Download The Theory of Formal Organization from the Perspective of Burrell

ISSN: 2278-3369
International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Theory of Formal Organization from the Perspective of Burrell and
Morgan’s Paradigms
Cibeli Borba Machado1, Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin*2
1Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil.
2Universidade
do Estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil.
*Correponding Author:Email:[email protected]
Abstract
Administration as applied social science had its theoretical origins with Taylor and Fayola, and went on with the
theories of human relations, theory of contingency and all other theories that form the framework called General
Theory of Administration (Teoria Geral da Admnistração - TGA) that are the basis to the administrative practice in
organizations. However, the basis of such knowledge came before this definition of Administration as science. The
science as conceived today came from a sequence of thoughts throughout history that are directly related to the
social, economic and cultural context of each era. These thoughts are structured and formalized through the
paradigms of science. According to Burrell and Morgan [2], in social sciences there are four basic paradigms present
in the field of organizational studies: the functionalist, the interpretive, the radical humanist and the radical
structuralist. The Theory of Formal Organization, one of the most famous - and current - administration theories
was proposed by Chester Barnard and consists of a system of activities carried out by two or more people who,
consciously coordinate, that communicate while pursuing a common benefit. Given the arguments presented, the
aim of this study is to analyze which epistemological principle underlies the theory of formal organization proposed
by Barnard. In this sense, through literature research, the aim is to relate the epistemological principle and the
paradigm, so as to analyze their consistency. The conclusion of the research presents the functionalist paradigm as
the epistemology that guides the actions foreseen in the theory of formal organization.
Keywords: Theory of formal organization, Paradigms in social sciences, Functionalist paradigm.
Introduction
This work was organized from a seminar
presented by the academic in May 2013 in the
discipline of Administration and Science of the
Master degree in Administration of the University
of Santa Catarina State.
The science of Administration in its context
within the fields of knowledge is organized as an
applied social science. Social because it involves
situations and analogies that emerge from and
result in the relations of society, whether at the
individual level, or at the organizational level.
Regarding
the
organizational
level,
the
administration had its theoretical origins with
Taylor and Fayol, and went on with the theories
of human relations, theory of contingency and all
other theories that form the framework called
General Theory of Administration (TGA) and that
are the background of the administrative practice
in organizations. However, scientific studies show
that the basis of this knowledge came before this
definition of administration as science. The
science, as conceived today, arose from a sequence
of thoughts throughout history that are directly
related to the social, economic and cultural
context of each era. Also, they are related with
their worldview and practices they perform. These
relationships are structured and formalized
through the paradigms of science, which are
nothing more than a way of seeing social reality.
Burrell and Morgan [2] define paradigms as a set of
ideas that presents a worldview shared by a
community of scientists. The authors identify, based on
social sciences, four basic paradigms present in the
field of organizational studies: the functionalist, the
interpretive, the radical humanist and the radical
structuralist. Fig. 1 illustrates these four paradigms
and frameworks to their social assumptions.
Every worldview is a different way to approach and
study a shared reality, or worldview. Burrell and
Morgan argue that the social theory in general and the
theory of organizations - in particular - can be usefully
analyzed in terms of four broad worldviews.
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
200
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
Fig. 1: Four paradigms to the analysis of the social theory
Source: Adapted from Burrell and Morgan [2]
In order to explain the theory of formal
organization in the light of the paradigms
discussed by Burrell and Morgan, it was sought to
answer the guiding question of this research,
namely: what is the epistemological principle that
underlies the theory of formal organization
proposed by Barnard [1]? To do so, it will be
explained why the theory analyzed belongs to
such paradigm, indicating the relation between
the construction of the text and the view of
science shared by the paradigm.
Research Methodology
The objectives were analyzed from the exploratory
point of view.
Severino [7] seeks to "gather information about a
particular object, thus delimiting a field of work”
[7]. Regarding methodological procedures, the
study is classified as a literature research, which
Is done from the record available, due to previous
research, [...]. It uses data or theoretical
categories which have already been worked on by
other researchers and duly registered. [...] The
researcher works from the contributions of the
authors of the analytical studies contained in the
texts [7].
Data analysis was done through a qualitative
approach, from which "it is not sought a statistical
treatment and the establishment of probabilities,
since the goal of the researcher is to understand
the case - particular and specific - without
bothering to seek any laws applicable to other
similar reality” [6].
The context of the research lead to the creation of
an analysis that made it possible to correlate the
themes explored in this study. It is worthy to
mention that the limitation of the work extends to
the reference used [2], presenting here only a view
of science and knowledge construction.
Analysis of the Results
The Paradigm
The development of a scientific field always
involves disputes between different schools of
thought, which leads to an evolutionary view of
science. Thus, there is the understanding that
science evolves through theoretical revolutions
that generate new commitments in groups of
thought.
Scientific knowledge, as seen today, emerges from
the practice of the scientist. Thomas Kuhn,
having the understanding of the operation, the
practice and the mechanisms of science,
determined that the evolution of the sciences
occurs through paradigms. To the author,
"paradigms
are
scientific
achievements
universally recognized that, for some time,
provide problems and model solutions to a
community of practitioners of a science" [4].
Paradigms are the pillars of science for the
answers to the problems raised by the science
itself and by the practice. Thus, the central idea of
the author, talking about paradigms, is to
determine that science is a product of the
scientific communities and, accordingly, are
formed as assumptions of science.
According to the definition presented by Burrell
and Morgan [2], paradigms lining organizational
theories stem from the nature of the science,
which can be objective or subjective; the social
reality of the moment, where the emphasis is on
the regulating or on the process of social change;
and human nature, deterministic or non-
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
201
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
deterministic. In this conception of science, are
presented four paradigms established by Burrell
and Morgan: interpretive, functionalist, radical
humanist, radical structuralist.
The Interpretive Paradigm
The interpretive paradigm, as described by
Burrell and Morgan [2], is organized in the
sociology of regulation and presents a subjective
view on the understanding of the fundamental
nature of the social world and seeks to
understand the day-to-day essence of the world,
engaging with issues related to the nature of the
status quo, the social order, the consensus, the
integration and cohesion, and the solidarity and
update.
It discusses general sociological issues under four
points of view: nominalism (the social world does
not exist but by the individual's cognition), antipositivism (social science is seen as essentially
subjective), voluntarism (completely autonomous
man and possessed of free will) and ideographic
(becomes closer to people’s subjective, exploring
their life story).
The interpretive paradigm was heavily influenced
by the works of Dilthey, Husserl and Weber and,
for the most part, can be considered as a
twentieth-century phenomenon [2]. In this sense,
it is characterized as a strong extension of the
philosophical and sociological thought with which
it shares the understanding of the social world
explained from the point of view of the individuals
directly involved in the social process, in which
highlights that social reality has no existence out
of the consciousness of any particular individual.
Burrell and Morgan also consider four distinct
categories of sociological organization that are
related to the interpretive theory (and are
distinguished by their subjectivity). They are:
Solipsism, phenomenology, phenomenological
sociology and hermeneutics.
The Functionalist Paradigm
The Functionalist Paradigm, originated in France
in the first decades of the nineteenth century, was
fundamental in the conduction of academic
sociology and the study of organizations.
Organized in the sociology of regulation, it uses
objectivism to study its subjects and is
characterized by an interest in giving
explanations on the status quo, the social order,
the social integration, solidarity, and the need of
satisfaction and update. It addresses these
general sociological issues from the point of view
that tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and
nomothetic [2].
Ontology regards to assumptions concerning the
true essence of the phenomenon under
investigation. The realistic view of the
functionalist paradigm posits that the social world
external to individual’s cognition is a real world
consisting of concrete, tangible and relatively
immutable structures. The social world exists
independently of its appreciation for the
individual.
The epistemological nature, which reflects the
way to understand how knowledge is generated, is
positivist. Having approaches derived from the
natural sciences, positivism seeks to explain and
predict what happens in the social world by
searching for regularities and causal relationships
between its constituent elements. Considers
knowledge as an essentially cumulative process,
in which new findings are added to the existing
load of knowledge and false hypotheses
eliminated.
Human nature regards the relationship between
humans and their environment, the society in
which they live. In a deterministic view humans
respond, in a mechanical way, to situations found
in their exterior world. It sees the man and his
activities as being completely determined by the
situation or the environment in which he is
situated.
The nomothetic methodology to social science
emphasizes the importance of basing research on
systematic protocol and technique, condensed into
approaches and methods employed in the natural
sciences that focus on the process of testing
hypotheses according to the canons of scientific
rigor.
According to Burrell and Morgan [2], there are
four theories of organizations that fall within the
Functionalist Paradigm. They are: Theory of
social system and objectivism; framework of
action; theories of bureaucratic dysfunction; and
pluralism1.
The theory of the social system and objectivism is
the most objective perspective in this paradigm
and, according to Burrell and Morgan [2] is
predominant in the field of contemporary
organizational theories.
1
Free translation by the authors.
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
202
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
The Radical Humanist Paradigm
social and organizational arrangements [2].
The radical humanist paradigm, according to
Burrell and Morgan [2], seeks to develop a
sociology of radical change because it emphasizes
the phenomena of alienation and false
consciousness, seeking human emancipation,
through freeing the human been from the
restrictions that the social arrangements put on
their development, therefore criticizing the status
quo. From the perspective of this paradigm, the
society is anti-human and its objective is to
articulate means so that humans can transcend
the ties that bind them to existing social patterns
and thus reach their full potential. Moreover,
such paradigm sees the creation of reality
influenced by psychological and social processes
and gives great importance to human
consciousness, seeing the individual as the subject
of the history. Thus, it is seen that the radical
humanist paradigm puts emphasis on radical
change,
on
the
modes
of
domination,
emancipation, potentiality and deprivation.
The focus of the radical structuralism is to see
society evolving through contradiction. It assumes
that the world naturally presents conflicts of
interest between those who hold power and those
without power, being irreconcilable, resulting in
radical changes. This paradigm is materialistic,
having realistic, positivistic, determinist and
nomothetic view [2].
It should be noted that such paradigm is based on
the principles of social sciences and on
organizational studies, which are critical theories
inspired by the anarchism, the nationalism, the
dialectic and the psychosociology. It should also be
emphasized that the radical humanist paradigm
has its roots in the German idealism and Kantian
notion that the ultimate reality of the universe is
spiritual, rather than material nature.
The radical humanist studies consider both the
subjectivity principle and the sociology of radical
change, and has four main directions: (1)
solipsism, considered the most extreme form of
subjective idealism, since it denies that the world
has any independent distinct reality; (2) French
existentialism; (3) anarchist individualism; (4)
critical theory, which is subdivided into
Lukásciana Sociology, Gramscian Sociology and
Frankfurt School. It is noteworthy that the
central focus of the radical humanist paradigm is
the creation of the individual world by each one,
i.e., each individual creates the world in which he
lives.
The Radical Structuralist Paradigm
The paradigm of radical structuralism is
concerned in, not only understanding the world,
but trying to change it. Its goal is to analyze the
structural conflict, the existing modes of
domination, contradictions and deprivations. It
emphasizes the need for destruction or
transcendence of the limitations imposed on the
Studies guided by the radical structuralist
perspective are based on the identification of
conflicts inherent to social and organizational
processes and how the various postures of
domination influence them. This paradigm also
emphasizes the pursuit of means that enable to
overcome that domination, since organizations
have their operation restricted by social forces
that can only be modified by some form of tension
through contradictions [2].
Within the radical structuralist paradigm there
are three distinct approaches, but that
intrinsically have some fundamental concepts in
common. The three approaches that comprise the
radical structuralism are: the Russian Social
Theory,
the
Contemporary
Mediterranean
Marxism and the Theory of Conflict [2].
Theory of Formal Organization
Within the perspectives assumed in the
Functionalist Paradigm and according to the
theories framed in it, it was chosen to discuss the
Theory of Formal Organization, proposed by
Chester Barnard in his book The Functions of the
Executive.
Contextualizing:
1961)
Chester
Barnard
(1886-
Chester Barnard was born in 1886 in the United
States. He started working on a farm until he
joined the Economics course at Harvard
University. At that time, he supported himself by
selling pianos and working as staff of a band
which performed at parties.
Later, he worked as a manager at American
Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) for over 30
years, starting as an employee of the Department
of Statistics in 1909, and becoming president of
the Bell Telephone Company of New Jersey in
1927.
Subsequently, he had other public functions as
President of the United Service Organization
(USO) at the time of the World War II, General
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
203
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
Counselor of Education, President of the National
Science Foundation, Assistant Secretary of the
U.S. Treasury and President of the Rockefeller
Foundation.
their action (3) for the accomplishment of a
common purpose" [1]. For its survival, it is
necessary the presence of organizational
effectiveness or efficiency.
Despite his great performance as a manager, he
never put aside the academic vein, being a great
student of organizations. His major works are:
"The Functions of the Executive" (1938) and
"Organization and Management" (1948).
The author introduces the concept of efficiency
and effectiveness used in formal organizations.
According to Barnard [1], efficiency is understood
as the adequation of individual goals to the
company’s goals, and efficacy (effectiveness) as
the focus on results.
Barnard was one of the first to study the
processes of decision making, the kind of
relationships between formal and informal
organizations and the role and functions of the
executive. He developed theories of authority and
incentives, being for this reason labeled as a
behaviorist.
Being contemporary of Hawthorne, Elton Mayo
and Fritz Roethlisberger, and seeing the man as a
social being that makes up the organization in a
systematic cooperation, he is considered a thinker
of Human Relations School. His works reflect his
epistemological orientation in positivist thought
and, at times, utilitarian.
Barnard died in 1961 leaving a legacy on the
theory of cooperation in organizations.
The importance for the Administration, in a
general perspective, is unquestionable, an
example of this is the award received by the book
The Functions of the Executive as the second most
influential management book of the 20th century
in a poll of the Fellows Group of the Academy of
Management (only behind Taylor’s The Principles
of Scientific Management).
Barnard gave much more attention than the
classical theorists to the role of individuals, their
motivations and behaviors in organization, and
much less attention to the problems of structure.
For Dias [3], 2008 Barnard is considered a
precursor of the merge of the approach systems to
the study of organizations, since they are seen as
cooperative systems that involve physical
(equipment and materials), biological (individuals
who need space), psychological (people with needs
and
expectations)
and
social
elements
(interactions, attitudes, beliefs).
The Theory of Formal Organization
Formal organization is a "system of activities or
forces, of two or more people, consciously
coordinated" [1] and comes into existence when
"(1) there are people able to communicate with
each other (2) who are willing to contribute with
Efficiency means the willingness to sacrifice the
control of its own conduct for the benefit of the
coordination, and the continuity of willingness
also depends on the conditions of satisfaction that
are offered: if the satisfactions outweigh the
effort, then there is continuity in the system of
efficiency.
"In summary, the initial existence of an
organization depends upon a combination of these
elements appropriate to the external conditions at
the moment”, [1]. And more: the organization is
sustained when there is a balance in the internal
(proportion in the three elements) and external
systems (efficiency and effectiveness). The
elements vary according to the external systems
and are interdependent: when one varies it is
necessary a variation in the other so as to keep
the balance.
Analyzing the system as a whole, the three
elements
mentioned
before
must
be
interconnected. In this sense, to better conceptual
organization, Barnard’s [1] text was divided into
two main topics, namely:
I-Willingness
communication.
II-Effectiveness
organization.
to
of
cooperate;
cooperation;
purpose;
efficiency
of
The willingness to cooperate is related to the
intensity of the connection with the organization's
goal. Willingness means renunciation of personal
conduct, depersonalize the action, and its effect is
the joint effort by members of the organization.
According to Barnard [1], "the activities cannot be
coordinated unless there is first the disposition to
make a personal act a contribution to an
impersonal system of acts" [1].
The outstanding fact regarding willingness is the
indefinitely large range of variation in its
intensity among individuals. Most people have a
negative willingness to contribute. Another fact is
that the willingness of each individual cannot be
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
204
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
constant in degree. I.e., for any formal
organization the number of people with positive
willingness to serve is always floating.
However, "willingness to cooperate, positive or
negative, is the expression of the net satisfactions
or dissatisfactions experienced or anticipated by
each individual in comparison with those
experienced or anticipated through alternative
opportunities" [1]. I.e., the willingness to
cooperate is the net effect of inducements to do so
in conjunction with the sacrifices involved, and
then in comparison with the net satisfactions
produced by the alternatives. From the point of
view of organization it is the joined effect of
objective inducements offered and burdens
imposed. Therefore, the satisfactions depend upon
the motives of individuals and the inducements
that satisfy them.
The purpose, in turn, is an objective of
cooperation. A purpose incites cooperative activity
to the point that it is accepted by those whose
efforts will constitute the organization and,
therefore, simultaneous acceptance of a purpose
and willingness to cooperate. Therefore, it is
important to note that each cooperative purpose
has the cooperative aspect (the personal effort is
not here in question, but what it means for the
organization as a whole) and the subjective aspect
(here the purpose is intangible, of sentimental
character, what is believed by the contributors).
Once the organizations are established, the
unifying purposes may change during the lifetime
of an organization due to the question of survival.
Finally, in this first part communication is
highlighted. It is through communication that a
system of cooperative effort is established.
"The method of communication centers in
language, oral and written. On its crudest side,
motions or actions that are of obvious meaning
when observed are sufficient for communication
without deliberate attempt to communicate; and
signaling by various methods is an important
method in much cooperative activity" [1].
Communication techniques are an important part
of any organization and structure the form and
the internal economy of organizations. From this
perspective, it is noteworthy that a common
purpose should be of common knowledge and, to
be known, must be somehow communicated. And
therein lays the importance of communication as
a link between the other two features (elements)
previously presented.
The second big topic, deals with the effectiveness
and efficiency of the organization from the
perspective of the purpose and contribution,
respectively. In this sense, the author points out
that, in the first case, the generalization of
purpose is what keeps the organization alive, and
that this purpose can (and should) be defined and
distributed by the day-to-day events.
In the case of efficiency, it is worth noting that it
occurs when there is an ability to provide effective
stimuli in sufficient amount to keep the system in
equilibrium. In organizations with material
purpose, it is encouraged by material or monetary
considerations in order to contribute to the
cooperative effort of an individual and make him
productively efficient.
However, it is not only material productivity that
keeps the organization alive, like the churches
and patriotic societies, in which there are no
tangibility. According to [1], "non-economic
inducements are as difficult to offer as others in
many circumstances". Maintaining peculiarities
and preferences, as an attractive condition of
employment, requires special care with regard to
personal services offered, whether the standard of
quality be high or low. And that's why
organizations must devote considerable attention
- and even money - for that matter.
According to the explanations given, it is
understood that the Theory of Formal
Organization
suggests
the
vitality
of
organizations as originating from a system of
cooperation between the elements that constitute
them, respecting and paying attention to internal
and external systems so that they are in balance.
Making a parallel of Barnard’s text with Burrell
and Morgan’ text, the last ones believe that the
theory of Barnard, along with Simon's theory,
form what is called organizational theories of
balance. Barnard's theory tended to emphasize
the social aspects of organization, seeing
organization as company.
The theory proposed by Barnard represents one of
the first systematic attempts to lay the
foundations of a theory of organizations and was
extremely influential in subsequent thought [3].
Identification
Principle of
Organization
of
the
the
Epistemological
Theory of Formal
The Theory of Formal Organization reflects an
epistemological orientation in the positivist
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
205
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
thought and, at times, utilitarian.
The positivist epistemology, derived from the
natural sciences, was inserted in the social
sciences and in the context of the Administration
through the "normal organization science",
developed from the classical American thought
[5]. Positivism admits as sole source of knowledge
and criterion of truth, the experience, the positive
data and the sensitive data.
It presents as one of the features the search to
explain and predict what happens in the social
world, by searching for regularities and causal
relationships between its constituent elements.
Such feature can be identified in the theory of
Barnard when he identifies organizations as
social systems and explains points about it;
predicts how an organization can function
effectively, and, hence, survive (effectiveness and
efficiency, by the cooperation of individuals); and
predicts the functions the executive must perform
in order to have the cooperation of his
subordinates.
Positivism creates an objective knowledge
accepted as "truth", which can be transmitted in
form of communication for solving social
problems. It understands knowledge as something
that can be acquired. In this sense, Barnard
created a management theory that can be applied
in any formal organization.
The utilitarian bias of the Theory of Formal
Organization is presented as benefit--reward for
individuals advocated in the theory. According to
Dias [3], one of the thesis defended in this theory
is that a company cannot efficiently operate and
survive if the interests of the organization and
individuals are not in balance. Thus, people
should pursue organizational goals while
satisfying their individual needs.
Conclusions
The objective proposed in this study was to verify
which epistemological principle underlies the
theory of formal organization proposed by Chester
Barnard [1]. In this sense, it explored issues
related to paradigms, according to the view of
Burrell and Morgan [2] and the organizational
theory in perspective.
In order to define paradigm it was presented the
idea of Kuhn [4], which defined science as the
product of scientific communities and the concept
of paradigm as what members of a community
share (beliefs, values, techniques shared by
members of the scientific community: symbolic
generalizations (laws), models and values). In this
sense, it discussed the prospects of the paradigms
listed by Burrell and Morgan [2]: interpretive,
functionalist, radical humanist and radical
structuralist.
The theory of formal organization proposed by
Barnard is, in the history of organizational
studies, one of the first systematic attempts to lay
the foundations of a theory of organizations and
was extremely influential in the thought that
involved subsequent theories. This theory was
developed, as concluded in this study, under the
assumptions of the functionalist paradigm. To
better visualize the characteristics of each one of
these themes, Table 1 was prepared.
Table 1: Characteristics of functionalist paradigm and the theory of formal organization
Functionalist Paradigm
Theory of Formal Organization
What is it?
Explains the social world in the same way Explains the organization as a social system
that the natural, seeking to produce useful and had the understanding that a company
scientific
knowledge.
Emphasizes cannot operate efficiently and survive if the
maintaining the status quo: balance, social individual and organizational interests are not
integration, order, and stability. For the in balance.
functionalist paradigm society has a concrete
existence.
How is it done?
Faces essentially rational explanations of Extremely rational regarding the relations of
social affairs.
the organization.
What is it used Predominates in this paradigm a systemic Predominates, in this theory, the idea of
for?
conception of the social world oriented to individuals with willingness to an end
achieving goals.
purpose.
Example
Theory of social systems.
Contributor theory to the theory of social
systems.
Source: Prepared by the authors (2013)
It should be noted, finally, the relevance of this
study by presenting themes that have great value
to current discussions, as they are concepts that,
though opposed, argued, and disputed, remain to
time, especially in discussions of administration
science and organizational studies.
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
206
Available online at www.managementjournal.info
As a suggestion for further research, it is
recommended to explore other organizational
theories aiming to unveil its epistemological
conceptions and, thus, contribute to the
development of new fields in organizational
studies.
References
1. Barnard Chester I (1971) As funções do executivo.
São Paulo: Atlas.
2. Burrel G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological paradigms
and the organisation analysis. London: Ashgate.
3. Dias, Reinaldo (2008) Sociologia das organizações.
São Paulo: Atlas.
4. Kuhn Thomas S (1991) A estrutura das revoluções
científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
5. Marsden Richard, Towley Barbara (1999)
Introdução: A coruja de Minerva – reflexões sobre a
teoria na prática. In: Clegg Stewart, Hardy Cynthia;
NORD, Walter (Org.). Handbook de estudos
organizacionais: reflexões e novas direções. São Paulo:
Atlas,. 2.v
6. Meksenas, Paulo. Pesquisa social e ação
pedagógica: conceitos, métodos e práticas. 10. ed. São
Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2002.
7. Severino, Antônio Joaquim. Metodologia do
trabalho científico. 23. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2007.
Cibeli Borba Machado & Nathália Helena Fernandes Laffin | Jan.-Feb. 2014 | Vol.3 | Issue 1|200-207
207