Methodological implications

The described epistemological and ontological assumptions lead to methodological

implications that are outlined in the following section.

4.1.2.1

Discourse and language

Discourse consists in written and spoken language or any artefact that can be ‘read’ (e.g.

pictures, videos, clothes that people wear). It is at the heart of social constructionism

because of its constructive nature in the meaning making process (Burr, 2003; L. Cohen,

Duberley, & Mallon, 2004; Fairclough, 2005). There are different discourses for the same

event, resulting in different truth claims, which are central in the context of identity, power

and change (Berger & Luckmann, 1991; Burr, 2003). The most dominant form of discourse

is language, because a conversation cannot occur without language and vice versa (Tusting,

described in the literature review (Wenger, 1998). Therefore, discourse presents a

foundational aspect of this research.

Language is above all to be regarded as a social phenomenon, which is not static, but

evolves over time and is context dependent (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Descriptions of

events through words are the main vehicles used to construct meaning (King & Horrocks,

2010). Maturana and Varela (1987) epitomise the presupposition that language is an integral part of human practice: “Everything said is said by someone” (p. 27). They furthermore

argue that: “Every human act takes place in language. Every act in language brings forth a

world created with others in the act of coexistence which gives rise to what humans are” (p.

247). Language is not merely a means of communication, but it reveals feelings, beliefs,

opinions and is constituted in a shared framework of understanding (Yardley, 2000). Thoughts and language are not necessarily the same: “The things become available to us,

through language, as ways of structuring our experiences” (Burr, 2003, p. 47).

Discourse also plays a central role in power asymmetries. Foucault has had a big influence

on the understanding that power is omnipresent in human life, because the discourses that

are used have different levels of acceptance, putting those upholding them in more powerful

positions than others (Burr, 2003). Comparing for example statements of a governor of a bank about the economic outlook versus those of others – there is clearly a difference in the

associated value of their discourse (Fleetwood, 2004). Also, if categorisations are made between mad and sane or women and men, then this not only reflects a material difference,

but also imposes power asymmetry, by assigning certain characteristics to each group (Burr,

2003). Although the implications of these categorisations may not be visible to those

affected, they do certainly have an influence on the affected groups, because of their social utility and acceptance (Burr, 2003). Research always has a political character, because “all

our speech and actions arise from a particular social context, serve some social purpose and have some social effect” (Yardley, 2000, p. 223).

However, it is acknowledged that there is a material world beyond language, which

influences the way in which people construct meaning through it, even though they may not

be consciously aware of that (Fairclough, 2005; Sims-Schouten et al., 2007).

In light of these considerations the privileged role that language must take in this research

becomes evident: first, because of the constitutive nature of language, emphasis must be

placed on gathering the experiences of people through language. Secondly, attention must

be paid to the way in which categorisations are used and structured, as these may help to

understand socially established definitions that may be subject to change. Ultimately, from

an ethical perspective it must be ensured that questions and dialogue are steered carefully,

because language can generate harm.

4.1.2.2

Against methodological individualism

Above all in positive research it is frequently argued that society is composed of individuals

and that science should strive to understand these individuals separated from their

respective context, to gain knowledge about a society as a whole. This conceptualisation

has been coined methodological individualism in 1909 by Schumpeter (Hodgson, 2007;

Udehn, 2002) and stems from economic theory, where it is argued that individual decisions

should constitute the basis of research (Arrow, 1994). In line with this Schumpeter (1909, p.

232) argued that “no reality corresponds to the concept of social values and social wants properly so called”. There are different conceptualisations of methodological individualism

(Hodgson, 2007; Udehn, 2002). Within methodological individualism it is postulated that

ultimately all social phenomena can be understood through the individuals that form the

social entity (Elster, 1982; Schumpeter, 1909). It also claims that social properties like values

do not reside within the social relations, but within individual actors (Arrow, 1994).

Whereby it is accepted that all social processes are materialised through individual action;

also termed ontological truism, these are not necessarily explanatory (Jepperson & Meyer,

based on an individual level only, but must include the relations among individuals

(Hodgson, 2007). Otherwise it is difficult to understand why individual actors behave

differently depending on the socio-cultural context in which they are embedded (Burr, 2003).

Methodological individualism does not pay sufficient respect to the uniqueness of social

entities beyond the sum of its members, particularly considering the web of relations and

interactions in their own right (Sarker & Valacich, 2010). Organizational competences do not reside within the individuals’ competences, but their combination (Sarker & Valacich, 2010).

However, it may indeed be regarded as a false dichotomy to differentiate between the individual and society, “a division that is an artefact of intellectual analysis by human minds

and not a division that represent discrete phenomena” (Burr, 2003, p. 184). The implication

of this leads to the requirement that the meaning making process of individuals must

necessarily and explicitly include their understanding of the social relations and context that

influences them.

4.1.2.3

Values

The role of values within research is subject to a significant amount of discussion and will

never be conclusively finished, as it is based upon different underlying philosophical

presuppositions that are neither testable (Popper, 1959) nor refutable (Godfrey & Hill, 1995).

Whilst positivists, searching for universal truths, aim to strictly separate values from science

(Crotty, 1998), advocating a rigorous distinction between positive and normative statements

(May, 2011), this research paradigm assumes the existence of multiple realities that are

constructed in a social context (Berger & Luckmann, 1991; Burr, 2003). The following

section explains why.

The process of research can be understood as a common project between the researcher

and the researched (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Guba and Lincoln (1994) argue that study

results are generated out of the interaction between the researcher and the researched

research paradigm, because it is impossible to act without underlying personal assumptions

that drive actions (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Every investigator looks upon a situation from

a context that is embedded cultural-historically and socially constructed, therefore it is

impossible to look at the world from no position at all (Burr, 2003; Cruickshank, 2003). Each

claim, even those seemingly neutral, are subject to an underlying belief system (Gergen,

1999).

The values of the researchers cannot be derived from facts and manifest themselves in each

of the respective phases in a research project, as May (2011) comprehensively summarises:

 Interest leading to research.

 Aims, objectives and design of research project.

 Data collection process.

 Interpretation of the data.

 The use made (or not) of the research findings.

Acknowledging the role of values throughout the process, it must be ensured to actively

pursue a critical reflection upon their impact in the respective phases. In line with this, the

interest leading to the research as-well-as the aims, objectives and design have been

addressed within the preceding chapter. This, together with the research paradigm outlined

above and a critical assessment of different data collection methods, led to the

understanding of why the adopted methods were selected. The reflections regarding the

interpretation of the data will be presented in the reflective commentary further below. The

contribution of the research findings will be discussed in the concluding chapter.