Two Dimensions – Four Paradigms

induction and deduction. Both the ideographic and the nomothetic approaches can be employed in a deductive and inductive sense and the debate on induction – deduction is deliberately not taken into consideration in the paradigmatic map drawn by Burell and Morgan.

The Dimension of Regulation – Radical Change

If the subjective – objective dimension is supposed to reflect the nature of science, then the dimension of regulation – radical change is supposed to reflect the nature of society.

The term sociology of regulation is introduced and used to refer to the writings of theorists who are primarily concerned with providing explanations of society in terms that emphasize its underlying unity and cohesiveness. It is essentially concerned with mans’ emancipation from the structures which limit and stunt his or her potential for development.

The sociology of radical change stands in contrast to the sociology of regulation, in that its basic concern is to find explanations for the radical change, deep-rooted structural conflict, modes of domination and structural contradiction, which its theorists see as characterizing modern society. It is often visionary and Utopian, in that it looks towards potentiality as much as actuality. It is concerned with what is possible, rather than with what is; with alternatives rather than with acceptance of the status quo. In an effort to make clear the characterization of the two dimensions, they are presented in figure 10.

4.2.3 Two Dimensions – Four Paradigms

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - ORGANIZATION THEORY

intellectual journeys in social theory – one’s own and those of the theorists who have contributed to the subject area.”(Burell & Morgan, 1992) In the diagram below, there are four, more or less distinct sociological are paradigms presented. The paradigms are supposed to be viewed as contiguous but separate – contiguous because of the shared characteristics, but separate because the differentiation is of sufficient importance to warrant treatment of the paradigms as four distinct entities.

The four paradigms are said to fundamentally define different perspectives used in the analysis of social phenomena.

Different theories, methodologies and –isms have then been scrutinized and put into the diagram. The overview of how the different theoretical approaches in Burell’s and Morgan’s presentation will spread is presented in figure 12.

The Sociology of Radical Change

Radical Humanism Radical Structuralism

Subjective

Interpretive Sociology Functionalist Sociology

Objective

The Sociology of Regulation

Russian Social Theory

Anti-organization Theory French

Existentialism

Anarchistic Individualism

Phenomenology

Contemporary Mediterranean

Marxism

Conflict Theory Critical

Theory Radical

Organization Theory

Hermeneutics

Ethno-methodology

and

Phenomeno-logical Symbolic Interactionism Phenomeno

-logical Sociology

Action Frame of Reference

Integrative Theory

Theories of Bureaucratic Dysfunctions Social System Theory Pluralism

Objectivism

Interactionism and Social Action

Theory

Solipsism

Figure 12: Methodologies and theories related to the paradigms presented.

According to Burell & Morgan

The functionalist sociology paradigm is biased in organization theory.

But, methods and theories from other paradigms are seen as well.

The Functionalist Paradigm

The ideological ground on which the functionalist paradigm stands is characterized by the ideas of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration, solidarity, need satisfaction and actuality. These general sociological concerns are approached from a standpoint, which tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic, and it is out of these ideas and methodological foundation most of the explanations are perceived. The functionalist perspective is firmly rooted within the sociology of regulation and approaches its subjective from an objectivist point of view.

The Interpretive Sociological Paradigm

The interpretive paradigm is the direct product of the German idealist tradition of social thought, which has its foundations in the work of Kant.

Interpretative philosophers and sociologists seek to understand the very basis and source of social reality. It addresses to a great deal the same issues as in the functionalist paradigm, issues relating to the nature of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration and cohesion, solidarity and actuality, but it approaches its subjective from a subjectivist point of view and tends thereby to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic.

The Radical Humanist Paradigm

From a subjectivist standpoint, the aim of the radical humanist paradigm is to develop a sociology of radical change. The perspective tends to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic. A basic notion within the paradigm is that the ideological superstructures with which the individual interacts, dominate the consciousness of man, and that these superstructures drive a cognitive wedge between the individual and true consciousness. The emphasis is on radical change, modes of domination, emancipation, deprivation and potentiality.

The Radical Structuralist Paradigm

From an objectivist point of view in this paradigm, the sociology of radical change is advocated. The paradigm is committed to radical change, emancipation, modes of domination, contradiction and deprivation. It approaches these general concerns from a standpoint which tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic. Radical

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK - ORGANIZATION THEORY

structuralists emphasize the fact that radical change is built into to the very nature and structure of contemporary society, and they seek explanations of the basic relationships within the context of total social formations.