INTRODUCCIÓN: PRECISIONES METODOLÓGICAS Y CONSIDERACIONES POLÍTICO CRIMINALES

In social science, the term ontology refers to a researcher’s view of the nature of reality, that is, the phenomena under investigation. Traditionally, there are two ontological perspectives in social science - objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivism is the philosophical assumption that reality or phenomena exist independently and externally to the researcher and the research population (Saunders et al., 2012). Contrarily, subjectivism is an ontological assumption that presumes that reality (or the phenomena being researched) are neither external nor detached from social actors or the researcher. Thus, subjectivism views reality as emergent and socially constructed, arising through the opinions of multiple social actors depending on their lived experiences (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

Considering that the main aim of this research was to explore why and how Big Data initiatives and required capabilities come about in a MNC in the pharmaceutical industry, the flexibility of the subjectivist approach offers the researcher an opportunity to study how various actors

96

engage with Big Data initiatives in reality, through their potentially diverse views and experiences.

4.2.1.2 Epistemology

In general, three main epistemological views dominate the literature about the research process (e.g. Crotty, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Bryman and Bell, 2011): positivism, constructivism, and realism. The different views will be discussed below in terms of their underlying ontology, as well as the methods of enquiry and research methods associated with them.

Positivism. The fundamental philosophy of positivism is that the social world exists externally, and that its properties should be measured using objective methods, rather than being assumed subjectively by use of observation, reflection, or intuition. In investigating a phenomenon, positivism makes an ontological assumption that views ‘reality’ in the study of a social phenomenon as external and objective (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). A positivist epistemology implies that the goal of research is to produce objective knowledge that is neutral and unbiased, based on a view from ‘the outside’, without the personal involvement of the researcher (Willig, 2001).

The aim of research is to test a theory’s claims in order to either reject the theory or to retain it for the time being. Therefore, theories are tested by deriving hypotheses from them, which can then be tested in practice, by experiment or observation (Willig, 2001). Thus, positivist epistemology is often partnered with the quantitative research strategy that emphasises quantification in the collection and analysis of data (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

Constructivism. By contrast, the philosophy of social constructivism assumes that reality is socially constructed, and is the basis of how people make sense of and view the world, especially through sharing their experiences. While positivists seek to uncover the truth, constructivists are critical of our ability to know reality with certainty (Trochim, 2006). The underlining ontology of constructivism rejects the idea of true and objective knowledge, since

97

each of us experiences a different reality (Saunders et al., 2012; Trochim, 2006). However, this does not mean that we can never truly know something, but rather it suggests that there are ‘knowledges’ rather than ‘knowledge’ (Willig, 2001).

Because human experience, including perception, is mediated chronologically culturally, and linguistically, the same phenomenon or event can be described in different ways, giving rise to different ways of perceiving and understanding. Therefore, research from a social constructionist perspective is concerned with identifying the various ways of constructing social reality that are available in a domain, to explore the conditions of their use, and to trace their implications for human experience and social practice (Willig, 2001). For instance, many constructivist researchers believe that the best way to understand any phenomenon is to view it in its context and to become immersed in it. Thus, it can be best paired with a qualitative research strategy that, in contrast to a quantitative method, emphasizes words rather than numbers in the collection and analysis of data (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

Realism The philosophy of realism in general is defined by Phillips (1987, p. 205) as ‘the view

that entities exist independently of being perceived, or independently of our theories about them’. In philosophical terms, realism could be regarded as a synthesis of positivism and

constructivism. Its underlining ontology holds that while reality is real, all theories about the world are grounded in a particular perspective and worldview, meaning that all knowledge (epistemology) is necessarily partial, incomplete, and fallible (Willig, 2001).

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), a realist researcher thinks that social phenomena exist not only in the mind but also in the objective world and that some plausible relationships are to be found between them. There are two major forms of realism: Empirical Realism (ER), which believes that by using the appropriate methods reality can be understood, and Critical Realism (CR), which recognises the reality of the natural order and the events of the social world (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In contrast to Critical Realism, Empirical Realism fails to

98

recognise that there are permanent structures; physical (e.g. atoms or organisms), social (e.g. the market or the family) or conceptual (e.g. categories or ideas) and generative mechanisms that underline and produce observable phenomenon and events (Bashkar, 1989. p. 2). Thus, Empirical Realism is usually identified as being equivalent to empiricism as it identifies the real with the empirical, that is, with what we can experience, as if the world just happened to correspond to the range of our senses and to be identical to what we experience (Sayer, 2000. p. 11). In other words, an empiricist recognizes only events which can be perceived, whereas for a Critical Realist only events that have a causal effect on the world can be said to exist, regardless of perceptibility. The concept of causality is a key difference between the two, referring 'to the relationship between an action or thing (cause) and the outcome (effect) it

generates (Wynn and Williams, 2012, p. 789) Critical Realism recognises the existence of a

variety of objects of knowledge (e.g. material, conceptual, social, and psychological) each of which requires different research methods to be understood, as well as observation, especially in the social world (Mingers, 2004, p.100).

However, the concept of causality, and especially criteria for testing knowledge claims about causes, has been one of the focuses of criticism from adherents of the positivist approach towards CR. The positivist who attempts to ‘explain’ a phenomenon by hypothesizing a relationship between conceptual entities assumes a flat ontology that reduces reality to a Humean conjunction of cause with effect and has little regard for the mechanisms which link them (Joseph 1998). The Humean model of causation that relies merely upon correlations between observed events combined with statistical methods does not meet the explanatory criteria of CR (Lawson, 1997; Sorrell, 2018). Moreover, the positivist believes that CR lacks concrete guidelines to be followed when evaluating causal claims against each other, and questions the possibilities of detailed explanations without evaluating empirical evidence according to systematic and agreed-upon criteria (Mingers 2004). In other words, this criticism

99

emphasises the lack of a systematic methodological tool to deal with (ontological) causal complexity that CR does not seem interested in providing.

However, from the CR perspective, a request for there to be fixed methodological criteria by which we can evaluate causal claims is unconvincing since such criteria are not appropriate in the social sciences, where the primary objectives of social scientific research are not to predict or to interpret but to explain (Sorrell, 2018). Within CR, causation is not based on regular successions of events or a correlational assessment of event regularities (Sayer 2000). CR instead shifts the focus to the explicit description of causality by detailing the means or processes by which events are generated by structures, actions, and contextual conditions involved in a particular setting. This view of causality is reflected in the ontological and epistemological assumptions upon which CR is founded, as well as in the methodological principles (Mingers et al., 2013).

In contrast to social constructivists, realism researchers do not believe that reality is structureless. Thus a realism approach allows for the use of quantitative as well as qualitative and hence can exploit the advantages of both. For example, Maxwell and Mittapalli (2007) state that a realist position is quite compatible with the key characteristics of qualitative research as it:

✓ Recognises the reality and importance of meaning, as well as of physical and behavioural phenomena.

✓ Emphasises the importance of the context of the phenomena studied, rather than seeking only a general understanding independent of specific conditions.

✓ Supports the importance of investigating the processes by which an event or situation occurs, rather than simply attempting to demonstrate an association between variables.

100

In addition, critical realism also seeks explanations for singular events and situations through case studies, rather than requiring that the explanation be based on observable patterns or ‘general laws’ (Maxwell, 2004).

4.2.2 Rational for Choosing Critical Realism and Qualitative Methodology