Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Critical theorists mark the 'linguistic turn' (associated with Wittgenstein) as a moment in
history where we could begin to see how our reality was interactively constructed
through language. Our conceptual system and how things are defined in society are
created through language. Language guides and limits the observational process. The
stability of the language system produces the stability of a shared reality.
When it comes to the research enterprise, critical theorists recognize the positive
association of 'objectivity' to natural sciences and less positive association of 'subjectivity'
to interpretive sciences. This is seen as an artifact of a system defined to privilege the
'objective' label and the natural sciences. This is recognized as a linguistic construction.
The subject-object distinction affords identity protection and privileges for powerful
groups both in the academy and in other organization. This has led to misleading beliefs
about the presumed relation between qualitative and quantitative research.
If we elimininate the subject-object dualism, we see that objects in both quantitative and
qualitative research methods are socially shared, historically produced and general to a
social group.
Methodology
Rather than naming and describing, the critical theorist tries to challenging guiding
assumptions.
Critical theorists usually do this by beginning with an assumption about what is good
(e.g. autonomy, democracy) and asking people in a social group, culture or
organization to reflect on and question their current experience with regard to the values
identified (e.g. To what extent are they an autonomous worker?)
Critical theorists are not just trying to describe a situation from a particular vantage point
or set of values (e.g. the need for greater autonomy or democracy in a particular setting),
but that are trying to change the situation.
Resources
Deetz, SA. (1996). "Differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and
Morgan and their legacy." Organization Science. 7 (2) pp. 191-207.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (C. Gordon ed).
New York: Pantheon.
Gadamer, HG. (1975). Truth and Method. Edited and translated by G. Barden and J. Cumming.
New York: Seabury Press.
Giroux, H. (1988). "Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse
of educational research." In Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.) Qualitative Research in Education:
Focus and Methods (pp. 190-210). New York: Falmer.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith,
transl). New York: International.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests (J. Shapiro transl). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and Practice (T. McCarthy transl). Boston: Beacon.
Kincheloe, JL & McLaren, PL. (1994). "Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research." In
NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 138-157.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms
By positing a reality that cannot be separate from our knowlege of it (no separation of subject
and object), the interpretivist paradigm posits that researchers' values are inherent in all phases of
the research process. Truth is negotiated through dialogue.
Findings or knowledge claims are created as an investigation proceeds. That is, findings
emerge through dialogue in which conflicting interpretions are negotiated among
members of a community.
Pragmatic and moral concerns are important considerations when evaluting interpretive
science. Fostering a dialogue between researchers and respondents is critical. It is
through this dialectial process that a more informed and sophisticated understanding of
the social world can be created.
All interpretations are based in a particular moment. That is, they are located in a
particular context or situation and time. They are open to re-interpretation and
negotiation through conversation.
Methodology
These methods ensure an adequate dialog between the researchers and those with whom
they interact in order to collaboratively construct a meanful reality.
awareness and articulation of the choices and interpretations the researcher makes during
the inquiry process and evidence of taking responsibility for those choices
validity becomes a moral question for Angen and must be located in the 'discourse of the
research community'
ethical validity - recognition that the choices we make through the research process have
political and ethical consideration.
o
o an assessment of the biases inherent in the work over the lifespan of a research
project
o self-reflect to understand our own transformation in the research process
Resources
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening
the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berger, PL & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Company.
Blumer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the
Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cicourel, AV. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Enthnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Stragegies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Lyotard, J. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Theory and History of
Literature. Volume 10. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Malinowski, B. (1967). A Diary in the Strict sense of the Term. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collect Papers, Volume 1, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. See in particular:
"Commonsense and scientific interpretations of human action" pp. 3-47; "Concept and theory
formation in the social sciences" pp. 48-66; "On multiple realities" pp. 207-259.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (GEM Anscome transl). Third Edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms
realist ontology - assumes that there are real world objects apart from the human
knower. In other words, there is an objective reality.
representational epistemology - assumes people can know this reality and use symbols
to accurately describe and explain this objective reality.
By positing a reality separate from our knowlege of it (separation of subject and object), the
positivist paradigm provides an objective reality against which researchers can compare their
claims and ascertain truth.
Prediction and control - assumes that there are general patterns of cause and effect that
can be used as a basis for predicting and controlling natural phenomenon. The goal is to
discover these patterns.
Empirical verification - assumes that we can rely on our perceptions of the world to
provide us with accurate data.
Methodology
These ensure that there is a distance between the subjective biases of the researcher and
the objective reality he or she studies.
Validity - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure gives the correct
answer (allowing the researcher to measure or evalute an objective reality)
Reliability - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure give the same
answer whenever it is carried out
Resources
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening
the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Burell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms