As earlier discussed, the purpose of providing such fundamental underpinnings on the various research philosophies and approaches is to elicit the potential assumptions of each, which guide the choice of a particular paradigm for this research. As a result, the philosophical perspective adopted by this research as shown in Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 is pragmatic which draws heavily on inductive reasoning which can be supported by positivist reasoning. This is because in order to fully analyse a phenomenon, it is vital and necessary to support the inductive approach with deductive thinking to enable it to tackle a real-world problem such as in the case of this research. But, in research philosophy there are other alternatives such as: interpretative; realism; and positivism; etc. (Saunders, et. al., 2009). These alternative assumptions and their importance for use in a research inquiry are summarised in Table 3.2. The most appropriate assumptions are emphasised in bold within the Table.
107
Table 3.2. Summarised Comparisons of Research Viewpoints in Social Science Research
Interpretative Positivism Realism Pragmatism Ontology Things are socially
constructed leading to subjective
reasoning which may change with multiple realities
Emphasises that the researcher is external, objective and independent of that study
Researcher is objective and exists independently of human mind but interpreted out of social situation
Researcher is external,
multiple, and the view is that chosen to best answer the research questions Epistemology Towards subjective
meanings of social phenomena, looks at details and the realities behind it with motivating action.
Things are observed to prove credibility to facts, focusing on causality and law generalisations thereby reducing phenomena to simplest elements
Belief that observing an event proves credibility of facts; scarce data or facts creates imprecision and
misinterpretations; focus only within context or contexts for explanations Either subjective or objective meanings can provide facts to a research question; focus on practical application to issues by merging views to help interpret data
Axiology The research is value bound; such that the researcher is part of what is being studied, not isolated from the studied and will be subjective
The research is value free, hence
independent of the data and objective in the analysis of the data
The research is value laden; hence, the researcher is biased by world views, culture, values, experiences and will affect the results/research Values play a vital role to interpret results using subjective and objective reasoning
Approach Qualitative Quantitative but can still use qualitative
Approach adopted depends on the research matter Uses both qualitative and quantitative Method Mixed or multiple
methods
Mono method but can use mixed in certain cases
Method to use is based on the research problem or situation
Mixed or multiple methods
However, from the view of the various perspectives particularly the interpretative approach; associated with inductive reasoning, of which this research is influenced; the choice of adopting predominantly more inductive reasoning than objective reasoning in a pragmatic
108
approach becomes obvious. Also, this follows the summarised characteristics of interpretative reasoning (Creswell, 2009; Saunders, et. al., 2009; Oates, 2005) below:
Multiple subject realities: This implies that there is no single way to seeing truth in any phenomenon. As a result, what the researcher sees’ to be true or real or knowledge in a situation is that constructed and interpreted out of their minds even though it is on an individual or group basis. Therefore, different individuals, groups, organisations or cultures perceive the phenomenon differently;
Multiple interpretations: Researchers expect that they will not arrive at one fixed explanation of what occurs in their study. Instead they will offer more than one explanation and discuss which, if any, seems to be more plausible because there is more evidence to support it;
Researcher reflexivity: Researchers are not automatons; rather their own assumptions, beliefs, values and actions will inevitably shape the research process and affect the situation;
Dynamic, socially constructed meanings: This emphasises that whatever the reality is for an individual or a group, it can only be accessed and transmitted to others through yet more social constructions such as language and shared meanings and understanding. But these differ across groups and over time;
Qualitative data analysis: There is often a strong preference for generating and analysing qualitative data. However, there is also an indication that researchers can use quantitative data collection such as a survey in an interpretive manner;
Study of people in their unbiased social setting: Researchers aim to understand the person in their own world and not in the artificial world of a laboratory experiment such as is mostly seen in a positivism approach.
The rationale behind the choice of approach is that the research questions require the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). The pragmatic approach emphasises that multiple realities exist and that, the researcher’s choice of paradigm is dependent on the research questions the study is trying to solve (Saunders et. al., 2009). The pragmatic approach provides for the use of both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to collect information and make inquiry into complex phenomenon of social and natural contexts (Creswell, 2009; Morgan, 2007). Therefore, the pragmatic research philosophy provides for the adoption of mixed methods for the data collection which opens
109
the opportunity to be simultaneously subjective and objective in analysing the points of view of the participants (Saunders, et. al., 2009).
The pragmatic approach also helps to provide a foundation where the research avoids engaging in issues of insignificance and focuses on the issues of truth and reality and as such is intuitively appealing (Creswell, 2009; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). A pragmatic approach allows areas to be studied that are of interest, embracing methods that are appropriate and using findings in a positive manner in harmony with a recognised value system (Creswell, 2009). In addition, the pragmatic research approach is multi-purpose in nature; and therefore, a good tactic that will allow questions to be addressed that do not sit comfortably within a wholly quantitative or qualitative approach to research design and methodology. Pragmatic research approaches also perceive issues to be different in different scenarios and permits different views and interpretations of the world.
In the epistemological paradigm, the pragmatic research approach provides the justification and rationale for combining methods and the knowledge of providing tentative answers to research questions for mixed approaches and methods in a study (Johnson, et. al., 2007). The pragmatic research approach, though recent in research philosophy debate, focuses on the problem and tries to find practical solutions with the use of mixed methods. As a result, Saunders, et. al. (2009) contends that pragmatism provides a basis for practical research by integrating different perspectives which help to elucidate the data interpretation process in research. Therefore, a pragmatic approach helps to understand the assumptions that underpin the knowledge and inquiry. In addition, it does not classify the research as purely quantitative or qualitative in nature with either a positivist or interpretive philosophy. Hence, a pragmatic approach provides a balanced point between the deductive and inductive perspectives of thinking which offers practical answers for merging different paradigms. As a result, Creswell (2009) suggested that a pragmatic research approach seems to be the most prominent paradigm with a strong philosophical relationship for a mixed method approach. Furthermore, a pragmatic approach provides a better grounding to fully explore the complex phenomenon instead of using a single method approach in the research.
The purpose of the alternative philosophical stances does not comfortably sit within the confines of this research aim and objectives, and the adoption of an alternative would undermine the goal of the work. The pragmatic approach is a better process to answering ‘‘what’’ ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘how’’ research questions. Therefore, considering the unique features of
110
this pragmatic perspective and critically deducing from table 3.2, this research adopts a pragmatic stance.
This study is trying to develop a framework to sustainably manage social (public) housing estates through an in-depth exploration and explanation of those issues that had previously left the housing estates not being managed properly. This again is predicated on the reason that the other philosophical prepositions will not properly address the problem. The framework development, for example, involves the understanding and revealing of the exact deplorable condition of the social housing estates that have been provided by the State and Federal Government to the people of the Niger Delta. Further, it authenticates whether the social (public) housing estates are: completed or in-complete; occupied or un-occupied; and completely abandoned; the associated problems; the relevant stakeholders’ involvement; and the level of utilisation of the sustainability essential factors; in the area. As a result, the pragmatic proposition provides a better world view for this research; and lends this research to consider case study design as an appropriate strategy in the subsequent section.
Table 3.3: Summary of the Research Designs Perspectives and Stance
Research Designs Perspectives This Research Stance
Design Archival research;
Grounded theory; Experiment; Survey; Ethnography; Case study; Action research.
This research adopts a case study design as it intends to investigate a real world problem in a real- life context.
Strategy Opinion;
Empirical; Archival; Analytic.
Opinion as the researcher investigates a phenomenon in a real-life context.
Method Multi-Method;
Mono-Method; Mixed Method.
Toward mixed method approaches.
Data collection Literature Review; Structured interview; Semi-structured interview; Questionnaire;
Qualitative; Quantitative.
This research stands on: a literature review; semi- structured interview; both qualitative and quantitative data.
111
3.4. THE RESEARCH DESIGN- CASE STUDY STRATEGY AND THE RESEARCH