A paradigm shift:

1. A paradigm shift: A paradigm is a way of thinking. It is the fundamental underpinning for the way we view the world. It deals with the choice one has of the “Weltanschauung”. What we have been covering has been part of the scientific paradigm. Its basis- as we said before – is deducto-empirical. This in turn implies a “reductionist” world-view. The basic principle of scientific inquiry is therefore that : • The world is an intricate system of inter-relationships • These inter-relationships can be defined in terms of simpler relationships.

2. We can understand, quantify and measure these relationships if they are simple enough. We can thus have full understanding of the discernable universe. • The “laws” of nature are therefore uniform, understandable and quantifiable • Scientific understanding based on such deducto-empirical system must (and can) itself be objective, predictive and reliable (repeatable). In short in the reductionist (or systematic) paradigm the understanding is that the world is a system which is reducible to the sum of its parts and the sum of the parts is equal to the whole.

3. There are alternative weltanschauungs. In the systemic or subjective paradigm, the understanding is that: • The world is a network of “situations”. • Each observer’s view or cognition of the situation is different to the next. In other words – although they may be made to approximately do so – no two people ever discern the same thing or event the same way. In fact things and events in themselves are relative concepts that may not even exist for some observers when they do at the same time for others.

4. Therefore the world is not composed of one system to be discerned. In fact systems are not extant externally, they are only cognitive artifacts. By this we mean that people, when viewing a “situation” in the world, would elect to cognitively discern (mentally create) certain connections in that situation that helps them understand the situation better. Thus creating a system (discerning the situation as a system). • Any system of inquiry built on this subjective paradigm would then by necessity be geared towards “understanding” and “reaching agreement” (consensus), as opposed to objectivity and quantification.

5. Qualitative research procedures are based on the systemic or subjective paradigm. As opposed to the scientific paradigm where we reject or retain a hypothesis that measures some fact about our world system based on a series of objective observations, so that a firm theory may be built; in the subjective paradigm, we immerse ourselves in the world of other observers in the hope of: • Understanding how they view the world so we can reach consensus • Altering our theory enough to fit our observation and understanding so we can arrive at “meaning”.

6. Inductive analysis: Inductive analysis is the core tool of of the qualitative researcher. The basis of inductive analysis is the requirement that all new evidence support the current consensus understanding. If the new evidence does not support the current understanding, we must change our current understanding and we must continue to do so until our understanding (hypothesis) fits all encountered evidence. In other words we must allow the discoveries within the situation to alter the path of our inquiry whilst it is being conducted. This is – you would remember – grossly contrary to the underpinnings of the scientific, quantitative paradigm.

7. Sampling: Sampling in the quantitative paradigm is statistical, objective, repeatable and a priori. In the qualitative paradigm, the sampling may be a posteriori, it is inter-active (it may alter the path of the study), and is not necessarily statistical. For example in the qualitative paradigm it is entirely permitted for an interviewee subject to introduce other subjects who have a similar interest to his, as subjects for further interview because he thinks (and the researcher agrees) that this particular interest the current interviewee and the to be introduced ones have in common is interesting enough to study as it may yield understanding and meaning to the context being researched.

8. Reliability and validity: The concepts of reliability and validity in the qualitative paradigm must be viewed differently to the same concepts in the quantitative paradigm. Reliability in the qualitative paradigm should come from “triangulation”. Using different methods of assessment to make the same assessment. If the conclusions are compatible then the “discovery” is reliable. Validity should come from goodness of theory fit and the consensus reached about the meaning arrived at. If everyone agrees, it must be valid!!

9. Some may be uncomfortable with this loose treatment of the concepts of reliability and validity. But in final analysis there is no difference in philosophy between the concepts and how they are arrived at here or in the quantitative paradigm. In both we are trying to get people convinced that a discovery we have made is acceptable. In the quantitative paradigm we are striving to show that this “causal fact” is universal given certain conditions. In the qualitative paradigm we are striving to show that this “understanding, perspective or interpretation” holds universally given certain conditions. It is the volatility, number and the complexity of the conditions that makes the two paradigms different. Another difference is that in the former we deal with facts in the latter with meaning.

10. Other interesting differences between the two paradigms are that: • In the quantitative paradigm we start with a hypothesis, we end up with a measure, a relationship or a theory. In the qualitative paradigm we often start with a social problem and end with hypotheses. • In the quantitative paradigm the researcher is as much as possible detached, in the other the researcher is as much as possible immersed.

11. There are four basic forms of qualitative research procedures. They are: • Historical Research • Ethnography • Case Study • Action Research

12. Historical research: This form of research actually falls in between qualitative and quantitative approaches in that it uses historically available and obtained data for the purpose of quantitative analysis, but also uses interviews, anecdotes, biographies, relics, social and cultural interpretations and other demographic and anthropological bases. The past is often a good model for the present and the future. The research is intended to assist understanding of the current situation given its past history and to a limited degree to predict the future. It allows re-evaluation of current trends based on past experience.

13. Remember however that trends of the past are not an assurance for these trends to continue in the future. Society is complex and unless we can reduce historical inter-influences to a small and manageable set of causal relations (a reductionist paradigm assumption), too much extrapolation is both meaningless and potentially dangerous. How can we prevent the occurrence of another holocaust?

14. Ethnography: Lit: People Writing; ethnography is the naturalistic observation of populations (of people) in their socio-cultural “habitat”. It basically entails collecting richly descriptive data for future analysis and interpretation with the view to discover trends, patterns or facts and meanings in a given social context. Ethnography comes in two different flavors: • Interactional, • Non-interactional (observational)

15. Interactional ethnography allows the researcher to become part of the culture/social structure being studied and indeed to be influenced by it and even at times influence it. Non-interactional ethnography disallows interaction and reduces the role of the ethnographer to one of a naturalistic observer, thus non-interactional ethnography comes closer to the realm of objective quantitative paradigm. Irrespectively of the type, ethnography is mainly concerned with generating a basis for future extraction of hypotheses and theories, possibly even through quantitative means.

16. Ethnography, like other qualitative research processes concentrates on: • Study of subjects in their “natural” setting. • Study of the “situation” as an integral part of a given context • Multiplicity of perspectives and multiple Weltanschauungs • Dynamicity and process orientation. This means that meaning and therefore any qualitative finding would change through time as the factors influencing it change.

17. Case study: In a way, case study may be deemed as ethnography-in-the-small. In other words, case study is the observational or interactional study of a well defined bounded unit. This might be for example an individual programmer, a defect management team, a software development unit, or an entire software company (e.g. Microsoft). Irrespectively, again, a case study is concerned with understanding and meaning, rather than confirmation of a given fact.

18. The main techniques used are: • Interviews and questionnaires • Observation • Document analysis • Time sampling • Event sampling

19. Types of case study: • Observational case study • Interactional case study (often classified as part of action research) • Historical case study • Clinical case study • Event-based or situational case study (study of an event rather than a thing) • Multi-case or group study (usually for the purpose of confirmation and replication)

20. Action research: Action research is the interventional participation of the researcher as an expert whereby the fact-finding and intervention by the researcher is for the practical purpose of improving the problem situation. In a way, many pure consulting assignments may be classified as a form of action-research. Therefore the validity of the research, or the truth of the outcome is not based so much on the factual replicability and validity but the usefulness of the action in having improved the situation.

21. Action research cycle: • Action research starts with the identification of an initial problem in need of improvement. Then we proceed to • Find facts through interventional investigation of the problem situation, we then • Form a general “action plan”. A plan for forming general hypotheses, gathering information about them, improving them, etc. We then go on to • Implement the action plan. This brings forth a number of findings, potential problems, areas of potential improvement, etc.

22. Interpret the situation and intervene to improve it. At the same time we • Revise the plan and continue on the next cycle of intervention until no further intervention is required as the situation is deemed as having sufficiently and successfully improved.