Positioning Research

Burrell and Morgan (2017) suggest dividing social science research into two research approaches, a subjectivist approach and an objectivist approach. They argue that social theory can be conceived in terms of four key paradigms based upon two main sets of assumptions about the nature of social science and the nature of society. They state that these four sets of philosophical assumptions are founded upon mutually exclusive views of the social world, and they thus emphasize different approaches to social science relating to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology. These social science assumptions are shown in figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: The Subjective – Objectives Dimension

Source: Burrell and Morgan (2017, p. 3)

Figure 4.1 shows the different dimension between a subjectivist and an objectivist approach. The ontology dimension discusses how the reality, being research, derives; it can be from an external consciousness, or a product of an individual researcher’s consciousness. At this ontology level, the subjectivist approach suggests

Nominalism Ontology Realism

Anti-positivism Epistemology Positivism Voluntarism Human Nature Determinism Ideographic Methodology Nomothetic

nominalism that assumes society is relative so the researcher can describe the social world with names, concepts and labels. While the objectivist sees realism with the assumption that the real world is separate from the individual’s perception of it.

The epistemology level discusses how knowledge can be acquired and found. The epistemological assumptions are characterised into two positions on a continuum ranging from positivism to anti-positivism which relate to whether knowledge is something which can be acquired or has to be personally experienced. In particular, positivism is the application of the natural sciences framework to the study of the social world. Burrell and Morgan (2017) used the description of a positivist approach to “characterise epistemologies which seek to explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for regularities and causal relationships between its constituent elements” (p.5). Positivists believe that one can develop hypotheses and test them, and that knowledge is a cumulative process. In contrast, anti-positivists reject that observing behaviour can help one understand it. They maintain that the social world can only be understood from the viewpoint of individuals who are directly involved in the activities to be investigated. Thus, all knowledge is unique to the person and can only be studied from each individual’s viewpoint.

Burrell and Morgan (2017) argue that ontological and epistemological assumptions have an impact on a researcher’s opinion about human nature and their environment; but conceptually, human nature is separate from ontology and epistemology. The difference between a subjectivist approach and an objectivist approach about human nature can be characterised by posing the question, “are humans determined by their environment or do humans create their environment?” (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 23). This examination envelops the philosophical debate between the advocates of determinism and voluntarism. By adopting a voluntarist view, a researcher assumes that “man is completely autonomous and free-willed” (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 6). At the other extreme, the determinist view assumes that human beings respond in “a mechanistic or deterministic fashion to the situations encountered in their external world. This view tends to be one in which human beings and their experiences are regarded as products of the environment” (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 2). In other words, the activities of individuals are predictable in that their actions are determined by the social world which is considered to be independent from human existence or consciousness.

Burrell and Morgan (2017) argue that the assumptions made by a researcher regarding ontology, epistemology and human nature have direct implications for the

methodology used in their research. If the social world is viewed as if it is a hard, external, objective reality, then social scientists will tend to “focus upon an analysis of relationship and regularities between the various elements” (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 3). The nomothetic approach to social science emphasises the similarities between individuals; it stresses the importance of systematic protocols and techniques in research. On the other hand, the ideographic approach to social science emphasises the differences between individuals. This approach is based on the view that one can only understand the social world by obtaining first-hand knowledge of the subject under investigation. Therefore, by adopting the ideographic approach, a researcher focuses upon understanding the way in which individuals create, modify and interpret the world in which they live (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 6).

Further, in the operationalization of this approach, a study should acknowledge the paradigms to understand the nature of the society being researched. There are two assumptions used to understand the society: an order or integrationist view sees society as relatively stable and based on consensus and conflict; or a coercion view which sees society as constantly changing and disintegrating (Dahrendorf, 1958). Further, Burrell and Morgan (2017) introduce the term of “sociology of regulation” to refer to the theories concerned with unity and cohesiveness in explaining the society; and the term “sociology of radical change” that focuses on radical change, deep-seated structural conflict, modes of domination and structural contradiction to find the explanations of society. These two assumptions relate to the assumptions of a subjectivist and objectivist approach creating four paradigms in the research: the radical humanist, interpretive, radical structuralist, and functionalist (Burrell & Morgan, 2017).

Figure 4.2: Four Paradigms for Social Theory Analysis

The Sociology of Radical Change

Radical Humanist Radical Structuralist

Subjective Objective

Interpretive Functionalist

The Sociology of Regulation Source: Burrell and Morgan (2017, p. 22)

Burrell and Morgan (2017) claim that each of the paradigms shares a common set of features with its neighbours on the horizontal and vertical axes; and each set

defines a separate social-scientific framework for world view. A social scientist who is located in a particular paradigm will view the world in a particular way because the four paradigms “define four views of the social world based upon different meta-theoretical assumptions with regard to the nature of science and of society” (p. 24). Thus, Burrell and Morgan take the position that the four paradigms are mutually exclusive in the sense that one cannot operate in more than one paradigm at any given point in time, although one can operate in different paradigms sequentially over time.

According to Burrell and Morgan (2017), the interpretive paradigm reflects the sociology of regulation and takes a subjectivist approach. It is concerned with understanding the world as it is, based on the subjective experience of the participant, as well as the observer, and adopts an approach which is anti-positivist, voluntarist and nominalist and ideographic. Burrell and Morgan (2017) also claim that the interpretive paradigm views the social world as an emergent social process which is created by the individuals concerned. Interpretive philosophers and sociologists “seek to understand the very basis and source of social reality” (p. 31). They often delve into the depths of human consciousness and subjectivity in their quest for the fundamental meanings which underlie social life. In contrast, the functionalist paradigm is concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, social order, social integration, solidarity, need satisfaction and actuality.

Burrell and Morgan (2017) suggest that the radical humanist paradigm is concerned with developing sociology of radical change from a subjectivist standpoint. On the other hand, the radical structuralist paradigm is concerned with the sociology of radical change and approaches its subject matter from an objectivist point of view. In particular, the radical humanist paradigm has a lot in common with the interpretive paradigm of social science in that it views the social world from a perspective which tends to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic. In contrast, the researcher who adopts the radical structuralist paradigm approaches research from a standpoint which tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic. However, both the radical humanist and radical structuralist are committed to a sociology of “radical change, emancipation, and potentiality, an analysis which emphasizes structural conflict, modes of domination, contradiction and deprivation” (Burrell & Morgan, 2017, p. 34).

For the radical humanist paradigm, human consciousness is placed at the centre of the analysis in keeping with its subjectivist approach to social science. Moreover, Burrell and Morgan (2017) state that scientists who adopt this paradigm “seek to change

the social world through a change in modes of cognition and consciousness” (p. 33). In contrast to the radical humanists, who focus upon consciousness as the basis for a radical critique of society, the radical structuralists “forge their perspective” by concentrating upon structural relationships within the social world (Hannah, 2003).