PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC Describe, discuss and critically evaluate your chosen paradigm and demonstrate how you will apply this paradigm to the design of your research. Consider and critically evaluate the ethical dimensions of your research

Module Code: Module Title: Date:

56193 Philosophical Issues in Business and Management 11TH DECEMBER, 2013

The debate with regard to the most appropriate approach to research on human beings, like research in organization studies, has resulted in a plethora of articles endeavoring to either reinforce a particular paradigm or to serve as an umpire between disparate paradigms (Bryman and Bell, 2007, Bergman, 2008; Creswell, 2003; Scherer, 1998). Most attempts to create a resolve most often end up in a new debate, an example being the incommensurability versus commensurability argument (Scherer and Steinmann, 1999; Schultz and Hatch, 1996). Paradigms are regarded as unique in themselves with philosophical underpinnings, focus and methods that differ significantly (Weaver and Gioia, 1994). Inherent implicitly in any given paradigm with regard to research are philosophical assumptions which define the boundary of ontology (what exists), epistemology (nature of valid knowledge), ethics or axiology (that which is valued or regarded as right) and methodology (Mingers, 2001). In the face of multiplicity of paradigms, researchers need to be certain that their choice of a given paradigm would suffice for the task of gaining appropriate knowledge of the subject/object of inquiry. Combining Nicholson et al.s (2009) use of boundary fortification and Batesons (1935) concept of schismogenesis, it is clear that the ongoing debate has rather resulted in two critical points: i. Greater division and hostility between followers of differing paradigms as they both engage in entrenching and fortifying their chosen paradigm; ii. Loss of focus on the main object of inquiry

This should not be surprising as difficulty in acknowledging and appreciating the uniqueness and strength of opposing paradigms inevitably in time would graduate from little rivalry to extreme rivalry to hostility and eventually to a breakdown as focus on the main subject of contention becomes lost in the debate (Bateson, 1935).

Addressing the diverse perspectives, with the risk of not being seen as endeavoring to adjudicate between them, take a position or prescribe one as the victor, the question that needs to be considered is would the stated differences make any significant difference, provide an insight or not to the phenomenon of inquiry? (Deetz, 1996). Thus, with the goal of obtaining optimum result in an inquiry (McEvoy and Richards, 2006), the nature of the phenomenon to be studied should be the focus and should solely determine the significance of any given paradigm(s) resorted to or the order by which they would be applied (Brand, 2009; Dobson, 2001; Scherer and Steinmann, 1999). Following from the above considerations, this research study therefore intends to use Critical Realism (CR) as the metatheory to look into the nature and influence of knowledge transfer. The relevance of knowledge transfer in small firms operating in an environment characterized by shortages of advanced knowledge and knowledge infrastructures at the macro level (poor educational facilities and training and high cost of telecommunications and low internet absorption rate) and with no regard for copyright issues is the central focus. Why Critical Realism? This research work is of the opinion that no single perspective can provide a comprehensive, holistic view to organizational phenomenon (Gioia and Pitre, 1990; Lewis and Keleman, 2002) and no combination however, automatically equates to greater insight (Scherer and Steinman, 1999). Due to the dynamism and complexity of organizations, one stands the risk of casting shadow on certain issues in an attempt to unravel some whenever a single perspective is used due to the innate biases in a given paradigm (Deshpande, 1983). These innate biases set the limit to what can be discovered (Figure 1) as they dictate how research would be conducted (Dobson, 2001). By virtue of the existence of paradigmatic limits, the possibility or likelihood of undiscovered facets of the phenomenon of inquiry gives room to

the use of other lens(es) to shine light on reality living outside a given paradigms bounda ry (Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006). The refusal to make use of additional paradigm lenses has in fact been attributed to the theory and practice gap (Smith, 2006), an issue of great concern in recent times.

Figure 1: Paradigm Possibilities (Adapted from Seidl, 2007) To thus maintain a theory-practice balance, applying CR in this research work is, therefore, to use it as the meta-theory to interrogate the presuppositions of one theory via another (Hesketh and Fleetwood, 2006) and thereby having a better view of the issue at hand as one skillfully crosses paradigm boundaries. The decision to understudy a phenomenon is an implicit way of stating that there is a reality out there that needs to be discovered (Hales, 2007) and that exists independently of our perception or interpretation of it (Easton 2002; Sayer, 2004), a reality the social

constructionists implicitly dont deny (Peters et al., 2013). Subsequently, the effect of knowledge transfer (KT) on an organization, whether mild, moderate or severe can be regarded as a reality that exists. CR, however, does not mean that all reality is constant. In a slight tilt to the social constructionist position, it portrays reality as relatively enduring and
4

acknowledging that they could be changed by social subjects (Norrie, 2010).

Thus,

acceptance of a reality that exists and is relatively enduring (relatively constant but liable to change) thus makes it more appropriate for this study than its alternative, social constructionism with which it is most often contrasted (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2010; Peters et al., 2013). CR holds a stratified view of reality (Mingers, 2004; Norrie, 2010). This stratification enables it to be able to accommodate certain positions held by the positivist and interpretivist. It sees reality as the following: 1. The realm of the empirical reality that is observed, discovered or experienced; 2. The realm of the actual discovered); and 3. The realm of the real - structures, mechanisms and associated powers that are responsible for the observed or observable events Organizations are built and run on knowledge and thus, where they are today and what they are doing or going through can be said to be the consequence of the acquisition and application of knowledge. Irrespective of type of organization, their product or service is also an embodiment of knowledge (KMWorld, 2002; Madhavan and Grover, 1998) which is a form of KT to customers or consumers. In total, knowledge is transferred to, from and within the organization through a myriad of options. Some or all of this knowledge, together with pre-existing knowledge are further combined or recombined in various ways (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009) in a bid to deliver value to customers and make a profitable return. Knowledge Transfer with regard to an organization can, therefore, be said to be a reality that exists. However, the degree to which it occurs or is believed to affect an organization is acknowledged to be subject to various interpretations depending on who is consulted to give
5

reality that is observable (events discovered or not

account, what type of knowledge is addressed, what measures one intends to use or what time period in the lifetime of an organization one makes an enquiry (Kostova, 1999; Paulin and Suneson, 2012). Consequently, objective and subjective parts of the construct called KT arise. Knowing and acknowledging this prior to the drafting of a comprehensive research design has indicated that any disposition that cannot tolerate the co-existence of these two forms of reality (objective and subjective) would be incapable of perfectly capturing and delineating the reality of KT in firms. A failure to do so means outcome of such study cannot add a holistic view of the operations of the construct to existing literature and should rather be regarded as partial truth (Mingers, 2001). An organization embodies humans operating on various levels with differing skills and abilities. The stratification of roles in organizations results in heterogeneity of knowledge needs, hence, variances in the relevance of a given knowledge across roles. To capture this, a positivist perspective with emphasis on regularity (Fleetwood, 2004) would be inadequate as it would regard the voice of one to mean the voice of the whole. Differing management levels have differing pressures for knowledge transfer. Different organizational structures would be expected to permit different knowledge transfer patterns also. To facilitate KT, organizations endeavor to put certain structures in place. The formalized and explicit rules that the organization has put in place to encourage KT can be regarded as elements of KT that are relatively consistent. However, since knowledge is contextdependent and reading of text is open to individual interpretation, some aspects of coded knowledge may require subjective interpretations. This reality is buttressed by the fact that the prior knowledge everyone brings to bear in comprehending and interpreting knowledge that is transferred to us (tacit or explicit) varies (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Zahra and George, 2002). Consequently, the meaning we would make of transferred knowledge or the

depth of our assimilation of it would vary considerably. Knowledge Transfer (KT) can thus be said to have both objective and subjective elements. For this research work, the focus on KT rather than knowledge itself permits the focus on mainly the positivist and interpretivist perspective. This study intends to assess KT, the effect of which is expected to exist independently of the perception of the individuals operating within the organization. This reality may then be related during the course of inquiry objectively, in terms of visible results like new product creation or increase in profits, or subjectively, in terms of what each individual attributes to be the degree of the effect of the KT or which KT is responsible for the observed events. To capture observable occurrences that could be classified as regular with their corresponding frequency, quantitative methods (structured questionnaire) would be adopted (Fleetwood and Ackroyd, 2004). On the other hand, to foray into the reality behind complex observed events and access findings not previously anticipated or outside the discursive consciousness of actors, qualitative tools (structured interview) would be used (McEvoy and Richards, 2006). The ethical challenges inherent in this research study can be said to occur at every stage of the process (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). Ethics in relation to research involving human beings can in simple terms be succinctly defined as the moral deliberation, choice and accountability on the part of researchers throughout the research process (Edwards and Mauthner, 2005). From an utilitarian or consequentialist view, the first dilemma is the decision as a researcher and PhD candidate to either indulge in an activity with the goal of a mere addition to the body of knowledge so as to gain approval within the academic world (irrespective of its applicability) or to be practice-oriented and focus on producing findings that are practical, suitable for policy-making but not common within the academic community. It is believed that adding to knowledge resident only in articles but that hardly is

able to help enhance the social good of the community is a total waste of social resources or capital (van Deventer, 2009) and a one-sided, unethical research as research participants dont get to benefit from it (Peled and Leichtentritt, 2002). An extension of the above ethical dilemma is the decision with regard to the choice of paradigm to follow. The majority of top journals are quantitative based (Bryman, 2008). Should a quantitative study be undertaken irrespective of the knowledge that it wont suffice as argued above on the grounds of aiming at building academic capital (acceptance for publication)? This extends likewise to preferred choices of my supervisors whose

cooperation and professional input I anticipate, covet and highly regard. Rather than deny ambition or be overly focused on it, the decision eventually relied on what would be regarded as granting the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Stutchbury and Fox, 2009, 493) or would be an enhancement of the social good (Van Deventer, 2009, 46). The research study thus concluded on employing the most perceived suitable paradigm (Critical Realism) for the research work irrespective of its popularity or preference within the academic world. CR is regarded to still be primarily a British affair at the moment (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2010), but its major underpinnings is believed to be suitable to meet the demands for both academic worthiness and practical benefits for the community of practitioners on which the research was carried out. Balancing the needs of stakeholders involved is seen as a primary objective of this research work. A feminist disposition makes this position mandatory as they emphasize power

domination and marginalization involved in research. Such disposition thus calls for the need to realize that research involving human subjects is not one sided but rather a process involving two knowing-subjects (researcher and researched) (Gunzenhauser, 2006). The outcome of the research would thus be regarded as unfair if it only provides benefit for the
8

researcher and not the researched. Taking cognizance of this, the research should provide the researched also some research-related benefits such as social and personal empowerment (Peled and Leichtentritt, 2002). Thus, if the research work can produce findings that would prove relevant in informing policy (benefit to the Federal Government, the intended referral for access to research participants for the study) and helping SMEs improve efficiency (benefit to the researched), the resultant effect on the economy and the region by contributing to reduction in unemployment, poverty and associated ills (benefit to community at large) is seen as the greater good and a way of justifying the use of the chosen paradigm. The chosen national context and intended study subjects also raise considerable ethical conflicts. Due to time constraints (3 years), there is the motivation to seek for the fastest and guaranteed route to data collection. This, due to the customary skepticism of individuals as regards the intended use of data collected from them, that is, fear of harm to data subjects, that plagues the context from which the researched would be drawn meant the use of a legitimate referral is mandatory. Such a referral would be able to guarantee both access to prospective respondents and the likelihood of extracting relevant response. Seeing ethics as political practice (Baarth, 2009) and research as a political process (Beauchamp, 2009) mandated the identification and anticipation of the interests of the various parties involved ahead as such interests may be in conflict and ways of maintaining a balance between them may need to be sought for. A continuous renegotiation of trust for the purpose of consent throughout every phase of the research would be engaged in with the parties involved with an open-ended opportunity to withdraw their contributions to the research at any time without fear of any form of sanction (Orb et al, 2001). Writing and publishing findings would likewise be done in ways that would satisfy the conditions of anonymity, confidentiality and prevention of all forms of harm (psychological, social or physical).

The research process been hijacked and manipulated to gratify ulterior motives by either of the parties involved is acknowledged as probable. However, learning from Baarths (2009) predicament, a social contract stance would be resorted to. A formal agreement would be made with the referral to reflect the autonomy of the researcher, allegiance to duty (a deontological stance) while still incorporating the nuances of context and relationship (an ecological and relational ethics respectively) (Robertson et al., 2002; Stutchbury and Fox, 2009). The choice of respondents would be determined solely by the researcher who would have no obligation to specify which respondents were involved. This agreement would be conferred to the respondents also to ensure their cooperation and safeguard their confidence in the researcher, research process and their safety during and after the research. It is imperative to however accept and anticipate the possibility of new ethical issues arising during the course of the research work (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). Causal ambiguity, and bounded rationality or bounded moral rationality as Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) put it, limits the adequacy of any universal or pre-planned response either on the researchers part (Beauchamp, 2009; Clegg et al., 2007; Van Deventer, 2009) or that occurring in the

Universitys code of ethics document (Orb et al. 2001). Among possible antecedents to new ethical challenges is an evolving relationship between the researcher and the researched. The evolving relationship may bring along new ethical challenges which procedural ethics (HUBs Code of Ethics) may give less guidance on how to address (Bryman and Bell, 2007), a reality that ethics in practice and relational ethics pre-warn about (Ellis, 2007). A great emphasis is thus placed on the ability as a researcher through reflexivity to maintain appropriate ethical conduct in the face of new ethical challenges (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). The intention to obtain primary data from a country other than the one in which the formal code of ethics by which one is bound was drawn would have to take into cognizance possible variations in what is regarded practical and acceptable across contexts (Beauchamp, 2009;
10

Christians (2007; Peled and Leichtentritt, 2002). Christians (2007) reproves any attempt to impose ethical norms from a given context on others in another context, alleging that doing so constitutes a form of imposing harm on others (research participants in this case) or a form of colonization in Sikes and Pipers (2010) view. This, like the reality and conclusion stated in the previous paragraph, thus recalls to mind the necessity for flexibility and reflexivity on the part of the researcher at every stage of the research process if acceptable standards of conducting research work would be maintained. The safety of the primary data collected from third-parties, prior and after the drawing up of the thesis using them would be ensured. Though the country from which the data would be collected doesnt have any formal law or act that stipulates how such data can be transferred or utilized outside its boundaries, the data protection guidelines operative within the UK would be strictly adhered to.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alvesson, M., & Skldberg, K, (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. (2nd edn.), California, Sage. Baarts, C. (2009), "Stuck in the middle: Research ethics caught between science and politics." Qualitative research, Vol. 9, No.4: pp. 423-439. Bateson, G. (1935), "199. Culture contact and schismogenesis." Man, Vol. 35: pp. 178-183. Beauchamp, T. L.(2009), "Relativism, multiculturalism, and universal norms: their role in business ethics." in Brenkert, G. G., & Beauchamp, T. L. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford Handbooks Online. Accessed 29/11/2013 Bergman, M. M., (2008), The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research, in Bergman, M. M. (ed.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research, London, Sage Publications Ltd. Brand, V. (2009), "Empirical business ethics research and paradigm analysis." Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86, No.4: pp. 429-449. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., (2007), Business research methods, (2nd edn.), USA, Oxford university press. Bryman, A. (2008), "Of methods and methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No.2: pp. 159-168. Christians, C. G. (2007), "Cultural continuity as an ethical imperative." Qualitative inquiry, Vol. 13, No.3: pp. 437-444. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. & Rhodes, C. (2007), "Business ethics as practice." British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No.2: pp. 107-122. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990), "Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation." Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1: pp. 128152.
12

Creswell, J. W., (2003), Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn, California, Sage Publications, Inc. Deetz, S. (1996), "Crossroadsdescribing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell And Morgan and their legacy." Organization science, Vol. 7, No.2: pp. 191-207. Deshpande, R. (1983), "" Paradigms lost": on theory and method in research in marketing." The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No.4: pp. 101-110. Dobson, P. J. (2001), "The philosophy of critical realisman opportunity for information systems research." Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 3, No.2: pp. 199-210. Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T. W. (1994), "Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory." Academy of management review, Vol. 19, No.2: pp. 252-284. Easton, G. (2002), "Marketing: a critical realist approach." Journal of business research, Vol. 55, No.2: pp. 103-109. Edwards and Mauthner, (2005), Ethics and feminist research: theory and practice. in Miller, T., Mauthner, M., Birch, M., & Jessop, J. (Eds.) Ethics in qualitative research. Sage. Ellis, C. (2007), "Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in research with intimate others." Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 13, No.1: pp. 3-29. Fleetwood, S., (2004), An ontology for organisation and management studies. In Fleetwood, S. & Ackroyd, S., (Eds.), Critical realist applications in organisation and management studies, London, Routledge. Gioia, D. A. & Pitre, E. (1990), "Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building." Academy of management review, Vol. 15, No.4: pp. 584-602.

13

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. (2004), "Ethics, reflexivity, and ethically important moments in research." Qualitative inquiry, Vol. 10, No.2: pp. 261-280. Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2006), "A moral epistemology of knowing subjects theorizing a relational turn for qualitative research." Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12, No.3: pp. 621647. Hales, C. (2007), "Structural contradiction and sense-making in the first-line manager role." Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No.1: pp. 147. Hesketh, A. & Fleetwood, S. (2006), "Beyond measuring the human resources managementorganizational performance link: Applying critical realist meta-theory." Organization, Vol. 13, No.5: pp. 677-699. KMWorld, (2002), White paper on Best Practices in Business & Competitive Intelligence, Sponsored by FileNET & intelliseek, Produced by KMWorld Magazine, Specialty Publishing group Kostova, T. (1999), "Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective." Academy of Management review, Vol. 24, No.2: pp. 308-324. Lewis, M. W. & Kelemen, M. L. (2002), "Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox." Human Relations, Vol. 55, No.2: pp. 251-275. Lichtenthaler, U. & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009), "A capabilitybased framework for open innovation: complementing absorptive capacity." Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46, No.8: pp. 1315-1338. Madhavan, R. & Grover, R. (1998), "From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management." The Journal of marketing, Vol. 62, No. 4: pp. 1-12.

14

McEvoy, P. & Richards, D. (2006), "A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods." Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 11, No.1: pp. 66-78. Mingers, J. (2001), "Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology." Information systems research, Vol. 12, No.3: pp. 240-259. Mingers, J. (2004), "Real-izing information systems: critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems." Information and organization, Vol. 14, No.2: pp. 87-103. Nicholson, J., Lindgreen, A. & Kitchen, P. (2009), "Spatial and temporal specificity and transferability: Structuration as the relationship marketing meta-theory." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No.2: pp. 187-207. Norrie, A. (2009), "Dialectic and difference: Dialectical critical realism and the grounds of justice," Routledge. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. & Wynaden, D. (2001), "Ethics in qualitative research." Journal of nursing scholarship, Vol. 33, No.1: pp. 93-96. Paulin, D. & Suneson, K. (2012), "Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers-three blurry terms in KM." The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No.1: pp. 81-91. Peled, E. & Leichtentritt, R. (2002), "The ethics of qualitative social work research." Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 1, No.2: pp. 145-169. Peters, L. D., Pressey, A. D., Vanharanta, M. & Johnston, W. J. (2013), "Constructivism and critical realism as alternative approaches to the study of business networks: convergences and divergences in theory and in research practice." Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, No. 3: pp. 336-346.

15

Robertson, C. J., Crittenden, W. F., Brady, M. K. & Hoffman, J. J. (2002), "Situational ethics across borders: a multicultural examination." Journal of Business ethics, Vol. 38, No.4: pp. 327-338. Sayer, A., (2004), Foreword: why critical realism?, in Fleetwood, S. & Ackroyd, S., (Eds.), Critical realist applications in organisation and management studies, New York, Routledge. Scherer, A. G. & Steinmann, H. (1999), "Some remarks on the problem of incommensurability in organization studies." Organization Studies, Vol. 20, No.3: pp. 519-544. Scherer, A. G. (1998), "Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: A problem in search of a solution." Organization, Vol. 5, No.2: pp. 147-168. Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J., (1996), Living within multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies., Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 2: pp. 529-557. Seidl, D., (2007), The dark side of knowledge, Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 9, No.3: pp. 16 29 Sikes, P. & Piper, H. (2010), "Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research." International Journal of Research & Method in Education, Vol. 33, No.3: pp. 205-213. Smith, M. L. (2006), "Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research." Information and organization, Vol. 16, No.3: pp. 191211.

16

Stutchbury, K. & Fox, A. (2009), "Ethics in educational research: introducing a methodological tool for effective ethical analysis." Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No.4: pp. 489-504. Van Deventer, J. (2009), "Ethical considerations during human centred overt and covert research." Quality & Quantity, Vol. 43, No.1: pp. 45-57. Weaver, G. R. & Gioia, D. A. (1994), "Paradigms lost: incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry." Organization Studies, Vol. 15, No.4: pp. 565-589. Zahra, S. A. & George, G. (2002), "Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension." Academy of management review, Vol. 27, No.2: pp. 185-203.

17