When planning the study of a particular topic, one should be mindful of their philosophical position in order to identify the most appropriate research design for that topic. This philosophical position determines the individual’s perspectives on the world and hence their ontological viewpoint, as well as their associated epistemology. This position can be influenced by the type of research problem and the strategies and methods used to collect and analyse data, as well as the personal experiences of the researcher and the different actors involved in the research.
Ontology is concerned with the nature of social entities (Bryman and Bell, 2011) and has two distinct approaches; objectivism and constructivism. Objectivist researchers focus on explaining different phenomena by use of ‘hard’ quantitative approaches to data analysis. Epistemologically speaking, this is tied to a positivist perspective, where one determines the nature of these social entities through a ‘scientific’ approach by considering them as objective entities with a reality external to social actors (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Conversely, a constructivist approach to research considers these entities as social constructions that are built up by the perceptions of social actors (Bryman and Bell, 2011), requiring exploration by use of ‘softer’, qualitative research approaches. This constructivist perspective links to an
interpretivist epistemology, where exploring the ‘nature of being’ is determined by use of social constructions such as language and behaviours (Myers, 2008).
Construction management tends to draw theories from both the natural and social science fields. Traditionally, construction management researchers favoured a positivist and objectivist approach, and hence considerably more quantitative research, such as that delivered through laboratory tests and statistical analyses, was generated. This often resulted in the application of ‘natural science’ methods to ‘explain’ ‘social science’ phenomena (Dainty, 2008). However, a paradigmatic shift towards a more interpretivist epistemology has led to construction management researchers devoting increased attention to exploring and understanding these social entities, rather than simply explaining them.
It is recognised by the researcher that these different paradigms hold relevance for this research project, and it is of utmost importance for the validity of the research that an understanding of the researcher’s own philosophical position was determined prior to designing the research methodology. Both objectivist positivist and constructivist interpretivist perspectives have validity for this research project, and as such, a ‘mixed methods’ or ‘triangulation’ approach was adopted, through combining qualitative and quantitative analyses such that a multi- dimensional view of the subject can be obtained (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The ‘subject’ of interest for this research project is certification to sustainability standards. Complying with these standards requires, on the one hand, the use of performance metrics and setting of objectives and targets. This type of analysis is clearly quantitative in nature, as one is considering the individual results as objective entities with no influence from external actors. Hence this reflects an objectivist and positivist paradigm. On the other hand however, once these individual results are aggregated to generate a performance profile, the results become subject to the perceptions of individual social actors about what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘poor’ performance, and hence become more constructivist and interpretivist in nature. Furthermore, standards are also enacted through the efforts of individual actors, and as such the implementation process is one that lends itself to a constructivist and interpretivist paradigm. As such, although the ‘subject’ of interest is certification, the unit of analysis is the capacity of an organisation to implement standards, given that their implementation requires effort from individuals within the organisation.
Linked to this ‘mixed methods’ approach is pragmatism (Creswell, 2012). Pragmatism arises, according to Creswell (2012), from actions, situations and consequences rather than antecedent conditions. It therefore provides a basis for research that examines the consequences of these
actions and situations at the time of observation, and is problem-centric, pluralistic and aligned to the ‘real-world’ (Creswell, 2012). By adopting a pragmatic approach, researchers can benefit from a freedom of choice with regard to the methods, procedures and techniques used to explore a particular problem as it is not committed to one single research philosophy (hence its alignment with the ‘mixed methods’ approach).
It was therefore deduced that a pragmatic, mixed methods approach to research that encompasses elements of both objectivist and constructivist perspectives and positivist and interpretivist paradigms would be used for this EngD.
With this in mind, it is important to understand the different research paradigms and how they are best applied to address different research objectives. Yin (2009) lists five research methods: experiments, surveys, archival analysis, histories and case studies. However, both Bell (1993) and Fellows and Liu (2008) recognise these as ‘research styles’, and include action research and ethnographic research in place of archival analysis and histories. Fellows and Liu (2008) state that in determining the most appropriate approach for a research design, the critical consideration is the logic that links the data collection and analysis to the main research question being investigated. Therefore, it is imperative that an appropriate research style is chosen, and suitable methods used. Figure 3.1 presents a research map which shows how this methodological position follows on from the high level aim and objectives of the programme, and how the research methods chosen link with the methodology and support the objectives and work packages defined in chapter 1.5.
Figure 3.1 Research map linking the aim and objectives with the methodology, research methods, work packages and research outputs.
Figure 3.1 indicates how the entire research programme is linked, and how each output (five papers and two reports) contribute towards the overall conclusions of the research programme and feed into the framework developed as a conceptual piece in paper 5 (appendix J; Upstill- Goddard et al., 2015b) and the more detailed useable framework in chapter 4.7 of this thesis. Figure 3.2 further indicates how the specific findings of each of these outputs (WP 1-3) cumulatively inform the learning framework developed as a high-level ‘conceptual’ framework in WP 4 and as more detailed specific modules in WP 5.
Figure 3.2 Extended research map highlighting the outputs of each work package and how these feed into the framework.