The critical research paradigm was a development of Karl Marx with other critical, feminists and theorists (HUSTLER, GOLDBART, and HUSTLER, 2005). Critical theorists perceive reality in a different manner in comparison to interpretivism and positivists. They argue that reality results from powerful people who manipulate societal systems, condition society, and brainwash people to see things in a manner they want them (LINCOLN and GUBA, 1985). They manipulate the less powerful in fulfilling their individual requirements. From a critical perspective, human beings have an excellent potential when creativity and adaptability are questioned. The potentiality is, however, restricted and oppressed by conditions such as social factors, which the powerful exploit while convincing them that their fate is acceptable or correct.
The argument in critical paradigm is to uncover existing illusions and myths such as reality perception as indicated in interpretivism and positivism (HUSTLER, GOLDBART, and HUSTLER, 2005). LINCOLN and GUBA, (1985) found out that some basic beliefs are sometimes constituted in society to the extent of being perceived as realities. They argue that reality is not ‘out there’ as people think, but it is in the minds of people. The paradigm argues that reality is an internal experience, which is socially constructed by interpretations and interactions through the players, and is based on the meaning that people attach to it (BRYMAN and BELL, 2007).
Unlike other disciplines, business research issues are not narrowly focused. For instance, in conducting a Chemistry research, it is crucial to have knowledge on some concepts like history, scientific development, and the laws guarding against the concepts. BARKER (2012) views that there is much to learn on the field while conducting research on other disciplines even before a successful research, and this contributes to the development of new knowledge. This is in contrary to business research where there is the need for understanding characters like staff, customers, managers, and business owners. Additionally, elements like business entities, economies, efficiency in production, production of profits, government policies, customers needs and income, among many others, need to be analyzed in coming up with new information (CRESWELL, 2003).
Choosing the right paradigm in business research, therefore, can only be determined by the value in which a researcher wants to put on the findings. Value in this case implies the objectives, and theories to be developed (BLAXTER, HUGHES, and TIGHT, 2010). However, interpretivism and positivism have slightly implicit and indifferent values as compared to critical paradigm. Positivism, for example, does not mention values but is rather centered on data and rigor. Interpretivism, on the other hand, bases its values on a participant’s point of view and is concerned on the participant’s explanations on reality.
In contrast, critical paradigm is founded on the value in terms of politics and power. It is concerned about patterns and relations of power, and how power and dominance influence society (BARKER, 2012). The modern business relies massively on power and politics. These elements dictate money availability, customer needs and requirements, labor provision, technology, capital requirements, the extent of government participation, production efficiency, and level of profits, among others (GLYNN and WOODSIDE, 2009). Using the critical approach in business research implies that information on all these concepts will be acquired, and the extent to which power and authority determine business productivity will also be attained. This information can be used by policy analysts in coming up with new policies, which can be used in regulation of power and authority in adding value to business production.
Critical paradigm can also be used in defining trend analysis in an aim of forecasting behavior in business. Such behavior includes customer needs, market competition, resource use, sales, and marketing among others (BLAXTER, HUGHES, and TIGHT, 2010). To conduct such surveys, there is the need to have information on government policies, managers and customers. This implies that such a piece of research can only be conducted at different levels so that all variables and stakeholders involved provide information (CRESWELL, 2003). Coming up with forecasts and prospected analysis influences on investors, producers, supplies and consumers in the estimation on future expectations.
Fact finding in critical paradigms assists in the collection of financial and income statements, which can be used by investors, debtors, and creditors in decision making. Such analysis cannot be produced by interpretivism and positivism approaches, which assume pre-existing data (BRYMAN and BELL, 2007). Such facts boost management decision making in levels of production and expenditure and in performance assessment in attempts to maximize on profits (REINELT and ROACH, 2006). In addition, external stakeholders such as supplies, debtors, creditors, etc use such information in deciding whether an entity is fit for business.
BARKER (2012) indicates that business study shelters different academic fields such as mathematics, sociology, physics, psychology, economics, language, history, and politics among others. Theorists developing paradigms from such disciplines use data provided by business surveys in coming up with conclusive findings (GLYNN and WOODSIDE, 2009). This implies that interpretivism and positivism paradigms also base their findings from critical paradigms derived from business research.
Bibliography.
BARKER, C. (2012). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, [Calif.], SAGE.
BLAXTER, L., HUGHES, C., & TIGHT, M. (2010). How to research. Maidenhead, England, Open University Press.
BRYMAN, A., & BELL, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press.
CRESWELL, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bottom of FormCreC
GLYNN, M. S., & WOODSIDE, A. G. (2009). Business-to-business brand management: theory, research and executive case study exercises. Bingley, JAI Press.
HUSTLER, D., GOLDBART, J., & HUSTLER, D. (2005). Research Methods in Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications.
LINCOLN, Y. S., & GUBA, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif, Sage Publications.
REINELT, J. G., & ROACH, J. R. (2006). Critical theory and performance. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
