MARCA TELVA: GRUPO DE COMUNICACIÓN UNIDAD EDITORIAL

One of the important concerns of researchers is regarding the nature of reality referred to as ontology implying that ontological aspects raise questions on the assumptions made by researchers on the research phenomenon (Saunders et al. 2009). According to Saunders et al. (2009) there are two ontological views that are widely held by researchers namely objectivist and subjectivist ontology. While there is no consensus on the use of either the objectivist or the subjectivist ontology in organisational behaviour research (Hatch, 2012) researchers tend to adopt either the objective ontological stance or subjective ontological

79

stance. However it is important to realize the choice of an appropriate ontological position in organisational behaviour will depend on the research question (Schapper et al. 2005). Hence an understanding of ontological implications therefore is necessary to determine how the researcher is likely to carry out the research (Hatch, 2012).

Objectivist ontological position of a researcher points towards the belief that reality is external to social actors (Saunders et al. 2009). An example of how objectivist view is the investigation in aspects of management as management can be considered as an objective entity (Saunders et al. 2009). According to Johnson and Duberley (2000) (also see Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Nord & Connell, 1993) objective ontology enables a researcher to look for relationships between variables and tries to find reality resulting from outside and individual sensory experiences. In other words knowledge is gained about a happening from taste, touch, observation and measurement (Johnson & Duberley, 2000) (also see Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Nord & Connell, 1993 and Nord & Connell, 1993). However objective ontology has limitations also. For instance it is rather not possible for the researcher to be completely independent or outside of reality as the researcher may have to examine the characteristic of the situation in which the researcher is investigating to understand reality (Robinson et al. 1998). This could imply that the researcher has to ground himself or herself in the environment under investigation rather than just analyse and derive findings from statistical data. Despite such limitations, many researchers (e.g. Cuskelly et al. 2006) in volunteer management have adopted an objective stance indicating that volunteer research can be approached with the researcher taking an objective ontological position. Additionally objectivism is associated with positivist epistemology, deductive research approach and quantitative research method (Holden & Lynch, 2004).

Subjectivism on the other hand talks about reality and considers reality as that aspect which people confront and construe (Gioia, 2003). In other words subjectivism posits that reality and knowledge are created socially and are influenced by subjectivities and intersubjectivities of social linkages (Schapper et al. 2005). While subjectivism enables the researchers to understand how the subjects under study interact with the environment,

80

how they seek to reason out what it means through their interpretation of the happenings and meanings, researchers believe that there is no definitive phenomenon that can be said to take place as the phenomenon is continuously changing (Saunders et al. 2009). In such a situation the nature of reality may be perceived differently by each actor or all the actors according the sense made out by the actors in their interaction of the environment. This leads to a situation where reality could be considered as many not one. This is an opposite view of objectivism. There are advantages in adopting subjectivism such as reducing the gap that may be present between the researcher and the happening under study (Hussey & Hussey, 1997); gain knowledge on the underlying meaning by being grounded in the situation rather than its measurement (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997); understand the views of subjects as they perceive instead of narrowing it down to one view (Morgan & Smircich, 1980); and extending the understanding of a phenomenon beyond the cause and effect relationship (Hirschman, 1986). However subjectivism has been criticized by researchers as having limitations for instance the belief that valid knowledge is intangible and subjective is meaningless (Giddens, 1993; Morgan & Smircich, 1980) and the possibility of researcher bias is inherent in subjectivism (Hunt, 1993). Additionally subjectivism is associated with interpretivist epistemology, inductive research approach and qualitative research method (Holden & Lynch, 2004). As far as research in volunteerism is concerned it can be seen subjectivism has been adopted by researchers in volunteer research for instance Jones and Hill (2003) adopted subjectivist approach in their study on student volunteers and argue that it is ideal for understanding volunteer behavior.

4.2.1 Choice of ontological position

The foregoing discussions provide an idea about the objectivist and subjectivist ontological positions that could be assumed by a researcher in social science research and in particular volunteer research. There is no consensus amongst researchers on whether objectivist or subjectivist ontological position should be adopted for volunteer research or social science research (Macduff et al. 2006). Considering the advantages and disadvantages that are attributed to both objectivist and subjectivist ontological positions that could be taken by a researcher, it is important to understand that the choice depends

81

on what the researcher aims to understand. While the comparison between objectivist and subjectivist ontological positions provided in Table 4.1 can guide in the choice an appropriate ontological position for this research, in this research the need to understand the relationship between volunteer management practices and volunteer retention, requires an assumption that there is such a relationship that exists. A study of such a relationship requires the research to be external to the context and understand whether such a relationship can be formulated through measurement. Such a measurement is possible through a large scale survey of volunteers. From the foregoing discussions and from Table 4.1 it is reasonable to conclude that in this research the researcher adopted the objectivist ontological position which finds support fro

Research approaches Objectivism Subjectivism

Strictly interpretivist

Action research

Have scope to be either

Have scope to be either Case Studies

Strictly interpretivist

Ethnographic

Have scope to be either

Have scope to be either Field experiments

Mostly interpretivist

Focus group

Strictly positivistic with some room for interpretation Forecasting research

Have scope to be either Futures research

Strictly interpretivist

Game or role playing

Mostly interpretivist

In-depth surveys

Strictly positivistic with some room for interpretation Laboratory experiments

Strictly positivistic with some room for interpretation Large-scale surveys

Strictly interpretivist

Participant-observer

Mostly interpretivist

Scenario research

Strictly positivistic with some room for interpretation Simulation and stochastic

modeling

Table 4.1 Comparison between objectivist and subjectivist ontologies (Remenyi et al. 1998)