CHAPTER SEVEN: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
7.5 Research methods
There are three types of research methods, namely deduction, induction and abduction (integration) methods as suggested by Morgan (2007). Bryman and Bell (2011) agree that deduction is viewed as a universal inclination that connects philosophy and a study. While Hennink et al. (2011) suggest that in using the deduction method, an in-depth appraisal of the existing knowledge and theories guide the development of a framework that directs the process of gathering data. Inductive reasoning proceeds from the deductive reasoning. Management and behavioural science researchers identify the induction method as being capable of yielding results that could verify causal relationships among variables through rigorous interviews, in their bid to formulate hypotheses. These three methods are often combined in the formulation of philosophical assumptions. This study adopted the abduction method (integration method explained in the following sub-section).
158
7.5.1 The abduction or integration method (combination of research methods)
The major differences between the deduction and induction methods are notable in the literature as one of the core factors of distinction between quantitative and qualitative studies (Morgan, 2007). He asserts further the importance of noting that in reality, the process of navigating from hypotheses to data does not take a linear direction, since in actual research design, data gathering and analysis, there is serious difficulty in using one theory or allowing data to drive the process. This difficulty has given rise to the pragmatic approach of abduction or integration; a process that allows flexible movement between induction (qualitative) and deduction (quantitative) approaches in one research (Creswell, 2009). However, Morgan (2007) insists that his perspective of the abduction (integration) method extends further than the traditional pragmatic view which treats abduction as simply adopting theories to justify what is observed, which is another way of looking at inferences from the induction method.
This implies therefore that from the pragmatic standpoint, the singular way to evaluate these inferences is by acts. Therefore, the usual basic usage of the abductive (integrative) method in reasoning pragmatically is to extend the procedure of making inquiries assessing the outcomes of earlier inductions by their capacity to forecast potential behavioural patterns (Morgan, 2007).
This type of the abduction (integration) method is similar to those used by scholars who mix the quantitative and qualitative designs of research (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006;
Morgan, 1998, 2007), in this case, the outcomes of induction in a qualitative method contribute to the objectives of the deduction approach in the quantitative method, and vice versa (Morgan, 2007). According to Charmaz (2008), the abductive perspective seeks to take care of emergent and irregular problems that could arise in the process of collecting data. By this, a researcher’s imagination is proactively engaged in early interpretations as he/she thinks of every probable theoretical justification for the experiential data and drafts assumptions prior to reasonable analysis of the data (Charmaz, 2006; Reichertz, 2004, 2007; Rosenthal, 2004). This study adopted the abduction (integration) method because the study is a pragmatic research that utilises the qualitative and quantitative (mixed) methods of data collection and analysis. The manner in which this applies to the present study is presented in Table 7.2. However, integrating the deduction and induction methods into research appears to be reasonable in social science and management studies because of the peculiarities of business actions that revolve around social performers, concepts and objects. Ali and Birley (1999) suggested a comparative table of these methods as presented below.
159
Table 7.2 Comparative analysis of the deduction, induction and integration methods
Stage Deduction Induction Integration method
1 Development of theoretical framework.
Areas of enquiry are identified, but no theoretical framework.
Development of theoretical framework based on constructs.
2 Variables are identified for relevant constructs.
Respondents identify constructs and explain the relationship between them.
Some variables are identified for relevant constructs-others can be identified by respondents.
3 Development of research instruments.
Identification of broad themes for discussion.
Researcher converts the a priori theoretical framework into theoretical questions.
4 Data is collected from respondents
Respondents discuss general terms of interest.
Respondents discuss the seemingly general questions and identify constructs which are meaningful to them and explain the relationships between the constructs.
5 Data is analysed in terms of prior theoretical framework.
Researcher develops theory on a purely inductive basis.
Data collected from respondents is analysed according to existing theory, or theory is developed on an inductive basis-without regard for the existing theory.
6 Outcome; theory tested based on decision whether to accept or reject the formulated hypotheses.
Outcome; theory developed. Outcome; either theory is adapted or alternative theoretical framework is presented.
Source: Adopted from Ali and Birley (1999, p. 106).
7.5.2 Method adopted for the present research
The critical review of the literature on the merits and demerits of the induction and deduction methods, as well as the abduction or integration method, has led to the adoption of the abduction (integration) method by the researcher for this study. The integration method has been found most appropriate in examining the connection between WLB and SOC at a municipality in the South African public sector. The integration method aligns to pragmatic assumptions and interpretivist beliefs underpinning this study. The two major variables in the study are WLB and SOC, and according to Edmonds and Kennedy (2012), the integration method strongly yields superior descriptive explanations of cause-and-outcome linkages among double or more variables. The gaps observed by examining the connection between WLB and SOC were resolved through the use of the integration method in the design of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
In achieving the conceptual framework on the connection between WLB and SOC at a municipality in the South African public sector, the researcher used the integration method,
160
and integrated the Person-Environment (P-E) fit theory propounded by Edwards et al. (1998), the demands, resources and strategies (DRS) model by Voydanof (2005), and the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). The qualitative and quantitative data collected was analysed through dependable techniques (Evans, Coon, & Ume, 2011), using IBM SPSS software (for quantitative data analysis) and NVivo (for qualitative data analysis).
The P-E fit theory focuses on examining the alignment of the individual and the environment (Chatman, 1989; Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987) in the study about individual stress. This study considered work and family stressors in the work and family environment of individual employees at a municipality. On the other hand, the DRS model predicts that where the resources and strategies available to the individual are more than the challenges facing an individual, such an individual may achieve WLB (Voydanoff, 2005). The COR is concerned with the way an individual allocates resources to address stressors (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001, 2011). The interplay of the way that the integration method is used with respect to the gathering and analysis of data are discussed in the data analysis chapter (Chapter eight) of this study. Literature reveals that the use of integrated frameworks yield excellent results in the social science and management studies; particularly on the connection between SOC and other variables (Morgan, 2007; Franz, 2013; Diraz et al., 2003).