Role of theory is to initiate change in social relations eliminating domination.

Paradigm Classification Criteria adapted from Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991)