El marco legal

Research philosophy relates to the knowledge in terms of the development and the nature by which researchers can make essential assumptions about the way in which the world works. Moreover, these assumptions underpin the research strategy and the methods as a part of this strategy (Collis & Hussey, 2003; Saunders et al., 2007). In addition, by understanding the philosophical concepts, the overall research design and strategy can be specified and clarified (Blumberg et al., 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2004). For many researchers, a paradigm represents one of the main philosophical concepts of social sciences (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Collis and Hussey, (2009: p55) mentioned that a research paradigm means “a philosophical framework that guides how scientific research should be conducted". Many authors, such as Collis and Hussey (2009), have pointed out that there are two main research paradigms used in social science, namely positivism and interpretivism.

4.4.1 Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions of Paradigm

As mentioned by several scholars such as Collis & Hussey, (2003); Saunders et al. (2007), there are two major assumptions of a paradigm as a research philosophy, namely ontology and epistemology. Each relates significantly to the way in which the researcher thinks about the research process (Saunders et al., 2009). Ontology is "the study of being" (Crotty, 1989, p. 10 cited in Scotland, 2012). With this approach, a position should be taken by the researchers about their views of real things and how these things work in the real world (Scotland, 2012). The ontological assumption is related to the nature of reality, which is

90

either objective or subjective (Collis & Hussey, 2003; Creswell, 1994; Saunders et al., 2009). In this regard, objectivism refers to reality as independent, while subjectivism assumes that reality is produced through social processes (Neuman & Kreuger, 2003). Ontologically, the reality is objective if "the social entities exist in reality external to social actors concerned with their existence" (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 110). But reality is subjective if it is constructed by perceptions of people and their actions who make their own sense of this social reality (Tubey et al., 2015). As Collis and Hussey (2009) stated, under positivism, social reality is objective and external to the researcher. Therefore, it is a single reality. Furthermore, under interpretivism, social reality is subjective because it is socially constituted. Therefore, individuals make their own different senses of social reality, thus there are said to be multiple realities. On the other hand, Epistemology is the relationship between the researcher and knowledge. With this approach, the concern is with generating, gaining, and communicating knowledge (Scotland, 2012). Furthermore, the epistemological question is what is "the nature of the relationship between the would-be knower and what can be known?" (Guba & Lincon, 1994, p.108). Therefore, the researcher needs to define the knowledge in a field of study (Saunders et al., 2009). According to Collis and Hussey (2009), the answer to the epistemological question reflects the nature of the relationship between the researcher and what is being studied. Furthermore, positivist and interpretivist views regarding this relationship are different. In this respect, with positivism, a phenomenon can be regarded as valid knowledge only when it is observable and measurable. In this context, positivists believe that researchers should be distant when they conduct their research (Collis and Hussey, 2003). On the other hand, under interpretivism, the convergence between the researcher and what is being studied is required for participative enquiry (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

91 4.4.2 Positivism vs. Interpretivism

According to the positivistic paradigm which is adopted in the natural sciences (Blumberg et al., 2014), gaining knowledge draws on the observation of an independent and pre-existing reality. Furthermore, the researchers should be independent of that being researched, to avoid any distortion of their objective views (Collis and Hussey, 2009). Blumberg et al. (2014) and Saunders et al. (2009) demonstrated that this approach is concerned with objective facts rather than impressions. Under this philosophy, the researcher can define his/her selection of what to study and who is to research it through objective criteria instead of human interests (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Alternatively, interpretivism paradigm can be adopted in the social sciences. With this paradigm, the reality is socially constructed by the perceptions of people, resulting in multiple constructed realities of various individuals (Sobh & Perry, 2006). Interpretivism is concerned with understanding human actions as social actors from different participant’s points of view (Collis and Hussey, 2009). As mentioned by Collis and Hussey, “This qualitative approach stresses the subjective aspects of human activity by focusing on the meaning, rather than the measurement, of social phenomena” (Collis and Hussey, 2003). With this paradigm, the aim is to understand the meanings of social phenomena subjectively by understanding individuals’ impressions, and these phenomena are structured from the perceptions and consequent actions of people (Blumberg et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, the focus here is on exploring the complexity of social phenomena and how to gain interpretive understanding. Furthermore, interpretivism can be promoted through the belief that the reality of a social phenomenon is not objective but highly subjective, because it is constituted by an individual’s perceptions (Collis and Hussey, 2009). As noted by Blumberg et al. (2014), between positivism and interpretivism philosophies other research paradigms exist, such as critical theory and realism, depending on the philosophical assumptions of positivism or interpretivism. They added that “The most notable of these is realism”. Due to the relevance of realism to conduct this research, the researcher chooses it to be discussed in the next subsection. Collis and Hussey (2003) summarised the features of the two main paradigms as shown in Table 4.1.

92 Table 4.1 Features of the two main paradigms

Positivism paradigm Interpretivism paradigm

Tends to produce quantitative data Tends to produce qualitative data

Uses large samples Uses small samples

Concerned with hypothesis testing Concerned with generating theories

Data is highly specific and precise Data is rich and subjective

The location is artificial The location is natural

Reliability is high Reliability is low

Validity is low Validity is high

Generalises from sample to population Generalises from one setting to another

Source:Collis and Hussey, (2003, p: 55)

4.4.3 Realism

Realism as a research philosophy has principles of both positivism and interpretivism paradigms (Blumberg et al., 2014; Healy & Perry, 2000). According to Blumberg et al., (2014), under this philosophy of social sciences, the reality can be independent of human beliefs and behaviour. But because subjectivity is inherent to humans, the researcher needs to understand people and their behaviour. Furthermore, reality exists independently of the researcher’s mind, thus it is an external reality (Sobh and Perry, 2006). While reality is single and concrete under positivism, and has multiple realities with interpretivism, realists deal with multiple perceptions regarding a single, mind-independent reality (Healy & Perry, 2000). This latter reality is "not wholly discoverable or knowable" (Krauss, 2005, P. 761). Realism is imperfectly and probabilistically understood, and it can act as a metaphorical window on the world (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In addition, through triangulating cognition processes, the reality of a social phenomenon can be better defined (Christie et al., 2000). As commented by Perry et al., (1997, P. 554) cited in Christie et al., (2000), “a perception for

realists is a window on to reality from which a picture of reality can be triangulated with other perceptions”.

93

As stated by Sobh and Perry, "the company's external environment is always more important than the internal. The real decisions are made in the world outside……”. Therefore, the focus of marketers should be on how to satisfy the needs of an external market place. As a result, realists conduct their research to understand the common reality of an economic system (Sobh and Perry, 2006). Philosophical assumptions that underpin the three different paradigms of science, namely positivism, interpretivism, and realism are summarized in Table 4.2.

As mentioned by Boing, (1994), the realism paradigm is appropriate for conducting research in areas such as inter-organizational relationships and relationship marketing which is usually contemporary and pre-paradigmatic. Furthermore, this paradigm is suitable for researching a complex social phenomenon which includes reflective human activity such as marketing (Sobh & Perry, 2006). As pointed out by Healy and Perry, (2000), realism becomes more relevant when adopting in depth interview methodology by using probe questions and concentrating on the meaning in order to develop a theory.

Table 4.2 The philosophical assumptions of the social research paradigms

Element _{Positivism Interpretivism Realism}

Ontology Reality is real and

comprehensible.

Multiple local and specific "constructed" realities.

Reality is "real" but only imperfectly and probabilistically and so triangulation from many sources is required to try to know it.

Epistemology Findings true-

researcher is objective by viewing reality through a “one-way mirror”. Created findings- researcher is a “passionate

participant” within the world being

investigated.

Findings probably true- researcher is value- aware and needs to triangulate any perceptions he or she is collecting. Common methodologies Mostly concerned with a testing of theory. Thus mainly quantitative methods such as: survey, and verification of hypotheses.

In-depth unstructured interviews, participant observation, action research, and grounded theory research.

Mainly qualitative methods such as case studies and interviews.

94

Consequently, it is clear that realism can fill the gap between the two other paradigms: positivism and interpretivism through the following differences:

 Ontologically, under realism, the researcher deals with complex, social phenomena including reflective humans in a "real" world "outside" for discovering (Sobh & Perry, 2006).

 The real world can be discovered when adopting realism by naming and describing broad generative mechanisms through which many people operate in the world (Healy and Perry, 2000).

 Epistemologically, realists are value aware, and the perceptions of participants could be a window to reality by which a view of reality can be triangulated with other perspectives (Christie et al., 2000; Perry et al., 1997).

 Realism is mainly concerned with inductive theory building for triangulating the external reality of the phenomenon being studied through the data, but some deduction for developing conceptual framework as a guideline in the field (Perry, 1998).

According to the above discussion and for these reasons, realism is an appropriate scientific paradigm for researching the integration between marketing and operations functions.