The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Sociological Paradigms as Suggested by Burrell and Morgan - Assignment Example

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Sociological Paradigms as Suggested by Burrell and Morgan (1979) Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Introduction The sociological paradigms as proposed by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan are widely debated in literature. Among the widely acceptable conclusions among scholars who have debated the paradigm is that although they have contributed to organisational theory, the hypothesis suggested in the paradigms have strengths and weaknesses. This essay hence critically evaluates the sociological paradigms with the intention of highlighting the weaknesses and strengths contained therein. In their 1979 submission, Burrell and Morgan (cited by Hassard, 1991), make use of the subject-object debates as used in the social science theory, and the consensus-conflict debates as used in the theory of society, to come up with four paradigms. The paradigms are: 1. The functionalist paradigm, which suggests that humans have the capacity to act rationally, and therefore holds that hypothesis testing, can be used to gain understanding on organisational behaviour especially in political, finance and policy-related analysis (Ardalan, 2008). According to Burrell and Morgan (1979, cited by Hassard, 1991), the functionalist perspective seeks to provide explanations to prevailing status quo, social integration, social order and social consensus. One of the theories classified under the functionalist paradigm is the Finance Theory, which according to Ardalan (2008, p. 61) “views science as the outcome of the search for objective truth”. The search for truth is on the other hand based on models, which provide insights into the world. According to Suranovic (2010), the insights obtained through the use of economic models cannot be obtained solely through discussing issues. Other theories under this paradigm include the social system theory, the social action theory and the integrative theory (Ardalan, 2010). 2. The interpretive paradigm, which posits that the stability of behaviour in an organisation setting can be understood by considering the viewpoints that each individual stakeholder has. To understand individual behaviour, researchers who prescribe to this paradigm argue that it is essential to observe ongoing processes in an organisation (Schwadt, 1994). Proponents of the interpretive paradigm argue that subjective experience of the world is best place to make them understand the world (Hassard, 1991). Researchers who use this paradigm enter into dialogue with their chosen subjects, in a bid to understand why the subjects behave the way they do, and in the process understand their inner minds or the non-logical side of life (Hassard, 1991). An example of theories that fall under the interpretive paradigm is the grounded theory, which requires the researcher “to enter the worlds of those under study in order to observe [their] environment and the interactions and interpretations that occur” (Goulding, 1999, p. 5). 3. The radical humanist paradigm, which posits that dominant social ideologies act as social constraints, hence limiting the potential that people have (Hassard, 1991). The main argument in this paradigm is that people are not allowed to be their true selves and are hence always rebelling (Ardalan, 2010). According to Hasssard (1991), the radical humanist paradigm regards the society as anti-human, hence focusing more on the alienated status of people. This paradigm believes that people are trapped within their own creations, for example materialism, and in the process develop false consciousness. Examples of theories under the radical humanist paradigm include the critical theory, French existentialism theory and Solipsism Theory. 4. The radical structuralist paradigm, which posits that natural structural conflicts are bound to occur in the society, and are thus the cause for changes that occur in the economic and political spheres (Ardalan, 2010). According to Ardalan (2010), the radical structuralist perspective is a critique to the status quo, and argues that radical change is built into the society’s very nature. Hence, researchers who follow this perspective not only seek to understand the world, but also seek to initiate change hence upsetting the status quo. Examples of theories under the radical structuralist paradigm include conflict theory and the Russian social theory (Ardalan, 2010). Strengths of the social paradigms approach Before formulating their four social paradigms, Hassard (1991, p. 276) observes that Burrell and Morgan dissected “social science by reference to philosopher’s toolkit of ontology and epistemology”. This statement by Hassard can be interpreted to mean that Burrell and Morgan conducted a deep analysis of how social scientists go about developing different organisational theories. Among one of their findings is that all theories have underlying assumptions, which may or may not hold in the real world. This finding forms the basis for the first strength of the social paradigms; that they realise that organisational theories are not founded on fool-proof theories. Hence, the paradigms generally accept that there is differentials- individual or societal that may lead to how people in a similar situation may act in different manners. The second strength of the social paradigms as presented by Burrell and Morgan (1979, cited by Hassard 1991) is contained in the fact that they present organisational theorists with four approaches from which they can analyse the social phenomena observed in organisations. Hence, should one paradigm seem way out of reach in terms of application, the theorists can always consider which of the three remaining paradigms fits the situation well. It is worth noting that in their purest forms, the four paradigms are mutually exclusive and contradictory. Hence, they give researchers four main ways of looking at organisational theory. A closer look at all four paradigms however gives an impression of commonality in perspective, and this is a strength which could bind theories by different researchers together. An additional strength in the sociological paradigms lies in the fact that they are thought-provoking and hence researchers are likely to learn new trends in organisational theory while using the proposed paradigms during investigations. Hassard (1991, p. 298) for example observes that if researchers successfully put the social paradigms into operation, then they are bound to “learn new languages and practices of a wide range of academic communities and in turn develop analytic skills representative of their form of life”. Consequently, theorists in organisational studies may gain the acceptance needed to acknowledge the need for enhanced democracy in organisational analysis especially considering the social, cultural, political, environmental, economic, and legal differences that affect and shape individual or collective behaviours. By linking organisational theory to social paradigms, Burrell and Morgan draw attention to the fact that there are some relations between social theory and organisational theory. According to Willmott (1993, p. 692), the paradigms can “assist in the emancipation of organisational analysis from the confines of functionalist assumptions”. Weaknesses of the social paradigms Among the outstanding weaknesses of the social paradigm approach as suggested by Burrell and Morgan (1979) is the inclusion of the interpretive paradigm as a viable way of explaining social behaviour. With human beings being social in nature, Schwandt (1994) and others have questioned the assumption that the stability of an individual’s viewpoint can be used to gauge their behaviour in any given workplace. For starters, Hassard (1991, p. 288) observes that an individual’s behaviour is formed by the traditions observed in his home, the culture in the larger society where he comes from, and the in-house culture observed in the organisation where he works. Hence, the interpretive paradigm by Burrell and Morgan is in itself misleading because one’s behaviour is a result of different environmental influencers, which include his upbringing, education, training and other aspects. According to Goulding (1999, p. 5), the interpretive paradigm requires the researcher to interact with the actors of an organisation, during which time he would be able to “interpret actions, transcend rich description and develop a theory which incorporates concepts of self, language, social setting and social object”. The interpretive requirement poses another weakness in the interpretive paradigm since the researcher is subject to biases which may weaken the resulting theory. Another weakness in the four paradigms approach as suggested by Burrell and Morgan (1979) comes from the view expressed by Hassard (1991), where it is stated that each of the proposed paradigms has methodological limitations. As such, researchers cannot fully rely on them to get analyse or assess a topic in organisational studies without the inclusion of other methods, topics and even paradigms in order to obtain balanced and detailed results. In other worlds, Deetz (1996) is alluding to the fact that the four paradigms, although distinct in their proposed ways of investigating social behaviours, do not provide the much sought after explanations to organisational theory. In their own admission, Burrell and Morgan (1979) observe that no single paradigm is able to capture the complex, and multi-faceted nature of reality. As such, all the four individual paradigms have a narrow view to organisational theory, and even when applied together, they may still miss to address the total complexity and versatile nature of the real situation. For example, the functionalist paradigm may suggest that systems be used for purposes of enhancing superior performance in the workplace. The underlying assumption in such a case would be that human beings are rational and are therefore more likely to abide by the set rules if only for the sake of maintaining their jobs, and (maybe) contributing to the overall organisational success. When reviewed from a radical structuralist perspective, the results could be that the employees are opposed to systematization for either political or economic reasons such as long working hours or inadequate compensation. Viewed from a radical humanist perspective, workers in the same organisation may argue that the system limits their potential by denying them the liberal space to accomplish their job-related tasks. Whichever paradigm that a researcher chooses to use, there is the probability that the holistic view of the situation cannot always featured in the research exercise. Even where a holistic view is attained, there is the probability that some issues are given more prominence than others. If Senge’s (1990) views are to be considered, another weakness in the four sociological paradigms emerges. According to Senge (1990), all sociological paradigms are effective when confronted with detail complexity, but ineffective when confronted with dynamic complexity. Senge goes ahead to categorise detail complexity as containing a number of specific variables, while dynamic complexity is imprecise, non-linear and subtle in nature. Hence, the four sociological paradigms may face challenges when used in unstable organisational environments. True to observations made by Senge (1990), there are no assurances when dealing with dynamic complexity. For example, obvious interventions may produce non-obvious results. Additionally, even where the same interventions are applied in different places, the results are usually not similar. McLean (1999) has criticised the four sociological paradigms as far too simplistic a way of representing social science especially in an organisational setting. McLean (1999) goes ahead to note that although the four paradigms lead social researchers towards the adoption of specific theories and research, the underlying assumptions in each paradigm is “compatible with a range of substantive theories and research practices” (p. 34). As such, McLean (1999) states that researchers who share similar assumptions often have more intense debates since they realise that although their works could be legitimate, even though their findings could be different. Such a situation is unlike where the assumptions are different and hence the researchers question the legitimacy of one another’s work. Finally, authors such as Willmott (1993) criticise the paradigms basic assumptions, which are represented by Burrell and Morgan as regulation/radical change and subjectivist/objectivist conceptions of society and science respectively. Specifically, Willmott (1993) argues that most researchers do not know that their observations or research work is ‘supposed’ to fall under one of the four distinct paradigms; as such, most such researchers discredit the paradigm’s incommensurability requirement as developed by Burrell and Morgan. Defining the incommensurability requirement, Burrell and Morgan (cited in Willmott, 1993, p. 690) states that “theorists who wish to develop ideas in these areas cannot afford to take a short cut...” Hence, Burrell and Morgan make it a prerequisite for researchers to base their perspectives in philosophical traditions, which would then help them to identify the principles to use during the research. Additionally, by restricting themselves within an identified paradigm, researchers would be able to develop coherent and systematic perspectives based on guidelines provided in each paradigm. Critiquing this approach, Willmott (1993) terms Burrell and Morgan’s advice as some new type of hegemonic and rigid closure, which will probably make research in organisational theory an inflexible undertaking. Conclusion In conclusion, it is worth noting that the apparent weaknesses in the paradigms outweigh the strengths. Regardless of this however, it is worth noting that organisational theory is a developing discourse and opinions and theories such as those presented by Burrell and Morgan are acceptable. Besides, the arguments presented by the two authors are valid as can be seen through debate they aroused and continue fuelling. Such debates are healthy since they challenge some of the basic assumptions that people come to accept as real. Overall, there is no denying that Burrell and Morgan had contributed to organisational theory, since there are those theorists who have found the paradigms a resourceful piece of knowledge where they can base their works. Even critics have benefited from the works since out of their criticisms, they created knowledge for themselves and others to use. References Ardalan, K 2008, On the role of paradigms in finance, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, Surrey, UK. Ardalan, K 2010, ‘Globalization and global governance: Four paradigmatic views’, American Review of Political Economy, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 6-43. Deetz, S 1996, Crossroads- describing differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy’, Organizational Science, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 191-207. Abstract. Goulding, C 1999, ‘Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions’, Working Paper Series, No. WP006/99, pp. 1-26. Hassard, J 1991, ‘Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study’, Organization Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 275-299. Mclean, S 1999, ‘Thinking about research in continuing education: A meta-theoretical primer’, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, Fall, pp. 23-43. Scwandt, T A 1994, Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry, In: Denzin, N K & Lincoln Y S (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Senge, P M 1990, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, Century Business, London. Suranovic, S 2010, International finance: Theory and policy, Sage, London. Willmott, H (1993), ‘Breaking the paradigm mentality’, Organizational Studies, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 681-720. Read More