The Positivist Theory and Methodological Reflexivity - Essay Example

Knowledge Creation Week 9 Discussion Question Word count:   Introduction A major aim of the DBA programme at the of Liverpool is that their students reflect upon their learning. The course brochure ( 2011, page 2 ) states that :- Critical Action Learning (CAL) and Action Research (AR) hands-on learning methods allow students to reflect, not only upon the tribulations and practices encountered at the workplace, but also on one’s attitudes and biases that led to the decision-making which impacted the situation In the light of this Module 3 in its 9th week is an important part of the course.   Q1 The argument behind positivist theory is that the researcher i.e. the person creating knowledge, should be as objective as possible, remaining detached and neutral in their relationship to the subjects of the research. My deduction from this is ‘No’ to the discussion question. This answer is appropriate when it comes the “methodological reflexivity” as Anderson described in Thorpe and Holt (2008, p 184). The aim of such reflection is to ensure securing adequate research standards. Dr. Anderson, who is the director of the university’s DBA programme, concludes by stating that “as researchers we must examine the effects of our lives and thoughts on the knowledge that we seek to capture and use” (p 185). This seems to me to be a statement which is both valid and important.   Q2   In 2007 Buchanan and Bryman pointed to the way organizational research is changing with new trends emerging. They argue modern research methods tend towards both diversity and creativity in their techniques and approaches. However the choices made are also dependent upon the various “organizational, historical, political, ethical, evidential and personal factors” (p.483).All of such factors are relevant to the research being planned within an contemplated within the organization context in which it is carried out. For ‘insiders’ (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007), working at management level, some things such as obtaining permission to carry out research with in the organization and other factors such as having primary access and gatekeeper issues, are much less problematic than it would perhaps be for external researchers. Despite this there could be disadvantages due to “partisan conclusion” Johnson and Duberley 2003), and is a factor to be aware of, and epistemic reflexivity is necessary to that process. Buchanan and Bryman (2007), argue that :- The process that leads from problem definition, to data collection, evidence, conclusions, prescriptions and subsequent changes in organizational practice might appear to be linear, but is problematic. (p.494). The authors show how in such cases the final ultimate decision about research may have to encroach on the type of evidence required to make an impact upon practice. Despite this they emphasise reflection when choices of research methods are made   Q3 Within the Week 9 reading several reflexivity models are presented. There are however differences between theories held by positivists and those who hold to post-modern theory. The first assumes objectivity, a sense of neutrality and detachment and on the part of the researcher so that who the researchers are makes no difference who is doing the research into this reality. There is however a newer theory which argues that there are many realities which means that no researcher into management can be totally from the influences of their own bias, and of the particular characteristics of the subject and company being under researched. . Reflexivity is therefore not just about which methods of research are used, but also the way in the process of research and its outcomes are always influenced to some extent by personal bias, the history of the organisation, its ethics, power structures, politics/ etc. The researcher must be aware of such factors in order to carry out good quality research and so knowledge creation of high value..   Johnson and Duberley (2003) discuss the trinity of reflexivity, these being deconstructive, methodological and epistemic methods. With regard to the first of these, deconstruction, I have to ask how long should this process of deconstruction continue. Also are such methods totally exclusive or can they be complimentary? Weick (2002) suggested that reflexivity enables a move forward from a focus upon the researcher as we have at present to a view which a “grasp of wholes, situational awareness, sensitivity to big picture” (p 897). Alvesson et al (2008) identified four types of reflective practice. These they name as : multi-perspective, destabilizing, positioning, and multi-voicing. They go on to describe reflexivity as beign divided into either positive ( referred to as R-reflexivity) or negative ( called D-reflexivity). The authors state that published research articles should preferably contain a description of the type of reflexivity used as well as the methods utilised. In 2010 Hibbert et al made a distinction between reflection and recursion in reflexivity. Recursion is described as being either/both active as well as passive. Reflection is described as being perhaps open/relational or be closed/self-guides. This brings to mind the “self-generated turbulence” idea which was included in Module 2. Smith and Elliott (2007) put forward the argument that an organisation can deliberately create turbulence in order that it becomes better prepared for any crisis. Being ‘struck’ by turbulence (Hibbert et al page 53 ) can lead on to the realization that new or more reflexivity is required. .So the process of reflexivity becomes sequential with the researcher moving modes produced shaped by the active/passive recursion form as well as the open/closed reflective type (p 57).  It seems that the various modes of reflexivity could be used for differing types of research projects, as well as at differing times and locations. It therefore follows that more than one type of reflexivity is required for knowledge creation, depending upon the topic being considered, knowledge of it, the point in time and the place involved etc. There will be times when a positivist approach is the most suitable and so my reflexivity will centre on methods. On other occasions my research will be influenced more by such things as politics within the organisation, power relations with stakeholder, cultural differences , etc. and in such cases epistemic reflexivity (Johnson and Duberley, 2003) will be apt. Which ever method is chosen my aim would be to follow Weick’s advice given in 2002 to concentrate my reflexivity on the situation and its place within the “big picture” (p 897) rather than on myself as researcher.   Conclusion It seems that a ‘one size fits all’ reflexivity checklist to be used during research projects is neither desirable or possible. In order to create the best possible and most useful it is necessary to keep an open mind when considering which methods should be used.     References ALVESSON, M., HARDY,C. and HARLEY, B., 2008, Reflecting on reflexivity: reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory’, Journal of Management Studies, 45 (3), pp. 480-501, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=107&sid=3ca4c1aa-4d42-4081-9526-e4fbf2618c33%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=31641743 (Accessed 13TH August 2011). BRANNICK and COGHLAN , 2007, Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation, London, Sage   BUCHANAN,D. and BRYMAN, A. (2007) ‘Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research’, Organizational Research Methods, 10 (3), pp. 483-501, Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://orm.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/10/3/483.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 12th August 2011). HIBBERT, P., COUPLAND,C. and MacINTOSH ,R., 2010 , Reflexivity: recursion and relationality in research processes’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 5 (1), pp. 47-62, Emerald Insight [Online]. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=1746-5648&volume=5&issue=1&articleid=1860330&show=html (Accessed: 13th August 2011). JOHNSON, P. and DUBERLEY, J. 2000. Understanding Management Research: An Introduction to Epistemology. London: Sage. JOHNSON,P. and DUBERLEY, J. 2003, Reflexivity in management research’, Journal of Management Studies,40 (5), pp. 1279-1303, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=51&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=10193293 (Accessed 12TH August 2011). SMITH ,D. and ELLIOT D., 2007, Exploring the barriers to learning from crisis: Organizational learning and crisis, Management Learning, 38 (5), pp. 519-538, DOI:10.1177/1350507607083205. Available from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Management+Learning&volume=38&issue=5&spage=519&date=2007 (Accessed: 13TH August 2011) THORPE, R. and HOLT. R., 2008, The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. London: Sage. UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL, (2011) Online Degree: Doctor of Business Administration. Available at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught_courses/laureate_online_doctorate_business_administration.htm (Accessed: 12th August 2011)  WEICK, K., 2002, Real time reflexivity: prods to reflection’, Organization Studies, 23(6), pp.893-898, Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://oss.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/23/6/893.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 13TH August 2011).    Read More