3.3. Research process onion
3.3.1. The research philosophy
3.3.1.6. Interpretivism paradigm
The Interpretivism paradigm is a scientific philosophy that displays a subjective approach to reality (Starnawska, 2016; Packard, 2017). In this paradigm, individual actors, such as the researcher and the study’s research participants, create the reality (Starnawska, 2016). Therefore, the real basis is the description and explanation of how individuals construct the world around themselves in everyday exercises (Creswell & Creswell, 2017b). A social world creation and social reality are interlinked, and actors share meanings (Starnawska, 2016). Therefore, interpretivists adopt a relativist ontology. A single phenomenon may have multiple explanations rather than one truth
110 resulting from objective measurement (Starnawska, 2016). As the ontology of the interpretivism paradigm is the ‘experienced world’ (Habermas, 1972, Lather, 1991), the researchers reflect the life experiences of the participants as a vital part of their research (Arghode, 2012). In the Interpretivism paradigm, researchers are inclined to understand the phenomenon and its complexity in its unique framework rather than to generalize the whole population’s result (Creswell & Creswell, 2009). In contrast to the positivism paradigm, an interpretivist observes phenomena from various and diversified views of reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Interpretivism is different to positivism. It focuses on gathering deep insights rather than providing a definite and universal law that is generalizable and applicable to everyone (Saunders et al., 2009;
Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Interpretivist researchers can describe objects, events, or humans through objective measurement and understand them well in a social context (Starnawska, 2016;
Pham, 2018). In contrast with positivist researchers, who should remain detached, objective, and value-free, interpretivist researchers engage in depth when studying participants’ views (Bonache, 2019).
Table 3.6: Interpretivism research philosophy Ontology
(nature of reality or being
Epistemology
(what constitutes acceptable
knowledge)
Axiology (role of values)
Typical methods
Complex, rich.
Socially constructed through culture and language.
Multiple meanings, interpretations, and realities.
A flux of processes, experiences,
practices.
Theories and concepts too simplistic.
Focus on narratives, stories, perceptions, and interpretations.
New understanding and worldviews as a contribution.
Value-bound research.
Researchers are part of what is researched, subjective.
Researcher
interpretations are key to the contribution.
Researcher reactive.
Typically, inductive.
Small samples, in- depth investigations, and qualitative methods of analysis, but a range of data can be interpreted.
Source: Saunders et al. (2009)
111 As indicated in Table 3.6 above, the epistemology of the Interpretivism paradigm is “empathetic;
observer inter-subjectivity” (Gough, 2002:5). The Interpretivism paradigm’s ontology is “multiple truths” (Habermas, 1972; Lather, 1991). Thus, researchers attempt to find more than one description of the phenomenon under investigation. The researchers in this paradigm seek multiple explanations of the phenomena rather than one solution (Arghode, 2012). As mentioned in Table 3.6 above, the Interpretivism paradigm assumes that reality is subjective and can vary, reflecting different individuals (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020).
The research methodology is the “theory of how the inquiry should proceed. It involves an analysis of the assumptions, principles, and procedures in a particular approach to inquiry” (Schwandt, 2001:193). It is the logic of conducting research (Arghode, 2012). Furthermore, Tuli (2010) explained methodology as a research strategy that interprets ontological and epistemological principles into guidelines. According to Lather (1991) and Habermas (1972), as cited by (Arghode, 2012), the methodology of the Interpretivism paradigm is “participant observation”. Interpretivist researchers employ data-gathering methods that are refine to context (Creswell, 2016).
Interpretivism enables the gathering of a rich and detailed, or intense, description of social phenomena by inspiring participants to participate freely. Interpretivism allows the participant to understand the investigator’s pursuit of in-depth understanding of the phenomenon (Tuli, 2010).
Researchers can conduct a study using critical methodologies such as grounded theory, ethnography, case studies, or life history. This methodology helps gather insider insights into research objects (Tuli, 2010) and provides more reliable information linked to the object of study (Pham, 2018). Researchers in the Interpretivism paradigm employ non-numeric data analysis techniques. By contrast, researchers using positivism paradigms use questionnaires, tests, inventories, and checklists to collect and analyse numerical data (Tuli, 2010).
Interpretive research may critique as it rejects knowledge created as a foundation shared as a universal law (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Additionally, the validity of interpretive research is questionable. Furthermore, since data mainly depends on a specific context, viewpoint and values, adopting the interpretivist paradigm is less likely to lead to generalization of the data gathered and analysed (Saunders et al., 2009). However, the interpretive paradigm’s implementation can provide an in-depth understanding of particular contexts by collecting and interpreting qualitative data, leading to in-depth perceptions and conclusions that may differ from others (Saunders et al.,
112 2009; Myers, 2019). Triangulation involves exploring the phenomenon from different perspectives (Yin, 2013). The evaluation of interpretive research’s validity should not be by its ability to reveal a specific, converging explanation. Instead, it should indicate how similarly a phenomenon is experienced and viewed from a plurality and perspectives and viewpoints (Bonache, 2019). The adoption of the interpretivism paradigm leads to the generation of high-level, valid data based on personal contributions considering different variables (Myers, 2019).
Based on the nature of the problem identified and the study's research objective, this study follows the interpretivism paradigm to use the experiences of small and medium social enterprises to develop the social performance framework. The interpretivism philosophy allows the researcher to consider the knowledge and use of small and medium social enterprises of performance measurement (Collis & Hussey, 2013). Exploring the meaning attributed to the participants’
experience ties interpretivism to qualitative research. Based on the discussion provided on this research’s philosophical worldview, the following discussion focuses on qualitative research as a suitable research design.