This approach leads towards understanding the respondent’s experiences and point of view. According to interpretivism we can’t separate people from their knowledge. Multiple responses and answers are expected in this research. iv. Critical theory: This paradigm shows that reality can be changed through human intervention and research.
Internal attributions are explaining someone’s behavior using the internal characteristic of the individual. “Not only how we make attributions about other people has a big influence on how we react to them, but it also has an influence on our own behavior” (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000). A situation
However, as a counterargument, his intent could be considered to not be neutral, as he clearly makes a statement on how knowledge should be perceived; based on sense perception and reasoning as ways of knowing only, and his way of leading a discussion, with language as a way of knowing might influence the public. Language as a way of knowing can consist many flaws, as the speaker can produce an idea using certain words, influencing the listeners, and thus, neutrality is hard to find in speeches and discussions, as there will always be preconceived ideas. We can look at another example: the Socratic method. Socrates designed a method of finding knowledge through discussion, and through accepting that he had no knowledge of anything whatsoever. By acknowledging this, it
social norms, culture, mentality, hidden intentions and pragmatic elements, such as tone, intonation, facial expressions gestures, etc. All of them form a context of situation in which the language was used and we will not give adequate interpretation of the language without them. So, the universe of discourse which is the total context of facts, things, relations , ideas , etc., implied or assumed in a given discussion or discourse is very important when analyzing meanings .The complete meaning of a written or spoken discourse can be fully understood from the context rather than the sentence alone . It is also understood by examining the
A vital ideology of participatory research is that it is research approach ‘with people’ rather than conducting ‘research on people’(Heron & Reason, 1997). Chamber (2012: 167) mentions “[Participatory paradigm ] can be drivers and means to personal, institutional, professional and social change [……] Practical priorities are: to foster methodological diversity and enrich the repertoire; […..] to institutionalize critical reflection and focused brainstorming”. Participatory paradigm allows understanding of people’s perspective as it is based on social reality and tries to find out a real solution of an original problem to ensure desirable change. In addition, it deals with the complexity of social settings and can promote a culture of social dialogue and influence policy to changing attitude. So it is applied, exploratory and action oriented.
Basically, Grant puts it that in face of problems leaders will make a decision based on the challenge they are facing. He further asserts that situations are tame, wicked or critical and depending on the situation the social constructivist approach is enhanced. The main reason behind this is that the three situations can be linked to different forms of resource which are calculative, ideological and coercive (Grant 2005). Unlike many other researchers Grant handles a unique area where he analysis language and leadership. His, concept takes into consideration that at times the nature of certain situations determines how problems are solved.
Five Communication Contexts There are five contexts of communication. Each context significantly influences the way we communicate with one another, and with ourselves. These contexts include intrapersonal communication, interpersonal communication, group communication, public communication, and mass communication. Each mode of communication shares similarities and differences. They can also overlap with one another.
Additionally relationships with who we are communicating and tone of voice may effect how the message is sent and received. Like most things communication has some rules we must follow so that everyone may understand communication on a basic level. Rules keep order when two or more people are communicating. The multidimensional characteristic of communication has the most effect on the anticipatory part of meta communication. Simply put one must take the fact that communicating with different people almost always must be approached differently.
Across these waves, we identify five main methods guiding the collection and the analysis of data. Second, we identify methodological issues that are central to OI research, such as how to select, among the various self-referential statements that are made by organizational members, those that can be legitimately considered evidence of OI, and whose perspective counts in gathering evidence of OI, and we compare how published studies have successfully addressed identity-specific research questions outlined above. Finally, this review of published research on OI reveals some degree of ambiguity in professed ontological assumptions and methodological choices in past research. By bringing out more clearly the paradigmatic differences that underpin these studies, and by highlighting their implications for methodological choices, we attempt to reduce uncertainty about the appropriateness of different research design for the questions being investigated. Research methods in OI studies Past research on OI indicates that most studies have adopted one of five fundamental methods, with rare exceptions adopting nonconventional procedures for data collection and analysis (e.g.
Using a culture-specific lense allows us to account for the ways in which situated meanings of face and facework may differ based upon one culture to the next. Cultural values shape our meanings and help construct the intricacies that create our social self (“public self”) and personal self (“private self”)--both of which are inextricably linked to face. While face is fundamentally a social self construction issue, we can still use this phenomenon to better understand conflict behavior because face will always influence and determine the ways in which we handle conflict (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi). More specifically, we can better understand intercultural conflict, which often arises due to different cultural values and conflict assumptions. Our goal is to explore facework and politeness as it relates to intercultural conflict, particularly when a racial slur is used in an intercultural