Criterios de imputación e identificación de socios o empresas miembros

Saunders et al. (2009) defines research philosophy as an over-arching term relating to the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge. It contains important assumptions about the way in which the world is viewed. Bogdan and Bikken (2003) and Mertens (2005) see the research paradigm as the theoretical framework underpinning a research study. Creswell (2009) uses worldviews instead of paradigm and classifies paradigms into two major ones: quantitative and qualitative; any paradigm falls into one of them. Qualitative research copes with exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem while the other is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell 2009). However, a researcher may combine or associate them so that the overall strengths of a study is greater (Creswell, 2009).

In the following sections, the most used paradigms are described so that the current research can be placed into its theoretical context. The subsequently arising methodology (how the current research was practically carried out) is explained and the way in which the data was gathered and analysed is detailed.

4.5.1. Positivism

According to Creswell (2009), positivist and post-positivist worldview are the same and are sometimes called the scientific method since it has represented the traditional form of research.

- 67 -

Post-positivism replaced positivism after World War II (Mertens, 2005). This worldview is called post-positivism because it represents the thinking after positivism (Creswell, 2009). Based on the deterministic philosophy of August Comte, it narrows down the ideas into some small and discrete set ones to test (variables comprising hypothesis and research questions), it develops knowledge based on careful empirical observation and measurement of the real world, and eventually theories are tested or verified and refined (Creswell, 2009).

The aim of this deterministic philosophy is to observe directly, measure quantitatively and predict objectively the relationships between studied variables (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). For Macleod (2009), positivism is linked to the real world, a world of science and testing hypothesis, where sources of bias are minimised wherever it is possible and researchers are objective. It deals with the real world and can be demonstrated by significant statistic numbers. It uses therefore a quantitative analysis method. For Mackenzie and Knipe (2006), positivism and post-positivism research is most commonly aligned with quantitative methods of data collection and analysis.

4.5.2. Constructivism

As its name says, there is a kind of construction of own reality by individuals in contrast with the positivism paradigm. For constructivists, individuals seek at finding meanings and understanding of the world in which they live and work (Creswell, 2009). The researcher listens carefully to what people say and do in their life by using open-ended questions (Creswell, 2009). People may construct the same reality in quite different ways (Macleod, 2009). A theory or pattern is generated or inductively developed in the constructivist approach by contrast to the positivist one. The goal of constructivist research is to understanding and structuring, as opposed to predicting (Macleod, 2009). Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) associate constructivism with interpretivism. For Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, citing Cohen and Manion, and Mertens), the constructivist/interpretivist approaches aim at understanding the world of human experience (Cohen and Manion, 1994) and suggesting that reality is socially constructed (Mertens, 2005). Qualitative data collection methods and analysis are most likely used or mixed methods (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006)

- 68 -

4.5.3. Pragmatism

A study may be more quantitative than qualitative or vice versa (Creswell, 2009). Researchers may find that the use of both designs provides a better understanding of the studied problem. They seek a kind of freedom to choose methods that may strengthen the research by taking benefit of the advantages of any method. The philosophy underpinning such an approach is called pragmatism. According to Creswell (2009), it is problem centred and real world oriented. It provides a philosophical basis of research that is not committed to anyone system of philosophy and reality where the researchers are free to choose methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes (Creswell, 2009). According to Creswell (2009), pragmatism is the philosophy that underpins mixed methods where investigators use both qualitative and quantitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of a research problem. The research work benefits in fine from the advantages of any method used to make the study stronger.

4.5.4. Critical Theory

This paradigm looks at power relations, politics, and patterns of dominance (Macleod, 2009). As a result, it does not concern the subject of this research, thus it is not developed.

4.5.5. Paradigm Choice

There are three major ways of thinking that guide a research namely ontology, epistemology and methodology; Creswell (2009) added axiological and rhetorical, that is respectively the role of values and the language of research (see table 4.1).

- 69 -

Table 1-5: Ways of thinking guiding a research (adapted from Creswell, 2009)

Assumption Question Quantitative Qualitative

Ontological

What is the nature of reality?

Reality is objective and singular, apart from the researcher

Reality is subjective and multiple and seen by participants in a study Epistemological What is the relationship of the researcher to that researched? Researcher is independent from that being researched

Researcher interacts with that being researched

Axiological

What is the role

of values? Value-free and unbiased Value-laden and biased

Rhetorical

What is the language of research?

Formal based on set definitions, impersonal voice, use of accepted quantitative words

Informal, evolving decisions, personal voice, accepted qualitative words Methodological What is the process of research? Deductive process Cause and effect

Generalisations leading to predictions, explanation, and understanding Accurate and reliable through validity and reliability (testing)

Inductive process Mutual simultaneous shaping of factors Patterns and theories developed for understanding Accurate and reliable through verification

Terre Blanche and Durrheim (1999) defined the three major ways respectively by the specification of the nature of the reality to be studied, the specification of the nature of the relationship between the researcher and what can be known, and the practical way in which the researcher goes about doing the research.

The choice of a paradigm sets down the intent, motivation and expectations for the research (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). If a paradigm is not nominated at first step, there will be no basis for any subsequent choices concerning the methodology, methods, literature or research design (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Quoting Bogdan and Bikken (2003), (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006, p 194.) define a paradigm as “a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research”.

There are many reasons to choose a paradigm. For Creswell (2009), they include worldview or assumptions of each paradigm, training and experience, psychological attributes, nature of the problem, and audience for the study. Table 4.2 reproduces and explains these reasons.

- 70 -

Table 1-6: Reasons for choosing a paradigm (adapted from Creswell, 2009) Criteria Quantitative paradigm Qualitative paradigm Researcher’s

worldview

A researcher’s comfort with assumptions of the quantitative paradigm

A researcher’s comfort with assumptions of the qualitative paradigm

Training and experience of the researcher

Technical writing skills Computer statistical skills Library skills

Literary writing skills

Computer text- analysis skills Library analysis skills

The

researcher’s psychological attributes

Comfort with rules and guidelines for conducting research

Low tolerance for ambiguity Time for a study of short duration

Comfort with lack of specific rules and procedures for conducting research

High tolerance for ambiguity, may lack lengthy study

Nature of the problem

Previously studied by other researches so that the body of literature exists, is known along with the variables, and existing theories

Exploratory research, variables unknown, context important, may lack theory base for study

Audience for the study

Individuals accustomed to supportive of quantitative studies

Individuals accustomed to supportive of qualitative studies

This research work aims at developing an approach based on resilience engineering to achieve safety excellence in the maintenance of oil and gas assets. It is considered as an applied research in contrast to a basic on; it narrows down this topic from a general application of resilience engineering to a more specific one tailored to the maintenance of oil and gas assets.

In addition, the following elements are taken into consideration to choose the research paradigm.

 Way of thinking guiding the research: reality is both objective from the researcher and subjective from the participants particularly during the workshop is presented in Chapter 7. Furthermore, the researcher is independent from that being researched and interacts with it (see Chapter 7); the methodology adopted, as argued in section 4.7, is deductive and context bound. The way of thinking guiding this research is quantitative but it contains also some qualitative approach as discussed in section 4.8.

 Reasons for choosing the paradigm: there is a comfort with regard to the way of thinking as described above and the assumptions of each paradigm (quantitative and qualitative paradigm) as well as the rules and guidelines for conducting this research. In addition, human factors in maintenance activities are studied in other industries such as aviation and nuclear in comparison to the oil and gas sector as it has been shown in Chapter 2. This constituted an exploratory aspect. On the other hand, resilience engineering is a powerful approach that needs more exploration in the oil and gas industry.

- 71 -

Accordingly, the research paradigm chosen was pragmatism. It allowed the freedom of choice for the most appropriate methods that can be used to achieve aim and objectives of this research. It is a quantitative approach as well as a qualitative one dealing with the human part of the complex studied system.