Paul, Lubomir and all,
Eclecticism has been a concern for all the social sciences. There are
several very good theoretical articles and monographs published on
triangulation of theories and paradigms easily adaptable to design
eclecticism.
N. K. Denzin proposed in 1987 in his book The Research Act (Wiley)
theoretical triangulation as a useful method for handling eclectic
approaches. Essentially competing paradigms should be used to test, develop
and refine one's own paradigm. As such traditional triangulation is akin to
and an expansion of inductive single-paradigm methodology where the ideal
is a strong and clear problem definition that is testable.
In the 1990s several theoreticians have felt the need to develop new
theories about theory development that focuses on complex inclusion of
paradigms, insight, theory innovation, and understanding for development of
synthesis, rather than the traditional concern of testability (Gioia &
Pietre 1990, Weick 1989 and 1999, Ybema 1996 - I'll provide full references
on request). M. V. Lewis and A. J. Grimes wrote in 1999 in Academy of
Management Review, 24 (4): 672-690 an article well worth reading:
Metatriangulation: Building Theory From Multiple Paradigms.
Essentially the methodology contrasts are as follows:
Traditional single-paradigm methodology Metaparadigmatic
methodology:
Preparation: Specify the problem of the investigation Define
areas of interest (eclectic range).
Study the litterature Identify paradigms,
their parts and
overlaps/non-overlaps/connections
Chose data sources Chose data that can be
interpreted using
the chosen multiple paradigms
Analysis: Design analytical processes Prepare the use of
each paradigm
Systematic coding of data Multiparadigmatic coding
of data
Tabulate, analyze Write paradigm accounts
Theory Develop and test hypotheses Explore meta-based
guesses/conclusions
construction: (mental experimentation)
Build theory Write your meta-paradigmatic
understanding
(synthesizing)
Evaluate theory/data fit Articulate critical
self-reflection of the theory
and the theory construction process
quality.
Happy reading!
Brynjulf
Brynjulf Tellefsen
Associate Professor
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management
P. O. Box 4676 Sofienberg
N-0506 Oslo, NORWAY
Phone direct: +47-22985142
Via exchange: +47-22985000
Faximile: +47-22985111
Private phone/fax: +47-22149697
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"Paul M. Gutherson" <[log in to unmask]>@mailbase.ac.uk on
04.10.2000 06:19:13
Please respond to [log in to unmask]
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
To: "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]>
cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re(2): design or interdisciplinary research - eclecticism
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:13:13 -0400 "Lubomir S. Popov"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just borrowing methodological elements and standards for
> professional behavior from two opposing paradigms does not make research
> designs better.
You are of course right to be concerned about this. What I think is
possible, and where I agree with the 'eclectic' part of the definition
I originally offered, is that it is possible to 'borrow' appropriate
methods and techniques as long as the research has a coherent underlying
methodology which is used to integrate these methods into the research
design.
The key words are 'appropriate' and 'integrated'. There is
little point in simply picking a little of what you fancy from whatever
area you like if you can not integrate or synthesise the methods into a
coherent whole. To my mind this is what methodology does.
Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
P.M. Gutherson
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 01782 294669
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__
Advanced Research Institute / \ | | )
School of Art & Design ____ \ __ /
Staffordshire University / \ | \ |
Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK _/ _\ _| _\ _|
tel +44(0)1782 294602 fax +44(0)1782 294873 [log in to unmask]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|