Philosophical stance

Every research project is based on the underlying philosophical stance regarding what constitutes valid knowledge and the method(s) that are appropriate for the development of the knowledge in a given area of research. Consequently, it is very important to know what these philosophical assumptions are in order to conduct and evaluate any research investigation. This section discusses the philosophical stance for the study under consideration.

Terre Blanche and Durrheim (1999) argue that the process of research comprises three dimensions: ontology, epistemology and methodology. The research paradigm is an all- inclusive system of interrelated thinking and practices that define the nature of an enquiry along these three dimensions. Kuhn (2012) defines a paradigm as a set of values, beliefs, and assumptions that a group of researchers have in common regarding the nature and conduct of research.

A person’s worldview is normally expressed in terms of ontological and epistemological commitments that have significant influence on aspects of reality. According to Crotty (1998), epistemology refers to “how we know what we know” (p. 9). Maynard (1994)

109 suggests that epistemology is concerned with how humans ensure what kinds of knowledge are adequate and legitimate, and what kinds of knowledge are possible. This is associated with ontology-“the study of reality” (Crotty, 1998, p. 10) or the nature of reality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The two most common worldviews are objectivism (or positivism) and interpretivism. Neither of these views is superior to the other, but the worldviews adopted will have repercussions in most academic areas. Both of these worldviews may fulfil some purposes, while at the same time being insufficient or inadequate for other purposes. Moreover, a person may change his or her position in different situations. For instance, there are studies using elements from both the views, and which consider them complementary (Jick, 1979).

Positivism is a philosophy based on the ideas of French philosopher August Comte, where human behaviour can be best understood by the use of observation and reason. So true knowledge is acquired from sensory experience and is achieved through observation and experimentation (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). The positivist at the ontological level assumes that reality is objective and independent of the researcher. Researchers using this position adopt scientific methods and use quantification to enhance precision in the description of the variables under investigation and their interrelationships.

Positivism considers that human behaviour is controlled, positive, and determined to a large extent by external environment (Johnson & Duberley, 2000). Therefore, researchers take a deductive approach, where hypotheses are developed from existing theory and are tested to establish whether the theoretical position is verifiable. Theoretical models

110 developed utilising this position then become generalisable because they explain the cause and effect relationships among different constructs. This approach lends itself to predicting outcomes. In social science, many scholars relate positivism to empirically grounded quantitative methods and statistical analyses, experiments and surveys (Blaikie, 2007; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2012; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Positivism has been used in management studies, in which scientific methods were are used to measure human behaviour and systems (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). This is because of the view that credible data can be obtained only from observable phenomenon (Remenyi, Williams, Money, & Swartz, 1998).

Another dominant philosophical stance is interpretivism or constructivism, which holds that reality is subjective. Bryman (2016) postulates that interpretivism considers the difference between people, and tries to reach to the subjective meaning of social reality. For interpretivists, knowledge is constantly reconstructed through many interpretations and experience.

Interpretivism aims to discover and understand the contextual factors within these multiple interpretations made by individuals (Saunders et al., 2009). Lincoln and Denzin (2003) suggest that there are multiple realities to be considered by interpretivism that could be explored. Also, the scholars suggest that knowledge from interpretivist philosophy involves theory building and induction process. Unlike positivism that adopts a deductive process in which hypotheses are constructed to predict the result of a situation, interpretivists evaluate respondents’ viewpoints by looking at their experiences and explore their contexts and social realities. The viewpoints of the respondents that can be

111 highly contextualised are therefore subjective and not widely generalised (Saunders et al., 2009). Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) associate the interpretivist approach with the qualitative research approaches. This philosophical position holds emphasis on the use of language, as there is a close link between the respondents and the researcher.

Apart from these two research paradigms, it is worth mentioning the area of critical management studies. This philosophy emerged from Marxism, critical sociology, feminism and conflict theory (Giddings & Grant, 2009). “Critical inquiry seeks to uncover the truth about social relations, the series of mutually dependent actions which shapes peoples’ lives, with a view of identify systems of exploitation and oppression which can then be challenges and transferred in the interest of the oppressed” (Bradford, 2014, p. 47). Further, Fournier and Grey (2000) argued that it attempts to unmask the power relations around which social and organisational lives are woven. Some of the main assumptions are that ideas are mediated by power in social relationships; the privileged groups in society exploit and oppress the subordinate groups (class, gender, and other disadvantaged groups). This means that objective reality does not exist, and facts cannot be separated from the self-interest and ideologies of those in power. This results in the creation of relationships of underlying social and economic structures that enable people to better understand their lives, and that they are empowered, and that individuals are in the position to transform and improve the world (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002).

This thesis is based on positivist research philosophy. A quantitative method is adopted because it is the preferred way of addressing the two research objectives, where it allows:

112 (ii) testing of hypotheses that is independent from the researcher’s own

interpretations, thus making generalisation possible; and (iii) establishing causal relationships.

The formulation of the research hypotheses is driven by an attempt to explain and predict the mediating variables between religiosity and ethical decision-making. This is achieved by employing quantitative data in a Malaysian context, with pre-validated scales. Subsequently, adequate statistical analyses (specifically hierarchical regression tests) are conducted to test the hypotheses. The same quantitative approach has also been taken by previous scholars who have studied the element of religiosity in ethical decision-making (Ab Wahab, 2012; Abdel-Khalek & Lester, 2009; Conroy & Emerson, 2004; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Parboteeah et al., 2008; Walker et al., 2011). So in sum, the thesis utilises an objective outlook. The ontology of the research is realism, i.e. it assumes that objective reality can be obtained probabilistically (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and the epistemology of the research is objectivism.