Research is simply defined as the process of seeking solutions to a problem after conducting a thorough study and doing analysis of the situational and possible factors (Sekaran and Roger, 2013). It is apparent that the use of research terms and concepts such as methodology, method and paradigm is surprisingly unclear when reviewing the literature (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). Thus, it is important for researchers to understand clearly what those concepts mean and to use them properly. Therefore, this section clarifies those concepts before turning to the methodology of this research.
Kothari (2009) defined research as “a scientific and systematic search for pertinent information on a specific topic”. The creation and discovery of knowledge lies at the heart of any research (Goddard and Melville, 2004). However, good research should be systematic, well-planned, organized and have specified objectives (Goddard and Melville, 2004). The term ‘research’ means the systematic method of stating or declaring the problem definitely, formulating hypotheses, gathering data, analysing facts and coming up with conclusions as solutions towards the specific problems or generalizations in theoretical cases (Kothari, 2009).
4.1.1 Theory
Theory is an essential ally and has an important role in research (Neuman, 2006). The most common meaning of the term ‘theory’ is: “an explanation of observed regularities”
(e.g. sufferers of schizophrenia are less likely to come from middle-class than working-class backgrounds) (Bryman, 2004). The relationship between theory and research can be categorized by two main approaches: deductive and inductive. These approaches represent the direction of theorizing (Neuman, 2006; Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010).
The difference between the two approaches is in the process of what comes first:
observations/findings or theory (Bryman, 2004). In the deductive approach, researchers start with theory and then apply their observations to reach findings and vice versa in the
case of the inductive approach (Bryman, 2004). Figure 4.1, borrowed from (Bryman, 2004), explains the concepts of deductive and inductive approaches in terms of the direction of theorizing.
In the deductive approach, researchers theorize by beginning with a theoretical proposition that illustrates the logical connections between concepts and then moving toward empirical evidence (Neuman, 2006). On the contrary, in the inductive approach, researchers build from observations toward abstract thinking (Neuman, 2006). Some scholars place inductive and deductive under the umbrella term ‘reasoning’ and associate it with these concepts. Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) explain both terms with reference to the direction of theorizing. They define inductive reasoning as: “a systematic process of establishing a general proposition on the basis of observation or particular facts”.
Deductive reasoning was defined by them as: “the logical process of deriving a conclusion from a known premise or something known as true”.
Figure 4.1: The direction of theorizing: deductive and inductive approaches
4.1.2 Method versus Methodology
Throughout the review of literature of information systems as well as e-government, it has been found that scholars often use the terms method and methodology interchangeably.
In fact, these two terms are not the same and the practice of using them interchangeably is unfortunate (McGregor and Murnane, 2010).
Methods refer to technical procedures used to conduct research (McGregor and Murnane, 2010; Kothari, 2009) and methodology refers to research philosophy (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). Research methods refer to the focused, orderly and systematic collection of data in order to obtain information to answer a particular research
question or problem (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). It is important to distinguish between methods and techniques in research. Methods refer to data collection through surveys, case studies, filed experiments and historical review and analysis (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). Techniques mean the step-by-step procedures that might be adopted by researchers to collect data, and analyse it to find the answer to the research question (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010).
Kothari (2009) categorizes research methods into three different groups: methods of data collection, methods of statistical techniques, and methods used to assess the accuracy of the results obtained. In research, the last two groups are considered as analytical tools.
Research methodology is the way to systematically find a solution to the research problem (Kothari, 2009). It shapes “the diversity of the entire body of knowledge”
(McGregor and Murnane, 2010). The methodology is considered as a science which studies how to conduct research scientifically (Kothari, 2009). Specifically, the methodology refers to “the rational and the philosophical assumptions that underlie any natural, social or human science study, weather articulated or not” (McGregor and Murnane, 2010).
4.1.3 Methodology Axioms
McGregor and Murnane (2010) identify four axioms or principles which differentiate all research methodologies as follows: (a) epistemology: “what counts (is worthy) as knowledge and how people come to know it” (b) ontology: “what counts as nature, reality, feeling, existence or being” (c) logic: “what is accepted as rigour and inference in the development of arguments, judgments and insights” (d) axiology: “what counts as fundamental values and what is consciousness (moral choices, ethics and normative judgments)”. Axiology is the methodology axiom that especially concerns the role of researchers and participants throughout the research processes (Ponterotto, 2005).
Bryman (2004) defines epistemology as: “what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline” and ontology as: “the question of whether social entities can and should be considered objective entities that have a reality external to social actors, or whether they can and should be considered social constructions built up from the perceptions and actions of social actors”. Two main positions are frequently referred to ontology: objectivism and constructionism (Bryman, 2004). Objectivism is: “an ontological position that implies that social phenomena confront us as external facts that are beyond our reach or influence” while constructionism is: “an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman, 2004).
There are three main positions of epistemology: positivism, interpretivism and realism (Bryman, 2004).These positions of epistemology or research paradigms are discussed in more detail in the next section. In fact, there is no cut-off agreement on the types of research paradigms in literature. The two traditions or overreaching world views which shape research are positivism and post-positivism (McGregor and Murnane, 2010).
4.1.4 Research Paradigm
A ‘paradigm’, a concept created by Kuhn (1970), means a fundamental orientation to research and theory (Neuman, 2006). Reviewing the literature also reveals the use of the terms paradigm, method, and methodology (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). Therefore, it is crucial to clarify these concepts, understand what they mean exactly and to differentiate between them. Methods and methodology have been clarified and discussed in the previous section. The term paradigm encompasses two dimensions: “(a) philosophical, basic beliefs and assumption about the world; and (b) technical, the methods and techniques adopted when conducting research”(McGregor and Murnane, 2010).
In all sciences, researchers conduct their studies for the sake of generating new knowledge by following one of the research paradigms. A paradigm is defined as “a set of assumptions concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline” (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). Paradigms are accompanied by attendant methodologies (i.e. values, reality, assumptions about knowledge, and logic). Neuman (2006) defines a paradigm as:
“a general organizing framework and research that includes basic assumptions, key issues, models of quality research, and methods for seeking answers”. Both definitions of a paradigm indicate that it is a set of assumptions, issues and methods which assists the researcher in viewing reality and finding the answers to their research questions.
Two main paradigms that are known in research are positivism and post-positivism (McGregor and Murnane, 2010). McGregor and Murnane (2010) explain the relationship between the four terms: research paradigm, research methodology, research methods, methodological axioms with reference to positivism and post-positivism paradigms: “We appreciate that each of these paradigms can be distinguished by their philosophical underpinnings (called methodologies, with four attendant axioms), which in turn inform the methods of techniques employed to conduct research within these paradigms”.
Positivism was known from the nineteenth-century school of thought and was introduced by the Frenchman Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who founded the science of sociology (Neuman, 2006). Positivism emphasizes empirical observations, discovering causal
relationships, and value-free research. Value-free research means when the beliefs of the researcher do not have any impact on the way in which data is gathered or analysed.
Interpretivism is a term introduced to contrast positivism (Bryman, 2004). Interpretivism is traced to the German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) and the German philosopher Wilhem Dilthey (1833–1911) (Neuman, 2006). It emphasizes, socially-constructed meaning, meaningful social action and value relativism (Neuman, 2006). Realism is the third position of epistemology which assumes that reality has different levels and what can be seen on the surface should not easily reveal causal mechanisms or significant structures at deeper levels (Neuman, 2006).
4.1.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Research Strategies
Research can be classified into two main types of approaches with regard to the type of collected data. To understand both strategies, Table 4.1, taken from (Bryman, 2004), outlines fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative research:
Table 4.1: Fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative research strategies (source: (Bryman, 2004))
Consideration Qualitative Quantitative
Principal orientation to the role of theory in relation to research
Inductive, generation of theory Deductive, testing of theory
Epistemological orientation Interpretivism Natural science model, in particular positivism
Ontological orientation Constructionism Objectivism
Table 4.2, taken from Cook and Reichardt (1979), provides a comparison between the two approaches which illustrate the difference in emphasis in quantitative versus qualitative.
Table 4.2: Emphasis in quantitative versus qualitative (source: (Cook and Reichardt, 1979))
Quantitative approach Qualitative approach
Emphasis on testing and verification Emphasis on understanding Focus on facts and/or reasons for
social events
Focus on understanding from participants/informants perspective Logical and critical approach Interpretation and rational approach
Controlled measurement Observation and measurements in
natural settings Hypothetical-deductive; focus on
hypothesis testing
Explorative orientation
It is notable that using quantitative (measurements of what, when and where) is associated with a positivism paradigm, and qualitative (interpretation of the how and why) is usually associated with post-positivism paradigm which is known or named by many scholars as interpretivism (McGregor and Murnane, 2010).
Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010) give some reasons which rationalize the use of either qualitative or quantitative approaches by researchers. These reasons are: the objective of the research, the previous experience and background of the researchers, the research discipline (e.g. anthropology and phenomenology advocate a qualitative approach for data collection and analysis) and the main reason should be the purpose and focus of the study.
Qualitative research can be used as an exploratory tool. Where there is uncertainty about a subject, and the researcher does not know what detailed questions to ask, a few in-depth interviews or groups may be sufficient to provide an understanding and explanations which answer the problem (Hague, 2006). Although many researchers focus on one research approach more than the other, quantitative and qualitative approaches can both be used in the same study (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010). These approaches are suitable at different levels or stages of research (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2010).