5.3 THE RESEARCH ONION ADAPTED FOR THE STUDY
5.3.1 Research philosophy
Burrell and Morgan (1979) cited in Saunders et al. (2016) note that at every stage of research, researchers make, consciously or not, several assumptions. These assumptions help shape the understanding of research questions and the methodologies to be adopted in answering the research
77
questions (Crotty, 1998 cited in Saunders et al., 2016). Saunders et al. (2016) further note that a consistent set of assumptions set up a credible research philosophy that underpins the research methodology, research strategy, and data gathering and analysis techniques.
Saunders et al. (2016) identify five research philosophies: positivism, post-modernism, interpretivism, critical realism, and pragmatism. A research philosophy shows the researcher's world view representing a basic set of beliefs or assumptions that guides a researcher's inquiry (Saunders et al., 2016; Coopers
& Schindler, 2014; Creswell, 2014). The research paradigms represent philosophical orientations about the world (Creswell, 2014) and the type of research that the researcher wants to conduct (Kivunja &
Kuyini, 2017). A summary of the five research philosophies is given in Table 5.1 based on five dimensions, namely general description, ontology, epistemology, axiology, and data collection techniques.
TABLE 5.1: COMPARISON OF FIVE RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES Ontology (nature of
reality)
Epistemology (what constitutes acceptable knowledge)
Axiology (role of values)
Typical methods
Positivism Real, external,
independent
One true reality (universalism)
Granular (things) ordered
Scientific method
Observable and
measurable facts
Law like generalizations Numbers
Causal explanation and prediction as contribution
Value-free research Researcher is detached, neutral and independent of what is researched
Researcher maintains objective stance
Typically deductive, highly structured, large samples, measurement,
typically quantitative methods of analysis, but a range of data can be analyzed.
Critical realism Stratified/layered (the
empirical, the actual and the real)
External, independent intransient
Objective structures Causal mechanisms
Epistemological relativism
Knowledge historically situated and transient Facts are social constructions
Historical causal
explanation as
contribution
Value-laden research Researcher
acknowledges bias by world views, cultural experience an upbringing Researcher tries to minimize bias and errors
Researchers is as objective as possible
Retroductive, in- depth historically situated analysis of pre-existing structures and emerging agency.
Range of methods and data types to fit subject matter
Interpretivism Complex, rich
Socially constructed through culture and language
Theories and concepts too simplistic
Value-bound research
Typically inductive, small samples, in- depth investigations, qualitative methods of analysis, but a range
78 Multiple meanings,
interpretations, realities Flux of processes, experiences, practices
Focus on narratives, stories, perceptions and interpretations
New understandings and
worldviews as
contribution
Researchers are part of what is researched, subjective
Researcher
interpretations key to contribution
Researcher reflexive
of data can be interpreted.
Postmodernism Nominal
Complex, rich
Socially constructed
through power
relations
Some meanings, interpretations, realities are dominated and silenced by others Flux of processes, experiences, practices
What counts as “truth”
and “knowledge is decided by dominant ideologies
Focus on absences,
silences and
oppressed/repressed meanings, interpretations and voices
Exposure of power relations and challenge of dominant views as contribution
Value-constituted research
Researcher and research embedded in power relations Some research narratives are repressed and silenced at the expense of others Researcher radically reflexive
Typically deconstructive- reading texts and realities against themselves
In-depth
investigations of anomalies, silences and absences
Range of data types, typically qualitative methods of analysis
Pragmatism Complex, rich, external
“Reality” is the practical consequences of ideas
Flux of processes, experiences and practices
Practical meaning of knowledge in specific contexts
“True” theories and knowledge are those that enable successful action Focus on problems, practices and relevance Problem solving and informed future and practice as contribution
Value-driven research
Research initiated and sustained by researcher’s doubts and beliefs
Researcher reflexive
Following research problem and research question
Range of methods:
mixed, multiple, qualitative,
quantitative, action research
Emphasis on practical solutions and outcomes
Source: Saunders et al. (2016:136-137)
A researcher, before embarking on a research project, should identify an ideal position in one of these paradigms and stick to it for the duration of the research. The researcher’s results could then be evaluated within the context of the paradigm chosen (Dana & Dumez, 2015). Ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, theories of truth, validity, and reliability would vary depending on the chosen paradigm (Dana & Dana, 2005; Gioia, Corley & Hamilton, 2013).
79
According to Saunders et al. (2012) the enquirers’ set of beliefs and assumptions will underpin the research design to be employed in the study. The study was guided by the pragmatism philosophy.
Pragmatism as a worldview emerged from the work of a significant number of philosophers, for example, James (1907), Pierce (1931), John Dewey (1931), and Mead (1938). This paradigm focuses on the research questions (Saunders et al., 2012) and, therefore, uses all the most appropriate methods to understand the research problem (Saunders et al., 2016) and ultimately answering the research question (Creswell, 2013 Saunders & Tosey, 2013).
In this study, a mixed methodology was used to answer the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the problem. The integration of both objective and subjective data sets in answering the research questions was thus one of the major strengths of adopting this paradigm (Wahyuni, 2012; Bryman, 2016). The researcher did not take a particular position on what makes good research.
The choice of the pragmatism philosophy was mainly informed by the recommendations of Saunders et al. (2016) and Bryman (2016). They stress that pragmatism approaches a research study on a balanced view thus practical. Through the adoption of the pragmatic paradigm, the researcher was able to investigate the phenomena in different ways in which he deemed appropriate in answering research questions. The researcher had the freedom to choose research methods and approaches that addressed the research questions. This further justifies the choice of pragmatism in this study.