Option 2:

[These] immigrants [are often seen as] either crafty competitors for jobs orpitiful,
hapless victims of ruthless employers (Kim 2009:510). Discuss using a Burrell & Morgans
1979 paradigm framework to support your analysis.
Immigrants are the people who migrate from their current country to other countries to
take up permanence residence. So, it seems to be a place that full of new excitement,
adventurous places, different language and different culture for them to explore. Thus, immigrant
need time to adapt to a totally new environment as well. Immigrants bring positive impact and
negative impact to the host countries too. As an example, host countries economics growth will
be sustained as they are import new labour and job vacancies fulfilled and skilful employee will
be trained. The contribution of new young workers which bring passion and innovation on jobs.
They also contribute on pay taxes to the countries through their income. Negative impact would
be the rise of unemployment of that host countries as there are no controlling on incomers
foreign workers. Other than that, immigrants may lead to invite criminal cases such as drugs,
crime, corruption and others. Furthermore, immigrations will become a political issues, it will be
used by racism to exploit feelings and others (Shah, 2008). By reading this essay. It will focus on
the immigrants who is often seen as either cunning competitors for jobs or pitiful and hopeless
victims of pitiless employers by emphasizing on a range of social theories to support the analysis
and with some suitable examples of which are relating to the theories.
Burrell & Morgans 1979 paradigm framework is the model of organizational analysis
developed by Burrell and Morgan classifies sociological theories along the two orthogonal
dimensions of regulation vs. change and subjectivity vs. objectivity (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
This divides sociology into four fairly distinct paradigm clusters. There is internal consistency
under each paradigm, in terms of assumptions about individuals, groups, societies, goals of study
and accepted forms of evidence. However, each cluster neglects, excludes or opposes some the
insights generated under other paradigms. Burrell and Morgans model was later taken into social
work research, where it was used to define four approaches to understanding the problems of
social work clients (Whittingham & Holland, 1985). In details, they start with conceptualizing
social science in terms of specific set of assumptions, which characterize any theorists point of
view, related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology, and illustrate two

polarized perspectives -subjective and objective dimension as the first principal dimension
(assumptions about the nature of science) of their theoretical scheme for analysing theory.
Before we progress to a review of the four paradigms, one point is worthy of further
emphasis. This relates to the fact that the four paradigms are mutually exclusive. They offer
alternative views of social reality, and to understand the nature of all four is to understand four
different views of society. They offer different ways of seeing. A synthesis is not possible, since
in their pure forms they are contradictory, being based on at least one set of opposing metatheoretical assumptions. They are alternatives, in the sense that one can operate in different
paradigms sequentially over time, but mutually exclusive. In the sense that one cannot operate in
more than one paradigm at any given point in time. Since in accepting the assumptions of one,
we defy the assumptions of all the others. We offer the four paradigms for consideration in these
terms, in the hope that knowledge of the competing points of view will at least make us aware of
the boundaries within which we approach our subject.
The Functionalist Paradigm has provided the dominant framework for the conduct of
academic sociology and the study of organisations. It represents a perspective which is firmly
rooted in the sociology of regulation and approaches its subject matter from an objectivist point
of view. It dominant framework for the organizational study and interaction of three sets of
intellectual forces: sociological positivism, Marxist theory, and German idealism. It seeks to
provide essentially rational explanations of social affairs for effective regulation and control;
practical solutions to practical problems - social engineering. It also characterized by a concern
for providing explanations of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration,
solidarity, need satisfaction and actuality using a standpoint which tends to be realist, positivist,
determinist and nomothetic. The functionalist paradigm generates regulative sociology in its
most fully developed form. In its overall approach it seeks to provide essentially rational
explanations of social affairs. It is a perspective which is highly pragmatic in orientation,
concerned to understand society in a way which generates knowledge which can be put to use. It
is often problem-orientated in approach, concerned to provide practical solutions to practical
problems. It is usually firmly committed to a philosophy of social engineering as a basis .of
social change and emphasises the importance of understanding order, equilibrium and stability in

society and the way in which these can be maintained. It is concerned with the effective
'regulation' and control of social affairs.
Durkheim addressed his first focus in his book, The Division of Labor in Society.
Durkheims found in his idea of "solidarity". In older, more primitive societies Durkheim argued
that "mechanical solidarity kept everyone together. Mechanical solidarity is a form of social
cohesion that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and engage in
similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple
societies such as those in which everyone herds cattle or farms. Amish society exemplifies
mechanical solidarity. However, the diversity actually leads to a different form of solidarity interdependence. Durkheim referred to this as "organic solidarity." Organic solidarity leads to a
strong sense of individuals being dependent on one another. For instance, while a construction
worker may be able to build homes for people, if he is injured on the job, he will turn to a doctor
for treatment (and probably a lawyer to sue his employer).
The Interpretive Paradigm located within the context of the interpretive paradigm adopt
an approach consonant with the tenets of what we have described as the sociology of regulation,
though its subjectivist approach to the analysis of the social world makes its links with this
sociology often implicit rather than explicit. It concerned with understanding the fundamental
nature of the social world as it is at the level of subjective experience. Issues relating to the
nature of the status quo, social order, consensus, social integration and cohesion, solidarity and
actuality. Its approach tends to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic. It sees
the social world as an emergent social process which is created by the individuals concerned.
Their standpoint is underwritten by the assumption that the world of human affairs is cohesive,
ordered and integrated. The ontological status of the social world is viewed as extremely
questionable and problematic as far as theorists located within the interpretive paradigm are
concerned. Everyday life is accorded the status of a miraculous achievement. Interpretive
philosophers and sociologists seek to understand the very basis and source of social reality. They
often delve into the depths of human consciousness and subjectivity in their quest for the
fundamental meanings which underlie social life. The interpretive paradigm is the direct product
of the German idealist tradition of social thought. Its foundations were laid in the work of Kant

and reflect a social philosophy which emphasises the essentially spiritual nature of the social
world.
According to Perez, in 2008, the Department Of Labor unnecessarily put the brakes on
ESG investing for no good reason and has left the qualified retirement planning space a decade
or more behind other segments of the investing markets when it comes to economically targeted
investments (ETI), his preferred name for this type of investing. As Perez explained it, the
Labor Department previously had addressed issues relating to ETIs in Interpretative Bulletin 941. [The publication] corrected a misperception that investments in ETIs are incompatible with
ERISAs fiduciary obligations, which existed beforehand, Perez said. [The guidance also]
contains much clearer discussion and explanation of how responsible fiduciaries should and
should not use ESG/ETI factors while creating and managing portfolios under ERISA, he said.
The radical humanist paradigm is defined by its concern to develop a sociology of radical
change from a subjectivist standpoint. It views the social world from a perspective which tends
to be nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic. However, its frame of reference is
committed to a view of society which emphasises the importance of overthrowing or
transcending the limitations of existing social arrangements. Consciousness of man is dominated
by the ideological superstructures with which it interacts; concerned with release from the
constraints that existing social arrangements place upon human development - critique of the
status quo. . It tends to view society as anti-human and it is concerned to articulate ways in which
human beings can transcend the spiritual bonds and fetters which tie them into existing social
patterns and thus realise their full potential. Besides, it emphasis upon radical change, modes of
domination, emancipation, deprivation and potentiality. Laid the basis of a nascent antiorganization theory.
For example, to neoliberals, the accelerated globalization of recent decades is associated
with the expansion of liberal democracy to many countries, in which it was previously absent. To
them, their third wave of global democratization refers to the expansion of liberal democracy
to much of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the former Soviet bloc, especially in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. In 1998, Freedom House reported that 117 of the worlds 191 countries held
regular competitive multiparty elections. Their argument is based on several connections that can
be made between supra-territorial relations and the spread of liberal democracy. Global human

rights campaigns and other trans-border civic associations demanded the abolishment of many
authoritarian governments, such as communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe and
military regimes in Latin America. Global mass media were supportive of democracy
movements in China, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, and elsewhere. Trans-world and regional
agencies have variously supported democracy: civil society development through EU programs;
election monitoring through the UN; and good governance promotion through the Bretton
Woods institutions. Accordingly, neoliberal theorists and politicians have concluded that their
policies of economic globalization encourage the democratization of the state.
The Radical Structural Paradigm located within this paradigm advocate a sociology of
radical change from an objectivist standpoint. It committed to radical change, emancipation, and
potentiality, in an analysis which emphasizes structural conflict, modes of domination,
contradiction and deprivation. It approaches these general concerns from a standpoint which
tends to be realist, positivist, determinist and nomothetic. It is through political and economic
conflict and change that the emancipation of men from the social structures in which they live is
seen as coming about. The fundamental paradigm of Marx, Engles, and Lenin. They emphasise
the fact that radical change is built into the very nature and structure of contemporary society,
and they seek to provide explanations of the basic interrelationships within the context of total
social formations. There is a wide range of debate within the paradigm, and different theorists
stress the role of different social forces as a means of explaining social change. Whilst some
focus directly upon the deep-seated internal contradictions, others focus upon the structure and
analysis of power relationships.
For example, market economy. Its fully-developed form is known as the capitalist market
economy. This exists when most individuals offer their labor on the market to the owners of
accumulated capital, on which other peoples labor can be employed. It was established between
the seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries in those countries that are now advanced industrial
countries. It was an enormously liberalizing force. It changed not only the economic
arrangements but also the entire society. Instead of a society based on custom, on status, and on
authoritarian allocation of work and rewards, there came a society based on individual mobility,
on contract, and on impersonal market allocation of work and rewards reflecting individual
choices.

As conclusion, immigrants who choose to leave their original country and work in other
country to earn money because of their poor conditions. They just want to change their family
condition and give a better life for themselves and their family. Thus, we shouldnt racism them,
we should stand at their point of view to see if their family member is getting humiliating,
bullying and others. Human rights is very important for all of us. They went other country got
their own reasons; they dont deserve that kind of treatment. Country cannot grow if without
immigrants workers, we need them too because immigrant workers normally do the job that
citizen dont want to do, they actually helping country economy in field of manpower workforce.
High educated and talented immigrants work in the country and will help to improve the
economy of the country too. Everything has it good and bad side, it just depends how we see it.
We should look at the bright side and be positive towards the immigrant workers.

References
1. Burrell, Gibson, and Gareth Morgan. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis:
Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Vol. 14. Heinemann, 1979.
2. Whittingham, C., & Holland, R. (1985). A framework for theory in social work. Issues in
Social Work Education, 5, 25-50.
3. "Burrell & Morgan - Sociological Paradigms & Organizational Analysis - PAEI - Structures
Of Concern". Paei.wikidot.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
4. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S., 1998. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds).

(1998). The Landscape of Qualitative Research:

Theories and Issues, Sage Publications, London.

5. Hopper, T. and Powell, A., 1985.

Making sense of research into the organizational and

social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions, Journal

of Management Studies 22 (5), 429-465.
6. Ardalan, Kavous, 2000b, The Academic Field of Finance and Paradigm
Diversity, Southern Business Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, Fall 2000, pp. 21-31.

7. Ardalan, Kavous, 2000c, Development of the Academic Field of Finance: A

Paradigmatic Approach, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Vol.4, No. 1, 2000, pp.
44-79.
8. Ardalan, Kavous, 2001, On the Role of Paradigms in the Field of Finance,
Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1,2001, pp. 1-28.
9. Barley, S. (1980). Review of Burrell and Morgan. Sloan Management Review, 19: 92-4.
10. Barnes, B. (1981). T S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan.
11. Benson, J. K. (1983). Paradigm and Praxis in Organizational Analysis. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 5: 33-56.
12. Morgan, G. (1981). Paradigm Diversity: Threat or Opportunity? Unpublished Working Paper.
Toronto: York University.
13. Masterman, M. (1970). The Nature of a Paradigm. In Criticism and the Growth of
Knowledge (Lacatos & Musgrave, Eds.), London: Cambridge University Press.