For the above research questions, a research map was to be designed which could act as a guide to provide answers to the earlier research questions. However, research question vi was left out as a matter of deliberate choice because the focus of this study would then have become leadership oriented. However, this can be an area for future research.
In order to develop a research map, it was desirable to understand different philosophies and methodologies in the area of social science research. In social science, there is a spectrum of research methods available which could be used. Each one of the research methods has a philosophical underpinning as to how the world is viewed (ontology), what is the relationship between the reality and the researcher(epistemology) and what technique the researcher is using (methodology) (Easterby, Thorpe & Lowe 1991, p. 26). A detailed description of different philosophical bases and the corresponding research designs are available in many publications (Creswell 1998, Easterby, Thorpe & Lowe 1991, Guba &
Lincoln 1994, Neuman 1997). For the purpose of this study, a brief integrative review of different research methods is presented here.
A positivist holds the opinion that the processes of the external world and their property can be objectively observed, defined and measured, rather than ‘subjectively inferred through sensation, reflection and intuition’ (Easterby, Thorpe & Lowe 1991, p. 22).
As against this, there is another view which says that the world is not objective and external.
The happenings of the world are socially constructed. That is, one should try to understand why different people have different experience of the same situation, rather than trying to look for external causes and fundamental laws to explain their behaviour. This philosophical position came to be known as phenomenological or social constructionist point of view.
Easterby, Thorpe and Lowe (1991, p. 22) have quoted Morgan and Smircich who have identified six ontological positions based on one’s perception of nature of reality. The six ontological positions are shown in Figure 3.1.
Subjectivist Objectivist
Figure 3. 1Different assumptions about nature of reality Source: Easterby, Thorpe and Lowe (1991).
The different underpinnings shown above has given rise to four scientific paradigms – positivism, realism, critical theory and constructivism. A paradigm can be regarded as the
‘basic belief system or world view that guides the investigator’(Guba & Lincoln 1994, p.
105). Evered and Louis (1981, p. 385) define paradigm as ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on, shared by the members of given (scientific) community’. Perry, Riege and Brown (1999) have summarised the four different paradigms in the context of ontology, epistemology and methodology as shown in Table 3.2.
Projection of human imagination
Social construction
Symbolic discourse
Contextual field of information
Concrete process
Concrete structure
Table 3. 2Basic belief systems of alternative enquiry paradigms
Source: Perry, Riege and Brown ( 1999, p.17) based on Guba and Lincoln (1994).
Healy and Perry (2000) have compared the quality criteria for the above four research paradigms. It is shown in Table 3.3.
PARADIGM
Table 3.3 (cont’d…) problem, for example, it is a how and why problem Theoretical and literal replication, in-depth questions, emphasis on
‘why’ issues, description of the context of the cases
Internal
Table 3.3 (cont’d…)
Table 3. 3Quality criteria for different research paradigm Source: modified from Healy and Perry( 2000).
Criteria for
Note: critical theory has not been included in this table as no criteria that distinguishes it from constructivism could be found
A positivist view is appropriate in natural science where a single apprehensible reality whose nature can be known and categorised is to be defined and measured (Perry, Riege & Brown 1995, p. 16). Here the researcher believes that he/she has identified the variables which have causal relationship among them which are invariant across time and context. Thus sample survey and controlled experiments are the primary data collection techniques. The objective of the researcher is to test a theory or to confirm a hypothesis (Zikmund 2000). A positivist approach may not be suitable in social science research where each situation is unique and a person within a situation can give different responses depending on the nature of reality as he/she perceives it. Also where the emphasis is to explore the structure and the process of a phenomenon, there are many variables which interact with each other. It may not be possible to establish a cause and effect relationship among all the variables. However, wherever it is possible to identify and define constructs which are invariant across situations, a positivist approach has the advantage of being generalisable and reliable. Further, a positivist approach which uses a deductive approach is useful in theory testing and not in theory building which requires an inductive approach (Perry, Riege & Brown 1999).
Constructivism holds the view that truth is a particular belief system held in a particular context (Healy & Perry 2000, p. 120). That is each person has his/her own reality in his/her mind and it is the researcher’s job to interact with many persons so as to get multiple construction of that reality. Meaning carries more importance than measurement because perception itself is the most important reality (Perry, Riege & Brown 1999, p.18).
Using hermeneutical techniques, the different constructions are compared and contrasted through a dialectical interchange so as to arrive at a consensus construction (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p.111). This approach is useful in understanding such deeply held values as beauty, prejudice and religion (Healy & Perry 2000, p. 120).
Critical theorists aim at transforming social, political, cultural, economical, ethnic and gender values (Healy & Perry 2000, p. 119). A critical theorist aims at changing the world in which the participants live. Here knowledge does not accumulate, but grows and changes through a historical revision that continuously erodes ignorance and misapprehensions and enlarges more informed insights (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p.114). For a critical theorist, this is the process of knowledge accumulation. The end goal of the study might be to transform (through praxis) the underlying order of social life – those social and systemic relations that constitute society (Creswell 1998, p.81). According to Creswell (1998, p. 82), critical theory may emphasize multiple methodologies ( qualitative and quantitative) and multiple
perspectives (class, race and gender). Examples of critical theory researchers are Marxists, feminists and action researchers (Perry, Riege & Brown 1999, p. 17).
Realism believes much like positivism that there is a reality out there but it is not possible to comprehend that fully and perfectly (Guba & Linclon 1994, p. 110). Thus the attempt of the researcher should be to apprehend that reality as closely as possible through widest possible critical examination. Triangulation should be used as a way of falsifying (rather than verifying) hypotheses. By an increased utilisation of qualitative techniques, and by doing inquiry in more natural settings, collecting more situational information, the postposivist attempts to get closer to the reality.
In a different context, Miles and Huberman (1994) have also talked about using qualitative and quantitative techniques together for arriving at more robust conclusions.
‘Qualitative data are useful when one needs to validate, explain or reinterpret quantitative data gathered from the same sitting’ (Miles & Huberman 1994, p.10). They further say that qualitative data are useful for exploring a new area which can lead to development of some hypotheses. Thus from the point of view of robustness of research, it can be seen that not only can qualitative data be used as authentically as quantitative data but also that both data types can be used to reinforce each other’s findings.
Some of the strengths of qualitative data are:
(i) They focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural setting. Thus the possibility of understanding latent, non-obvious issues is strong.
(ii) It is rich and holistic providing a vivid picture of a situation in a particular context.
Quantitative techniques, on the other hand provides ‘sensitivity and power to individual judgement when one attempts to detect and describe patterning in a set of observations’ ( Weinstein & Tamur quoted in Miles & Huberman 1994, p. 40).
It has been suggested that that to get broader insights into the issues being investigated the researcher should try to mix research methods (Ticehurst & Veal 2000, p.20).
Accordingly in this research also, instead of following a particular approach, both qualitative and quantitative approaches have been used dictated by the needs of the situation.