The philosophical position of positivism and its role int he management knowledge creation process - Essay Example

?DQ WK 3 by saleh alothman The philosophical position of positivism and its role in the management knowledge creation process As described by Johnson and Duberley ( 2000) Rene Descartes, the 17th century French mathematician and philosopher was the major mover behind the idea of positivism as a concept in philosophy. It was Descartes who first brought in ideas such as using systematic skepticism as a basis for justification in a rational way that was both valid and which could be used to verify available knowledge. This whole concept is described as ‘Cartesian Dualism’.when any attempt is being made to understand nature and events. Another major influence on positivism was the Englishman John Locke ( 1632-1704) who in 1690 , as quoted by Johnson and Duberley ( 2000, page 15) put forward the argument that :- Human beliefs about the external world only became valid when they have survived the test of experience. Galileo and Bacon and later , another philosophic Frenchman, Auguste Comte ( 1798- 1857) ( Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007) would have further argued that exacting scientific methods are the only true ,appropriate, justifiable and legitimate ways in which to accurately determine the facts when it comes to interactions and events and to the understanding of various phenomena. The epistemology of positivism places the focus upon both external internal validity, and upon objectivity as well as reliability (Thorpe and Holt, 2008) There must also be the ability to replicate because of the stress upon the use of scientific research methods and the use of evidence which is empirical. It promotes rigour (Shrivastava, 1994) in delineating the different causes and effects in a systematic way (Donaldson, 2008) and is about the actuality of scientific truth and facts which as verifiable. This has implications when it comes to knowledge creation such as the need to develop laws and theories and ways of testing the authenticity or otherwise of existing methods and theories. Donaldson (2008) argued for functionalism and positivism and pointed out that the way in which an organisation is structured is decided by the totally of the environment in which the organization operates, that is its size, and the products and services it provides, the contingencies. Contingency theory with regard to knowledge production is described by Thorpe and Holt , ( page 59, 2008).” most effective organizational characteristics are those that fit the contingency variables.” They describe structural contingency theory as being studied most often using positivistic methodology. In 2008 Donaldson stated that the ‘determinist picture’ can be comprehended using positivist methods. Although non deterministic factors do affects situations , these leave a gap in knowledge which must be addressed using critical realism. This method maintains that the use of methods which are truly scientific are an attempt to discover truth, but that nothing can be really known absolutely because of the fallibility of both researchers and their tools. Therefore say Thorpe and Holt ( 2008, page 182`) “Science must critically evaluate and test its knowledge claims to determine their truth content.”  Interpretivism as a substitute for post positivism In contrast to positivism, the theory of interpretivism states according to Williams ( 2001 cited in Clarke, 2009, p29) that “there are distinct ‘ways of knowing’ between which there is no way of according common standards.” Interpretivism, sometimes referred to as the hermeneutics approach (Thorpe and Holt, 2008) is about ontology i.e. the metaphysics of nature, as opposed to epistemology i.e. the nature of knowledge. Interpretivism implies no separation between the subject and its researcher. It is a way of enabling researchers to make use of qualitative methods. They use such things as case studies, ethnography and phenomenology. They interpret their situations and behaviour, while at the same time allowing interaction with participants. . Such qualitative methods are needed in order to understand how people construct their social identity and meaning .( Weick, 1995) Human relationships are dynamic as well as complex and so, in order to decipher their meaning, qualitative methods that allows for reflection upon meanings, behaviour and thoughts in a particular situation. (Van Maanan,1995) He argues that language is the way in which all those concerned, whether researchers or participants, are able to define reality as they experience it. It is therefore a very subjective matter , incapable of being completely generalised. Burrell and Morgan’s (1979 use four paradigms when analysing the ways in which organizations interpret events. They explain how model that the researcher uses will affect the knowledge that is produced. They cite a form of “radical humanism”. This is concerned with individuals who find themselves enmeshed by particular ideologies. “The aim is to release people from these ideological constraints through developing alternatives” (Johnson and Duberley, 2000,p.80) Secondly they list “radical structuralism” a way of using  in which the stresses and contradictions innate in society’s structure can perhaps lead to change in the long term. Thirdly comes the interpretative method. This is subjective and is concerned with (Hassard, 1991, p.277 “the social world is best understood from the view point of participant – in – action”), (iv) Finally they list ”functionalism”, a positive and practical method which includes scientific methods. (Hassard 1991, p.275).describes methods which were “intersecting subject – object debates in the ‘theory of social science’ with consensus – conflict debates in the ‘theory of society’. As well as this Burrell and Morgan (1979) name “four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology”. Their argument was that beliefs such as these hold basic implications for researchers and the methods they use. . The method used by the researcher will have an influence upon the way in which they approach their research, what they hope to discover and the way in which this is done. Knowledge that is acquired by using a particular method will reflect particular biases, values and assumptions.. Lecture notes this past week indicate that paradigms will determine:- What scientists in particular disciplines choose to study, how they study it and how research findings are interpreted, underscoring the impact of paradigms on the researcher’s methods, research questions and hypotheses and conclusions. This leads us to consider how metaphors and their use (Morgan 1980) can help with the appreciation of the beliefs which underlie process of the knowledge creation. Morgan (1980. page 608) puts the argument that although there are differences , each of the four paradigms, “reflects a network of related schools of thought” ) and at the same time share “common fundamental assumptions about the reality that they address”. He argues that theories develop in a symbolic way, and observes that notes that the use of metaphors, whether theatrical, , cultural or political which are the means of using language in order to create frameworks and allow the analyzing required by organizations. A researcher using a particular method is thus enabled to discuss the ethos of a company , its underlying values, attitudes and beliefs if for instance he perceives it as a living organism. There are however some problems with doing this. Morgan (1980) states that the use of metaphors only allows “half – truths’. Yet the the positivist paradigm has the aim of uncover facts which are certain. He believes that metaphors can be considered to be subjective as opposed to objective. He argues Morgan argues the need to “penetrate” the paradigm of functionalism in order to investigate at a deeper level than the “ surface appearance of the empirical world” and in doing so discover the ways in which organisations make their response to many factors including ones. This however may well require the use of not one paradigm, but by using a combination of methods. This will be expanded upon in later posts. REREFENCES BURRELL,G. and MORGAN,G.. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London, Heinemann, 1979, CLARKE, C. (2009) ‘Paths between positivism and interpretivism : An apprasial of Hay’s via media Politics, 29 (1) pp.28 -36 Available from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=102&sid=059ce2a0-84db-475a-8a54-32f3e839abf5%40sessionmgr114 (Accessed July 22nd, 2011). DONALDSON, L. (2008) ‘Vita contemplativa—Following the scientific method: how I became a committed functionalist and positivist’, Organization Studies, 26 (7), pp.1071-1088, Sage Journals [Online]. Available from: http://oss.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/content/26/7/1071.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 21st July 2011). HASSARD, J. (1991) ‘Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: a case study’, Organization Studies, 12 (2), pp.275–299, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=5&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=5953166  (Accessed: 22nd July 2011). HAWTHORNE,J. 2006, Cartesian Dualism, van Inwagen P and Zimmerman,D. ( editors,) August 2006, page 87, available from http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/1156/Cartesian.pdf ( accessed 21st July 2011) JOHNSON ,P. and DUBERLEY, J., 2000, Understanding Management Research: An Introduction to Epistemology, London, Sage. MORGAN, G. (1980) ‘Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (4), pp.605-622, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=4014439 (Accessed 22nd July 2011). SHIVASTAVA, P. ,1994, The Evolution of Research On Technological Crises in the U.S., Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 2, 1 , available from http://paulshrivastava.com/Research%20Publications%20Directory%5CShrivastava%20(1994)%20The%20Evolution%20of....pdf ( accessed 21st July 2011) STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, 2007, Auguste Compte, available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/ (accessed 21st July 2011) THORPE, R. and HOLT, R. ( editors) 2008, The Sage Dictionary of Qualiative Management Research, London , Sage WEICK,K.,!995, Sensemaking in Organisations, London , Sage. VAN MAANEN, J. (1995) ‘Style as theory’, Organization Science, 6 (1), pp.133-143, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=446561bf-3152-405d-87fd-f6972fd2d38e%40sessionmgr115&vid=11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=buh&AN=4436069 (Accessed 22nd July 2011). Read More