Phase 2: The Philosophical Perspective 72

As an IS researcher, I had noted a trend towards softer approaches to technology translation studies over the decade, as technologies evolved and became pervasive in society. It was in the early 1990s that influential researchers in Australia (for example, Parker, Wafula, Swatman P & Swatman PMC 1994) alluded to the fact that information systems research was moving away from technical issues and focusing more on behavioural issues. They argued that so called ‘accepted’ taxonomies of IS research methodologies characteristic of these trends did not adequately support technology transfer and the diffusion of innovations, essential to effective applied IS research.

Earlier in the 1990s, Klein, Nissen and Hirschheim (1991) criticised the dominance of empirical studies in IS research and consequently, many demanded more qualitative research with greater emphasis on interpretivism (Galliers 1993). According to Parker et al., (1994), IS methodologists called for a move away from scientific/positivist research methods towards interpretivism. This was construed by the IS research community as a call for research into sociological rather than technological issues. According to them, the call for qualitative methodologies resulted in predominantly socio-organisational, rather than technical research topics, in IS. These ‘softer’ topics have been investigated using increasingly empirical methods, adding objectivity to what is perceived as being insufficiently ‘scientific’ research (Parker et al., 1994: 7).

Nunamaker, Chen and Purdin (1991) had argued that action research (for medium term research) and field experiments (for long term research) are good methodologies for socio-technical research, as they will enable theory testing. Klein and Myers (1999), significant authors in IS research, had also supported this view towards the end of the 1990s.

IS, as in all fields of scholastic investigation, has its own favoured approaches. Two decades ago, Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), in their survey of published IS research articles, found that 96 per cent of researchers adopted a positivist perspective and the rest favoured an interpretive approach. Towards the late 1980s, influential researchers such as Galliers and Land (1987) criticised the predisposition of IS researchers to accept

traditional and quantitative approaches, which were more suited to natural sciences than IS in organisations. In alignment with this criticism, many researchers (Hischheim 1992; Nissen et al., 1991; Achterberg et al., 1991) argued for methodological pluralism, which offered a broader perspective. As a result, in the 1990s, qualitative research gained considerable legitimacy (Tatnall 2011). It is now clear to the IS research academic community that technologies and social constructs need to be considered in tandem with researching IS. As Davis, Gorgone, Cougar, Feinstein and Longnecker (1997) pointed out, the problem of handling complexities due to interconnected technologies, how they relate to humans and organisations, and how humans relate to them, has come into focus.

A viewpoint within which a set of methods can be systematically applied is often known as a philosophical framework (Guba & Lincoln 1988; Deely 1990, Tatnall 2011). Huff (2009) articulates the importance of philosophy in research by advocating that it shapes how researchers frame their problem and research questions, and how they seek information or collect data to answer the questions. According to him, assumptions that researchers proceed with are often deeply enmeshed in their discipline-related training and endorsed by the scholarly community. Creswell (2013: 19) supports this view, while inferring that IS may be an eclectic research community that borrows from other disciplines to enrich itself, while other disciplines are narrowly focused with prescriptive methodologies. He also indicates that reviewers make philosophical assumptions about a study when they evaluate the work; hence, it is important to take a stand on epistemology. Creswell (2013) assimilates many views and trends in IS research from the last two decades in his pivotal work. I have integrated these views, as well as considered the view that there needed to be a ‘softer’ method to approaching technology translation into hospitals, as highlighted in Chapter 2. For this purpose, an underlying philosophical approach was required.

According to widely cited authors in IS (Orlikowski & Baroudi 1991), the commonly used philosophies in IS are positivist and interpretive. The philosophical perspective of positivism is based on the assumption that reality is objectively given and that it can be described by reference to measurable properties independent of ‘I’ (Myers 1997). My research explored how RFID as an innovation translated into Australian hospitals by creating network relationships and negotiations. This process is open to interpretation.

While results from RFID deployment in hospitals could be objectively measured to some extent (for benefits realised from process improvement), an objective criterion alone would not result in answering the research questions I asked in Chapter 1. These questions relate to a ‘translation’ of technology, rather than’diffusion’.

My main research question explores how socio-technical factors interact to affect the adoption of RFID in Australian hospitals. The question lends itself to an interpretive philosophy, as I sought a rich in-depth understanding of socio-technical factors based on participants’ subjective views, opinions and experiences, tracing how the technology translated into their environments. As explained in Chapter 2, the focus is on ‘translation’ of technology rather than ‘diffusion’. Therefore, essentialist approaches were rendered insufficient and the socio-technical approach with innovation translation informed by ANT lent itself to the interpretive philosophy.

Specifically, in this research investigation, the aim was to explore ‘how socio-technical factors interacted to affect the adoption of RFID in Australian hospitals’. The question lends itself to an interpretive philosophy, as the aim is to interpret human interactions in the rich social context of hospitals, and to identify factors that facilitate RFID technology translation. In hospitals, staff share a common language, consciousness and meanings in how they adapt to a dynamic environment, based on the philosophy of care. Based on participants’ subjective views, there was a need for ‘construction’ or rather the data that was extracted from the research investigation had to be reconstructed, interpreting its subjective meaning. From an interpretive perspective, the design and methods used follow a constructivist paradigm, where individuals attempt to make sense of the world through subjective meanings of their experiences. The intent of ‘I’ is to interpret the meaning others have about the world (Kaplan & Maxwell 2005). Therefore, an interpretive constructivist approach was my final choice.

Creswell (2013) refers to this approach as falling within the purview of post-positivist philosophy, included within the multitude of interpretive frameworks (others include social constructivism, transformative frameworks, postmodern perspectives, pragmatism, feminist theories, critical theorising, queer theory and disability theories) in qualitative research. According to him, post-positivism has elements of being logical, empirical and deterministic, based on a priori theories (Creswell 2013: 24) that best suit

IS research. It is a series of logical steps, with multiple perspectives from participants, and espouses rigorous methods of qualitative data collection and analysis. He indicated that the post-positivist interpretive framework is exemplified in the data analysis strategies of case comparisons of Yin (2009). However, not all of this research falls within post-positivist orientations, as I have employed the method of constructing

meaning from multiple views, an approach also endorsed by McVea, Harter, McEntarffer and Creswell (1999), and Creswell (2013).

I have thus chosen the interpretive constructionist framework and underlying philosophy of post-positivism. According to Creswell (2013) and Lincoln et al., (2011) there are different beliefs or assumptions that link the framework and philosophy namely, ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological.

With ontology (or the nature of reality), researchers need to report on themes developed in findings. In this research, the reality that existed ‘out there’ in Australian hospitals in relation to RFID translation, were reported using emerging themes. However, post- positivist philosophy means that these findings are not absolute.

With epistemology (or how reality is known), characterised by subjective evidence from participants, where researchers attempt to lessen distances between themselves and participants, I have relied on quotations, and collaborated in the field with participants, becoming an insider. Nonetheless, in alignment with post-positivist philosophy, reality can only be approximated. Validation of findings occurred through the views of peers in the health care sector, and not participants as such. My interaction with research participants was kept to the minimum requirements of interviews and focus groups. Most of the time, I was a non-participative observer.

According to axiological beliefs (role of values), I need to acknowledge that research is value-laden and the biases are present. Researchers can openly discuss values that shape the narrative and include their interpretations in conjunction with others. However, in accordance with post-positivist philosophy, I have controlled my biases in the study.

Finally, in the methodological belief (approaches to inquiry) I need to study the topic within the context and use an emerging design. The study context has been explained in

Chapter 2, and questions were formulated based on experiences in the field. Testing innovation translation theory, using an ANT lens, making comparisons amongst cases with case study methodologies all remained significant.

Thus, in a doctrinaire approach recommended by Creswell (2013), assimilating the views of IS researchers, I have linked the interpretive framework and underlying philosophy of post-positivism.

Klein and Myer (1999: 72) recommended seven guiding principles to conduct and appraise interpretive research within the IS context, also demonstrated by Saundage (2009). The principles, and the way in which these were applied to my thesis to validate the interpretive approach, are described as follows.

3.2.1Principle 1: The Hermeneutic Circle

This principle argues that all human understanding is achieved by iterating between the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form.

In my research, data analysis in the relevant sections of Chapters 4–6 used the hermeneutic circle.

3.2.2Principle 2: Contextualisation

Reflection of the social and historic background of research setting is required so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged.

In this thesis, a comprehensive description of RFID, its evolution and use in hospitals is given in Chapter 2. In addition, the background is detailed in Chapters 4 and 5, where the case studies are presented.

3.2.3Principle 3: Interaction Between the Researcher and the Subject

This interaction requires critical reflection on how data were socially constructed through the interaction between researcher and participants.

The main data collection technique in this investigation was achieved through semi- structured interviews. The type of questions asked changed how the key participants viewed their involvement with RFID implementation. The participants also influenced researcher questions and the language of enquiry. I established a relationship with the participants in each case, and built on it continually.

3.2.4Principle 4: Abstraction and Generalisation

Abstraction and generalisation entails relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action.

In this research, learning from the two cases will be cross-analysed to find similarities and differences. While findings may not be generalisable, they will be indicative and suggest insights for future in-depth investigations.

3.2.5Principle 5: Dialogical Reasoning

Dialogical reasoning requires sensitivity to possible contradictions between theoretical preconceptions that guide the research design and the actual findings (the story that data tells), with subsequent cycle revision.

In this chapter, the philosophical assumption of the research investigation was outlined earlier, as recommended by Klein and Myers (1999). While recognising that deft categorisation of any research is challenging (Avison & Myers 2002: 5; Saundage 2009: 75), I have made the intention and procedure principles of research explicit, as recommended by Bourdieu (1999: 7). The influence on my decision to use the case method, the rationale for selecting cases and the details of data collection and analysis were made clear in this chapter.

3.2.6Principle 6: Multiple Interpretations

Multiple interpretations must have sensitivity to possible different interpretations amongst participants. These are typically expressed by multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study. This is similar to multiple witness accounts, even if all participants tell it as they saw it.

This principle involves tackling incongruities in the accounts of key participants (or actors in my study) and revising understanding. Accordingly, different interpretations within and between the two cases are taken at face value. Wherever an interpretation could not be accounted for within my conceptual framework, it was revised to adjust current understanding.

3.2.7Principle 7: Suspicion

Suspicion requires sensitivity to possible ‘biases’ and systematic ‘distortions’ in the narratives collected from the participants.

The extent to which social research can be critical is a controversial issue amongst interpretive researchers (Klein & Myers 1999). For this reason, they caution that all principles recommended should not be applied mechanistically; researchers need to use their own judgement. In my research investigation, it was significant to accept key participant experiences as binding, so the theory that emerged from their narratives was free of another layer of researcher bias. Therefore, this principle was de-emphasised.

The de-emphasis does not taint my findings as such, because the narratives from the participants lend themselves to be accepted without interpretation, and there was evidence to support this. For example, if a participant quoted a particular issue for non- acceptance of the technology, there was sufficient evidential support from other narratives to support the same. There was no further need for interpretation; the emerging data was supported by reality as it occurred.