List of Abbreviations
Chapter 5: Research Methodology
5.2 Philosophical research orientation
There are many definitions of research offered in the literature. Hussey and Hussey (1997) defined research as a process of enquiry and investigation to increase knowledge by adapting a systematic and methodical process. To Sekaran (2003), research is a process to find solutions to a problem after a thorough study and analysis of situational factors. It is believed that research is conducted based on underlying philosophical considerations; according to Blumberg et al. (2014), examining such consideration is beneficial for a researcher to help clarify and facilitate the choice of the research design. Robson and McCartan (2016) emphasized that philosophical stance provides one way of thinking about which kinds of research questions are important and what constitutes the answers to the questions. The underlying philosophical considerations of research constitute what is called the research paradigm. Kuhn (1962, p. viii, cited in Collis and Hussey 2014) defined paradigms as universally recognized scientific achievements that,
103
for a time, provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.
However, the term ‘paradigm’ can have different meanings for different researchers (Guba 1990; Hussey and Hussey 1997). Guba (1990) suggested that it is intellectually useful for the term not to be fixed with a certain definition because flexibility opens the possibility for researchers to modify the term based on their own understanding. Furthermore, Guba (1990, p.17) defines the paradigm as a basic set of beliefs that guide actions, whether those actions are of the everyday variety or are performed in connection with a disciplined inquiry. Saunders et al.
(2009), however, defined a paradigm more specifically as a method determining social phenomena from which particular understandings and explanations of these phenomena can be achieved. According to Bryman (2015), the paradigm originates from the history of science; in that context, it was used to picture a cluster of beliefs and dictates intended for scientists in a particular discipline to influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted. Cresswell (2014) has introduced a term related to the paradigm, the ‘worldview’, which he defines as a general philosophical orientation regarding the world and the nature of the research that the researcher brings to a study. Collis and Hussey (2014, p. 10) defined a research paradigm as a philosophical framework that guides how scientific research should be conducted, based on people’s philosophies and their assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge.
Guba (1990) suggested that three questions—the ontological, epistemological and methodological—may help a researcher to determine which paradigm to adopt in a study. The author defined those three basic considerations as follows: first, ontology questions the nature of the knowable and the nature of reality. Hussey and Hussey (1997) produced a similar definition of ontology. Creswell (2009) defined it as making claims about what knowledge is; Collis and Hussey (2014) suggested a broader understanding, positing that a researcher must decide whether consider the world as objective and external to the researcher or socially
104
constructed and only understandable through examining the perceptions of human actors. Second, epistemology questions the nature of the relationship between the inquirer and the known (Guba, 1990). Likewise, Hussey and Hussey (1997) explained epistemology as an inquiry into the relationship between the researcher and that which is being researched. Third, methodology refers to the ways in which the inquirer attains the knowledge or forms the overall approach to the research process (Guba, 1990; Hussey and Hussey, 1997).
According to Thietart et al. (2001), there are three major paradigms representing the main epistemological streams in organisational science: the positivist, interpretivist and constructivist paradigms. Table 5.1 illustrates the differences among the three paradigms based on the responses to epistemological questions.
Table 5.1 Differences among research paradigms Epistemological
questions
Paradigms
Positivism Interpretivism Constructivism What is the status of
knowledge?
Ontological
hypothesis: The knowledge object has its own essence
Phenomenological hypothesis:
The essence of the object is multiple (interpretivism), cannot be attained (moderate constructivism) or does not exist (radical constructivism)
Independent of subject and object
Dependence of subject and object What is the nature of
reality?
Determinist
hypothesis: The world is made up of necessities
Internationalist hypothesis:
The world is made up of possibilities
How is knowledge generated?
Discovery Interpretation Construction The research
questions are formulated in terms of ‘for what reasons…’
The research
questions are formulated in terms of ‘what motivates actors to…’
The research
questions are formulated in terms of ‘to what ends does…’
Privileged status of explanation
Privileged status of understanding
Privileged status of construction
What is the value of knowledge?
Degree of
confirmation
Credibility Transferability
Adequacy
‘Teachability’
105 Refutability
Logical consistency
Dependability Confirmability Source: Adapted from Thietart et al. (2001, p. 15)
Saunders et al. (2003, p. 83) suggested that research philosophies can be differentiated based on the ways in which researchers think about the development of knowledge. Saunders and colleagues classified the research philosophy into positivism, interpretivism and realism. To these authors, positivist philosophy embodies the following characteristics: objectivism in the role of the analyst, interpretation of the data collected in a value-free manner, quantifiable observation using statistical analysis and independence of the researcher from the research’s subject. Interpretivism seeks to understand the subjective reality of the actors under study in order to be able to make sense of and understand their motives, actions and intentions in a way that is meaningful for research participants (Saunders et al. 2003, p. 84). Lastly, realism is based on the belief that a reality exists that is independent of human thoughts and beliefs. Realism shares some philosophical qualities with positivism, for instance as relates to the external, objective nature of some macro aspects of society. Realism also recognises that people themselves are not objects to be studied in the style of natural science. Employing realism entails ‘an awareness of the importance of understanding people’s socially constructed interpretations and meanings, or subjective reality, within the context of seeking to understand broader social forces, structures or processes that influence, and perhaps constrain, the nature of people’s views and behaviours’ (Saunders et al. 2003, p. 85).
Blumberg et al. (2014), however, suggested that the two most prominent research philosophies are positivism and interpretivism. They advised that positivism starts from the idea that the world can be described by objective facts, followed by an investigation of those facts. Interpretivism, by contrast, refers to a primary interest in subjective meanings and interpretations of phenomena to detect what is happening in a specific situation (Blumberg et al. 2014, p. 18). Collis and Hussey (2014) also suggested that positivism and interpretivism are the two main
106
research paradigms. They differentiated between the two based on certain philosophical assumptions as provided in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 The assumptions of positivism and interpretivism Philosophical Assumptions Positivism Interpretivism Ontological assumptions (the
nature of reality)
Social reality is objective and external to the researcher
Social reality is subjective and socially constructed
There is only one reality There are multiple realities Epistemological assumptions
(what constitutes valid knowledge)
Knowledge comes from objective evidence about observable and measurable phenomena
Knowledge comes from subjective evidence from participants
The researcher is distant from the phenomena being studied
The researcher interacts with the phenomena being studied Axiological assumptions (the
role of values)
The researcher is independent from the phenomena being studied
The researcher acknowledges that the research is subjective The results are unbiased and
value-free
The findings are biased and value-laden
Rhetorical assumptions (the language of research)
The researcher uses the passive voice, accepted quantitative terms and set definitions
The researcher uses the personal voice, accepted qualitative terms and limited a priori definitions
Methodological assumptions (the process of research)
The researcher takes a deductive approach
The researcher takes an inductive approach
The researcher studies cause and effect and uses a static design in which categories are identified in advance
The researcher studies the topics within their contexts and uses an emerging design in which categories are identified during the process Generalisations lead to
predictions, explanations and understanding
Patterns and/or theories are developed for understanding Results are accurate and
reliable through validity and reliability
Findings are accurate and reliable through verification Source: Adapted from Collis and Hussey (2014).
Turning to the present research, it investigates the practice of performance management based on BSC to study the BSC’s relationships with OC, PSM and OP
107
within twelve public-sector organisations. To determine the paradigm most appropriate for this research, it is necessary to consider its attributes. Among these are the use of large survey questionnaires, which serve as ‘objective knowledge or facts’ (Saunders et al. 2003; Blumberg et al. 2014; Robson and McCartan 2016); the researcher himself as independent from the responding public-sector organisations; and the extensive use of quantitative analysis (Thietart et al. 2001; Blumberg et al 2014; Collis and Hussey 2014). Thus, the positivist paradigm is the philosophical orientation that most closely approximates that of the present study.