Whilst, I appreciate the importance of knowing "where one is at" and of being able to persuade others of the value of one's choice (Fielding, 2003), I have struggled to differentiate the lenses I bring when I map human experience and those I wear when I approach the task of studying it. This is because I have been working backwards; focussing on ways of studying phenomena; the methodology, before I have systematically considered my own position about the nature of the social world; ontology, and the nature of knowledge about these phenomena; epistemology. This post is an attempt to reverse the logic and to locate myself in a paradigm so that I can clearly articulate the paradigm appropriate assumptions and vocabularies that I want to use to communicate my ideas and design my dissertation study.
The paradigm is a general perspective that reflects fundamental beliefs, assumptions and practices among a scholarly community (Gioia Lewis to articulate my beliefs about the nature of being and the dynamics of how and why we know. I then apply these beliefs in my proposed dissertation design and endeavor to align my ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions.
THE CORE ELEMENTS OF INTEGRAL AND MULTI-PARADIGMATIC APPROACHES
Integral philosophy
I have been drawn to the thinking of Ken Wilber (1996), an integral philosopher who "presents an entirely new and radical approach to philosophy based on the native perspectives of sentient beings, on all levels and in all contexts" (Reynolds, 2003). Wilber endeavors to answer the simple question "How can we develop a map of human experience in which everyone, throughout history and across different knowledge paradigms and competing historical perspectives, is at least partially correct?" (Fuhs, nd, p.37). He creates an embracing view of reality or "grand theory of everything" (Reynolds, 2003) that attempts to include as many perspectives, styles, methodologies, traditions of knowledge and paradigms as possible, all situated within the domains of self, culture, and nature.
Wilber has done this by developing a set of broad orienting generalizations that locate the place of people in relation to the universe, life and spirit. These generalizations weave together a myriad different disciplines and integrate environmental, social, economic needs as well as the needs of the human psyche and culture. The resulting framework of human experience is universalist in nature, seeing partial truth in all perspectives (Fuhs, nd; Hochachka, 2009; Saiter, 2009; Wilber, 1996).
Wilber has identified twenty patterns or tenets that seem to be true for evolution wherever it occurs from matter, to life, to mind (1996). The heart of his thinking is at all entities are wholes that are composed of parts and engaged in an active evolution towards completeness.
"Reality is composed of whole/parts or 'holons': "
Everything is part of a greater whole. For example, the whole molecule is part of the whole cell, the whole cell is part of the whole organism and so on. He explains that at no point do we have the whole because there are only whole/parts forever. Every holon has two drives. It has to maintain its wholeness or it's own identity and agency, and it has to maintain its "'partness'". It has to fit as a part into something else in communion with other holons. If the holon fails to maintain its identity or to fit in as a part of a larger whole "it is simply erased".
"Holons emerge in a holarchical process of transcending and including: "
Wilber explains that evolution is an active process of self-transcendence "from matter, to body, to mind, to soul, to spirit, each transcending and including, each with a greater depth and greater consciousness and wider embrace" (1996, p. 42). The emergence of new holons, or self-transcendence, is built into the nature of the universe; and Wilber calls this 'Spirit', 'Creativity', 'Consciousness', 'Depth' and 'Emptiness'. Evolution is a developmental process towards greater depth, order and complexity. It is a holarchical process, or a natural hierarchy, with higher and lower level of structural organisation within the holarchy. Wilber makes a distinction between depth and span within a holarchy. The number of levels being its depth and the number of holons on any given level being its span. For example, there are fewer organisms than cells and there are fewer cells than molecules. Each has a greater depth but less span. This is because the higher transcends and includes the lower and thus there will always be less of the higher and more of the lower.
"The key explanatory principles that Wilber uses to map reality are captured in the AQAL Framework:"
AQAL stands for all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, all types. AQAL is a framework that illustrates different developmental levels-matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit-and shows that each of these manifests in four facets or quadrants -intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social.
"The Four Quadrants of Social Reality: "
These can be understood as four very different types of holarchies that make up the nature of humans' interior, exterior, individual and collective reality.
- The upper left quadrant pertains to the interior experience; to consciousness and the subjective realm of emotions. It is what your awareness looks like from within. It can be captured in the concept of 'The mind'.
- The upper right quadrant is the realm of exterior descriptions of the individual awareness and what behaviour looks like from the outside, in an objective and empirical manner. Wilber captures it in the concept of 'The Brain'.
- The lower left quadrant is the cultural realm, the interior world of the collective. It is the meanings, values and identities that we share with those of similar communities and can be framed in terms of a 'Shared Collective Worldview.'
- The lower right quadrant is the exterior, material, institutional forms of the collective community and ranges from the collective's "techno-economic base, to its architectural styles, to its written codes, to its population size" (Wilber, 1996, p. 78). He frames it as 'the Material Base of the Collective's Worldview.'
Wilber emphasizes that "we simply cannot reduce these quadrants to each other without profound distortions and violent ruptures. So let us grant each of them a certain integrity. Let's just say they interrelate, or they interact, or they have each have correlates in each other" (1996, p. 80). For example, the background to my individual thoughts (UL quadrant) is the cultural community in which I exist and a shared norm about how to communicate (LL), the cognitive functioning of my brain that enables me to think (UR), and the larger material system that provides a structural context for my thoughts (LR).
"Levels of development: "
This refers to "the spectrum of actual and potential stages of emerging development that social entities have access to in their life span" (Cacioppe ">A multi-paradigmatic approach:
Gioia and Pitre (1990) built off the work of Burrell and Morgan (1979) in first arguing for a multi-paradigm approach to theory building in organisational studies. They proposed ways to bridge paradigm boundaries using transition zones and contended that this would enable the theorist to built theory from different paradigm assumptions and create a more comprehensive view of organisational life. Lewis and Grimes (1999) subsequently made the distinction between "'multi-paradigm' to denote disparate current paradigmatic perspectives and 'meta-paradigm' to signify a more holistic view that transcends paradigm distinctions to reveal disparity and complementarity" (p. 673).
It has been argued that adopting a multi-paradigmatic approach to enquiry aids understanding of complex and paradoxical phenomena, serves to legitimize less mainstream alternatives and broadens conventional definitions of theory (Lewis & Grimes, 1999). Advocates of a multi-paradigm approach argue that theory building should be seen "not as a search for the truth, but as more of a search for comprehensiveness stemming from different world views" (Gioia particularly given the persistent dominance of the functionalist school of thought that claims that social phenomena can be empirically observed, unaffected by the observer's own assumptions.
"Commonalities between integral thinking and multi-paradigmatic approaches"
Geertz remarked on the "enormous amount of genre mixing in intellectual life in recent years, [as] many social scientists have turned away from a laws and instances ideal of explanation toward a cases and interpretations one, looking less for the sort of thing that connects planets and pendulums and more for the sort that connects chrysanthemums and swords" (1980, p. 1). This re-figuration of social thought and thus of social theory, constituted "a sea change in our notion not so much of what knowledge is but of what it is we want to know" (ibid, 1980, p. 7). Both the integral and the multi-paradigmatic approach have emerged as examples of post-modern thinking that seeks to understand inter-relationships. Both schools of thought:
"Acknowledge and honor the place of the map maker"
They run counter to the representation paradigm that was the hallmark of the Enlightenment, which believed in "a single empirical world that could be patiently mapped with empirical methods" (Wilber, 1996, p. 59). They not only acknowledge that social entities such as organizations, households and groups are socially constructed, but also require that the 'map-maker' do the inner reflective work so that they are intentional and transparent about the biases they bring to their study of such phenomena.
"Strive to counter the fragmentation of knowledge that was typical of the modern, rational industrialized era"
Wilber notes that "the good news of modernity was that the big three were differentiated - art, science, morals. The bad news was that they had not yet been integrated" (Wilber, 1996, p. 248). As a result traditional approaches to theory building within organisational studies have tended to produce fragmented knowledge and a narrow view that does not reflect the complexity of reality (Fuhs, nd; Gioia ">My attraction to integral and multi-paradigmatic approaches
Cacciope and Edwards (2005) demonstrate that scholars and practitioners have used the integral model to varying degrees, and that not all elements of the AQAL framework need to be included for the analysis to be considered integral. Some integral thinkers such as Thomas (2011) and Beck and Cowan (1996) have emphasized a practice that supports vertical development in individuals as they undertake subject-object shifts, dis-identify with their previous way of making meaning, and move to a more complex meaning making system. For example Brown (2011) examined how the post conventional consciousness of leaders involved in complex change initiatives manifested.
Hochachka (2009) has used the integral approach in her praxis when facilitating community based development processes. She felt that the four quadrants supported her to facilitate a process whereby community members could reflect on their intangible needs. This filled a gap in conventional development practice that assumes that fulfillment of the visible, material needs automatically leads to a fulfillment of people's interior needs. Hochachka uses the integral approach to create a meshwork of practical solutions, interactive processes, and personal growth. The author calls these areas practical, interpersonal and personal and each have their own specific set of methodologies.
I am drawn to two aspects of the integral approach; its comprehensiveness and its commitment to "re-balance the monological gaze" (Wilber, 1996, p. 87). A framework that integrates mind, culture and nature and emphasizes the "I" and "we" domains speaks to my own preferences as a facilitator of human development. I am also drawn to a worldview that is open to "modes of consciousness that move beyond mere rationality" (1996, p. 70). I believe that knowledge must be intentionally applied to influence the practice of individuals and institutions and in my work in Tanzania with government and civil society I see the need for "a change of consciousness embedded in a change of institutions" (ibid) if significant development is to be achieved.
The vast encompassing nature of the integral enterprise, which essentially concedes that "everybody is right," even if only partially so, makes it a methodologically complicated endeavour when applied to a dissertation study. Whilst Wilber has developed an integral methodological plurality (IMP) Saiter argues that "IMP, as a way to apply AQAL theory in the so-called 'real world," has yet to be tested in the empirical arena" (2009, p. 5). He argues that if one is to apply AQAL theory in the real world, then one must be clear about what is being regarded as the basis for truth or validity. Saiter (2009) describes Murray's (2006) criteria for a valid integrally informed theory as being the degree to which it addresses all levels and quadrants and does so in a balanced way, serves to integrate and / or differentiate important concepts, sometimes creating new concepts as it does; transcends and includes, rather than transcending and excluding, previous theories and ideas; and offers a simple, elegant, parsimonious way to conceptualize a large number of ideas.
Whilst I want to inform my dissertation with an integral understanding of reality, I also want to be practical and do not feel that using IMP would be within the scope of my abilities and time. And so, I plan to confront my methodological challenge by using the Type II: Integral Q approach described by Cacioppe and Edwards (2005) for my literature review. This type of integral approach takes a multi-paradigm perspective that includes and situates information, concepts and theories from a number of different, significant life domains and brings together at least three or four distinctly different explanations of phenomena. Essential dimensions include subjectivity, objectivity, individuality and communality. I then plan to adapt the methodological process described by Lewis and Grimes (1999) as meta-triangulation, and which in turn builds off Denzin's 1978 process of theoretical triangulation. This process challenges researchers to seek out, rather than to avoid conflicting interpretations and involves four stages. These are initial groundwork, where one defines the theoretical perspective to be used; data analysis using each lens in turn; theory building where one contrasts and accounts for the differing interpretations of the data and engaging in critical self reflection.
I conclude this post with an illustration that depicts an adaptation of Gioia and Pitre's four epistemological perspectives. I have superimposed these onto Wilber's quadrants. The resulting map describes how the researchers go about answering questions about the nature of human beings and systems, and their stance towards theory building and praxis.
In my next posts I will describe how I bring elements of each perspective together to articulate a form of 'integral activist' research that I will apply for my dissertation. Finally, I take Lewis and Grimes process of 'meta-triangulation' and describe how I would apply that to my dissertation methodology.
No comments:
Post a Comment