Philosophical perspective

Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) assert that the philosophical perspective underpinning the research provides the foundation for a research project and is even more important than the research methods: “Questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways”. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009, p.107) research philosophy is concerned with “the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge”. As such, it covers the researchers’ assumption with regard to how they view the world, in an attempt to deal with that knowledge. Consequently, the philosophical assumptions underpin the entire design of the research and the methods chosen and have a “significant impact not only on what we do but we understand what it is we are investigating” (Saunders et al., 2009, p.108). Therefore, the research philosophy chosen must provide a holistic and flexible approach able to delve into survivors’ experience, in an attempt to develop new knowledge from uncovering the meaning they attached to a particular aspect of downsizing survival. The literature (e.g.

Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Crotty, 1998) offers two main aspects of research philosophy and the way it deals with knowledge in the research process. These are Ontology and Epistemology.

4.1.1 Ontology

Ontology is theory about the nature of existence (King and Horrocks, 2010).

Ontological debates are concerned with the question “whether social entities can and should be considered objective entities that have a reality external to social actors, or whether they can and should be considered social constructions built up from the perceptions and actions of social actors” (Bryman, 2008, p.18). A clarification of the ontological position becomes crucial for the present study as different perspectives about how survivors exist in the world may lead to different conclusions with regard to their experience (King and Horrocks, 2010). A contrast between the two major ontological positions namely objectivism and subjectivism (e.g. Bryman and Bell, 2007), will shed more light on the question of which particular view should be adopted in order to gain the desired information.

Researchers who take an objectivist standpoint represent the perspective that “social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors”

(Bryman, 2008, p.19). This involves the belief that there is a single objective world

“out there” which is fully apprehendable and hence can be measured by applying scientific laws and immutable mechanisms (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Lor, 2011). Such a belief is considered as “naive realism” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, pp.108-109), because it is assumed that if just this “real” world is understood then it leads to the correct answer. Thus objectivists clearly assert that scientific methods need publicly observable and replicable facts (Diesing, 1966) and show a hostile stance against meaning, which is created from the perception of the individuals involved. However, and with regard to the current research it is questionable if such a standpoint is the right choice to investigate downsizing survivors, as the reality of organizational downsizing may hardly be separated from those who have experienced it, as they

always stand in close interaction with their environment and its social actors.

Moreover, it is unlikely that an objectivist standpoint is able to deal with the complexity of the survivor syndrome as this is not a tangible object, but is very subjective (e.g. Chen, 2009, p.78) and a reflection of survivors’ own personal experiences.

In contrast to objectivism, a subjectivist perspective considers social phenomena as a product which is created in relation to others (Demirdirek, 2010). This involves that reality is not considered to exist just “out there” and irrespective of the people, but that reality and meaning-making is a product of social construction instead, where people make their own sense of the social world (Tuli, 2010, p.101). Moreover, it is a repetitive process, where the perception of social phenomena is continuously updated through social interaction with the environment (Bryman, 2008). Thus, meaning is constructed in terms of the subject under investigation (Remenyi, Williams, Money and Swartz, 1998). In the context of human behaviour research, Diesing (1966, p.124) highlighted the importance of meaning arguing “that the essential, unique characteristic of human behaviour is its subjective meaningfulness, and any science which ignores meaning and purpose is not a social science”. For the purpose of the present study, such an approach thus seems to be more beneficial compared to an objective stance on ontology, because the fact that people are not treated as research objects, but more as participants, is probably more empowering to them in terms of freely expressing their own view (e.g. Tuli, 2010) and would thus allow the researcher to gain more insight into their personal story of downsizing survival. In addition, understanding the deeper meaning of their description may provide further explanation of their reactions post-downsizing and therefore most likely to contribute to answering the research questions.

4.1.2 Epistemology

Besides ontology, epistemology provides a further aspect of thinking about the development and the nature of knowledge in the process of social research (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Whilst ontology is concerned with the question “what is the nature of reality” (Creswell, 2007, p.17) and the study of being (Lawson, 2004) including discussions of whether social entities can be considered to be objective or subjective, epistemology by contrast, can be seen as “the theory of knowledge” (Crotty, 1998, p.3) that defines what kind of knowledge is acceptable or counts in a particular field of study (King and Horrocks, 2010). The two main epistemological positions which have dominated the debates around the right choice of a philosophical perspective in social science are positivism and interpretivism (e.g. Remenyi et al. 1998; King and Horrocks, 2010). A common and central question which arises in this context is concerned with the issue whether phenomena of the social world can be successfully studied according to the same procedures and techniques as applied by the natural sciences (e.g. Hussey and Hussey, 1997, Bryman, 2008). To clarify this concern, both, positivism and interpretivism will be illustrated and assessed with regard to their potential to study downsizing survivors and their ability to discover the meaning of survivors’ experience.

Positivism is an epistemological perspective which adopts the methods of the natural sciences (e.g. Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Taking a positivist stance means to work

“with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be the derivation of laws or law-like generalisations similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists” (Remenyi et al. 1998, p.32). Positivism is focused to deal with facts rather than impressions (Crotty, 1998) and therefore shows a strong tendency to the ontological view of objectivism where the “the researcher is independent of and

neither affects nor is affected by the subject of the research” (Remenyi et al. 1998, p.33). A main characteristic of positivism is its emphasis on quantifiable observations that are processed through statistical analysis in order to test hypothesis and theory (e.g. Crotty, 1998).

However, within recent years, positivism has been criticized (e.g. Remenyi et al., 1998; Denscombe, 2010) as an approach that does not provide enough insight to deal with the complexity in the area of organizational studies. Remenyi et al. (1998, p.33) argued that even though the application of positivism “opened the door to enormous quantities of knowledge, it provided genuine insights sparingly” and remained mainly at the surface level of things. This however could become a critical issue as the present study requires an approach, which is able to delve into survivors’ individual lives, to gain in-depth knowledge about their attitudes and feelings and how they were affected by organizational downsizing. An approach which relies on data quantification and numerical results is most likely to be an insufficient strategy to deal with a sensitive topic such as downsizing survivors. Therefore, positivism may fail to achieve a revealing and authentic account of what has been experienced by the individual and how he or she coped with their destiny of being a survivor of a downsizing programme. Remenyi et al. (1998, p.33) supports that view, arguing that methods associated with positivism work “with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of an individual life”.

As a response to this critical debate, the philosophical tradition of interpretivism emerged and became a contrasting epistemology to positivism (e.g. Crotty, 1998).

Such a paradigm is “informed by a concern to understand the world as it is, to understand the fundamental nature of the social world at the level of subjective

experience” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p.28). This school of thought emphasizes the importance of understanding the differences between researching humans in their role as actors within a social world and objects such as machines or cars (Saunders et al., 2009). Saunders et al. (2009, p.116) argued that, similar to the way in which actors play and interpret their part of a theatrical production, “we interpret our everyday social roles in accordance with the meaning we give to these roles”. Moreover, the set of meanings individuals hold influences their interpretation about the social role of others (Saunders et al., 2009). Thus, each situation becomes unique, where “its meaning is a function of the circumstances and the individuals involved” (Remenyi et al., 1998, p.34).

This becomes important in the context of complex scenarios such as downsizing or restructuring initiatives. To explore the meaning associated with the experience of being a downsizing survivor an interpretivist stance provides a holistic approach to deal with such a complex situation, as it offers the possibility “to look beyond the details of the situation to understand the reality or perhaps a reality working behind them” (Remenyi, 1998, p.35). Thus, interpretivism, for instance, allows a researcher to gain an understanding of why survivors acted in the way they did, instead of just discovering that they acted differently and that their reactions have changed in the aftermath of downsizing. Through an interpretivist perspective it is possible to understand survivors’ experience in its context, where their perception of it, and the meaning they attach to it, in a complex situation, is studied as a whole and thus leads to meaningful knowledge about how they interpreted the downsizing scenario in their role as social actors.

4.1.3 Summary

In summary, this section has discussed the philosophical perspectives in terms of their influence on conducting the present research. It has been demonstrated that an interpretivist stance on social research provides a more holistic approach to exploring survivors’ experiences, as opposed to a positivistic stance, “as it scratches beneath the superficial aspects of social reality” and thus enables an understanding of complex issues, such as attitudes and emotions (Denscombe, 2003, p.95).

The following section will outline and discuss how the beliefs associated with an interpretivist methodology are operationalized and put into practice. This includes how the participants were defined and recruited, how the material was collected and analysed and finally how the findings will be presented.