Proyección de las aportaciones teóricas en utilidades

Before proceeding to examine different paradigms, the word ‘paradigm’ must be defined. In line with Oates (2006, p.13) “Paradigm as a word refers to a shared way of thinking. The philosophical paradigm of a research as an underlying paradigm [ ..,] about the kinds of research questions to ask and the process by which to answer them because different academic communities and individuals have different ideas about the kinds of research questions to ask and the process by which to answer them because they have different views about the nature of the world we live in and therefore about how we might investigate it. These different views stem from different philosophical paradigms.”

Positivism

The definition of Positivism varies slightly among various authors, as different authors use different parameters to evaluate the paradigm. According to Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991, p.5) IS research is positivistic if there is evidence of “formal propositions, quantifiable measures of variables, hypothesis testing, and the drawing of inferences about a phenomenon from the sample to a stated population”. This is rootedin the study of the natural world, for example, within the fields of physics, chemistry and biology. (Oates 2006; Klein and Myers 1999). Positivist research in more general terms has been associated with the methods and techniques used in scientific experiments, such as laboratory works.

Myers and Klein (2011) described that in the positivism paradigm, a subject’s data has been collected in an objective manner. They argued that all participants in a study would perceive a given situation for study in the same or similar way. Additionally, another

67

characteristic of positivism, as defined by some scholars, is the use of representative sampling, whereby a larger population is represented by the study investigation of a smaller portion thereof (Klein and Myers 1999; Orlikowski and Baroudi,1991). The broad use of the term positivist is sometimes equated with quantitative data and methods (Chen and Hirschheim 2004). It has been argued that generalisability is a core element of the positivistic approach (Oates, 2006), hence, quantitative data collection and analysis facilitate it. The data gathering approach through surveys, for example, is popular as a data collection tool with positivist researchers because it permits large-scale representative studies to be conducted, hence the generalisability of the results argued. Having defined the positivist paradigm, I will now move on to discuss the interpretive paradigm.

Interpretivism

Despite the historical dominance of positivism in IS, interpretive approaches have emerged which challenge the philosophical underpinnings of positivistic research (Klein ad Myers 1999; Walsham 1995; Oates 2006; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). This approach began to develop and evolve as many researchers concluded that positivism and the natural science approach were unsuitable for studying the social world (Walsham 1995). Interpretivism view of the world and reality differs from positivism; interpretivism describes the world as constructs of the human mind. Oates (2006, p. 292) stated that there is “no single version of the truth”. Klein and Myers (1999 p.69) stated that it is “social construction, such as language, consciousness, shared meaning defines reality for interpretivism”. Similarly, Walsham (1995) argued that when the interpretivist approach is employed, researchers must be reflective and ignore their personal views and assumptions because unlike positivism, this approach is not objective. Accordingly, Oates (2006) has identified that interpretive paradigm could produce several possible explanations for a phenomenon for further examination. Therefore, the aim of an interpretive research is not to find one, single explanation, and this reflects the subjective nature of the methods used for its explanation. While positivism revolves around a hypothesis/testing approach, interpretive studies are based on understanding human and social contexts. Klein and Myers (1999 p. 69) have defined the interpretivist approach as : “[interpretivism] does not predefine dependent and independent variables, but focuses on the complexity of human sense making as the situation emerges”. Similarly Oates

68

(2006, p.292) describes the approach as trying to “identify, explore and explain how all the factors in a particular social setting are related and interdependent”. This process examines people in their natural setting, rather than a controlled or laboratory-like situation (Oates, 2006). This view suggests that interpretivism, unlike positivism, is suitable for exploratory studies. Similarly, Walsham (1993, pp 4-5) describes the aim of interpretive research as “producing an understanding of the context of the information system, and the process whereby the information system influences and is influenced by the context". Based on the definitions above, the interpretive approach provides a valid paradigm for thoroughly exploring the subject matter.

Critical

Historically, critical theory is known to be frirst discussed by three leading theorists of Frankfurt School - Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse. Horkheimer (1982, p. 244) has defined it as defines it “[Critical theory] seeks human emancipation to liberate the human being from the circumstances that enslave them”. Similarities between interpretive paradigm and critical paradigm exist. According to Oates (2006) “critical research in IS is concerned with identifying power relations, conflicts and contradictions, and empowering people to eliminate them as sources of alienetation and domination” (p.296).. Moreover, Klein and Meyers (1999) defined the aim on a critical approach being to expose oppressive, alienating, or restrictive conditions. Another similarity between the critical and interpretive approach is that researchers employing this paradigm do not usually follow the hypothesis/testing approach, and instead look to explore social context. It has been argued that in critical research, qualitative data gathering and analysis are possible and popular among researchers, which highlights another similarity to interpretive approaches (Klein and Myers 1999).

However, this study has adopted an interpretive paradigm, as in line with Guba and Lincoln (1994), who argued that the interpretive research paradigm aids the researcher to demonstrate the set of beliefs that inform what and how the phenomenon in question is studied. Similarly, Walsham (1995) identified that interpretive paradigm is concerned with specific focuses on phenomena, which individuals have constructed through in- depth definition as of the study subject. In this study, the researcher aims to interpret the reality presented by research participants and, unlike the critical paradigm, does not aim

69

to question reality’s status quo.This section has analysed the most commonly practised paradigms in the field of IS studies and has argued their relevance to this study. The next part of this chapter aims to justify the choice of paradigm for this research.