Paradigm of the Study

An important early step in research is to define the “paradigm” or “world view” that guides the research. According to Gregg, Kulkarni and Vinze (2001) the paradigm is

the perspective taken when drawing knowledge from the physical and social world. In simple terms, the “paradigm” is the fundamental view of how we perceive our reality (Burrell and Morgan 1979) or in other words, the paradigm reflects the fundamental beliefs and assumptions we hold about the reality of something (Kuhn 1970). Guba and Lincoln (cited in Gregg et al. 2001) propose three questions that need to be asked when defining a paradigm.

The first, which is the Ontology, is; ‘What is the nature of reality that is addressed’; the second which is the Epistemology is, ‘What is the nature of knowledge’; and the third which is the Methodology is, ‘What is the best approach to obtaining the desired knowledge and understanding’.

In relation to research, the paradigm explains the philosophical assumptions about the nature of knowledge and it can be measured (Morgan 1983a; Smircich 1983; Guba and Lincoln 1994). Another point made by a number of researchers is that the term is used widely with a variety of meanings depending on when, where and by whom it is used (Morgan 1983a; Guba and Lincoln 1994). There is no universally accepted paradigm for any kind of research, and the discussion continues as to which paradigm and therefore, which methodology is best used when conducting research (Smircich 1983; Patton 1990; Perry 1994; Yin 1994). No single paradigm, and/or methodology will meet the needs of all researchers and research questions, particularly when investigating what Cunningham (1993) refers to as “our diverse, complex and changing contemporary society (pg. 71)”. Nonetheless, depending on the context, it is argued that some methodologies are more suitable than others are.

In terms of OL research, Kim (2003) has identified three widely used research paradigms, these being ‘positivism’, ‘interpretivism’, and ‘critical sciences’. Although ‘positivism’ has been preferred as the central research approach in studying OL issues in modern organisations, Kim (2003), suggests ‘interpretivism’ and ‘critical science’ are also very useful approaches. Therefore, a brief discussion is required to explain the approach suited for this research. The positivist approach is the first to be discussed, followed by critical science theory and finally the interpretivist approach. Later, the constructivist approach is also discussed as it has some relevance to the research paradigm.

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994) positivism is based on an assumption that the reality of the research is both real and apprehensible, as it can be measured and touched. As the reality is real, then when a researcher investigates it, causal relationships can be consistently measured and categorized, across both time and context (Perry et al. 1998). Further, Perry et al. (1998) also note that positivism is used to test hypotheses and from this establish the ‘truth’ about the hypothesis, using very structured verification methodologies such as, laboratory experiments surveys. Therefore, as one purpose of this thesis is to explore and explain “Malaysian

understanding of OL and the learning strategies practiced in Malaysian organisations” rather than to verify a theory, it is argued that the positivism paradigm is not best suited for this research and so, the positivism paradigm is rejected.

In discussing the Critical Theory approach, the underlying assumption of Critical Theory is it is a “virtual or historical reality” derived from social contexts (Guba and Lincoln 1994, p 110). Those who advocate the use of this paradigm, wish to transform

the world around them by critiquing the existing “social, political, economic, ethnic and gender values” (Perry et al.1998, p 6) that have shaped the current reality, from a previous one (Guba and Lincoln 1994). To use this paradigm, as a research tool, would of necessity make the researcher, as argued by Guba and Lincoln (1994, p 112) a “transformative intellectual”, one who wishes to change the world in which the participants live (Perry et al. 1996, Brown 1997). However, as one purpose of this research is to explain and explore Malaysian understanding on OL and what are the learning strategy practices in Malaysian organisations rather than to transform them, this paradigm is considered to be inappropriate and is also rejected

The paradigm of the ‘interpretivist’ approach, suggests it is impossible to separate facts from values and the inherent subjectivity in any research conducted in relation to people and to the social world (Schwandt, 2000). In addition, Schwandt, (2000) justified this by claiming that knowledge is socially constructed, rather than the discovery of an independent reality, therefore, the notion of causality is defined differently. From the interpretivist perspective, causal relationships are simply another, possible construction or explanation for certain aspects of the social world that we are researching. Rather than seeking a ‘true’ match between our research observations and reality, the interpretivist paradigm understands reality as being constructed in and through our observations and pursuit of knowledge (Kincheloe & McLaren 2000, Lynch 2003, Pennycook 2001, Schwandt 2000). Looking at the nature of this research, which is to explore and explain the Malaysian understanding of OL and the learning strategy practices in Malaysian organizations, this approach is considered to be suited to answering the research questions.

As for the ‘constructivist’ approach, this paradigm is founded on the assumption that, there are multiple versions of reality and as a result there can be no singular truth (Guba and Lincoln 1994, Perry et al. 1998). For as Guba and Lincoln (1994, p111) assert the: “realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature…and dependent for their form and content on the individual person or groups holding the constructions.” Moreover, as the constructivist approach holds, each construction is based on the individual or groups own experiences, then the reality thereby constructed, cannot be real or true in an absolute sense (Perry et al. 1998). Thus as Perry et al. (1999 p 6) argue: “perception is the most important reality” and as a result, the level certainty as to the truth of the findings may not be constant. Also, as the findings may well be a creation or a synthesis of what the researcher has found, then the researcher is, what Guba and Lincoln (1994, p 111) describe as a “passionate participant”. According to Carr & Kemmis (1986) the aim of ‘constructivism’ inquiry is understanding and reconstruction of the understanding that people initially hold, aiming toward consensus but still open to new interpretations as information and sophistication improve is justified the suitability of this paradigm to be used to answer the research question.

As this research investigates both existing research and the tacit knowledge of people involved in the industry, the nature of the research is both exploratory and explanatory. Therefore, the combination of interpretive and constructivist approach was deemed the most appropriate paradigm and methodology for conducting this research.

The ‘Interpretive/Constructivist’ paradigm proposes that people construct knowledge in social settings (Gregg et al. 2001). Therefore, the ‘interpretive/constructive’ study attempts to attain complete and broader understanding of people’s daily life to recognize the models, practices and traditions of their society (Kim 2003). According to Gregg et al. (2001), the ‘interpretive/constructivist’ paradigm allows the researcher to construct new concepts based on observing the needs and relationships and experiences of others. Gregg et al. (2001) and Kim (2003) add that ‘interpretive/constructive’ research helps to shape or construct the organisational and social reality, as a product of theory, which in turn shapes and affects reality.

In this case, the opinions and perceptions of respondents and their collective experiences and knowledge are used to build a model of organisational learning in Malaysia. Consequently, the study started with questions derived from the literature, as recommended by Denzin and Lincoln (2000). The first step was to gather general feedback and input from respondents via an Industry Survey. This survey tapped their understanding of OL, the learning strategies available in the market and the learning strategies used by their organisations and asked if they could distinguish between OL and KM. The results were then analysed to reveal the respondents opinions and understanding. Based on the input from this first wave data, a set of in-depth interview questions were derived for the second phase of the data collection.