CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
3.3 R ESEARCH PARADIGM
This critical realist study proposes that a multi-factorial strategy model can be evolved to enable development agency to be an augmenter in the commercialisation of the mobile applications development SME sector through business model innovation in response to disruptive innovation.
70
The interaction of organisations and how they function as a unit, sustaining and transforming each other, establishes a network in business. Based on this, the approach of Critical Realism was found to be convenient to describe the construct of business model innovation since it reflects the dynamic interactional nature of this construct in terms of ontology (view of the nature of reality), epistemology (view of the nature of knowledge) and methodology (view of the appropriate ways to study
knowledge).
Steinmetz (1998) notes that critical realism dates back to the 1970s when Roy Bhaskar advanced a broad philosophy of science designated as transcendental realism, along with a distinct philosophy of the human sciences named critical
naturalism. These concepts eventually formed what became known as critical realism, supported by authors such as Margaret Archer and others. Since Bhaskar made the first big steps in popularising the theory of critical realism, it has become a popular philosophy in the social sciences. Archer et al. (2016) state that critical realism regards ontology as paramount. The quest of ontology is to understand and say something about ‘the things themselves’ and not simply about beliefs, experiences, or current knowledge and an understanding of those things.
According to McFarland (2008), there is much discussion in social science research on causation and how best to study it. Much of the deliberation focuses on
establishing causes, but ignores emphasis and analysis of the generative mechanisms explaining that relation. The concept of mechanism implies the
generative processes by which a causal relation is established. Critical Realism does not concentrate on finding a relation between constructs but rather on understanding why or how the relation is established. This study is therefore not only concerned with identifying and predicting relations, but also understanding the phenomena.
In practical terms, this socio-technical research study focuses on the types of
disruptive innovation and how they are used. The emphasis is on mobile applications as a contemporary manifestation of a disruptive innovation as well as the value of business model innovation, and how these will benefit the development agencies that support mobile application development SMEs. The target population of this study is those development agencies who assist entrepreneurs and/or small businesses aspiring to capitalise on the financial potential of mobile application development. The theoretical contribution of this study is moulded on the recommendations of Whetten (1989) in order to ensure validity.
71
This study adopts and adapts the Critical Realist Methodology Model proposed by Alexander (2013) as the basis of its research. It supports the principle of theory-to- practice or inductive research approach. Core to the model are the basic principles of Critical Realism, namely that a structured real world exists, knowledge is socially produced, and the pursuit to discern the generative mechanisms that explain empirical experiences.
The key constructs of socio-techno-economic systems are culture, structure, and (human) agency. For this study these key Critical Realist constructs have the following business context:
Giddens (1984) states that structure should not be associated with constraint, but is continuously both constraining and enabling. The author regards structure as rules and resources which exist only as memory traces that agents use to perform social actions. The author regards structure and agency as inseparable in reference to the duality of structure and elucidates the duality of structure in power relations in a particular manner. Giddens (1984) suggests that resources are structured properties of social systems, drawn upon and mimicked by knowledgeable agents in the course of collaboration. Structure is typically assumed by many social analysts to be a modelling of social relations or social phenomena. It does not exist independently of the knowledge that agents have concerning routine activity. Barker (2005) regards structure to be the influence of or limits placed on the choices and opportunities available owing to recurrent patterned arrangements.
Bhaskar (1978, p. 20) argues that if science is to be conceivable, the world has to include “enduring and transfactually active mechanisms”; society has to comprise an
“ensemble of powers irreducible to but present only in the intentional actions of men”
(Bhaskar, 1978, p. 9); and men must be “causal agents capable of acting self- consciously on the world” (Bhaskar, 1978, p. 9).
Archer (1995) suggests that structure is reproduced through agency, which is simultaneously constrained and enabled by structure. The author argues that structure provides a context of action for future agents. The author provides an
alternative view to “duality” of Giddens (1984) and proposes the “dualism” of structure and agency. In consideration of these views then, this study regards structure as business conduits, such as infrastructures, resources, and information systems. The important thing to note is that structure can simultaneously constrain and enable a wide range of business practices. Structure can, on the one hand, shape the lives of
72
cultural participants by both limiting and creating opportunities for accessing business resources. Structure can, however, also be shaped through the participation of communities, networks, and individuals in processes of change. This study explores the collaboration practices through which small businesses make sense of structures.
Archer (1995, p. 180) suggests that like structure, culture is a human product but it too escapes its makers to act back upon them. In essence, culture is considered to refer to all “intelligibilia”, which is anything that has the “dispositional capacity of being understood by someone”. Hwang (2013) presents a novel way of defining business culture and explains why this mystery exists. Culture is concerned with patterns of behaviour, specifically the implicit social contracts that control our lives. The author postulates that written laws are not nearly as dominant as the implicit rules that shape our daily actions. Social contracts are essentially invisible, but they drive the destiny of countries and businesses. Culture in business is chiefly the conflict between two opposing social contracts.
Culture and society are generated by human activities, suggesting that society is incessantly changing owing to the dynamic nature of human actions. In describing the concept of society, Archer (1995) argues that it is nothing other than the relationship between structure and culture. This study suggests that culture provides the context for business meanings in communities. Yet, at the same time, culture can also be influenced by these business meanings. In other words, culture and business are mutually constitutive. This is why culture is both central to and a vital peripheral component of this study. Culture within the model of this study is about patterns of behaviour of people and businesses alike. It is active and constitutive, recurrently changing and at the same time offering a template for action. Hwang (2013) suggests that the biggest indicator of innovation success is culture. Innovation flourishes in systems based on certain cultural norms, such as “openness to strangers, diversity in talents and insights, empathy with outsiders and collaborative risk-taking”. The author suggests that there should be willingness in business to speak openly about culture as a driver of innovation and about the economic role of culture.
Barker (2005) proposes that agency is the capability of individuals to act
independently and to make their own free choices. Bhaskar (1978) posits that agents always reproduce and transform social structures via their actions and that causal effects of the structures are always mediated through agents’ intentional actions.
Giddens (1984) proposes that structure and agency must be considered from within a common formulation, since the notions of action and structure presuppose one
73
another. Agency does not refer to a series of combined discrete acts, but to a continuous flow of conduct. The view of Barker (2005) is that the structure versus agency deliberation may be assumed as an issue of socialisation against autonomy in establishing whether an individual acts as a free agent or in a way determined by social structure. This study therefore regards agency as the capacity of individuals, groups, and communities to participate actively in determining business agendas at the local level and creating solutions for business problems. Agency in sum is at the heart of this study, acknowledging the decision-making capacity and participatory impulse of communities. Because so much of the contemporary business landscape is increasingly controlled by corporates, this emphasis on the community as a locus of decision making is a key component of how the model for small business success is conceptualised.
The Critical Realist Methodology Model features four discrete areas of engagement, namely, the (1) project environment, (2) research methodology, (3) conceptual space, and (4) academic effects.
The analytical association between the project environment and the research methodology is accomplished via two processes, namely, ‘morphogenesis’ and
‘hegemony’. Morphogenesis gives emphasis to the intention of the socio-technical intervention which is to bring about change in the environment. Hegemony signifies one party’s dominance over another.
According to Alexander (2013, p. 746), “The examination of culture, structure and agency are conducted within the so-called ‘conceptual space’.” The analytical linkage between the research methodology and the conceptual space comprises the data- processes that are defined by the information management cycle and the critical analysis applied to the data.
The exercise of science, logical reasoning strategies, and creativity bring about the academic effects. These processes are crucial in order to reveal the generative mechanisms or causal powers that explain empirical experience.
The project environment and the academic effects domain are enriched by design and practice respectively as emanating from the other domain. Figure 3.1 represents the design of a multi-factorial strategy model from a Critical Realist perspective.
74
Figure 3.1: The design of a multi-factorial strategy model