Philosophical Overview

Partington (2002) identifies the research orientation and direction as being linked to our philosophical leanings, with philosophy being defined as that which is concerned with the rigorous establishment, regulation and development of the methods of knowledge creation in all areas of intellectual endeavour. Hughes and Sharrock (1990) maintain that philosophy is concerned with questions and conclusions and relates to the nature of evidence and from this, the nature of the world and how we know some things and believe others. It also involves how we know if certain things are true or false, what assumptions can be made legitimately from different kinds of experiences and what sort of things make up the world.

Furthermore, according to Easterby-Smith et al. (2008), there is the need to seriously consider philosophical issues in the light of historical controversies concerning

52

relationships between theory and data. In this sense, identifying the philosophical approach of this research, as well as the researcher, is crucial because it helps to make the design of the research and its questions clear. This distinction also comes through evaluation of the relevant data as well as its methods of collection and interpretation. Furthermore, identifying the philosophical approach for this study helps the researcher to decide between the different options for research designs and to overcome personal limitations regarding the creation and modification of research designs (Easterby-Smith et. al., 2008). In identifying the philosophical approach, it is necessary to consider foundational aspects of philosophy, such as epistemology and ontology.

3.1.1

Epistemology and Ontology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with theories relating to the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of knowledge, which includes the study and acceptance of what is valid knowledge (Collis & Hussey, 2003). On the other hand, ontology is concerned with how we study and what assumptions we make about the nature of existence. Ontology is further concerned about whether we consider the world to be subjective and thereby socially, or reflectively, interpreted, or whether we consider the world to be objective and external (Collis & Hussey, 1997; Stokes, 2011). The range of ontological and epistemological philosophies extend in a broad spectrum, starting from the interpretivist/subjective/involved or phenomenological on the one hand and the positivist/objective/detached on the other. Being ‘involved’ in the research relates to the level of subjectivism and how much the researcher is engaged in the research, whereas being ‘detached’ relates to the level of objectivism and how little the researcher is directly engaged in the research (Collis & Hussey, 1997). For this thesis, being ‘involved’ or ‘detached’ is determined by the methods used in different aspects of the work. The two extremes of interpretivism and positivism will now be considered further.

3.1.2

Positivism and Interpretivism

Positivism is based on two schools of thought, the first of which is that of rationalists such as Descartes (1637), who prioritised the foundations of knowledge as being based on thinking by stating: ‘I am certain that I am a thinking being […]. I think therefore I exist’, which became his famous ‘cognito ergo sum’. The second school of thought relates to empiricists such as Hume (1739), Bacon (1620), and Locke (1690), who argued

53

that knowledge is based on reaching the world through our senses and thus prioritised observation (Johnson & Duberly, 2000).

Descartes’ rationalism was used to coin the word positivism, which was refined by Comte (1853) by building on the work of Hume’s empiricism. In this regard, Comte argued that positivism is comprised of a theory of historical development, a theory of knowledge, and a theory of science, with human reasoning having the power to understand the workings of the world (Halfpenny, 1982). It is also described as an epistemology that argues for applying the methods of natural science to research and that the social world has an external existence that can be measured externally by objective methods (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008).

Interpretivism or social constructionism is at the other extreme of the ontological and epistemological spectrum and, as defined by Jankowicz (2005), is concerned with the importance of individual beliefs and social understanding. Best (2008) identifies the foundations of social constructionism as developing in the early 20th _{century, with} linkages to disciplines such as history, anthropology, and political science. Social constructionism gained further prominence through the work of Berger and Luckman (1966) on the social constructions of reality. Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) further consider social constructionism as how people use language to share experiences and give meaning to their world and argue that reality is not external and objective but is socially developed and given meaning by people. Denzin and Lincoln (2013) also argue that interpretivism or social constructionism considers multiple realities from a subjective perspective. In this regard, the world and our interactions within it do not only happen by chance, since daily realities are actually constructed from the dimension of social action. This research recognises the importance of social constructivism and the benefits of rationalism, even more so when an emerging phenomenon like internationalisation is concerned. In this regard, the adoption of interpretivism and subjective realities is necessary for the present research.

3.1.3

Realism and Pragmatism

Between the positivist philosophy on the one hand and the interpretivist one on the other, we also have a whole range of perspectives in between, which include realism, critical realism, and pragmatism. With regard to realism, the world is concrete and external and science progresses by observations that are directly related to the

54

phenomenon being studied (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). In this sense, realism argues for an external world that exists separately from our interpretation of it and that the same methods of data collection should be used in the social and natural sciences in order to understand reality (Bryman & Bell, 2007). In realism, theory is the ordering system that allows observed data to be deployed in describing empirical events. Theory can also mean the particular way in which an event is conceptualised (Sayer, 1992). On the other hand, critical realism recognises the importance of the underlying structures and the natural order that may not be necessarily seen but which bring about events. Critical realism believes in generative mechanisms that are based on hypotheses and can be used to explain events in the natural or social world (Bryman & Bell, 2007). In contrast, Easterby- Smith et al. (2008) argue that the central point of pragmatism is that there are no predetermined theories or frameworks in the social world that shape knowledge or understanding. Any meaning should be derived from the lived experience of individuals. Saunders et al. (2009) also describe a pragmatist as someone who believes that it is the research question that determines the research epistemology or ontology, since one epistemology may be more useful than another for a particular study.

While this study acknowledges that the arguments regarding realism, critical realism, and pragmatism are sound, it maintains a preference for the interpretivist philosophy. After identification of the philosophical approaches, it is now necessary to also identify the research methods than can be used for the study based on its ontological and epistemological perspectives.