WORKPLACE THEORETICAL BELIEFS AND MODELS OF STRESS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PARADIGM

According to Mouton (2001), the term “epistemic” is derived from “episteme”, the Greek word for “truthful knowledge”. Although it is not possible to produce scientific results that are infallible and absolutely “true for all times and contexts, we are motivated, as scientists, to constantly strive for the most truthful and the most valid results” (p. 138).
Nel (2007), Lock and Strong (2012) and Babbie (2013) define epistemology as the study and science of knowing or the theory of knowledge: typically, how people purport to know anything. Nel adds that epistemology consists of ideas about the natural world and focuses on how we can and ought to obtain knowledge, and how we can and ought to reason, “the forms into which our models are cast, and their relationship to the world” (p. 1). It comprises “the methods, validity, and scope of knowledge that we employ in our research” (p 2) and allows for the provision of evidence for the researcher’s conclusions.
Ontology, on the other hand, is more concerned about “how it came to be rather than an analysis of what is” (Nel, 2007, p. 1). Lock and Strong (2012) consider “ontology” as referring to “how reality is”; the two concepts of ontology and epistemology go hand in hand. These authors suggest that these words should be viewed as having multiple meanings or senses and that from an anthropological perspective, the notion of plural realities is “tied to cultural differences in how people make sense of their experience of reality” (p. 174). This viewpoint implies that people would have their own different versions of what they know based on their own “personal epistemologies”, including different approaches to how they know. It opposes the scientific epistemology that is based on “logical-deductive procedures and methods primarily used for judging not only efforts at knowing, but also what is known” (p. 174).
This study is concerned with participants’ personal versions of their lived experiences with work dysfunctions. Therefore, social constructionism, as an epistemological framework, was chosen as a relevant paradigm for the purposes of the study. Furthermore, the approach was also considered for its appropriateness within the African context. In terms of this postmodernist framework, besides its emphasis on human relations, Africa itself has also accepted a postmodern lifestyle which is characterised by increasing connections through mobility and the use of social media (Geldenhuys, 2015).
Prior to considering social constructionism, two other prominent dimensions of paradigms (positivist and interpretive) were also examined for their relevance.
Introduced by Auguste Comte, positivism is a modernist approach. Its philosophical system is grounded on the rational proof/disproof of scientific assertions and assumes a knowable and objective reality (Babbie, 2013). As noted by Van Zyl and Nel (2011), from this perspective the emphasis on knowability of ultimate truths “endeavor to discover natural and linear cause-effect laws” (p.20).
The post-positivistic paradigm also argued for an entity such as a “body of knowledge” that people can study (Geldenhuys, 2015). As a result, these paradigms were excluded due to their somewhat rigid assumption “that there is an objective reality independent of the observer and that, given the right methods and research design, one can accurately capture that reality” (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013, p.6).
In comparison to positivism, the interpretive paradigm seems to acknowledge that “a completely objective reality is impossible to apprehend” (Guest et al., 2013, p. 7) and introduces ontological and epistemological perspectives on internal reality and intersubjectivity, but the researcher felt that this paradigm still failed to appreciate the relational and contextual aspects that shape and inform world views.
This study takes place in an organisational setting: therefore, systemically, the relational interconnectedness, for example between the participants, the researcher, colleagues and so on, would form part of the participant’s experiences through a social process.
Social constructionism is regarded as a postmodern paradigm. The postmodernist epistemology “acknowledges the possibilities of multiple and relative realities which are constructed by the meanings that people attach to events” (Van Zyl & Nel, 2011, p. 20). Burr (2015) asserts that postmodernism has its centre of gravity not in the social sciences but in the art and architecture, literature and cultural studies. It rejects the fundamental assumptions and ideas of modernism and structuralism, that there can be an ultimate truth and that the world as we see it is the result of hidden structures. It emphasises the co-existence of a multiplicity and variety of situation-dependent ways of life. At times, the term postmodernism is used interchangeably with poststructuralism due to the latter’s rejection of the notion of rules and structures underlying forms in the real world.
Prior to developing his notion of automodernity Samuels (2013) sought to clarify how postmodernity can be understood. He did this in an attempt to rescue postmodernity from misuse, stating that some people have labelled it an intellectual fad. He argued that there were four separate aspects of postmodernity that have often been confused:
The first and perhaps the most important idea has been “the notion that our world is made of multiple cultures and that we should respect the knowledge and cultures of diverse communities. In fact, multiculturalism is a reflection of the important social movements of the twentieth century” (p.64). In recognition of vital values and historical contributions from diverse societies, multiculturalists maintain “that there is no single, universal source for knowledge or truth” (p. 64).
Secondly, it has been unfortunate that “this multicultural idea has often been confused with the extreme postmodernist notion that there are no truths or moral values since everything is relative to one’s own culture” (p. 64).
The above mode of cultural relativism (the third aspect) is often a caricature of the subtler idea that all truths are socially constructed. “Therefore, a more accurate statement of multicultural relativism and social constructivism is that while there are truths and values in our world, we can no longer assume that they are universal and eternal, particularly when universal and eternal often function as code words for white and male” (p. 64).
The fourth aspect of postmodernity revolves around the academic discourse under the title of deconstruction or poststructuralism “and has been attacked for offering the extreme idea that our world is determined by language, but language can never escape its own domain, and thus ultimately all knowledge and meaning is suspect” (p. 65). This theory of rhetoric has tended to obscure the critical connection between postmodernity and social movements.
Lastly, Samuels’ advice is “to avoid the pitfalls of promoting theories that destroy the foundations for any type of stable meaning, argument, or social action” (p. 66).
As a postmodern paradigm, Hosking and Morley (2004) cited in Geldenhuys (2015) mentioned that the social constructionism represents a number of theoretical frameworks such as those coined in the literature as relational constructionism, conversational construction or relational practices. These different frameworks provide background on the contemporary debate in psychology, on the one hand between scholars who view it as a natural science and argue for a descriptive approach with an emphasis on individual psychology and, on the other, scholars who view it as a moral science with the emphasis on collective psychology. The latter scholars are mostly concerned with underlying values and forms of self-expression that are constituted in conversations, unique to specific places and times. Geldenhuys asserts that the perspective of psychology as a moral science aligns with theories of social psychology, which serve as one of the roots of organisational psychology.
It would also seem that there is also an expectation of the postmodern paradigm that it will contribute towards transforming relationships in postmodern literature. The new surge in researching and applying psychoanalytic constructs in South African organisations, which occurs on the basis of a systems-psychodynamic approach rooted in the Tavistock or Object Relations movement, makes a case for transformation. This is based on the argument that interventions based on other paradigms such as humanism, behaviourism, cognitivism and positive psychology do not address the major conflictual issues encountered in South African organisations. For example, the humanistic paradigm covers optimal functioning of the individual, without considering people’s impact on others (Geldenhuys, 2015).
As for the systems-psychodynamic paradigm, Geldenhuys states that it primarily emphasises the unconscious influence of past authority relations on current behaviour, although it provides a diagnostic perspective on behavioural dynamics.
Nevertheless, while one acknowledges Samuel’s advice earlier, “to avoid the pitfalls of promoting theories that destroy the foundations for any type of stable meaning,” one cannot, however, ignore the latest discourses around post-contemporary ideologies which are said to be futuristic.
According to Brooks (2013) a principle of post-contemporary thought is to rethink the “admonition to never forget the past, lest we be doomed to repeat it” (p.139); a position mostly associated with postmodernism. Post-modernism is seen to be obsessed with the past, irrespective of the obvious revisions and advancements in, for example, politics, economy, culture and technology. Anderson (2012) added that the call for democracy, social justice, and human rights was mounting from all over the world.
Brooks, however, likens post-modernity to the motto, “the more things change, the more they stay the same” (p.139). Postcontemporarists can be defined as the emerging forward thinkers who attend to the future and emphasise the need for “a new way of thinking in a post-contemporary society realising that it has been the locus of nothing but new practices for fifty years, all of which have been assimilated and packaged for them under one singular heading” (p. 139).

WHAT EXACTLY IS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM?

As Lock and Strong (2012) express it, Darwinian thinking came to be associated with the history of nature’s technology whilst Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), writing three centuries ago, takes the position of the first social constructionists. For Vico the difference between human history and natural history is that humans have made the former, but not the latter. The novelty of Vico’s science still remains because he has only been partially understood, in a tame, domesticated sense, which has disguised his subversive meanings.
Lock and Strong (2012), however, also acknowledge the difficulty in approaching Vico’s work, which for many is nonsensical, unconvincing and exaggerated from a modern perspective.
Nevertheless, as the original thinker Vico was associated with the rising modern scientific conception of humans and their meaningful interaction. This approach to human science was exceptionally different from that of his time.
Amongst others Vico confronted Descartes for prioritising the deduction of certain knowledge in a logical fashion as an adequate basis for a human science. This view, he thought, depicted human experience as being like a knowable and toying with a machine, leaving out the human qualities and origins of what we can know. He criticised the Cartesians’ concept of universal truth, when there were so many variations on truth pertinent to human institutions as diverse as cultures, disciplines and even families.
Other philosophers, such as Hobbes and Spinoza, were also challenged for their proposed notion that there was a universal and constant human nature. Vico emphasised the view that human beings are historical beings and that the human mind is regularly reconstructed into new forms over time.
To illustrate the point of multiple truths Vico used therapy as an example, wherein therapists are presented with versions of how things are. In this scenario, the role of the therapist is to listen to, amongst other factors, the client’s common sense. This could, however, be seen as digressing from the ‘real issues’; as a result, therapists are faced with choices in how to listen to clients, for instance through the DSM-IV-TR’s ears, which is as much a human construction as is geometry. The institutional forms of understanding which the therapists bring to interactions with clients, and the extent to which they engage with clients in terms of such forms, imply that clients might be held to talking solely on the therapist’s terms. Vico’s view of understanding was, however, not fixed to static forms of common sense but perceived the therapist’s varied use of language as fluid and constructive, not merely descriptive or representative, but as creating a conversational space for other possible meanings to resurface (Lock & Strong, 2012).
Similar to that of Vico, the writing of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926–1984) has also been found dense and difficult to penetrate. However, the impact of Foucault’s conceptualisation of the nexus of power and knowledge made an indelible mark in social constructionism. Foucault’s view was that history did not unfold “in a rational, progressive way, developing ever higher forms of reason, but through the exercise of power”, according to Lock and Strong (2012, p. 245).
Power was perceived to be exercised as the will of one particular group over that of another one. This became the major factor in determining historical change. Lock and Strong discuss four main ways in which they regard Foucault’s thought as important:
The first is to be found in his analyses of the history of human practices in the Western cultural era, whereby distinctions are constructed, legitimised, and acquire the values of right and wrong, normal and abnormal.
The second lies in the ways in which Foucault noticed how these distinctions go beyond grounding norms for changing etiquettes within society, and actually enter into the construction of what it takes to be human, and dictate everyday ways of life.
The third is an extension of what Foucault tackled in his later work on sexuality and ethics, concerning the means by which, similarly, such distinctions adopted particular cultural ideas and practices to govern themselves appropriately.
The fourth is to be found in the dialectical nature of many of Foucault’s arguments and the way these highlighted the fixing of words so that, without thinking much about it, human beings use them in a manner that does not acknowledge pre-existing social facts which have been laboriously discovered, but simultaneously creates those facts and locates them as if they were discoveries of the way things really are.
Furthermore, according to Foucault underpinning the worldview of a culture as it is established in practice at a particular time and place is a discourse. Within this framework, the term discourse refers to the systematic, coherent set of images, meanings, metaphors, representations, stories, statements, that construct an object in a particular way. This takes place during spoken interchanges between people, painting a particular version of an event. Multitudes of alternative versions of events are potentially available through language. In other words, each person may employ a variety of different discourses, leading to different stories to narrate the same situation (Burr, 2015).
Discourses tend to have an internal consistency, and the principles of consistency provide spaces as to what might be legitimately expressed, and what might not be expressed. By implication, the views or knowledge of those in positions of power would have been intuitively accepted as the natural way that things are because the discourse was consistent. Those who are not in power would be coerced into demonstrating loyalty and accepting the status quo or facing the negative consequences that result from being othered (Lock & Strong, 2012).
Burr (2015) has also alluded to power inequalities, such as in mental health, and adds that macro social constructionists have a special interest in analysing various power inequalities, with a view to challenging them through research and practice.
Aligned to the above Foucauldian thinking, in relevance to this study, one may assume, firstly, that although the participants’ diagnoses may be similar, their personal experiences, having lived with the conditions, would be different from one another. Secondly, through the unequal knowledge power dynamic between the medical profession and the participants, the diagnoses of stress, anxiety, depression and or burnout are labels that they were obliged to accept in order to receive psychiatric or psychological treatments and so on. These interventions were not only critical to their well-being but were also key dependencies for their ability to remain employed.
Moreover, the repeated medical discourse about mental illnesses, could also have influenced the participants’ thinking about their ailments. The study, therefore, amplifies their voices, based on their own independent beliefs and understanding of their conditions.
The same power/knowledge process continued to produce scientific specifications during the Enlightenment phase. These would be the classifications that came to define what is normal as opposed to what is abnormal. People were subjected to scientific documentation, examined for classification and had their status transformed into individual files. Given his psychology background, Foucault reflected on these methods and practices of psychology and psychiatry. He was fascinated with how particular “virtues came to be articulated into apparatuses of power, where ‘experts’ developed and used knowledge in ways that specified and produced certain social ways of being” (Lock & Strong, 2012 p. 250). Understandably, the lay public did not want to be excluded from “such expert power, so they took up such knowledges and practices to use on themselves, as in the case of clients in therapy, self-identifying according to DSM diagnoses, and using self-management strategies found in the self-help literature” (p. 250).
The usage of dominant psychological knowledge, with its associated cultural and self-applications, was referred to as the Psy complex; language played a key role in perpetuating such dominance.
The above led to family therapist Tom Andersen writing “that language is not innocent. Its availability to us owes something to the purposes it has already been put to, purposes that might not fit a circumstance to which it may be imported”; cited in (Lock & Strong, 2012, p. 291).
Foucault’s discourse on language, therefore, saw speech in broader terms and related discourse to the manner in which people organised their ways of talking which also involved familiarity and regularity in how they talked and thought. In doing so, they imposed particular views and language on their experience. A problem results when these people relate to what happens using talk beyond or outside these familiarities and regularities. It is said that such talk and thinking can be taken for granted. Having realised this challenge, Discourse Analysis (DA) highlighted the need to “become aware of the link between our taken-for-granted ways of talking and how they shape our thinking” (Lock & Strong, 2012, p. 276).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) probed further, to explain that the discourses people use to understand and communicate with each other are those most accessible to them. Such discourses provide them with particular meanings, including buzzwords or metaphors that distinguish them. This implies that language with its symbolic markers has the power to convey to people how things are and should be. Therefore, the question is: to what extent do people accept any discourse and its words and understandings as theirs (Lock & Strong, 2012)?
Earlier it was assumed that the participants in this study would have accepted their diagnosis so as to receive treatment. However, the study hopes to create space for the participants to re-tell their personal discourses and understandings of their work dysfunctions based on their own lived experiences.
Lock and Strong (2012) further emphasise that any discourse can achieve dominance if it is made the primary one which people use to make sense of their experience, but it may be hard to be aware of such interaction, particularly when it comes packaged as a value-based discourse. Acknowledging discourse dominance based on the CDA perspective, it can be argued that the DSM, and to a certain extent other diagnostic taxonomies, have ascended to the language of psychiatry, while other languages, constructs and thinking have had to be subordinated.
Lock and Strong (2012) borrow another example from a therapeutic context and present the view that therapists who have adopted a discursive angle would be aware of how the languages they were trained in might be suspect for furthering some forms of cultural dominance. Their challenge would be to listen ethnographically and hear the differences in how language is used to represent experience, and how the conversation itself is performed by the client. “But it is one thing to be discerning of and sensitive to such discursive differences and another to engage with clients talking from such differences”, as Lock and Strong note (p. 290). This can put the onus on the practitioner to be the discursively flexible party in professional conversations: “[s]uch flexibility encompasses both the listening and speaking domains and involves finding ways to bridge discursive differences with ways of communicating that suit both parties. Without such flexibility practitioners and clients may be talking right past each other” (p. 290). The same flexibility is necessary in the interview conversations to be conducted in this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
ABSTRACT
KEY TERMS
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND FOR AND MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY
EXPLAINING THE TITLE
MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY
THE AIM OF THE STUDY
THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
FORMAT OF THE STUDY
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
THE DEFINITION OF WORK
THE HISTORY OF WORK PSYCHOLOGY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WORK
WORK DYSFUNCTIONS
MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE WORKPLACE
Stress
Anxiety in the Workplace
Depression
Burnout
Well-Being
WORKPLACE THEORETICAL BELIEFS AND MODELS OF STRESS
The DC Model
The JDCS Model
Job Demands Resource (JDR) Model
Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) Model
Person-Environment Fit (PE Fit) Model
Effort-Recovery (E-R) Model
Transactional Model
Work Life Model
THE CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES (COR) THEORY
THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PARADIGM
WHAT EXACTLY IS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM?
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND ITS ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND THE EMERGENCE OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF HUMAN BEINGS
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST PSYCHOLOGIES
Critical Psychology
Discursive Psychology
Deconstructionism
Constructivism
THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE AND POWER
Disciplinary Power
Subject Positions and Power
THE ROLE OF HUMAN NATURE AND CONVERSATIONS
The Role of Language
The Role of Stories
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST CASE FOR HEALTH AND ILLNESS
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST RESEARCH
OBJECTIVITY AND VALUE-FREEDOM
RESEARCHER AND RESEARCHED
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
WHAT IS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY?
WHO NEEDS METHODOLOGY?
A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON THE THREE BROAD GENRES WITHIN THE LITERATURE ON SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY TODAY
Methodology as Technique
Methodology as Philosophy
Methodology as Autobiography
QUALITATIVE-QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
SAMPLING METHOD AND SELECTION OF CASES
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHOD
DATA RECORDING
DATA ANALYSIS
WHAT IS THEMATIC ANALYSIS?
How to Conduct Thematic Analysis
Transcribing Textual Material
Analytic Effort
Identifying Themes and Sub-Themes
RESEARCH QUALITY
Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Conformability
The Question of Research Quality in Qualitative Research Continues
The Concept of Rigour in Research
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Ethics in Reporting Research Findings
CONCLUSION
Introduction to the “Lived Experiences” of Employees With Work Dysfunctions
CHAPTER 5 EVELYN’S STORY: CAREER STAGNATION AND DEPRESSION
INTRODUCTION
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
THE NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
Depression
Loneliness
Work Identity Crisis
The Burden of Stigma
Coping
The Gift of The Struggle
ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEES WITH DEPRESSION
REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER TENACITY AND COURAGE
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 NONTU’S STORY: DEPRESSION, THE STRUGGLE OF A WORKING WOMAN
INTRODUCTION
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
THE NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
Depression
Diagnosis
The Burden of Stigma
The Extra Burden Female Gender and Stereotypical Labelling
Medical Health Authority
The Silenced Voice
Coping
The Impact of Change
The Scourge of Work Dysfunction
ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEES WITH DEPRESSION
REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER THE ORCHESTRA
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 JUDY’S STORY: BIPOLAR: LIVING BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE ANGELS
INTRODUCTION
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
THE NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
The Ups and Downs of Bipolar
Suicide The Nagging Dialogue Between Heaven and Hell
Loneliness
The Burden of Stigma
Coping
The Impact of Change
The Role of Family Support
Organisational Support for Employees with Bipolar
REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER THE DANCE
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8 NALEDI’S STORY: THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF DEPRESSION/BIPOLAR
INTRODUCTION
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
THE NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
Depression/Bipolar
The Spectator
The Role of Medication
The Role of Family Support
Fatigue
Suicide
Post-Divorce Adjustment Struggle
The Rescuer
Somatic Reaction
Workplace Anxiety
Type 2 Worry-Worry
The Burden of Stigma
Coping
The Role of Trust in Relation to Manager Support
Organisational Support for Employees with Depression/Bipolar
REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER THE MEANDERING STORY
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 9 VICTORIA’S STORY: THE SNOWBALL EFFECT OF A MOOD DISORDER
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
THE NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
Psychosocial Stressors
Job Strain
Loneliness
Coping
The Burden of Stigma
Identity Crisis
Organisational Support for Employees With Mood Disorder/Depression
PART TWO NATURE OF ENGAGEMENT
EMERGING THEMES
Self Discovery
Assertiveness
Personal Power and Control
The End of The Roller Coaster
Finding Purpose and Meaning from Work
Healthy Work Life, Healthy Family
Victory
REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER THE GIFT
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 10 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
THE BATTLE TO MAKE SENSE AND MEANING OF THE DIAGNOSIS
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS, ANXIETY AND BURNOUT
SOMATIC CONDITIONS
LONELINESS AND SUICIDE
WORK AND SELF IDENTITY
THE BURDEN OF STIGMA
COPING
THE ROLE OF FAMILY AND ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT
GENDER STEREOTYPE AND MENTAL HEALTH
MEDICAL HEALTH AUTHORITY AND POWER
CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSION
REFLECTIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The Main Objectives of The Study Were Three-Fold:
MAIN FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT