Non-traditional Approaches and Potential for HRM Research in Health Care - Term Paper Example

Non-traditional Approaches and Potential for HRM Research in Health Care 0. Introduction In this work, we discuss three select non-traditional approaches to research. These are social constructivism, action research, and story-telling or narrative. We discuss their strengths as well as their weaknesses. We identify the research questions on which they can be most useful and, lastly, we identify how each can be useful for research on the role of human resource management in health care. 2.0. Social Constructivism Social constructivism refers to the view that “knowledge is a human, social invention---a construction” (Colliver, 2000, p. 49). It holds that “human knowledge consists simply of our claims, our construction” (Colliver, 2000, p. 49). The constructivist view is that knowledge claims are justified if we agree that they are useful in reaching our practical goals (Colliver, 2000, p. 49). Achieving practical goals is more important compared to verifying or proving that our knowledge corresponds to reality (Colliver, 2000, p. 49). Thus, in a sense, the achievement of practical goals takes precedence over the correspondence of knowledge with reality even if social constructivism also seeks to expand or reconstruct our knowledge. Research methods following the social constructivist approach follow the said principles. According to Colliver, prior to social constructivism, realism was the dominant theory of knowledge (2000, p. 49). According to Elliot (2010), some of the research methods that follow social constructivism include ethnography, ethnomethodology, discursive approaches, critical work, and post-structuralist work. Elliot associated ethnography with Watson (1994)1, ethnomethodology with Samra-Fredericks (2004)2, discursive approaches with Boje (1991), critical work with (Deetz), and post-structuralist work with Ashcraft and Mumby (2004) and Collinson (2003). Elliot elaborated that the said research methods uses approaches and techniques like narrative analysis semiotics, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, and ethnography. As a research approach, social constructivist approaches hold that the relationship between the researcher and research is not a one-way street but rather as a bi-directional process in which each influences each other (Elliot, 2010, citing the work of Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000, p. 39). This is what Elliot (2010) calls as “reflexivity” in the social constructivist approaches. The implication of this reflexivity is that as the researcher embarks on the research process and proceeds to analyze his or her data, the researcher’s voice is used and the influence of researcher’s values and assumptions in the process of inquiry is acknowledged (Elliot, 2010). Further, the researched or research participants input during the research and their voices are reflected as the social constructivist approaches mobilize research participants in the creation of meaning and in the creation of theory (Elliot, 2010). Researchers are social participants and they contribute as well as to how the research “subjects” react. At the same time, research “subjects” are also research participants because they contribute as well to research findings. On the other hand, research “subjects” can be asserted as researchers at the same time because they contribute their insights as well in the research process. Thus, there is “polyvocality” in social constructivism (Elliot, 2010). Some of the research questions that can be addressed by social constructivism are the following: Meanings involved in business practices and customs How managers and the rank-and-file interpret the actual, potential, or anticipated impact of financial incentives in boosting or failure to boost employee performance How management and the rank-and-file look at the changes or proposed changes in management systems The likely impact of changes or proposed changes in management policies based on how the rank-and-file as well as managerial employees view the possible changes in management policies. Studies along social constructivism can contain debates or discussions among employees why or why not certain management policies would boost the desire among employees to perform. The discourse can focus, for example, on how similar policies in the past affected employee performance as viewed from several perspectives or from the point of view of several actors or parties. An important strength of the social constructivist approaches is that the approach is able to tap the research subject’s perspectives on issues. Another strength is that the researcher’s perspective can be injected into data that can potentially make more meaningful the interpretation of experience. Often, the researcher is also an important resource person that can potentially contribute to data and how correctly data can be interpreted. Without the participation of both the subject and the researcher on the research inquiry or issues, data can only be interpreted in a very limited way. Oftentimes, both the researcher and the researched have a solid grasp of the issues or the situation and narratives are able to exploit this truth. If research is not able to reflect conversations or narratives among the researcher and researched then research may be missing a very important dimension on how data can be correctly interpreted. In a research on the role of human resource management in health care, the approach and perspective of social constructivism would be useful. For instance, how do health professionals see the impact of human resource management policies on their moral and performance? How do current practices in human resource management reflect local culture and values as well? How important are the values represented by current human resource management practices from the perspective of Saudi Arabians, for example? Are there social meanings associated with current human resource management practices? What are the working habits of health professionals? How are working habits of health professionals reflected in the dialogues or formal or informal discourse of health professionals? How do their normal dialogues or discourse reflect the current concerns of health professionals? What do the dialogues or discourse among patients reflect on the current problems confronting health care professionals? Unfortunately, the strengths of social constructivism can be seen as weaknesses of the approach at the same time. Researchers schooled in the traditional way, can argue for example that social constructivism is too subjective as a research approach. For example, individuals within the same set of participants in the research can attach divergent meanings to the same experience. Different researchers on the same research subject may view the same qualitative experience differently and can also attach divergent meanings to the same situation or experience. Thus, reliability can be an issue in social constructivism because we are not assured that the same experience or data set will have the same meaning for various researchers as well as research participants. Of course, proponents of the approach can argue that divergence of meanings does not actually demonstrate a weakness of the approach but demonstrate instead strength because the same experience can really be viewed differently by various researchers as well as by the individuals or collectives researched. 3.0. Action Research Action research seeks to address the practical concerns of people in a problematic situation and uses this situation as well to advance social science knowledge through “joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework” (Gill and Johnson, 2002, p. 75). In other words, action research is a research approach that seeks to address simultaneously the practical concerns of people as it advance social science theory (Gilmore as cited in O’Brien, 2001). According to Gill and Johan, the stages involved in an action research cover entry, contracting, diagnosis, action, evaluation, and withdrawal (Gill and Johnson, 2002, p. 76). In entry, the client and/or the researcher presents mutually agreed objectives. Contracting is fundamentally business and psychological contracting and can include the design of controls. In diagnosis, researchers and researched assess a problem based on research concepts or theory. Action serves as a form of a feedback that provides an initial analysis of the validity of the analysis. Actions are formulated jointly by the client or by the researcher and researched. In an “evaluation phase”, the researcher or the researcher and the “researched” check for new problems or recycles of problems that are revealed by an action and formulate generalizations that are believed to be useful for advancing theory or practice. The last phase can be withdrawal and is done after the client becomes self-supporting or had acquired initiative to sustain the research and action continuum. Addressing the two goals requires the collaboration of the researcher and the researched and, thus, there is a stress in the importance of action and co-learning. Grundy (1982) pointed out that there are at least three approaches to action research (Wortley, 2000): 1. Technical Collaborative Approach. In this approach, the researchers investigate an intervention based on a theoretical framework. Researchers collaborate with practitioners to identify changes for an efficient and instant change in practices (Hotlet and Schartz, 1993, p. 301, as cited in Wortley, 2000). 2. Mutual Collaboration Approach. In this type of action research, the researcher and practitioners collaborate to determine potential problems and determine causes and possible interventions (Hotler and Schwartz, 1993, as cited in Wortley, 2000). The researcher and practitioners seek to reach a general but new understanding of the problem, its causes, and plan for initiating a change process (Elden & Lewin, 1993, as cited in Wortley, 2000). 3. Enhancement Approach. In this of type of action research, the research objective of is to reduce the discrepancy between theory and practice (Hotler and Schwartz, 1993, as cited in Wortley, 2000) The research questions that can be addressed by action research are many. For instance, it can ask or address this research question: how can we improve employee performance? What are the problems that employees face? Do they have solutions in mind? What are these? How can we solve employee absenteeism? In market research, an action research can immediately focus on identifying marketing problems. It can involve focusing on the efficacy of certain advertising themes. While traditional research can also focus on these, the advantage of action research is that it is not saddled too much by traditional concerns for theoretical frameworks or approaches that may be a major concern in traditional academic research. In contrast, the action research can be problem-focused rather than theory-linked although it must be admitted that theory is just as important in action research. The research problems that can be addressed by an action research have a broad range. It can be used to develop research problems for a community, profession, or any group in which a combination of action on a problem or situation is required as the group seek to advance knowledge or raise the level of knowledge of their situation from a set of anecdotes to a scientific documentation cum scientific insights. Action research need not offer a clean link between theory and practical problems. This is not to underestimate the importance of theory. However, when speed is an important factor for the conduct of the research, action research need not be restricted by research formalities such as having a theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and the like. Of course, theories and frameworks are important but given the context of a need for speed, a researcher can conveniently use action research without being saddled too much by the need to link practice or problems with theory. It is important to stress however that action research must be used to advance social science theory as appropriate to a problem setting. Some of the strengths of action research are as follows (Koshy, 2005, p.21): Researchers can be the active actors in a setting being studies and they do not have to be detached from the situation. The action research involves decision continuous evaluation and modification can be made as the research progresses. Theorizing can emerge from the research process itself and theory need not always directly follow from a theory earlier formulated or used. The research can have open-ended outcomes. Meanwhile, some of the weaknesses of action research are follows: Action research is sometimes viewed to be lacking in rigor and validity. However, proponents of action research argue that this weakness can be handled through triangulation. Research findings from action research may not be generalizeable because the priority concern is to generate resolution of a problem. For a human resource management research among health care employees, a possible research may pertain to identifying the problems experienced by health care workers. For the said study, focus group discussion can be tapped. The action research may also solicit suggestions from health workers how their situation can be improved. Another possible research area in which action research can work well is through the inclusion of workshop sessions among the subject of research. Traditional research can also ask for the perspective of health professionals and even patients in the research process. However, in contrast, nontraditional action research can do a lot a more: workshops can be held in which each of the participant cross-validate the opinion forwarded by their fellow workshop participants. In the workshops, a mechanism is created that makes cross-validation or validation of opinions by fellow participants. Is an opinion or proposal to solve a problem feasible or reasonable? A workshop session held under an action research program can discuss this and the participants can contribute their insights or analysis. The workshop participants that can discuss this can be the health professionals themselves, the patients, or even the human resource managers, depending on the type of participants mobilized. It is also possible that an action research that seeks to tackle human resource management questions in a healthcare setting can be conducted among participants composed of a mixed of patients, healthcare professional, and human resource managers. 4.0. Story-telling or narrative research approach Narrative research is the study of human experience through the collection of stories and writing the narrative of that experience (Moen, 2006, p. 2). The narrative approach is frequently associated with biographies and autobiographies, sometimes to the point of even treating biography and narratives as synonymous (Moen, 2006, p. 2). At the same time, there are those who argue that the narrative approach is not a research method but a frame of reference in the research process or simply a way of “reflecting during the entire inquiry process”. (Moen, 2006, p. 2). Thus, while the constructivist approach is definitely related with the narrative approach and belong to the reflexive family, perhaps one way of differentiating narrative research from the constructivist approach is that the former is the researcher’s narrative of the research subject, a story cum reflection of the researcher on his or her research subject. In contrast, social constructivism could be focusing on how others or how the research participants, or how the subject of the research may be reflecting on their lives or experience. In the story-telling or narrative research approach, dialogues with the surrounding world as well as interaction with other people, and “dialogues with ourselves in our consciousness” can be within the scope of a narrative (Moen, 2006, p. 3). A closely related concept on this is the “utterance” which may spoken or written or even operating at the mental level. The “utterance” can be a dialogue with ourselves as the dialogue takes place in the mind. In the story-telling or narrative, the narrative must come naturally like a child learning a language (Moen, 2006, p. 5). This can also be interpreted to mean that the narrative or story telling can be transmitted as the experience unfolds to the researcher with the researcher dialoguing with himself or herself or with her surroundings. At the same time, the dialogues can mean voices rather than voice because there can be collective stories reflected in the narrative or story. In the story-telling or narrative approach, the research subject is “regarded as a collaborator rather than as an informant guided by the agenda of the researcher”. Stories of are shaped through discussions with the research subject. The data can be in the form of field notes, journal records, interview transcripts, observations, stories, and autobiographies. Creating a narrative implies creating an accurate story between the researcher and researched (Moen, 2006, p. 6). Moen (2006, p. 7) emphasized that the narrative is hermeneutic or interpretative process and the process starts immediately “when one story is selected out of any number of possible of other possible stories”. Another of Moen’s emphasis (2006, p. 7) is that the interpretation does not end with the finished research report because the final narrative opens wide for a wide range of interpretation by others. Moen (2006, p. 7) also emphasize that the “utterance”, story telling, or narrative of one story can differ depending on with whom the story is being told. The emphasis is that there is no static and everlasting truth but instead there can be subjective positions on our experience. At the same time, to make a narrative or story, one has to understand a human being. Thus, a researcher must look at the environmental, or the social, cultural, and institutional contexts within which a particular individual is located. Meanwhile, in Marshall and Rossman (1995, p. 86), narratives and life histories are described as “supplemental methods” that can be incorporated in a study. According to Marshall and Rossman (1995, p. 86), the people’s individual life stories are the focus in narrative inquiries. The assumption of the method is that “people live ‘storied lives’ and seeks to collect data to describe those lives” (Marshall and Rossman, 1995, p. 86). In the narrative, the researcher “explores a story told by a participant and record that story through the construction of the narrative” ” (Marshall and Rossman, 1995, p. 86). The participant refers to the research participant that can be the respondent or the subject or focus of inquiry of the research. The “exploration” of the story is called a “narrative analysis” and the narrative analysis is applied to any spoken or written account, including an in-depth interview. The strength of a narrative or story-telling is that it is relatively inexpensive to implement. Writing the research report need not have complicated analysis of data. One can narrate or have his or her narrative as it takes place in the mind and the narrator can allow his or her mind to wander along the subject matter. Dialogue with the self can take place as the research result is written. One can use his or her intimate knowledge of the local setting to analyze in-depth his or her data. The weakness of the narrative or the story telling is that the dialogue in the narrative can go beyond the bounds of the scope of research. It can cover topics that may not be directly relevant to the research questions. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that the writing style used in narrative research provides built-in temptations for the researcher to go beyond the scope of inquiry even as the protocols for narrative research calls for focus. Another weakness of narrative research pertains to reliability, validity, and subjectivity considerations. However, it can also be argued that the subjectivity is also one important aspect that is captured by narratives. In other words, the subjectivity in the narratives are useful because the subjectivity provides us a true picture of the true situation or perspectives of the research subjects. The narrative research is useful for history, situation analysis, and all those research where a more comprehensive data is required. The narrative may be weak on statistics but the narrative can be very important in providing a comprehensive backgrounder or overview on a research question. Some of the research questions that are handled better by narrative research are these type of research questions: What is the situation? What is the overview of the topics or the problem or situation? What is the history of the problem or situation? What is the experience on the problem or situation of a particular group? What is the experience of the researcher or the researched on the problem? In a research on the role of human resource management on health care, narrative research can be most useful in description. Narrative research can discuss the role of human resource management in health care from the perspective of the health professionals, from perspective of health workers, and from the perspective of human resource managers. It may also be possible to point out through the narrative the role or relevance of human resource management form the perspective of patients or benefit. The effectiveness of human resource management policies can also be assessed from the narratives of health professionals, human resource managers, and even patients. 5.0. Conclusion In the foregoing, we have discussed the characteristics of three non-traditional researches, approaches covering their strengths and weaknesses. We have identified the research questions on which the non-traditional research approaches we have identified can be most useful. In summary, the three non-traditional research approaches we have discussed are most useful for research questions where the researcher’s insights are useful as well, where the perspectives or point of view of the people researched are crucial as well to human knowledge, and where solutions to problems are most desired. We have also shown that the three non-traditional research approaches can be very useful in a research on the role of human resource management in health care. Bibliography Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. London: Sage Publications. Bassey, M. (1998), Action Research for Improving Practice. In R. Halsall. (ed.), Teacher Research and School Improvement: Opening Doors from the Inside. Buckingham: Open University Press. Boje, D. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of storytelling performance in an office supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126. Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origin and challenges. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Ed.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27-37). London: Sage Publications. Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications. Collinson, D. L. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization, 10(3), 527– 547. Colliver, J. (2000). Constructivism: The view of knowledge that ended philosophy or theory of learning and instruction. Paper presented as Invited Address to the Constructivist Special Interest Group at the American Educational Research Association. Chase, S. (2008). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln (Ed.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Los Angeles and London: Sage Publications. Deetz, S. (1998). Discursive formations, strategized subordination, and self-surveillance: An empirical case. In A. McKinlay & K. Starkey (eds.), Foucault, management and organizational theory, (pp. 151-172). London: Sage Publications. Elden, M. and Lewin, M. (1991). Cognitive Learning: in Participatory Action Research. London: Sage Publications. Elliot, C. (2010). Social constructionism and reflexivity. Powerpoint Slides. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage Publications. Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. In Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (eds). (1988). The action research reader (3rd ed). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Hotler, I. and Schwartz-Barcott, D. (1993). Action Research: What is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 298-304. Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Kratochwil, F. (2008). Constructivism: what it is (not) and how it matters. In della Porta, D. and Keating, M. (Ed.), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Moen, T. (2006). Reflections on the narrative research approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(4), 1-11. O’Brien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. In R. Richardson. (ed), Theory and Practice of Action Research. Retrieved 20 August 2010 http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html Samra-Frederick, D. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (1), 141-174. Samra-Ferederick, D. (2005). Strategic practice, discourse, and everyday interaction constitution of power effects. Organization, 12 (6), 803-841. Watson, G. (1987). Make me reflexive---But not yet: Strategies for managing reflexivity in ethnographic discourse. Journal of Anthropological Research, 43, 29-41. Wortley, S. (2000). Business as usual or action research in practice? Action Research E-Reports, 6. Retrieved 24 August 2010 at: http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/006.htm Read More