The research philosophy refers to the perceptions and assumptions of researchers about the existence of reality and approach to gaining knowledge in that reality (Holden and Lynch, 2004, p. 83; Saunders et al., 2004). While having certain beliefs or assumptions about the existence and nature of reality is known as ontology, gaining knowledge in that reality is referred to as epistemology (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Holden and Lynch, 2004).
98 Within social science research, two popular but contrasting philosophical traditions prevail, these are: the positivist (also known as quantitative, objectivist or traditionalist) and the social constructionist (also referred to as qualitative, subjectivist or interpretivist) paradigms6 (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Bryman and Bell, 2007; Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
The positivists believe that the ‘social world exists externally and that its properties should be measured through objective methods, rather than being inferred subjectively through sensation, reflection and intuition’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008, p. 57). Positivism is thus based on the assumption that the reality exists ‘out there’ about which knowledge can be discovered and communicated to others through ‘observation and measurement’ (Holden and Lynch, 2004).
Studies rooted in positivist tradition are underpinned by deductive processes examining cause and effect relationships between variables under investigation (Saunders et al., 2004; Holden and Lynch, 2004; Hussey and Hussey, 1997), supported by statistical inferences and large size samples allowing the researcher to produce generalisable findings and testing the relevance of existing theories (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2004; Holden and Lynch, 2004; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Studies following the positivist tradition thus follow highly structured procedures (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2004).
6 Philosophical traditions have been differentiated in different perspectives. Relative to the positivist, social
constructionist appear to have been discussed from many different perspectives such as interpretivist, phenomenologist, anti-positivist, subjectivist and naturalistic standpoints. The detailed discussion on these diverse philosophical perspectives is beyond the scope of this study. In addition to that, there exist a number of other research paradigms, such as relativist, critical theory, feminism, hermeneutics, postmodernism, pragmatism, structuration theory, discussion on each of these is also beyond the scope of this research.
99 Contrary to positivism, social constructionist philosophy is based on the assumption that reality ‘is not objective and exterior, but is socially constructed and given meaning by people’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008, p. 58). According to this paradigm, multiple realities exist that are informed by the perceptions of individuals, implying that knowledge cannot be discovered rather everything is relative and context specific7 (Holden and Lynch, 2004;
Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Morgan and Smircich, 1980). Therefore, ‘people make sense of the world especially through sharing their experiences with others via the medium of language’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008, p. 58), and the role of a researcher hence is to analyse the different interpretations that people attach to a particular phenomenon in a particular context, through theoretical abstraction based on patterns of data and themes (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2004; Hussey and Hussey, 1997; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Studies underpinned by social constructionism do not aim at achieving empirical generalisation of their findings however these aim for some theoretical generalisations and use reasonably manageable/small samples (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2004; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Instead of testing theories, such studies follow an inductive process thereby trying to expand boundaries of knowledge either by extending the existing theories or developing new theories by gathering rich data (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2004; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Researchers undertaking studies informed
7 Social constructionist philosophy might be seen to fall into two camps (Newton et al., 2011; Burningham
and Cooper, 1999; Sismondo, 1993): (1) a ‘mild’ version that allows for the possibility of a reality existing outside of human perception but that argues that such a reality is not straightforwardly available to human observation but can only be perceived and interpreted through human understanding. Therefore no single account of social reality can exist. (2) A ‘strict/strong/radical’ version that argues that there is no such thing as a social reality out there but that social reality only exists through human perception and interaction. The distinction between the two is somewhat important, for example when it comes to extrapolating from findings or checking (‘triangulating’) data from one source against those from another source to achieve greater reliability. A ‘mild’ constructionism might see some merit in such a procedure, a ‘strong’ constructionism would not necessarily.
100 by social constructionist philosophy adopt a flexible structure in their research allowing them to adapt to contextual changes as their research activities progress (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Saunders et al., 2004). Compared to the studies following positivist tradition, research informed by this paradigm generally draws on less structured and more open- ended questions in order to explore alternative explanations and dig deep into how people make sense of the world around them by exploring the processes underpinning their interactions and experiences (Saunders et al., 2004).
To summarise, Easterby-Smith et al. (2008, p. 73) highlight some strengths and weaknesses of positivist and social constructionist philosophical traditions (Table 3.1). While studies rooted in the positivist tradition mainly aim at producing generalisable findings for informing policy, they provide limited insights about the processes underpinning the relationships between variables. In contrast, studies informed by the social constructionist tradition can provide a deeper understanding of the processes that underpin a phenomenon. While such studies can better explain the theoretical relationships, due to the limited generalisation of their findings, these may not become a point of attraction for policy makers.
Table 3.1: Strengths and weaknesses of different epistemologies
Strengths Weaknesses
Positivist
Can provide wide coverage. Potentially fast and economical. Easier to provide justification of policies.
Inflexible and artificial.
Not good for process, meaning or theory generation.
Implications for action not obvious.
Social
constructionist
Good for processes, and meanings. Flexible and good for theory generation.
Data collection is less artificial.
Can be very time consuming.
Analysis and interpretations are difficult. May not have credibility with policy makers.
101 Amongst other factors, an understanding of research philosophy is the key to enabling researchers to select appropriate research methodology for their studies, including the choice of relevant research design and methods of collecting and analysing data (Easterby- Smith et al., 2008; Buchanan and Bryman, 2007; Holden and Lynch, 2004).
Research approach of this study
This study is rooted in the social constructionist philosophical tradition employing a qualitative multiple-case study approach (Yin, 2009; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989). The rationale is that such an approach is considered prudent for undertaking research in an area that is in its infancy, and, as it is discussed at a number of places in this thesis (e.g. Section 2.5), the research on sustainability in SMEs is indeed a nascent area of research.
A larger number of studies looking into the environmental behaviour of SMEs have been quantitative (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2012; Brammer et al., 2012), focusing on ‘what’ environmental practices SMEs adopt and ‘what’ factors drive and limit their environmental engagement. However, such studies provide limited explanation of the processes about ‘why’ and ‘how’ SMEs adopt environmentally responsible practices. These questions can be better addressed through a qualitative inquiry. The relevance of qualitative approach to investigate the environmental behaviour of SMEs can also be judged from the fact that recently researchers have started adopting this approach. Some exemplary studies include; Hamann et al. (2015), Halme and Korpela (2014), Williams and Schaefer (2013), Sampaio et al. (2012) and Williamson et al. (2006). For example, Hamann et al. (2015) used qualitative approach in order to investigate the underlying reasons of differentiation in environmental commitment and innovation in South African wineries. Similarly, Halme and Korpela (2014)
102 adopted qualitative approach because their aim was to examine the underlying processes of multiple configurations of resources leading to responsible innovations in Nordic SMEs. Williams and Schaefer (2013) adopted social-constructionist approach with the purpose of capturing owner-managers’ own understanding of climate change issues and uncovering their motivations for engaging with environmental issues. Sampaio et al. (2012) justified their choice for using the qualitative design on the ground that ‘little research has been undertaken to examine the impact of formal environmental management systems (EMS) on small firms’ behaviour’ and therefore an in-depth understanding of such phenomena could be possible through a qualitative study. There is hence sufficient evidence suggesting to contribute to this nascent field of research by using qualitative approach. In the context of Pakistan’s leather industry which has remained underexplored from the perspective of environmental behaviour of SMEs, qualitative approach is considered suitable for gaining better insights into what SMEs in this industry sector do for reducing their environmental footprints and why and how they do that. Moreover, according to the best of researcher’s knowledge, there is no other study that has examined how and to what extent multilevel environmental drivers interact to shape environmental behaviour of leatherworking SMEs in Pakistan, and what processes underpin the accumulation and deployment of resources and capabilities needed to enable these firms to become environmentally responsible businesses. Even, generally, SMEs are relatively neglected from this perspective of investigation (Section 2.5). Building on the social constructionist philosophical tradition, this study, therefore, addresses the need for such research by examining the environmental behaviour of leatherworking SMEs in Pakistan.
In Pakistan’s leather industry there are SMEs which are more or less engaged environmentally, and some are still disengaged. On the basis of their environmental
103 behaviour they can be classified as (a) environmentally progressive, (b) environmentally moderate and (c) environmentally distanced SMEs (for details, see Chapter 4). Environmentally progressive SMEs display a higher level of environmental commitment and proactively take more advanced environmental measures, such as the adoption of the latest cleaner technologies and undertaking R&D for process innovations (Section 4.2.1), for becoming eco-friendly businesses. While environmentally moderate SMEs also display a higher level of environmental commitment than environmentally distanced SMEs, unlike their environmentally progressive peers they do not take many advanced environmental measures. A main reason for this is the absence of sufficient economic resources needed for taking such measures. However, SMEs in this category proactively adopt other relatively less expensive cleaner production practices such as the conservation of inputs, like water and chemicals, through process innovations that enable them to reduce their pollution load (Section 4.2.2). Contrary to both these categories, environmentally distanced SMEs operate with a very low level of environmental commitment (Section 4.2.3). They do not proactively take environmental measures. Even if they take any measure, for this, they adopt a reactive approach (del Brío and Junquera, 2003; Aragon-Correa and Sharma, 2003; Tilley, 1999b) that is largely led by economic rationale and not by environmental logic. However, the knowledge about why and how SMEs ultimately fall into one category or the other on the basis of their environmental behaviour is much based on the experience that these firms have gained over the years. Different contextual factors could have influenced the environmental decisions of these firms, such as regulatory, customer and social pressures. While the ultimate response to such pressures can be environmental engagement or disengagement, the underlying processes informing environmental decisions of firms are more likely to be idiosyncratic in nature which can only be examined by exploring firm level
104 experiences and then comparing those to find similarities and differences in processes across firms. For example, SMEs may acquire environmental knowledge for becoming eco- efficient but the routines and processes to acquire that knowledge can differ or may be similar across firms. The need for an in-depth investigation of such processes and uncovering of contextual realities thus substantiates the choice of the researcher for rooting this study into the social constructionist philosophical tradition.
Holden and Lynch (2004) discuss that presently very few researchers make extreme assumptions that the positivist and social constructionist traditions entail, rather the assumptions are considered at a moderate level. Moreover, Marshall and Rossman (1989) argue that assuming a certain level of flexibility in research design may be needed allowing a researcher to examine an issue effectively. I acknowledge that when operationalising social constructionist philosophy by adopting grounded analysis approach (Gioia et al., 2013; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008) to data analysis (Section3.3.4(c)), I follow the assumptions of this philosophical paradigm at a ‘mild’ level (Newton et al., 2011; Burningham and Cooper, 1999; Sismondo, 1993).
While the researcher recognises environmental engagement of leatherworking SMEs in Pakistan as an objective reality, he also appreciates the importance of exploring firm level experiences and processes of becoming environmentally progressive or distanced business. At the same time, this study does not draw on grounded theory in its strict sense that the researcher should start fieldwork without prior knowledge (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Strauss and Corbin, 1994; Glaser and Strauss, 1967), but rather it draws on the principles of grounded analysis as suggested by Easterby-Smith et al. (2008). As a doctoral student, the researcher had to review both theoretical and empirical literature streams for
105 identifying research gaps, so he was familiar with literature before starting fieldwork. However, he entered into the field for data collection with an open mind allowing him to explore ground realities rather than imposing literature informed concepts on field investigations.
The next section discusses how the social constructionist philosophy underpins the considerations for selecting appropriate research design and methods of data collection and analysis for this study.