Critical Realism in Action: Workshop Three
The University of Leeds
MauriceKeyworthBuilding, LeedsUniversityBusinessSchool: Rm, 1.02
19th September 2008, 11am to 5pm
This third in the series of workshops initiated by Paul Edwards (Warwick) is sponsored by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) at LeedsUniversityBusinessSchool. It will include five presentations. Abstracts/synopses of presentations are included below. If you would like to come, please confirm your attendance to Steve Vincent(email:) by 5th September.
11.00am-11.30am / Welcome and Coffee11.30am-12.30pm / Workshop Session One:
Orientation
Stephen Ackroyd (Lancaster) ‘Research designs for realist research’
12.30pm-1.15pm / Lunch
1.15pm-2.45pm / Workshop Session Two:
Analysing Power and Social Agency
Mike Reed (Cardiff) ‘Theorising Power/Domination and Studying Organizational Elites: A Critical Realist Perspective’
Steve Vincent, Jean Gardiner and Rob Wapshott (CERIC) ‘Getting real about social diversity amongst entrepreneurial knowledge workers: Analysing the intersections of structure, culture and strategy in complex social organisations’
2.45pm-3.00pm / Coffee
3.00pm-4.30pm / Workshop Session Three:
Interdisciplinary Analyses and Political Economy
Steve Fleetwood (UWE) ‘Using Critical Realism to Facilitate Transdisciplinarity: The Case of Labour Markets Analysis’
Andrew Brown and David Spencer (CERIC) The Political Economy of Work as Antidote to Economics Imperialism.
4.30pm-5.00pm / Concluding Discussion
Research Designs for Realist Research
Stephen Ackroyd
For all their importance in establishing in principle that realist research is a distinctive approach to social science and in setting out the general methodological implications of realist philosophy, the standard introductions to realist research (Sayer, 1992; 2000; Layder, 1988; Danermark et al., 2002), including those works that are specifically concerned with organizational research (Ackroyd, 2004; Reed, 2008), typically do not contain much detailed consideration of preferred types of research designs. This paper sets out to remedy this deficiency and examines both the types of research designs realists tend to prefer and the rationale for their use. In general, the realist-informed researcher is guided by theoretically derived conjectures about the social mechanisms (sequences of causation) at work in the world, and considers, through data collection and investigation, the extent to which theoretical ideas explain selected outcomes. Constructing a causal account of events is a process to which both theory and data collection contribute; and, in because the causal sequences investigated are unique, the data sought are different in every research project. Nevertheless, there are some research designs that are consistently selected by realist-informed organizational researchers because they allow chosen research objectives to be reached. Seven research designs are considered: case studies, comparative case studies, generative institutional analysis, studies involving large scale data sets, action research and comparative and general policy evaluation studies. The logic underlying realist informed research – identified as involving both abduction and retroduction – is also considered. Because experiments typically embody deductive and inductive logic, realist informed research typically excludes experimental designs including attempted approximations to them using inductive statistics. Among other things, realists should be able to teach research methods as techniques, so as to bring on the next generation of researchers and to displace the hold that positivism and fundamentalist constructionism have on the research methods teaching curriculum. This paper takes some necessary steps towards the clarification of realist research as a teachable resource.
Theorising Power/Domination and Studying Organizational Elites: A Critical Realist Perspective
Mike Reed
In his recent contribution to ‘Remembering Elites’ (Savage and Williams 2008), John Scott (2008: 40) argues that ‘ a research agenda for a renewed programme of elite studies must comprise four principle tasks….first, the identification and mapping of the various elites in the society, societies or social sectors under investigation……secondly, it is important to examine the balances of power that exist among the various elites…Thirdly, is the need to investigate the connections between the various elites and the class and status groups from which they may be recruited and whose interests they may – or may not – pursue…….Finally, a comprehensive investigation must examine the relations of an elite to the counteracting pressure groups and movements that may challenge it’.
In this presentation I argue that certain core concepts and methods derived from critical realist thinking can make a major contribution to the final component of Scott’s research agenda – that is, the dynamics of elite reproduction, elaboration and transformation within organizational domination structures that are in the process of being threatened, and potentially undermined, by ‘the challenge from above’ and/or the ‘challenge from below’. Thus, it will be suggested that the study of organizational elites – as strategic ‘corporate agents’ with the potential powers and capacities to remodel structure or culture (Archer 2000: 265-6) – can provide critical explanatory insight into the material and discursive mechanisms through which extant domination structures are reproduced and/or reconfigured.
By focusing on the dynamics of elite political strategies and tactics, located at various levels within an established domination structure (Scott distinguishes between ‘strategic’, intermediate’ and ‘local’ elite groupings, Scott 2001: 25), we may be better placed to understand, and even explain, the complex processes through which institutionalized power relations become so fragmented and ineffective that they are no longer able to sustain themselves or the corporate agents who benefited most from their reproduction. The relative effectiveness of elite political leadership is likely to become more transparent in situations where established elite groups find their power and control challenged by other elites and/or by social groups and movements formally excluded from participation in institutionalized political life. In this context, established strategic elites, occupying positions of command and control at the apex of organizational domination structures, will be required to mobilize a shifting combination of structural mechanisms (‘hard power’) and cultural resources (‘soft power’) that is effective in counteracting the challenge from competing elite factions and/or from subordinate groups. If this is not forthcoming, then it’s likely that their positions within established domination structures, and the economic, social and cultural advantages that they derive from them, will be in serious jeopardy.
Critical realist studies of the ‘dynamics of organizational domination’ will require a deft combination of ethnographic, historical and structural research methods in order to tease and map out the complex interplay, over time and place, between pre-existing structural constraints and emergent elite political strategies as it shapes subsequent phases or cycles of structuration that substantially alters the balance of power between elite groups and their collective capacity to control the institutional logics and forms through which social life becomes organized (Clark 2000). Thus, identifying the ‘zones of manoeuvre’ (Clark 2000: 15-16/272-3) available to organizational elites and the comparative skill that they deploy in exploiting the potential powers and capacities that the former generate emerges as a central research theme for critical realist studies of elite political strategies and tactics under conditions of relative instability and uncertainty. Two, recently published, contrastive historical case studies of ‘elite dynamics under crisis conditions’ and their longer-term impact on institutional and organizational domination structures are briefly discussed as a conclusion to the presentation: first, Adamson’s (2007) intensive historical study of aristocratic elite manoeuvring in England and Scotland in the early 1640’s and their successful opposition to the attempted imposition of an authoritarian monarchy by elite groups clustered around the king, Charles 1; second, Liang, Nathan and Link’s (2001) journalistic study of the internal politics of the Chinese Communist Party elites as they struggled to come to terms with the student democracy movement in the Spring and Summer of 1989. While neither of these studies explicitly draw on critical realist thinking in any direct sense, they indirectly indicate the kind of research that needs to be carried out and the ways in which it needs to be carried out within a wider critical realist framework, if we are to penetrate the ‘inner workings’ of elite politics and its implications for the elaboration, reproduction and transformation of domination structures.
References
Adamson, J (2007), The Noble Revolt; The Overthrow of Charles 1, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson
Archer, M (2000), Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press
Clark, P (2000), Organizations in Action: Competition between Contexts, London: Routledge
Liang, Z, Nathan, A and Link, P (2001), The Tianammen Papers, London: Little, Brown and Company
Savage, M and Williams, K (2008), Remembering Elites, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Scott, J (2001), Power,Cambridge: Polity
Scott, J (2008), ‘Modes of power and the reconceptualization of elites’ in Savage and Williams, pp 27-43
Getting real about social diversity amongst entrepreneurial knowledge workers: Analysing the intersections of structure, culture and strategy in complex social organisations
Steve Vincent, Jean Gardiner and Rob Wapshott.
This presentation will promote a discussion about how critical realism and a relational form of sociology (see Mutch, et al. 2006) might be used to create useful knowledge about very complex social formations. It will begin by outlining what we believe is an important unanswered question that relates to a complex social agency. Specifically, how are issues of social diversity related to the entrepreneurial activities of self-employed and freelance workers who operate in knowledge-based occupational communities? We will argue that this question is important because the literature suggest that certain groups face relatively intractable problems when attempting to achieving parity with the predominantly white and male groups that dominate within many knowledge-based occupational communities.
We consider how the complexity of this social context creates multifaceted ontological and methodological issues. Within the occupational communities of knowledge workers, embodied characteristics such as skills and abilities, cultural characteristics, social norms and value systems, mix with structural mechanisms, such as financial and contractual arrangements, qualifications and entry requirements, professional institutions and the like to create a context in which ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ are both causal in relation to the outcomes observed. If this is an acceptable, if abstract description of what goes on, critical realist ideas about the relationship between social structure and agency seem to offer the best way forward.
We argue that that a combination of CR and case study research is useful for developing constructive and critical analyses of complex social organisations. The general approach identified, which draws heavily on the work of Margaret Archer, suggests that specific occupational communities should be analysed using a three stage analytic approach.
The presentation will consider the problems that researchers are presented with when using such an approach. The first relates to the schism between the orderly analytic logic of CR and a reality that is rather messy in terms of its evolution and ideological consistency. Whilst this is inevitably the case, we consider how problems associated with this issue may be mitigated through the effective sequencing of interviews and questions, as well as through the use of an appropriate sampling frame.
A second issue relates our understanding of subjectivity and its susceptibilities, which can only be accessed via common frames of reference. We suggest that (i) whilst we can arguably never really “know” other subjects’ inner-selves, collectively held conceptual schemas and value systems offer a means to understand with whom agents identify, and (ii) where stories about subjective susceptibilities are corroborated by various actors, our suspicions about the mechanisms that generate subjective phenomena may be confirmed.
The final problem is an ethical one; in that the researcher will inevitably disturb the field as they engage with it. This may create dissonance amongst agents were their value systems are challenged by new insights about the real nature of things (see Bhaskar, 1986). In our view, because this will almost inevitably happen, critical social researchers are obliged to seek means of challenging the existing apparatus of inequity. As a result, we suggest that fourth stage of inductive comparative analysis is also important, because this approach offers the best method to appreciate the appreciation of the susceptibilities of the communities observed (Ackroyd, Pending).
References:
Ackroyd, S. (Pending) ‘Research designs for realist research’ in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (eds.) Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, London: Sage
Bhaskar, R. (1986) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, London Verso.
Mutch, A. Delbridge, R, and Ventresca, M. (2006) ‘Situating Organizational Action: The Relational Sociology of Organizations’ Organization, 13: 607-625.
Using Critical Realism to Facilitate Transdisciplinarity: The Case of Labour Markets Analysis
Steve Fleetwood
Few researchers oppose the general idea of adopting a transdisciplinary[1] approach, and pooling insights (i.e. concepts, theories, meta-theories, observations and so on) from different disciplines. The snag, of course, is doing it: or at least doing it in ways likely to bear intellectual fruit. This paper will explore a particular case of interdisciplinary research: the case of labour market analysis.[2]
Whilst the literature on labour markets is dominated by neoclassical, mainstream or orthodox economic theory, there are also heterodox economists who have valuable insights into key aspects of how labour markets work. I have in mind here Feminists, Institutionalists, Evolutionary Economists, Marxists, Post-Keynesians, Regulationists, Economic-Sociologists and Segmented Labour Market theorists. There are also theorists and researchers who have valuable insights, yet who would not describe themselves as economists. I have in mind here those coming from subjects such as: education research, human resource management, industrial or employment relations, labour law, organisational theory, sociology of work and employment, state theory, urban geography and so on. Anyone who is familiar with (even a couple of) these different approaches will realise that combining them into a coherent account is likely to be very difficult. Yet if we refuse to take the mono-disciplinary approach practiced by some orthodox economists, then we really have no option but to make a start on a transdisciplinary approach – irrespective of how difficult it might be.
The kind of transdisciplinary approach we need is one that combines the disparate insights from different disciplines consistently along two dimensions: the theoretical/empirical and the meta-theoretical. Theoretical/empirical consistency means: combining insights such as the fact that women’s full-time hourly wage rate is around 80% of men’s, with a theory that explains this fact; or combining two explanatory theories such that they do not contradict one another. Meta-theoretical/empirical consistency means combining research techniques, methodology, epistemology, aetiology (study of causality) and ontology such that the way knowledge is derived is consistent with the way the social world is thought to be.
Because meta-theoretical consistency is a necessary, but insufficient condition, for theoretical/empirical consistency, critical realism, rooted as it is in uncovering meta-theoretical inconsistency, is uniquely placed to provide the meta-theory to facilitate a transdisciplinary approach – in this case to the analysis of labour markets, but the lessons are generalisable.
The Political Economy of Work as Antidote to Economics Imperialism
Andrew Brown and David Spencer
The task of analysing the quality of work life used to be confined mainly to sociology, psychology, and industrial relations. Contributions from the other major branch of social science, economics, were relatively thin on the ground. At least in mainstream neoclassical economics, there were few attempts to analyse the direct impact of work on well-being. Although some non-mainstream economists (e.g. Marxists, institutionalists, etc.) stressed the importance of studying the position of workers in production, their views were largely ignored by their counterparts in mainstream economics who assumed that work was simply a means to income and consumption (see Spencer, 2008). In the last decade or so, however, a growing number of mainstream economists have begun to show an interest in the measurement of the subjective welfare of workers. The ‘economics of happiness’, an increasingly influential and high-profile literature not just in economics but across the social sciences (see Frey and Stutzer, 2002; Layard, 2005; Graham, 2005; Clark, et al. 2008), in particular, has promoted new interest in subjective measures of human well-being, inclusive of well-being at work.
These developments within mainstream economics present opportunities as well as threats for labour researchers in other disciplines and subjects. On the one hand, new space has been opened up for dialogue between previously separate research areas and for the development of an interdisciplinary perspective on job quality. Green (2006, pp.13-15) is one labour economist who has made positive steps in this direction, albeit from a standpoint that is critical of happiness research on job quality. On the other hand, there is the threat that mainstream economics will ride rough shod over the terrain of the other social sciences and come to impose its own concepts and methodology on the study of well-being at work. ‘Economics imperialism’, indeed, can be observed in a number of other areas (see Fine, 2002) and represents a possible danger for current and future research on the quality of work.
This paper draws upon a range of approaches, inclusive of critical realism, in order to develop what will be termed a ‘political economy’ perspective on job quality. It is a perspective specifically tailored to challenge the new economics of happiness and to grasp the opportunities that this new literature has opened up. The broader argument will be that the application of a multi-disciplinary and unified ‘political economy’ approach to work, such as we attempt in the area of job quality, is a strategic imperative, and could bear much fruit in the current context of the social sciences. This is an argument in line with Ben Fine’s analysis of ‘economics imperialism’ (e.g. 2006) an analysis which underpins the recently instituted ‘International Initiative for Promoting Political Economy’. The paper invites critical realists, and others, to further develop and promote a political economy of work and to repel economics imperialism.
[1] I use the term transdisciplinarity rather than multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, cross-disciplinarity and postdisciplinarity.
[2] This paper will build upon Fleetwood, S.(2006) ‘Re-thinking Labour Markets: A Critical Realist-Socioeconomic Perspective’, Capital & Class No. 89, 59-89.