COMUNICACIÓN NO VERBAL

H5

Research on the impact that

different information sources

have on the destination

decision making process is

limited to a very small number

of sources rather than a wider

range that may realistically be

used in conjunction. For

example, Molina and Esteban

(2006) researched different

types of brochure/brochure

content and found differences

in decision outcome.

Contemporary research linking

information source and choice

is limited to social media and

even then one type. Jacobsen

and Munar (2012)

Molina and

Esteban

(2006);

Jacobsen and

Munar (2012)

Marketing managers need to

understand the impact that

information source choice

has on the effectiveness of

their advertising. Advertising

through the wrong source

may waste resources and

even have the opposite of

the desired effetc.

95

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology

3.0 Overview of Chapter

This chapter will provide a justification of the research methods and research methodology that was applied within this study. It will describe and justify the ontological and epistemological perspectives as well as the axiological standpoint from which understanding is developed. This chapter will also identify and critically analyse the philosophy, research strategy and the specific research methods that have been applied in order to achieve the aim set out in Chapter 1. The reliability and validity of the research will also be discussed together with the sampling design, including the sample type and size.

3.1 The Nature of Research

Identifying the nature of the research to be conducted is a good starting point when considering the methodology that will be applied. According to Sekeran and Bougie (2013) research studies can either be exploratory, descriptive or causal ‘depending on the stage to which knowledge about the research topic has advanced’ (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 96). According to Cooper and Schindler (2003), exploratory studies predominantly occur where little is known of the problem and often rely on secondary research. Exploratory research also tends to have less structure and more flexible methodologies as new insights uncovered by the research may require a change of direction (Saunders et al, 2012). Descriptive studies are more structured as they are ‘designed to gain an accurate understanding of events, persons or situations’ (Saunders et al, 2012). Descriptive studies have clearly stated hypotheses which are tested in order to create descriptions of phenomena or to discover associations among variables. Part of this study aims to identify the path that choice alternatives take through the decision making process. This identification will be descriptive in nature. Although Cooper and Shindler (2003) assert that descriptive research can be complex and demanding of research skills, other authors such as Saunders et al (2012) and Sekaran and Bougie (2013) state that descriptive research should be a means to an end rather than an end in itself and that an analysis of the cause of the association between variables is important.

96 Studies which attempt to understand the reasons for relationships existing between variables are called casual studies. Developing an understanding of why different information sources are used at different stages of the decision making process is also an intention of this research. Saunders et al (2012) state that studies that utilise description as a precursor to an explanation of the causality (as is the case with this research) are called descripto-explanatory studies. As one of the objectives of this research is to investigate which information sources are used at different stages of the decision making process and then to critically evaluate the reasons for their use, a descripto-explanatory nature has been adopted for this study.

3.1.1 The Research Paradigm

It is important that the distinction between the research methods and the methodology is identified in order to establish their boundaries and the concepts that lie within each domain. Many authors (e.g. Adams, 2007; Saunders et al, 2012) agree that the term ‘research methods’ simply refers to the way in which data is collected and analysed for a study. Saunders et al (2006), however, believe that the research methods adopted are of secondary concern to identifying the research methodology, which underpins the overall study.

Research methodology refers to the underlying philosophical and theoretical assumptions that both constrain and provide a platform for the overall research conducted. The methodology applied to a research study should identify and describe in detail the research paradigm that is the foundation for the overall process. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 105) describe the research paradigm as ‘the basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation’ and which is influenced if not dictated by the ontological and epistemological convictions of the researcher. Saunders et al (2012) argue that the research paradigm or philosophy should be considered before a researcher goes on to consider the research methods, as shown in their research onion (Figure 7). The research onion is a useful depiction of the epistemological (i.e perspectives on the theory of knowledge) and ontological (i.e. perspectives on the theory of existence) alternatives that must be considered in the research design process.

Whereas objective subjects such as the natural sciences tend to have one prevailing paradigm (e.g. positivism), social science has been described as ‘pre-paradigmatic’ (Bryman, 2005, p. 322) as no

97 pre-eminent paradigm has emerged. One research paradigm often identified in the literature (Saunders, 2000, Blaickiem 2009), is positivism (a.k.a. scientific, rationalistic and empiricism) which shares the fundamental belief of natural scientists that events reflect a reality and the identification of which ‘is uncontaminated by any theoretical notion’ (Blaikie, 2009, p. 98): it assumes that ‘the researcher’s values neither affects or is affected by the subject of the research’ (Remenyi et al, 1998, p. 33). Key characteristics of this paradigm are the ‘quantifiable observations that lend themselves to statistical analysis’ (Saunders, 2000, p. 85). Criticism of the positivism paradigm includes the argument that it is too superficial and only concerns itself with associations between variables instead of causality. The second major criticism is that positivism only acknowledges phenomena which are directly observable and dismisses abstract or unobservable phenomena as irrelevant. As a result, positivism fails to consider the influence of the way that people (including the researcher) think and feel about the subject being researched (Cavana et al, 2001). Creswell (2013, p. 84) challenges the positivist paradigm stating that ‘we can never be positive about our claims of knowledge when studying the behaviour and actions of humans’.