PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF RESEARCH –

Dr. Elvira C. Delgado

1. Identify two (2) philosophies and discuss its relationship to research, evaluation
and management.
A research philosophy is a framework that guides how research should be conducted
based on ideas about reality and nature of knowledge (Collis and Hussey, 2014). In
simple terms, a research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a
phenomenon should be collected, analyzed and used. There are so many philosophies in
research that every researcher are using in their research works. These philosophies
provide a strong foundation of a research that we are conducting as a researcher. It also
serves as a backbone that holds every part of the research we are engaging with.
Positivism relates to the philosophical stance of the natural scientist and entails
working with an observable social reality to produce law-like generalizations. It promises
unambiguous and accurate knowledge and originates in the works of Francis Bacon,
Auguste Comte and the early twentieth-century group of philosophers and scientists
known as the Vienna Circle. The label positivism refers to the importance of what is
‘posited’ – i.e. ‘given’. This emphasizes the positivist focus on strictly scientific
empiricist method designed to yield pure data and facts uninfluenced by human
interpretation or bias. Today there is a ‘bewildering array of positivisms’, some counting
as many as 12 varieties (Crotty 1998).
Positivist see organizations and other social entities as real in the same way as
physical objects and natural phenomena are real. Epistemologically, the focus would be
on discovering observable and measurable facts and regularities, and only phenomena
that are observed and measure would lead to the production of credible and meaningful
data (Crotty 1998). Causal relationships in the data to are established to create law-like
generalizations like those produced by scientists (Gill and Johnson 2010). These universal
rules and laws are used to help explain and predict behavior and events in organizations.
Positivism involves the claim that there is no difference in principle between the
goals and the conduct of research in all disciplines. It proposes a unified methodology for
the different branches of the natural and the social sciences. It poses the discovery of
general laws as the ultimate goal of scientific inquiry, and it advocates the method of
hypothesis testing as a general procedure for generating and validating scientific
knowledge. The growth of knowledge in the natural sciences forms the ideal model. In
this context it is interesting to remark that originally positivism meant collecting and
validating factual knowledge by scientific methods, and that this positive spirit aimed at
true knowledge, which had been obscured by the traditional powers of the church and the
state.

Critical realism

It is important not to confuse the philosophy of critical realism with the more
extreme form of realism underpinning the positivist philosophy. The latter, sometimes
known as direct realism (or naïve empirical scientific realism), says that what you see is
what you get: what we experience through our senses portrays the world accurately. By
contrast, the philosophy of critical realism focuses on explaining what we see and
experience, in terms of the underlying structures of reality that shape the observable
events. Critical realism originated in the late twentieth century in the work of Roy
Bhaskar, as a response to both positivist direct realism and postmodernist nominalism,
and occupies a middle ground between these two positions (Reed 2005).

For critical realists, reality is the most important philosophical consideration, a

structured and layered ontology being crucial (Fleetwood 2005). Critical realists see
reality as external and independent, but not directly accessible through our observation
and knowledge of it. Rather, what we experience is ‘the empirical’, in other words
sensations, which are some of the manifestations of the things in the real world, rather
than the actual things. Critical realists highlight how often our senses deceive us. When
you next watch a cricket or rugby match on television you are likely to see an
advertisement for the sponsor on the actual playing surface. This advertisement appears to
be standing upright on the pitch. However, this is an illusion. It is, in fact, painted on the
grass. So what we see are sensations, which are representations of what is real.

Critical realism claims there are two steps to understanding the world. First, there are
the sensations and events we experience. Second, there is the mental processing that goes
on sometime after the experience, when we ‘reason backwards’ from our experiences to
the underlying reality that might have caused them (this reasoning backwards is known as
‘retroduction’) (Reed, 2005). Direct realism says that the first step is enough. To pursue
our cricket (or rugby) example, the umpire who is a direct realist would say about her or
his umpiring decisions: ‘I give them as they are!’ The umpire who is a critical realist
would say: ‘I give them as I see them!’ Critical realists would point out that what the
umpire has observed (the ‘Empirical’) is only a small part of everything that he or she
could have seen; a small fraction of the sum total of the ‘Actual’ events that are occurring
at any one point in time. A player may, perhaps, have obscured the umpire’s view of
another player committing a foul. Critical realists would emphasize that what the umpire
has not seen are the underlying causes (the ‘Real’) of a situation. For example, was a
head-butt a real, intentional foul, or an accident? The umpire cannot experience the real
significance of the situation directly. Rather, she or he has to use his/her sensory data of
the ‘Empirical’ as observed and use reasoning to work it out.

These two philosophical perspective in research, evaluation and management play a

significant role in the researchers’ undertakings on how to explain and understand
phenomena in their living world. Positivist and critical realists believe that knowledge is
true as what you can see, feel and believe it. The reality is true and positive as it is
existing.
Positivist and realists are both useful in research, evaluation and management, they
both yield and information that indicates how interventions works and the conditions that
are needed for a particular mechanism to work, and thus, it is more likely to be useful to
policymakers and any other researchers.
 2. Describe two (2) sociological perspectives in research, evaluation and
management.

Symbolic Interactionist Perspective

The symbolic interactionist perspective, also known as symbolic interactionism, directs

sociologists to consider the symbols and details of everyday life, what these symbols mean,
and how people interact with each other. Although symbolic interactionism traces its origins
to Max Weber's assertion that individuals act according to their interpretation of the meaning
of their world, the American philosopher George H. Mead (1863–1931) introduced this
perspective to American sociology in the 1920s.
According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to
symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols.
Verbal conversations, in which spoken words serve as the predominant symbols, make this
subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the
“sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the
“receiver.” In other terms, words are not static “things”; they require intention and
interpretation. Conversation is an interaction of symbols between individuals who constantly
interpret the world around them. Of course, anything can serve as a symbol as long as it
refers to something beyond itself. Written music serves as an example. The black dots and
lines become more than mere marks on the page; they refer to notes organized in such a way
as to make musical sense. Thus, symbolic interactionists give serious thought to how people
act, and then seek to determine what meanings individuals assign to their own actions and
symbols, as well as to those of others.

Functionalist Perspective

According to the functionalist perspective, also called functionalism, each aspect of

society is interdependent and contributes to society's functioning as a whole. The
government, or state, provides education for the children of the family, which in turn pays
taxes on which the state depends to keep itself running. That is, the family is dependent upon
the school to help children grow up to have good jobs so that they can raise and support their
own families. In the process, the children become law‐abiding, taxpaying citizens, who in
turn support the state. If all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and
productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society then must adapt to recapture a new
order, stability, and productivity. For example, during a financial recession with its high rates
of unemployment and inflation, social programs are trimmed or cut. Schools offer fewer
programs. Families tighten their budgets. And a new social order, stability, and productivity
occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by social consensus, or cohesion, in
which members of the society agree upon, and work together to achieve, what is best for
society as a whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that social consensus takes one of two forms:

 Mechanical solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when people in a society
maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in similar types of work. Mechanical
solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in
which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical
solidarity.

 In contrast, organic solidarity is a form of social cohesion that arises when the people
in a society are interdependent, but hold to varying values and beliefs and engage in
 varying types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized,
complex societies such those in large American cities like New York in the 2000s.

The functionalist perspective achieved its greatest popularity among American

sociologists in the 1940s and 1950s. While European functionalists originally focused on
explaining the inner workings of social order, American functionalists focused on
discovering the functions of human behavior. Among these American functionalist
sociologists is Robert Merton (b. 1910), who divides human functions into two
types: manifest functions are intentional and obvious, while latent functions are
unintentional and not obvious. The manifest function of attending a church or synagogue,
for instance, is to worship as part of a religious community, but its latent function may be
to help members learn to discern personal from institutional values. With common sense,
manifest functions become easily apparent. Yet this is not necessarily the case for latent
functions, which often demand a sociological approach to be revealed. A sociological
approach in functionalism is the consideration of the relationship between the functions of
smaller parts and the functions of the whole.
 3. Discuss Theory of Change and Project Management towards achieving the
intended outcomes.
Theory of Change

Theory of Change is a systematic and cumulative study of the links between activities,
outcomes and context of the initiative. Theory of change is a theory-based approach to
planning, implementing or evaluating change at an individual, organizational or community
level. An assumption is made that an action is purposeful. A theory of change articulates
explicitly how a project or initiative is intended to achieve outcomes through actions, while
taking into account its context. Theory-based methods are applicable to a range of disciplines
including, for example, education, community development and public health. This approach
has its roots in the 1960s, when Kirkpatrick used the model to examine the effects of training
on students. It has grown in popularity in the last twenty years, partly in response to the need
for a framework that can take into account the complexity of multi-stranded and interrelated
actions to encourage social change. Theory-based methods take many forms and are referred
to in a variety of ways (for example program theory, implementation theory and realistic
evaluation), but usually incorporate a theory of change in some form (Laing and Todd, 2015).

Traditional input–output evaluation methods or methods-based research designs,

based solely on either outputs (data relating to practitioner actions) or outcomes, typically do
not articulate or explain the causal chains that influence outcomes. Such methods have been
criticized for encouraging ‘black box’ thinking. For example, a researcher may test the
hypothesis that providing one-to-one study support results in higher educational attainment
scores for pupils. A randomized control trial (RCT) could be devised to test this hypothesis
and a statistical relationship described. What is missing, however, is an explanation of the
causal mechanisms that may or may not be at work here. How do we know why one-to-one
study support works? Who does it work for? In what circumstances? If a relationship is not
discovered, is this due to implementation failure (i.e. the one-to-one study support was not
delivered in the way it was expected) or program failure (i.e. one-to-one study support does
not work)?
Many practitioners have become caught up in a performativity culture that values and
measures outputs (e.g. how many people receive an intervention or how many times a
program is delivered) rather than outcomes (e.g. changes in wellbeing for beneficiaries).
Developing a theory of change for an initiative changes the way of thinking from what you
are doing to what you want to achieve.
Traditional approaches to evaluation that measure outcomes often require them to be
known (or hypothesized) at the start and baseline measures to be in place. However, many
initiatives and projects may have outcomes that are not known at the start, or that are very
hard to define, such as cultural change or a positive school ethos. Theory of change enables a
portfolio of data to be collected that might represent a more complex outcome. The way in
which initiatives are implemented is crucial, and context is not just another variable but a
critical part of the success or otherwise of achieving change. For some promising initiatives,
the outcome may not be visible for a number of years, and theory of change is a way to
demonstrate that outcomes are indeed likely. For other initiatives, using statistical averages
may mean that individual effects may be overlooked or ignored, and theory of change can
make these visible. By using a theory of change approach, we can articulate how we expect
outcomes to be achieved. We do this by exploring the real-world setting in which the project
is being implemented, the starting situation, and risks or opportunities that may influence
achieving change, the actions to be taken and the steps of change expected to take place
(Laing and Todd, 2015).
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project management emerged as a social practice in the post-World War II
development of technology and infrastructure. Although for many writers, project
management has a much longer ancestry, traceable back to prehistoric times, we would
strongly oppose this a historical perspective (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006b), which affords a
spurious pedigree to techniques, models, and procedures that have existed in something close
to their current incarnation for certainly less than a century. The emergence of project
management is described in some detail by Morris (1987) and Engwall (1995), highlighting
its development in practice through a number of major projects that can be traced back to the
Manhattan project in the 1940s. Although the U.S. oil and chemicals industry played a major
role in this period, the majority of the groundwork was done in U.S. defense and aeronautics
in the 1950s, including widespread use in the Apollo space programs.

Project management field of study expanded from 1990s from its engineering
heartlands into what became widely accepted as a "multidisciplinary subject," significantly
engaging business and management researchers and educators (Winch, 1996). This coincided
with the promotion and acceptance of project-based work, organizing, and management
across industries and sectors, as a powerful and universal organizational response to the
challenges of managing in a complex world. As Clarke (1999) stated: "In a world where
change is becoming increasingly important, tools such as project management, if used
properly, can provide a useful way for organizations to manage that change effectively." It is
usually based on the introduction of a set of procedures, or on a new model of administration
with the strategic aim to enhance competitiveness through a more effective intra-
organizational integration and optimal utilization of scarce resources (Cleland, 1997).

The contemporary surge in interest in project management is typically explained by

reference to the increasing recognition of "the project" as a versatile, flexible, and predictable
form of work organization. Its image as a universal solution to organizational problems has
been established on the promotion of specific techniques for planning, monitoring, and
control, tried and tested in the operations of traditionally project-oriented industries such as
defense, aerospace, and construction (Frame, 1999; Maylor, 2001; Young, 1999).
Projects and project teams have been hailed in both practitioner and academic
discourses as unique economic and social processes on which the emerging "knowledge
economy" heavily relies (Briner & Hastings, 1994; Clarke 1999; Cleland, 1997; Cleland &
Ireland, 2002; Frame, 1994, 1995; Meredith & Mantel, 2003; Young, 2003). They are
promoted as universally applicable templates for integrating, by design, diverse functions of
an organization that enable concentration of flexible, autonomous, and knowledgeable
individuals in temporary project teams, for the focused accomplishment of goals efficiently,
timely, and effectively, for customer satisfaction and company benefits. Despite the various
streams of praise and criticism in the last 50 years, then, project management and projects
have now been accepted by many both within and outside the field as natural, self-evident,
and indispensable.

In certain academic circles, the expanding influence of "project-based work" has been
referred to as the projectification of society. In essence, this notion attempts to capture the
growing colonization of all quarters of life by project-related principles, rules, techniques,
and procedures, aspiring to form a new "iron cage" of project rationality (Hodgson & Cicmil,
2003). As more and more organizational members are consequently being redefined as
project workers and project managers across industrial sectors, both scholarly and
practitioner communities are reflecting upon the implications of this shift for employees and
organizations, particularly in terms of the impact on workplace identity, reshaped
intersubjective interaction, and increased control over the individual through ideologies of
efficiency and performativity.
4. What are the importance of philosophical and sociological perspective to
research and management?
In general terms, the philosophical perspective of positivism is the basis of most
research in the natural sciences. Positivism assumes that an objective reality exists that is
independent of human behavior and is, therefore, not a creation of the human mind. To a
positivist, science provides the observer with an objective account of the world as a concrete
entity, one that is separate from human intention and purpose (Dyson and Brown 2006). The
senses are used to accumulate data that are objective, discernible, and measurable, thus
methods are chosen to obtain estimates of the truth, using data and estimators that are both
unbiased and as precise as possible (such as species counts to measure species diversity, or
demographic parameters such as survival rate, age distribution or sex ratio). It is this
philosophy and its values of external validity (the degree to which the conclusions in a study
would hold for other persons in other places and at other times) and reliability (the
consistency of results gained) that drive natural scientists in their choice of methods.

Sociological Perspective
Sociology helps us understand ourselves better. Without the sociological perspective
(which has been called the "sociological imagination"), people see the world through their
limited experience of a small orbit of family, friends, co-workers. The sociological
imagination allows us to stand apart mentally from our limited experience and see the link
between private concerns and social issues. It permits us to trace the connection between the
patterns and events of our own and the patterns and events of our society.
The study of sociology leads us into areas of society that we might otherwise have
ignored or misunderstood. Since our world view is shaped by our personal experience and
since people with different social experiences have different definitions of social reality,
sociology helps us to appreciate viewpoints other than our own and to understand how these
viewpoints came into being.
The basic insight of sociology is that human behavior is shaped by the groups to
which people belong and by the social interaction that takes place within those groups. We
are who we are and we behave the way we do because we happen to live in a particular
society at a particular point in space and time. People tend to accept their social world
unquestioningly, as something "natural." But the sociological perspective enables us to see
society as a temporary social product, created by human beings and capable of being changed
by them as well.
The sociological perspective invites us to look at our familiar surroundings in a fresh
way. It encourages us to take a new look at the world we have always taken for granted, to
examine our social environment with the same curiosity that we might bring to an exotic
foreign culture.
Sociological perspective helps us to see general social patterns in the behavior of
particular individuals. It teaches us how to understand certain behavior and give meaningful
explanation on that act. It also allows or forces us to look beyond the outer appearances of
our outside world and discover new levels of reality. Through social perspective we do not
limit ourselves to the existing phenomena rather it gives us the drive and urge to explore
more and generate new ideas beyond our context. Sociological perspective encourages us to
realize that society guides our thoughts and deeds – to see the strange in the familiar. Finally,
it encourages us to see individuality in social context. Using our sociological perspective, we
don generalized people rather wee them individually, we understand them individually, we
interpret and describe people based on the social context that they have individually, because
sociologist also believed that every individual is unique therefore, we should treat them
uniquely.