Content area
Full text
Multiparadigm approaches aid exploration of particularly complex and paradoxical phenomena by helping theorists employ disparate theoretical perspectives. In this article we provide an extensive guide to multiparadigm exemplars and then link their varied approaches within a metatriangulation theory-building strategy. Our process addresses the challenges theorists face as they select a research topic, collect and analyze data, theorize, and evaluate resulting theory using multiple paradigms. A concluding discussion of the advantages, limitations, and potential applications of metatriangulation positions it within the wider realm of organization theory.
Two decades ago Burrell and Morgan (1979) ushered in a wave of attempts to characterize paradigms employed in organization theory (e.g., Pondy & Boje, 1981; Zey-Ferrell & Aiken, 1981). Such efforts began sensitizing theorists to the notion of paradigms-the assumptions, practices, and agreements among a scholarly community-and legitimizing less mainstream alternatives. Although functionalism-positivism remains dominant, theorists increasingly are grounding their work within more critical and interpretive paradigms. The result is a vibrant field, replete with diverse theoretical views that may enrich our understandings of organizational complexity, ambiguity, and paradox. Yet, the now-pervasive "paradigm mentality" simultaneously proliferates and polarizes perspectives, often inhibiting discourse across paradigms, biasing theorists against opposing explanations, and fostering development of provincial theories (Bouchikhi, 1998; Reed, 1996). As Pondy and Boje forewarned, organization theory faces a frontier problem of "how to conduct inquiry based on several paradigms" (1981: 84).
Recognizing this challenge, Poole and Van de Ven proposed that researchers "look for theoretical tensions or oppositions and use them to stimulate the development of more encompassing theories" (1989: 563). They viewed conflicting paradigms as paradoxes of organization theory, underscoring contradictory yet interwoven facets of complex phenomena. Soon after, Gioia and Pitre (1990) detailed differences in theory building across paradigms and called for metatriangulation: a strategy of applying paradigmatic diversity to foster greater insight and creativity. In response, in the past decade we have witnessed an influx of multiparadigm exemplars (e.g., Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991; Graham-Hill, 1996; Grimes & Rood, 1995; Grint, 1991; Hassard, 1991; Martin, 1992; Reed, 1997; Schultz & Hatch, 1996; Spender, 1998; Weaver & Gioia, 1994; Willmott, 1993; Ybema, 1996).
Yet, multiparadigm inquiry remains provocative, as debates over the commensurability and value of multiple paradigms persist and intensify (see Organization, 1998). Some functionalists lament the...