Diffusion and methodology

Diffusion research poses numerous methodological challenges. The previous chapter has shown that the majority of diffusion research is concerned with searching for laws of behaviour, quantitative data and statistical methods of analysis, and almost

exclusively uses the relationships between actors as the unit of analysis (Larsen (2005), Rogers (2003) and Emmitt (1997)). This is mainly owing to the majority of diffusion research being focused on utilisation of existing theory within the marketing and manufacturing sectors, where the focus is on searching for trends such as the rate of diffusion, tipping points or adopter categories. As Rogers (2003) identified, most diffusion studies are of a quantitative nature owing to the ability to set variables and analyse them with confidence and repeatability, which can then lead to generalisations across a wider population. What these studies fail to comprehend or even consider is the rich data that relates to the journey that each actor takes through a diffusion process. It is this journey that is the focus of this research and not the laws of behaviour for the entire social system.

In the broadest sense, diffusion is a macro-theory that consists of several, but no less significant, micro-theories. At the macro-theory level, the most significant

consideration, which is often overlooked, is the interplay between the agent and their social system. This is not generally considered in the current literature, with the

exception of Larsen (2005) who developed his own framework of diffusion to allow for this relationship. However, it is not the intention of this research to discuss the

agency-structure debate at length, but its inclusion is necessary to provide the research with focus and validity.

As identified in chapter three, the research focus is on the innovation-decision process as proposed by Rogers (2003). This is a micro-theory within the diffusion body of knowledge with a focus on the actor and their journey through the diffusion process, with consideration of external influence from the social system. In isolation, this micro-theory brings its own epistemological and methodological considerations that will be addressed.

4.1.2 Research Aim and Objectives

Before discussing philosophical assumptions, research strategy and techniques, it is important to reconsider the research aim and objectives to provide context for the following discussion.

Aim

To further understanding in the context of the diffusion of a professional practice innovation among QSs within the UK construction industry. Not only to ascertain if stages exist in this process, but also to discover if the stages proposed by Rogers (2003) are suitable for this particular context, and if a new model is required to accurately represent diffusion within these particular parameters.

Objectives

1. Define the context for the research in terms of actor, social system and innovation under investigation.

2. Identify the current measurement practices utilised by quantity surveyors.

3. Critically appraise and develop existing diffusion literature to suit the research context.

4. Identify barriers to the diffusion and adoption of professional practice innovation.

4.2 Ontology

In order to position this research within the diffusion body of knowledge, ontological assumptions need to be clearly defined and this section attempts to provide a settled resolution for the purposes of this study. Knight and Turnbull (2008 p.64) argue that without a clear ontological and epistemological stance, the researcher cannot strongly defend their contribution to knowledge.

Knight and Turnbull (2008 p.64) state that ontology is “concerned with existence or being and what we assume to exist clearly has implications for what we claim to know, and vice versa”. Hughes and Sharrock (1997) summarise this by suggesting that

ontology is concerned with what kinds of things really exist in the world.

As this research has a social science base, Dainty (2008 p.7) provides the most appropriate definition as follows:

Questions of social ontology are concerned with whether social entities are objective realities or social constructions built up from the actions and perspectives of social actors.

So this brings the question of whether society exists independently of its actors and can therefore influence them, or whether society is a social construct of the actors

themselves. These two positions generally fall into the following terms, objectivism or constructivism, although there are terms such as ‘constructionism’ that are used interchangeably, which does not help the researcher. For the purposes of this research, the term constructivist will be used.

Bryman and Bell (2011 p.21) provide a succinct definition for objectivism, which agrees with that provided by Silverman (2013) as follows:

An ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors

While they define constructivism in line with authors such as Silverman (2013) and 6 and Bellamy (2013) as:

An ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors. This implies that social phenomena and categories are not only produced through social interaction but are in a constant state of revision

This follows the earlier work of Kant (1724 - 1804) who held that knowledge of the world is mediated by cognitive structures, with the belief that as an agent we construct or make knowledge and invent concepts, models and schemas to make sense of our experiences and continually test and adapt them when new experiences occur (Guyer 2004). Schwandt (2007) is quite clear in this respect and suggests that we do not construct our interpretations in isolation but against shared understandings, language and practices for example.

Moses and Knutsen (2012) argue that constructivists are not looking for a true account of a phenomenon, but rather seek to capture and understand the meaning of social action for the actor performing it and seek to explain the nature of social patterns, rather than predict the outcomes. This approach aligns with the research aim which seeks to further understanding of the diffusion of innovation where the actors in question are part of the QS profession.

Moses and Knutsen (2012) also suggest that a constructivist approach has other implications to consider as through the investigation of these social constructs, the observations and experience depend upon the perspective of the investigator as they are not neutral and would not necessarily be consistent across investigators. This leads to a discussion on reflexivity and will be discussed later in this chapter.

This research takes a constructivist view supported by a qualitative research strategy that follows Bryman (2008 p.366) who states that qualitative research strategies adopt,

An ontological position described as constructivist, which implies that social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its construction.

The research aim sought to further understanding of the diffusion phenomenon among the social system comprised of the QS profession, and not to discover any tangible objective meanings. A constructivist position allowed for the exploration of this

phenomenon through the journeys of the actors themselves and allowed development of the existing body of knowledge in this subject area that leads into the epistemological stance of the research and how the justification for knowledge is positioned.

4.3 Epistemology

Now that an ontological stance has been taken, it is important to consider the

epistemological stance of the research. Epistemologies provide much of the justification for particular methodologies within social science, for example the aim, function, and assumptions of method.

Knight and Turnbull (2008) identify two main traditions of epistemology, the normative tradition and the naturalistic tradition. Within these traditions the normative is

associated with foundationalism or coherentism, with the naturalistic tradition associated with positivism.

The naturalistic tradition, advocated by positivists, a term originally coined by Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857), owes a lot to empiricism (Knight and Turnbull (2008)), but instead of using sense experience, positivists attempt to found knowledge on ordered experiences such as those associated with scientific experimentation (Bourdeau 2014).

Positivists can be split in terms of two approaches to the founding of knowledge, the empirical and the logical, where empirical knowledge is gained through natural science and logical knowledge by logic itself and by mathematics (Hughes and Sharrock (1997)). Denscombe (2010, p.324) shares the empirical view and states that positivism is “An approach to social research which seeks to apply the natural science model of research to investigations of the social world” and that “for positivists, the aim of social

research is to discover the patterns and regularities of the social world by using the kind of scientific methods used to such good effect in the natural sciences.”

Within the normative tradition foundationalists make the assumption that all knowledge has some foundational belief, and that these beliefs act as the substructure for all other inferred beliefs. Foundationalists fall into two distinct categories the empiricists with philosophers such as Locke (1632-1704) and Hume (1711-1776) being most notable, and the rationalists, which is commonly associated with Descartes (1596-1650).

Schwandt (2007) claims that the empiricist considers knowledge to be derived from sense experience where beliefs can be justified by observation, while the rationalist claims that reason is the sure path to knowledge.

The normative tradition is where this research positions itself, but not within the

foundationalist tradition but rather the coherentist tradition. Knight and Turnbull (2008) suggest that the coherentist holds no foundational beliefs, and that beliefs support each other where the justification for the belief centres around the match between it and others. This research makes no attempt to discover any new foundational knowledge but rather to see how new understandings within a particular context map against existing theory.

This research therefore takes an inductive approach to knowledge acquisition that builds evidence towards inductive inference. Pritchard (2006 p.175) states that “an inductive argument is any argument where the premises, while offering support for the

conclusion, do not entail the conclusion” and suggests that lots of scientific knowledge is gained inductively whereby scientists make a series of observations and then draw conclusions based on these observations that go beyond what has been observed. While Hawthorne (2014) suggests that an inductive argument accumulates evidence to a degree where it supports a conclusion, but does not guarantee it. As such, an inductive argument is concerned with probable conclusions. The inductive approach is suitable for this research as it is concerned with an actors’ individual journey through the diffusion process where multiple actors’ journeys will be analysed and synthesised to draw probable conclusions to inform the development of a contextualised model of diffusion, which is coherent with the existing body of knowledge surrounding the diffusion phenomenon.

Given the research aim and objectives it was decided that a coherentist epistemological position, informed by a constructivist ontological stance and supported by a qualitative research approach should be undertaken to gather the rich explanatory data that seems to be lacking in the diffusion research field, and that this approach will help to develop a deeper understanding of an actor’s diffusion journey and to address the overwhelmingly positivist approach to diffusion research in the past (Rogers (2003), Larsen (2005)).

This approach will support the development of the Rogers (2003) model and propose context specific findings which will demonstrate how these new understandings within a particular context map against existing diffusion theory, thereby supporting the coherentist position.