See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347647734

Critical realism: what you should know and how to apply it

Article  in  Qualitative Research Journal · December 2020

DOI: 10.1108/QRJ-08-2020-0101

CITATIONS READS

2 6,445

1 author:

Ama Lawani
Robert Gordon University
4 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ama Lawani on 23 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1443-9883.htm

Critical realism: what you should Critical realism

know and how to apply it

Ama Lawani
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract
Received 28 August 2020
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the critical realism (CR) philosophical viewpoint and how it Revised 1 November 2020
can be applied in qualitative research. CR is a relatively new and viable philosophical paradigm proposed as an Accepted 10 November 2020
alternative to the more predominant paradigms of positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism. This paper
reviews the concept, its benefits and limitation. It goes further to provide an example of how CR is used as a
philosophical and methodological framework with the systems thinking theory to applied qualitative research.
Design/methodology/approach – A study of project management challenges in a Nigerian government
organisation is used to demonstrate a qualitative research approach, which includes a coding process and data
analysis that is consistent with CR ontology and epistemology.
Findings – CR focuses primarily on closed systems. However, a more accurate explanation of reality is
obtained in addition to the identification of contextual causal mechanisms in the context of study when a
general systems theory is applied.
Research limitations/implications – The knowledge about the nature of relationships obtained in the
context of study may not necessarily be replicated in another context. However, this paper elucidates a CR
process that is generalisable by demonstrating how a theory is applied in a different context.
Originality/value – The paper demonstrates how systems theory is used to understand interactions in a CR
paradigm. It engages with CR approach critically and illustrates a clear example of how CR can be applied in
social research.
Keywords Critical realism, Systems thinking, Data analysis, Case study
Paper type General review

Introduction
Critical realism (CR) is an all-inclusive philosophy of science because it uses both the
positivist and constructivist approaches to provide a thorough account of ontology and
epistemology (Gorski, 2013; Fleetwood et al., 2002). This method seeks to measure the
underlying causal relationships between social events to acquire a better understanding of
issues and thus being able to suggest strategic recommendations to address social problems
(Fletcher, 2017).
As pragmatism and CR both advocate for the need to mix methods, these two have been
associated together (Sayer in Easton, 2010; Lipscomb, 2011). However, pragmatism argues
that ontological and epistemological dimensions can be separated out from the methods and
strategies applied in a study, thus promoting the notion that the “end justifies the means”
(Scott, 2007; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). On the other hand, CR associates with
ontological and epistemological assumptions by arguing that an external reality exists both
in natural and social science, the exception is the character of reality in the latter, which is
adapted to reflect the particular nature of the social environment (Gorski, 2013). It maintains
that dimensions of reality are deep-seated and cannot be reduced to experimental
observations, but rather can be known by understanding the mechanisms that produce
those experimental events, which are hardly ever directly visible (Danermark et al., 2002).
In CR, the primary reason for mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches is to promote
understanding of the reasons for the complexity of the reality and not to translate it (Sobh and
Perry, 2006). That is, CR asserts that qualitative methods are used in obtaining rich
explanations of existing mechanisms in the phenomenon of interest (Bhaskar, 1998), and if a
Qualitative Research Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1443-9883
No funding nor potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. DOI 10.1108/QRJ-08-2020-0101
QRJ better understanding of the situation is required to redirect and change these mechanisms, then
testing the nature and strength of existing mechanisms can be achieved by quantitative means
(Edwards et al., 2014). Scholars have advocated the potential CR has in achieving thought-
provoking and insightful research (Karlsson and Ackroyd, 2014; Bhaskar, 2013). However, the
scarcity of literature focusing on the application of CR justifies the need for further awareness
and development on the application of CR in empirical qualitative studies (Mingers, 2014).
In this article, the application of CR in qualitative research is discussed. The aim of the
study is to engage with CR approach critically, illustrate a clear example on how CR can be
applied in social research while simultaneously gaining insight to contextual causal
mechanisms that impact on the application of project management in a Nigerian government
organisation (NGO) by using the systems thinking (ST) theory.
The study involved 17 in-depth interviews with project managers to examine how the
application of project management is impacted upon and how they respond to the challenges
of poor project management practices (PMPs). Some background to CR is first presented and
then assessed against corresponding philosophical positions. Next, the relevance of applying
CR to project management research is discussed. Thematic data analysis, which is consistent
with CR ontology and epistemology (Fletcher, 2017), is used to deduce key and sub-themes.
The process of analysis in CR, retroduction, is elucidated. This process involved the
explanation of significant characteristics of causal relationship using ST to arrive at a
theoretical explanation or re-description (Mingers, 2006; Bhaskar, 1998), which ultimately led
to the identification of causal mechanisms driving current trends in project management
development in NGOs. ST consists of several schools of thoughts with varying views
(Ababneh et al., 2009). The focus here is on the general systems theory (GST) perspective.

Overview of critical realism (CR)

Developed by Bhaskar in the 1970 and 1980s, CR is a philosophical system that has progressed by
other scholars and is positioned as an alternative to positivism and interpretivism paradigms (Archer
et al., 2013; Bhaskar, 2013). It leverages aspects of both to offer new approaches to developing
knowledge by recognising the role of subjective information of social actors in a given context while
taking note of the independent structures that constrain and facilitate these actors to carry out certain
activities in that context (Sayer, 2010). In the same vein, CR is regarded as a philosophy about social
structures and human agency, and their interaction is used as a basis for the analysis of complex
phenomenon for theorising the relative interplay of structures, culture and agency (Hjørland and
Wikgren, 2005). Despite the assertion of the methodological underdevelopment of its application
(Yeung, 1997), CR provides researchers with novel opportunities to explore/investigate complex
organisational occurrences in a holistic way (Easton, 2010).
Bhaskar’s (1998) criticisms of positivism and constructivist philosophies led to the
emergence of CR. He refuted that reality is not exclusively about what is empirically known
and argued that the nature of the world is not reducible to our knowledge of reality; therefore,
it is not possible to make inference, as in natural science, through the use of experiments. In
response to the constructivists, he contended reality is not entirely constructed through the
knowledge or discourse of the social actors (Bhaskar, 1998) and advocated that reality
independent of our conception and knowledge of it exists, but this is not accessible to direct
observation. CR suggests that our knowledge of the external world consists of subjective
interpretations and is fallible because they are formed by the conceptual frameworks in
which the researcher operates (McEvoy and Richards, 2003; Bhaskar, 1998).
For a critical realist, reality has causal powers and mechanisms, which can be experienced
by their ability to cause or make things to occur (Danermark et al., 2002). Therefore, the ability
to participate in causal analysis in a given context makes CR valuable for analysing social
problems and proffering solutions (Fletcher, 2017). Table 1 shows the differences between CR
and major philosophical positions based on their assumptions.
 Paradigms
Critical realism
Philosophical
position Positivism Interpretivism Pragmatism CR

Ontology Variants are realism, Variants are Propose that Believes in a real
empiricism, etc. relativism and ontological and world independent of
Belief in an external constructivism, etc. epistemological people’s perception,
reality independent Denies the views can be i.e. the world
of human thought or possibility of separated from a functions as a
perception. Equates knowing which is research, and that multidimensional
reality with real. Reality is as a truth is understood system and that
recordable events result of human in terms of the causal structures that
(Mingers, 2006) experiences and practical effects of explains a
events (Easterby- what is believed phenomenon may
Smith et al., 2012) (Tashakkori and remain latent until
Teddlie, 1998; Scott, activated in specific
2007) situations (Mcevoy
and Richards, 2003)
Epistemology Knowledge is Knowledge is Knowledge can be Knowledge is
derived from created from the obtained by the use obtained by
experience of the action and of various methods observing and
world. Researcher is perception of the required to achieve interpreting meaning
separate from what social actors. the optimum results to explain the
is being investigated Researcher is not (Johnson and elements of reality
(Hjørland and separated from Onwuegbuzie, that must exist prior
Wikgren, 2005) what is being 2004) to the events and
investigated experiences that
(Saunders et al., occurred (Wynn and
2009; Bryman, Williams, 2012)
2015)
Methodology Investigates Subjective study, Combination of Typically, research
regularities at the deep reflections both qualitative design is an intensive
level of events. through. Mainly and quantitative study with a limited
Mainly applies applies qualitative approaches in other number of cases.
quantitative methods such as to complement each Involves
methods: in-depth other (Creswell, retroduction: making
observations, unstructured 2009) observations and
experimentation. interviews and theorising a
Deals with numbers grounded theory mechanism to explain
and facts (Bryman, research (Saunders the particular
2015) et al., 2009) phenomenon
(Bygstad and
Munkvold, 2011)
Task of To induce strongly To explore and To be capable of To provide a rich and
researcher supported reinterpret demonstrating reliable explanation
hypothesis from subjective meaning flexibility when of patterns of events
empirical mainly through the formulating a through the
observation and to identification of methodology by development of
test and improve discourse and their offering a mix of appropriate accounts
them in an attempt to construction of paradigms and of the causal powers,
Table 1.
confirm invariable meaning (Edwards methods as directed entities and Assumptions of
laws through et al., 2014) by the research mechanisms that positivism,
experimentation question (Howe, created them interpretivism,
(Bryman, 2015) 1988) (Edwards et al., 2014) pragmatism and CR
Source(s): Author generated paradigms
QRJ Ontological and epistemology of critical realism
Ontologically, CR assumes that reality is multi-layered or stratified into three domains: the
real, the actual and the empirical. The domain of the real consists of deep structures of objects
or entities that are physical, social and internally related. The real contains total reality; the
mechanisms, events, experiences and causal powers inherent to these objects or entities as
they independently exist. The domain of the actual consists of events that take place when
causal powers of structures and objects are enacted, in spite of whether they are observable or
not. Lastly, the domain of the empirical are those events that are experienced or observable
through perception or measurement (Archer et al., 2013). These domains are nested within
each other such that it is impractical to reduce what causes an event in one level to another
level because at each level, some new experience emerges (Hjørland and Wikgren, 2005).
Epistemologically, CR conceives a description of the real world through an analysis of the
experiences of participants. Consequently, there is a hermeneutic aspect involved in carrying
out investigations. The knowledge claims that results from the analysis are aimed at
identifying and explaining those elements of reality that must exist for the events and
experiences being investigated to have taken place (Wynn and Williams, 2012). Therefore, the
epistemological objective of CR is to describe and clarify the relationship between observed
experiences, events and mechanisms. For critical realists, the main objective of the
investigation is to acquire knowledge about underlying causal mechanisms to achieve an
explanation of how things work.
A stratified ontology is the core of CR (Bygstad and Munkvold, 2011). All levels are part of
the same environment or reality and are represented as three overlapping or nested domains
(Archer et al., 2013; Mingers, 2006). The primary objective of CR is to explain a social
occurrence by referencing causal mechanisms and the potential consequences they have
throughout the stratified three layers of reality (Fletcher, 2017).

Background to project management practice (PMP) challenges in Nigerian

government organisation
The practice of project management is recognised as a significant contributor to the
successful delivery of projects (Basheka and Tumutegyereize, 2012). Because of the quest for
government reforms by western federations (Baranskaya, 2007; Crawford et al., 2003), the use
of project management techniques to control government expenditure and promote efficiency
in project and service delivery became increasingly popular. Consequentially, accountability
and administrative effectiveness are relatively improved through the utilisation of
developmental projects in these organisations (Olusola et al., 2012).
Interest in PMP has a long history in developed societies, while its prospects remain
unexploited in developing nations. In most developed countries, the effective utilisation of
project management helps to promote and drive the values of government public projects.
However, in developing Sub-Saharan countries, vital information required to build PMPs
within the public sector is still lacking, despite the recognition of some challenges posited to
be institutional, structural and cultural (Shuaib, 2016; Zuofa and Ochieng, 2014).
By employing the use of CR with an ST approach, this study argues that the conventional
explanation of the reason for poor PMP in Sub-Saharan region does not address the reality of
the condition from a holistic perspective, but instead offers a partial investigation. The author
draws from Engwall’s (2003) assertion that projects are essentially open systems that consist
of many contextual inter-related dependencies and variances. Hence, the reductionist,
rational approach applied in explaining these challenges is inadequate in analysing complex
environments and does not support an understanding of contextual characteristics relevant
for specific accounts and the development of project management (Lawani and Moore, 2016).
CR argues that ontologically, there exist elements that cannot be directly observed or
identified objectively, but which cause or are responsible for the effect we see (Mcevoy and
Richard, 2003). This implies there are a number of elements and interacting mechanisms in Critical realism
NGOs, each of which can impact on the existing state of affairs and generate events that result
in the deficiencies of PMPs.

Systems thinking (ST) theory

ST is widely recognised as a useful theory in explaining complex problems that are not easily
deciphered using reductionist thinking. It has its foundation in general system theory (GST),
first proposed by Bertalanffy, and comprises a set of concepts and models that relates to
systemic structures or behaviours (Rousseau, 2015). ST has been defined and advanced in
various ways, with many having a different focus or viewpoint, which often leads to
confusion (Arnold and Wade, 2015). Some of the techniques and approaches developed for
different situations in different disciplines include systems dynamics (Senge, 1997), critical
systems (Jackson, 2001) and soft systems methodology (Checkland, 1981). In categorising the
approaches, there have been variations too; Reynolds and Holwell (2010) identified 19 ST
methods, and Ababneh’s et al. (2009) graphical representation shows 14 ST approaches.
The disparate interpretations and approaches make it inappropriate to include all aspects of
systems under the term ST, and the scope of this study does not include an evaluation of ST
methods. For present purposes, the GST was used as a guiding theory in the application of CR.
GST supports the common themes that have emerged from reviews of various academic
literature, which acknowledge that systems are dynamic, are constantly influenced by
multiple forces and feedback mechanisms. There is consensus that ST is a perspective, a
language and a set of tools (Monat and Gannon, 2015). The mutual perspective recognises
that in natural and human-designed systems, events and/or patterns that are repeated
originate from systemic structures, which, in turn, originate from the mental models or
physical/chemical forces. This perspective is a core element of ST and is often depicted by the
iceberg model (Kim, 1999; Sheffield et al., 2012).
The iceberg model is a conventional and well-recognised ST tool designed to assist in
providing a holistic view by discovering patterns of behaviour, supporting structures and
mental models underlying a specific event or phenomenon. The model suggests that events or
experiences, which are the issues easily seen, are traceable to a “history” of past activities or
behaviours, which presents a pattern caused by systemic structures and mental models that
are often invisible (Maani and Cavana, 2007).
The philosophy of CR and ST approach both argue against reductionism. However, the
difference between the views of system theorists and critical realists lies in the definition of
openness and closure such that the latter explains them in terms of the structure of the
system, while the former focuses on its manifestation or outcome (Chick and Dow, 2005).
Advocates of CR opine that factors capable of influencing a system must be internalised
within the system.

Methodology and method: applying critical realism to study project management

in Nigerian government organisation
Various scholars have applied different methodological principles in CR research such as
explanation of events (Morton, 2006) and explanation of structure and context (Bygstad,
2010). Each of the methodological principles highlights or emphasises a consistent strand; a
clear/open focus on establishing causality. Each methodological principle searches for an
explanation of how and why a certain phenomenon occurs in relation to a particular context.
The search for these explanations is typically achieved through qualitative means.
Retroduction is the fundamental method of inference used in arriving at a theoretical
explanation by describing significant characteristics of a possible causal structure at work
(Bhaskar, 1998). Some authors have referred to this process as abduction (Mingers, 2006;
McEvoy and Richards, 2003), thereby introducing ambiguity between the two terms.
QRJ However, while abduction is often only associated with a theoretical re-description of
apparent events, retroduction, is more overarching as it involves two processes (1) carrying
out a theoretical re-description of the observable elements (ideally provided by research
participants or historical data) by integrating observations with concepts identified from the
literature and (2) identifying the interplay of elements, i.e. mechanisms. This process seeks to
establish interconnectedness of the events as they are observed (Danemark et al., 2002).
Therefore, arguably, abduction is a subset of retroduction, and the different methodological
principles used in CR (explanation of events and explanation of structure and context) are
essentially variant forms of retroduction.
In this study, four systems within project-based organisations were investigated –
governance system, management system, project delivery system and project
management system. This is congruent with the four nested governance and management
systems that have separate yet interconnecting roles of enhancing strategy, operational and
administrative activities to optimise the management of projects (Too and Weaver, 2014).
Research of the four systems is also consistent with theoretical models of ST theory that are
used in demonstrating the dynamic behaviour of a system (Maani and Cavana, 2007).

Method
CR employs either an intensive or extensive method. The former focusing on the discovery of
causal powers (generative mechanisms) and the latter focusing on the broader context in
which the mechanisms operate (Edwards et al., 2014). As an in-depth diagnosis of the current
situation is required rather than the magnitude of the problem, an intensive approach was
adopted involving a case study. Moreover, the extensive method has been argued to be
associated with quantitative data collection and statistical analysis (Danemark et al., 2002).
The first stage of data collection was a comprehensive literature review on the widespread
trends of barriers to project management development in Nigeria. The relevance of this
process was to establish patterns and define a problem or question, which is theory-driven.
An intensive data collection stage involved semi-structured interviews undertaken with 17
experienced project managers from a government organisation having the mandate to
execute construction building projects in Nigeria. A semi-structured interview format was
used to ensure flexibility in exploring and updating existing literature on project
management challenges while still allowing new thoughts to emerge.
Data from the interviews were transcribed and cleaned before importation to NVivo for
data management. A considerable amount of time was spent during the data collection
process and transcribing to develop an in-depth understanding of the challenges.

Data coding and identification of events at the empirical and real level
An exploration of contextual causal mechanisms and the nature of their interaction was the
objective. Therefore, a thematic analysis was used to evaluate the primary data. Also, this
method of analysis is theoretically flexible and provides a detailed and multidimensional
account of the data, thus allowing for determining of relationships (Vaismoradi et al., 2013;
Braun and Clarke, 2006). The main empirical findings of the investigation were identified
through a coding process. The literature review on widespread issues of project
management development in Sub-Saharan and the literature on systems within an
organisation (Too and Weaver, 2014; White and Fortune, 2009) were used to form a logical
justification for themes.
The process of identifying coding instances was an iterative process, which consisted of
revisiting the literature and interview memos. In keeping with Corbin and Strauss (2008)
steps to coding, instances of activities and events were first coded and grouped into
categories (i.e. open coding process). The large number of initial codes were further coded
based on the relationship of the categories (i.e. axial coding process) into 12 sub-themes. Critical realism
Lastly, the axial codes were organised, integrated and categorised under four main themes –
external environment, governance system, middle management system and the project
execution system (selective coding). Based on CR categories, the four themes are the “Real”
objects of the study. They represent the organisational components contained within a
system, in this case, NGO. Identification of the main themes emerge from data or are
embedded in a theoretical framework, e.g. people, groups and sub-systems (Bygstad and
Munkvold, 2011; Danemark et al., 2002). The main themes (selective coding) and sub-themes
(axial coding) are shown in Figure 2.

Data analysis through abduction – theoretical re-description

According to CR ontology, data analysis begins with the identification of events or
observations at the empirical level of reality. These events were compared with concepts in
the literature to obtain reliable explanation – theoretical re-description or abduction. Four
systems were recognised during the coding process. At this stage, the findings seemed to
challenge the project governance framework (Too and Weaver, 2014) such that, although four
nested systems were discussed in the authors’ framework, the external environment was not
salient. However, because the findings from the current study also paralleled with the ST
theory, which illustrates a four-level model system, there was heightened confidence during
the coding process. Therefore, inferring from the concept of an open system, an environment
external to the governance and management mechanisms exists, which interacts with the
system such that it is capable of influencing activities within the system (Scott and Davis,
2015; Whiteand Fortune, 2009).
The core element of the ST model suggests that events or experiences, which are the
problems easily seen, are traceable to a “history” of past activities or behaviours, which
presents a pattern caused by systemic structures and mental models that are often invisible
(Figure 1). At the first level of the hierarchy is our recognition and experiences of events, such as
the use of a project management template or methodology and required skills/competencies.
Visible

Events

Patterns
Invisible

Systemic structures

Mental models

Figure 1.
Iceberg model of ST
Source(s): Adapted from Sheffield et al. (2012)
QRJ

Figure 2.
Visual display of
themes and sub-themes
coding index
using NVivo

Most of what we know is at this level because it is visible. Thus, interventions and treatment of
issues (which seems the most straightforward solution) occur at this level, though they usually
do not provide enduring solutions. Events that are experienced are encountered daily. The
second level contains the patterns that connect separate events such as senior management
support. This level provides a richer representation that gives more insight to the events
experienced. The third level represents a deeper level seeking to explain the interplay of social,
political, economic and structural elements that produces the observed patterns. It contains
systemic structures such as an organisation’s support and strategy for project management.
The fourth level, which is the most concealed and deepest, represents the mental models of
individuals, which are underpinned by our beliefs, values and assumptions that influence why
things are the way they are. Sheffield et al. (2012) describe mental models as habitual or
instinctual ways of understanding/knowledge that are the basis of our individual and collective
response. Figure 3 presents a theoretical re-description of the themes from the data against the
elements of ST described above and stratified domains of CR. It can be observed that the
external environment has the potential to impact on the internal system of the organisation,
 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
* Traditional orientation of policy
makers

Mental Models
* External systems (Contractors) –
indigenous contractors
incompetence/dishonesty, foreign
contractors competence

GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
* Political influences
* No national policy
* Weak structure of the organisation

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
* Autonomy of middle managers
* Inadequate project management

Systemic Structures
knowledge
* Less formal structures

Patterns
* Inadequate Project Mgt training
and development

PROJECT EXECUTION SYSTEM

* Lack of project management tools

Events
& techniques
* Project practitioner’s incompetence
* Poor internal administration

Empirical domain

Actual domain

Real domain
Critical realism

using ST and CR
Figure 3.

themes from the data

re-description of
Theoretical
QRJ while on the contrary, CR does not explicitly consider the external environment but emphasises
internally related physical and social objects.

Data analysis through retroduction (identification of causal mechanisms)

The last stage of CR application focuses on the identification of causal mechanisms. This is
referred to as retroduction and aims to identify how social objects interact with contextual
situations to produce the observed results. The process of retroduction was subsequently
performed using a causal loop diagram model to represent the causal relationships, thereby
exploring the casual underlying powers affecting PMP.
The study began with some expectations from existing theory and literature. Although
many of the narrated accounts of project managers were parallel to the findings from
previous research and the project governance framework earlier on elucidated, two
significant causal mechanisms behind the challenges of practicing project management
previously unidentified in existing literature were traditional orientation (a sub-theme under
mental models) and autonomy of middle managers.
The occurrence of a middle management system was a significant insight into the study.
Despite the recognition of the role of middle managers in identifying and enhancing adequate and
appropriate competencies, and providing motivation and support for staff (Rouleau and Balogun,
2011), this system is not always emphasised in organisations (Koch et al., 2015). It is also expedient
to assume that the recognition of this system is heightened in public organisations due to the level
of bureaucracy. Based on the responses, it was observed that middle managers had a causal effect
on activities in the organisation due to their level of autonomy.
Further analysis of the autonomy of middle managers causal mechanism led to an
interesting observation – a relationship between inadequate project management knowledge,
inadequate project management training and development and the perception of project
management (a sub-theme under inadequate project management knowledge). Responses
indicated that these components within the middle management system had no interactions
with the external system, nevertheless, had the capability of self-organising the subsystem
such that it was capable of reproducing itself and maintaining the entire system by acquiring
the internal presence of the other elements within the organisation.
This feature in ST is referred to as autopoiesis (Fernandez et al., 2014; Razeto-Barry, 2012). In
other words, middle managers by virtue of their autonomy and “physical proximity”, are able to
positively impact the development of project management in this environment if they gain the
right perspective to project management, acquire relevant knowledge and facilitate project
management training and development within the organisation. As autopoietic systems are
capable of growing until they spontaneously provoke stability in regulating an internal system
(Razeto-Barry, 2012), a small but frequent attempt to initiate PMP at the management level may
likely have a larger positive effect elsewhere in the organisation eventually.
The effect of traditional orientation on the administration and structure of the organisation
was another causal mechanism that emerged. Traditional orientation represents the basic
underlying assumptions of executive officials and policymakers, and it relates to the level of
culture as basic underlying assumptions (Schien, 2010). The anthropologist view of
organisational culture is one operating at a sub-conscious level and confined by group
parameters such as language, belief system and regularities that provide the basis for
allocating status, power and authority, etc. (Willcoxson and Millett, 2000; Alvesson and Berg,
1992). The shared values and beliefs of the organisations are engendered and assimilated into
working practices, thereby producing the effect of what is seen or experienced. Many of the
project managers in the NGO reported that the traditional orientation of policymakers, the
traditional beliefs and ways of operating impedes advancements or changes to the “usual
ways” of doing things. There were reports such as the fear of policymakers to try out a new
development or practice and the lack of seriousness about productivity within the government
civil service. Traditional orientation had a causal effect on “weak structure of the organisation”, Critical realism
“no national policy” and “poor internal administration”.
Studies that investigated project management challenges in similar contexts usually
identified broad institutional, structural and cultural issues (Shuaib, 2016; Zuofa and
Ochieng, 2014) without a relational explanation as to how the outcomes are generated.

Concluding reflections
The process of theoretical re-description in Figure 3 not only revealed similarities between CR
and ST, but it simultaneously brings to our awareness the limitations of CR. Although they
both argue against reductionism, CR tends to have a primary focus on closed systems where
event regularities are generated (Pratten, 2007), thus arguing that constitutive elements in the
same condition will always behave in the same way. This proposition is reflected through the
autopoietic system within the middle management system. However, the internal interactions
within the organisation illustrated by applying ST show that systems, where event
regularities do not occur, are also critical in explaining social phenomena. Therefore, even
though CR tends to suggest that social inquiry is contingent on abstraction, it does not have
to assume that the system under study is a closed one.
The second causal mechanism demonstrates how elements outside a system impact on the
system. This challenges CR proponents who claim that elements that can influence a system
must be within the system. The domain of the external appears to be discreet in CR, although
it is the crux of the systems theory. The analysis, thus, suggests that external mechanisms
outside of our reality are able to influence that reality. In other words, as we aim to identify
and explain elements of reality that exist for social occurrences to have taken place, we should
consider the environment of the reality and the forces acting on it. ST is seen to be mutually
supportive and reinforces the importance of using a guiding theory in CR research.
The study has demonstrated how CR, as a philosophical framework, is applied to
empirical qualitative research. Albeit there are examples of applied qualitative research using
CR, only a few have discussed their methods of data analysis or shown the relevance/benefits
of using an existing theory. However, this does not suggest that there is an exclusive method
best suitable for conducting CR studies; instead, the aim here is to suggest one approach (out
of the many) – which is the use of GST to understand interactions within levels of domains.
There are various methods allowed in CR, and though many of them have relied on the
grounded theory as a methodological framework, the application of ST will enable one to gain
more insights into the characteristics/nature of existing causal relationships.
In relation to the research background, this interpretation facilitates the process of
attaining an informed decision for policymaking concerning how the concept of PMP can be
developed and deployed. It is pertinent to note, however, that modelling and establishing
causal relationships are a subjective process; therefore, it is difficult to confirm the
completeness or correctness of the representation. A model is one’s representation of reality
developed to explain a particular challenge or phenomenon (Sterman, 2002). Thus, the nature
of the relationship between agency and structure established in one context may not
necessarily be replicated in another context. Nevertheless, CR seeks to generalise about
theoretical suggestions that are sustainable and can be applied through time and space.

References
Ababneh, B., Edwards, J. and Hall, M. (2009), Systems Thinking: Whether You Use it or Not Is the Road
to KM, [online] Publications.aston.ac.uk, available at: https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/
7392/1/Systems_thinking_whether_you_use_it_or_not_is_the_road_to_KM.pdf (accessed 10
August 2020).
QRJ Alvesson, M. and Berg, P.O. (1992), Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism: An Overview,
Walter de Gruyter.
Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A. (2013), Critical Realism: Essential
Readings, Routledge.
Arnold, R.D. and Wade, J.P. (2015), “A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach”, Procedia
Computer Science, Vol. 44, pp. 669-678.
Baranskaya, A. (2007), Project Management in Public Administration of Transitional Countries,
Moscow State University, Russia.
Basheka, B.C. and Tumutegyereize, M. (2012), “Measuring the performance of contractors in
government construction projects in developing countries: Uganda’s context”, African Journal
of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 32, pp. 9210-9217.
Bhaskar, R. (1998), in Archer, M.S., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. and Norrie, A. (Eds), General
Introduction in Critical Realism: Essential Readings.
Bhaskar, R. (2013), A Realist Theory of Science, Routledge.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Bryman, A. (2015), Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press.
Bygstad, B. (2010), “Generative mechanisms for innovation in information infrastructures”,
Information and Organization, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 156-168.
Bygstad, B. and Munkvold, B.E. (2011), “AIS electronic library (Aisel)”, ICIS 2011 Proceedings: In
Search Of Mechanisms. Conducting A Critical Realist Data Analysis, [online] Aisel.aisnet.org.,
available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/researchmethods/7/ (accessed 9
August 2020).
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Chick, V. and Dow, S. (2005), “The meaning of open systems”, Journal of Economic Methodology,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 363-381.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J. and Bentley, L. (2003), “Managing soft change projects in the
public sector”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 443-448.
Creswell, J.W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 3rd
ed., Sage Publications, California.
Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M. and Jakobsen, L. (2002), Explaining Society: An Introduction to Critical
Realism in the Social Sciences, Routledge.
Easton, G. (2010), “Critical realism in case study research”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 118-128.
Edwards, P.K., O’Mahoney, J. and Vincent, S. (2014), Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism:
A Practical Guide, OUP, Oxford.
Engwall, M. (2003), “No project is an island: linking projects to history and context”, Research Policy,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 789-808.
Fernandez, N., Maldonado, C. and Gershenson, C. (2014), Information Measures of Complexity,
Emergence, Self-Organization, Homeostasis, and Autopoiesis, Guided Self-Organization:
Inception Springer, pp. 19-51.
Fleetwood, S., Brown, A. and Roberts, J. (2002), “The Marriage of Critical Realism and Marxism:
happy, unhappy or on the rocks?”, Critical Realism and Marxism, 1, Taylor and Francis.
Fletcher, A.J. (2017), “Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method”,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 181-194.
Gorski, P.S. (2013), “What is critical realism? And why should you care?”, Contemporary Sociology: A Critical realism
Journal of Reviews, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 658-670.
Hjørland, B. and Wikgren, M. (2005), “Critical realism as a philosophy and social theory in information
science?”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 11-22.
Howe, K.R. (1988), “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard”,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 10-16.
Jackson, M.C. (2001), “Critical systems thinking and practice”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 233-244.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose
time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
Karlsson, J.C. and Ackroyd, S. (2014), “Critical realism, Research Techniques, and research designs”, in
Edwards, P.K., O’Mahoney, J. and Vincent, S. (Eds), Studying Organizations Using Critical
Realism: A Practical Guide, OUP, Oxford.
Kim, D.H. (1999), Introduction to Systems Thinking, Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA.
Koch, C., Sage, D., Dainty, A. and Simonsen, R. (2015), “Understanding operations strategizing in
project-based organisations: middle managers’ interaction and strategy praxis”, Engineering
Project Organization Journal, Vol. 5 Nos 2-3, pp. 106-117.
Lawani, A. and Moore, D. (2016), “Project management practices in government organizations of
developing countries: a systematic review”, International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 89-98.
Lipscomb, M. (2011), “Critical realism and realist pragmatism in mixed methods: problematics of event
identity and abductive inference”, in Paper Presented at the Professors of Education Research
Symposium: Evolving Paradigms in Mixed Methods Research, American Education Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Maani, K. and Cavana, R.Y. (2007), Systems Thinking, System Dynamics: Managing Change and
Complexity, Prentice Hall.
McEvoy, P. and Richards, D. (2003), “Critical realism: a way forward for evaluation research in
nursing?”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 411-420.
Mingers, J. (2006), Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in Management Science,
Springer Science & Business Media.
Mingers, J. (2014), Systems Thinking, Critical Realism and Philosophy: A Confluence of Ideas, Routledge.
Monat, J.P. and Gannon, T.F. (2015), “What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature plus
recommendations”, American Journal of Systems Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Morton, P. (2006), “Using critical realism to explain strategic information systems planning”, Journal
of Information Technology Theory and Application, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 1.
Olusola Babatunde, S., Opawole, A. and Emmanuel Akinsiku, O. (2012), “Critical success factors in
public-private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 212-225.
Pratten, S. (2007), “Realism, closed systems and abstraction”, Journal of Economic Methodology,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 473-497.
Razeto-Barry, P. (2012), “Autopoiesis 40 years later. A review and a reformulation”, Origins of Life and
Evolution of Biospheres, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 543-567.
Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide,
Springer.
Rouleau, L. and Balogun, J. (2011), “Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive
competence”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 953-983.
Rousseau, D. (2015), “General systems theory: its present and potential”, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 522-533.
QRJ Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,
Pearson Education.
Sayer, A. (2010), Method in Social Science: Revised, 2nd ed., Routledge.
Schein, E.H. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, John Wiley and Sons.
Scott, D. (2007), “Resolving the quantitative–qualitative dilemma: a critical realist approach”,
International Journal of Research and Method in Education, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Scott, W.R. and Davis, G.F. (2015), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems
Perspectives, Routledge.
Senge, P.M. (1997), “The fifth discipline”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Sheffield, J., Sankaran, S. and Haslett, T. (2012), “Systems thinking: taming complexity in project
management”, On the Horizon, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 126-136.
Shuaib, M.R. (2016), “Construction project governance in developing countries: a case study of central
bank of Nigeria”, in The construction Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 20-22 September, RICS COBRA, pp. 1-9.
Sobh, R. and Perry, C. (2006), “Research design and data analysis in realism research”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 11/12, pp. 1194-1209.
Sterman, J.D. (2002), “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System
Dynamics Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 501-531.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, Sage.
Too, E.G. and Weaver, P. (2014), “The management of project management: a conceptual framework for
project governance”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1382-1394.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013), “Content analysis and thematic analysis:
implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study”, Nursing and Health Sciences,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 398-405.
White, D. and Fortune, J. (2009), “The project-specific formal system model”, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Willcoxson, L. and Millett, B. (2000), “The management of organisational culture”, Australian Journal
of Management and Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Wynn, D. Jr and Williams, C.K. (2012), “Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in
information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 787-810.
Yeung, H.W. (1997), “Critical realism and realist research in human geography: a method or a
philosophy in search of a method?”, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-74.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2014), “Project failure: the way forward and panacea for development”,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 11, p. 59.

Corresponding author
Ama Lawani can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats