Jason Warren Bland

46272267

COM4806

Assignment 1
779190

Due Date: 24 May 2021

DECLARATION OF OWN WORK
I,

Jason Warren Bland

(NAME and SURNAME) confirm that:

✓ this MODULE contains my own, original ideas and work

✓ those ideas, or work, that are not my own, have been cited through the prescribed
referencing system which I have familiarised myself with in the Tutorial Letter
CMNHONE/301
✓ I have not submitted the ideas or work contained in this MODULE for any other tertiary
education credit

Policy on Research
Ethics.pdf
✓ I have read the University’s Policy of Research Ethics
✓ I have submitted the ENTIRE Turnitin Report (not the digital receipt or front page)
✓ I have familiarised myself with the WRITING FOR ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
https://sites.google.com/a/unisacommscience.co.za/writing-for-academic-
integrity/home?pli=1
✓ I have read and understood the PLAGIARISM POWERPOINT FOR POST-GRADUATE
STUDIES (available under ADDITIONAL SOURCES on myUnisa)
✓ I have familiarised myself with the library guides offered by Unisa’s library:
https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/research-support/plagiarism
✓ I have read and understood Unisa’s Policy for Copyright Infringement and
Plagiarism, and I am aware that plagiarism is punishable in terms of the Copyright Act
(Act 98 of 1978) and I have read the regulations of the University of South Africa in this
respect, available online:

https://www.unisa.ac.za/static/corporate_web/Content/Apply%20for%20admission/Documents/P
olicy_copyright_infringement_plagiarism_16November2005.pdf

46272267
STUDENT NUMBER

_________________ 12 May 2021

SIGNATURE DATE

_________________ 12 May 2021

WITNESS DATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

DECLARATION 2

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 DIFFERENT PARDIGMATIC POSITIONS 4

2.1 The decolonial/indigenous/postcolonial paradigmatic position 5

2.2 The transformative/critical paradigmatic position 5

2.3 The positivist paradigmatic position 6

2.4 The interpretivist position 7

2.5 The pragmatic paradigmatic position 7

3 EPISTEMOLOGY 8

4 IT’S PERSONAL 9

4.1 Positivist paradigmatic position 9

4.2 Positivist paradigmatic position in organisational research 10

5 CONCLUSION 10

SOURCES CONSULTED 11

3|Page
1 INTRODUCTION

A paradigm can be a certain standard, perspective or set of ideas used to look at or

research something. For research purposes however a paradigm could be described
as a distinctive set of theories or thought designs which include theories, research
methods, claims, and guidelines for what establishes justifiable influences to the
research. Put simply, a paradigm ensures that what is researched can be proven
without a doubt to be a fact. In this paper various research paradigms will be
discussed; these are considered as a starting point to all research questions that are
going to be made and form a starting block for the research.

A paradigm can be defined to describe a worldview which contains philosophical

assumptions including ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Chilisa & Kawulich,
2012:51). Any research unavoidably builds on a particular ontology, epistemology,
methodology, and ethology (Sousa, 2010:456). Most people would plan their research
centred around the questions that need to be answered, it is after this that they then
decide on what information they require and the techniques that will be used to collect
the data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019:128).

2 DIFFERENT PARDIGMATIC POSITIONS

As mentioned in the introduction there are various paradigmatic positions of which five
of these will be discussed in this paper. Other than giving a general overview of each
of the paradigm positions, the ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology
associated with each of the paradigm positions will be briefly explained. Although
some positions may seem similar, they still differ with regards to their ontology,
epistemology, axiology, and methodology associated with them as described below.
At a basic level, paradigms produce new worldviews and social settings that have
extensive effects on the conduct of inquest (Morgan, 2014:1051).

4|Page
2.1 The decolonial/indigenous/postcolonial paradigmatic position

An African-centred decolonial paradigm argues for aligning Africanization, and

decolonisation of present paradigms to investigate and clarify Africa from within
(Nontyatyambo, 2013:93). The reason for doing research in the position is to challenge
the lack of thought and pathological descriptions with previous colonised, and to re-
establish information that brings hope and encourages transformation and social
transformation among the previously oppressed nations (Chilisa & Kawulich,
2012:54). Information is gathers from sources such as language frameworks,
indigenous knowledge and talk in circles or stories. The ontology of this position is that
it is socially designed with various realities affected by the set of numerous interactions
that people have with the environment, the universe, the living and the non-living
(Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012:54). Ndlovu‐Gatsheni (2015:492) states that unlike
postcolonial theory, decoloniality has a solid liberal and pragmatic liberatory thrust.
Methodologies used for this position are participatory, liberating, and transformative
which have roots in the indigenous knowledge systems. The axiological assumption
focuses on relationships, putting people first, respect and placing a value-emphasis
on the silences, marginalised and supressed. We then look at the epistemological
assumptions which are critical, relational, pluriverse and used for re-searching or re-
looking. Decoloniality speaks to the intensifying and expanding of decolonization
activities in those spaces that suffered the slave trade, imperialism, colonialism,
apartheid, neo-colonialism, and underdevelopment (Ndlovu‐Gatsheni, 2015:485).
Nontyatyambo (2013:103) states that the aim of this position is to improve the
capability for liberation, self-discovery, self-understanding, and self-worth.

2.2 The transformative/critical paradigmatic position

This position aims to obliterate myths and empower individuals to make a revolutionary
change to society. The techniques used to gather information are a combination of the
interpretivist and positivist paradigmatic positions which will be discussed later in this
paper. The methodologies for this position are a combination of qualitative and

5|Page
quantitative research and includes participatory research methods (Chilisa &
Kawulich, 2012:54). The ontological aspects of this position are that various truths are
influenced by reasons such as political, social, economic, cultural, gender, ethnic,
race, and disability values (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012:54). Different truths can arise
because of various levels of unwarranted privilege are linked with traits of participants
and researchers (Mertens, 2007:216). Epistemological beliefs are observable,
unobservable, pragmatism and interpretivism. Respect for culture and understanding
of power affairs is critical (Mertens, 2007:216). While axiologically the beliefs are
centred towards fallibility, revision, critique, and personal values that influence
research. The transformative paradigm presents problems linked to ontology, whose
truth is confidential, and how combined methods can be used to come to a greater
comprehension of applicable proportions of diversity and the role of power variances
in the characterization of reality (Mertens, 2007:224).

2.3 The positivist paradigmatic position

The research for this position is aimed at discovering laws that govern the universe
and are generalisable. Ontologically this position should have one reality, be within
probability and knowable (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012:54). The data for research using
this position is gathered through observations, experiments, questionnaires, and tests.
The methodology behind the position is correlational, quasi-experimental, quantitative,
causal comparative, a survey or experimental. Axiological beliefs are neutral and of
value-free science.

While the epistemological belief is that we know through sensory perceptions,

knowledge can be verified, knowledge is absolute and there is practicality. In a
nutshell, the positivist approach contains the operation of theoretical suggestions
using the rules of official logic and the rules of hypothetico-deductive logic, so that the
theoretical suggestions gratify the four necessities of falsifiability, logical reliability,
relative descriptive power, and survival (Lee, 1991:344).

6|Page
2.4 The interpretivist position

This position is used to comprehend and define human nature (Chilisa & Kawulich,
2012:54). Data for research is gathered through interviews, observations by
participants, diaries, photographs, documents, and pictures. In the ontological
assumption there is multiple realities, internal reality, subjective reality, and reality is
constructed. The epistemological assumptions are that there is knowledge through
understanding, embedded knowledge and perceptions are interpreted. For the
axiological assumptions there is harmony in shared meanings, research is empathetic,
and data is overloaded. The methodological beliefs are qualitative, understanding,
interpretive, interactive and that participants and researchers are subjective. The
interpretive school of thought argues that since the world of intersubjectively shaped
meanings has no equivalent in the physical existence of natural science, the
techniques of natural science are, at best, insufficient to social science (Lee,
1991:347).

2.5 The pragmatic paradigmatic position

Pragmatism in uniquely related to the mixed method of research (Morgan, 2014:1045).

Morgan (2014:1045) states that pragmatism can operate as a philosophical system
for social research, irrespective of whether that research uses qualitative, quantitative,
or mixed methods. Thus, the main reason behind research in this position lies behind
problem-solving efforts (Morgan, 2014:1046). One of the main methods used to collect
information under this position is human experiences where research is based on the
principles and procedures of the researcher (Morgan, 2014:1051). Mixed methods
research is a method to investigation involving assembling both quantitative and
qualitative data incorporating the two forms of information and using distinctive
designs that may entail philosophical beliefs and theoretical contexts (Creswell,
2014:4). Ontological beliefs are non-committed, there are multiple realities and
flexibility. The epistemological assumptions are that knowledge is bound by content,
there should be common-sense, use of experience, and that skeptical inquiries are

7|Page
important. The axiological assumption is concerned with ethics that are inherent to the
experiences of humans and values that are part of research but are not separate to
other elements. Methodologically the methods should be suited to the problem
comprising of both multi and mixed methods. For this position, the researcher centres
the examination on the belief that accumulating different forms of information delivers
a more complete comprehension of a research question than either quantitative or
qualitative information alone (Creswell, 2014:18).

3 EPISTEMOLOGY

Epitemology relates to the beliefs about knowledge, pertaining to the legitimacy and
acceptability of knowledge and how the idea of knowledge can be communicated to
others. As mentioned previously in this paper, epistemology refers to how the world
can be known, bringing the idea of epistemology being about knowledge to life.
Knowledge is an important aspect of anything and by placing epistemology as part of
a paradigmatic position, one can see the importance of adding knowledge about the
position as one of the core values behind it. Epistemology is a crucial component
explaining why ethics has been mostly absent from mainstream research and why
work in organization researches has not been as useful as it should be (Wicks &
Freeman, 1998:124). Wicks & Freeman (1998:124) go on to state that ethics within
research is shaped mainly due to epistemology. Thereby implying that ethics need to
form part of the discussion process of research to make research more valid.
Epistemology aims to make research in every paradigmatic position legitimate (Wicks
& Freeman, 1998:124). Terre Blanche (2006:6) defines epistemology as the specific
nature of the relationship between what can be known and the researcher. A
researchers way of doing research is different in every paradigmatic position, however,
as discussed in previous sections of this paper. Therefore, when choosing a
paradigmatic position all elements that make up that position should be considered as
for example, the positivist paradigmatic position is objective and detached, whereas
the interpretive pragmatic position is empathetic and subjective. Using the right
epistemological approach linked to the correct pragmatic position for research will aid
in smoother research taking place. According to Sousa (2010:460) epistemology is

8|Page
concentrated on how people can develop or acquire understanding of the world. it is
imperative to comprehend the repercussions of various epistemological assumptions
in relation to your selection of method(s) and the strengths and weaknesses of
consequent research outcomes (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2019:134).
Epistemological questions are how we can know what we know, what is considered
suitable knowledge, what represents good quality information and what input can be
made to knowledge (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2019:135). Therefore, epistemology
is centred around knowledge, the legitimacy of knowledge and keeping research
ethical. Epistemology affects beliefs about knowledge to do with how we know what
we say we know and how we can communicate knowledge to others (Saunders, Lewis
& Thornhill, 2019:159). Epistemological assumptions determine what sort of impact to
knowledge is made because of research made (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill,
2019:159).

4 IT’S PERSONAL

4.1 Positivist paradigmatic position

The positivist pragmatic position resonates with me the most because like me this
position is about logical forward thinking in that the position is about generalising laws
that govern the universe. Other factors are that these positions beliefs are that there
is only one reality which is probable and can be known. Other factors about this
position that resonate close to me are that according to epistemological beliefs
knowledge is verifiable, practical and is absolute. As mentioned above, I am a logical
forward-thinking person and the epistemological aspects of this position stick out for
me and would be the way I would conduct my research. Research methods for the
position consists of gathering data through experiments, observations, tests, and
questionnaires, I often use observation and questionnaires as my go to technique for
conducting research, especially self-administered questionnaires using Google Forms
as the data collection is quick, simple, and easy for anyone to do so long as they have
access to the internet and a smartphone.

9|Page
4.2 Positivist paradigmatic position in organisational research

In organisational research and especially with reference to organisational

communication the positive pragmatic position is important in that as mentioned above
it is about getting the facts logically and verifying these facts to be true. In
organisational communication this is important as you do not want to be
communicating information where doubt could be placed onto the communication
being communicated. Communication is important in brand building and keeping up
the image of the organisation and therefore the positive pragmatic position lends itself
to aiding with establishing trust with the brand as the brand moves for absolute,
verifiable, and logical sources of information.

5 CONCLUSION

Through the various pragmatic positions discussed above it is clear to see that
epistemology plays a huge part in the methodology of the positions and research
methods. It can be established as the core of each position as it is about knowing or
knowledge thus it is the core aspect of obtaining or knowing information about a topic
of research. Each position has its own strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to the
topic being researched to determine which position would be best suited towards
developing the research the best as with each position the methodology,
epistemology, ontology, and axiology changes and so do the beliefs surrounding each
of these categories.

10 | P a g e
SOURCES CONSULTED

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. 1999. Critical Theory and Postmodernism: Approaches

to Organizational Studies. In: Stewart R. Clegg and Cynthia Hardy Editors, 1999.
Studying Organization: Theory & Method, Editorial Board, London: SAGE
Publications Ltd. pp. 185-211 Available at: <http://0-
www.doi.org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.4135/9781446218556.n7> [Accessed 27 Apr
2021].

Chilisa, B. and Kawulich, B., 2012. Selecting a research approach: Paradigm,

methodology and methods. Doing social research: A global context, 5(1), pp.51-61.

Creswell, J., 2014. Research design qualitative. quantitative. and mixed methods
approaches. 4th ed. Sage, pp.3-23.

Lee, A. 1991. Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational

Research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.

Lincoln, Y. S. and González y González, E. M. (2008) ‘The Search for Emerging

Decolonizing Methodologies in Qualitative Research: Further Strategies for
Liberatory and Democratic Inquiry’, Qualitative Inquiry, 14(5), pp. 784–805. doi:
10.1177/1077800408318304.

Mertens, D. M. 2007. ‘Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice’,

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), pp. 212–225. doi:
10.1177/1558689807302811.

11 | P a g e
Mertens, D. M. (2010) ‘Transformative Mixed Methods Research’, Qualitative Inquiry,
16(6), pp. 469–474. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364612.

Miller, K.I. 2008. Organizational Communication. In The International Encyclopaedia

of Communication, W. Donsbach (Ed.). https://0-doi-
org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.1002/9781405186407.wbieco018

Morgan, D. L. (2014) ‘Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research’, Qualitative

Inquiry, 20(8), pp. 1045–1053. doi: 10.1177/1077800413513733.

Ndlovu‐Gatsheni, S. J. 2015. “Decoloniality as the Future of Africa”. History

Compass, 13: 485– 496. doi: 10.1111/hic3.12264.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S., 2017. “Decolonising research methodology must include

undoing its dirty history”. Journal of Public Administration, 52(1), pp.186-188.

Nontyatyambo, P., 2013. Beyond Euro-Western dominance : an African-centred

decolonial paradigm. Africanus, 43(2), pp.93-104.

Salkind, N. J. 2010. Pragmatic Study. In: Neil J. Salkind Editor, 2010. Encyclopedia
of Research Design, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1073-1074
Available at: <http://0-
www.doi.org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.4135/9781412961288.n326> [Accessed 23 Apr
2021].

12 | P a g e
Saunders, M, Lewis, P, & Thornhill, A 2019, Research Methods for Business
Students Ebook, Pearson Education, Limited, Harlow. Available from: ProQuest
Ebook Central. [27 April 2021].

Smith, L., 2012. Decolonising Methodologies, Research, and Indigenous Peoples.

Zed Books, pp.61-80.

Sousa, F.J. (2010), "Chapter 9 Metatheories in research: positivism, postmodernism,

and critical realism", Woodside, A.G. (Ed.) Organizational Culture, Business-to-
Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks (Advances in Business Marketing
and Purchasing, Vol. 16), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 455-503.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1069-0964(2010)0000016012

Terre Blanche, M., 2006. Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social
Sciences. 2nd ed. UCT Press, pp.1-17.

Tomaselli, K., 2018. Making sense of research. Van Schaik, pp.1-9.

University of South Africa. Department of Communication Science. 2021.

Organisational Communication Research: Tutorial letter 101/0/2021 for COM4806.

University of South Africa. Department of Communication Science. 2021. Honours

Studies: Tutorial letter 301/0/2021 for CMNHONE.

Wicks, A., & Freeman, R. 1998. Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism:
Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science, 9(2),
123-140.

13 | P a g e
Yvonne Feilzer, M. (2010) ‘Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmatically:
Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm’, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), pp. 6–16. doi: 10.1177/1558689809349691.

14 | P a g e