Functionalism, Feminism and Postmodern Frameworks
Six of the frameworks in the supplied teaching source are labels and nothing more. This page separates what the source defines from what it only names, and gives you a defensible way to research the rest before you commit a chapter to one.
The full set of frameworks the source names
The supplied teaching source introduces its philosophical frameworks in two separate places, and the two lists are not the same list. The first is a single sentence of prose in the section on research philosophies. The second is the base tier of the methodological pyramid reproduced in the notes and the slide deck.
Read together, the two give you ten distinct labels. Read apart, each is missing something the other has. Neither is presented as the authoritative set, and the source never says whether they are meant to be the same set at all.
That second sentence is the one to hold on to. The source asserts that every framework on the list carries its own position on what exists and its own position on how knowledge about it is created. It then declines to say what those positions are for most of them.
The pyramid's base tier is the widest layer of the figure, sitting beneath methodology and beneath data collection method. It carries eight labels in two columns: positivism, constructionism, interpretivism and functionalism on the left; critical theory, feminism, post structuralism and post modernism on the right. The figure supplies no definitions whatsoever. The layered logic that puts philosophy at the bottom is set out in The Methodological Pyramid.
EVERY PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK NAMED IN THE SUPPLIED SOURCE
| Framework | Where the source names it | Definition in the supplied source? |
|---|---|---|
| Positivism | Prose, as one of the positions generally considered; pyramid base, left column; epistemological terminology table | Yes |
| Post-positivism | Epistemological terminology table only | Yes |
| Constructionism / constructivism | Prose (constructionism); pyramid base, left column (constructionism); terminology table (constructivist) | Yes, under two different spellings |
| Interpretivism | Prose; pyramid base, left column; terminology table (interpretive) | Yes |
| Critical inquiry | Prose, among the other frameworks; terminology table | Yes |
| Critical theory | Pyramid base, right column only | Label only |
| Functionalism | Prose, among the other frameworks; pyramid base, left column | Label only |
| Symbolic interactionism | Prose, among the other frameworks | Label only |
| Feminism | Prose, among the other frameworks; pyramid base, right column | Label only |
| Post structuralism | Pyramid base, right column only | Label only |
| Post modernism | Prose (as postmodernism); pyramid base, right column | Label only |
Spellings are the source's own. The figure prints post structuralism and post modernism as two words each; the prose prints postmodernism as one.
What the source does define, and where to read it
Five labels have a definition in the supplied material, and all five come from the same table: the epistemological terminology table in the Week 2 notes. Each has a dedicated page in this library, so they are signposted here rather than restated.
The defined positions
Positivist and post-positivist
Hypotheses tested using objectively collected factual data which, if successful, leads to scientific laws. The post-positivist row settles for hypotheses found consistent with data, establishing probable facts or laws. See Positivism and Post-Positivism.
Constructivist
People construct their own views of reality and the researcher seeks to discover this. The associated term given is social constructivism. See Constructionism and Constructivism.
Interpretive
People provide their own accounts or explanations of situations and behaviours. The associated terms run to six, including phenomenology, ethnography and symbolic interaction. See Interpretivism and Phenomenology.
Critical inquiry
Research is influenced by beliefs and values critical of the status quo in society. The associated term given is standpoint. See Critical Inquiry and Standpoint Research.
The labels the source leaves undefined
Everything else on the list is a name, a position in a figure, and nothing more. That is not a criticism of the teaching material, which is an introduction rather than a reference work. It is a constraint on what you can legitimately write while citing it.
LABELS WITHOUT A SOURCE DEFINITION
| Label | Where it appears | The closest the source comes to saying anything about it |
|---|---|---|
| Functionalism | Prose list of other frameworks; pyramid base, left column | Nothing beyond the label in either location |
| Symbolic interactionism | Prose list of other frameworks | Symbolic interaction is listed as an associated term of the interpretive position in the terminology table |
| Feminism | Prose list; pyramid base, right column | Feminist research appears as a methodology in the pyramid's middle tier, and feminist appears in the source's short list of other methodologies |
| Critical theory | Pyramid base, right column | Critical inquiry, a differently worded label, is defined in the terminology table; the relationship is not stated |
| Post structuralism | Pyramid base, right column | Nothing beyond the label |
| Post modernism | Prose list; pyramid base, right column | Nothing beyond the label |
Two tensions worth knowing before you cite the source
Symbolic interactionism sits on both sides of the line
The prose treats symbolic interactionism as a philosophical framework in its own right, listed alongside functionalism, feminism and postmodernism. The terminology table lists symbolic interaction among the associated terms of the interpretive position, next to phenomenology, ethnography, phenomenography, intersubjectivity and subjectivist.
Those two placements make different claims. One presents it as a framework standing beside interpretivism; the other presents it as a member of the interpretive family. If your work is anywhere near this territory, settle the question from the published literature rather than from the teaching notes, and read the interpretivism page in this library before you write.
Feminism appears at two tiers of the pyramid
This one is not an error. The source's reading of the figure is that philosophy sits underneath everything, methodology sits on top of philosophy, and methods sit on top of methodology. A philosophy and a methodology that share a name are therefore two different things at two different levels, not a duplicate entry.
Feminism as a fundamental philosophy
- Base tier of the pyramid, right column
- Named in the prose list of other philosophical frameworks used in social science research
- Carries, by the source's own assertion, particular ontological and epistemological standpoints
- Those standpoints are never stated
Feminist research as a methodology
- Middle tier of the pyramid, right column
- Also appears as feminist in the source's note that other methodologies may include ethnogeny, feminist and cultural
- Sits alongside survey, case study, ethnography, grounded theory and the rest of the methodology tier
- No definition is given at either tier
What the source does not do is explain how the philosophy produces the methodology. That relationship is the whole point of the figure, and it is exactly the part left blank. The seven methodologies the source actually defines, with their qualitative and quantitative labels, are compared in Research Methodologies: An Overview.
How to investigate a framework the source does not define
A defensible route from label to framework
Take the label to a cited methods text, not to the teaching notes
The works listed in the references below are the ones the supplied source itself cites, and the general social research methods texts among them are broad enough to carry entries on the major frameworks. Whatever definition you end up using, cite the book. A definition attributed to a slide deck will not survive examination.
Read for the ontology and the epistemology separately
The source's claim is that each framework carries both. So put two questions to whatever you read: what does this framework assume exists, and how does it hold that knowledge about it is created. Those are the questions handled in Ontology and Epistemology.
Find the framework doing actual work in your own field
Search the significant papers in project management for the label. You are looking for studies that name the framework and then visibly design against it, not studies that mention it once in a literature review. If you cannot find any in your field, that is information.
Note which methodologies travel with it
In the pyramid, methodology sits directly on top of philosophy. A framework that is genuinely operating will show up as a consistent cluster of methodologies and data collection methods in the papers that adopt it. Write that cluster down; it is the shortlist you will choose your own methodology from.
Test it against the organisational context
The source states that the philosophical framework adopted by a project reflects the organisational context in which it is undertaken. A framework that your sponsoring organisation cannot recognise in your questions or your reporting will make the work harder to land, and harder to act on when it is finished.
Take it to your supervisor before you write the chapter
This is the source's instruction, and it is cheap. A ten minute conversation before you commit is worth more than a rewritten methodology chapter after a steering committee has read it.
Should you adopt an undefined framework?
What your methodology chapter has to carry
Before the framework goes into your write-up
- The framework is named in one sentence, in your own words, with a citation to a published methods text rather than to teaching material.
- The ontological standpoint you are adopting is stated: what you are treating as real and knowable in your study.
- The epistemological standpoint is stated: how you hold that knowledge about it is created, and what that makes valid evidence.
- Your methodology is shown to follow from that standpoint, not merely to sit next to it in the same chapter.
- Each data collection method is justified against the same standpoint, so the chain from philosophy to method holds end to end.
- Where the supplied teaching material is your only source for a label, you say so explicitly and go to the published literature for the substance.
- You can answer, out loud and without notes, why a reader who holds a different framework would still accept your findings as evidence.
Common mistakes with the undefined frameworks
The honest position on this material is easy to state and easy to defend. The supplied source names a wider field of philosophical frameworks than it explains, and it is transparent about doing so. Your job is to work within that limit rather than paper over it, which means going to the published literature for anything past the five defined positions. Where that leaves your own project is a question of theoretical perspective, and the source's chain of embedding runs from your ontological and epistemological assumptions through that perspective into the methodology you finally adopt.
What to carry forward
- Nine frameworks are named across the prose and the pyramid; five are defined, and the rest are labels with no definition in the supplied material.
- The source asserts that every framework carries particular ontological and epistemological standpoints, then leaves those standpoints unstated for the undefined ones.
- Symbolic interactionism is presented as a framework in the prose and as an associated term of interpretivism in the table. Settle that from the literature, not the notes.
- Feminism appears as a philosophy in the base tier and as a methodology in the middle tier. Two levels, one name, no stated relationship.
- To adopt an undefined framework: define it from a published methods text, find it working in your own field's significant papers, check it against your organisational context, and clear it with your supervisor first.
Frequently asked questions
Does the supplied teaching source define functionalism?
No. Functionalism is named twice, once in the prose list of other philosophical frameworks used in social science research and once in the left column of the pyramid's base tier, and it is not defined in either place. Any definition you use must come from a published methods text and be cited to it.
Is symbolic interactionism a philosophy or a type of interpretivism?
The supplied source does both. Its prose lists symbolic interactionism as a philosophical framework in its own right, while its epistemological terminology table lists symbolic interaction among the associated terms of the interpretive position. The source never reconciles the two placements, so resolve it from the published literature before you build a methodology chapter on either reading.
Why does feminism appear twice in the methodological pyramid?
Feminism appears in the base tier as a fundamental philosophy and feminist research appears in the middle tier as a research methodology. Under the source's own reading of the figure these are two different levels rather than a duplicate, since methodology sits on top of philosophy. What the source does not supply is any account of how the philosophy generates the methodology.
Can I use postmodernism as the framework for a project management research project?
Nothing in the source rules it out, but the source gives you no material to justify it with. You would need to define the framework from published methods literature, show it operating in significant papers in your own field, and demonstrate that it fits the purpose and focus of your research and the organisational context you are working in.
What is the difference between critical theory and critical inquiry in the source?
Critical inquiry appears in the prose and in the epistemological terminology table, where it is defined as research influenced by beliefs and values critical of the status quo in society, with standpoint as its associated term. Critical theory appears only as a label in the pyramid's base tier. The source never states whether the two labels refer to the same thing.
How many philosophical frameworks does the pyramid list?
Eight, arranged in two columns of four: positivism, constructionism, interpretivism and functionalism on the left; critical theory, feminism, post structuralism and post modernism on the right. The prose adds symbolic interactionism, which does not appear in the figure, bringing the combined total to nine.
References and source attribution
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing. (Chapter 1, p. 50 — the source of the methodological pyramid reproduced in the teaching material.)
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- O'Leary, Z. 2017, The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London.
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge.
- The supplied teaching source: Week 2 study notes and slide deck on introduction to research methods, including the epistemological terminology table and the methodological pyramid figure.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Which philosophical frameworks does the supplied source define, and which are labels only?
- How do I write a methodology chapter around a framework the teaching material does not define?
- What is the difference between the pyramid's base tier and the prose list of philosophical frameworks?
- Is symbolic interactionism part of interpretivism or a separate framework in this source?
- How do I decide whether to adopt feminism as a philosophy or feminist research as a methodology?
- What should I do if I cannot find my chosen framework in the project management literature?