Stage 3: Working on the interdisciplinary level

Once the disciplinary insights were captured, the researcher had to work at the various disciplinary crossroads. That is, the insights that had been captured at the single- disciplinary level, needed to be synthesized and integrated with the aim of creating an interdisciplinary understanding of the research problem. The following sections aim to explicitly present the steps that the researcher followed in the interdisciplinary level.

Identify conflicts & discover or create common ground

The first step in the interdisciplinary stage was to trace conflicts and then create common ground among the various disciplinary insigts that have been captured during the previous phase (Repko, 2009:247,271). Common ground is developed based on five integrative techniques including expansion, redefinition, extension, organization and transformation (not all of them used in every single case. refer to Repko, 2009:281). Its result was to conceptualize the “how” element of a theory, which describes the causal relationships between the already identified “whats” of the developed understanding

(Whetten, 1989). Appendix 5.5 demonstrates an example of this process.

Integrate insights & produce an interdisciplinary understanding of the problem The “what” and “how” elements accompanied by various charts and diagrams are the essential, yet insufficient, parts of the theorizing process the ultimate aim of which is to produce a robust theory (Weick, 1995). This is because a complete theory must explain the logic that underlies the various causal relationships between the concepts

(Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989). As a result, the next step was to creatively combine disciplinary insights (Repko, 2009:296) and make explicit “why” the specific concepts of “whats” and their integrations of “hows” were chosen. For that reason, the researcher utilized conceptual diagrams which facilitated the structuring of complex

interdisciplinary concepts by linking predefined disciplinary categories (Eppler, 2006). Appendix 5.6 demonstrates an example of this process. The aim of the integration was to produce a systemic interdisciplinary understanding, which consists of the chosen disciplinary sub-systems and their links, and explains the overall phenomenon that has been studied (Newell, 2001; Repko, 2009:310).

Evaluate the interdisciplinary theoretical construct

After the development of the interdisciplinary understanding, it was also essential to verify whether the proposed theorization was able to meet the requirements of a well- constructed theory (idea inspired by Holton & Lowe, 2007). Therefore, the researcher reviewed relevant literature on how to evaluate a theory, and, after making the necessary adaptations according to the unique needs of the current work, developed ten criteria (table 10) that were considered appropriate for assessing the consistency of the proposed framework (i.e. Brookfield, 1992; Dubin 1978; Jayanti, 2011; Lincoln & Lynham, 2011; Patterson, 1986). In addition, apart from evaluative dimensions, these criteria played the role of research aims, in the sense that the researcher used them as drivers for building the interdisciplinary construct of this work. Finally, the reader should keep in mind that while the researcher’s aim was to develop genuine evaluative dimensions that would meet the specific needs of this work, in many cases exact phrases have been extracted from the existing criteria that have met this requirement.

Criterion Description 1. Impor tanc e & Me aningfulne

ss A theory is important, or else significant, when it is related to

(Patterson, 1986), as well as provides scientific explanation

(Mansilla, 2005) and deep understanding of (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011), "actual" events, behaviours and general phenomena that

concern social life.

2. Logica ll y c onsi stent insi ghtfulness

The “traditional” inductive and deductive reasoning to theory development were complemented by abductive logic, which allowed

imaginary creativity to emerge and formulate new theoretical interdisciplinary constructs (pragmatism: Jayanti, 2011) of higher

and leveraged understanding (Mansilla, 2005). These constructs need to be insightful and can accommodate "some" ambiguity

(Lincoln & Lynham, 2011),without, though, losing internal consistency (Patterson, 1986) or their logical basis to other-external

3. Na rr ati ve & il lust ra ti ve e lega nc

e _{The complex theorization needs to be narratively elegant, and} conceptually rich, provocative and evocative (Lincoln & Lynham,

2011), with adequate use of illustrative techniques (i.e. figures/images, tables, examples when necessary) to facilitate the

establishment of a clear understanding (Jayanti, 2011) as well as make any assumptions clear (Brookfield, 1992).

4. Mut ua li ty of conc epts & de sc riptiv e logi

c The complex theorization and its formalized outputs (Jayanti, 2011) should be conceptualized in propositions (Brookfield, 1992) that are

clear and explicit enough (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011), so that they can:

1) Be Put into action by practitioners 2) Be Used and tested by other researchers.

5. F ruitfulne ss & provo ca ti ve ne ss

Theoretical elaborations must be fruitful and provocative, in the sense that they not only illuminate some aspect of social life but also

allow room for critique (Mansilla, 2005) and, thus, suggest new avenues of research and/or action (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011).

6. Tr ansfe ra bil it y & tra nsporta bil it y

The theoretical framework should illustrate, clearly enough, its usefulness for other users (in their own situation/context) and, thus,

invite them (Brookfield, 1992) to conduct additional research

according to the following dimensions (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011): 1) Transferability: the ability in individuals, through interaction

between the knower and the known, to carry propositional and/or tacit knowledge from one context to inform another, 2) Transportability: the applicability to different populations, of

utility in varying contexts, with varying populations.

7. Inte rdisc ipl inar y tra ns fe ra bil it y

During an interdisciplinary study distinct disciplines & fields of study collaborate and, without abolishing their autonomous operation, generate a collective understanding of a research issue

(Aboelela, et al. 2007; Repko, 2006). From this perspective, and by following the 6th criterion of transferability & transportability

(Brookfield, 1992; Lincoln & Lynham, 2011), it can be argued that interdisciplinary transferability concerns the extent to which

theorists from the involved disciplines can realize:

1) Contributions of their own discipline/field to the problem under investigation,

2) Advances in their discipline/ field due to the generated interdisciplinary understanding and, thus, become able to conduct

further research on the basis of carrying knowledge from the interdisciplinary to the single-disciplinary level and vice versa.

8. Empi ric al ve rif iabili ty

The theory should generate new knowledge (Patterson, 1986) that match some element of socially constructed life, as this is judged based on the ‘lived experience" (i.e. personal experience, meaning-

making, or general observations) of the respondents (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011). 9. Use fulne ss & appli ca bil it y

The theoretical advances must be useful and applicable for ordinary persons, suggesting ways of being in the world, or ways of altering one’s circumstances in some context (Mansilla, 2005). Specifically,

it should provide (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011):

1) new ways of seeing things, such that meaningful change can occur,

2) models for human flourishing, as living knowledge, and for practical application and high organizational performance.

10. C ompelli ngne ss & P rompt t o a cti on

The theoretical framework should provide a good conceptual understanding of practice and create a prompt to action on the part of

a wider set of audiences/stakeholders who have a legitimate stake in the findings. Essentially, it should connect theory with action and

learning for continuous refinement and improvement, illustrate practicality of the theory (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011) by assisting in

the realization of certain social and political values (for a better world) and in improving social and political condition (Brookfield

1992).

Table 10. Criteria for evaluating the interdisciplinary understanding

Specifically, Patterson’s (1986) criteria, which are the most popular ones in the literature, were considered to be inappropriate for direct adoption, since they focus on reviewing theories that have been developed under the positivistic paradigm (in Lincoln & Lynham, 2011). For example, his criteria of “Parsimony & simplicity” and “Comprehensiveness” could not be used in order to evaluate a theory that, by its very nature, is underlined by the need for long-scale narration and refers to the creative processes of human imagination. Therefore, Lincoln & Lynham’s (2011) criteria for assessing a theory that has been conceptualized under the interpretivistic paradigm, and Mansilla’s (2005) criteria for evaluating interdisciplinary theories, were utilized as a basis. In addition, influences from the abductive reasoning which was followed in order to formulate the current work’s interdisciplinary (Repko, 2006) understanding (criteria for pragmatic reasoning in Jayanti, 2011), the intention to develop mainly a formal theory (Brookfield, 1992), as well as the criterion of “Logical consistency” which is suitable for assessing the conceptualization phase of theory development (Dubin, 1978)

were taken into consideration. Further analysis of the process that has been followed can be found at appendix 5.7.

Ultimately, the interdisciplinary understanding that satisfied the criteria listed above was considered as ready to be conceptualized into a theoretical framework/model

(phase of operationalization; Lynham, 2002). It should be clarified though, that this integration was taking place gradually, as the process of constructing the model of this work was extremely dynamic. In other words, the researcher had to use the feedback loop (fig8: Q.3) many times to revisit the literature and retrieve additional useful sources that could further enhance the incomplete theoretical advancements. The feedback loops that have been followed are reflected in the three question that the researcher has added to Repko’s (2006) model for conducting interdisciplinary research.

3

The fundamentals of the schema change process

The current chapter aims to introduce the reader to the general underpinning philosophy of this research. The analysis of the research problem made clear that in order for action to be decided, and, thereby, an OC to be instigated, a mental shift regarding how leaders perceive and act in respect to a specific change issue is necessary. At this stage, the researcher will explain how the need for such a mental shift, and, thereby, for an organizational transformation is legitimized. Then, the cognitive and more precisely schematic approach to change will be approached and a suitable model that can work as the basis for developing the theoretical construct of this work will be identified. The chapter will conclude by introducing the notion of cognitive discrepancy, which, will establish the basis for developing and discussing the principles and the logic of resistance to change.