Three articles shed light on different perspectives on each of the three paradigms. Positivist perspective in general rejects metaphysics and concentrates on syntax and semantics of scene, which functions “more scientific” than interpretive and critical theory. Interpretivist perspective is consistent with social constructionist view. Features of Interpretivist perspective is impressive, for instance, process of social construction occurs in relatively patterned ways that are amenable to the type of social scientific investigation undertaken by postpositivsts. Individuals exercise free will and creativity, which is patterned and predicable. Social constructions are reified and treated as objective by actors in the social world.
My first question is when a young research tries to adapt to either of the perspectives, to what extend the self-positioning of the researcher would influence the research outcome?
At the end of Miller’s chapter, structuration theory would use as the “metatheoretical bridge” among interpretive, critical, and postpositive paradigms in organizational communication. I don't really understand Craig’s argument, “metamodel that opens up a conceptual space in which many different models of communication can interact”. How does the structuration theory penetrate each paradigm? Are there any literature in organizational communication indicate the bridge function of structuration theory in three paradigms?
No comments:
Post a Comment