Philosophical assumptions of the study

This chapter briefly reviews the different relevant philosophical approaches and explains the underlying philosophical assumptions of this study; the paradigm and the ontological, the epistemological, and the methodological choices made. In their seminal work, Burrell and Morgan (1979) identified four paradigms: the functionalist, radical humanist, radical structuralist and the interpretive, by identifying the meta-theoretical assumptions in organization theorists’ works.

Furthermore, Cuba and Lincoln defined a paradigm as a basic belief system, which they categorize into five different paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, and constructivism (earlier coined as naturalistic inquiry) and since 2005, the participatory paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2018). Johnson and colleagues (2006) propose four modes of engagement for management research; positivism, neo-empiricism, critical theory, and affirmative postmodernism. In their categorization they avoid using the term paradigm to follow rigor Kuhnian sense, in where Kuhn (Kuhn, 1970) criticized management research of absence of paradigmatic development because of diverse theoretical and methodological approaches used in the field (Johnson, Buehring, Cassell, & Symon, 2006). Despite the paradigm categorization differences between social theorists, a fundamental foundation of the paradigm remains the same; to guide the researcher both ontologically and epistemologically with the methodological choices made in the study (Burrell &

Morgan, 1979; Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

The positivist paradigm views the only true or valid knowledge to be scientific knowledge found in research, where both the researcher and the object of the research are independent from each other, and the findings of the research are observable, quantifiable, replicated and “true” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Johnson &

Duberley, 2003). The positivist paradigm refers to, or reflects, Burrell’s and Morgan’s (1979) functionalist paradigm, where the studied subject is approached from the objectivist, realist and positivist points of view, and the role of the researcher is to collect data and analyze it through an objective approach. The roots

of the functionalist paradigm are in the work of French sociological positivists, such as Comte (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Johnson et al., 2006). The positivist paradigm-also referred to as the functionalist paradigm- has been the dominant paradigm in the physical and social sciences for centuries. Where the positivist paradigm’s ontological assumption relies on naïve realism, postpositivism has its ontological basis in critical realism, where objective reality can only be understood as incomplete. The postpositivist paradigm assumes that a researcher’s history, background, knowledge et cetera can affect their observations, and aims to affect the biases created by the researcher (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

The paradigm of critical theories (see also Burrell & Morgan 1979, the radical humanist) assumes, that reality is shaped by social, cultural and economic issues over time (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln et al., 2018). The critical theories paradigm has its ontological roots in historical realism, in where virtual reality is shaped by social, political, cultural, and economic values (Lincoln et al., 2018).

The role of the researcher is transactional and subjectivist, and the values of the researcher influence the research.

Under the interpretive paradigm, (Burrell and Morgan 1979) (see also Lincoln &

Cuba 1994, on constructivism and Johnson et al. 2006, on affirmative postmodernism), realities are socially constructed, mental, and specific in their real nature (Berger & Luckman, 1966). The interpretive paradigm holds that there is no absolute, true reality, but reality is constructed and reconstructed in and around individuals. The researcher and the object of the research interact, and by doing so, create findings as the research proceeds. The deepest aim of the interpretivist is to understand the “social world at the level of subjective experience” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 28; Lincoln et al., 2018).

Burrell and Morgan (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 1) state that “all theories of organization are based upon a philosophy of science and a theory of society”.

Furthermore, they categorize philosophical assumptions as ontology, epistemology, human nature, and methodology. Ontology answer the question

“what is the nature of reality” (Blaikie, 2007, p. 13); meaning is the reality objectively and externally real, or produced through individual, subjective, cognition (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Seidl and Whittington (2014) divide strategy-as-practice research to tall (meso and macro-levels included in study) and flatt (horizontal) ontologies, which illustrates the nature of ontology in a captivating way. Furthermore, epistemology is the theory of knowledge, which in social sciences answers the question “how can social reality be known” (Blaikie, 2007, p. 18), or as Guba and Lincoln (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108) put it: “What is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would-be knower and what can

be known?” Because of the interconnection between ontological and epistemological assumptions, the answer to later question is dependent on the answer to the prior one.

This dissertation, studying the interplay between the sociomaterial, cognitive and paradox views in the field of strategy as practice follows the interpretive paradigm, where reality is socially and symbolically constructed in organizational realities, and the knowledge is built on the interaction between organizational members (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). This dissertation follows the interpretive paradigm, but also recognizes and appreciates both the multiparadigm perspective (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Lewis & Grimes, 1999) and the cross-paradigm view (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). The field of organization studies acknowledges the narrowing aspect of any single paradigm when studying the nature of complex organizational reality (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Gioia & Pitre, 1990).

While the interpretative paradigm guides this study, its ontology relies on subjectivist and relativist view of reality, where reality is local and specific and co-constructed with others (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Guba & Lincoln, 2005). The epistemological stance on the grounds of knowledge relies on subjective and interactional assumptions. These ontological and epistemological choices also reflect the researchers’ position on the subject studied, which is rather active and facilitative (Lincoln et al., 2018).

Looking at each of the articles separately, might reveal some variation in their philosophical underpinnings: Article 1, studying the role of sociomaterial practices, deploy an action research- type of approach, which could be seen as bridging the paradigm boundaries (Gioia & Pitre, 1990) between constructivism and participatory paradigms (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Article 2 as comparative case study, have elements from both interpretivist and functionalist (or positivist) paradigms, using paradox view as theoretical lens and comparing multiple cases in rather objectivist manner. Article 3 uses comparative case study methodology to develop a framework for understanding retrospective relational sensemaking in R&D offshoring relationships. If following Welch et al. (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011) both Articles 2 and 3 can even be seen as demonstrating a positivist philosophical orientation, as both articles create a conceptual model based on a comparative case study. In addition, previous theoretical frameworks play an important role in both articles. Nevertheless, both sensemaking and paradox approaches can be viewed as dynamic phenomena, and because of the nature of the approaches, the interpretative paradigm is present as well.

Article 4 is a conceptual, albeit interpretative paper that aims to make sense of strategic decision making using a cognitive view. The article is based on prior literature and interpretations of discussions with managers (formal interviews and informal discussions in workshops etc.) in different levels and different organizations during many years. Article 5 is a teaching case study from the strategy work of a city organization. The aim of the article is to describe the strategy work, the process, and the tools clearly, so that the case can be used when teaching strategy to students. Therefore, the underlying philosophical assumptions are not self-evident, although during the actual work, the interpretative and participatory paradigms were applied.

To conclude the discussion of the philosophical assumptions of my study, I position my dissertation within interpretivist worldview appreciating multiparadigmatic approaches. The main objective of this thesis has been to understand and describe the interplay between the sociomaterial, cognitive and paradox views in the field of strategy as practice. The thesis is based on the nature of the world being co-constructed in social realities rather than objectively true:

hence, the interpretative paradigm, relativist ontology, and transactional epistemology is applied. Finally, as a researcher, and as a person, interpretative worldview represents the nature of the world for me, and therefore, the interpretative foundation feels the most real and right for my thesis.