INTRODUCTION

Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) suggest that the researcher‟s view and philosophical stance

has its impact on the study data collection techniques and analysis procedures and it is necessary for the researcher to demonstrate the underpinning paradigm that has led the study investigation. Amongst many research designs (Crotty, 1998; Kagioglou et al., 1999; Creswell, 2003) the “Research Onion” design that was developed by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) is utilised to position this research in light of the research onion‟s six layers, as it offered a comprehensive and systematic approach of presenting the study‟s methodological approach.

By using the “Research Onion” to present the study‟s methodological approach, the bases on which it is built are clearly and systematically defined. In doing so, this chapter starts from the broader (outer) categories (philosophy, approach and strategy) that influence the more specific choices of the study (choices, techniques and procedures). This chapter therefore consists of six sections; each section is focused on one layer, starting from the outer layers, in order to pinpoint the stance of this research with reference to the zone of the layer. This is followed by two sections concerning the used triangulations and conclusion. The selection of valid methodology to evaluate the quality of the implemented DL in a Saudi context is the objective that this chapter has strived to achieve.

.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

According to Johnson and Clark (2006), research philosophy relates to the nature of the knowledge and the way it can be developed; it has its impacts on the way the researcher

views the world and, thus, underpins the researcher‟s choice of strategy and methods of data

collection. Accordingly, it is important to define the research philosophical stance in order to use it in the way that enables the researcher to defend his choices against the alternatives. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) suggest that defining the researcher‟s philosophical stance, his views of the acceptable knowledge (epistemology), the nature of reality (ontology) and value (axiology), will be revealed to offer a clear understanding of the research position and choice of data collection and procedures.

It is worthwhile to consider snapshots of the predominant four research philosophical stances in order to define the position of this research. The four predominant philosophical stances suggested by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) are discussed in this section in light of their definition of acceptable knowledge (epistemology), ontology, axiology, and tendency of its researchers towards the selection of data collection choices and analyses. This section concludes with defining the study‟s philosophical position.

 Positivism

Remenyi et al. (1998, p. 32) define positivism as “...the process of developing knowledge

from an observable social reality to produce generalizable knowledge”. They continue to

explain that the researcher who works within this paradigm tends to be entirely independent and external to the subjects of the research, which entails a value-free axiological stance. According to Gill and Johnson (2002), this philosophy adopts the objectivism ontological position where reality of the social entities is independent of social actors and is more likely to involve large samples and highly structured methodology. It advocates the use of existing theory to develop testable hypotheses that lead to quantifiable observations to be statistically analysed which reflect the use of a quantitative choice/approach.

 Realism (Direct and Critical)

The other philosophical stance is referred to by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) as realism, where the truth can only be determined by its sensational reflection. They suggest that two branches of this philosophical stance are clearly distinguishable: direct realism and critical realism.

They explained that direct realism is more or less likely to be categorised within the

Critical realism, on the other hand, promotes realism to encompass a wider view of the phenomena under investigation. According to Bhaskar (1989), critical realism values the mental process in which the truth can be instantiated. He argued that the researcher who works within this philosophy ought to understand the underlying social structure of the phenomena in order to understand the true picture. In agreement with Bhaskar (1989), Dobson (2002) suggested that parts of the phenomena that cannot be conveyed through the senses must undergo social conditioning by which reality can be interpreted. He continued to suggest that, although this philosophy seems to adopt the objectivism ontological position, it offers leeway for the researcher to understand the investigated phenomena through the different interpretations of the social actors involved (subjectivism ontology).

In defining the researcher‟s axiological position in the critical realism philosophy, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) suggested that the researcher‟s axiological stance tends to be

influenced by the social actor‟s views and experience and can by no means be value-free. They continued to suggest that critical realists should focus on building a methodology that is more concerned with the inclusion of different levels of individuals in an organisation to best understand the phenomena through a multi-level view using a mixed method choices/approaches (qualitative and quantitative). Such an assumption was supported by Zachariadis, Scott and Barrett (2010) who argued that the use of a mixed method choice/approach in a single research corresponds to the critical realists‟ philosophical position that pinpointed the limitation of the method choices/approaches adopted by positivists or interpretivists.

 Interpretivism

According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), the interpretivist‟s philosophical stance

reflects an entirely different, or rather an opposite, position to the positivists‟ epistemological

stance. They argued that development of knowledge from the interpretivists‟ view can only be obtained by understanding differences between humans as social actors through their

different points of view of their world. This disputes the positivists‟ position that the

researcher can investigate phenomena independent of the subjects of the research (objectivism ontology) and conduct research in a value-free way. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), the interpretivist‟s philosophical stance highly values the

researcher‟s empathetic stance that enables him to enter the social world of the research

participants and to understand the meanings that individuals attach to the phenomena under investigation (subjectivism ontology).

This entails a value-laden axiological stance as an interpretivist philosophy encourages the researcher to immerse himself in what is being researched where the researcher‟s values and interpretation cannot be detached from the research. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) suggested that researchers who work with this philosophy tend to use qualitative choices/approaches to understand the phenomena under scrutiny from the lenses of the research participants.

 Pragmatism

Although the previous three philosophical positions reflected Guba and Lincoln‟s (1994) argument that the research question/s and methods of enquiry are influenced by the researcher‟s philosophical position and its associated ontological and axiological stances, the

pragmatists‟ philosophical position, according to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), takes

a different direction. They suggest that researchers who adopt pragmatic philosophical position are more concerned with answering the research question which influences their adoption of any philosophical position. This is to say that pragmatists tend to use a variation of epistemological, ontological and axiological stances in order to answer their research question which entails the use of different choices/approaches (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) based on the research question.

With the aforementioned four philosophical stances in mind, this study reflects the

characteristics of the critical realists‟ philosophical position in investigating the research

topic. According to the research aim and objectives, this study investigated the current implementation of DL in KAU through the lenses of the global criteria of quality DL. That is to say, in all DL institutions, there are procedures and practices that should be implemented and reflected practically by DL stakeholders (administrators, faculty and students) to guarantee quality DL which conveys a degree of objectivity according to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009). In assessing the quality of the implemented DL in Saudi Arabia, the study seeks multi-level views to assess the implementation of quality DL from the perspectives of the three main stakeholders which reflect a subjective stance. This combined with the use of a mixed method choice/approach reflects the element of the critical realism‟s flexibility that was indicated by Easton (2010) who suggested that critical realism offers the researcher more flexibility in its capacity to embrace a combination of different ontological stances. According to Zachariadis, Scott and Barrett (2010), this bridges the gap between positivism and interpretivism by the use of a mixed choice/approach (qualitative and quantitative) in a single research.