5.2 Research Philosophy
5.2.1 Overview of Philosophical Stances
In social sciences, the main philosophical approaches that can be used to undertake studies include pragmatism, positivism, realism, and interpretivism respectively (Collins, 2010). Each of the philosophical reasoning has unique characteristics and general ways of viewing sources of knowledge, and how such process of obtaining or developing a body of knowledge should be undertaken. In essence, the purpose of research philosophy helps to determine how data should collected, organised, synthesised, and be interpreted in order to enable a researcher to make inferences concerning a given area of focus (Ramanathan, 2008). This makes it possible to determine whether one needs primary or secondary data, in order to obtain answers to raised research questions. Further, this implies that one need to be aware and also be able to formulate assumptions and beliefs concerning a topic, what has already been achieved in the preceding chapters. It is also important to appreciate the fact that although the main philosophical stances for social science researches such as in project management like is the case in the current study are mainly four, the process of
determining which one to be used entails consideration of a number of ontological and epistemological stances (Wilson, 2010). The figure provided below makes it possible to identify which main areas are usually focused in establishing how a selection of a philosophy is justified in research.
157 Figure 5.1: Research Philosophy Onion
Source: (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012)
From the research onion provided as figure 5.1 above, it is clear that although the main concern is on the outer layer, there many other aspects that matter a lot in making a decision, such as the reasoning approach whether it is induction, abduction or deduction, as well as the nature of data being targeted. Nonetheless, after a decision has been made on which philosophy is deemed to be suitable based on the underpinning problem statement, then other techniques are easy to establish. Therefore, the on-going discussion will critically examine the fundamental features of each philosophy so as to justify the one suitable.
While focusing on realism, the assumption is that human mind should be independent in undertaking a study, by adopting a scientific approach in knowledge development. According to the philosophers supporting this view, they agree that realism is often divided into two categories, namely; direct and critical (Novikov and Novikov, 2013). While a direct realism is seen as a naïve way of reasoning in which
158 case knowledge should be understood the way it is perceived, a critical realism
considers images and sensations received by the human mind to be deceptive, hence a more critical approach in interpreting them is necessary (Saunders et al., 2012).
Moreover, critical realism opposes the direct realism approach by indicating that what one observes is not what actually the underlying meaning of knowledge is, and that it is important to question the existence of realities and truths in the images conceived by human senses (Novikov and Novikov, 2013). Another important feature differentiating direct and critical realists is that the former consider the world as being static and never changing, while the latter realists consider the world to be dynamic and hence
knowledge keeps on changing and developing in manner corresponding to the interactions between humans, organisations, environment, and researched realities (Novikov and Novikov, 2013). Based on these assumptions, most researchers adopt critical realism, and the following table helps to demystify the methods of research that are associated with critical realism approach.
Table 5.1: Critical Realism Research Methods
159 Source: (Saunders et al., 2012)
According to the table given on 5.1, above, it is clearly elucidated that a direct realist is external and independent from the study, using objective reasoning and causal associations as the main ontological foundation to investigate a phenomenon. Further, such a researcher embraces explanation as the main contribution to a body of
knowledge, as well as the use of relativism as the main epistemological approach (Wilson, 2010). However, although the researchers adopting this philosophy seeks to minimise errors and bias in order to remain objective, they often acknowledge the fact that bias cannot be completely eliminated from the world views. Nonetheless, in
ensuring that objectivity is achieved, this stance allows researchers to adopt that method of data collection which fits the situation at hand, giving room for the scholar’s
judgement (Collins, 2010).
160 While focusing on positivism philosophy, it is important to appreciate the fact that it cannot be explained in a succinct and precise manner given that it is applicable in different contexts. However, its general interpretation demonstrates that a body of knowledge is best developed through science as the only way through which truth about a certain phenomenon can be examined and interpreted (Ramanathan, 2008). Ideally, positivism philosophers argue that the only way of gaining actual knowledge is through observation by the use of senses, including an approach such as measurement that is trustworthy. Moreover, researchers’ roles under this stance are limited to that of collecting and interpreting data only (Wilson, 2010). As a matter of fact, the findings obtained in such studies can only be charaterised as being observable and quantifiable.
According to the positivists, such quantifiable observations should result to statistical analyses, to make it possible in testing hypotheses, as well as explaining causal
relationships among variables. In its philosophical foundation, this stance is in line with the empiricist view which maintains that it is from experience that knowledge must stem from (Collins, 2010).
The rationale behind positivism is to make researchers independent from the studies as much as possible, by eliminating any form of human interests from the phenomenon being investigated. This gives room for the researchers to adopt a deductive approach as opposed to an inductive approach as opined by Crowther and Lancaster (2008). In this case, instead of concentrating on meaning, positivists put their focus on facts, leading to a production of research inferences that are purely objective as maintained by Collins (2010). The following are the specific characteristics for
positivism approach that best illustrate its application to a research context.
161 Table 5.2: Positivism Research Philosophy
Source: (Wilson, 2010)
According to the details provided on table 5.2 above, there is an assumption of universalism about truth as the main ontological assumption in this philosophy, while the main epistemological assumption is the use of numeric data in establishing law-like generalisations. Moreover, the philosophy focuses on value-free studies by maintaining an objective stance as the main axiological premises (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008). In this regard, the philosophers supporting this stance insist on using highly structured and deductive methods, in obtaining data from large samples for measurement through a quantitative analysis approach. Often, there is a general practice of selecting large samples from a population in order to enhance validity and reliability (Wilson, 2010). As a matter of fact, this philosophy is ideal for studies which seek to establish a relationship between variables, as well as lead to statistical results as ideal
162 measurements for interpretation (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). The fundamental
scientific principles that positivism relies on include; science is deterministic and mechanistic, science makes use of method, and that it deals with empiricism (Ramanathan, 2008).
Apart from positivism, another philosophy is interpretivism, which is often viewed as the opposite to the former. Fundamentally, the main feature of interpretivism is the integration of human interests in a research in interpreting the observations, hence being considered by positivists as being subjective as opposed to being objective.
Moreover, interpretivists strongly maintain that access to knowledge’s reality whether socially constructed or given is only possible through constructions which are social in nature such as shared meanings, consciousness, instruments, and language respectively (Myers, 2008). On this foundation, it can be seen that interpretivism developed from a critique of positivism, in which case a qualitative analysis is preferred to a quantitative analysis as maintained by Myers (2008).
Nonetheless, there is a close association of interpretivism with an idealism stance, in which case diverse approaches such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, and social constructivism are grouped together, as they all oppose the positivism approach (Littlejohn and Foss, 2009). Interpretivism suggests that since people are different, researchers must use techniques that will enable them to appreciate the social
differences and views from people in the society (Saunders et al., 2012). Moreover, it is important for different aspects to be reflected by employing different techniques, but meaning must be focused on as opposed to facts. The most important feature of interpretivism is employing observations and interviews, although focus is on
qualitative data as opposed to being quantitative. Moreover, it does not limit its focus on
163 primary data only, as secondary data can also be used in evaluating different aspects of a given phenomenon (Littlejohn and Foss, 2009). The following table gives a summary of the features underpinning the interpretivism stance.
Table 5.3: Interpretivism Research Philosophy
Source: (Myers, 2008)
According to the table provided on 5.3 above, interpretivism is founded on the distinguished differences in the assumptions of focusing on the goal of a research and the nature of reality being sought among other components. Precisely, it is seen to be the opposite of positivism in each of the above constructs as it focuses on multiple and socially constructed realities as opposed to single and objective ones (Myers, 2008). In addition, it has a weak prediction and understanding of the research as opposed to
164 positivism, while focusing on the interest being on what is found to be unique and deviant as opposed to what is strong and representative. Further, it is the belief of interpretivists that research participants must be allowed to interact with the researcher, while positivism opposes this view and terms as a potential opportunity to yield
subjective inferences (Myers, 2008).Finally, while focusing on pragmatism philosophy, the general view is that constructs or variables can only be accepted as being true if they are deemed to be supporting action. According to pragmatists, research undertakings and world interpretation can be achieved in a multiple ways, and none of the many ways can independently provide the entire picture as there are many realities (Collins, 2010).
In this regard, pragmatists do not see positivism and interpretivism as opposite
philosophies but rather paradigms that are mutually exclusive about source and nature of knowledge. Therefore, most of social sciences should fall in any one of the above paradigms, but they can modify their studies to combine elements from the two paradigms especially by the modern and seasoned researchers, leading to a mixed methodology that uses both, simply regarded as a pragmatism approach (Collis and Hussey, 20104). This modification brings a new continuum of searching for knowledge, which embraces objectivity and subjectivity in understanding a single phenomenon, hence using one approach to eliminate the weaknesses of the other in a study (Saunders et al., 2012). According to pragmatism, this enhances reliability of a study and leads to inferences that are backed up with solid evidence concerning a phenomenon being investigated (Collis and Hussey, 2014).The main feature of pragmatism that
differentiates it from positivism and interpretivism is the ability to use more than one approach in the same study, to ensure a robust outcome is obtained. While this is seen as an ideal approach by most scholars, it often presents a number of challenges to
165 researchers (Wilson, 2010). Firstly, it makes the scope of the study to be broad, which needs more time and resources. Further, it is applicable to situation where interpretivism approach is best suited based on the fact that interviews cannot be undertaken on a large sample of population. Moreover, it is usually admissive of subjectivity and researcher’s bias, as well as bias by the research participants and they can easily be influenced.
Having expounded in detail each of the philosophies, the following section justifies the selection of the most ideal based on the context of the current study.