A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon should be gathered, analysed and used. It refers to the philosophical level of a research paradigm (Easterby-Smith et al., 1995). There are two dominant ways of seeking knowledge in the social sciences, known as positivism and interpretivism (Galliers, 1991).These two world views are based on different philosophical assumptions and goals, and their research processes are different. As Ozanne and Hudson (1989) s u m m a r i s e d , s e e k the goal of explanation and prediction; in contrast, interpretivists seek the goal of understanding.
G. Ma 2013 Chapter 5 Methodology
Positivists believe that a single, immutable social reality exists, which is ffagmentable; the behaviour of social beings is generally viewed as being determined by internal states and/or external forces. The positivists generally seek nomothetic knowledge, assume real causes exist, and adopt a stance of separation between researcher and subject. Conversely,
interpretivists view that reality is socially constructed, thus many realities exist; behaviour
cannot be removed from the context in which it occurs because meaning is context-dependent. Finally, the interpretivists generally seek idiographic knowledge, assume real causes cannot be identified, and view the research-informant relationship as interactive and cooperative.
Lincoln and Cuba (cited in Perry and Rao, 2007) summarised the research paradigms into four classifications: positivism, constructivism, critical theory and realism. Constructivism
and critical theory argue that the world is ‘constructed’ by people and that these
constructions should be the driving forces investigated in social science research (Perry and Rao, 2007). According to Perry and Rao (2007: p. 130), realism is at the heart of
Constructivism and critical theory. Realism consists of abstract things that are bom in
people’s minds but exist independently of any one person. Realism is about mechanisms of stmcture within a social context that do exist ‘out there’. Realism considers ‘reality is imperfectly understood because of human mental limitations’ (Hine and Carson, 2007). Hine and Carson (2007: p.4) point out that the research paradigms of critical theory, constmctivism and realism are tackled, and corresponding methodologies outlined and exemplified. These paradigms seem to be used by researchers for enterprise research that focuses on innovation, change and dynamism (Hine and Carson, 2007: p.5).
Positivism paradigm is the most widely used paradigm for business school research.
However, it has both internal and external critiques, such as its exclusion of the discovery dimensions in inquiry and the under-determination of theory (Perry and Rao, 2007). In recent years, more enterprise researchers have perceived shortcomings of positivism, particularly, with respect to the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation, and the search for more accurate and deeper insights (Kirby, 2007). The criticism has been made that the positivism approach has limited value in the theory building desires of research in the
G. Ma 2013 Chapter 5 Methodology
enterprise research realm...as there is relatively little previous research in many areas and theory testing would be difficult, as constructs have not yet been established (Hine and Carson, 2007: p.5). Researchers have been seeking new and innovative research approaches (Coviello and Munro, 2000).
Constructivism and critical theory are criticised as being not especially relevant in enterprise
research into an organisation that has to survive within a market, because marketing managers have to deal with a world that is external, that is out there and that does not particularly care about the perceptions of an individual manager (Gummesson, 2000). Some researchers (i.e. Sarantakos, 1993) believe positivism and non-positivism (interpretive and critical) to be incompatible, while the critical and interpretive paradigms not, but other researchers (e.g. Hine and Carson, 2007) believe these major paradigms are not considered to be incompatible and argue that these two approaches are not necessarily the two extremes of a philosophical continuum.
Pragmatism asserts that the concepts are only relevant where they support action, and the
determinant of research philosophy is the research question. If the research question does not suggest unambiguously that a particular philosophy should be adopted, this confirms the pragmatist’s view that it is perfectly possible to work with different philosophical positions (Saunders et ah, 2012: p. 130). Pragmatists recognise that there are many different ways of interpreting the world and undertaking research, that no single point of view can ever give the entire picture and that there may be multiple realities (Kelemen and Rumens, 2008 cited in Saunders et al., 2012). Table 5.1 presents the philosophies underpinning the research paradigms.
Overall, the author of this research believes that an interpretivist philosophy, which is associated with the phenomenological paradigm (Easterby-Smith et al., 1995), is suitable for this research but does not totally reject other philosophies. A pragmatism paradigm is required for this research.
G. Ma 2013 Chapter 5 Methodology Table 5.1 Philosophies underpinning research paradigms
P h ilo s o p h ic a l A s su m p tio n s
R e se a r c h p ara d ig m s
Pragm atism P ositivism P h en om en ological paradigm (associated with interpretivism, critical theory, constructivism and realism)
Ontology: Researchers’ basic beliefs
The world is external and multiple. Chosen to best enable answering o f research question
The world is external and objective.
Observer is independent Science is value-free
The world is socially constructed and subjective. Observer is part o f what observed.
Science is driven by human interests. Epistemology: Researcher should Focus on practical applied research. Integrate different perspectives to help interpret the data.
Focus on facts. Look for causality and fundamental laws. Reduce phenomena to simplest elements. Formulate hypotheses and then test them.
Focus on meaning. Try to understand what is happening.
Look at the totality o f each situation.
D evelop ideas through induction from data. Preferred methods: M ixed or multiple
method designs, quantitative and qualitative
H ighly structured, large samples, quantitative, but can use qualitative.
U sing m ultiple methods to establish different view o f phenomena.
Small samples investigated in depth or over time.
Source: Adapted from Hine and Carson (2007), Saunders et al. (2012), Easterby-Smith et al. (1995).