The research approach is regarded as a way or means to deal with a research question. Selecting the approach carefully enables a researcher to adapt his/her research design with appropriate methods (Creswell, 2008). Practically, some specific research approaches are attached to particular research philosophies. For instance, quantitative approaches owe more to positivism, whereas qualitative approaches are preferable for interpretivism. However, Saunders et a l (2009) argued that this attachment potentially leads to impractical methods.
4.2.3.1 Taxonomies of research approaches
Different types of research approaches can be classified according to the perspective o f the question. For example, the methodological approach, including quantitative approach and
qualitative approach, concentrates on how the data can be collected and analysed. Indeed,
three popular taxonornies from different perspectives have been discussed broadly and intensively:
• theoretical/empirical; • deductive/inductive;
Chapter 4 - Research d e s im an d m ethodolosy
The following section discusses the differences between the two approaches of each different taxonomy in turn.
Theoretical/Empirical
This type of research approach concerns the source of knowledge contributing to the new findings; it encompasses two major approaches: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical approach is entirely based on existing knowledge, such as previously conducted research, and approved theories pertaining to the chosen field of investigation. By expanding from these sources of knowledge, the researcher here attempts to establish a new or different view of the situation. In contrast, the empirical approach observes phenomena in depth and gathers empirical data in order to depict a conclusion.
Deductive/Inductive
This type of research approach embraces the perspective at a logical level. In simple terms, it is about the way of reasoning the research question. By taking this perspective, two extreme approaches exist concerning in what way the theory gets involved in the research:
theory-then-research or research-then-theory. They are so called deductive and inductive
approaches respectively (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). However, both a deductive approach (theory-testing) and an inductive approach (theory-building) can be combined for use together in the same study (Perry, 2001).
Quantitative/Qualitative
This type of research approach is considered to be the methodological approach because it regards the way data are collected and analysed. The quantitative approach is based on an objective view of phenomena. The approach concentrates on a numerical measurement with a very structured approach (Collis and Hussey, 2003; Creswell, 2008). On the contrary, qualitative research is more subjective in nature with the aim of examining and reflecting perceptions in order to gain an in-depth understanding of phenomena (Collis and Hussey, 2003). Thus, the former is often associated with positivism, whereas the latter is associated with interpretivism (Neuman, 2006). Additionally, one approach can be used in
Chapter 4 - Research design an d m ethodology
conjunction with the other as eomplementary approaehes in a complex situation (Remenyi
et a l, 1998).
4.2.3.2 Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative approaehes
Due to the faet that eaeh method has its limitations, a mixture of approaches is usually adopted, specifically in the data eolleetion and analysis processes, to reveal a broader and complementary view of the issue eoneemed. Creswell (2008) suggested that the mixed method, in particular, can be used in three strategic ways: sequential, concurrent and
transformative mixed methods. While the sequential mixed method uses another method to
expand on the findings of one method, the eoneurrent mixed method converges or merges quantitative and qualitative methods together at the same time. With the transformative mixed method, either a sequential or a eoneurrent approaeh can be adopted; data from different methods are likely to be transformed and integrated during analysis and interpretation processes.
Collis and Hussey (2003) argued that triangulation, known as the use of different approaches, methods and teehniques in the same study, leads to greater validity and reliability than using a single method. In addition, Bryman and Bell (2007) stressed the various benefits of using triangulation in researeh as: improving eonfidence in findings, cross-eheeking against two sets of results. Seeking convergence of results and counterbalaneing between strengths and weaknesses of other methods. However some shortcomings should be taken into account, such as difficulty of replication, and cost and time consumption in data collection and analysis (Jick, 1979). Indeed, triangulation can be applied at different aspects and levels of the research process. Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) elassified triangulation into four types: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, methodologieal triangulation and triangulation of theory. For example, data ean be colleeted at different times or from different sources (data triangulation), or by different researchers independently (investigator triangulation) with the purpose of eomparing the results. Furthermore, a researcher may decide to adopt both quantitative and qualitative approaches in his/her study (methodologieal triangulation), or undertake a theory from one diseipline to explain a phenomenon in another diseipline (triangulation of theory).
C hapter 4 - Research d e s im an d m ethodolosy
4.2.3.3 Justification for the research approaches
Given the faet that pragmatism was undertaken as the researeh paradigm (seetion 4.2.2.S), both quantitative and qualitative approaches were henee introduced to answer the researeh questions RQl and RQ2 respectively. Consequently, the researeh was divided into two eoneurrent studies and their findings were converged in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the overall findings.
In the first study {Study 1), the quantitative approaeh was used to investigate respondents’ perceptions of knowledge management praetiees and the implementation of KM enablers and KM system in their eompanies. The eonsiderable advantage of this approaeh is that it produced large amounts of numerieal data to whieh statistical processes could be applied. A speeifie social phenomenon eould be explained and predicted by seeking for regularities and associated relationships between the related variables under investigation (Creswell, 2008; Yates, 2004). Consequently, employing the quantitative approach allowed the researeher to statistieally test and verify the relationships being investigated and led the researeher to more objeetive eonelusions.
In the seeond study {Study 2), the qualitative approaeh was adopted to deal with the researeh question RQ2. This approaeh has an ability to understand a soeial phenomenon and find detailed deseription of such a phenomenon to gain more meaning and implieation of events (Neuman, 2006; Bryman and Bell, 2007). It is an approaeh bound to context whieh thus requires investigation through observation and involvement. Consequently, semi-structured interviews with open questions were used to obtain a richness o f detail rather than statistieal generalisation. The open questions let interviewees express their opinions, experienees and praetiees regarding knowledge praetiees and KM activities. However many criticisms, regarding the subjeetivity, flexibility and laek of rigorous experimental control at data collection and analysis of the qualitative approaeh, limit its application to certain types of research (Bryman and Bell, 2007).
Finally, the quantitative results and the qualitative findings were triangulated (methodologieal triangulation) in order to provide a greater complementary view as well as enhanee the researeher in making better and more aeeurate inferenees. The eombination of methods for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data is indispensable for this
Chapter 4 - Research design an d m ethodology
research due to their relevanee to the researeh questions. Speeifieally, the eontext was examined quantitatively to unveil the relationship between the KM proeess and the supportive environment, and also insights and experiences embedded inside the eontext were explored qualitatively to provide illustrative explanations of such a relationship. As a result, rich and robust findings were revealed by this combination.