THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
4.2 Research Paradigm/Philosophy
The way in which research is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the research philosophy subscribed to. A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon should be gathered, analysed, and used. According to Creswell (2014) a paradigm or worldview is a basic set of beliefs that guide action. A paradigm is a model or frame of reference through which to observe and understand (Babbie, 2013). Even though there are many research paradigms, the two main ones are positivism and interpretivism.
Positivism is based on a highly-structured methodology to enable generalization and quantifiable observations and to evaluate the results with statistical methods (Saunders, 2003). Hence, with the aid of positivism, researchers can collect all the facts and figures that are associated with the research issue through general sources.
Under positivism, a researcher plays the role of an objective analyst to evaluate the collected data and produces an appropriate result in order to achieve the research aims and objectives (Saunders, 2003).
On the other hand, the interpretive paradigm suggests that the world is too complex to be formulated in theories and laws. Therefore, interpretivism views that there are many truths and meanings to the extent that these are suitable for every situation and for every research problem (Johnson and Christensen, 2010). With this principle in mind, the researcher not only interacts with the environment but also seeks to make sense of it through the interpretation of events and the meaning that he/she draws from these (Saunders, 2003). Another paradigm which is quite new in management research is critical realism (Thomas, 2004).
Critical realism is generally seen as a “middle ground” between positivism and interpretivism (Krauss, 2005: 767). It shares with positivism the idea that there is an outside world that is present independent of our knowledge of it. However, it is also like positivism in that it assumes that the world is not essentially meaningful but is made meaningful by people’s interpretation of it (Thomas, 2004). From the perspective of the critical realist, there is a difference between reality and the perception of reality by people (Bisman, 2002). It differs from positivism and interpretivism with respect to causes and explanations in that it seeks to explain what can be observed in terms of basic structural mechanisms.
However, whether a researcher uses positivism, interpretivism or critical realism depends on the research problem being investigated and the objective of the study. This study adopts a positivist paradigm as the study is quantitative and seeks to establish the relationship and mediators through which TM leads to employee performance and the intention to quit. Based on the objective of this study, the positivist paradigm was appropriate because it tends toward the use of survey questionnaires for data collection ad statistical analysis for hypothesis testing so that relationships can be explained and a valid and generalisable conclusion can be reached. Donaldson (1996) argues for positivism as the best approach for organisational analysis. The use of the positivist approach eliminates the possibility of the researcher’s values or beliefs influencing the study as the researcher acts independently from the participants.
The use of positivism has a number of strengths (Kim, 2003). First, a positivistic approach of inquiry facilitates the attempt to gain more output for a researcher’s input since it seeks to determine how change in one variable will cause
change in another (causal relationships). Second, empirically-grounded techniques in the positivist paradigm decrease the researchers’ biases and values that may contaminate the research process. Third, a positivist paradigm helps produce knowledge that is externally valid. That is, the findings of positivist research can be generalized and applied beyond the situation in which the study was originally conducted. Finally, positivism might help capture the discrepancy between theories and a study hypothesis, and as a result, challenge previously-accepted ideas to resolve inconsistencies. Hence, positivism assists in the refinement of current theories by questioning them for more refined applications instead of dwelling on the antecedents of past research.
Table 4.1 summaries the major differences between both epistemologies.
According to Thomas (2004) two main epistemological orientations have dominated management research: positivism and constructionism (interpretivism).
Table 4.1 Differences between Positivism and Constructionism
Epistemology Positivism Constructionism
Preferred conceptions of:
The human world Analytical approach
Theory of human structure and action
Knowledge Data
Methods of securing data Description
Explanation Causal emphasis Prediction
Set of natural objects Variable analysis Behaviourism
Explain actions in terms of structures
General, nomothetic, universal Giving, found
Data collection via observation Qualitative measurements Statistical relations External to internal
Based on statistical forecast
Set of human meanings Cultural analysis Symbolic interactionism Explain structures in terms of actions
Particular, idiographic, contextual Constructed
Data construction via interpretation
Qualitative descriptions Narrative accounts Internal to external
Based on understanding of typical behaviour in typical situations Preferred research approach:
Research strategies Research methods
Analytical method
Experiment, quasi-experiment, survey
Self completion questionnaire, structured interview, structured observation, psychological test Multivariate statistical analysis
Case study, ethnography, action research
Unstructured interview,
participant observation, personal documents (diaries, letters, etc.) Hermeneutics
Methodological problems Symbol/image
Internal validity, contextualisation
Hard, science, physics, variable net
Generalisation, replication Soft, humanities, anthropology, cultures
Source: Thomas, 2004: 46.