Before thinking about which methodology to adopt, it is necessary to understand the philosophical assumptions that it is possible to make. In this respect, many authors such as Miles and Huberman (1994), Guba and Lincoln (1994), Creswell (1998), Bryman and Bell (2003), Sexton (2007), Collis and Hussey (2009), and Saunders et al. (2012) have identified three philosophical assumptions: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Each contains important differences which influence the way in which the researcher thinks about the research process.
Ontology – What is knowledge?
The researcher‘s views about the nature of reality. There are two aspects of ontology among the researchers of business and management.
Case study Research Paradigm Interpretivism Research Approach Deductive +Inductive Methodological Choice Mutimethods Qualitative Research Strategy Time Horizon Cross –sectional Techniques and Procedures
Data collection anddata analysis
124
The first aspect is objectivism. The social actors are observers of social entities when they exists in reality irrespective of whether the actors are interested in its existence. The second aspect is subjectivism (constructionism). The social actors who are concerned about social phenomena are involved when those phenomena exist through their perceptions and actions.
Epistemology - How do we know what we know? What is the relationship between the observers and the phenomenon that is observed?
The researcher‘s views regarding what constitutes acceptable knowledge in the field study.
Axiology – What values go into it?
The researcher‘s views of the role of values in the research (research ethics).
It is important to note that the terms ‗paradigm‘ and ‗philosophy‘ are interchangeable. Some authors in the social sciences, such as Saunders et al (2009), and Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) use the term ‗Research Philosophy‘ while others such as Bryman and Bell (2003:23) use the term ‗Research Paradigm‘ defining this as: ―a cluster of beliefs and dictates which for scientists in a particular discipline influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted‖, and Collis and Hussey (2009:55) write: ―a research paradigm is a framework that guides how research should be conducted, based on people‘s philosophies and their assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge‖. There are many paradigms (philosophies) in social science such as: Realism, Idealism, Pragmatism, Functionalist, etc. However, according to Schensul (2012), Saunders et al. (2012), Collis and Hussey (2009), Easterby-Smith et al. (2008), Amaratunga et al. (2002), and Remenyi et al. (1998), the two main agreed philosophies in business and management research are: Positivism and Interpretivism (phenomenology/social constructivism).There are many alternative terms for these two main paradigms as shown in Table 4.1.
125
Table 4.1: Approaches within the Two Main Paradigms Approaches within the two main paradigms
Positivism Interpretivism Quantitative Qualitative
Objective Subjective
Scientific Humanist
Traditionalist Phenomenological Source:Collis and Hussey (2009:58)
Positivism is a very old paradigm highlighted originally by the French philosopher Auguste Cmote (1853). According to Collis and Hussey (2009:56) positivism is ―a paradigm that originated in the natural sciences. It rests on the assumption that social reality is singular and objective, and is not affected by the act of investigating it. The research involves a deductive process with a view to providing explanatory theories to understand social phenomena‖. Schensul (2012) also mentions that positivist researchers should observe independently and reduce their interactions with and effects on the subject matter when gathering their data. They almost always prefer to test pre-existing theories rather than to derive theory inductively from the study situation. Saunders et al. (2012) stress that research results can generalise easily in the physical and natural sciences. And Creswell (2009) states that the problems being researched via this paradigm are usually linked to the causes which influence the outcomes, and the ideas are reduced to small, discrete ideas (variables) which can then be tested. Numeric measures should be developed to assess the observation and the behaviour of individuals.
In contrast, Interpretivism (Phenomenology/Social constructivism) is a newer paradigm, being originated in the 1960s by Berger and Luckmann (1967). This is a typical approach in qualitative research. According to Collis and Hussey (2009:57), interpretivisim is ―a paradigm that emerged in response to criticisms to positivism. It rests on the assumption that social reality is in our mind, and is subjective and multiple. Therefore social reality is affected by the act of investigating it. The research involves an inductive process with a view to providing an interpretive understanding of social phenomena within a particular context.‖ Creswell (2009) claims that social constructivists believe that individuals attempt to understand the world in which they live and work through developing subjective meanings of their experiences. Interpreting these various and multiple meanings is a complex operation
126
for the researcher. Saunders et al. (2012) have compared and summarised the features of the two main paradigms as shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Comparison of the two Research Philosophies in Management Research
Positivism Interpretivism
Ontology: The researcher‘s
view of the nature of reality or being
External, objective and independent of social actors
Socially constructed, subjective, may change, multiple
Epistemology: the
researcher‘s views regarding what constitutes acceptable knowledge
Only observable phenomena can provide credible data, facts. Focus on causality and law like generalisations, reducing phenomena to simplest elements
Subjective meanings and social phenomena. Focus upon the details of situation, a reality behind these details, subjective meaning,
motivating actions
Axiology: the researcher‘s view of the role of the values in research
Research is undertaken in a value-free way, the
researcher is independent of the data and maintains and objective stance.
Research is value bound, the researcher is part of what is being researched, cannot be separated and so will be subjective.
Data collection techniques
most often used
Highly structured, large samples, measurement, quantitative, but can use qualitative
Small samples, in-depth investigations, qualitative
Source: Saunders et al. (2012:140)
Based on the earlier debate regarding the main features of both paradigms, this study adopts the interpretivist philosophy. The researcher‘s ontological and epistemological view regarding the nature of reality and what constitutes acceptable knowledge is subjective. Thus, the study is purely qualitative. This philosophy will enable the researcher to investigate deeply and acquire rich knowledge about the factors affecting the excellence of service quality in the SBS. As observer, the researcher is not only the key data collection agent, but also part of the scenario being observed and within that context, everything the resercher observes is interpreted on the basis of her own sense-making apparatus. That said, the aim is to use that apparatus to understand what the research sample (those being observed) appreciate about what is happening, and as far as possible the researcher must be objective in her interpretations. It is a fundamental premise in interpretive designs that knowledge and understanding are subjective, being constructed by the individuals experiencing a situation, as opposed to it existing in isolation of those individuals, and consequently, the aim of any such inquiry is to obtain insight into what is constructed. Whilst ultimately, there may be a desire on the part of the researcher to learn how to predict and/or manage people's behaviour resulting from their apprehension of a particular phenonemon, this is by no means essential in
127
an interpretive paradigm. In this context, all the data gathered relate to activities, events, and behaviours.The sample is small and includes three case studies in the SBS which are chosen for specific reasons clarified later in this chapter. Thus, the generalisation will be through theoretical abstraction (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Creswell, 2009; Saldana, 2011).