The hegemonic approach to research in the engineering and natural sciences is the so- called ‘scientific method’. Although it arguably does not of itself constitute a single methodology and there is no operational definition of the scientific method, it does represent a particular ‘logic of inquiry’ (Schwandt, 2007, p. 191). To paraphrase Moses and Knutsen (2012, p. 19), the scientific method can be said to involve planned and structured observation11, careful recording of observations, and great deal of reasoning to make sense
of the results. Weatherall (1968, p. 17) summarises the scientific method as the bringing together facts and ideas, in a cyclic process of reasoning and observation used to generate and test proposed hypotheses and/or theories12. It is succinctly defined by the Oxford
Dictionary of English as a:
“method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” (OUP, 2010).
11 Through passive observation or via controlled experimentation
12 This inherently requires proving causal links, it is noteworthy that this may be problematic for
example in case of indeterminism of real complex phenomena/systems as suggested by Prigogine (see
Thus, the traditional scientific method can be seen to be based very much on a world view that the world we observe is ‘real’ and ‘separate’ i.e., it exists independent of our senses and it is capable of being objectively described and interpreted (Hammond & Wellington, 2013, p. 120; Moses & Knutsen, 2012, p. 29). From this perspective, it is not difficult to see why in-depth explorations of the philosophy, theories and concepts underpinning research approaches are not overly common in the engineering and natural sciences. In this regard, it is not uncommon for such studies to give quite perfunctory consideration to methodological issues – in the implicit view that the philosophical basis of the research does not need to be examined, if it is following a so-called scientific method13. Weinberg
(1995) goes as far as saying that most scientists do not understand the scientific method, they just do – likening it to someone riding a bicycle: “if they think too much about it they
are likely to fall off”. However, if there is no one scientific method and alternative
approaches to scientific inquiry exist – it would appear that some consideration of the methodology choices within a research study are warranted, even where adherence to scientific method is claimed. This chapter aims to explore the philosophy and concepts applicable to such a research study and to design a methodology strategy for the research to be undertaken.
This thesis posits that the various entities whose activities combine to deliver building energy renovations are essentially communities of interacting humans – in other words social systems. Understanding these communities therefore requires the use of methodological understandings and approaches from the human and social sciences14 to
theorise, conceptualise, contextualise, and actualise the required research. While traditional scientific method approaches have been applied in the social sciences, and while
13 Notwithstanding that some (e.g., Bauer, 1992, pp. 19–41; Wivagg, 2002) consider the scientific
method to be a fable, albeit one that makes a nice ideal
14 There is a school of thought (see e.g., Campbell, 1998; S. M. Rosen, 2015) that the understanding of
the term ‘science’ can be expanded to include other areas of knowledge such as the humanities and social science making it equivalent to the German term ‘Wissenschaft’.
for some it may be seen as the only legitimate means of gaining knowledge15, it is not the
only possible research philosophy for exploring humans and the social world. This chapter will examine which is the most appropriate philosophy and strategy to be adopted for this research study.
Crotty (1998, p. 3) defines methodology as “the strategy, plan of action, process of design
lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” and contrasts this with methods, which he describes as
the means used to gather and analyse data relating to a research question. Moses and Knutsen (2012, pp. 3–5) observe that this distinction is often lost and that the terms are frequently used as synonyms, with methodology used as a fancy version of methods. They agree with the viewpoint that the term ‘methodology’ refers to strategic level thinking and quote Waltz (1979, p. 13) who says “once a methodology is adopted, the choice of methods
becomes merely a tactical matter”. In essence, a methodology is the philosophical basis
upon which methods lie.
A cursory examination of published works (especially textbooks) on methodologies might lead one to believe that the big methodological divide is that between quantitative methods and qualitative methods (Crotty, 1998, p. 14). However, such an emphasis on procedures and techniques hides the importance of establishing the conceptual and theoretical framework of research prior to, and as a necessary precursor to, considering particular methods.
While it may be argued by some that in the natural (or physical) sciences that questions relating to the nature of reality and how knowledge about this reality can be discovered have largely been settled16 (although this is disputable) – this is most definitely not the case
15 Fellows and Liu (2008, p. 67) observe ‘Many people are prone to use the term methodology as
equivalent to the scientific empirical approach’
16 Although, it could also be argued that the philosophy of (natural) science is not as settled as
with the study of social phenomena. This stems to a large degree from the nature of social entities, as Giddens (1984, pp. 348–349) points out, the natural sciences stand apart from what they study, whereas the social sciences are “involved in a subject-subject relation with
what they are about”. The fact that human beings are themselves knowledgeable adds
complexity to any attempt at knowledge discovery in the social world17.
In this chapter the research process and in component parts shall be explored in detail, with the objective of – to paraphrase Moses and Knutsen (2012, p. 5) – investigating the concepts, theories and basic principles and reasoning underlying the research presented in this thesis i.e., exploring the philosophy of knowledge and explaining the paradigm (Kuhn, 1996, p. 10–11; original 1962) or world view (Creswell, 2014, pp. 5–6), upon which the research is based.
2.2 Research process
Research (especially but not only while researching social phenomena) is often described as a journey or a process wherein a search for knowledge is undertaken and eventually one arrives at a destination, where more is known about the phenomena of interest (Lampard & Pole, 2002, p. 2; B. Matthews & Ross, 2010, p. 7). There are a variety of ways of looking at this process. Denzin and Lincoln (2005a, pp. 21–26) see the (social) research process as being composed of five phases as shown in Figure 3 below.Figure 3: Five phases of research process (after Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 25, table 1.1)
chaos theory (see e.g., Campbell, 1998; S. M. Rosen, 2015). Such explorations while most interesting, however are not germane to the work of this thesis.
17 For example, both the natural sciences and the social sciences have potential to transform practice –
however the key difference as Taylor (1983, p. 74 quoted in Giddens, 1984) observes is that the practice natural science might transform is not what the theory is about whereas the practice social sciences potentially transforms “is the object of the theory”.
• The first phase deals with the role of the researcher and their ‘situatedness’ – both in terms of research traditions, and within the research process itself; • Phase two considers the philosophical and theoretical perspectives, which underpin the research; • The third phase addresses research strategy i.e., the “bundle of skills, assumptions, and practices that the researcher employs”; • Phase four deals with methods for data collection and analysis; • Phase five addresses what they refer to as “the art, practices and politics of interpretation and evaluation”. Saunders et al. (2009, p. 108) forward a different perspective on the research process with their so-called research ‘onion’ (see Figure 4 below) in which they attempt to illustrate the key components (and the associated choices) of research.
Figure 4: Research ‘onion’ representation of research process (after Saunders et al., 2009, p. 108)
While this is quite a different representation of the research process it can be seen that the ‘onion’ and the ‘five phases’ have a lot in common. The outer two layers of the research
onion deal with research philosophies and approaches (e.g., ways of seeing the world, theories on the nature of knowledge and on how knowledge can be best obtained). These can be considered as corresponding to the first two of Denzin and Lincoln’s ‘five phases’ (albeit the researcher phase is taken for granted and to a great extent subsumed within the philosophies segment). The next three segments: strategies, choices and time horizons can be mapped to the strategy phase, while data collection and data analysis can be equated with the methods and evaluation phases.
Easterby-Smith et al. (2012, pp. xiv–xvi) forward another perspective using a tree as a metaphor for the research process, with a cross-section of the ‘trunk’, as shown in Figure 5 below, symbolising the main features of research design, namely: • Ontology i.e., view of the nature of reality; • Epistemology i.e., assumptions on the best means of inquiring about the world; • Methodology i.e., ways in which methods are grouped to provide a coherent approach; • Methods and techniques for date collection and analysis.
This perspective places elements of research philosophy (ontology and epistemology) at the core and signifies the fundamental influence of the research philosophy adopted on the methodological choices, which in turn influences the selection of methods and techniques.
Figure 5: Research ‘tree trunk’ (after Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. xv)
There is an tendency to associate specific methodologies and methods with particular philosophical stances18,19 – even though they may have application value across a range of
philosophical stances (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 106). The positioning of philosophy in the research ‘onion’ (Figure 4 on page 36) risks giving the impression that research philosophy is ‘wrapped around’ methodologies and methods, which may imply an overly restrictive menu of options available. However, Johnston (2014) observes that this is not necessarily an issue as both the Saunders et al. ‘onion’ and the Easterby-Smith et al. ‘tree trunk’ models “highlight the importance of ontology and epistemology as starting points of the
research process” and posits that whether a researcher working out from the core or in
from the surface is inconsequential as the significance of the models lie in the importance placed “on ensuring a focussed and consistent background to the process”. While this view has merit, care must be taken that following a particular research process model does not result in the presumption of unnecessary restrictions on method selection.
18 These philosophical stances are described later in this chapter.
19 The classic examples being: qualitative research associated with constructionism (e.g., Boeije,