Naturalistic paradigm

The naturalistic paradigm suggests that there are several interpretations of reality . The goal of researchers working with this approach is to understand how people build their own reality in their social context.

In politics

The naturalistic paradigm focuses on the consideration of man as a part of nature and the explanation of politics by the influence of the environment: geographical, climatic factors, biological and racial characteristics of people, congenital mental properties, etc. It explains the nature of politics based on the dominant influence of non-social factors not acquired, but congenital, unchanging for man and society ^[1] .

In Sociology

The naturalistic paradigm unites sociological trends based on research methods similar to the methods of the natural sciences. Within the framework of this paradigm, only objective fact is investigated, mathematical and empirical research methods are practiced ^[2] .

In Communications

In relation to small groups, the Naturalistic paradigm focuses on the “real life” of groups. The Naturalistic Paradigm addresses the main error in the study of small groups - confidence in zero-story groups in which strangers interact in the laboratory and solve an artificial problem ^[3] .

In contrast to the Theory of functional systems and the Theory of Structuring (E. Giddenska) ^[4] , which indicate that there is a measurable, objective reality. The Naturalistic Paradigm suggests that communicators build social reality in exactly the way they interact. Research into the Naturalistic Paradigm suggests that the values ​​and biases of researchers are part of the research process. They view and study the relationship between researchers and participants as interdependent and interconnected. Thus, communicators are not just objects to be studied, but are partners in the research process.

The Naturalistic Paradigm focuses the researcher's attention on human communication, exactly how this happens in natural conditions. In communication research of a small group, this means that researchers study real groups in their natural environment. For example, a researcher may study the team culture at a local organization. Or, a researcher can study several teams or groups in an organization, focusing on boundary permeability and group identity . The naturalistic paradigm encourages researchers to go beyond the rules and study groups such as families, religious groups, and children's groups.

The most important distinguishing feature in the Naturalistic Paradigm is its vision of natural small groups .

• First, we learn about the features and general features of communication methods and norms, as group members coordinate their interactions in everyday life.

• Secondly, the Naturalistic Paradigm significantly expands our understanding of small groups and moves small group research into non-traditional research.

• Third, studies of the Naturalistic Paradigm of small groups have led to advances in communication theory and practice.

The Naturalistic Paradigm may seem like an ideal approach, but unfortunately has its drawbacks.

• The first problem is that it can be difficult to determine what constitutes a group in a natural setting. Are people really a group because they say they are a group? Or what does the researcher mean when compiling this group?
• Secondly, the theory requires that researchers and participants have equal levels of power , but this balance is difficult to maintain. Ultimately, the researcher makes the final decision about what to include, what not to include in the study report. In addition, other people, such as magazine editors and reviewers, can influence the content of the report. Thus, the researcher may encounter conflicting interests in the process of publishing the information collected in the study.
• Third, as the Symbolic Convergence Theory, research in the Naturalistic Paradigm is a calculation that may be inaccurate.

• http://www.bibliotekar.ru/upravlenie-5/13.htm

• Frey, L. (Eds.). (1995). Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
• Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship: Input-process-output and functional models. In L. Frey (Ed.), D. Gouran (Assoc. Ed.), & M. Poole (Assoc. Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Poole, M., Seibold, D., & McPhee, R. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
• Sunwolf & Seibold, D. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes. In L. Frey (Ed.), D. Gouran (Assoc. Ed.), & M. Poole (Assoc. Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 395-431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.