Researchers have individual opinions and world views which contribute to the positioning of their studies in relation to research paradigms. Hussey and Hussey (1997), state that
The term paradigm refers to the progress of scientific practice based on people’s philosophies and assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge…about how research should be conducted.…[Paradigms] offer a framework comprising an accepted set of theories, methods and ways of defining data. (Hussey and Hussey, 1997, p. 47)
Morgan (1979) discusses how the concept of paradigm can be applied at three different levels: the philosophical level; the social level; and the technical level (Morgan, 1979). The philosophical level reflects beliefs about the world; the social level depicts how research should be approached: “… the social organisation of science in terms of schools of thought built around a set of scientific habits connected with particular kinds of scientific achievements” (ibid. p. 137); and the technical level specifies appropriate methods and techniques to be employed (ibid.)
At the philosophical level, two main paradigms forming opposite ends of a continuum can be described, those being positivist, and phenomenological or interpretivist. Other terms such as quantitative and qualitative are often used (Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
However, the pairs are not the same as the latter describe particular methods rather than the overarching research philosophy and will be discussed in Section 4.2.2. Positivist and interpretivist paradigms can be defined by ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical, and methodological assumptions (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997) and are briefly outlined as follows, together with a description of where the assumptions underlying the current research rest between the two paradigms:
Ontological assumptions are applied to the question of the nature of reality. The extremes of opinion range from positivist beliefs that the world is objective, a singular reality, and separate from the observer, to the interpretivist view of the world as subjective, of multiple realities, socially constructed, and understood by studying peoples’ perceptions of phenomena (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The current research sought information on computerised CDS in the PHO environment. The research was partly based on the positivist ontological assumption that the technologies used in the organisations studied were objective in nature, existing independently, and quantifiable. However, it was also based on an interpretivist ontological assumption that the opinions of individuals using those technologies were important in deriving a deeper understanding of their use of those technologies in CDS.
Epistemological assumptions relate to our understanding of knowledge and its validity in terms of the relationship between the researcher and that being studied. Positivist thought suggests an independent, objective perspective where only observable and measurable phenomena are considered to inform valid knowledge. However, interpretivists recognise the interconnectedness of the researcher and the focus of the research (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The current research was partly underpinned by the positivistic epistemological assumption that the observable and measurable component of the research subject provides valuable information on the use of technologies in PHOs, and the use of some of those technologies in CDS. However, it acknowledges the interpretivistic epistemological assumption that factors other than those which are measurable or observable are important in gaining an understanding of the research area, and the researcher recognised the need to personally interview participants to determine these opinions.
Axiological assumptions relate to values, with positivists considering themselves as detached, imparting no influence on their objects of study, and with their scientific approach being value free. Interpretivists, on the other hand, recognise their involvement with that being studied, and that value judgements influence facts and
interpretations derived from the research (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The axiological assumptions guiding this research tended towards a positivist perspective, with the intention of determining facts as presented, without the interference of pre-conceived ideas. However, it was acknowledged that information from an interview situation could be influenced by factors such as the level of rapport between the researcher and interviewee, or the way the interview is conducted. Attempts were made to limit such effects and value judgements influencing conclusions on the part of the researcher were avoided. A semi-structured schedule guided the face-to-face interviews, with participants allowed to discuss their opinions freely without strict adherence to the schedule being imposed, recognising the influence of interpretivistic axiological assumptions in parts of the research.
Rhetorical assumptions relate to research language. The positivist approach requires a formal, impersonal language implying objective, rigorous and value free research, whereas interpretivist language is more likely to be informal and personal (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). This research report tends to be positivist in its rhetoric as it is a PhD thesis and therefore formal in tone.
Methodological assumptions, which are concerned with the entire research process, evolve from the ontological, epistemological, axiological and rhetorical assumptions described above (Creswell,1994). The positivist end of the methodological spectrum uses a deductive logic where theories and hypotheses are tested. It concentrates on finding ways to measure concepts, or operationalise constructs, large samples are likely to be used, and phenomena reduced to their simplest components. Hypotheses are formed based on objective facts, with analysis focusing on associations and causality. Generalisations are developed to enable predictions and explanations about phenomena, with the validity and reliability of research instruments lending weight to findings. However, the interpretivist approach exhibits inductive logic where categories emerge from the study rather than being suggested earlier by the researcher. Such studies often focus on small samples, sometimes studied longitudinally, with different perceptions of the phenomena provided by a range of research methods, and the analysis directed at ascertaining meaning in a situation and patterns repeated in parallel situations. Verification of information is provided by such means as interaction with informants or triangulation of information sources (Creswell,1994; Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The overall methodological assumptions of the current research tend more towards the interpretivistic than the positivistic, although the application of the framework and quantitative component are positivist in nature exhibiting a deductive
logic. The study of a small number of organisations, the triangulation of research methods and information sources, the study of the opinions of individuals, the observation of patterns repeated in the data, and the emergence of the eCDS model and five areas of importance to the utilisation of eCDS in PHOs, are all indicative of an interpretivist approach and inductive logic.
Positivist and interpretivist paradigms were described earlier as opposite ends of a continuum, where research can be placed at any point along the way (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). Philosophical paradigms relating to the epistemology guiding qualitative research have been described as positivist, interpretive and critical (Chua, 1986; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Myers, 1997, 2008) and it has been argued that the three classifications discussed are not necessarily opposed and could be represented within one study (Myers, 1997, 2008). Myers discusses positivist, interpretive and critical research philosophies, the first two of which have already been outlined. Critical research is involved with social critique. Social reality is considered to be perpetuated by people, some of whom might choose to change their circumstances but are constrained by forces within their society. These restrictive forces are highlighted by critical research, which seeks to eliminate injustices (ibid.). As the current research bears no relationship to the critical research paradigm only positivist and interpretive perspectives have been considered in its description. The current research is based on a blend of interpretivist and positivist assumptions and is largely qualitative with a quantitative component, research methods which are discussed in the following section.