# data[].attributes.body
TedxBoulder - Niel Robertson - A Return to Taylorism? - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TedxBoulder - Niel Robertson - A Return to Taylorism?

# data[].attributes.body
Frederick Taylor Scientific Management - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Taylorism ABC World Report - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Taylorism: Scientific Management (Douglas Merrill, ZestFinance) « The New York Times in Education (nytimesineducation.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read the Corner Office interview on NYTimes.com
Connecting Theory to Practice

By Gama Perruci

Douglas Merrill, chief executive of ZestFinance, a big-data company that focuses on underwriting, likes to ask questions: How do we get from here to there? Can we measure the outcome of this process? Can we predict the value of this process? His approach to productivity and efficiency can be traced back a century to the rise of "Scientific Management" under Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), an American mechanical engineer, inventor and consultant, who applied his technical skills to the scientific study of management. Through careful measurement of a worker's activities, Taylor believed that an organization could find ways to streamline operations and increase productivity.

In 1911, Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management, which became a classic in Organizational Leadership. Taylorism, as the field came to be called, stressed the need to systematically measure every aspect of operations within an organization in order to identify areas for improvement and higher efficiency. He broke tasks down to the smallest steps and focused on how workers could specialize. He suggested four principles: (1) always use the scientific method to determine the most efficient way to perform specific tasks; (2) "train, teach, and develop" workers to specific tasks based on their capability; (3) monitor to make sure that the workers are using the most efficient method developed for their particular task; and (4) divide the responsibilities between management (focusing on training) and workers (focusing on performing their tasks efficiently). While today these principles seem obvious, in the beginning of the 20th century, they were revolutionary. He dedicated the later part of his life to disseminating his ideas, and many organizations fully embraced his scientific management approach.

This mindset is still popular today, as evidenced by Merrill's experience while working at Google. As he explains, "We measured everything. We measured our hiring success. We measured our promotional success." Merrill took that "intentional culture" to ZestFinance, a big-data company that focuses on underwriting. As its chief executive, he continues to be very intentional in his actions. He says that in his company they do not tend to do things that they can't measure, because "if you can't measure it you're probably, in our opinion, not really doing the right thing, and you haven't asked the right questions yet."
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. Do you agree with Merrill's argument that you should "measure everything" in an organization? What are the pros and cons of this approach?

2. Toward the end of the interview, when asked about career advice to new college graduates, Merrill says: "At the end of the day, there are very few decisions that actually matter. So make decisions reasonably quickly. Follow your heart." Do you think this statement contradicts his earlier statements about "intentional culture" and measuring "everything?" How do you make decisions?

3. Taylorism has been criticized for being too rigid and not relevant to today's fast-changing marketplace. Critics say that workers today need to have some degree of flexibility and autonomy in order to respond quickly to new situations. Do you agree with this critique of Taylorism? Assess the changes in the workplace environment that we have seen since Taylor published his Principles of Scientific Management in 1911.
Additional Resources:
Christina Evans and Leonard Holmes, eds., Re-Tayloring Management: Scientific Management a Century on (Burlington, Vt.: Gower, 2013).

Marvin R. Weisbord, Productive Workplaces: Dignity, Meaning, and Community in the 21st Century (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012).

Frank Barkley Copley, Frederick W. Taylor, Father of Scientific Management (Bristol: Thoemmes, 2001).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the Corner Office interview on NYTimes.com By Gama Perruci Douglas Merrill, chief executive of ZestFinance, a big-data company that focuses on underwriting, likes to ask questions: How do we get from here to there? Can we measure the outcome of this process? Can we predict the value of this process?

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific Management Theory | Introduction to Business (lumenlearning.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Outcomes

Summarize the four principles of Frederick Taylor's scientific management theory

Summarize the contributions of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth to scientific management

Just over one hundred years ago Frederick Taylor published Principles of Scientific Management, a work that forever changed the way organizations view their workers and their organization. At the time of Taylor's publication, managers believed that workers were lazy and worked slowly and inefficiently in order to protect their jobs. Taylor identified a revolutionary solution:

The remedy for this inefficiency lies in systematic management, rather than in searching for some unusual or extraordinary man.

You might think that a century-old theory wouldn't have any application in today's fast-paced, technology-driven world. You'd be wrong, though! In fact much of what you've already learned in this course is based on Taylor's work, and plenty of what you'll experience in the workplace will be indebted to him, too. If you recognize any of the following, you have already seen his principles of scientific management in action: organizational charts, performance evaluations, quality measurements and metrics, and sales and/or production goals.

Scientific management is a management theory that analyzes work flows to improve economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. This management theory, developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor, was popular in the 1880s and 1890s in U.S. manufacturing industries.

While the terms "scientific management" and "Taylorism" are often treated as synonymous, a more accurate view is that Taylorism is the first form of scientific management. Taylorism is sometimes called the "classical perspective," meaning that it is still observed for its influence but no longer practiced exclusively. Scientific management was best known from 1910 to 1920, but in the 1920s, competing management theories and methods emerged, rendering scientific management largely obsolete by the 1930s. However, many of the themes of scientific management are still seen in industrial engineering and management today.

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth

While Taylor was conducting his time studies, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were completing their own work in motion studies to further scientific management. The Gilbreth name may be familiar to anyone who has read the book Cheaper By The Dozen (or seen the movie the book inspired). The book is a biographical novel about the Gilbreth family, their twelve children, and the often humorous attempts of the Gilbreths to apply their efficiency methods in their own household.

The Gilbreths made use of scientific insights to develop a study method based on the analysis of work motions, consisting in part of filming the details of a worker's activities while recording the time it took to complete those activities. The films helped to create a visual record of how work was completed, and emphasized areas for improvement. Secondly, the films also served the purpose of training workers about the best way to perform their work.

This method allowed the Gilbreths to build on the best elements of the work flows and create a standardized best practice. Time and motion studies are used together to achieve rational and reasonable results and find the best practice for implementing new work methods. While Taylor's work is often associated with that of the Gilbreths, there is a clear philosophical divide between the two scientific-management theories. Taylor was focused on reducing process time, while the Gilbreths tried to make the overall process more efficient by reducing the motions involved. They saw their approach as more concerned with workers' welfare than Taylorism, in which workers were less relevant than profit. This difference led to a personal rift between Taylor and the Gilbreths, which, after Taylor's death, turned into a feud between the Gilbreths and Taylor's followers.

Even though scientific management was pioneered in the early 1900s, it continued to make significant contributions to management theory throughout the rest of the twentieth century. With the advancement of statistical methods used in scientific management, quality assurance and quality control began in the 1920s and 1930s. During the 1940s and 1950s, scientific management evolved into operations management, operations research, and management cybernetics. In the 1980s, total quality management became widely popular, and in the 1990s "re-engineering" became increasingly popular. One could validly argue that Taylorism laid the groundwork for these large and influential fields that we still practice today.

Contribute!

Did you have an idea for improving this content? We'd love your input.
Improve this page Learn More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summarize the four principles of Frederick Taylor's scientific management theory Summarize the contributions of Frank and Lillian Gilbreth to scientific management Just over one hundred years ago Frederick Taylor published Principles of Scientific Management, a work that forever changed the way organizations view their workers and their organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Taylor's Motivation Theory - Scientific Management (expertprogrammanagement.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Taylor's Motivation Theory, or Scientific Management, was one of the first theories of motivation in the workplace.

Have you ever tried to boost the productivity of your team, but failed? Perhaps you've given a rousing speech or explained how important it is that the company hits its targets for the year?

Boosting your team's motivation and productivity can sometimes feel like a black art. And it can be frustrating when you try and fail to boost your team's motivation. But it need not be this way.

Motivation theories can be helpful in giving you research-based tools and models to use when attempting to raise the performance of your team.

Taylor's Scientific Management

Taylor's Scientific Management attempts to find the most efficient way of performing any job. He believed that there were universal laws which governed efficiency and that these laws were independent of human judgment. The goal of Scientific Management was to find this "one best way" of doing things as efficiently as possible.

Taylor brought a very scientific approach to productivity. He did not value the human needs of workers. This can be seen from the following quotes:

...what the workmen want from employers beyond anything else is higher wages: what employers want from workmen most of all is low labor costs in manufacture.
Frederick Taylor

In our scheme, we do not ask the initiative of our men. We do not want any initiative. All we want of them is to obey the orders we give them, do what we say, and do it quick.
Frederick Taylor

Because Taylor believed that workers were only motivated by pay and money, then:

Workers don't usually enjoy work. Because of this, they need to be monitored and controlled closely. Essentially, Taylor believed that employees had a natural tendency to take it easy of slack off whenever they could. He called this natural soldiering.

To help with this, managers should break down each employee's job into more manageable, bite-sized tasks.

Training should be given so that all employees perform these tasks in a standard way.

Workers should be paid based on how much they produce (piece rate).

This will create a win-win situation. Workers are incentivized to work hard to earn more and the businesses production is as efficient as it can be (profits are maximized).

Relevance Today

Since Taylor's Motivation Theory is based on managers telling employees what to do, it is closely related to an autocratic style of leadership.

It is also closely related to Douglas McGregor's Theory X model of management, where it is assumed that employees are fundamentally lazy and unmotivated.

Taylor's work heavily influenced production methods at the start of the 20th century. It formed the foundation upon which Henry Ford introduced his mass-production techniques to the production of cars.

Whilst Scientific Management, sometimes simply called Taylorism, may sound obsolete, it is actually still in use today. This is especially so if you need to remain competitive in a labor-intensive industry by keeping costs as low as possible. Examples include:

Amazon: Pay certain warehouse staff using a piece rate basis according to how productive they are. In fact, Amazon is even using a wrist-based tracking system to monitor staff. You can read more about this here.

McDonald's: Every McDonalds across the globe looks the same, and the instructions to create a burger are exactly the same in every branch across the globe. Even the process of mopping the floor is exactly the same across the globe. This breaking down jobs into bite-sized chunks and then describing the most efficient way to do that job is an example of Taylorism in use today.

Using the Model

Taylor's Scientific Management process is summarized in the following diagram:

As you can see from the diagram, the principles of Scientific Management are:

1. Science, not rules of thumb.

Rather than doing things how they've always been done, Taylor wanted each job to be studied scientifically to identify the most efficient way to do that job.

Taylor advocated using time and motion studies as the way to do this. This often involved looking at the most efficient workers to identify why they were so efficient.

The ultimate aim is to describe in a repeatable way how to do the job in the most efficient manner. That way, everyone in the organization doing this job can be trained to do it in the most efficient way.

2. Scientifically train employees.

Don't allow employees to train themselves. Instead, each employee should be taught exactly how each task should be performed.

Taylor didn't want employees thinking for themselves, he simply wanted a simple task performed as quickly (as efficiently) as possible. In a nutshell, workers should be paid for doing, not thinking.

3. Ensure most efficient ways of working are used.

There are two parts to ensuring that the most efficient ways of working are being used:

Monitor: Monitor worker production to ensure that they are efficient.

Cooperate: Work with employees to retrain and recalibrate them, so that they are exactly following the most efficient way to perform their job.

One consequence of this was that organizational structures had to change. Rather than a factory having one single foreman, Taylor advocated several, each one specifically focused on efficiency for a particular area of the factory.

The aim of this step is to maximize production, unlike in situations where 'soldiering' occurs. That is situations where workers naturally slack off because they are not being monitored.

4. Divide work between managers and workers.

Work should be divided almost equally between managers and employees.

Managers should be responsible for developing the processes, ways of working and monitoring employees.

Employees should be responsible for executing a task as quickly as possible.

5. Pay based on results.

Workers should be paid based on how much they produce. This is done using piece-rate pay.

The use of piece-rate pay focuses workers minds on their productivity. If they don't produce, then they don't earn.

Note: Most online sources provide just four principles of Scientific Management. We've included the fifth principle, pay, as we feel its a key component, necessary to really understand Scientific Management.

Criticisms of Taylor

The following criticisms have been leveled at Scientific Management:

Although production is increased it creates very monotonous jobs containing no autonomy.

It was conceived to benefit both worker and company, but the reality is that it benefits the company far more than the worker. This has resulted in much industrial action and strikes in the last 100 years.

Scientific Management is often seen as dehumanizing. This is because workers do not think for themselves, they simply have to follow a few simple instructions as quickly as possible.

Summary

You can think of Scientific Management as being:

First, a philosophy about how employees behave.

Second, a set of principles to maximize efficiency based on this philosophy.

Taylor's Motivation Theory is premised on the fact that employees are motivated to be productive by one thing. Money.

Because of this, Taylor believed that management should exercise close control over employees, to ensure that they were getting their money's worth.

He advocated using science to study jobs and break them down into manageable parts. These parts could then be described in an efficient, repeatable way. Every employee could then be trained to perform the task in this way.

Finally, he advocated using piece rate pay to motivate employees to be productive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taylor's Motivation Theory - Scientific Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taylor's Motivation Theory, or Scientific Management, was one of the first theories of motivation in the workplace. The theory consists of two parts... First, a philosophy about how employees behave. Second, a set of principles to maximize efficiency based on this philosophy.

# data[].attributes.body
Taylorism and The History of Processes: 6 Key Thinkers You Should Know | Process Street | Checklist, Workflow and SOP Software

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you want to employ approaches like business process management in your business it's best to have a solid understanding of how these theories work.

One crucial aspect of using these theories correctly is understanding their development.

It's common for managers to want to employ cutting edge ideas in their business, but without a deep understanding these methods can be misapplied.

These errors will reduce the effectiveness of your process management and hold your business back.

It's not just business where process improvement efforts are regularly being undermined! In a recent meta-study from the British Medical Journal, researchers found only 2 out of 73 studies had applied the PDSA process improvement methodology in a way which fully met criteria. Commenting:

To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness.

In this Process Street article, we're going to look at some of the fundamentals and pick out key historical thinkers whose work we can trace from in order to better inform how process improvement methods should be done. Including:

Who is Frederick Winslow Taylor?

What is Taylorism?

What W. Edwards Deming can teach us about continuous improvement

Why Taiichi Ohno helps you cut waste in your business

What Ludwig von Bertalanffy tells us about systems

How Bill Smith changed the way we view defects

What Ray Dalio can show us about company culture

Who is Frederick Winslow Taylor?

Frederick Winslow Taylor was an American mechanical engineer and one of the first management consultants.

His book, The Principles of Scientific Management, was voted the most influential management book of the 20th Century by the Academy of Management in 2001.

Taylor was born in 1856 in Pennsylvania to a Princeton educated lawyer and a mother highly active in the abolitionist movement. His ancestor on his mother's side was one of the original Mayflower pilgrims, tying Taylor neatly into the mythology of the nation.

As a teen, he turned down Harvard in favor of becoming a machinist and patternmaker. Following his apprenticeship, he gradually advanced through the ranks step by step through foreman and up to chief engineer at Midvale Steel Works.

This experience of being a shop floor worker and experiencing each rung on the hierarchy ladder no doubt helped Taylor understand the functionings of production systems in greater depth than the typical employee.

Taylor's theories about how businesses should operate were formulated through this journey. As a foreman, he was annoyed that his laborers were not working as hard has he thought they could, so he began to measure their output and analyze his findings.

During this period he completed a degree in mechanical engineering and moved over into consulting where he would make his money through high paying gigs and developing patents. As he did so, he began to document these theories under a school of thought called Scientific Management, and Taylorism was born.

What is Taylorism?

Taylorism, often referred to as Scientific Management, was the first theory of management to focus specifically on analyzing and optimizing workflows. This makes Taylor the OG of business process management.

These theories of process optimization helped drive the Fordist shift to mass production which occurred in the early part of the 20th Century. Its focus was split between analysis and improvement. This was an attempt to replicate the scientific method in a way which could be applied to organizations.

The 4 key principles

Taylorism can be boiled down to 4 principal points:

1. The method of doing a task should be informed by a scientific investigation of the task

2. Employees should be selected and carefully trained for tasks

3. Tasks should have detailed instructions and should be subject to supervision

4. Management should evaluate tasks and formulate optimized approaches for the workers to follow

Some forms of analysis might be done by timing how long it takes a worker to do a task, others by weighing raw materials. Process analysis, for Taylor, had to look at both the minutiae of the process composition and the detail of the physical acts required to complete the process.

The elements of process improvement Taylor advocated for were successful in regards to processing materials; changing the way steel was cut and patenting that process. Yet, during his life, Taylor struggled to achieve quite the same success improving the efficiency of workers. While his disciples had more success on this front, it highlighted a key reason behind why Scientific Management lost adherents over time.

Criticisms and problems of Scientific Management

By focusing so closely on the efficiency and output of the worker, Taylor's methods were seen to reduce the worker down to a machine by critics, with even the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci commenting in his Prison Notebooks that Taylorism pushes the subordination of workers and could cause revolutionary tendencies.

And Gramsci wasn't entirely wrong as the union movement fought hard during the early stages of the 20th Century to discourage companies from employing Scientific Management in their businesses.

During one of Taylor's consultancy projects at Watertown Arsenal, the workers were so incensed by the nature of the changes that they went on strike and an investigation was launched by a U.S. House of Representatives committee. Horace Bookwalter Drury, in the contemporary 1915 text Scientific Management: A History and Criticism, states of the result of the investigation:

General Crozier thinks that Scientific Management should even facilitate collective bargaining. (pg. 186)

This would go against the disciplinarian ethos Taylor espoused for management and proved a tough blow for Taylorism. Though, perhaps Taylor had brought it upon himself, as his rhetoric for workers was hardly inclusionary:

Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. (pg. 58; The Principles of Scientific Management)

As a result of these difficulties in Taylorism, we see a more clearly stated concern for the well-being of the worker in future process improvement methodologies; evident in both classic Fordist models and in Toyota Production System core practices.

The tools Taylor gave us

Despite any difficulties, Taylorism can be credited with contributing these various process improvement techniques to management thinking:

Process analysis

Process mapping

Process optimization

Standardization of best practices

Elimination of waste

Efficiency measures

Mass production

Knowledge transfer

Documentation of processes

Taylorism is still alive and well in production processes. The lower levels of labor required now for mass production has led to the core values of Taylorism being increasingly central to modern systems.

Taylor would not have been able to imagine the forms of automation available to us today, yet this automation potential has arguably breathed new life into his classic approaches.

If you want to look into how you can incorporate automation into your business, and not just in production systems, check out our ebook: Ultimate Guide to Business Process Automation.

What W. Edwards Deming can teach us about continuous improvement

Deming was an engineer who moved into maths, making great strides forward in the new burgeoning use of statistics. However, alongside his many contributions to that field, Deming was a strong proponent of effective process improvement methods.

Like Taylor, Deming believed that the scientific method held the answer to improving the operations of organizations.

Where Taylor gives a broad overview and encourages process improvement based on efficiency increases, Deming focuses instead on the development of a theory of your own business and the importance of quality in determining what changes are positive. This continuous improvement is not simply focused on a single process but on the whole business in a holistic manner in accordance with its business goals.

The tool for which Deming is known best is called PDSA - the same approach referenced by the British Medical Journal study in the introduction. For Deming, PDSA is not just about improving processes but about running experiments on your own business.

PDSA, or the Deming Cycle, works a little something like this:

Plan: Measure the current processes and understand a problem or potential improvement. Decide what you're going to do to improve the process. Predict what the results should be.

Do: Implement the changes in a controlled pilot study. Measure all variables to understand what has changed in the process.

Study: Analyze the changes against your concept of quality. Work out what the limitations of the usefulness of the pilot study are.

Act: Implement the changes across the rest of the relevant operations in a controlled manner. Or don't, if you've found the findings are not in-keeping with your conception of quality.

You can see more about Deming in this short video below of him giving a lecture.

One of the key distinctions worth making regarding Deming is that many people confuse PDSA with PDCA, which is a watered down version of Deming's intended theory. Deming described PDCA as a "corruption" in a letter to his colleague Ronald D. Moen.

In PDCA, a process is selected for improvement and the changes are planned and tested. But the key difference comes in the third step where the process outputs are Checked rather than studied. This is akin to a Six Sigma approach where the goal of process improvement is to reduce defects. This is a much more closed view of process improvement which focuses solely on the process itself as a closed loop rather than connecting inherently to a broader theory of quality.

Deming succinctly demonstrates this in a short line from his book The New Economics in regards to the importance of client or customer needs:

[On cars] Performance and style, whatever these words mean in the minds of the customers, must show constant signs of improvement. Zero defects is not sufficient.

This infographic below illustrates the difference in starting points and purpose between PDCA and PDSA.

In 1950 he delivered a speech to the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo on his concept of Statistical Product Quality Administration. The themes of this speech are:

Having a system in place for continuous quality improvement

Reducing defects through higher levels of quality uniformity

Understanding what quality should mean within context

This speech is seen as a landmark moment in the development of Japanese post-war manufacturing approaches, which in turn lead to the economic miracle that established Japan as the world's second biggest economy by 1990.

Why Taiichi Ohno helps you cut waste in your business

As part of this economic boom in Japan, Toyota became one of the world's most foremost vehicle manufacturers.

With Toyota's rise came a reputation for quickly and effectively producing quality goods at scale. This was compiled and documented as the Toyota Production System.

The Toyota Production System, or TPS, is often attributed to the work of three particular people, though many have been involved with its evolution. The three people are the founder of Toyota, his son, and the engineer Taiichi Ohno.

It is believed that Ohno can take responsibility for, specifically, Toyota's approach to waste. Muda, as the concept is known in Japanese, refers to all the different forms of waste which can occur within a process or a system.

The goal is to eliminate as much of this waste as possible to bring about greater efficiency. There are 7 key mudas, forms of waste, to consider:

Waste of overproduction (largest waste)

Waste of time on hand (waiting)

Waste of transportation

Waste of processing itself

Waste of stock at hand

Waste of movement

Waste of making defective products

You can see some of the uses of these concepts of waste in practice in this video below. The video shows the Toyota outreach team helping improve organizational practices at a food bank in New York which we featured in an article about process implementation. It provides a very clear overview of how processes can be improved with small but effective steps.

To get a full handle on Ohno's conception of waste and how it manifests, along with a broader run through of TPS, check out his book Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production.

When considering waste in a business setting, it is useful also to look at up-to-date attempts to add to the theory. I personally have a soft spot for the additional waste proposed by The McDonald Consulting Group.

McDonald Consulting advocate for an 8th waste: Non-used Employee Talent. This often manifests itself as underused employees in relation to their available skills. Or alternatively, having employees spend time on low value tasks which could be automated away, giving the worker greater opportunity to focus on the work they are best at. Though, I am biased considering this is one of the primary problems we at Process Street are working to help organizations with.

What Ludwig von Bertalanffy tells us about systems

Okay, so Ludwig von Bertalanffy is a kind of weird choice here.

But bear with me.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy was an Austrian biologist and one of the founders of an approach called General Systems Theory. This approach describes systems that have various interacting components and looks at the relationships between these different dynamics.

Though hardly remembered outside his own field, Bertalanffy's work has impacted on a huge range of disciplines and provides a framework through which interdisciplinary study can function more effectively, as well as allowing for greater nuance when looking at individual phenomena within systems.

The crucial aspect of Bertalanffy's work which is worth his inclusion in this dream team comes in two forms:

1. The use of rigorous scientific investigation in order to understand how an organization functions - a theme we have seen throughout the list.

2. The adoption of a holistic viewpoint through which to view the operations of an organization; echoing sentiments expressed by Deming.

Bertalanffy's work emphasises holism over reductionism and organism over mechanism. This chimes with Deming's intention to develop a working theory of an organization which you wish to improve. The difference between Deming and Bertalanffy in this sense is that Deming set out to solve a problem for businesses specifically, so adds the concept of quality to be the driving factor and the measure for what constitutes positive change.

It's important to tie this to Deming as PDSA is a tool you can use to improve processes within systems, whereas General Systems Theory is, as described by Ervin Laszlo in the preface to the originally published book presenting the theory, not a practical set of tools:

Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm

Taking the perspective that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts allows us to think more critically about how individual aspects of business operations can knock on to other areas.

One application of General Systems Theory in practice could be found in this article on systems engineering from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), defining their application of it as follows:

Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem.

You can see the flow of their approach in the image below:

Former INCOSE president Brian Mar gives us the following considerations:

Understand the whole problem before you try to solve it

Translate the problem into measurable requirements

Examine all feasible alternatives before selecting a solution

Make sure you consider the total system life cycle. The birth to death concept extends to maintenance, replacement and decommission. If these are not considered in the other tasks, major life cycle costs can be ignored.

Make sure to test the total system before delivering it.

Document everything.

How Bill Smith changed the way we view defects

Unlike the others on the list, Smith isn't a celebrated academic with countless books for you to read.

Smith was more on the front lines doing the unglamorous work. Yet, I couldn't go through this list without mentioning Six Sigma, and Smith is typically seen to be the principal founder.

If you want books about Six Sigma, the next best person to look to would be Jack Welch who brought Six Sigma to General Electric in 1995 and has been an evangelist for the process improvement method ever since.

Smith was tasked with improving quality within Motorola and sought to improve the processes which cause things to go wrong. Specifically looking to reduce what we might refer to as defects.

In this endeavor, the Six Sigma approach was born. The goal is to be able to measure your processes and assign them a sigma based on how mature the process is; how many defects occur per million.

The goal is to have a process which scores a rating of six sigma. When a process reaches this point you would expect 99.99966% of process occurrences to be defect free.

Six Sigma specifically deals with fighting poor manufacturing processes, but can be used across a range of business use cases. The main versions of Six Sigma as a functional tool for operations are DMAIC and DMADV, sometimes called DFSS.

The DMAIC process stands for:

You can read more about DMAIC and the details of employing it in a previous post of mine: DMAIC: The Complete Guide to Lean Six Sigma in 5 Key Steps.

In many ways, Six Sigma is the ultimate expansion on the PDCA approach often misattributed to Deming - the one he called a "corruption". Yet, Six Sigma has proven hugely popular has been a key part of many manufacturing processes for the past 2 decades. Its continued success is echoed by now having an official standard drawn up for conducting the DMAIC process.

The particular SOP in question is the ISO 13053-1:2011.

What Ray Dalio can show us about company culture

The most recent of all the inclusions on the list, Ray Dalio feels worth including here for 2 key reasons:

1. He discusses what comes before processes; identifying an even smaller constituent part.

2. He emphasis the role of company culture heavily.

Though coming at an approach to processes from a slightly different angle than some voices above, Dalio's professional experiences reinforce the notion that there is value in taking a holistic approach to your company processes.

Born in Queens in New York to a jazz musician father, Dalio went into finance through fairly normal and traditional means. It appears the boho upbringing affected him in different ways than teenage rebellion.

After having success at a range of financial institutions Dalio set up his own investment firm: Bridgewater Associates.

In a previous article on how a hedge fund works, I dipped into the processes within his business as revealed through his text Principles. These principles not only made a successful business, but turned this one man show into arguably the largest hedge fund in the world.

And it was all built on principles. For Dalio, the principles you consciously choose to follow will then impact on the processes you choose to make. This happens to all of us. But choosing those principles yourself lets you analyze them and be even more critical toward your processes.

His book Principles is a very useful read for thinking about the role the unconscious plays in developing systems, along with a whole range of extra useful information.

Check out these three Process Street templates we made based on documented processes featured in the book:

Deep understanding will help you make the right choices

The consistent theme running throughout this article appears to be the role of an evidence based scientific analysis to inform the development of your organizational processes.

Different thinkers are going about it in different ways, with different goals.

Yet, there is a reason why processes and workflows have become increasingly data based and specialized: it's because it works.

Understanding the background to these competing theories, understanding their individual benefits, and keeping on top of modern discussions of them will give you an advantage over the rest.
You've seen my list. What about yours? Who else do you think deserves to be on this list of key characters? Let me know in the comments below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taylorism and The History of Processes: 6 Key Thinkers You Should Know | Process Street | Checklist, Workflow and SOP Software

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you want to employ approaches like business process management in your business it's best to have a solid understanding of how these theories work. One crucial aspect of using these theories correctly is understanding their development. It's common for managers to want to employ cutting edge ideas in their business, but without a deep understanding these methods can be misapplied.

# data[].attributes.body
Taylorism Management - Management Weekly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fredrick Winslow Taylor was one of the major proponents of the early management theories. He developed four principles of management, called Scientific Management or Taylorism. It was one of the first attempts to integrate the workers and their managers.

Post the Industrial Revolution, factories were no better than a state ruled by a dictator. The managers or the factory owners would prepare a to-do-list for the workers, who were bound to do it. Workers had no say in any matter related to their work: working hours, production speed, method of production. There was a wide disconnect between the workers and their managers due to a lack of communication between the two. Workers were treated like machines, devoid of humane emotions and cognition.

Context of Taylorism

Taylor began his work on developing the principles of scientific management in the late 1880s. He was based in the United States of America and worked mainly within the steel industry, where he worked as a foreman. He noticed that his team was inefficient in meeting targets. Often they would be able to produce only a third of the daily target. This made him ponder. He contemplated that method of work, daily targets and pay structure of the workers needed to be revisited. His work mainly focused on the time aspects, popularly known as the time studies.

Being a mechanical engineer, Taylor's primary interest was on the factory floor. He soon found out that the managers who directed how work should be done knew very little about the realities of the factories. Taylor also noticed the points of improvement in the workshop. For instance, some workers were much faster and better than others. Yet they received the same pay. He wanted to motivate all the workers to work better and money was probably the best motivator. He believed that a worker's pay should be tied to the number of units he produced. This would encourage better work to be even more efficient because producing more units would mean earning more money.

What is Taylorism?

What exactly is Taylorism? Taylor himself defined scientific management as:

"Scientific Management consists in knowing what you (i.e. management) want men to do exactly; and seeing to it that they do it in the best and the cheapest manner."

Principles of Scientific Management

1. Science, not rule of thumb

2. Harmony, not discord

3. Cooperation, not individualism

4. Development of each and every person to his or her greatest efficiency or prosperity.

Science, not rule of thumb

Taylor noticed that many of the work norms were old and not very efficient. In addition, the rules of thumb were not scientifically validated. As a result, the productivity of the workers remained low and they were easily fatigued. This scenario is not desirable in any factory.

Hence, Taylor proposed that managers need to discard following their hunches and heuristics. Instead, they need to be up-to-date with the latest scientific discoveries. Discarding the rule of thumb would also imply that there would be considerable standardization of working protocols. All workers would have to follow the same operating procedures for production. Taylor hypothesized that fatigue could be reduced if the standard operating procedures were developed scientifically. It would also increase units of production and speed of production.

Harmony, not discord

According to Taylor, the second source of inefficiency was a lack of communication between the managers (those who devised the plan of work) and the workers (those who executed the plan). Thus, the second principle of Taylorism was harmony between the two parties.

Taylor referred to this harmony as the "Mental Revolution", wherein the managers and workers would change their mindset towards each other. Such harmony and cooperation between the two stakeholders would also lead to an increase in production. Most modern theories of management agree that an open channel of communication between managers and workers is beneficial for all.

Work in harmony

Cooperation, not individualism

According to Taylor, mutual cooperation is the key to better productivity. Workers assigned different roles must help each other. In addition, managers and workers should not consider each other as opponents. They need to work together as a team to increase production.

Development of each person to his greatest efficiency

Taylor believed that the right allotment of tasks would increase workers' productivity. Each and every person has a set of skills and abilities and interests. If their work is congruent with their interests, they are likely to thrive.

In addition, all workers need to be trained regularly so that they can brush up their existing skills as well as learn new skills. Such an attitude will increase work motivation and productivity.

Advantages of Taylorism

1. Scientifically validated operating procedures are more likely to be efficient, increase productivity and speed of production. At the same time, it also reduces fatigue and burnout in workers.

2. Reduction in cost of production: Both unproductive workers and a long time per unit production are likely to increase the cost of production. Therefore, Taylorism has the potential to reduce the cost of production.

3. The component of variable pay incentivizes workers to increase their speed and reduce their errors.

4. It is economically beneficial to adopt the division of labor on the basis of abilities. Therefore, following the principles of scientific management is economically beneficial for firms.

5. Better working conditions. Scientific principles determine daily targets. Workers actually enjoy better workplace facilities. This reduces physical and mental health problems among workers.

Criticisms

1. Following Taylorism would mean that workers would have to work at the peak of their ability all day long. This greatly reduces breaks between works. Further, the likelihood of strain injuries increases due to working long hours without taking customized breaks.

2. The component of variable pay increases the chance of workers over-straining to earn more money. In addition, it discriminates against workers who have a lesser physical ability to work faster.

3. The creation of scientific and standard procedures are difficult for smaller firms, who have lesser workers and finances.

4. Loss of autonomy and job control can reduce motivation in many workers. In addition, the division of labor means that a worker would not be responsible for producing one full unit. This reduces meaning in work. All this is detrimental to workers.

5. Monotony: Since Taylorism entails specialization of labor, workers perform the same task for days, months and even years. The resulting monotony may prove to have negative consequences.

In sum, Taylorism is a production-focused approach. There is no emphasis on the emotions of the workers. Workers are means of production, who have no feelings. Later management theories would slowly take the emotions of the workers into consideration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fredrick Winslow Taylor was one of the major proponents of the early management theories. He developed four principles of management, called Scientific Management or Taylorism. It was one of the first attempts to integrate the workers and their managers. Post the Industrial Revolution, factories were no better than a state ruled by a dictator.

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124080874000049

1.2 Constructivism Entails Relativism

Constructivism can be cognitive or ontological. The former holds that concepts and hypotheses are human constructions rather than either innate ideas or the product of revelation, perception, or intuition. Ontological constructivism claims that the knower makes the world. Cognitive psychology has confirmed the hypothesis that all concepts and hypotheses are constructed rather than given. By contrast, ontological constructivism strains credibility. Moreover, it is destructive, because it dispenses with any tests aiming at checking whether a hypothesis matches the facts it refers to. In particular, it denies the difference between reality and appearance, which may be deceiving: it bans recurrent questions of the forms 'What is really the case?' and 'Which of the two hypotheses is the truer?'

Whether ontological or epistemological, constructivism comes in two varieties: individualist and social. Whereas according to the former the individual is the source of everything, according to the latter the social group, in particular the scientific community, constructs whatever it studies, even natural things such as stars. Whether individualist or collectivist, ontological constructivism implies cognitive relativism. However, cognitive relativism can be held, and is usually held, independently of ontological constructivism. After all, it is logically possible to admit the reality of the external world while claiming that it is impossible to know it objectively, hence intersubjectively. Therefore, relativism must be evaluated separately from constructivism.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767019549

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767023688

5.2 Constructivism and constructivist learning environments in supervision

Constructivism appeared in the 20th century in the works of some mathematicians (Kroneeker and Brower) as an attempt to substantiate a general theory of knowledge, but it lost ground in the face of positivist formalism (Hiebert), disappearing for more than 50 years ( Le Moigne, 1994). Constructivism considers knowledge as being constructed, not being discovered in the world strictly by scientific methods. Also, constructivism considers that

*

Reality is constructed (the claim on universalism, realism, or objective truth is ignored);

*

Reality is unverifiable and incorrect (Larochelle, Bednarz, Garrision).

Ernst von Glasersfeld (Glasersfeld, 1995) and P. Watzlawick (Watzlawick, 1984), representative authors in educational sciences and clinical psychology, revived interest in epistemological constructivism with their analyses of Jean Piaget's research in the area of genetic epistemology (Piaget, 1972). Piagetian constructivism developed in parallel with positivist paradigms and was accordingly structured concretely in a vision based on experimental data, which is why it has acquired the status of a scientific paradigm.

Glasersfeld emphasized that the radicalization of constructivism confirms the break from the traditional, positivist vision, where "human knowledge is determined by the representation of an independent or ontological reality" (Glasersfeld, 1995). Radical constructivism introduces a new relationship between knowledge and reality called viability. An action, an operation, a conceptual structure, a theory are all valid as long as they serve a purpose. So knowledge represents a world beyond our experience, being also a tool in the field of experience.

Constructivism is also defined as a theory of knowledge and by extension a theory of learning, with an emphasis on the learner's learning and not on the teacher's teaching. Constructivism supports subjective knowledge through the direct exploitation and the mental processing of information and later through collaboration and negotiation (Bentley, 1998). The educator is encouraged to use active techniques (daily experiences, problem solving), so new knowledge is accumulated. Regardless of the types of constructivism, the learner's active role is emphasized. Three types of constructivism are thus presented in the literature (Mihai, 2011):

a.

Exogenous constructivism-according to which knowledge is formed of structure reconstructions existing in the outside world; learning is directly affected by teaching, feedback, and explanation; knowledge is properly developed when it reflects the real world;

b.

Endogenous constructivism-knowledge is constructed by the learner through the transformation and reorganization of existing cognitive structures. In order to be able to learn, exploration and discovery are important; knowledge is not a mirror of the external world; experience changes thinking and thinking modifies the experience. The main representative of endogenous constructivism is Jean Piaget;

c.

Dialectical or social constructivism-according to which knowledge is achieved through the interaction between the external world represented by the physical and social environment and the internal world represented by the learner's cognitive level. Knowledge is reflected by the outside world; information is filtered and influenced by culture, language, interaction with others, beliefs, modeling, and teaching. Learning is achieved through teaching, modeling, guidance through discovery, and is influenced by the learner's prior knowledge, beliefs, and thinking. The main representative of dialectical or social constructivism is Lev Vîgotsky.

Applied in education, constructivism has materialized in the phrase "student-centered education." The teacher becomes a guide on the edge of the learning arena and not the wise person inside the arena (Gergen, 1995).

The directions set by the constructivist approach to learning are (Merrill, 1991)

*

The learning process is one of mental construction;

*

People learn a great deal from experience and build a certain representation of the world.

The knowledge base is permanently structured and restructured with new connections made between the new information and the previous knowledge structures.

The connections are integration, transfer, transformation, modification, or remodeling of declarative or procedural knowledge.

The development of the mentioned connections depends on the subject addressed and the learner's characteristics (predispositions, learning style, interests, and abilities) (Larochelle, Bednarz, Garrision):

*

Interpretation is personal since almost everything that is learned is based on the permanent interpretation and reinterpretation of one's experiences. It is important for interpretation to start from reality;

*

Learning is active because it demands the learner's involvement in the search, processing and development of meanings, knowledge, and relationships;

*

Learning involves collaboration, because internal representations are successively adjusted to reality by confronting meanings with the perspectives of others;

*

Learning is contextual, because the learning process must take place in significant situations for the learner and in situations relevant to the context in which the new learning will be used later. To be effective, learning must also bring transferable study strategies, anchored in real-world contexts. Learning is influenced by environmental factors, culture, technology, and institutional practices. Culture influences the learner the most, either through the acquisition of skills or performance. The learning environment (class, group) influences the learner's study process (Mihai, 2011).

Constructivism has thus taken two major directions: cognitive constructivism (Jean Piaget) and social constructivism (Lev Vîgotsky). From these two directions, one can identify common characteristics that contribute to the creation of a common learning platform and constructivist learning environments (Kommers, Jonassen, & Mayers, 1992). In relation to the subject of this chapter, we can consider that supervision is a constructivist learning environment. Constructivist learning environments can be characterized as follows:

*

Which provide multiple representations of reality: supervision as a constructivist learning environment brings into question the client's, the supervisee's, and the supervisor's realities;

*

Which by means of multiple representations avoid simplifications: supervision requires a consensus in representing the client's, supervisee's, and supervisor's realities;

*

Which involve authentic tasks in meaningful contexts and abstract training outside the context: supervision occurs due to a need expressed by the supervisee (need arising in a significant context, in the therapy session with the client) and which is also expressed in a significant context, that of supervision. An abstract situation is not supervised, because it represents something that has not happened;

*

Which offers learning environments, such as real situations or case studies instead of the predetermined learning sequences: supervision is essentially defined by case study, being a real situation, lived and brought in the supervision context. However, from this point forward, directions for future learning sequences can be drawn up, adapted to the supervisee's personality;

*

Which encourage reflection on experience: supervision is based on the supervisee's reflection. Reflection stimulates learning and helps the supervisee raise awareness about the past, present, and future of the therapeutic situation with the client. Reflection also helps the supervisee in becoming aware of personal needs of vocational training and personal development;

*

Which ensure the construction of knowledge through and depending on the context: supervision is performed on a therapeutic context, based on the relationship of the supervised therapist-client/patient and in a context with strong therapeutic valences-that of supervision. Recall that supervision resembles therapy, but it is not therapy. Supervision helps to increase the supervisee's knowledge in a supervised context, formally created: with a supervision contract, the supervisor's letter of presentation, etc., and co-created through the alliance and the supervisory relationship;

*

Which support the collaborative construction of knowledge through social mechanisms and skills: supervision, whether it is individual or group, is a construction between the supervisor and the supervised therapist, between the supervisor and the supervision group.

In the supervision group, each member of the group learns how to provide and receive feedback. Competition between supervision group members is not encouraged; on the contrary, they work on transference and countertransference if these occur between the participants. The supervision learning environment is thus a participatory one; the other members of the group professionally "feed" from the colleague's professional development. Offering and receiving feedback in a supervisory group is an act of knowledge and learning.

Providing feedback can result in the possibility of the feedback recipient being hurt or offended. The supervisor's role is to manage this feedback, to contribute, and to prepare the group members for it. Feedback is a developmental situation, both for the one who offers it and for the one who receives it.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128217177000054

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780122699306500022

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240702800623

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read full chapter URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124080874000049 Constructivism can be cognitive or ontological. The former holds that concepts and hypotheses are human constructions rather than either innate ideas or the product of revelation, perception, or intuition. Ontological constructivism claims that the knower makes the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivist Learning Theory - Educational Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constructivist Learning Theory - Educational Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The constructivist theory is based around the idea that learners are active participants in their learning journey; knowledge is constructed based on

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivism - Learning Theories (learning-theories.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contributors

Key Concepts

A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviorism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation. Each person has a different interpretation and construction of knowledge process. The learner is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and cultural factors to a situation[3][4].

NOTE: A common misunderstanding regarding constructivism is that instructors should never tell students anything directly but, instead, should always allow them to construct knowledge for themselves. This is actually confusing a theory of pedagogy (teaching) with a theory of knowing. Constructivism assumes that all knowledge is constructed from the learner's previous knowledge, regardless of how one is taught. Thus, even listening to a lecture involves active attempts to construct new knowledge.

Vygotsky's social development theory is one of the foundations for constructivism.

Additional Resources and References

Resources

References

1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

2. Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child (Vol. 82). Routledge.

3. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective.Performance improvement quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

4. Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm Shifts in Designed Instruction: From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to Constructivism. Educational technology, 33(5), 12-19.

[cite]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Key Concepts A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviorism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation.

# data[].attributes.body
Education Reimagined Through Constructivism | Michelle Thompson | TEDxBethanyGlobalUniversity - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education Reimagined Through Constructivism | Michelle Thompson | TEDxBethanyGlobalUniversity

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivism: The Long History from the Active Knower to the Active Learner - Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation - University at Buffalo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As educators we are well aware of the many delays in bringing theory to practice. Whether it is through delayed pedagogical recommendations in adjusting campus learning spaces, conceptual challenges encountered in effectively leveraging distance and remote learning opportunities, or in identifying creative ways of providing students with the course experiences sufficient to actively construct and add meaning to their own learning, we are constantly dealing with the overarching problem of delayed practical application of theory.

Therefore in the interest of a bit of fun, through this blog post we are going to frame the concept of constructivism-the theory that says that learners construct knowledge rather than just passively take in information-within a longstanding historical context in order to illustrate just how long it can actually take for theory to come to full fruition. However, in all seriousness, a key educational concept like constructivism can be viewed as an ultimate product of enlightenment thought, and therefore, we must start there in identifying the roots of this educational theory.

In 1781, German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, published his monumental work the Critique of Pure Reason. This critical perspective on metaphysics and epistemology worked to accomplish several overarching objectives, two of which were figuring out how to refute David Hume's empiricist determinist philosophy via the hallmarks of the rationalist tradition, but without having to rest on rationalist dogmatic presuppositions (Dudley, 2007). What Kant therefore made the case for in this work was that, yes, we as humans may be limited to sensory induced experience, but we nevertheless contain a priori (independent of, or before, experience) cognitive structures, which enable us to actively construct the world that we perceive-thus the active knower. His "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy therefore intended to explain how it is that the objects of experience conform to us and our cognitive structures and not the other way around (Kant, 1781). Ultimately, Kant's critical perspective was an introduction and gateway to the modern science of cognition. However, his successors in Continental Europe explored the merits and perceived problems of his critical philosophy in ways which either led to dead ends or started from, or created, unique philosophical foundations. In the Anglo-American tradition, philosophers subsequent to Kant turned largely to the analysis of problems in language and formal logic in order to help clarify traditional philosophical problems (Gracia, 1992). As you can see here, our discussion has remained largely philosophical, and Kant's longstanding contributions of the concept of the active knower have remained philosophical, with little to show of the evolution of educational and pedagogical thought.

If we fast forward to the twentieth century, we now have better context for understanding Jean Piaget's work in psychology. An underlying interest in the nature of knowledge and how it develops stayed with him as he studied psychology and became a psychometrician working with Theodore Simon on standardizing the Binet-Simon Intelligence Test (Mayer, 2005). It was during this time that he studied patterns of mistakes in children's responses across age groups. He postulated that thinking and problem-solving abilities fundamentally change over time due to biological maturation rather than mere exposure to the environment. As Piaget continued his studies in psychology and his research on children's thinking abilities, he began to detail his theory of cognitive development which he considered to be dependent upon the biological process of adaptation (Beilin, 1992).

For Piaget, this cognitive adaptation relies on the development of cognitive schema (a term that originated, in relation to cognition and the organization of experience, with Kant), or knowledge representations. Such representations begin to be created by toddlers once their brains have matured to the point where long-term memories can be stored (around the time that they begin to use verbal language). As children encounter new experiences, they create schema, or mental representations to understand those. For example, a toddler begins to understand the four-legged furry meowing creature that lives in the house as "kitty." The toddler will then try to fit new experiences into these existing schema through a process of assimilation. Using the kitty example, this toddler may initially call the neighbor's dog, the cousin's hamster, and the bunny in the yard "kitty." However, with guidance from parents, teachers, and peers, the toddler will pick up on the differences between kitty and these other creatures. Eventually, accommodation will occur, and the toddler will develop new schema: "doggy," "hamster," "bunny." As the child grows and gains in real-world experience and formal education, the child will begin to develop more sophisticated schema, as well as interconnections among schema to form schema networks.

Piaget's cognitive adaptation concept is now recognized as the process that underlies knowledge construction. Piaget conducted research with children in school settings and first began writing about his theory in the 1920's (Beilin, 1992). However, application of the theory to the design of learning experiences did not begin in the United States until the 1960's when American psychologists "rediscovered" his early work and educators worked to understand the pedagogical implications of his theory. Throughout the late 1960's and into the early 1970's, teacher preparation programs began to include Piaget's work on cognitive development and adaptation in the curriculum, and pedagogical practices based on this constructivist approach have been used in P-12 education for decades (Bringuier, 1980). The constructivist approach has been further refined by the work of Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, whose work remained behind the iron curtain until the 1970's, when his books were translated into English and distributed in the United States (Vygotsky, 1963). Since that time, additional important concepts, such as situated cognition, distributed cognition, and embodiment have emerged (Ormrod, 2019).

In essence, constructivist theories of learning and knowledge development suggest that learning is determined by the learner interacting in an environment and engaging in cognitive adaptation (Ormrod, 2019). Thus, learning is not a passive activity. The old belief that knowledge can be imparted solely through oral dissemination of knowledge from an expert is not based on the reality of how knowledge is actually formed. Regardless of instructional modality, learners need to be actively engaged with the course content, reflecting on it, linking it to what they already know, and creating new knowledge structures when necessary. While this can happen in a lecture format, it requires motivation on the part of the student and effective facilitation on the part of the instructor. Knowledge construction happens more organically and more efficiently when students are engaged in active learning where they can experience trial and error, peer interaction, and modeling. Such experiences can certainly be hard to scale, especially with large introductory courses where lecture/objective exams seem to be the most efficient way to deliver instruction and assign grades. This is yet another reason why constructivist approaches have not yet been universally adopted in all college classrooms.

Nevertheless, all of what we have summarized to this point is intended to illustrate, at least in rudimentary form, the long pathway of constructivist theory, starting from a deeper foundation in Kant's work. The purpose of this is to add, not only clarity in this discussion of theory, but also some levity to the challenges we face in bridging theory and practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
office of curriculum assessment and teaching transformation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In these past few weeks following our recent merger between the Office of Educational Effectiveness and the Center for Educational Innovation, I have been thinking hard about how to most effectively communicate what it is about our new office that will allow us to better serve the university.

# data[].attributes.body
What Is Constructivism? (wgu.edu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constructivism is an important learning theory that educators use to help their students learn. Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by your experiences as a learner. Basically, learners use their previous knowledge as a foundation and build on it with new things that they learn. So everyone's individual experiences make their learning unique to them.

Constructivism is crucial to understand as an educator because it influences the way all of your students learn. Teachers and instructors that understand the constructivist learning theory understand that their students bring their own unique experiences to the classroom every day. Their background and previous knowledge impacts how they are able to learn. Educators are able to use constructivist learning theory to help their students understand their previous knowledge. If you're a current or aspiring educator, it's important to get the education and credentials you need. But it's also important to understand learning theories and how they impact you and your students. This guide will tell you more about the constructivist learning theory and how it helps you as a teacher.

There are many specific elements and principles of constructivism that shape the way the theory works and applies to students. Learn about the different principles of constructivism and how they make up the whole theory.

Knowledge is constructed. This is the basic principle, meaning that knowledge is built upon other knowledge. Students take pieces and put them together in their own unique way, building something different than what another student will build. The student's previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and insights are all important foundations for their continued learning.

People learn to learn, as they learn. Learning involves constructing meaning and systems of meaning. For example, if a student is learning the chronology of dates for a series of historical events, at the same time they are learning the meaning of chronology. If a student is writing a paper about history, they are also learning principles of grammar and writing as well. Each thing we learn gives us a better understanding of other things in the future.

Learning is an active process. Learning involves sensory input to construct meaning. The learner needs to do something in order to learn, it's not a passive activity. Learners need to engage in the world so they are actively involved in their own learning and development. You can't just sit and expect to be told things and learn, you need to engage in discussions, reading, activities, etc.

Learning is a social activity. Learning is directly associated to our connection with other people. Our teachers, our family, or peers, and our acquaintances impact our learning. Educators are more likely to be successful as they understand that peer involvement is key in learning. Isolating learnings isn't the best way to help students learn and grow together. Progressive education recognizes that social interaction is key to learning and they use conversation, interaction, and group applications to help students retain their knowledge.

Learning is contextual. Students don't learn isolated facts and theories separate from the rest of our lives-we learn in ways connected to things we already know, what we believe, and more. The things we learn and the points we tend to remember are connected to the things going on around us.

Knowledge is personal. Because constructivism is based on your own experiences and beliefs, knowledge becomes a personal affair. Each person will have their own prior knowledge and experiences to bring to the table. So the way and things people learn and gain from education will all be very different.

Learning exists in the mind. Hands-on experiences and physical actions are necessary for learning, but those elements aren't enough. Engaging the mind is key to successful learning. Learning needs to involve activities for the minds, not just our hands. Mental experiences are needed for retaining knowledge.

Motivation is key to learning. Students are unable to learn if they are unmotivated. Educators need to have ways to engage and motivate learners to activate their minds and help them be excited about education. Without motivation, it's difficult for learners to reach into their past experience and make connections for new learning.

There are different types of constructivism that educators can use to find success with this learning theory.

Cognitive. Cognitive constructivism focuses on the idea that learning should be related to the learner's stage of cognitive development. These methods work to help students in learning new information by connecting it to things they already know, enabling them to make modifications in their existing intelligence to accommodate the new information. Cognitive constructivism comes from the work of Jean Piaget and his research on cognitive development in children.

Social. Social constructivism focuses on the collaborative nature of learning. Knowledge develops from how people interact with each other, their culture, and society at large. Students rely on others to help create their building blocks, and learning from others helps them construct their own knowledge and reality. Social constructivism comes from Lev Vygotsky, and is closely connected to cognitive constructivism with the added element of societal and peer influence.

Radical. Radical constructivism is very different from cognitive and social constructivism. It focuses on the idea that learners and the knowledge they construct tell us nothing real, only help us function in our environment. The overall idea is that knowledge is invented, not discovered. The things we bring to the table make it impossible for us to have truth, only interpretations of knowledge. This theory was developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld in 1974.

It's important to understand how teachers can apply constructivism inside their classroom to create a unique learning environment for students. In constructivist classrooms, the teacher has a role to create a collaborative environment where students are actively involved in their own learning. Teachers are more facilitators of learning than actual instructors. Teachers must work to understand the preexisting conceptions and understanding of students, then work to incorporate knowledge within those areas. Teachers will also need to adjust their teaching to match the learner's level of understanding.

Constructivist classrooms rely on four key areas to be successful:

Shared knowledge between teachers and students.

Shared authority between teachers and students.

Teachers act as a guide or facilitator.

Learning groups consist of small numbers of students.

Constructivist classrooms are often very different from normal classrooms in many ways. Constructivist classrooms focus on student questions and interests, they build on what students already know, they focus on interactive learning and are student-centered, teachers have a dialogue with students to help them construct their own knowledge, they root in negotiation, and students work primarily in groups.

Constructivist classrooms often have teachers who do small group work, collaborative and interactive activities, and open dialogues about what students need in order to find success.

The biggest criticism of constructivist learning is its lack of structure. Some students need highly structured and organized learning environments to thrive, and constructivist learning focuses on a more laid-back method to help students engage in their own learning.

Grading is often removed from constructivist classrooms and places more value on student progress, which can lead to students falling behind and not meeting standardized grading requirements.

If you are hoping to become a teacher, a degree is crucial to getting on the right path. Additionally, it's valuable for teachers to understand different learning theories and how they impact their classroom and their students.

Subscribe to the WGU Blog

Stay up-to-date with the latest articles, tips, and insights from the team at WGU

Our focus on your success starts with our focus on four high-demand fields: K-12 teaching and education, nursing and healthcare, information technology, and business. Every degree program at WGU is tied to a high-growth, highly rewarding career path. Which college fits you?

Want to see all the degrees WGU has to offer? View all degrees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constructivism is an important learning theory based on the idea that learners build on their existing foundation to learn new information. Learn more about constructivism and how it impacts education.

# data[].attributes.body
Difference Between Positivism and Post-Positivism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Positivism vs Post-Positivism

The core idea of positivism and post-positivism creates the difference between them and sets them apart. Positivism and post-positivism have to be viewed as philosophies used in science for scientific inquiry. These have to be viewed as two independent philosophies that are different from one another. Positivism is the philosophy that stresses empiricism. It highlights the importance of objectivity and the necessity to study observable components. However, in the 20th century, there has been a shift that was brought about by post-positivism. Post-positivism is a philosophy that rejects positivism and presents new assumptions in order to unravel the truth. Through this article let us examine the differences between these two philosophical stances.

What is Positivism?

Positivism highlights that scientific inquiry should rely on observable and measurable facts rather than on subjective experiences. According to this epistemological stance, what counts as knowledge can be captured through sensory information. If knowledge goes beyond this into subjective boundaries, such information does not qualify as knowledge. Positivists believed that science was the medium through which truth could be unraveled. However, according to positivists, only the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology was counted as science.

The social sciences such as sociology and political science did not fall within this positivist framework, mainly because in social sciences knowledge was derived from subjective experiences of individuals, which could not be measured and observed. The social scientists did not engage in research within laboratories. Their laboratory was the society where the movements, relationships of people could not be controlled. Knowledge was gained through the study of human attitudes, relationships, life stories, etc. Positivists believed that these did not have an objective basis.

What is Post-positivism?

Post-positivism came about in the 20th century. This was not a mere revision of positivism, but a complete rejection of the core values of positivism. Post-positivism points out that scientific reasoning is quite similar to our common sense reasoning. This denotes that our individual understanding of day to day life is similar to the understanding of the scientist. The only difference is that a scientist would use a procedure in order to arrive at conclusions, unlike a lay person.

Unlike positivists, post-positivists point out that our observations cannot always be relied upon as they can also be subjected to error. This is why post-positivists are considered as critical realists, who are critical of the reality that they study. Since they are critical of reality, post-positivists do not rely on a single method of scientific inquiry. They believe that each method can have errors. These can only be avoided if a number of methods are used. This is referred to as triangulation.

Post-positivism also assumes that the scientists are never objective and are biased due to their cultural beliefs. In this sense, pure objectivity cannot be achieved. This highlights that there are vast differences between positivism and post-positivism, even though both are grounded in objectivity.

What is the difference between Positivism and Post-positivism?

* Definitions of Positivism and Post-positivism:

* Positivism is a philosophical stance that highlights the importance of objectivity and the necessity to study observable components.

* Post-positivism is a philosophy that rejects positivism and presents new assumptions in order to unravel the truth.

* Core Idea:

* Empiricism (which included observation and measurement) was the core of positivism.

* Post-positivism pointed out that this core idea was faulty.

* Realists and Critical Realists:

* Positivists are realists.

* Post-positivists are critical realists.

* Aim of Science:

* Positivists believe that science aims to unravel the truth.

* However, post-positivists believe that this is impossible as there are errors in all scientific methods.

* Objectivity of the Scientist:

* In positivism, the scientist is considered as objective.

* Post-positivism highlights that there are biases in the scientist as well.
Images Courtesy: Auguste Comte and Karl Popper via Wikicommons (Public Domain)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Difference Between Positivism and Post-Positivism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The core idea of positivism and post-positivism creates the difference between them and sets them apart. Positivism and post-positivism have to be viewed as philosophies used in science for scientific inquiry. These have to be viewed as two independent philosophies that are different from one another. Positivism is the philosophy that stresses empiricism.

# data[].attributes.body
Positivism & Post-Positivism - Research Methods Knowledge Base (conjointly.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the specific ways - the methods - that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related: the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves the practice.

When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd - think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy - positivism - that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up.

Let's begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if you're not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical 'rat runners' who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we can't directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how people will behave - everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it can't be measured.

In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic - they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesn't fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism - the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation.

OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I don't mean a slight adjustment to or revision of the positivist position - post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we don't always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect).

One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality - we're each making this all up!). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. Just because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesn't mean that we can't hope to translate from each other's experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of different perspectives, the idea that we can never understand each other because we come from different experiences and cultures. Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect.

So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is. Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives! Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it. The best way for us to improve the objectivity of what we do is to do it within the context of a broader contentious community of truth-seekers (including other scientists) who criticize each other's work. The theories that survive such intense scrutiny are a bit like the species that survive in the evolutionary struggle. (This is sometimes called the natural selection theory of knowledge and holds that ideas have 'survival value' and that knowledge evolves through a process of variation, selection and retention). They have adaptive value and are probably as close as our species can come to being objective and understanding reality.

Clearly, all of this stuff is not for the faint-of-heart. I've seen many a graduate student get lost in the maze of philosophical assumptions that contemporary philosophers of science argue about. And don't think that I believe this is not important stuff. But, in the end, I tend to turn pragmatist on these matters. Philosophers have been debating these issues for thousands of years and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to debate them for thousands of years more. Those of us who are practicing scientists should check in on this debate from time to time (perhaps every hundred years or so would be about right). We should think about the assumptions we make about the world when we conduct research. But in the meantime, we can't wait for the philosophers to settle the matter. After all, we do have our own work to do!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology . The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4kQ2-kHZE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Greatest Speech in American History (Abe Lincoln's Gettysburg Address)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrBHd41YqTc

# data[].attributes.body
The Man in the Arena – Teddy Roosevelt (A Powerful Speech from History) - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Man in the Arena – Teddy Roosevelt (A Powerful Speech from History)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUllIT8rCj4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The SPEECH That BROKE The Internet: Joaquin Phoenix Oscar Speech

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQYPlEoU9ko

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life Is A Walking || Native American Wisdom

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew McConaughey | 5 Minutes for the NEXT 50 Years of Your LIFE - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Matthew McConaughey | 5 Minutes for the NEXT 50 Years of Your LIFE

# data[].attributes.body
So Live Your Life – Chief Tecumseh (A Native American Poem) - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So Live Your Life – Chief Tecumseh (A Native American Poem)

# data[].attributes.body
If by Rudyard Kipling - Read by Sir Michael Caine - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If by Rudyard Kipling - Read by Sir Michael Caine

# data[].attributes.body
University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address - Admiral William H. McRaven - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
University of Texas at Austin 2014 Commencement Address - Admiral William H. McRaven

# data[].attributes.body
Simon Sinek 2021 - The Speech That Broke The Internet - Most MOTIVATIONAL Ever - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simon Sinek 2021 - The Speech That Broke The Internet - Most MOTIVATIONAL Ever

# data[].attributes.body
Social Constructionism - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivism - Research Paradigm - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Postpositivism - Research Paradigms - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
What is post positivist theory? – MVOrganizing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is post positivist theory?

In international relations theory, post-positivism refers to theories of international relations which epistemologically reject positivism, the idea that the empiricist observation of the natural sciences can be applied to the social sciences

Is non positivist methodology scientific?

They study the internal processes represented through emotions, motives, aspirations and the individual's interpretation of social reality Non-positivists emphasized upon using qualitative methods and not the scientific methods similar to the ones used in natural sciences

Is positivism a paradigm?

Positivism is a research paradigm associated with scientific theories Positivists apply scientific methodology as the way of understanding and researching social and psychological phenomena

What is positivism explain its basic assumptions or characteristics?

Positivism is a term which designates a philosophical tendency oriented around natural science and striving for a united view of the world of phenomena both physical and human, through the applications of the methods and the extension of the results whereby the natural sciences have attained their unrivaled position in

What is positivism research paradigm?

Scientific research in a positivist paradigm focuses on explanation and prediction The hypothetico-deductive model of science is used to facilitate the research process, taking a theory-verification approach Theories of nature depend on empirical data, with larger samples used to make generalizations

Which of the following is a common criticism of legal positivism?

A common criticism of legal positivism is that it prohibits individuals from remaining true to their own consciences when their consciences conflict with the laws of the sovereign

What is meant by legal positivism?

Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits The English jurist John Austin ( formulated it thus: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is post positivist theory? – MVOrganizing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In international relations theory, post-positivism refers to theories of international relations which epistemologically reject positivism, the idea that the empiricist observation of the natural sciences can be applied to the social sciences

# data[].attributes.body
Theory in Action: Constructivism - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
What is post-positivism paradigm? – MVOrganizing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is post-positivism paradigm?

Post-positivism is also known as methodological pluralism (Morris, McNaughton, Mullins & Osmond, 2009). The post-positivist paradigm evolved from the positivist paradigm. It is concerned with the subjectivity of reality and moves away from the purely objective stance adopted by the logical positivists (Ryan, 2006).

How does positivism view the world?

In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The positivist believed in empiricism - the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the positivist paradigm?

1 Advantage: Quantitative Approach. Positivism relies on quantitative data that positivists believe is more reliable than qualitative research.

2 Advantage: Structure. Positivism follows a well-defined structure during studies and discussions.

3 Disadvantage: Human Behavior.

4 Disadvantage: Inflexibility.

What is moral positivism?

In its most basic sense, moral positivism is the stance that human acts are neither good nor bad, because there is neither a natural law nor a natural...

Why positivism is better than Interpretivism?

Positivists believe society shapes the individual and use quantitative methods, intepretivists believe individuals shape society and use qualitative methods. Positivist prefer scientific quantitative methods, while Interpretivists prefer humanistic qualitative methods.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of phenomenological approach?

Advantages and Disadvantages of Phenomenology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Phenomenology

Contribute to the development of new theories

Policy-makers may give low credibility to a phenomenological study

Gather data which is seen as natural rather than artificial

What are the advantages of Grounded Theory?

Pros (advantages)

Grounded theory can identify the situated nature of knowledge, as well as the contingent nature of practice.

Grounded theory produces a 'thick description that acknowledges areas of conflict and contradiction.

Grounded theory is better at determining what actually happens.

What are the example of Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory commonly uses the following data collection methods: Interviewing participants with open-ended questions. Participant Observation (fieldwork) and/or focus groups. Study of Artifacts and Texts.

What is phenomenology in simple terms?

Literally, phenomenology is the study of "phenomena": appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view.

What is the phenomenological concept of world?

Life-world, German Lebenswelt, in Phenomenology, the world as immediately or directly experienced in the subjectivity of everyday life, as sharply distinguished from the objective "worlds" of the sciences, which employ the methods of the mathematical sciences of nature; although these sciences originate in the life- ...

What is the concept of nothingness?

"Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing".

What is phenomenological theory in sociology?

Phenomenology within sociology (Phenomenological sociology) is the study of the formal structures of concrete social existence as made available in and through the analytical description of acts of intentional consciousness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Post-positivism is also known as methodological pluralism (Morris, McNaughton, Mullins & Osmond, 2009). The post-positivist paradigm evolved from the positivist paradigm. It is concerned with the subjectivity of reality and moves away from the purely objective stance adopted by the logical positivists (Ryan, 2006).

# data[].attributes.body
Post Positivism: Knowledge From Different Perspectives Example | GraduateWay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Post-positivism is a meta-theoretical philosophical position that seeks to amend some of the assumptions made by positivism. Under post-positivism, human knowledge is not based on solid unchallengeable tenets rather is a result of the amalgamation of different human conjectures. Post-positivism is based on the belief that human knowledge is conjectural; underlying knowledge can be questioned through further investigation (Groff, 2004). Through continuous research and refinements on the prevailing truths an objective truth is approached.

Knowledge from different perspectives and triangulation of information from different sources is promoted under post-positivism. The adoption of post-positivism for the research problem would imply that the assumption that satisfaction is influential on franchisor and franchisee relationship has to be reviewed (Groff, 2004). This is an important step that may actually provide pointers to assessing the effects the relationship between franchisor and franchisee on the success of a franchise. Relationship between two entities may be affected by both qualitative and quantitative variables.

Post-positivism as a correction to the assumptions made under positivism allows for the inclusion of variables that cannot be measured in analyzing given scenarios or problems. This is in line with the assertion that different conjectures contribute to the overall knowledge developed of an entity or a development. By adopting post-positivism to the research problem, it is possible to analyze the existence of qualitative variables that influence longevity or the nature of interaction between the relationship and success of the franchise.

Lastly, the adoption of post positivism as the leading philosophical stance in addressing the research problem would result in preference for a mixed design that allows for incorporation of different data collection mechanism. This is a measure that will seek triangulation of findings from different data and information sources on the effects of the franchisor /franchisee relationship on franchise success. Importantly, the effects being investigated in the study do not necessarily have to be a measurable or have quantitative value rather they can be qualitative factors.

Constructivism Constructivism as a school of philosophical thought is based on the premise that human reflection of their own experiences can be used in constructing or developing a better understanding of the world. Under constructivism, it is believed that everyone has a mental model or rules that are used in rationalizing and understanding personal experiences (Creswell, 2007). Thus learning under constructivism is viewed as a process of accommodating the new models through adjusting the mental models (Creswell, 2007).

This when applied to research implies that research is the search for understanding and must therefore start with issues that are well understood. An important influence of constructivism when applied to research is that it emphasizes on the need to look at parts as well as wholes when analyzing a problem. This implies that in researching on a given area it is important to note the primary concepts involved and prioritizing facts should be avoided.

The problem as defined by the problem statements is determining if there is a causal relationship between the franchisor /franchisee relationship and the success of the franchise. The wholes being analyzed include the relationship between franchisor and franchisee and the success of a franchise which may be divided into several subparts. Adoption of constructivism to the problem would require an analysis of the sub problems and the 'wholes'. This affects the approach to data collection because constructivism requires movement from the known to the unknown.

A review of the existing literature and data in the research area has to be included in the research strategy if a constructivism philosophical stance is adopted for the research problem. Advocacy/Participatory Advocacy and participatory research are predominantly transformative and concerned with issues of social justice. The core aspects in participatory research are participation and accessing local knowledge. Most researchers are of the view that participatory research if carried out well enhance the validity of the findings since the participative, relational and social nature of human nature are captured (Mertens, 2005).

Though advocacy research may be viewed as one-dimensional and potentially biased towards reinforcing a given viewpoint, participation of the entities affected or the key entities in the core areas of such studies improve the authenticity of the findings. Advocacy is concerned with heightening the levels of awareness on social issues so as to influence policy direction. Advocacy studies are based on the notion that theory is a basis for awareness and policy formulation.

This is the case in the problem statement since the poor performance of small and medium scale businesses is an issue of economic and therefore social importance. If a participatory or advocacy research philosophy is adopted in the study, the methodology will be vastly affected. This is mainly because emphasis will be placed on actual participation of the franchisor and franchisee in data collection. Primary data collection which is perceived to be less gullible to researcher bias and more objective may also the preferable data collection approach.

Pragmatism Pragmatism is mainly concerned with the truth of a proposition or an ideology. Under pragmatism, a proposition holds true if it works satisfactorily and therefore the meaning of a proposition can only be found in the consequences of its acceptance. This in essence implies that an idea that cannot be put into practice and therefore has no practical consequences has to be rejected. In a nutshell, pragmatism is based on the notion that the truth of an idea has to be tested for validity.

The primacy of practice is one of the key tenets under pragmatism. Primacy of practice is based on the premise that human capacity is an integral aspect of intelligent practice. Thus, under pragmatism theory and practice are not viewed as separate spheres. Most pragmatists are of the view that the question of theory versus practice is invalid rather focus should be on intelligent versus uninformed practice (Creswell, 2003). Additionally, theory is perceived by pragmatist as an abstraction of direct experience that must in turn inform experience.

This implies that emphasis should be on determining the validity of the research strategy adopted rather than whether it is theoretical or practical. Adoption of pragmatism in analyzing the research problem would result in the inclusion of theory. It is quite evident that the problem is stated in a more practical realm however the adoption of pragmatism as the leading philosophical tenet would allow for the inclusion of theories in understanding and addressing the problem. Another important implication of adopting this school of thought is that emphasis will be placed on the validity of the findings.

This affects the research design and the methodological strategies that will be included in the study. Conclusion The adopted schools of thought are influential on the perception of the role of research and the areas that should be awarded more weight. The adopted philosophical school of thought therefore affects the methodological strategies that will be adopted in addressing the research problem. However, the research problem has minimal effects on the different philosophical schools of thought.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post Positivism: Knowledge From Different Perspectives Example | GraduateWay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Post-positivism is a meta-theoretical philosophical position that seeks to amend some of the assumptions made by positivism. Under post-positivism, human knowledge is not based on solid unchallengeable tenets rather is a result of the amalgamation of different human conjectures. Post-positivism is based on the belief that human knowledge is conjectural; underlying knowledge can be questioned through further investigation (Groff, 2004).

# data[].attributes.body
Logical Positivism in Social Psychology - iResearchNet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Logical Positivism Definition

Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, was an early 20th-century philosophical movement that held that a statement was meaningful only if it could be verified or confirmed through experience. Logical positivism relied exclusively on observable events for knowledge about the world, and therefore considered non-observable events to be basically meaningless. In other words, the only truth is what science can prove.

History, Problems, and Modern Significance of Logical Positivism

A. E. Blumberg and Herbert Feigl coined the term logical positivism in 1931 to describe the philosophical principles of the Vienna Circle, a group of European scholars. Logical positivists rejected philosophical inquiries on the grounds that there was no possible way of verifying them in experience. For example, the statement "abortion is wrong" reflects a person's disapproval of abortion, or attempts to convince others to also disapprove of abortion. In either case, the statement itself does not convey any direct information about the existence or nature of abortion, and is therefore (according to logical positivism) meaningless (e.g., what you think about abortion does not really matter because it is just your opinion). Logical positivists consequently proposed science to be the source for all knowledge about the world because science is grounded in concrete experience and publicly observable events (unlike, for instance, observations gained from introspection). If propositions were inextricably tied to science, logical positivists argued, they could not be too far from the truth.

Logical positivism collapsed in the 1940s, largely because of the sharpness of its inevitably created yes-or-no dichotomies: Either a statement is verifiable or it is not, either a statement is scientific or unscientific. Ironically, this created severe problems because such statements themselves cannot be conclusively verified. Moreover, basing all conclusions on directly observable data creates problems as well. For example, a person with a headache might complain of pain, lie down, or take aspirin. However, someone faking a headache might objectively exhibit the same overt symptoms. A pure reliance on the observable data would presumably lead to the errant conclusion that both people have headaches, when only one actually does.

Problems notwithstanding, logical positivism has nonetheless left its mark on psychology. The behaviorists in particular quite enthusiastically adopted the premise that scientists should study behavior rather than thought. Most importantly, logical positivism helped endow psychology with the enduring sentiment that one can transform complex propositions about cognitive phenomena into scientifically testable hypotheses about overt behavior and do so in a way that other researchers-and ideally the general public-can clearly understand the results.

Reference:

Passmore, J. (1967). Logical positivism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 5, pp. 52-57). New York: Macmillan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Logical Positivism in Social Psychology - iResearchNet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, was an early 20th-century philosophical movement that held that a statement was meaningful only if it could be verified or confirmed through experience. Logical positivism relied exclusively on observable events for knowledge about the world, and therefore considered non-observable events to be basically meaningless.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Logical Positivism? (See link below for Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophy of Language) - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Logical Positivism? (See link below for Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophy of Language)

# data[].attributes.body
William Lane Craig on Logical Positivism - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
William Lane Craig on Logical Positivism

# data[].attributes.body
What was Logical Positivism and its Verification Principle? – Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy (jamesbishopblog.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Logical positivism was a philosophical movement that flourished between 1920 and 1960 in several centers across Europe and the United States. The movement's proponents were all empiricists of a kind (those who believe that knowledge is principally derived from sense experience and observation) and many of them shared interests in thinking about how science and scientific methodology could reshape society. Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Verification Principle
In the mid-20th century the Vienna Circle, which consisted of a group of thinkers including philosophers and scientists, proposed that only logical truths and statements about the physical world have meaning. This position became known as logical positivism, a philosophy significantly influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein's (1889-1951) picture theory of meaning. Although he would later revise and alter his views, Wittgenstein, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922), argued that language enables people to form pictures of reality that they are then able to share with others in order to find a common understanding. This became known as Wittgenstein's picture theory of language, which would influence thinkers within the Vienna Circle. The theory proved influential because it also argued that only words which refer to empirical objects are meaningful; words like "grass" and "green" are the building blocks of the meaningful statement, whereas statements that cannot be reduced to atomic propositions are nonsense because they fail to describe reality.

The logical positivists agreed and stated that propositions of science are meaningful and make sense, whereas statements of theology, ethics, and aesthetics do not. Logical positivism's central rule was what became known as the verification principle, according to which a statement only has value and meaning if it is logically true or can be verified by observation. A number of proponents had the goal of exorcising speculation from philosophy so that it could be brought into line with modern science.
A. J. Ayer
The British empiricist philosopher A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) was a major proponent of logical positivism. He penned Language, Truths and Logic (1936) in which he argued that only empirical, tautological, or mathematical statements are meaningful because these include only those things that can be verified by observation, logic, or mathematics, while other statements, such as those of theology (i.e. "God is good"), ethical statements (i.e. "rape is evil"), and aesthetic statements (i.e. "the mountain is beautiful"), do not express meaningful ideas and are therefore meaningless. Ayer stated that "all utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical" and this would even include atheist and agnostic assertions. And for the believer in God, "his assertions cannot be valid, but they cannot be invalid either" (1). Ayer continues,

"But the notion of a person whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all. We may have a word which is used as if it named this 'person', but unless the sentences in which it occurs expresses propositions which are empirically verifiable, it cannot be said to symbolize anything. And this is the case with regard to the word 'god', in the usage in which it is intended to refer to a transcendent object" (2).

For the logical positivists, there are only two types of meaningful statements: logical statements (such as "Red is a colour", or "A triangle has three sides") and factual statements (such as "It is snowing outside", or "The sun is shining"). In contrast to statements of ethics, aesthetics, and theology, these are meaningful because they express logical truths and/or are related to the observable world.
Rudolf Carnap Renounces Metaphysics
Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970), a member of the Vienna Circle and an admirer of Wittgenstein's picture theory of meaning, was also critical of meaningless speculation which failed to satisfy the verification principle. Carnap believed that philosophers had spent too much time speculating about the nature of reality, which led him to claim that they should restrict themselves to analyzing language, while philosophy itself should be a rigorous, empirical discipline. In a similar light to the views of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Carnap believed that confusion is avoidable by using logical analysis which revealed the underlying logic of ordinary language. The philosopher should identify language in the same way physicists have identified fundamental laws of nature lying behind the natural order. Carnap reasoned that the fundamental laws of philosophy are the laws of logic, although he believed there is an important difference between them and the laws of science,

"Logic is not concerned with human behavior in the same sense that physiology, psychology, and social sciences are concerned with it. These sciences formulate laws or universal statements which have as their subject matter human activities as processes in time. Logic, on the contrary, is concerned with relations between factual sentences (or thoughts)" (3).

Similarly to Ayer, Carnap used the verification principle to judge statements and argued that those of a metaphysical kind which cannot be verified by experience (statements such as "God is good" and "the soul survives death") are strictly meaningless. He called such sentences "pseudo-sentences",
"According to this view, the sentences of metaphysics are pseudo-sentences which on logical analysis are proved to be either empty phrases or phrases which violate the rules of syntax. Of the so-called philosophical problems, the only questions which have any meaning are those of the logic of science. To share this view is to substitute logical syntax for philosophy" (4).
It is clear then that to Carnap many sentences used in daily language by human beings make no sense and have no meaning, a view informed by the conviction that it was impossible to marshal any evidence in support of metaphysical claims and that metaphysical theories of both the past (i.e. Plato's theory of forms, Descartes' cogito, and Hegel's concept of Geist) and the present should be abandoned. Philosophers should not construct theories about the world because this is the prerogative of science.
Criticisms of Logical Positivism
Despite its legacy, logical positivism is no longer a popular philosophical theory and its rejection of metaphysics has come under scrutiny. Already in 1967 the Australian philosopher John Passmore (1914-2004) stated that "Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes" (5).

Most contemporary philosophers are hesitant to pronounce the death of metaphysics. William Lane Craig explains that "Since the demise of Verificationism in the mid-twentieth century, metaphysics, despite Kant's strictures, has been booming once again" (5). Logical positivism lost its potency when philosophers agreed that its verification principle would not only render theological statements meaningless but also "a great many scientific statements-along with ethical, aesthetic, and metaphysical statements as well- so that the Principle was wholly unreasonable" (6). Many philosophers find that ethical, aesthetic, and metaphysical statements are in fact meaningful and that within them lies objective truth. For example, many philosophers hold to the existence of moral facts, the view that human acts are evil or good and that this corresponds (see correspondence theory of truth) to the world factually. Moreover, most philosophers agree that the scientific enterprise is itself permeated with underlying non-empirical, metaphysical assumptions.

The dagger to the heart, so to speak, for logical positivism is that its verification principle was discovered to be self-refuting: the positivist claim that "A meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified" appears itself incapable of obtaining empirical verification, meaning that no amount of empirical evidence can verify its foundational claim, thus rendering the verification principle a meaningless combination of words.
References
1. Quoted by Graham Oppy and Michael Scott (2010) in Reading Philosophy of Religion. p. 10.

2. Quoted by Graham Oppy and Michael Scott (2010) in Reading Philosophy of Religion. p. 10.

3. Quoted by Irving J. Lee (1967) in The Language of Wisdom and Folly: Background Readings in Semantics. International Society for General Semantics. p. 44

4. Carnap, R. 1934. Logical Syntax of Language. p. 8

5. Passmore, J. 1967. Logical Positivism. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. p. 57.

5. Craig, W. 2012. The Limits of Reason. Available.

6. Craig, W. Are There Objective Truths about God? Available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What was Logical Positivism and its Verification Principle?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Logical positivism was a philosophical movement that flourished between 1920 and 1960 in several centers across Europe and the United States. The movement's proponents were all empiricists of a kind (those who believe that knowledge is principally derived from sense experience and observation) and many of them shared interests in thinking about how science and...

# data[].attributes.body
Logical Positivism - YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
What is Logical Positivism? History and Profile (learnreligions.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Logical Positivism?:

Developed by the Vienna Circle during the 1920s and 30s, Logical Positivism was an attempt to systematize empiricism in light of developments in math and philosophy. The term Logical Positivism was first used by Albert Blumberg and Herbert Feigl in 1931. For logical positivists, the entire discipline of philosophy was centered one task: to clarify the meanings of concepts and ideas. This led them to inquire what meaning was and what sorts of statements have any meaning in the first place.

Important Books on Logical Positivism:

Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, by Ludwig Wittgenstein
Logical Syntax of Language, by Rudolf Carnap

Important Philosophers of Logical Positivism:

Mortiz Schlick
Otto Neurath
Friedrich Waismann
Edgar Zilsel
Kurt Gödel
Hans Hahn
Rudolf Carnap
Ernst Mach
Gilbert Ryle
A.J. Ayer
Alfred Tarski
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Logical Positivism and Meaning:

According to logical positivism, there are only two sorts of statements which have meaning. The first encompasses necessary truths of logic, mathematics and ordinary language. The second encompasses empirical propositions about the world around us and which are not necessary truths instead, they are true with greater or lesser probability. Logical positivists argued that meaning is necessarily and fundamentally connected to experience in the world.

Logical Positivism and the Verifiability Principle:

The most famous doctrine of logical positivism is its verifiability principle. According to the verifiability principle, the validity and meaning of a proposition is dependent upon whether or not it can be verified. A statement which cannot be verified is held to be automatically invalid and meaningless. More extreme versions of the principle require conclusive verification; others require only that verification be possible.

Logical Positivism on: Metaphysics, Religion, Ethics:

The verifiability principle became for logical positivists a basis for attack on metaphysics, theology, and religion because those systems of thought make many statements which cannot, in principle or in practice, be verified in any way. These propositions might qualify as expressions of ones emotional state, at best but nothing else.

Logical Positivism Today:

Logical Positivism had a lot of support for around 20 or 30 years, but its influence began to decline around the middle of the 20th century. At this point in time hardly anyone is likely to identify themselves as a logical positivist, but you can find many people especially those involved in the sciences who support at least a few of the basic theses of logical positivism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Logical Positivism? History and Profile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developed by the 'Vienna Circle' during the 1920s and 30s, Logical Positivism was an attempt to systematize empiricism in light of developments in math and philosophy. The term Logical Positivism was first used by Albert Blumberg and Herbert Feigl in 1931.