Dimensionado de zona de expedición y recepción 3ª configuración

A paradigm is an outline encompassing the commonly accepted understandings about a subject, an arrangement of what path the research should take and how it should be designed. A paradigm is a set of ideas articulated by a group of experts discovering and studying the world. Paradigms contain three elements: ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Rao & Perry 2007). This section reviews the key concept of research paradigms and discusses the four key scientific research paradigms. Also, reasoning is

62 | P a g e

provided as to why positivism and constructivism are employed and suitable for this research (Easterby, Thorpe & Lowe 1991; Guba & Lincoln 1994; Healy & Perry 2000; Perry & Cavaye 2002; Perry, Reige & Brown 1999).

Table 3.1: Comparison of different approaches

Ontology

Ontology is the investigation of the status of being, becoming, continuation or reality including the primary types of being and their relationships (Guarino 1998; Perry et al. 1999; Sale et al. 2002; Shah & Corley 2006). It is applicable into four paradigms: positivism, realism, critical theory, and constructivism (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Perry et al. 1999). Each paradigm will be explored briefly next.

Positivism

‘Positivists undertake that the natural and social sciences measure independent truths about a sole reality poised of separate elements whose nature can be known and categorized’ (Perry, Reige & Brown 1999 p. 16). In the positivist paradigm, the researcher proposes the questions and/or hypotheses and links these to empirical findings (Guba & Lincoln 1994). This research method is quantitative in nature and contains controlled experiments and surveys conducted on samples of a population (Guba & Lincoln 1994). In this study, the positivist paradigm was adopted for the quantitative phase of the study for two reasons. Firstly, while this research has an exploratory nature, the quantitative results add some confirmation to the initial qualitative responses.

63 | P a g e

Secondly, the research questions developed were posed to test the hypotheses (Zikmund 2003), which are framed in terms of particular factors and their influence on consumer buying behavior.

Realism | post-positivism

Realists consider that it is problematic for investigators to avoid open decisions when leading scientific research and that, in clarifying social phenomena, it is hard to verify causation with confidence. Realists distinguish all study approaches as fundamentally inadequate and consequently consider that a blend of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches is mandatory to produce and examine theory (Patton 2002). The nature of this paradigm is quantitative; however, qualitative fundamentals such as interviews can be added to strengthen this approach. With regard to some limitations related to any one research technique, realist research contains the key fundamentals of triangulation of various perceptions of reality to increase a considered apprehension of the phenomenon (Guba & Lincoln 1994).

Critical theory

The key purpose of the critical theory paradigm is ‘the criticism and alteration of the social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender structures that constrain and exploit humankind, by engagement in confrontation, even conflict’ (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p. 113). Perry, Reige and Brown (1999 p. 17) reported that critical theory research studies ‘are ethnographic and historical studies of organizational procedures and structures’.

Constructivism

Constructivism in the literature is termed as a naturalistic investigation (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Constructivism is differentiated from the other research paradigms, mainly with regard to ontology. That is, constructivism has moved from ontological realism to ontological relativism (Denzin & Lincoln 2003). ‘Constructivists pursue a comprehension of the world in which they live and work. The objective of research, then, is to trust as much as possible in the respondents’ views of the situation being studied.’(Creswell 2003 pp. 8-9).

Epistemology enquires into the meaning of knowledge, how it can be obtained as well as the level to which knowledge is applicable to any given topic (Cousins 2002; Krauss

64 | P a g e

2005). Epistemology explains how a researcher can obtain knowledge about field of study (Krauss 2005; Parkhe, 1993; Shah & Corley 2006). The affiliation between the knower and what can be known is defined as epistemology (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Perry et al. 1999). The epistemology of each paradigm varies somewhat as discussed next.

Justification of the research paradigm

There has been a motivation among researchers to close the gap surrounding the two major research methodologies outlined below by choosing to blend qualitative or quantitative approaches. A varied technique offers a procedure founded on the strengths of both (Mangan 2004). One of the central benefits of engaging in these diverse approaches is the potential to resolve matters related to the preference for one approach exclusively or to the sterility of particular technique (Hussey & Hussey 1997; Mangan 2004).

Adopted research design | Pragmatic research philosophy

It can be proposed that taking a particular approach to a paradigm implied taking a particular approach to research. Yet, the pragmatic paradigm implies that the overall approach to research is that of mixing data collection methods and data analysis procedures within the research process (Creswell 2003). Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) propose that there are three approaches to research quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. In Creswell’s model each approach is characterised not only by the stance taken on paradigm, which he terms knowledge position but by the strategies used to apply the design and the methods of data collection, particular paradigms, strategies and methods tend to be associated with each approach (Creswell 2003).

The quantitative approach tends to be associated with the post-positivistic paradigm, employs strategies of inquiry such as experimentation and survey and methods of data collection that are pre-determined measures resulting in numeric data. By contrast the qualitative approach tends to be associated with constructivist or the transformative- emancipatory paradigms, employs strategies such as the case study or narrative and uses methods or data collection such as the interview resulting in open ended data textual data (Healy & Perry 2000; Patton 2002; Perry 1998; Perry et al. 1999). Thirdly is the mixed methods approach associated with the pragmatic paradigm and strategies that involve collecting data in a simultaneous or sequential manner using methods that are drawn from

65 | P a g e

both quantitative and qualitative traditions in a fashion that best addresses the research question’s (Creswell 2003).

Bryman (2004) puts forward a number of arguments for what he terms not mixed methods but the combing of quantitative and qualitative research these include; the logic of triangulation, an ability to fill in the gaps left when using one dominant approach, the use of quantitative research to facilitate qualitative research and visa versa, combining static and processual features, gaining the perspective of the researcher and the researched, to address the issue of generality and to study different aspects of a phenomena.

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) looked at the value of mixed methods in the field of business by reviewing studies published in the field. They found that mixed methods added value by increasing the validity of the findings, informing the collection of the second data source, and assisting with knowledge creation. The authors argued that studies that use a mixed methods approach gain a deeper, broader understanding of the phenomenon than studies that do not utilize both a quantitative and qualitative approach. Another study looked at how the mixed methods approach is used in health services research. The researchers stated that the use of mixed methods is driven by the apparent shortfall of quantitative methods (Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Healy & Perry 2000; Patton 2002; Perry 1998; Perry et al. 1999 O’Cathain, Murphy & Nicholl 2007). Another study in the business field found mixed methods articles received more citations than studies that did not use a mixed method approach, which the researcher attributed to mixed methods studies being regarded as being more valuable (Molina Azorin 2011).

Another value of the mixed methods approach is the integration component. Integration gives readers more confidence in the results and the conclusions they draw from the study (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl 2010). A mixed methods approach also helps researchers cultivate ideas for future research (O’Cathain et al. 2010). In addition, researchers stated that a mixed methods research model is the only way to be certain of findings (Coyle & Williams 2000) and interpretation (Morse & Chung 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003b).

66 | P a g e

In this research study’s mixed method approach, first qualitative and then quantitative methods were used to address the research questions and objectives. Data collection started with in-depth semi-structured interviews, followed by a survey method using quantitative analysis. The purpose of the first phase was to gain in-depth consumer insights, gaining a comprehensive understanding of the problem addressed in this study (Kvale 1996). The participants’ words, actions and lived experiences were critically analyzed to assess what the participants described and interpret the connotations of those replies. In contrast, the second phase involved a positivistic approach focusing on quantitative data and stressing data measurement and examination (Onwuegbuzie, Bustamante & Nelson 2010).

The foundation of the quantitative research was directed by the hypotheses developed by the researcher. Hence, the second phases’ purpose was to provide empirical confirmation to support or negate a hypothesis by providing, where possible, causal descriptions of the phenomena (Kvale 1996). In this study, the themes that arose from the qualitative findings were then examined in the following quantitative phase of the study. Associations rather than causal connections were identified.

Mixed research methods are more effective than one particular research technique to make important theoretical contributions (Greene & Caracelli 1997). Mixed research methods have the ability to address exploratory and confirmatory research questions concurrently (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). In the area of social sciences, both research methods are used simultaneously because they develop the capacity for an improved assessment and appreciation of the research. Furthermore, such an enhanced depth of purpose can help in developing new ideas and perspective about theories (Venkatesh, Brown & Bala 2013). The application of mixed method research must develop the research to involve variety, variability, and more detailed communication of the combined results (Venkatesh et al. 2013).

In this research, the qualitative study was deployed to develop its constructs and initial hypotheses (Becerra Fernandez & Sabherwal 2001; Grimsley & Meehan 2007; Ho et al. 2003) for one main reason. This was to determine the variables that need to be measured in relation to religiosity and factors concerning western imported food in Pakistan. The

67 | P a g e

qualitative research results advised the design of the survey questions for the quantitative stage (Becerra Fernandez & Sabherwal 2001; Grimsley & Meehan 2007; Ho et al. 2003).

A paper-based survey method was used for the quantitative phase (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar 2004; Creswell 2003; Hanson & Grimmer 2005) in order to analyze the data by statistical techniques. Such a survey can deliver an effective, practical, and reasonably exact means to obtain data to achieve numerous research goals (Zikmund 2003). The survey collected data about various factors, religiosity, purchase intention, and purchase behavior from a group of individuals (Leedy & Ormrod 2005; Robson 2002).

Table 3.2: Purposes of mixed method research