Los medios e infraestructuras de transporte en la fase de implicación.

Lewis, Saunders and Thornhill (2016) classify research into the following five major philosophies (shown in the outer layer of the “research onion” in Figure 4):

1. Positivism: Similar to the Gill and Johnson reference above, this relates to the philosophical stance of the natural scientist as it entails working with an observable social reality to produce concrete generalisations.

2. Critical realism: In contrast to positivism, critical realism focuses on explaining what is seen and experienced, in terms of the underlying structures of reality that shape the observable events (as opposed to the positivist approach of what is seen through the senses accurately portrays the world). Critical realists see reality as external and independent, but not directly accessible through observation. They claim there are two steps to understanding the world. First, there are the sensations of the experienced events. Second, there is the mental processing of the experienced events.

3. Interpretivism: Interpretivism argues humans are different from physical phenomena because they create meanings. Therefore, human beings and their social worlds cannot be studied in the same way as physical phenomena. Interpretivists are critical of the positivists’ attempts to discover definite, universal laws to apply to everybody because they realise that different people of different backgrounds and cultures create different meanings and therefore experience and create different realities. Rather, interpretivists believe that rich insights into humanity are essential for the creation of new, richer understandings and interpretations of social worlds.

4. Postmodernism: Postmodernism emphasises the role of language and power relations, aiming to give voice to alternative marginalised views and to question accepted ways of thinking. Postmodernists reject the objectivist, realist ontology of things and instead emphasise the chaotic character of movement and change. They believe that any sense of order is provisional and baseless and can only be brought about through language.

5. Pragmatism: Pragmatism reconciles objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, accurate and rigorous knowledge. From a pragmatist viewpoint, there are many different ways of interpreting the world and there may not be a single point of view that can ever give the entire picture, but rather, there may be multiple realities. Pragmatists may utilise one method, or a multiple of methods, as long as the selected method(s) enable credible, well-founded and reliable data to be collected.

Collis and Hussey (2014) illustrate the “continuum of paradigms” by illustrating the transition of six philosophies from the two opposing ends, namely positivist and interpretivist, while depicting the underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions, as well as the research methods employed, for each category. The result is illustrated in Figure 6:

Figure 6 Continuum of Paradigms (Collis and Hussey, 2014)

In terms of the utilisation of theories and hypothesis across the two opposing ends, Collis and Hussey (2014) opine that, under a positivist paradigm, the literature is studied to identify a theory then form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested against empirical evidence using statistics. In an interpretivist paradigm, a theory may not be utilised or there may not be an existing one in the first place. Therefore, a researcher may carry out his/her own investigation to describe different patterns that are perceived in the data or may construct a new theory to explain the phenomenon. The findings could then be used to develop hypotheses that are tested in other main studies. Importantly, Collis and Hussey take the view that the terms “quantitative” and “qualitative” should be used to describe data, not paradigms. This is because a positivist study can collect data that is either quantitative or qualitative. In a positivist study, the collection of qualitative data may be carried out so that

it is quantified before statistical analysis. However, in an interpretivist paradigm, there is no intention of analysing data statistically and therefore no intention for a quantification of qualitative data. Since the emphasis is on the quality and depth of the data collected, the emphasis in an interpretive paradigm is on the quality and depth of the data collected about a phenomenon, which leads to the collected data normally being rich in detail. They also point out that some researchers blend qualitative and quantitative data to an extent that it is difficult to determine which paradigm is being used. They advise students against such practice, as it may not be acceptable to the researcher’s supervisors and examiners.

Denzin and Lincoln (2000) take research paradigms a step further by sub- dividing qualitative research into four main interpretive paradigms:

1. Positivist and postpositivist: The positivist paradigm believes that there is a reality out there that can be captured, whereas the postpositivist believes that reality can be approximated, but never fully apprehended.

2. Constructivist-interpretive: This paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (i.e., there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (i.e., knower and respondent co-create understandings) and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures.

3. Feminist, cultural, Marxist and ethnic: This paradigm reflects the vision that the real world is materially affected by race, class and gender (i.e., a materialist-realist ontology).

4. Poststructural feminist: This paradigm addresses problems with the social text, its logic and its ability to represent the world of lived experience.