Guerrillas Desmovilizadas

An Inductive Approach

A general paradigm of enquiry that underpins the scientific approach, consists of inductive discovery (induction) and deductive proof (deduction) (Grey, 2009). This research employed an inductive reasoning approach due to the given research context requiring immediate data gathering. Which can also be referred to as a ‘bottom-up’ approach. This is generally the reverse of a deductive approach, where the researcher establishes a hypothesis by using theory, a variety of data and information is collected by the researcher to confirm or reject the hypothesis to resolve the issue. This is also referred to as the ‘top-down’ approach (Trochim, 2006). Figure 12 shows a diagram highlighting the key stages of both approaches.

Figure 12: Deductive and Inductive Research

Deductive Research

Inductive Research

(Adapted from, Trochim, 2006)

Theory

Hypothesis

Observation

Confirmation

Theory (or Conclusions)

Tentative Hypothesis

Pattern

Through induction, research moves towards discovering patterns and binding principles, while avoiding jumping to inferences or conclusions on the basis of data. To ensure a degree of reliability, a researcher often takes multiple cases or instances, though, for example multiplying observations rather than basing conclusions on one case (Gray, 2009). In this thesis patterns of energy use behaviour were observed based on a broad interview dataset, and conclusions were only drawn where these patterns were repeatedly observed.

Inductive research is a flexible approach because there is no requirement of pre- determined theory to collect data and information. The researcher uses observed data to reach at tentative hypothesis and define conclusions or a theory as per the research problem (Trochim, 2006). It would be incorrect to assume that the inductive process takes absolutely no note of pre-existing theories or ideas when approaching a research problem. The fact that the research problem has been raised as an issue for research, implies judgements about what is an important subject for research, and these choices are dependent on values and concepts (Gray, 2009). However, in taking an inductive approach this research does not set out to confirm or falsify a theory, but instead, through a process of gathering data, it attempts to establish patterns, consistencies and meanings.

This inductive approach is a backdrop to the qualitative research design. Classified according to purpose rather than design, this PhD research can be considered an interpretive study, as it seeks to explore people’s experiences and their views or perspectives of these experiences. Interpretive studies are, typically, inductive in nature and often associated with qualitative approaches to data gathering and analysis. As part of the inductive approach this research considered methods for the analysis of data in part guided by the ‘Early Data Analysis’ (see 4.6.2), which was conducted.

Even though the context of this research necessitated an almost immediate start to data collection, it was important to consider the philosophical approach to the research (while developing the ‘‘Initial Research Framework’’), before immediately selecting a data gathering method and beginning the research.

Research Methodology

119

Consideration of Epistemological and Theoretical Perspective

There are a range of theoretical perspectives and methodologies available to researchers, and according to Crotty (2003), these can sometimes carry terminology which is inconsistent or even contradictory. However, Crotty (2003) suggests that an interrelationship exists between the researcher’s view of the epistemology, the theoretical stance adopted by the researcher and the methodology and methods used. Figure 13 shows a diagram as suggested by Crotty in ‘The Foundations of Social Research’ (2003) which represent the categories of: Epistemology; Theoretical Perspective; Methodology, and; Methods, indicating their interrelationships. It positions one category after the other and then places some of the possible components in rows beneath each category. The rows beneath each category indicate relationships with each of the category by the general position in each row. For example, the epistemology of objectivism is related to the theoretical perspective of positivism, and a methodology of experimental research with methods of sampling.

Figure 13: Epistemology, theoretical perspectives, methodology and methods

It does not however appear to prescribe direct relationships as the complexities of the philosophical research perspective and process are likely to create some overlap between perspectives or methodologies and methods are not as directly informed by the researcher’s epistemological position than methodologies (Willig, 2001). Nevertheless, the key point is that a relationship exists, and the researcher’s epistemological stance will influence the theoretical perspectives adopted, which will then shape methodology and in turn method (Gray 2009). Therefore, the philosophical approach to the research required some consideration before embarking on data collection methods. Also, the debates on knowledge are often complex and controversial and form part of the search for truth in the ability to interpret reality. Consideration of the philosophical approach to the research is important in understanding the researcher’s stance and context of the claims that they can make.

The aims and objectives of this research are to contribute to the understanding of behaviour related to energy use in the context of a social housing retrofit project. The research achieved this through a constructivist epistemology using an interpretive theoretical perspective. This allowed interpretation of behaviours related to energy use in the context of a social housing retrofit by focusing on the respondents’ perceptions of their day to day experience. Constructivism allowed the building of conclusions based on these interpretations and interpretivism and constructivism align with the conditions of this quantitative and inductive research basis.

4.3.1.1 Constructivism

Objectivist epistemology holds that reality exists independently of consciousness, it suggests that there is an objective reality ‘out there’. Research, therefore, is about discovering this objective truth. Closely linked to objectivism is the theoretical perspective of positivism. Contrasting this view is the constructivist epistemology which rejects this view of human knowledge. Truth and meaning do not exist in some external world, but are created by the subject’s interactions with the world. Meaning is constructed, not discovered, so subjects construct their own meaning in different ways, even in relation to the same phenomenon (Gray, 2009).

According to Eastby-Smith et al. (2002), having an epistemological perspective is important for a number of reasons. It can help to clarify issues of research design,

Research Methodology

121

not just in the design of research tools, but the overarching structure of the research including the kind of evidence that is being gathered, from where and how it is to be interpreted. Also, a knowledge of research philosophy helps the researcher to recognise which designs will work, to achieve particular objectives, and which will not.

4.3.1.2 Interpretivism

In terms of epistemology, interpretivism is closely linked to constructivism (Gray, 2009). Interpretivism is a theoretical perspective which asserts that there is no direct synergy between ourselves (subjects) and the world (object). The world is interpreted through the classification of schemas of the mind (Williams and May, 1996). Interpretivism puts forward the view that natural reality (and the laws of science) and social reality are different and therefore require different kinds of methods. While, on the one hand natural sciences are looking for consistencies in the data in order to deduce ‘laws’ (nomothetic), on the other hand the social sciences often deal with the actions of the individual (ideographic) (Gray, 2009). Crotty (2003) emphasises further:

“Our interest in the social world tends to focus exactly on those aspects that are unique, individual and qualitative, whereas our interest in the natural focuses on more abstract phenomena, that is, those exhibiting quantifiable, empirical regularities” (p. 68)

As is often the case with other research, interpretivism is about understanding rather than explaining. It is held that it is possible to interpret the meanings and actions of actors according to their own subjective frame of reference (Williams, 2000). Interpretivism is concerned with the individual and qualitative aspects and this research takes an intepretivist stance by focusing on the tenant discussions of their behaviour related to energy use in the context of the retrofit project. There is an important distinction between the understanding and explaining roles of research (Crotty, 2003). Theorists, such as Dilthey (1833-1911), have suggested that the role of social science should be to ‘understand’, whilst natural science’s focus is on ‘explaining and causality’ (Crotty, 2003).

It is not the focus of this research to explain the causality of energy use behaviours, but to understand changes in behaviour occurring in the context of the retrofit project. However, in the tradition of constructivism, this PhD research does build understanding and present conclusions by interpreting tenant verbalisations and explanations for their behaviour. These conclusions are put forward not as findings

of strict rules of causality, but as a basis for understanding behaviour related to energy use in this context and suggestions of areas of research to further interrogate such a phenomenon.