This section broadly discusses the research approaches adopted in this research. It covers three important aspects: research ideology, theoretical perspective, and research design. To justify the method applied in this study, four elements of the process need to be clarified (as shown in Figure 5.5), namely, epistemology/ontology, theoretical perspectives, methodology/strategy and methods (Crotty, 1998).
Figure 5.5: The four main elements of the research process Source: (Crotty, 1998)
5.3.1 Ontological issues
Ontology is the study of being (Crotty, 1998). It is the way of understanding things, the nature of existence and structure of reality. Together with epistemology, ontology governs the theoretical perspective adopted in any research. Each and every theoretical perspective has its own understanding of epistemology and ontology (Crotty, 1998). In social research, the ontological refers the consciousness of the nature of social entities. Social entities are thus viewed in objectivism as objective entities, whereas in subjectivism, social constructions have a role in defining the social actors. This research suggests that different planning and urban design factors influence the public open squares in the UAE. Moreover, the research provides
categories which emphasise the understanding of the nature of provision processes for the existing public open squares in the UAE. Perceptions of both professionals and consumers have been considered in the research. An assumption of the research is that human observations and beliefs differ from person to person. The truth is not fixed, and societal aspects drastically affect human perception. A largely subjective ontological approach would, therefore, be suitable for this particular research.
The different approaches to ontology provide the basis for different research paradigms, of which two are key: positivism and interpretivism. There are differences in the epistemology of positivist and interpretive paradigms (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011). Researchers must have a clear awareness of the dominant paradigms of their academic discipline and the extent to which these influence the formation of their research (Hennink et al., 2011). Babbie (2007) states that paradigms are bases for understanding which outline both what we observe and how we realise it (Hennink et al., 2011). The positivist paradigm represents the scientific approach to research. Such an approach places great emphasis on objective measurements of social issues in the social sciences. A distinction is made between facts and value, and research is seen as value-free. This approach has been criticised in social research due to its failure to acknowledge the interactive and co-constructive nature of data collection within human beings (Hennink et al., 2011).
On the other hand, the interpretive paradigm intends to understand society from the perspective of people. This approach is based on interpretation and observation in understanding the social world (Hennink et al., 2011). It is essentially based on the experiences of people (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999). Research is not value-free, and the researcher has some influence on data collection or interoperation. Despite the seeming differences between the two paradigms, these are not distinct. Positivism and interpretivism are the base paradigms of quantitative and qualitative research respectively (Hennink et al., 2011).
In order to determine the influence of planning and design in public open squares, a distinction must be made between people and objects and the study of the subjective meanings of social action. In this sense, subjectivism is an appropriate ontology to understand this kind of phenomenon, while interpretivism is the matching epistemological approach to provide the appropriate knowledge for this research.
5.3.2 Epistemological issues
Epistemology is the consideration of the appropriate theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective as a discipline according to the nature of the research area. Furthermore, it includes the approaches used to assess this knowledge, obtain claims to truth and the extent of truth that could be achieved by the knowledge (Crotty, 1998). Epistemological approaches, namely the way in which reality is understood, include objectivism, subjectivism or something in between.
Objectivism as a concept has long been used in research. It understands reality as ‘existence exists’ and states that things are what they are independent of what might be thought about them. In this concept, the world exists independently outside of individuals’ minds, and the nature of things is objective (Crotty, 1998). Individual thoughts cannot, therefore, change reality. Epistemology in objectivism views knowledge as uncontestable facts that enter the human mind and provide a foundation for other knowledge. Objectivism states that while individuals can create concepts, these concepts are objective and freely produced away from any external force such as the influence of society (Bryman, 2008). However, logic is the personal understanding of knowledge based on absolute truths, whereas emotions and intuitions are not part of knowledge.
By contrast, subjectivism views the truth as an abstract value where nothing can be known for certain since it is viewed through the experience of individuals. The truth is inside everyone’s mind. Individuals have radically different perceptions of the world for genetic or historical reasons (Crotty, 1998). This extends to all individuals’ senses and thinking due to their interactions with their environment. Thinking and perception are therefore unique to every individual. From a subjectivist perspective, all knowledge is incomplete; reality, logic, emotion and heuristics are inherently biased; and individuals recall experiences from their personal perspectives, which may or may not be correct. Human thinking, whether conscious or subconscious, is influenced by experience and does not necessarily follow an abstract, rational or logical pattern. Unique experiences, moral values and religious beliefs lead individuals to view everything differently (Bryman, 2012). This results in a subjectivist approach that questions what ‘reality’ is. According to this epistemological approach, there are no absolutes or objective truths because individuals interpret moral issues differently.
5.3.3 Theoretical Perspective: Social Constructionism
Social research is a term used in social science fields, such as sociology, human geography, social policy, politics and criminology (Bryman, 2008). Moreover, it is a type of research that draws on social science for conceptual and theoretical inspiration (Bryman, 2008). Social research tends to be motivated by potential developments and changes in social areas, as is the case in this research. The rationale for adopting a social research approach for this thesis is the central question of the effect of planning practice (a social process) in creating liveable public open spaces, which are social outcomes A major dilemma in the philosophy of social science is that it differs from the ‘hard’ sciences (physical and natural) because of the different ways of viewing and measuring social reality (Bryman, 2012). Social research is to a large extent interlinked with society. The way in which the research topics and issues are formulated and in which findings are interpreted are core differences between social and natural science research (Bryman, 2012). Social researchers revolted against positivism because of the failure of science to determine scientific laws for human behaviour, such as Comte and Marx and his followers would like to have discovered. In addition, many research philosophies have been posited in recent times, providing researchers with a myriad of alternatives for research design.
Among the philosophical approaches, social constructionism is regarded as the appropriate theoretical lens for this research being founded on the idea that there is no absolute truth and that knowledge is constructed and interpreted by individuals. Constructionism provides a basis for both objective and subjective interpretations of human experience (Crotty, 1998). The current research hopes to determine individuals’ perceptions of their built environment: a constructionist philosophy thus underpins the design of this research.
The theoretical perspective plays an essential role in forming the point of departure in research.
From a realist perspective, the natural and social sciences must utilise the same approach to determine the reality that already exists. There are two main types of realism: empirical realism and critical realism (Bryman, 2008). Empirical realism assumes that there is a perfect or very close correspondence between reality and the way in which it is understood. This approach fails to identify the enduring structures and generative mechanisms that underpin the understanding of social events, whereas critical realism conceptualises the way in which reality is understood. Unlike empirical realism, critical realism argues that there is a separation between reality and the term used to describe it. Critical realism allows for the establishment of an interface between pure science and social science.
Constructivism, as we have seen, argues that knowledge is constructed by people (Jackson, 2006) who perceive and interpret their unique physical and social experiences and develop their own ideas about the world they live in (Morgan & Smircich, 1980). The epistemological concern of constructivism is how humans develop this meaning and knowledge of their world (Molteberg & Bergstrøm, 2000) as they interact with other individuals or groups and create their social reality.
Thus, people initiate, embed and change their social reality by means of a continuous, dynamic process of perceiving and interpreting knowledge. Knowledge is, therefore, an ongoing, active, creative process through which individuals construct mental models of their world, which are never static and are constantly being updated as they engage with themselves or others.
Learning emerges out of the discourses that categorise the world and analyse phenomena. Since this study sets out to explore the reality of urban design of public open spaces, quality and vitality are tested from the perspectives of users and providers. It emphasises the way in which knowledge is shaped and changed within specific contexts, shaped and expressed through different media, and processed in different individuals’ minds. The social constructionism concept was therefore used as a theoretical perspective for data collection and analysis.