Introduction

1.1. Relevance of the research

Scientific research philosophy is a system of the researcher’s thought, following which new,
reliable knowledge about the research object is obtained. In other words, it is the basis of the
research, which involves the choice of research strategy, formulation of the problem, data collec-
tion, processing, and analysis. The paradigm of scientific research, in turn, consists of ontology,
epistemology methodology, and methods. Methodological choice, according to Holden and
Lynch [1], should be related to the philosophical position of the researcher and the analyzed
social science phenomenon. In the field of research, several philosophical approaches are possi-
ble; however, according to the authors, more extreme approaches can be delimiting. Only
intermediary philosophical approach allows the researcher to reconcile philosophy, methodol-
ogy, and the problem of research. However, Crossan [2] drew attention to the fact that sometimes
there is a big difference between quantitative and qualitative research philosophies and methods,
and triangulation of modern research methods is common. It is therefore very important to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This allows preparing for the
research and understanding the analyzed problem better. The theories of research philosophy
and paradigms, on the basis of which the research in the monograph focuses on identifying the
level of development of the management culture in order to implement corporate social respon-
sibility, are presented in figures that distinguish the levels of organizational culture and their
interaction, that is, corporate social responsibility stages, which reflect the philosophy and
paradigm of this research.
The problem of the research is raised by the following questions: what are the essential
principles of research philosophy and paradigm? and how to apply them to form the research
position?
The level of problem exploration. The chapter presents the thoughts of the authors who
analyze research philosophy [3–8] and paradigm [3, 9–11], relating them to the key researches
of this monograph.

The object of this study is to understand essential principles of research philosophy and
paradigm.
The purpose of the research is to analyze the essential principles of research philosophy and
paradigm, substantiating the position of the key researches of this monograph.
The objectives of this research are (1) to discuss the fundamental aspects of research philoso-
phy and paradigm; and (2) to substantiate the position of culture management and corporate
social responsibility research.
Methods of the research. The descriptive method, analysis of academic sources, generalization,
and systematization were used as the methods in this study. Graphical representation and
modeling methods were used to convey the position of the research.

2. Philosophy and paradigm of scientific research

2.1. Scientific research philosophy

Each researcher is guided by their own approach to the research itself. It is said that Mill [12]
was the first who called representatives of social sciences to compete with ancient sciences,
promising that if his advice was followed, the sudden maturity in these sciences would appear.
In the same way as their education appeared from philosophical and theological frames that
limited them. Social sciences accepted this advice (probably to a level that would have sur-
prised Mill himself if he were alive) for other reasons as well [3, 13]. Research philosophy can
be defined as the development of research assumption, its knowledge, and nature [7]. The
assumption is perceived as a preliminary statement of reasoning, but it is based on the
philosophizing person’s knowledge and insights that are born as a product of intellectual
activity. Hitchcock and Hughes [4] also claim that research stems from assumptions. This
means that different researchers may have different assumptions about the nature of truth and
knowledge and its acquisition [6]. Scientific research philosophy is a method which, when
applied, allows the scientists to generate ideas into knowledge in the context of research. There
are four main trends of research philosophy that are distinguished and discussed in the works by
many authors: the positivist research philosophy, interpretivist research philosophy, prag- matist
research philosophy, and realistic research philosophy.
Positivist research philosophy. It claims that the social world can be understood in an objective
way. In this research philosophy, the scientist is an objective analyst and, on the basis of it,
dissociates himself from personal values and works independently.
The opposite to the above-mentioned research philosophy is the interpretivist research philos-
ophy, when a researcher states that on the basis of the principles it is not easy to understand the
social world. Interpretivist research philosophy says that the social world can be interpreted in a
subjective manner. The greatest attention here is given to understanding of the ways through
which people experience the social world. Interpretivist research philosophy is based on the
principle which states that the researcher performs a specific role in observing the social world.
According to this research philosophy, the research is based and depends on
what the researcher’s interests are.
Pragmatist research philosophy deals with the facts. It claims that the choice of research philosophy
is mostly determined by the research problem. In this research philosophy, the practical results
are considered important [5]. In addition, according to Alghamdi and Li [14], pragmatism does
not belong to any philosophical system and reality. Researchers have freedom of choice. They
are “free” to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures that best meet their needs and scientific
research aims. Pragmatists do not see the world as absolute unity. The truth is what is currently in
action; it does not depend on the mind that is not subject to reality and the mind dualism.
Realistic research philosophy [5] is based on the principles of positivist and interpretivist research
philosophies. Realistic research philosophy is based on assumptions that are necessary for the
perception of subjective nature of the human.

2.1.1. Scientific research paradigm

The scientific research paradigm helps to define scientific research philosophy. Literature on
scientific research claims that the researcher must have a clear vision of paradigms or world-
view which provides the researcher with philosophical, theoretical, instrumental, and meth-
odological foundations. Research of paradigms depends on these foundations [14]. According to
Cohen et al. [6], the scientific research paradigm can be defined as a wide structure
encompassing perception, beliefs, and awareness of different theories and practices used to
carry out scientific research. The scientific research paradigm is also characterized by a precise
procedure consisting of several stages. The researcher, getting over the mentioned stages,
creates a relationship between research aims and questions. The term of paradigm is closely
related to the “normal science” concept. Scientists who work within the same paradigm frame
are guided by the same rules and standards of scientific practice. “That is how the scientific
community supports itself,” claims Ružas [15] citing the French post-positivist Kuhn [16].
The scientific research paradigm and philosophy depend on various factors, such as the
individual's mental model, his worldview, different perception, many beliefs, and attitudes
related to the perception of reality, etc. Researchers' beliefs and values are important in this
concept in order to provide good arguments and terminology for obtaining reliable results.
The researcher’s position in certain cases can have a significant impact on the outcome of the
research [11]. Norkus [17] draws attention to the fact that the specialists of some subjects of
natural science are able by using free discussion to come to general conclusions the innovations
of which are really “discoveries,” some of them are significant and some are not. Such consen-
sus is difficult to achieve in social sciences. Academic philosophers claim this fact by the
statement that “multi-paradigmatism” is characteristic to the humanities and social sciences, i.e.,
the permanent coexistence and competition of many different theoretical paradigms.
Gliner and Morgan [9] describe the scientific research paradigm as the approach or thinking
about the research, the accomplishing process, and the method of implementation. It is not a
methodology, but rather a philosophy which provides the process of carrying out research, i.e.,
directs the process of carrying out research in a particular direction. Ontology, epistemology,
methodology, and methods describe all research paradigms [3, 10, 14]. Easterby-Smith et al.
[18] discuss three main components of the scientific research paradigm, or three ways in order
to understand the philosophy of research (Table 1).
The three paradigms (positivist, constructivist, and critical) which are different by ontological,
epistemological, and methodological aspects are also often included in the classification of
scholarly paradigms [19]. In addition, Mackenzie and Knipe [20] present unique analysis of
research paradigms with the most common terms associated with them. According to Macken-
zie and Knipe [20], the description of the terminology is consistent with the descriptions by
Leedy and Ormrod [21] and Schram [22] appearing in literature most often, despite the fact that
it is general rather than specific to disciplines or research. Somekh and Lewin [23] describe
methodology as a set of methods and rules, on the basis of which the research is carried out, and
as “the principles, theories and values underlying certain approach to research.” In Walter’s
[24] opinion, methodology is the support research structure, which is influenced by the para-
digm in which our theoretical perspective “lives” or develops. Mackenzie and Knipe [20] state
that in most common definitions, it is claimed that methodology is a general approach to
research related to the paradigm or theoretical foundation, and the method includes the system-
atic ways, procedures, or tools used for data collection and analysis (Figure 1).

Components of Description
research paradigm

Epistemology General parameters and assumptions associated with an excellent way to explore the real
world nature.

Ontology General assumptions created to perceive the real nature of society (in order to understand
the real nature of society).

Methodology Combination of different techniques used by the scientists to explore different situations.

Source: Easterby-Smith et al. [18].

Table 1. Three components of scientific research paradigm.

 Research paradigms Terminology often Basic methods** Data collection
associated with basic measures
research paradigms* (examples)**

Experimental Quantitative. “Although Experiments

Half experimental this paradigm can use a Half experiments
Correlating qualitative method, Tests
Positivist / Postpositivist Reductionism usually quantitative Scales
Theory examination methods dominate…”
Causal relative (Mertens, 2014) 25
Determination
Regulatory

Naturalistic Qualitative methods Interview

Phenomenological dominate although Observation
Hermeneutic quantitative methods can Document study
Interpretivist be used, too. Image data analysis
Interpretivist / Ethnographic
Constructivist Many participants value
The social and historical
interpretation
Theories creation
Symbolic interaction

Critical theory Qualitative, quantitative A wide spectrum of

Neo-Marxist Feminist and mixed methods. measures, a special need to
Critical race theory Based Contextual and historical prevent discrimination, for
on the philosophy of factors are described, example, sexism, racism
Freire especially how they are and homophobia.
Promoting participation related to oppression
Emancipating (Mertens, 2014) 25
Transforming Defense
The overall picture
Focused on
empowerment problem
Focused on changes
Interventionistic
Nonstandardized
sexuality theory
Depending on race
Political

Action consequences Qualitative and/or There can be used

Focused on the problems quantitative methods can measures from positivist
Pluralist be used. They are as well as from
Pragmatist Focused on the conformed to concrete interpretivist paradigm,
application in the real research questions or aim. for example, interviews,
world observations, testing and
Mixed methods experimentation.

Figure 1. Paradigms: terminology, methods, and means of data collection. Source: Adapted by the authors: Mackenzie
and Knipe [20], Mertens [25], Creswell [10].
Mackenzie and Knipe [20] state that it is the paradigm and the research question that should
determine which data collection and analysis methods (qualitative/quantitative or mixed) would
be the most appropriate for research. In this way, the researchers do not become “the researchers
of quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods,” but they adapt the data collection and analysis
method that is most suitable for a specific research. According to the authors, the use of several
methods may be possible to adapt to any and all paradigms instead of having one single method
that could potentially dilute and unnecessarily limit the depth and richness of the research
project.
The scientific paradigm refers to a range of problems, by presenting ways of their solutions.
The methods are detailed and compared in Table 2 with regard to the basic paradigms.
Although the paradigm has already been mentioned, but for the researcher, in order to
understand different combinations of research methods, it is necessary to analyze the basic
concepts and to perceive the philosophical position of research problems.

Paradigm Ontology Epistemology Research methods

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

The whole of theoretical and

methodological assumptions Existence theory, focused The theory interested in how the They include
(adopted by the scientific on what exists, is based on researcher can gain knowledge systematic ways,
community), a specific a particular paradigm about the phenomena of interest procedures, and tools
research of which is based assertions about reality to him, namely, examination of used for data
on and truth, and it is a theory what separates a reasonable collection and
about the nature of reality assurance from the opinion analysis

Constructivism Relativistic reality is socially

The knowledge consists of mental Case studies,
or experimentally based,
structures that are surrounded by interview
local, and specific in nature
the relative agreements
Interpretivism Researcher and reality are
Knowledge is based on the abstract Case studies,
inseparable
descriptions of meanings, formed interviews,
of human experiences phenomenology,
ethnography,
ethnomethodology
Symbolic interpretivism Research and reality
Knowledge is created through Grounded theory
intertwine
social interactions and their
resulting meanings
Pragmatism The reality is ambiguous,
Knowledge is derived from Interview, case study,
but based on the language,
experience. The researcher surveys
history, and culture respect
restores subjectively assigned
and “objective” meaning of
other actions
Positivism The reality is objective
Acquisition of knowledge is not Survey, experiment,
and perceived
related to values and moral content quasi-experiment

Source: Adapted by the authors according to Hitchcock and Hughes [4], Kuhn [16], Mackenzie and Knipe [20], Walker and
Evers [26], Brewerton and Millward [27], Delanty and Strydom [28], Bagdonas [29], Phiri [30], etc.

Table 2. Comparison of the main paradigms with regard to ontology, epistemology, and research methods.
Kuhn [16] introduced the concept of paradigm (gr. paradeigma—example model) in the science
philosophy. Kuhn calls a paradigm a generally accepted scientific knowledge achieve- ment
which provides the scientists with problem raising and solving methods for a period of time.
According to the author, when some old ideas are being replaced by the new ones, i.e., better,
more advanced, etc., then the progress in science is stated. In natural sciences, this is going on
confirming the hypothesis by logical arguments and empirical research. When the
scientific community reaches a consensus, there appears accepted theory on its basis [16].
Bagdonas [29] describes a paradigm as the whole of theoretical and methodological regula-
tions, that is, regulations adopted by the scientific community at a certain stage of develop-
ment of science and applied as an example, the model, the standard for scientific research,
interpretations, evaluation, and hypotheses to understand and solve objectives arising in the
process of scientific knowledge. The transition from one competing paradigm to another is the
transition from one non-commensurable thing to the other, and it cannot go step by step,
promoted by logical and neutral experience [31].
A more detailed discussion of ontology requires the emphasis of the insights of various
scientists. Hitchcock and Hughes [4] state that ontology is the theory of existence, interested
in what exists, and is based on assertions of a particular paradigm about reality and truth. Other
authors [28] simply identify it as a theory about the nature of reality. Hatch [32] notes that
ontology is related to our assumptions about reality, i.e., whether reality is objective or
subjective (existing in our minds). The most important questions that differentiated the research
by far are threefold and depend on whether differences among assumptions are associated with
different reality construction techniques (ontology) where, according to
Denzin and Lincoln [33], the majority of questions asked are “what are the things in
reality?” and “how do they really happen?”. Ontological questions are usually associated
with real
existence and operation matters [33], varying forms of knowledge about reality (epistemol-
ogy), since epistemological questions help to ascertain the nature of relationship between the
researcher and the respondent, and it is postulated that in order to make an assumption about the
true reality, the researcher must follow the “objectivity and value distancing position” to find
out what things are in reality, how they occur [33], and certain reality cognition techniques
(methodology). With the help of methodological questions, the researcher mostly tries to figure
out ways by which he can get to know his concerns [33].
Further analysis of the epistemology terminology presents different interpretations by various
authors. For example, according to Brewerton and Millward [27], epistemology refers to the
examination of what separates reasonable assurance from the opinion. According to Walker and
Evers [26], generally speaking, epistemology is interested in how the researcher can receive
knowledge about the phenomena of interest to him. Wiersma and Jurs [11] describe
epistemology as a research which attempts to clarify the possibilities of knowledge, the bound-
aries, the origin, the structure, methods and justice, and the ways in which this knowledge can
be obtained, confirmed, and adjusted. Hitchcock and Hughes [4], talking about the impact on
epistemology, emphasize that it is very big for both data collection methods and research
methodology. Hatch [32] highlights the idea that epistemology is concerned with knowledge
—specific questions presented by the epistemology researchers are how people create knowl-
edge, what the criteria enabling the distinction of good and bad knowledge are, and how
should reality be represented or described? Epistemology is closely related to ontology, because
the answers to these questions depend on the ontological assumptions about the nature of reality
and, in turn, help to create them. Sale et al. [34], Cohen et al. [6], and Denzin and Lincoln [33]
note that epistemological assumptions often arise from ontological assump- tions. The former
encourage a tendency to focus on methods and procedures in the course of research. Šaulauskas
[35] points out that, in general, modern Western philosophy is a “pure” epistemology
establishment, and its systemic dissemination vector is basically the reduction of
the whole theoretical vision of gender in epistemological discussion.

It is said that in order to understand the reality there are three main types of paradigms to be
employed, namely positivism, interpretivism, and realism. The conception of positivism is
directly related to the idea of objectivism. Using this philosophical approach, the researchers
express their views in order to assess the social world, and instead of subjectivity, they refer to
objectivity [36]. Under this paradigm, researchers are interested in general information and
large-scale social data collection rather than focusing on details of the research. In line with this
position, the researchers' own personal attitudes are not relevant and do not affect the scientific
research. Positivist philosophical approach is most closely associated with the observations and
experiments, used for collection of numerical data [18]. In the sphere of management research,
interpretivism can still be called social constructionism. With this philosophical point of view,
the researchers take into account their views and values so that they could justify the problem
posed in the research [18]. Kirtiklis [37] notes that while positivistic philosophy critical trend
encourages strict separation of scientific problems solved by research from “spec- ulative”
philosophical problems and thus rejects the philosophy, the other trend, called interpretivism, on
the contrary, states that philosophy cannot be strictly separated from social sciences, but it must
be incorporated or blended into them. With the help of this philosophy, the scientists focus on
the facts and figures corresponding to the research problem. This type of philosophical approach
makes it possible to understand specific business situations. Using it, the researchers use small
data samples and assess them very carefully in order to grasp the attitudes of larger population
segments [38]. Realism, as a research philosophy, focuses on reality and beliefs existing in a
certain environment. Two main branches of this philosophical approach are direct and critical
realism [39]. Direct realism is what an individual feels, sees, hears, etc. On the other hand, in
critical realism, the individuals discuss their experience in specific situations [40]. It is a matter
of social constructivism, as individuals try to justify their own values and beliefs.
Analyzing other types of paradigms, in a sense, not qualified as the main, constructivism,
symbolic interpretivism, pragmatism should be mentioned. The constructivism paradigm in
some classifications of paradigms is called the “interpretative paradigm” [19]. There is no other
definition in ontology, epistemology, and methodology; both approaches [41] have a common
understanding of the complex world experience from the perspective of the individ- uals having
this experience. The constructivists point out that various interpretations are possible because
we have multiple realities. According to Onwuegbuzie [42], the reality for constructivists is a
product of the human mind, which develops socially, and this changes the reality. The author
states that there is dependence between what is known and who knows. So, for this reason, the
researcher must become more familiar with what is being researched.
Analyzing symbolic interpretivism through the prism of ontology, it can be said that it is the
belief that we cannot know the external or objective existence apart from our subjective
understanding of it; that, what exists, is what we agree on that it exists (emotion and intuition:
experience forms behind the limits of the five senses). Analyzing symbolic interpretivism
through epistemological aspect, all knowledge is related to the one who knows and can be
understood only in terms of directly related individuals; the truth is socially created through
multiple interpretations of knowledge objects created in this way, and therefore they change
over time [32]. Pikturnaitė and Paužuolienė [43] note that scientists in most cases when
analyzing organizational culture communication and dissemination examine the behavior,
language, and other informal aspects that need to be observed, understood, and interpreted.
Pragmatism, as a philosophy trend, considers practical thinking and action ways as the main,
and the criterion of truth is considered for its practical application. However, as noted by
Ružas [15] who analyzed Kuhn’s approach [16], since there are many ways of the world
outlook and it is impossible to prove that one of them is more correct than the other, it should be
stated only that in the science development process, they change each other.
The theories, according to which this research concentrates on the management culture
development-level setting for the implementation of corporate social responsibility, are
presented in Figure 2, which distinguishes organizational culture levels and their interaction.
Figure 3 defines corporate social responsibility stages that reflect the scientific research philos-
ophy and the paradigm of this survey.
In order to relatively “separate” management culture from organizational culture, one must look
into their component elements of culture. For this reason, below organizational culture levels
and components forming them are discussed in detail.
According to Schein [45, 46], artifacts are described as the “easiest” observed level, that is,
what we see, hear, and feel. The author presents a model that if you happen to go to organiza-
tions, you can immediately feel their uniqueness in the way “they perform the work,” that is,
open-space office against closed-door offices; employees freely communicating with each other
against the muted environment; and formal clothing against informal clothing. However,
according to the author, “you should be careful by appealing to these attributes when deciding
whether we like or do not like the organization, whether it is operating successfully or unsuc-
cessfully, as at this observation stage it is not clear why organizations present themselves and
interact with one another in such a particular way.” Schein [45, 46] elaborates the supported
values by considerations that “in order to better understand and decipher why the observed
matters happen on the first level, people within the organization should be asked to explain that.
For example, what happens when it is established that two similar organizations have very
similar company values recorded in documents and published, principles, ethics and visions in
which their employees believe and adhere to – i.e., described as their culture and
reflecting their core values – for all that, the natural formation and working styles of the two
organizations are very different, even if they have similar supported values?” According to the
author, in order to see these “imbalances,” you need to realize that “unhindered behavior leads
to a deeper level of thought and perception.” In shared mental models, for understanding this
“deeper” level of culture, one should study the history of the organization, that is, what were
 Cultural elements:
jokes, ceremonies, standards of
conduct, working methods, physical
Artefacts Visible organizational structures
environment, characters, habits,
(easy to spot, but difficult to interpret and
language, cultural communication
difficult to decipher)
network, legends, manners, material
objects, myths, opinions, organization Manage-
history, stories, orders, rituals, style, ment culture
symbols, holidays, traditions , aims, elements
management practice, roles, jargon

Values and Strategy goals, philosophies Cultural elements:

beliefs (directly invisible, but you can figure out behavior justifications, identity, commitment,
(supported from the way people explain and justify feelings, expectations, mission, moral
values) their actions, that is supported standards, organizational ethics, cognition
justifications) model, attitudes, perceptions, values.

Main Unconsciously existing naturally Cultural elements:

assump- understood beliefs, perceptions, spirituality, philosophy, beliefs, mindset,
tions thoughts and feelings attitudes, world outlook, scenarios, ideology.
(shared (cultural foundation, which is so widespread
mental that people usually do not pay attention to
models) them, that is the biggest source of values and
actions)

Formal factors: aims; technology; structure; skills and abilities; financial resources; socialization and / or acculturation experience;
wriGen documents; training, organizational structure, etc.
Logical, rational, conscious, material, external behavior based on facts and competence: costs, quality, time

Informal factors: attitudes; values; feelings - anger, fear, frustration, etc .; interaction; group standards, problem employees;
socialization / acculturation, which manifests itself in the human resources management division activities; the same social status people;
groups outside work, etc.
Emotional, unconscious, immaterial, inner, emotional behavior based on social skills: perception and beliefs, power and
politics

Figure 2. Management culture in the context of organizational culture. Source: Adapted by the authors according to
French and Bel [44], Schein [45, 46], Ott [47], Bounds et al. [48], Krüger [49], Franklin and Pagan [50], etc.

the original values, beliefs, and assumptions of its founders and key leaders, which led to
the success of the organization? Over time they have become common and are accepted as self-
evident as soon as new members of the organization realized that the original values, beliefs,
and assumptions of its founders led to organizational success, that is, through common
 1. Decision to Clear commitment and leadership of top-level managers;
become Understanding and communication of the benefits and the
socially importance.
responsible

2. CSR self- Set the current level of corporate social responsibility;

evaluation Assess the management system and foresee its changes;
Define the relevance and importance of the main areas of corporate
social responsibility;
Set priorities for essential actions; to assess the current activities and
priorities of each area.

3. Identify and incorporate motivated staff within the company; to Aiming for
Stakeholders‘ discuss key issues with internal and external stakeholders corporate
involvement (shareholders, employees, suppliers, government, etc.) in order to social
arrange them according to importance and identify potential responsibility
solutions;
Collaborate with other organizations.
Retreat

4. Corporate social responsibility awareness raising and competence

Implementa- building; identify and assess the "quick wins" and demonstration
tion of CSR projects; Set of corporate social responsibility strategies and policies;
initiatives communicate widely; create a culture of learning and knowledge
management.

5. Implement corporate social responsibility principles from

Implementa- management to activities; develop system of corporate social
tion responsibility implementation principles; implement plans and
measures.

6. Observation Set indicators and their target values;

and Reporting on progress made is especially important;
development Personal continuous improvement.

Figure 3. Corporate social responsibility stages. Source: Adapted by the authors according to Ruževičius [52].

cognition/assimilation of “correct” values, beliefs, and assumptions. Cultural levels distin-

guished by Schein [45, 46] can be “transferred” to the organizational culture iceberg levels
formed by French and Bel [44]. According to the authors [45–48, 51], visible organizational
structures consist of ceremonies, communication, heroes, habits, management methods, and so
on. French and Bel [44] distinguish between these formal and informal elements of organiza-
tional culture: formal—aims, technology, structure, skills and abilities, financial resources;
informal—approaches, values; feelings—anger, fear, frustration, etc.; and interaction group
rates. Franklin and Pagan [50] detail the formal and informal structure of organizational
culture factors, allocating them into tangible and intangible factors. Tangible factors (formal
or officially authorized) are socialization and/or acculturation experience (if the organization
takes care of timely and detailed orientation, it is more likely that the manager will use the
process of formal discipline); written documents (if the manager is presented with the relevant
policy and relevant procedures, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline
process); training (if the organization organizes training on discipline issues, it is more likely
that the manager will use the formal discipline process); and structure of the organization (if the
organization provides the power to the manager and if the manager has more control, it is more
likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process). Intangible factors (infor- mal or
informally developed) [50] include problematic employees (if the employee does not have good
professional skills or high position, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal
discipline process); socialization/acculturation which manifests itself in the human
resource management subdivision activities (if the manager’s solutions are supported and
not devalued by organizational management, it is more likely that the manager will use the
formal discipline process); the same social status people (if other managers focus on formal
discipline process, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process);
groups outside work (if systems of values, partly overlapping, cherished by groups outside,
strengthen the organizational culture-supported expectations, it is more likely that the man- ager
will use the formal discipline process). Krüger [49] formed the change management iceberg
which deals with both visible and invisible barriers in the organization. With the help of this
iceberg, there is an attempt to force the management to look into the hidden challenges that need
to be overcome in order to implement changes in the organization.
Iceberg model is relevant to the submitted research presented in this book in the way that
implementation of corporate social responsibility is considered as a strong change in the
activities of the organi- zation. As stated by Krüger [49], the change management iceberg is best
perceived by man- agers who understand that the most obvious change obstacles that need to be
overcome, such as cost, quality, and time, are only the top of the iceberg, and more complicated
obstacles, which have more influence, lie below. The foundation of change management theory
is based on the fact that many managers tend to focus only on the obvious obstacles, instead of
paying more attention to more complex issues, such as perceptions, beliefs, power, and politics.
The theory also distinguishes implementation types (based on what change must take place) and
the strategy that should be used. Another aspect of this theory is the people involved in the
changes and to what extent they can promote changes or contradict them. So, Krüger [49]
argues that the basis for change is directly related to the management of perceptions, beliefs,
power, and politics. If managers understand how this is related to the creation of obstacles,
according to the author, they will be able to better implement the changes that they want to
perform in their organizations.
It is not enough to analyze only a single component of management culture without
evaluation of the entirety. Management culture analysis and changes require a systematic
approach, on the basis of which management culture system is presented in the research and its
diagnostics is carried out. Having discussed the management culture through formal and
informal
organizational culture elements, it is appropriate to introduce imputed corporate social
responsibility development stages. Figure 4 presents the corporate social responsibility imple-
mentation guidelines and corporate social responsibility application plan [52], together with
the supplements of the authors of the book that extend implementation guidelines identified in
the plan for the preparation aiming for corporate social responsibility establishment and
management system evaluation, which are significant in further process of corporate social
responsibility implementation.

Although the plan recommended by Ruževičius [52] is meant for the companies
managed by the public sector, it is estimated that it was prepared in accordance with standards
applied in companies operating in the free market, regardless of the origin of the capital.
Control system evaluation, which is associated with the previously discussed
management culture, is an

Management culture amplification shapes a new approach to the possibilities to implement

Research philosophy
What kind of management culture development level can be considered as a viable

To research what conditions of management culture exist in companies'

groups, which create possibilities to implement corporate social responsibility
option to pursue the implementation of corporate social responsibility?

Aim

corporate social responsibility

Research Theoretical
question perspective

Research
design/
model

Methodologically argued quantitative and qualitative research in different company groups in

order to obtain objective, comparable data on which to structure changes, aiming to implement
corporate social responsibility

Figure 4. Research philosophy: the main aspects of the research. Source: Adapted by the authors according to Flowers [53].
important process chain because the volume of resource use, cost amounts, and timing as well
as ultimate effect depend on its functionality. In addition, it is proposed to assess the
possibility of the organization's retreat from corporate social responsibility (shareholders’
change, com- pany restructuring, economic conditions and other relevant circumstances,
changes influenc- ing decisions), but it could be part of separate research that this study does
not develop.

The research position. Guba and Lincoln [3] pointed out that the fragmentation of paradigm
differences can occur only when there is a new paradigm which is more sophisticated than the
existing ones. It is most likely, according to the authors, “if and when the proponents of
different approaches meet to discuss the differences rather than argue about their opinion
holiness.” All supporters’ dialogue with each other will provide an opportunity to move
toward congenial (like-minded) relations. In this research, considering its versatility, one
strictly defined position is not complied with. There is compliance with the principle of
positivism when a scientist is an objective analyst, isolates himself from personal values, and
works independently; in addition, thought and access freedom provided by pragmatism
philosophical system is evaluated. Figure 4 summarizes the main elements of the study. The
main aim of the research presented in this book is to define the management culture develop-
ment level which creates an opportunity for organizations to pursue the implementation of
corporate social responsibility. The analysis has shown that there is a lack of theoretical
insights and empirical research, systematically linking management culture and corporate
social responsibility aspects; still this work is not intended to cast a new challenge to already
existing theories, but they are connected.

When preparing the research, it was based on academic literature and the insights of
experts by using the original questionnaires made by the authors. The employees of two
groups of companies, having different socio-demographic characteristics, occupying different
positions in organizations are interviewed, and the data obtained are analyzed statistically and
interpreted. In this study, the reliability of a specially developed research instrument is argued,
and the main focus is on the factors of management culture that influences the
implementation of corporate social responsibility at organizational level, as well as evaluating
the corporate staff reactions and participation in processes. During the interviews with
managers, the man- agement culture as a formal expression of the organizational culture
aiming at implementation of corporate social responsibility is revealed. In this book, great
attention is paid to statistical verification of instruments and model in order to be able to make
recommendations to the organization management practitioners. Philosophy of expert
evaluation is based on the increasing demand of the versatility of the compiled instrument,
and its content suitability for distinguished scales and subscales. The target of this research is
to determine the surplus statements, not giving enough necessary information, as well as
setting the statements where the content information not only verifies the honesty of the
respondent, but also obviously reiterates. Philosophy of expert assessment is based on the
research instrument content quality assurance, so that it would consist of state- ments,
revealing in detail the research phenomena and enabling the achievement of the set goal of
the research
 The philosophy of expert evaluation is based on the need to increase the versatility of
the compiled instrument and its content suitability for derived scales and subscales. This
research aims to determine the methodological and psychometric characteristics of the
questionnaire with respect to a relatively small sample size, representing the situation of one
organization. After eliminating the documented shortcomings during the exploratory research,
the aim is to prepare an instrument featuring high methodological and psychometric
characteristics, suitable for fur- ther research analyzing the cases of different sample sizes and
different organizations. The basic (quantitative and qualitative) research philosophy is based on
perception of research data significance, importance for the public, and the principle of
objectivity. In order to minimize subjectivity and guarantee reliability and the possibility of
further discussions, quantitative research findings are based on conclusion (statistical
generalization) and qualita- tive contextual understanding (analytic generalization). Both
research results are presented in detail, openly showing the research organization and
implementation process.

References

[1] Holden MT, Lynch P. Choosing the appropriate methodology: Understanding research
philosophy. The Marketing Review. 2004;4(4):397-409. DOI: 10.1362/1469347042772428

[2] Crossan F. Research philosophy: Towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher. 2003;11

(1):46-55. DOI: 10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46.c5914

[3] Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK,
Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. p.
105-117

[4] Hitchcock G, Hughes D. Research and the Teacher. London: Routledge; 1989

[5] Lancaster G. Research Methods in Management: A Concise Introduction to Research in

Management and Business Consultancy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005

[6] Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison KRB. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. UK:
Routledge, Oxon; 2007. 657 p. ISBN-10: 0415368782, ISBN-13: 978-0415368780
 [7] Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research Methods for Business Students. 4th ed.
London: Financial Times Prentice Hall; 2007

[8] Andriukaitienė R. Vadybos kultūros raiška siekiant įgyvendinti įmonių socialinę

atsakomybę [Expression of Management Culture Aiming to Implement Corporate Social
Responsibil- ity]. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas; 2015. p. 253. ISBN 978-609-
467-123-4 [in Lithuanian]

[9] Gliner JA, Morgan GA. Research Methods in Applied Settings: An Integrated Approach
to Design and Analysis. New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000

[10] Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches.
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2007

[11] Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Research Methods in Education: An Introduction. 9th ed. London,
UK: Pearson; 2008. 493 p. ISBN-13: 978-0205581924, ISBN-10: 0205581927

[12] Mill JS. A System of Logic. London: Longmans Green. 1906 p (Original work published
1843)

[13] Guba EG. The Paradigm Dialog. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990

[14] Alghamdi AH, Li L. Adapting design-based research as a research methodology in

educational settings. International Journal of Education and Research. 2013;1(10):1-12

[15] Ružas M. Dvi mokslo alternatyvos: Thomas Khunas ir Michelis Foucault [Two alterna-
tives of philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault]. Žmogus ir žodis
[Man and Word]. 2006;4:43-50 [in Lithuanian]

[16] Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;
1962

[17] Norkus Z. Gamtotyros pažangos prognozių epistemologinės prielaidos [Epistemological

assumptions of natural science progress forecasts]. Problemos [Problems]. 2006;69:9-26
[in Lithuanian]

[18] Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jacson, P, Lowe A. Management Research: An Introduction.

3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publica-
tions; 2008. 368 p. ISBN-10: 1847871771, ISBN-13: 978-1847871770

[19] Fazlıoğulları O. Scientific research paradigms in social sciences. International Journal of

Educational Policies. 2012;6(1):41-55

[20] Mackenzie N, Knipe S. Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.

Issues in Educational Research. 2006;16(2):1-11

[21] Leedy P, Ormrod J. A Handbook for Teacher Research from Design to Implementation.
New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2005

[22] Schram T. Conceptualizing and Proposing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. New Jersey:
Pearson Education; 2006
[23] Somekh B, Lewin C. Research Methods in Social Sciences. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd; 2005. p. 376

[24] Walter M. Social Science Methods: An Australian Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press; 2006. p. 400

[25] Mertens DM. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity
with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 4th ed. London, UK: SAGE Publica-
tions, Inc; 2014. 536 p. ISBN-13: 978-1452240275, ISBN-10: 1452240272

[26] Walker J, Evers C. The epistemology unity of educational research. In: Keeves J, editor.
Educational Research, Methodology and Measurements: An International Handbook.
Oxford: Pergamon; 1988. p. 28-36

[27] Brewerton PM, Millward L. Organizational Research Methods: A Guide for Students and
Researchers. 1st ed. Great Britain: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2001. p. 224

[28] Delanty G, Strydom P. Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary
Readings (UK Higher Education OUP Humanities & Social Sciences Sociology). 1st ed.
United Kingdom: Open University Press Milton Keynes; 2003. 496 p. ISBN-13: 978-
0335208845, ISBN-10: 0335208843

[29] Bagdonas A. Socialinis darbas: profesinės veiklos įvadas [Social Work: Introduction into
Professional Activity]. Vilnius: VU Specialiosios psichologijos laboratorija; 2007. p. 284
[in Lithuanian]

[30] Phiri PM. Methods and Methodology: Which Approach? Qualitative or Quantitative
Technical, Epistemological and Ontological Considerations? Implications for the Conduct
of a Research Project [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/760617/
Methods_and_Methodology_Which_approach_Qualitative_or_Quantitative_Technical_
epistemological_and_ontological_considerations_Implications_for_the_conduct_of_a_
research_project [Accessed: October 28, 2014]

[31] Kuhn TS. Mokslo revoliucijų struktū ra [The Structure of Science Revolutions]. Vilnius:
Pradai; 2003. p. 243 [in Lithuanian]

[32] Hatch MJ, Cunlife AL. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspec-
tives. 2nd ed. UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. 370 p. ISBN 9780199260218, ISBN
0199260214

[33] Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Entering the field of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln
YS, editors. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage; 1998. p. 1-34

[34] Sale JEM, Lohfeld LH, Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implica-
tions for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity. 2002;36(1):43-53. DOI: 10.1023/
A:1014301607592

[35] Š aulauskas MP. Moderniosios epistemologijos solipsizmas ex principio interno. Meta-

filosofinis agneologijos svarstymas [Metaphilosophy of modern agneological
epistemology: solipsism ex principio interno]. Problemos [Problems]. 2012;81:33-43 [in
Lithuanian]
[36] Cooper DR, Schindler PS. Business Research Method. 12th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Education; 2013. p. 692

[37] Kirtiklis K. Ar filosofijai tebėra vietos socialiniuose moksluose? [Is there place for
philos- ophy in social sciences?]. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas [Sociology. Thought and
Action]. 2010;1(26):69-81 [in Lithuanian]

[38] Kasi P. Research: What, Why and How? A Treatise from Researchers to Researchers. 1st
ed. Bloomington: Author House; 2009

[39] McMurray AJ, Pace RW, Scott D. Research: A Commonsense Approach. Southbank,
Victoria, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press; 2004

[40] Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 6th ed.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2013. p. 436

[41] Schwandt TA. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin NK,
Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1994

[42] Onwuegbuzie AJ. On becoming a Bi-Researcher: The importance of combining quantita-

tive and qualitative research methodologies. In: Symposium Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Academy of Educational Researchers (NAER); Ponte Vedra,
Florida; 2000

[43] Pikturnaitė I, Paužuolienė J. Organizacinės kultūros institucionalizavimas [Institutiona-

lisation of organisational culture]. Tiltai [Bridges]. 2013;4:93-108 [in Lithuanian]

[44] French WL, Bel CH. A definition and history of organization development: some com-
ments. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Academy of Management Proceedings; 1971;146-153.
doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1971.4980975

[45] Schein EH. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1985

[46] Schein EH. Organizational culture: Skill, defense, mechanism or addiction? In: Brush
FR, Overmier JB, editors. Affect, Conditioning, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;
1985. p. 315-323

[47] Ott JS. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press; 1989

[48] Bounds G, Yorks L, Adams M, Ranney G. Beyond Total Quality Management: Toward
the Emerging Paradigm. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. p. 832

[49] Krüger W. Excellence in Change—Wege zur strategischen Erneuerung. Gabler: Wiesba-

den; 2002

[50] Franklin AL, Pagan JF. Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline
practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2006;26(1):52-73. DOI: 10.1177/
0734371X05277335

[51] Zakarevičius P. Organizacijos kultūra kaip pokyčių priežastis ir pasekmė [Organisation’s

culture as cause and consequence of changes]. Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai
[Management of Organizations: Systematic Research]. 2004;30:201-209 [in Lithuanian]
[52] Ruževičius J. Pavyzdinis įmonių socialinės atsakomybės taikymo planas ir jo
įgyvendinimo gairės valstybės valdomoms įmonėms [Exemplary Plan for Applying
Corporate Social Responsibility and Guidelines for Its Implementation for State-Owned
Enterprises] [Inter-
net]. 2012. Available from: http://www.kv.ef.vu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Mokymai-
SA-ISA_Gaires_valstybes_imonems_JTVP_Svetainei_2012.pdf [in Lithuanian] [Accessed:
October 24, 2014]

[53] Flowers P. Research philosophies—Importance and relevance. Research Philosophies—

Importance and Relevance. 2009;1: