Interpretive paradigm

The interpretive research paradigm considers the organisation as a research site that shares characteristics with other types of communities. Alvesson and Deetz (2000) contend that the focus is on social rather than an economic view of organisational activities. Bryman (2011)

122

classifies it as a subjective approach to research, based on “an inquiry from the inside” aimed at attempting to understand a phenomenon without a prior analytical assumption.

Interpretive research is based on an ontological assumption which assumes an internal realist view of social reality; it suggests social reality as a creation of human actions rather than as an objective, neutral binding "constraint" (Giddens, 1984; Cohen et al., 2000; Blaikie, 2011; Bryman, 2011; Crotty, 2013). Blaikie (2011) suggests that interpretive ontology is based on “a different logic of enquiry to that used in the natural sciences”. In addition, the interpretive paradigm acknowledges a subjective idealism whereby each individual actor constructs a unique version of reality (Walsham, 2006).

Prior researchers that have adopted an interpretive paradigm assume the epistemological position that human beings create and associate unique subjective meanings during their social interactions with social reality (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Alvesson and Deetz, 2000; Walsham, 2006). In addition, the interpretive research paradigm assumes shared multiple realities that are both produced and reproduced by actors in their social settings (Morgan, 1980).The methodological approach of the interpretive research paradigm considers social phenomena, such as the changes in performance management (as a subset of a larger MAS), as ‘unique’ and that cannot easily be captured in hypothetical deductions associated with positivist research (Remenyi et al., 2000; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).

Rather, it is argued that social reality is created through subjective human experiences of interpretation, creation, and modification of the social world (Roberts and Scapens, 1985; Yanow and Ybema, 2009; Walsham, 2006; Chua, 1986). This approach studies the phenomenon within its organisational context (Collis and Hussey, 2003; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Marshall and Rossman, 1989). The researcher is assumed an active participant in the

123

investigation rather than a passive observer (Klein and Myers, 1999; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).

For instance, Yanow and Ybema (2009) contend that the interpretive paradigm “asks after multiple, and sometimes, conflicting meanings made or held by different interpretive- discourse-practice communities using the same artefact”; in the case of the present study, the artefact is represented by the MAS within the case study organisation. Chua (1986:614) argues that interpretive researchers are concerned with research questions such as:

How is a common sense of social order produced and reproduced in everyday life; what are deeply embedded rules that structure the social world…and how are they sustained and modified; what are the typical motives that explain action.

Interpretive research investigations involve studying the “routines” of the subjects as “defined, enacted, smoothed and made problematic by persons going about their normal routines” (Van Maanen, 1983:25). This involves studying texts and conversations; what influences human actors to make sense of their practices or activities; and the position-practices of human agents and their influence on organisational interactions (Stones, 1996; 2005). In addition, interpretive studies involve understanding the environment and contextual factors influencing the interpretation of phenomena or reality (Blaikie, 2011).

Thus, an interpretive approach to MAC research assumes employees are not only rational, but that they construct a reality based on their understanding of events, actions and norms within their environment. Blaikie (2011) argues that this construction is a by-product of history, values, beliefs or reactions to situations and contexts (Greef, 2015; Yanow and Ybema, 2009). An interpretive research approach in MAC assumes an attempt to discover and comprehend an understanding or meaning created by individuals in constructing shared realities. These

124

constructions facilitate an understanding of the social context in which these meanings are produced (Yanow and Ybema, 2009).

Therefore, the study of the evolution and development of MAS would involve taking into account the context and the interpretations that human actors give to the changes they encounter in every day organisational processes. This position requires an “immersion” into the field and context of study through being an active participant, as opposed to casual observation with measurement as posited by positivistic research. However, minimal consideration is given to the study of issues of domination contradiction, potentiality and change in the interpretive understanding of reality and MAS practices (Alveeson and Deetz, 2000).

However, as with the positivist research paradigm, interpretivism does not seek to question the status quo (Chua, 1986). Rather, researchers who use this paradigm merely interpret different meanings various actors generate about reality. In other words, an interpretive research paradigm assumes a qualitative research approach to organisational reality, whilst maintaining its status quo (Doolin, 1998; 2007). According to Dolin (1998) the interpretive research paradigm fails to recognise the tensions, conflicts and contradictions arising from the power relations of organisational actors, which leads to unintended consequences. Thus, it does not critically evaluate the social phenomena being investigated (Chua, 1986). Instead, it focuses on the interpretation of the meanings that the human actors assign to the social structures, which does not allow the researcher to unveil how human behaviour is constrained or enabled by the dominating social structures (Chua, 1986).

The interpretive paradigm may provide an adequate lens through which to analyse the motivation for change at multiple levels, as suggested by Yanow and Ybema (2009) who contend that the interpretive approach facilitates studies at the organisational level which allows a discourse with multiple levels of the organisation, including with those who are silent

125

by choice or by force (concurring with the notion of understanding institutional perspectives). However, as a standalone paradigm, the interpretive paradigm fails to yield sufficient insights to the realm required to meet the objectives of this study, which suggests the need for a critical element to understand underlying motivations for the choice or rejection of options on MAS design and implementation, or the influences behind the social realities surrounding the change process of the case study organisation.