METATRIANGULATION: BUILDING THEORY FROM MULTIPLE …

<* Academy of Management Review1999, Vol. 24, No. 4, 672-690.

METATRIANGULATION: BUILDING THEORYFROM MULTIPLE PARADIGMS

MARIANNE W. LEWISUniversity of Cincinnati

ANDREW I. GRIMESUniversity of Kentucky

Multiparadigm approaches aid exploration oi particularly complex and paradoxicalphenomena by helping theorists employ disparate theoretical perspectives. In thisarticle we provide an extensive guide to multiparadigm exemplars and then link theirvaried approaches within a metatriangulation theory-building strategy. Our processaddresses the challenges theorists face as they select a research topic, collect andanalyze data, theorize, and evaluate resulting theory using multiple paradigms. Aconcluding discussion of the advantages, limitations, and potential applications ofmetatriangulation positions it within the wider realm of organization theory.

Two decades ago Burrell and Morgan (1979)ushered in a wave of attempts to characterizeparadigms employed in organization theory(e.g., Pondy & Boje, 1981; Zey-Ferrell & Aiken,1981). Such efforts began sensitizing theorists tothe notion of paradigms—the assumptions,practices, and agreements among a scholarlycommunity—and legitimizing less mainstreamalternatives. Although functionalism-positivismremains dominant, theorists increasingly aregrounding their work within more critical andinterpretive paradigms. The result is a vibrantfield, replete with diverse theoretical views thatmay enrich our understandings of organization-al complexity, ambiguity, and paradox. Yet, thenow-pervasive "paradigm mentality" simulta-neously proliferates and polarizes perspectives,often inhibiting discourse across paradigms, bi-asing theorists against opposing explanations,and fostering development of provincial theo-ries (Bouchikhi, 1998; Reed, 1996). As Pondy andBoje forewarned, organization theory faces afrontier problem of "how to conduct inquirybased on several paradigms" (1981: 84).

Recognizing this challenge, Poole and Van deVen proposed that researchers "look for theoret-

We thank Special Issue Editor David Whetten and threeanonymous reviewers, as well as Blake Ashforth, Greg Big-ley, Mark Davis, Gordon Dehler, David Kang, Mihaela Kele-man, Ajay Mehra, Deb Rood, and Kristen Taylor for theirinsightful comments on earlier versions of this article. Wepresented an early draft at the 1998 annual meeting of theAcademy of Management.

ical tensions or oppositions and use them tostimulate the development of more encompass-ing theories" (1989: 563). They viewed conflictingparadigms as paradoxes of organization theory,underscoring contradictory yet interwoven fac-ets of complex phenomena. Soon after, Gioiaand Pitre (1990) detailed differences in theorybuilding across paradigms and called for meta-triangulation: a strategy of applying paradig-matic diversity to foster greater insight and cre-ativity. In response, in the past decade we havewitnessed an influx of multiparadigm exem-plars (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, 1998).

Yet, multiparadigm inquiry remains provoca-tive, as debates over the commensurability andvalue of multiple paradigms persist and inten-sify (see Organization, 1998). Some functional-ists lament the "anarchy" of paradigm prolifer-ation, advocating a dominant paradigm toenhance the scholarly and political influence oforganization theory (e.g., Donaldson, 1985; Pfef-fer, 1997). Meanwhile, many postmodernists cri-tique the hegemony of paradigms, calling for"anything-goes" strategies more in tune witheclectic organizational discourses (e.g., Deetz,1996; Feyerabend, 1979).

In contrast, multiparadigm inquiry contrib-utes a midpoint between dogmatism and rela-tivism (Scherer, 1998), which we believe offers

672

1999 Lewis and Grimes 673

tremendous yet unrealized theory-building po-tential. Multiparadigm theorists value para-digms as heuristics that may help scholars ex-plore theoretical and organizational complexityand extend the scope, relevance, and creativityof organization theory. However, existing mul-tiparadigm approaches are ambiguous andfragmented. Empirical studies often give limitedmethodological detail and seldom build theoryfrom their efforts (e.g., Bradshaw-Camball &Murray, 1991; Graham-Hill, 1996), while descrip-tions of theorizing contribute abstract tech-niques and rarely illustrate their use (e.g., Gioia& Pitre, 1990; Grimes & Rood, 1995).

Our objective in this article is to help theoristsapply the insights of multiple paradigms by pre-senting an explicit and exemplified theory-building process termed metafrianguiafion. Wefirst review the multiparadigm literature, pro-viding a guide to exemplars and their variedapproaches. We then link extant multiparadigmapproaches within a cohesive theory-buildingstrategy for exploring divergent theoreticalviews, challenging taken-for-granted assump-tions, and portraying organizations in new light.To provide a useful map of the theory-buildingprocess, we compare each step of metatriangu-lation to traditional inductive activities and em-ploy a study of advanced manufacturing tech-nology to illustrate the process in use. Weconclude with a discussion of theory-buildingimplications, positioning metatriangulationwithin the wider realm of organization theory byaddressing its advantages and limitations andsuggesting future applications.

MULTIPARADIGM INQUIRY: A GUIDE TOEXEMPLARS

Numerous scholars have dissected the para-digm debate, noting the rise in multiparadigminquiry (e.g., Deetz, 1996; Reed, 1996; Scherer,1998). Yet, thorough examinations of this grow-ing and diverse literature are scarce (seeSchultz & Hatch, 1996, for a brief and insightfuloverview). To contribute a useful guide to exem-plars, we distinguish among three approaches:(1) multiparadigm reviews, (2) multiparadigm re-search, and (3) metaparadigm theory building.We use the term multiparadigm to denote dis-parate paradigmatic perspectives andmetaparadigm to signify a more holistic view

that transcends paradigm distinctions to revealdisparity and complementarity.

Multiparadigm reviews involve recognition ofdivides and bridges in existing theory (e.g.,characterizing paradigms X and Y), whereasmultiparadigm research involves using para-digm lenses (X and Y) empirically to collect andanalyze data and cultivate their diverse repre-sentations of organizational phenomena. Lastly,in metaparadigm theory building, theoristsstrive to juxtapose and link conflicting para-digm insights (X and Y) within a novel under-standing (Z). We now review these approaches,discussing their varied objectives and tech-niques, and we detail their uses in the subse-quent section on metatriangulation. Table 1summarizes the approaches and their exem-plars.

Multiparadigm Reviews

In multiparadigm reviews researchers seek toreveal the impact of theorists' underlying, andoften taken-for-granted, assumptions on theirunderstandings of organizational phenomena.Two techniques—paradigm bracketing andbridging—often aid reviewers. Paradigm brack-eting entails differentiating among varied setsof assumptions. Hassard (1991) explained thattheorists "bracket" the assumptions of other par-adigms to become familiar with and apply thetraditions, language, and methods of a specificparadigm. Such brackets enable theorists to ig-nore certain aspects of complex phenomena andfocus on facets and issues of particular interest(Weaver & Gioia, 1994). In multiparadigm in-quiry, paradigm bracketing makes differing as-sumptions explicit, thereby delineating para-digm distinctions and aiding awareness, use,and critique of alternative perspectives.

Paradigm bracketing originated in early at-tempts to distinguish and legitimate the as-sumptions of less conventional paradigms (e.g.,Pondy & Boje, 1981; Zey-Ferrell & Aiken, 1981).Burrell and Morgan (1979), for instance, definedparadigms as tightly coupled ideologies, ontol-ogies, epistemologies, and methodologies thatguide modes of organizational analysis. Theirtypology parses four paradigms by polarizingassumptions regarding the nature of social sci-ence (objective-subjective) and the nature of so-ciety (regulation-radical change). Objectivitypresumes an external reality of deterministic

874 Academy of Management Review October

TABLE 1Multiparadigm Approaches and Exemplars

Exemplar

Multiparadigm reviewsAlvesson (1987)Astley & Van de Ven (1983)Morgan (1983)Morgan (1997)Reed (1998)Smircich (1983)Gioia & Pitre (1990)

Grint (1991)

Kaghan & Phillips (1998)Weaver & Gioia (1993)Willmott (1993)

Multiparadigm researchBradshaw-Camball & Murray (1991)Graham-Hill (1998)Hassard (1991)Martin (1992)Gioia, Donnellon, & Sims (1989)Gioia & Thomas (1998)Lee (1991)Sutton & Rafaeli (1988)

Metaparadigm theory buildingGioia & Pitre (1990)Grimes & Rood (1995)Morgan (1983)Poole & Van de Ven (1989)Bouchikhi (1998)Clegg (1990)Gaventa (1980)Reed (1997)Schultz & Hatch (1998)Spender (1998)Ybema (1998)

Technique

BracketingBracketingBracketingBracketingBracketingBracketingBracketing and

bridgingBracketing and

bridgingBridgingBridgingBridging

ParallelParallelParallelParallelSequentialSequentialSequentialSequential

MetatheorizingMetatheorizingMetatheorizingMetatheorizingInterplayInterplayInterplayInterplayInterplayInterplayInterplay

Phenomenon of Interest

WorkOrganization theoryResearch methodsOrganizationOrganization studiesCultureTheory building; structure

Technology

KnowledgeStructureLabor process

Organizational politicsSmall-firm strategyWork organizationCultureCognitive scriptsStrategic changeOrganizationEmotional display

Organizational structureLocal epistemologyResearch methodsStructureOrganizational paradoxesPowerPowerStructure—actionCultureKnowledgeCulture

Output

Interpretive framesDebatesModes of engagementMetaphors/imagesAnalytical narrativesResearch programsParadigms; transition

zones-structuration theoryDebates; transition

zone-actor network theoryConstructivist perspectiveStructuration theoryRadical labor process theory

Trifocal view4 case studies4 empirical studies3 perspective frameworksObjective-subjective studySubjective-objective studySequential strategyTriangulated study

Conjecture inversionBridging epistemologiesReflective conversationParadoxical strategiesDialectical tensionsMetaparadigm theoryMetaparadigm theoryStratified ontologyParadigm interplayPluralist epistemologyMetaparadigm theory

and predictable relationships, whereas subjec-tivity presumes contextually bound and fluidsocial constructions. Regulation assumes har-monious and orderly social relations, whereasradical change assumes conflict and powerasymmetries. Burrell and Morgan (1979) thencategorized existing theories within their typol-ogy to demonstrate how different assumptionsunderpin opposing views (see Deetz, 1996, andGioia & Pitre, 1990, for detailed discussions ofthe typology).

Although Burrell and Morgan's typology re-mains the prominent framework for paradigmbracketing, some exemplars loosen paradigmcontours to depict diverse debates and meta-phors existing in organization theory (e.g., Ast-ley & Van de Ven, 1983; Morgan, 1997; Reed,

1996). In such reviews researchers critique pro-vincialism and partiality, encouraging theoriststo reflect on the focus and blinders of variedparadigm lenses. For example, Smircich (1983)and Grint (1991) bracketed views of culture andtechnology, respectively, to emphasize equallyviable yet limited understandings. Alvesson(1987) examined three perspectives on organiza-tional life. His review demonstrates how differ-ent "interpretive frames of reference" sensitizetheorists to certain conceptualizations and is-sues and foster divergent insights into the qual-ity, degradation, and self-regulation of work.

The second review technique—paradigmbridging—suggests transition zones: theoreticalviews that span paradigms. In exemplars schol-ars claim that although paradigmatic assump-


tions may conflict, boundaries between para-digms are fuzzy and potentially permeable (e.g.,Willmott, 1993). For instance, Gioia and Pitre(1990) explain that structuration theory does notseparate structuring processes from formalstructures. Rather, it posits that actors use gen-erative rules and norms to produce structure;this, in turn, influences and constrains structur-ing activities.

Transition zone theories, such as structurationtheory, are not metaparadigm per se; they fosterunidimensional representations that integrateparadigmatic insights and emphasize paradigmsimilarities, and may privilege' one side of adualism (i.e., an either/or distinction such asstructure or action, objectivity or subjectivity;Reed, 1997; Schultz & Hatch, 1996). According tode Cock, Rickards, Weaver, and Gioia (1995),structuration theory does not permit paradigmdifferences to coexist at a higher, metaparadigmlevel but operates in a gray area between par-adigms in which actions and structures are mu-tually influencing processes. Discovering tran-sition zones, however, illustrates the possibilityand value of communicating across paradigmsand may help theorists comprehend "how thephenomena in question can legitimately be sub-ject to various research strategies, while yet re-maining a related class of phenomena" (Weaver& Gioia, 1994: 577).

Multiparadigm Research

Multiparadigm research scholars move be-yond review of existing literature to apply diver-gent paradigm lenses empirically. Conductingparallel or sequential studies, theorists use mul-tiple paradigms (their respective methods andfoci) to collect and analyze data and to cultivatevaried representations of a complex phenome-non. Parallel studies preserve theoretical con-flicts by depicting the organizational voices, im-ages, and interests magnified by opposinglenses. Exemplars represent responses to Mor-gan's (1983) call for multisided case studies sim-ilar to Allison's (1971) accounts of the CubanMissile Crisis but grounded in more contrastingassumptions (e.g., Bradshaw-Camball & Mur-ray, 1991; Martin, 1992). Hassard (1991), for in-stance, viewed a British Fire Service throughBurrell and Morgan's (1979) four "analytic cam-eras." Following Wittgenstein (1963), he pre-sented the resulting accounts as localized lan-

guage games—discourses predicated upondistinct cultural rules. Similarly, Graham-Hill(1996) analyzed data from archives and stream-of-conscious interviews with a firm's CEO. Byusing case study methods indicative of eachparadigm, he wrote four stories that, in conjunc-tion, depict the intricacy and contradictions ofsmall-firm strategy.

In sequential studies researchers cultivate di-verse representations to purposefully informeach other, for the outputs of one paradigm-specific study provide inputs for a subsequentstudy. Applying lenses in succession, theoristsseek to grasp their disparate yet complementaryfocal points. For instance, Gioia, Donnellon, andSims (1989) employed linguistic techniques toexplore local meanings of a construct (cognitivescripts) identified in a prior functionalist study.Lee (1991) proposed a reversed order: using eth-nography to discover meanings held by actorsexperiencing a phenomenon and then positivistmethods to operationalize, test, and generalizesuggested constructs. Gioia and Thomas (1996)followed this route to examine sensemakingduring strategic changes in academic Suttonand Rafaeli (1988) conducted a more triangu-lated study. They found unexpected relation-ships from their deductive analysis and thenused interpretivist methods to identify variedunderlying norms influencing emotional dis-plays of sales clerks in slow versus busy set-tings, which guided data reanalysis.

Metaparadigm Theory Building

The third multiparadigm approach helps the-orists manage their bounded rationality and,thereby, accommodate opposing views within ametaparadigm perspective. Metaparadigm de-notes a higher level of abstraction, from which"accommodation" does not imply unification orsynthesis but, instead, the ability to compre-hend paradigmatic differences, similarities, andinterrelationships (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). The goalis a more rich, holistic, and contextualized pur-view. Mefafheorizing techniques help theoristsexplore patterns that span conflicting under-standings. In exemplars researchers assumeparadigms offer partial truths, often rooted indiffering space and time (e.g., Poole & Van deVen, 1989). Grimes and Rood (1995) have sug-gested treating paradigms as "debating voices,"arguing their views in search of common


ground. Modeled by Morgan's (1983) "conversa-tions" among divergent research methods, suchdebates may reveal how lenses represent variedresearcher interests, positions in the organiza-tional hierarchy, or time periods. These tech-niques aid "tests" of metaconjectures: proposi-tions interpretable from multiple paradigms.Ideally, juxtaposing paradigmatic explanationsmay help theorists translate constructs to ametaparadigm level and assemble a theoreticalreference system that links contrasting repre- •sentations (Gioia & Pitre, 1990).

Interplay techniques help theorists furthercraft and interpret metaparadigm theory.Schultz and Hatch (1996) defined interplay ascognizance of how paradigmatic insights andbiases are most recognizable from opposingviews. Highlighting contradictions and interde-pendence invokes a creative tension that mayinspire theorists to question paradigm dual-isms. In exemplars scholars propose severalmeans of fostering interplay, while existingmetaparadigm theories illustrate their use.Reed (1997) suggested that theorists adopt astratified ontology to view paradigm represen-tations interacting within nested levels of ab-straction. For example, Gaventa (1980) employedLukes',(1974) three "faces of power" as lenses tobuild a multidimensional theory of quiescence.Spender (1998) advocated using a pluralist epis-temology to appreciate how varied forms ofknowledge complement and mediate eachother. Similarly, Clegg (1990) examined multina-,tional organizations from "multiple modes of ra-tionality," fusing power and institutional per-spectives to probe anomalies neglected bycontingency theory. Bouchikhi (1998) recom-mended that theorists view paradigmatic con-flicts as dialectical tensions that expose organ-izational paradoxes. Ybema (1996), for instance,used opposing views of culture to theorize thedynamics of cohesion and division.

METATRIANGULATION: A MAP OF THETHEORY-BUILDING PROCESS

Although in most multiparadigm exemplarstheorists apply only one of the reviewed ap-proaches, we view these approaches as supple-mentary, potentially helping theorists recog-nize, cultivate, and then accommodate diverseparadigm insights. In the absence of such astrategy, we elaborate and implement Gioia

and Pitre's (1990) vision of metatriangulation: aprocess of building theory from multiple para-digms roughly analogous to traditional (i.e., sin-gle-paradigm) triangulation.

Denzin's (1978) depiction of theoretical trian-gulation helps conceptualize the process. Thephases he proposed approximate multipara-digm approaches: initial groundwork to definethe theoretical perspectives to be used (multipa-radigm review), data analysis using each lensin turn (multiparadigm research), and theorybuilding to contrast and account for differinginterpretations of the data (metaparadigm the-ory building). Denzin claimed this process chal-lenges theorists to purposefully seek out, ratherthan avoid or ignore, conflicting interpretations.Yet, he advocated deductively testing opposingviews (views that differ yet are grounded withincommon paradigmatic assumptions) to deter-mine which is the "truth." In contrast, metatrian-gulation requires applying—with fidelity—multiple paradigms to explore their disparityand interplay and, thereby, arrive at an en-larged and enlightened understanding of thephenomena of interest, as well as the para-digms employed. To contribute a useful map ofthis theory-building process, we compare meta-triangulation to traditional inductive strategiesand provide an example of its application (seeTable 2).

We propose a process similar to traditionalinduction, but with key variations designed torespect the assumptions of alternative para-digms. In detailing the process, we contrasteach step with activities of well-knpwn strate-gies—strategies that seek to amplify the poten-tial insights available from three sources: exist-ing literature, empirical data, and theorists'intuition (i.e., common sense and experience;e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Stfauss, 1967;Mintzberg, 1979; Weick, 1989). Table 2 portraysan orderly, sequential process, but, as in tradi-tional induction, building theory from multipleparadigms is messy and far from schematic.Metatriangulation-in-action is highly iterative,as theorists necessarily fluctuate between activ-ities. For instance, the process begins as theo-rists seek a multiparadigm understanding of thephenomenon of interest. Yet, this base expandsand changes as theorists gain new insights intoalternative paradigms and review additionalliterature to address emerging themes and eval-uate resulting theory. Similarly, in the last step

1999 Lewis and Giimes 677

TABLE 2Theory-Building Processes of Traditional Induction and Metatriangulation

Multiparadigm

Single Paradigm—TraditionalInductive Activity

Variation ofInductive Activity

Purpose inMetatriangulation

Implications forAMT Study

Phase I: GroundworkSpecify research question

Review relevant literature

Choose data source

Phase II: Data analysisDesign analytical process

Define phenomenon ofinterest

Focus paradigmlenses—bracket paradigmsand locate transition zones

Collect metatheoreticalsample (data interpretablefrom multiple lenses)

Plan paradigm itinerary(ordered use of lenses)

Systematically code data Conduct multiparadigmcoding

Tabulate and/or exhibitanalyses

Write paradigm accounts

Phase III: Theory buildingDevelop and test propositions Explore metaconjectures

Build theory

Eyaluate resulting theory

Attain a metaparadigmperspective

Articulate critical self-reflection

Provide focus, yet enableinterpretative flexibility

Gain multiparadigmunderstanding andcognizance of homeparadigm

Aim lenses at common,empirical referent

Recognize paradigmaticinfluences; emphasizecontrast and retainbalance

Cultivate diverse datainterpretations; accentdistinct paradigm insights

Experience paradigmlanguage-in-use; manageaccumulating insights

Conduct mental experiments;juxtapose paradigminsights

Encompass disparity andcomplementarity; motivateinterplay

Assess theory quality andthe theory-building process

Encompassed diverse AMTtypes and theory

Recognized divides andbridges between existingperspectives

Selected case studies ofvaried AMT contexts andtheoretical views

Moved away from homeand dominant paradigm

Detailed contrasting viewsof AMT and itsimplementation

Recognized conflicts andoverlaps in images ofAMT tensions

Examined patterns anddiscrepancies acrossaccounts

Used "space" and "time" toaccommodate differingexplanations

Tracked tensions andparadoxes experiencedin own work

theorists evaluate the methods and outcomes ofmetatriangulation. Critical self-reflection, how-ever, should permeate the process. For whilemultiparadigm techniques may help extend the-orists' peripheral vision dramatically, resultingmetaparadigm theory will have roots within thetheorists' initial assumptions, requiring them toconstantly question their paradigmatic biases.

To aid future uses of metatriangulation, weillustrate each step in the process. In additionto reviewed exemplars, we offer our study ofadvanced manufacturing technology (AMT).Since its advent in the late 1970s, AMT (e.g.,computer-integrated manufacturing) hasproven highly problematic and controversial,marking disruptive changes in work, socialrelations, and organization and fueling uses ofdisparate paradigm lenses (Alvesson, 1987;

Dean, Yoon, & Susman, 1992). The catalysts forour study were both substantive and episte-mological.. We were driven by a desire to com-prehend the complexity of AMT, as well as theparadigms of AMT researchers. We sought toexplore alternative perspectives and theirconflicting images of AMT and to build ametaparadigm theory that might contrast,link, and extend existing understandings.Weaving examples from our study throughoutthe following discussion serves two purposes.First, the study provides a unifying illustra-tion, since other exemplars only depict por-tions of the theory-building process. Second, itcontributes our firsthand experience with thetechniques, challenges, and insights of meta-triangulation (see Lewis, 1996, for additionaldetails).


Phase I: Groundwork

In order to understand alternative points of viewit is important that a theorist be fully aware of theassumptions upon which his own perspective isbased. Such an appreciation involves an intellec-tual journey which takes him outside the realm ofhis own familiar domain.... Only then can helook back and appreciate in full measure theprecise nature of his starting point (Burrell & Mor-gan, 1979: ix).

Laying the groundwork for metatriangulationrequires defining the phenomenon of interest,focusing paradigm lenses, and collecting ametatheoretical sample (see Table 2). As in tra-ditional induction, this initial phase delineatesboundaries that both constrain and enable the-ory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). Setting bound-aries risks reducing metatriangulation to a "fill-in-the-blanks" exercise, in which theorists usedata to support initial paradigmatic views. Yet,such boundaries may help theorists manage po-tential overload of data and perspectives, makecomparisons to extant works, and clarify andcritique their own assumptions as they journeythrough multiple paradigms.

Define phenomenon of interest. Theory build-ing across paradigms begins by selecting atopic of study (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Traditionalinduction strategies most often are used to ex-plore phenomena in theoretically sparse fields.Specifying a clear and tentative research ques-tion provides focus and enables interpretiveflexibility during data analysis (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979). Metatriangula-tion, however, is most appropriate for studyingmultifaceted phenomena characterized by ex-pansive and contested research domains (i.e.,with numerous, often conflicting theories). Spec-ifying a research question in multiparadigm in-quiry is problematic, for the legitimacy of aquestion may vary across paradigms. In his in-fluential work, Hassard (1991) faced this chal-lenge by tactfully pairing each lens with a dif-ferent, paradigm-compatible issue. To enablemore direct and potentially insightful compari-sons, in other exemplars researchers have ad-vocated broadly defining a common phenome-non of interest. In such studies scholars view thephenomenon of interest as abstract and rela-tional—constructed as theorists use, interpret,and experience it through each paradigm lens(e.g., Graham-Hill, 1996). For instance, in theirexemplars scholars have examined such intri-

cate and well-researched phenomena as organ-izational power (Clegg, 1990; Gaventa, 1980), cul-ture (Martin, 1992; Ybema, 1996), politics(Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991), and work(Alvesson, 1987).

Metatriangulation offers an exceptionalmeans of studying AMT, because this field hasbeen increasingly criticized as vast and polar-ized, replete with theoretical contradictions thatinhibit research comparisons and more compre-hensive understanding (Grint, 1991). We definedAMT as operator tasks and computerized ma-chinery that control and execute a productionprocess. This broad definition freed us to ex-plore varied social and technical designs ofAMT as well as differing views of its implemen-tation (e.g., systems, labor process, social con-struction, and critical theories).

Focus paradigm lenses. Reviewing relevantliterature enhances traditional induction byhelping theorists link emerging theory to extantwork and recognize the influence of their owntheoretical inclinations (Weick, 1989). A rich the-oretical background may stimulate insightfulanalysis, "sensitizing" theorists to certain fea-tures and subtleties in the data (Glaser &Strauss, 1967). Metatriangulation alters the roleof theoretical sensitivity dramatically, requiringtheorists to focus and then employ divergentparadigm lenses. A two-part review—bracket-ing paradigms and then locating transitionzones—may help theorists gain a multipara-digm understanding of the phenomenon of in-terest, as well as a greater awareness of theirinitial or "home" paradigm.

Bracketing entails making the assumptionsand selective focus of each perspective explicit,then categorizing extant literature within para-digms to accentuate theoretical discrepancies(Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Essentially, brackets de-limit the operative scope of disparate lenses,specifying what is and is not of interest—constraining researchers to a manageable fieldof vision, yet sharpening detail within that pur-view (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). In exemplarsscholars either classify literature within an ex-tant paradigm typology (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990;Grint, 1991) or create a custom framework (e.g.,Alvesson, 1987; Reed, 1996), seeking bracketsthat match the requisite variety in the literatureand that emphasize prominent theoretical con-flicts.


Recognizing an author's paradigm, however,may be an arduous and arguable task. Smircich(1983) noted that not only do authors rarely statetheir paradigm but, often, make the choice un-consciously. She proposed categorizing worksaccording to an author's use of metaphoricallanguage—for example, organizations are so-cial instruments, adaptive organisms, or pat-terns of symbolic discourse. Others agree (e.g.,Cannella & Paetzold, 1994; Willmott, 1993),claiming that a favored paradigm is most recog-nizable by the use of terms, such as JmowJedge,discourse, and praxis, that imply all readers willhold a shared meaning.

Next, discovering transition zones betweenparadigms helps theorists critique the bound-aries of their brackets and recognize the poten-tial complementarity of paradigm lenses (Gioia& Pitre, 1990). In exemplars scholars most oftenexplore links between objective- and subjective-oriented paradigms. For instance, structuration(e.g.. Weaver & Gioia, 1994) and constructivist(e.g., Kaghan & Phillips, 1998) theories enablestudy of "objective" institutional artifacts asproducts and mediums of "subjective" socialconstruction processes. Locating such perspec-tives reveals how epistemological and method-ological assumptions exist along continua. Par-adigms may appear incommensurable at theextremes, yet interwoven at their borders. Tran-sition zone theories also suggest bridges acrossparadigms that may facilitate metatheorizing(Grimes & Rood, 1995).

Like Grint (1991), we bracketed AMT assump-tions using Burrell and Morgan's (1979) typology,because its dimensions reflect heated technol-ogy debates. Resulting brackets, illustrated inFigure 1, sharpened the focus of each paradigmlens by characterizing their varied views of AMTand its implementation, key research issues,and prevailing theories. This review clarifiedhow most studies emphasize deterministic con-straints on AMT implementation or fluid pro-cesses of sensemaking by polarizing assump-tions of objectivity and subjectivity, and stressthe deskilling or skill upgrading potential ofAMT by segregating radical change and regu-lation assumptions, respectively.

We then explored paradigm transition zones.For instance, structuration theory (bridgingfunctionalist-interpretivist views) suggests thatactors work through extant work roles and tech-nologies as they attach meanings to a new AMT,

contributing to ongoing changes in their socialconstruction (e.g., Roberts & Grabowski, 1996).Similarly, in radical labor process theory (bridg-ing radical structuralist-radical humanistviews) scholars posit that actors' ideologies andrhetoric may prejudice meanings of AMT, whilereified institutional artifacts (e.g., structure andauthority) reinforce extant ideologies and rheto-ric (e.g., Willmott, 1993). Recognizing suchbridges helped us question our fictitious para-digm borders and recognize complementary in-sights during later theory building.

Collect metatheoretical sample. As in tradi-tional induction strategies (e.g., Eisenhardt,1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), data serve as em-pirical referents, pulling the theorist and theresulting theory closer to the phenomenon ofinterest than is possible with extant literaturealone. Yet, choosing a source of data for mul-tiparadigm inquiry is controversial, since thequestion of what constitutes data is paradigmladen (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Managing this di-lemma requires collecting a metatheoreticalsample: data interpretable from multiple-paradigm perspectives. Although in some exem-plars researchers collect different data for usewith each lens (e.g., Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Has-sard, 1991), using a common data source facili-tates comparisons and theory building (Ybema,1996). From a metalevel; theorists may view dataas representations of an empirical reality devel-oped for a purpose/audience and amenable tointerpretation/analysis (Stablein, 1996). For ex-ample, Bradshaw-Camball and Murray (1991),Martin (1992), and Graham-Hill (1996) collectedextensive and unstructured interview data,which could then be analyzed through divergentlenses.

We sought data that would enable us to ex-amine AMT implementation across diverse con-texts and apply varied analytical lenses, choos-ing a fairly unique source: existing case studies.Case studies have undergone a resurgenceacross paradigms over the past two decades, sothey offer a potentially abundant, insightful,and rarely tapped source of metadata (Stablein,1996). In the field of AMT, case studies havebecome the "predominant mode of inquiry"(Dean et al., 1992: 204). While examining extantcases had the obvious disadvantage of increas-ing our distance from original fieldwork andlocal actors, it offered us the opportunity to ex-plore disparate interpretations of case authors


FIGURE 1Bracketed Paradigms of Advanced Manufacturing Technology"

uS

••Ba

"aD)

Radical Humanist

AMT: Vehicle for communicativedistortion

Implementation: Process of negotiatingrhetoric, identities, and understandingsrelated to AMT work

Key issues: Why do actors often use andreinforce dominant ideologies and existingprejudices? How can actors negotiate moredemocratic understandings of AMT?

Theories: Critical and antiorganizationtheories

Interpretivist

AMT: Ongoing construction of inter-subjective experiences

Implementation: Process of sensemakingand learning as actors use and experienceAMT

Key issues: How do actors develop sharedunderstandings of AMT? How do culturalnorms, myths, and symbols influenceinterpretations?

Theories: Social construction andsymbolic interactionist theories

Radical Structuralist

AMT: Tool for labor domination andcontrol

Implementation: Process of social andpolitical determinism, driven by politicalinterests and class differences

Key issues: How does the design of AMTmachinery and tasks further rationalizeand deskill operator work and reinforceexisting power asymmetries within theorganization?

Theories: Orthodox labor process(Marxian); radical Weberian theories

Functionalist

AMT: Production system for enhancingefficiency and adaptability

Implementation: Process of technologicaldeterminism, constrained by competitiveand organizational conditions

Key issues: How do differing AMT designspecifications impact production controland flexibility? What methods fostereffective implementation?

Theories: Contingency, systems, andtraditional engineering theories

Subjective

° Adapted from Burrell and Morgan (1979).

-Objective

as well as quoted actors across numerous organ-izational settings.

We began by seeking a large and eclecticpool of relevant cases. Broadly defining a case(i.e., a comprehensive study of AMT implemen-tation within a specific context) and using di-verse case sources suggested by our multipara-digm review (e.g., management, engineering,sociology, and anthropology journals, as well asteaching cases, research monographs, and un-published papers) helped us locate over 100

case studies. We then theoretically selected 20cases for detailed analysis. Following Eisen-hardt's (1989) suggestions, we chose cases thataccented extremes (e.g., highly automated ver-sus labor-intensive AMTs) and remained open tointerpretation (e.g., provided elaborate descrip-tions and extensive quotations from local actors)to foster creative theorizing. However, we alsoexpanded Eisenhardt's criteria to aid multipara-digm analyses. We sought cases representativeof each of the four paradigm lenses to contrast


case authors' differing research interests, meth-ods, and rhetoric (see Lewis, 1996, for a completelist of collected cases).

Phase II: Data Analysis

To translate a theory of worldview into one's ownlanguage is not to make it one's own. For that onemust go native, discover that one is thinking in,not merely translating out of, a language thatwas previously foreign (Kuhn, 1970: 204).

Like many theory-building strategies, a sub-stantial phase of metatriangulation revolvesaround data analysis. In multiparadigm inquiry,however, the "analytic detective work" (Mintz-berg, 1979) required for traditional inductionalso requires magnification of paradigm dis-tinctions, while avoiding oversimplified inter-pretations. Phase II applies techniques that helptheorists immerse themselves within alternativeparadigms, track down patterns in the data, andcreate contrasting accounts of the phenomenonof interest (see Table 2). Embracing "foreign"paradigms serves two primary purposes. First, itmay deepen theorists' understanding as theylearn experientially the observational focus, an-alytical methods, and writing styles of each par-adigm. Second, resulting accounts may aidmetaparadigm theory building by enabling the-orists to juxtapose paradigm interpretations of acommon empirical referent (Reed, 1997). As Mar-tin notes, by cultivating conflicting images the-orists may explore "unstated assumptions in or-der to explain why disagreements among . . .perspectives are so deep, vehement, and pro-ductive" (1992: 5).

Plan paradigm itinerary. Eisenhardt (1989)claimed that using a systematic series of anal-yses helps theorists manage their limited infor-mation-processing capabilities. Similarly, fol-lowing an itinerary (i.e., a planned order ofparadigm analyses) may enhance the journeythrough multiple paradigms. Regardless of how"parallel" theorists attempt to keep their induc-tive efforts, insights from previous paradigmaticanalyses will exert some influence on lateranalyses. An itinerary may heighten theorists'awareness of such influence and enable them tobetter balance contrasting images. Hassard(1991) suggested that theorists' specific interestsshould guide their choice of itinerary. For in-stance, in some exemplars scholars have trav-eled from objective to subjective paradigms.

seeking first broad and generalizable overviewsand then more detailed and localized meaningsof the phenomenon of interest (e.g., Gioia et al.,1989; Graham-Hill, 1996). Others have used afunctionalist lens to highlight formal, manage-rialist understandings, followed by more criticalviews to expose fragmentation and conflict (e.g.,Bradshaw-Camball & Murray, 1991; Martin,1992).

We chose our itinerary—functionalist to radi-cal structuralist to interpretivist to radical hu-manist—for two reasons. First, we felt this routewould intensify our own learning experiences,for it reflected a movement progressively awayfrom the comfort of the primary investigator's"home" perspective and the dominant AMT par-adigm (functionalist) toward its antithesis (rad-ical humanist). Second, we sought progressively"deeper" and contrasting images of AMT. Func-tionalist analyses addressed the nature of tech-nical and social systems, while radical structur-alist analyses critiqued their impact onoperators' skills and power. In the subjectiveparadigms we viewed descriptions of observ-able properties and behaviors as "entry points"into more latent social construction processes.Interpretivist analyses accented cultural normsinfluencing shared meanings, whereas radicalhumanist analyses critiqued their legitimacyand actors' roles in their maintenance. The dis-parity of each lens helped unfreeze and loosenour initial assumptions, fostering more creativeinsights as we continuously elaborated andquestioned previous analyses.

Conduct multiparadigm coding. According toGlaser and Strauss (1967), coding entails break-ing down, interpreting, and conceptualizingdata. Theoretical sensitivity is vital, for theo-rists' assumptions foster insights and biases.Approaching analysis with diverse questions inmind may help theorists open the data and"see" with greater analytical depth. Multipara-digm inquiry modifies and intensifies the role oftheoretical sensitivity. Paradigm lenses suggestopposing research issues and reveal varied in-terpretations of the data. Yet, conflicting as-sumptions preclude use of a common analyticalapproach, requiring theorists to apply respec-tive paradigm methods (Gioia & Pitre, 1990, andGuba & Lincoln, 1998, review varied methods).

Multiparadigm coding is typically a two-partprocess: theorists become intimate with andthen impose alternative spins on the data. In the


initial analysis, taking detailed notes helps the-orists develop their first impressions of nuancesand patterns in the data. Theorists then followtheir paradigm itinerary, "reading" the datathrough each lens (Morgan, 1983). Their interpre-tations become a combination of what they al-ready know, what they read, and which lensthey bring to the analysis, thereby enabling con-struction of the differing insights enabled byeach paradigm. Recoding the data during eachsubsequent analysis concentrates efforts to de-tail and contrast understandings of emergingthemes.

Exemplars depict variations of this activity.Graham-Hill (1996) analyzed his data using al-ternative case-building methods, which rangedfrom conventional approaches (e.g., Yin, 1989) todramatism (e.g., Mangham & Overington, 1983).Martin (1992) used a different technique, apply-ing her three lenses as sensitizing devices toexpose multiple meanings of an organizationalculture. She coded actors' quotes that depictedperceptions of a clear, unified culture as "inte-gration;" of varied subcultural views as "differ-entiation;" and of conflicting feelings and ambi-guity as "fragmentation."

In our study multiparadigm coding proved adata- and mind-opening experience. Paradigmbrackets suggested key issues to aid and differ-entiate analyses (see Figure 1). We also beganeach paradigm analysis by coding cases writtenfrom the same perspective, using case authors'focus, language, and methods to guide our cod-ing of remaining cases. Functionalist codingentailed comparative and causal analyses ofsurface manifestations (e.g., managerial expla-nations and AMT design specifications) to con-verge on generalizable constructs and relation-ships (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989). In the radicalstructuralist paradigm, we used dialectical cy-cles of observation and critique (e.g., Benson,1977) to reveal how labor-control capabilities ofAMT were reinforced by interrelated institu-tional artifacts (e.g., organizational structure)and wider socioeconomic structures (e.g., socialclasses). Interpretivist analyses involved codinglanguage and symbols to depict actors' sense-making processes (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989).Hermeneutic techniques helped us identifymeanings shared by subcultural members re-garding AMT and work-related roles. Lastly, forradical humanism, we analyzed hegemonic ide-ologies and meanings (e.g., Steffy & Grimes,

1986). Critically reinterpreting cases and our ac-cumulated notes, we coded deterministic, mas-culine, and managerially sympathetic dis-courses to expose prejudiced rhetoric used byorganizational actors, case authors, and our-selves. Multiparadigm analyses produced foursets of codings, each addressing distinct yet in-terwoven facets of the cases: conceptualizationsof AMT and problematic implementation pro-cesses.

Write paradigm accounts. In tabulating or ex-hibiting results of data analyses, researchersorganize evidence to aid traditional induction(Eisenhardt, 1989; Mintzberg, 1979). Metatriangu-lation expands this activity, as theorists usecodings to write distinct accounts of the phe-nomenon of interest. Writing serves three pur-poses. First, it inscribes paradigmatic under-standings into cohesive representations,helping theorists manage the diverse insightsenabled by multiparadigm analyses. Second,writing may deepen theorists' understandingsas they experience paradigm language-in-use.Comparing each account to respective para-digm literature may help theorists ensure thatrepresentations proliferate rather than subju-gate or homogenize paradigm differences.Third, by writing after completing analyses, the-orists may focus accounts on themes that spanparadigms to emphasize conflicting images andaid metatheorizing. Martin (1992), for instance,illustrated how divergent lenses fostered differ-ent perceptions of an organization's three cul-tural themes: egalitarianism, innovation, andconcern for employees' well-being. Similarly,Bradshaw-Camball and Murray's (1991) ac-counts each depict a coherent yet limited under-standing by addressing varied issues regardingthe structure, process, and outcomes of organi-zational politics.

We concentrated our accounts on the theme oftensions. Across case studies, opposing de-mands, interests, and perceptions frustratedAMT implementation. Yet, paradigm lenses re-vealed differing conflicts and vicious cycles.Comparing findings from our data analyses toextant paradigmatic literature helped us honeeach account and detail the variations in para-digm insights. An abbreviated reading of theresulting accounts (see the Appendix) showseach as providing an equally plausible, inter-nally consistent, but partial representation,highlighting the need for a more comprehensive


understanding of the complex and disruptivenature of AMT.

Phase III: Theory Building

We stand in a turmoil of contradictions.... Para-dox lives and moves in this realm; it is the art ofbalancing opposites in such a way that they donot cancel each other but shoot sparks of lightacross their points of polarity. It looks at our des-perate either/ors and tells us they are really both/ands—that life is larger than any of our conceptsand can, if we let it, embrace our contradictions(Mary C. Morrison, in Smith & Berg, 1987: 3).

Building theory from data requires theorists tomake "creative leaps"—to break away from thesimplified and expected and explain phenom-ena in new light (Mintzberg, 1979: 584). Yet, inmetatriangulation leaps are to a level aboveand beyond paradigms, for when "one abstractshighly, enough, the differences between en-trenched research practices blur, revealing thecontours of the research landscape" (Stablein,1996: 510). Multiparadigm analyses support andelaborate disparate views, adding depth to the-orists' understandings of the phenomenon andthe paradigms used. Building theory, however,requires theorists to transcend paradigm dual-isms and to think paradoxically: to consider con-flicting views simultaneously. Metaparadigmtechniques help theorists explore metaconjec-tures, attain a metaparadigm perspective, andarticulate their self-reflection (see Table 2).

Explore metaconjectures. Exploring metacon-jectures heeds and extends Weick's (1989) callfor theorists to conduct numerous and diversemental experiments. Metaconjectures denotepropositions interpretable from multiple para-digms. Theorists iterate between reviewed liter-ature, their multiparadigm analyses, and theirown intuition to explore divergent views ofthemes that span paradigm accounts. Exem-plars suggest two techniques that may help the-orists develop and "test" metaconjectures. First,conjecture inversion entails reframing a broadquestion within multiple paradigms (Gioia &Pitre, 1990). Looking for what is unexpected orunanswered in paradigm accounts, theoristsmay examine how aspects of a situation areviewed as an anomaly or explained through al-ternative lenses. Second, conversation tech-niques help theorists probe paradigm debatesand discover creative means to justify contradic-tions (Grimes & Rood, 1995). By juxtaposing par-

adigmatic insights, discrepant explanationsmay appear to be interrelated yet address var-ied temporal and spatial facets of the phenom-enon (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989).

We used conjecture inversion to investigatewhy tensions rise during AMT implementation.We asked, "Why do conflicting demands (func-tionalist), political interests (radical structural-ist), interpretive schemes (interpretivist), and so-cial identities (radical humanist) intensify andinhibit change?" Paradigm lenses revealed howthe flexibility and ambiguity of computerizationexacerbate existing tensions, yet they sug-gested that inertial constraints, power asymme-tries, subcultural norms, or communicative dis-tortions, respectively, frustrate more innovatedesigns and mutual understandings of AMT.Conversation techniques then helped us ac-count for such discrepancies. Besides using hy-pothetical conversations, we purposefully en-gaged in debates among ourselves, since wewere grounded in opposing paradigms, andwith other theorists attuned to paradigms withwhich we were less familiar. We came to viewparadigms as embracing different spatial andtemporal dimensions.

Examining AMT from differing "spaces" (ametaphor for hierarchy and divergent occupa-tional interests) aided our understanding of theskill upgrading-deskilling debate. Those withregulation views voiced managerial concerns,noting the new routines and greater conceptualskills needed for operators and designers towork through computerization, and those withradical views stressed labor interests, exposingcontrol mechanisms and dominant ideologiesthat reinforce extant power relations. Variedtemporal perspectives (a metaphor for structureand enactment processes) suggested stable, ob-servable properties and more latent cognitiveand social dynamics. Objective lenses revealedthe constraints of material artifacts and institu-tionalized practices, and subjective views indi-cated the flux of ongoing sensemaking. Thus,the four accounts summarized in the Appendix,in conjunction, appeared necessary to compre-hend the intricate and disruptive nature of AMTimplementation.

Attain a metaparadigm perspective. Tradi-tional inductive theory provides an ordered setof assertions regarding the phenomenon of in-terest, both grounded in specific data and suffi-ciently abstract to enable generalizability (Gla-


ser & Strauss, 1967). Multiparadigm inquirybroadens conventional, definitions of theory todenote a coherent understanding capable of ac-commodating diverse representations (Gioia &Pitre, 1990). Theorists seek a metaparadigm per-spective from which they may recognize the in-terplay of conflicting yet interdependent para-digm insights. In exemplars scholars adviseapplying an inclusive theoretical stance, frame-work, or concept that may serve as a "point ofcontact" across paradigms. For instance, Schultzand Hatch (1996) suggested employing a post-modern view to recognize the disparity and sim-ilarity of essentially modern paradigms. Reed(1997) advocated building a multidimensionalframework, and Bouchikhi (1998) proposed usingdialectics and paradox to contribute a rich, thickunderstanding of the phenomenon of interest.

Existing metaparadigm theories illustrate theuse and value of such techniques. For example,Gaventa (1980) sought to explain why coal min-ers in an Appalachian town remained silent,rather than resisted unsafe and demoralizingwork conditions. Applying Lukes' (1974) threelenses, he detailed varied dimensions of powerand their mechanisms of control: behavioral(e.g., attempts at interpersonal influence andcurrent supervisory practices), structural (e.g.,labor contracts and institutionalized divisions oflabor), and ideological (e.g., dominant dis-courses and assumptions). Gaventa, however,transcended Luke's distinctions, linking thesecontrol mechanisms to explain how the subtleinteractions of dimensions preserve quiescence.While managers mobilize resources to ensurethat infrequent uses of miners' power are inef-fective, formalized contracts and practicesmaintain power asymmetries, and ongoing usesof the hegemonic rhetoric of consensus influ-ence miners' preferences and reduce their polit-ical consciousness. The result is an elaborateand contextualized vision of power as observ-able, embedded, and continuously reproduced.

Ybema (1996) used Martin's (1992) divergentintegration and differentiation lenses to movebeyond discrepant paradigm accounts toward ametaparadigm theory of organizational cohe-sion and division. Examining a small, Dutchamusement park with the integration lens,Ybema revealed a strong organizational culturemarked by shared myths and coUegiality; thedifferentiation lens exposed group distinctionsand practices of malicious gossiping. Ybema

creatively accounted for these contradictions intwo ways. First, he conceptualized cultural man-ifestations as mediums through which mixedmeanings can be expressed. For instance, sto-ries of the organization's traditions and achieve-ments fostered a common sense of pride andsolidarity. Yet, "old timers" used the stories toromanticize the past and their roles in companyhistory, bolstering their social identities anddistinctions from the "new professionals" invad-

. ing management. Second, using a dramaturgi-cal metaphor, Ybema viewed lenses as lightingdiffering stages on which social interactions areplayed. By banishing overt signs of conflict, cul-tural norms encouraged openness and amica-bility "on stage" (e.g., in meetings and hallways)and pushed animosities "off-stage" (e.g., to con-versations behind closed doors). Paradoxically,such separate shows became inversions of eachother. Public displays upheld norms of agree-ment and cohesion, and private gossiping rein-forced feelings of within-group intimacy andbetween-group discord.

To accommodate divergent views of AMT ten-sions, we applied the notion of paradox. Para-doxes denote social constructions, formed asactors polarize interrelated phenomena to com-prehend uncertainty and complexity. Yet, polar-ities may become reified over time, inhibitingactors from recognizing and managing their in-terplay (Bouchikhi, 1998). During AMT imple-mentation, dramatic changes in computeriza-tion revealed the inadequacies of existingpolarities, such as artificial distinctions be-tween demands for control and flexibility or be-tween the expertise of AMT designers and oper-ators. Such revelations appeared capable offostering innovation and enlightenment, as wellas rigidity and domination. Some cases demon-strated the value of rethinking assumptions re-garding technology and work, negotiating moredemocratic roles in production, and experiment-ing with creative AMT designs and organization-al structures. More often, though, actors clung topast polarities, fueling vicious cycles. Uses ofextant ideologies, practices, and institutionalartifacts sparked negative consequences thatfurther intensified actors' desires for order andsimplicity. For example, designers typicallyviewed AMT as an opportunity to bolster theircontrol over production and labor. Yet, limitingoperator involvement in the implementationprocess, stressing the "power" of computers, and


formalizing operator tasks resulted in highlycentralized systems that separated program-ming from execution and proved unwieldy inuse. Meanwhile, operators sought to retain con-trol over their craft. However, emphasizing themasculinity of their manual skills and theirwariness of computerization and managementintentions inhibited operators from developinggreater conceptual skills and arguing for moreinfluential roles in implementation.

Weaving together paradigm accounts, we the-orized the interplay of objectivity (e.g., formalAMT designs and engrained divisions of labor)and subjectivity (e.g., fluid processes of sense-making and identity construction). While regu-lation stances focus on common routines andenact cohesive occupational subcultures, radi-cal stances critique subtle mechanisms of con-trol and expose continuing distortions of exper-tise that may subvert attempts at more opencommunications across levels of the organiza-tional hierarchy.

Articulate critical self-reflection. Metatriangu-lation concludes with a critique of the resultingtheory and the theory-building process. Whenassessing the quality of a theory, theorists findthat traditional criteria—validity and internalconsistency (Eisenhardt, 1989)—are incongruouswith alternative paradigms, since they focus onreducing ambiguity and diversity (Morgan,1983). To respect varied paradigm objectives,metatriangulation involves expanded criteria:creativity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Acreative theory contributes thought-provokingmeans of considering divergent perspectives,while relevance depends upon its potential toencourage interparadigm discourse and to en-hance correspondence between theory and mul-tifaceted organizational reality (Poole & Van deVen, 1989). With metatriangulation scholarsstrive not to find the truth but to discover com-prehensiveness stemming from diverse and par-tial worldviews (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Ideally,metaparadigm theory both accommodates andchallenges opposing paradigm insights, and itreflects the ambiguity, complexity, and conflictsexperienced by organizational actors.

Nevertheless, such results present a particu-lar—albeit a more expansive and inclusive—view. Critical self-reflection may help theoristsavoid promoting closure within the confines ofparadigm brackets or a metaparadigm theoryand appraise the influence of their personal in-

terests on the inductive process (Willmott, 1993).In some multiparadigm exemplars, theorists ap-ply postmodern notions to critique their use ofexisting paradigms (e.g., Hassard, 1991; Martin,1992). Others keep "field notes" to continuouslyreflect on the impact of their paradigmatic bi-ases and to present tentative findings to theirresearch subjects to reach congruence on mean-ing (e.g., Graham-Hill, 1996).

In the AMT study, tracking our emerging per-ceptions helped us to remain acutely awareof paradoxes occurring in our own work. Forexample, one author realized that her theoreti-cal predilections, emanating from a primarilyfunctionalist background, were enhancing andfrustrating her insights. As she ventured furtherfrom her home paradigm, she increasingly no-ticed ideological conflicts between paradigmsand social tensions apparent in colleagues' con-cerns about her "radical" and "risky" research,threatening to guide her back to the functional-ist mainstream. Managing this paradox becamean ongoing, self-reflective effort, as she wouldscrutinize her notes, the alternative paradigmaccounts, and the metaparadigm theory formanagerially biased rhetoric. In retrospect,such experiences became interwoven within thetheory-building process, deepening our appreci-ation of the value and challenges of multipara-digm inquiry.

THEORY-BUILDING IMPLICATIONS

Metatriangulation is not a substitute for sin-gle-paradigm theory building but, rather, an al-ternative for exploring complex phenomenafrom disparate theoretical and epistemologicalperspectives. Indeed, we view this process as anextension of traditional strategies aimed at en-hancing the potential insights available fromexisting literature, data, and theorists' intuition.Metatriangulation follows many of Weick's(1989) prescriptions for building theory using"disciplined imagination," deliberately and dra-matically increasing the quantity and diversityof literature reviewed, of analytical methodsused, and of conjectures examined. To furtherarray metatriangulation among extant strate-gies, we conclude by discussing its advantages,limitations, and future applications.


Advantages

We propose that metatriangulation may guidetheorists in epistemological and substantive di-rections. Epistemologically, this theory-buildingstrategy may direct attention to the impact of(1) theorists' interests on their choice of researchparadigms, methods, and topics (Habermas,1971); (2) epistemology on substantive theorybuilding, since the latter is a derivative of theformer; and (3) power on the creation of knowl-edge (Foucault, 1980). Exploring "foreign" para-digms offers theorists a potentially frame-breaking experience. By making assumptionsand the learning process explicit, metatriangu-lation may help theorists gain an appreciationof possible knowledge and reduce their commit-ment to a favored and provincial point of view.Theorists may recognize that theory building isnot solely a methodical, rule-bound process butalso an ideological, political, and moral en-gagement through which they make and remakethemselves (Morgan, 1983).

Substantively, metatriangulation facilitates ashift from provincial toward more rich, contex-tualized, and multidimensional theory. Grap-pling with theoretical contradictions may en-able theorists to build theory more attuned tothe intricacy and paradoxes of organizationallife (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Teunissen, 1996).Multiparadigm approaches help theorists matchthe requisite variety of organization theory andinvestigate the diversity experienced (or con-structed) by organizational actors (Schultz &Hatch, 1996). Bouchikhi (1998) has claimed thatby deploying multiple paradigms, theorists mayhelp organizational actors comprehend andmanage demands that appear logical in isola-tion, yet contradictory and absurd in connec-tion—for example, the need for control and flex-ibility, collective coordination and individualexpression, secure internal systems and openexternal systems, continuity and change, anddeliberate decision making and emergent ser-endipity.

The resulting metaparadigm theory may—ifsubsequent research, theorizing, and scholarlydiscourse support its plausibility—offer a tem-plate for extended theory/research. Future mul-tiparadigm inquiry may retain concerns for or-ganizational efficacy, yet critique institutionalartifacts and reflect local meanings, "thicken-ing" descriptions to more fully represent subtle

technological, social, and political intricacies.In exploring divergent views, theory and schol-arly debate may become more complex and pro-ductive, muting objectivity-subjectivity dual-isms and contributing insights for diverseorganizational actors rather than prescriptionsfor their control by elites. Substantive knowl-edge produced from such efforts may be contex-tualized by local meanings and the paradigmsexplored, yet researchers' reflections on thebounds of their methods and understandingsmay become more abundant, candid, and legit-imate.

Limitations

While theory building is always a process ofsensemaking, influenced by theorists' underly-ing assumptions (Weick, 1989), the inherentlyprovocative nature of multiparadigm inquiry re-volves around the question "Can you ever es-cape your current or home paradigm?" Althoughthis issue may continue to be contested, meta-triangulation pulls together existing multipara-digm approaches to help theorists recognizeand address this challenge at every phase of thetheory-building process.

The initial groundwork phase requires theo-rists to make their paradigmatic assumptionsexplicit. Yet, critics warn that paradigm brack-eting may reproduce the very dualisms its seeksto transcend (e.g., Deetz, 1996). To avoid reifyingparadigm boundaries in metatriangulation, the-orists must critique the biases of each lens andlocate transition zone perspectives. Bracketsshould be viewed as valuable, albeit fictitious,heuristics for distinguishing disparate views,permitting a greater breadth of understandingthan possible within the bounds of a single par-adigm. The goal, as Morgan explains, is to

move beyond reproduction of the differences thatdivide us to an appreciation of why we are di-vided. In doing so, we arrive at the only powerfulmeans of assessing the nature and limitations ofresearch practice—by acquiring a capacity forknowing what we are doing, why we are doing it,and how we might do it differently if we sochoose" (1983: 382).

Nevertheless, theorists must constantly questionthe limits of their chosen lenses and whethertheir efforts foster paradigm proliferation or te-nacity (Feyerabend, 1979).


The data analysis phase requires theorists toimmerse themselves within each paradigm.Critics, however, challenge the very possibilityof embracing other perspectives, noting the po-tential for ethnocentric bias—contamination ofparadigm accounts from the theorists' home cul-ture (e.g., Deetz, 1996). Parker and McHugh (1991)suggested that a more realistic approach is be-having "as if" you are a member of a paradigmcommunity. Conducting separate paradigmanalyses helps respect the interests and as-sumptions of alternative research communities(Hassard, 1991). Resulting accounts may thenserve as representations—images of an empiri-cal reality sharpened by divergent lenses—tohelp theorists comprehend the varied insightsand interpretations across paradigms, for, aswith anthropological methods, theorists may be-come steeped in less familiar or even foreignparadigm cultures, but they seldom ever be-come part of them.

The theory-building phase requires attaininga metaparadigm perspective; however, this goalis equally provocative. Critics (e.g., Parker &McHugh, 1991; Scherer, 1998) ask, "Where does atheorist 'stand' when viewing paradigm repre-sentations simultaneously?" In some exemplarsresearchers see this phase as an exercise inparadoxical thinking, pushing theorists to rec-ognize the complementarity and disparity ofparadigm lenses (e.g., Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Poole& Van de Ven, 1989; Ybema, 1996). From thisalternative realm of abstraction, each paradigmis seen as contributing a layer of meaning. Par-adigm lenses provide varied "puzzle-solving de-vices that bridge the gap between the image ofthe phenomena and the phenomena itself" (Mor-gan, 1983: 21). Critical self-reflection aids recog-nition of both the theorist and theorized as partof a whole, as metatriangulation explores andcritiques the process of knowledge creation,while promising a greater explanatory poten-tial.

Future Applications

As we mentioned earlier, metatriangulation isparticularly appropriate for investigating vi-brant and vast domains of organization theory,marked by continuing debates and/or contradic-tory findings. For instance, Gioia and Pitre (1990)proposed applying metatriangulation to explorecommunication and socialization, and Schultz

and Hatch (1996) suggested examining issues oforganizational identity, learning, and cognition.During our study, we recognized heated debatesin domains of other organizational technologies,such as self-managed work teams, total qualitymanagement, and just-in-time inventory prac-tices, indicative of possible research phenom-ena. Our paradigm lenses also provided highlyvaried images of broader issues of trust, author-ity, and control. As Teunissen (1996) claims,drastic changes in technology, workforce diver-sity, competition, and globalization are spark-ing the use of alternative lenses and increasingthe need for understandings that accommodate,rather than oversimplify or overrationalize, or-ganizational tensions.

Calls for a return to an intellectual ortho-doxy—a common, coherent, and hegemonic par-adigm (e.g., Donaldson, 1985; Pfeffer, 1997)—orcontinued paradigm proliferation and polariza-tion—a postmodern approach to unbridled rela-tivism (e.g., Feyerabend, 1975; Jackson & Carter,1993)—are increasing in organization theory's"contested terrain" (Reed, 1996). Yet, contribut-ing more insightful, innovative, and comprehen-sive theory for the new millennium may requiredeeper awareness of alternative modes of in-quiry and their intricate connections.

Multiparadigm inquiry holds considerable,and largely unmet, potential for extending ex-isting understandings of complex and paradox-ical organizational phenomena. This article pro-vides an extensive guide to multiparadigmexemplars and an explicit map for building the-ory from multiple paradigms. By imposing a sys-tematic framework on the inherently messy pro-cess of theory building, metatriangulation mayhelp theorists recognize the focus and blindersenabled by divergent paradigm lenses, culti-vate their contrasting representations, and ac-commodate their disparate insights. The result-ing experience may correspond to Popper'sprovocative yet optimistic note:

I do admit that at any moment we are prisonerscaught in the framework of our theories; our ex-pectations; our past experiences; our language.But we are prisoners in a Pickwickian sense; if wetry we can break out of our frameworks at anytime. Admittedly, we shall find ourselves againin a framework, but it will be a better and roomierone; and we can at any moment break out of itagain (Popper, 1970: 86).


APPENDIXMULTIPARADIGM ACCOUNTS: TENSIONS OFADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

Our functionalist account represented AMTdesigns as systemic interactions between taskprograms (degree of work formalization) andmachinery programs (degree of computeriza-tion) that may enhance process flexibility andcontrol. Yet, organizations struggled to meetcontradictory demands ior innovation and effi-ciency. While some experimented with creativedesigns (e.g., autonomous operator teams re-sponsible for computer programming), mostwere constrained by existing routines and log-ics. Vicious, inertial cycles appeared as actorsreacted to new AMT problems (e.g., bottlenecksand unreliable machinery) by following pastpatterns (e.g., engineers further augmented taskand machinery programs to improve processcontrol, which exacerbated system sensitivity).

Our radical structuralist account representedAMT as a technocratic mechanism enabling de-signers (managers and engineers) to objectifytheir interests within less obtrusive labor con-trols, such as computerized monitoring. AMT im-plementation typified a dialectical process fu-eled by opposing political interests. Designers'need for operator skills, yet drive to increaseexisting power asymmetries, and operators' de-sire for craft control, yet wariness of computer-ization and management intentions, often led tocrises (e.g., production accidents and resis-tance). While operators occasionally used theseopportunities to reassert the value of their skills,designers often claimed crises as excuses toexclude operators from the implementation pro-cess and further rationalize production, whichintensified conflicts.

Our interpretivist account represented localmeanings of AMT and work, emerging throughactors' experiences with AMT and each other.Actors sought to make sense of their more con-ceptual and ambiguous computerized tasks.Open communications across occupational sub-cultures occasionally aided development of newand shared languages and conceptual skills.Yet, operator and designer subcultures often fil-tered social interactions through their conflict-ing interpretive schemes. As anxiety overchanges intensified, subcultures would inter-pret production problems and each other's be-

haviors in ways that reaffirmed their occupa-tional norms and beliefs about their respectivecompetencies, furthering misunderstandingsbetween subcultures.

Our radical humanist account represented theflexibility of computerization and more homog-enized conceptual work of actors as exposingthe illegitimacy of mutually exclusive socialidentities (i.e., "operator" and "designer"). Someactors engaged in enlightening debates, nego-tiating more democratic meanings of AMT andtheir roles in its programming. Yet, more often,turf wars erupted as actors mystified their spe-cialized expertise. Designers often emphasizedtheir technical acumen and the "power" of com-puters, whereas operators stressed the value ofphysical labor and the virility of their manualskills. Cycles of communicative distortion spi-raled as actors tried to reproduce notions of su-periority and masculinity, reverting to past classand gender prejudices.

REFERENCES

Allison, G. T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the CubanMissile Crisis. Boston. Little Brown.

Alvesson, M. 1987. Consensus, control and critique: Threeparadigms of work in organization research. Aldershot,England: Avebury.

Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1983. Central perspectivesand debates in organizational theory. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 28: 245-273.

Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 22: 1-21.

Bouchikhi, H. 1998. Living with and building on complexity:A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organiza-tion, 5: 217-232.

Bradshaw-Camball, P., & Murray, V. 1991. Illusions and othergames: A trifocal view of organizational politics. Organ-ization Science, 2: 379-398.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Socioiogicai paradigms andorganizational analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Paetzold, R. L. 1994. Pfeffer's barriers tothe advance of organizational science: A rejoinder.Academy of Management Review, 19: 331-342.

Clegg, S. 1990. Modern organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

de Cock, C, Rickards, T., Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1995.A rejoinder and reply from Weaver and Gioia. Organi-zation Studies, 16: 669-676.

Dean, J. W., Jr., Yoon, S. J., & Susman, G. 1. 1992. Advancedmanufacturing technology and organization structure:Empowerment or subordination? Organization Science,3: 203-229.


Deetz, S. 1996. Describing difierences in approaches to or-ganization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan andtheir legacy. Organization Science. 7: 1991-2007.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The research act. New York: Wiley.

Donaldson, L. 1985. In defense of organization theory: A replyto the critics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14: 535-550.

Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against method. London: New LeftBooks.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Quiescence andrebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana, IL: Univer-sity oi Illinois Press.

Gioia, D. A., Donnellon, A., & Sims, H. 1989. Communicationand cognition in appraisal. Organization Studies. 10:503-529.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives ontheory building. Academy of Management Review. 15:584-602.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B., 1996. Identity image, and issueinterpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change inacademia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.

Glaser. B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of groundedtheory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Al-dine.

Graham-Hill, S. 1996. Small business strategy: A multipara-digm perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Grimes, A. J., & Rood, D. L. 1995. Beyond objectivism andrelativism: Descriptive epistemologies. In J. P. Jones III,W. Natter, & T. R. Schatzki (Eds.), Objectivity and itsother: 161-178. New York: Guilford.

Grint, K. 1991. The sociology of work: An introduction. Lon-don: Polity Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth generation evalu-ation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1998. Competing paradigms inqualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: 195-220.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Habermas, J. 1971. Towards rational society. London: Heine-mann.

Hassard, J. 1991. Multiple paradigms and organizationalanalysis. A case study. Qrganization Studies. 12: 275-299.

Jackson, N., & Carter, P. 1993. "Paradigm wars": A response toHugh Willmott. Organization Studies. 14: 721-725.

Kaghan, W., & Phillips, N. 1998. Building the Tower of Babel:Communities of practices and paradigmatic pluralismin organization studies. Organization, 5: 191-216.

Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Lee, A. S. 1991. Integrating positivist and interpretivist ap-proaches to organizational research. Organization Sci-ence, 2: 342-365.

Lewis, M. W. 1996. Advanced manufacturing technology de-sign; A multiparadigm study. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.

Mangham, 1. L., & Overington, M. A. 1983. Dramatism and thetheatrical metaphor. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method;219-233. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organization. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. An emerging strategy of "direct" re-search. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24: 582-599.

Morgan, G. (Ed.) 1983. Beyond method. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organization. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Organization. 1998. 5(2, Special Issue).

Parker, M., & McHugh, G. 1991. Five texts in search of anauthor: A response to John Hassard's "Multiple para-digms and organizational analysis." Qrganization Stud-ies. 12: 451-456.

Pfeffer, J. 1997. Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistenceof styles of theory. Qrganization Science, 6: 681-686.

Pondy, L., & Boje, D. M. 1981. Bring the mind back in. InW. Evan (Ed.), Frontiers in organization and manage-ment: 83-101. New York: Praeger.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to buildmanagement and organization theories. Academy ofManagement Review. 14: 562-578.

Popper, K. 1970. Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos& A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowl-edge: 51-58. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Reed, M. 1996. Organizational theorizing: A historically con-tested terrain. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord(Eds.), HandbooJc of organization studies: 409-423. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reed, M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinkingagency and structure in organizational analysis. Qrgan-ization Studies, 18: 21-42.

Roberts, K. H., & Grabowski, M. 1996. Organizations, technol-ogy, and structuring. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies; 409-423.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scherer, A. G. 1998. Pluralism and incommensurability instrategic management and organization theory: A prob-lem in search of a solution. Qrganization, 5: 147-168.

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. 1996. Living within multiple para-digms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizationalculture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21:529-557.

Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizationalanalysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339-358.


Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of groups. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spender, J.-C. 1998. Pluralist epistemology and the knowl-edge-based theory of the firm. Organization, 5: 233-256.

Stablein, R. 1996. Data in organization studies. In S. R. Clegg,C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbooi of organizationstudies: 509-525. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steffy, B. D., & Grimes, A. J. 1986. A critical theory of organi-zation science. Academy of Management Review, 11:322-336.

Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. 1988. Untangling the relationshipbetween displayed emotions and organizational sales:The case of convenience stores. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 31: 461-487.

Teunissen, J. 1996. Paradoxes in social science and research.In W. Koot, I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.), ConfradicJionsin context: 17-38. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms lost: Incom-mensurability vs. structurationist inquiry. OrganizationStudies, 15: 565-590.

Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagi-nation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516-531.

Willmott, H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organi-zation Studies, 14: 681-719.

Wittgenstein, L. 1963. PhiJosophicai investigations. Oxford,England: Blackwell.

Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ybema, S. 1996. A duck-billed platypus in the theory andanalysis of organizations: Combinations of consensusand dissensus. In W. Koot, I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.),Contradictions in context: 39-61. Amsterdam: Vrije Uni-versiteit.

Zey-Ferrell, M., & Aiken, M. 1981. Complex organizations:Critical perspectives. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Marianne W. Lewis received her Ph.D. in management from the University of Ken-tucky. She is currently an assistant professor of management at the University ofCincinnati. In her research she explores tensions, conflicts, and paradoxes thatimpede and enable innovation, particularly in the areas of advanced manufacturingtechnology, product development, and organization theory.

Andrew I. Grimes received his Ph.D. in management from the University of Minnesota.He is currently a professor of management and a member of the Committee for SocialTheory at the University of Kentucky. His research interests include alternative or-ganizations, power, epistemology, critical perspectives on management, and radicalorganization theory.

METATRIANGULATION: BUILDING THEORY FROM MULTIPLE …

Documents

Transcript of METATRIANGULATION: BUILDING THEORY FROM MULTIPLE …