Activos que respaldan la emisión de los Bonos

Historically, scientific research is perceived to be rooted in a specific research philosophy that governs the practice of such research (Bryman, 2015; Creswell, 2013). As a result, research philosophy is widely embraced among the members of research communities to guide the ways in which social and behavioural sciences studies are conducted, analysed, and presented (Bryman, 2015; Creswell, 2014).

While research is not completely driven by theory (Bryman, 2015) or theoretical frameworks (Creswell, 2014); theory may serve as a product of a research process (Creswell, 2014; Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). This implies that research may be conducted abductively (when unanticipated trends/patterns emerge from the data), deductively (when theory guides research), or inductively (when theory is derived or generated from the data) as depicted in Figure 3.

78

Fig.3: Social and behavioural Sciences Research Approach (Source: Author)

Therefore, theory (whether abductively, deductively, or inductively generated) is perceived to be enshrined within a research philosophy (Bryman, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) and may be associated with the ways social and behavioural scientists envision and interpret social realities.

As a result, different terminologies such as Worldviews (Creswell, 2013, 2014) or Paradigms (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007) are used to describe research philosophy. These explain assumptions concerning a reality, knowledge of that reality, and specific perspectives of understanding that reality. In simple terms, they explain the nature of reality including the relationship(s) between the researcher and that researched; the relationship between the knower and the known (Creswell, 1998; 2014). These may be broadly defined through ontological, epistemological (Bryman, 2015; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and methodological (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) positions of seeing and understanding social phenomena such as waste.

While ontology is concerned with the nature of reality and argues whether that reality is independent of human interpretations (or conceptualisation), epistemology is focused on how we know that reality and explain the basis of that knowledge (Bryman, 2015; Creswell,

79 2014). For example, what is known (ontology), how (epistemology), and the process (methodology) of knowing what we know about waste could explain our understanding of waste and how we investigate people’s behaviour towards waste. This is different from person to person, making the behaviour objective or subjective depending on that individual’s perspectives and process of knowing.

These interpretations (subjectivity and objectivity) are associated with the ways in which the existing main-stream research communities in social sciences observe social phenomena. The positions underpin the nature of reality, the researcher’s relationship with research participants, the investigation’s value-laden features, and the research process itself (see Creswell, 1998). Philosophical assumptions (Creswell, 2014) are therefore explain researchers’ values and orientations which may inform the nature, conduct, and findings of their research.

Therefore, qualitative researchers operate under the ontological assumptions that reality is subjective to social actors (Bryman, 2015; Creswell, 2014). This is in contrary to the underlying beliefs of quantitative researchers that posit no subjectivity but absolute objectivity in understanding a social reality (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In other words, the ontological perspective of quantitative research assumes that there is only one truth about a social phenomenon; a reality that occurs without the interaction of social actors (Bryman, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). As a result, pragmatism can be instrumental in integrating these competing views (such as objectivity and subjectivity) of waste and recycling behaviour. Rather than focusing on the research methods, pragmatism prioritises the research questions and goals while adhering to the usage of multiple data collection methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As a result, the abductive, deductive and inductive thinking are combined to understand the complexities and multiple perspectives of recycling and recycling behaviour at work.

80

To better understand the available philosophical assumptions in social sciences and to inform the decisions about philosophical assumptions, the competing views of a social reality are presented in Table 3, While the lists in Table 3 below are not all-inclusive, it illustrates that the number of philosophical assumptions that may guide the research process is extensive. However, positivism – the view that research can be conducted and interpreted in an absolute objective (Bryman, 2015) and value-free (Hennink et al., 2011) context is rejected in this research for its rigidity (see Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This informed the decision to exclude positivism from Table 3 below. Nevertheless, this research considers the views of post-positivism which address positivism’s shortcomings and reject the traditional notion of absolute truth (Hennink et al., 2011). Although positivism/post-positivism is understood to be more associated with quantitative research, its underlying principles may include some elements of theory validation (deductive) approach and theory derivation (inductive) strategy (Bryman, 2015).

Table 3: Contrasting views of research philosophical assumptions Contrasting

Factors Post-positivism Constructivism Pragmatism Transformative

Ontology

Singular reality,

critical realism Multiple, constructed realities (relativism) Diverse: singular &/or multiple realities Diverse: singular &/or multiple realities Epistemology Objective (modified dualist), critical community Subjective (transactional), interpreted findings Mixed: Objective + Subjective Collaborative but guided by social justice Methods Quantitative,

manipulative Qualitative, manipulative critical multiplism

Mixed: QUAN +

QUAL Mixed: QUAN + QUAL

Axiology

Value-bound but

controlled Value-bound Multiple dimensions All aspects informed by social justice Logic Hypothetico- deductive: theory verification Inductive: theory formulation Mixed: hypothetico- deductive & inductive Mixed: hypothetico- deductive & inductive Causal linkages Deterministic approach: causes influence effects

Causes are not discernible from effects Causal effects: transitory & difficult to identify Causal effects: through social justice structure

81 Rhetoric Formal Informal/casual Mixed: Formal

+ Informal Mixed: Formal + Informal Generalisation Refined nomothetic statements; emphasis on external validity Ideographic statements; emphasis on transferability Ideographic statements; emphasis on both external validity & transferability Ideographic statements: focus on issues of social justice

Adapted from Creswell (2014); Teddlie & Tashakkori (2009); Guba & Lincoln (1994)

In contrast to the positivist positions, post-positivists subscribe to the objective existence of social realities but acknowledge a value-laden research; they assume that researchers’ values are important in research process. According to Bryman (2015), positivism/ post-positivism views are based on epistemological assumptions that the natural science approach should be applied when studying a social reality such as recycling. The logical question that may challenge this position is whether recycling behaviour can be assessed in the same manner as behaviours of elements, molecules, particles or electrons that exhibit specific patterns or orientations in accordance with natural laws of science. This may raise moral and ethical questions since humans are perceived to be rational thinkers who constantly evaluate, respond, and adjust to their natural environments.

In addition, pragmatism with its ‘what works’ concept emerged lately to challenge the incompatibility thesis and conceives that worldview elements can be integrated together in a single study especially when they possess similar axiomatic elements (Morgan, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This suggests that lines dividing worldview elements are blurred (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007) which offers an opportunity for researchers to go back and forth seamlessly (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003) during an investigation. Although different philosophical models are associated with social and behavioural science research, transformative (Mertens, 2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) and pragmatic (Creswell, 2014; Howe, 1988; Johnson et al., 2007) philosophical assumptions are directly linked to mixed methods research. The Transformative paradigmatic stance focuses on the issues of social justice and human rights (Mertens, 2007; 2010) while pragmatic stance advocates “what

82

works” (Howe, 1988) as the truth regarding social realities (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), the major distinction between pragmatism and the transformative paradigm is that the former focuses on the researchers’ values while the latter uses social justice in constructing realities. Like pragmatic mixed methods research, no specific method is associated with transformative mixed methods research. Consequently, it consistently advocates for the involvement of a community (participants) throughout the research process (Mertens, 2010).

According to Mertens (2007, 2010), the transformative paradigm seeks to address issues of inequalities, social injustice, and violation of human rights but respect the existence of cultural norms. When situated within the context of workplace waste recycling behaviour, transformative paradigm may enhance the validity of a study by observing and acknowledging the presence of organisation norms in the research process. This allowed organisations under study to be part of the research process. Considering the nature of this research, a pragmatic approach is adopted although transformative lens is considered to address the effects of organisation citizenship, personal factors, organisation norms, and regulatory framework on waste recycling behaviour. The approach integrates both interpretivist and post-positivist paradigms (Johnson et al., 2007) as its epistemological position (Bryman, 2015). The rationale is to use multiple approaches to provide reliable answers to the research questions in order to produce stronger inferences (Denzin, 2010).

Although recycling behaviour can be objective such as either someone recycles or not, the investigator recognises that recycling behaviour can be subjective to different interpretation. For instance, donations of clothes to charity organisations may be classified by social actors as recycling, the researcher may conceptualise it as a re-use behaviour. As a result, the primary concern of this research is to understand how people subjectively perceived waste and recycling while using these subjective views of reality to inform the design of the objective measures of recycling behaviour at home and at work including their relationships. To coherently and logically answer the research questions, the investigator

83 subscribes to (and conducts this research within) the tenets of pragmatic philosophical assumptions based on the beliefs, inclinations, and practices within the mixed methods research community. The researcher believes that recycling knowledge and behaviour are shaped by the reality of the world where people experience and work (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Although an affiliation to a philosophical position may be a conscious or sub-conscious decision, research purpose and methodological preferences are considered when selecting this worldview. To justify the selection of pragmatic worldviews that fit the present research’s purpose, questions, and methodological preferences, the contrasting elements of worldviews (Creswell, 2014) or paradigms (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) are summarised and presented in Table 3 above.

Therefore, different assumptions in mixed methods research (especially that qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined in a single study (Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005) serve as a frame of reference for this research. Also, the experience (such as training and membership of professional associations), thoughts, values, and research context are pivotal to the selection of pragmatisms philosophical assumptions and guide the entire research process. As a result, the main thrust of the epistemological lens of this research is its practicality while the researcher collects the required data by “what works” through a multi-stance approach that can address the research problem.