Philosophy of „real world‟ research

The research methodology can be understood as the overarching framework that guides the process of research. When conducting “real world” research the development of the research methodology is influenced by the philosophical assumptions concerning reality (Gray, 2004). Philosophical assumptions relate to: (i) ontology – the nature of reality and existence; (ii) epistemology – the limit to which reality can be known and what it means to know (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). These assumptions fundamentally shape the philosophical worldview of research and the process of inquiry (Gray, 2004).

An ontological perspective has historically dominated Western philosophy, where reality is viewed “as being composed of clearly formed entities with identifiable properties” (Gray, 2004 p17). This view of a stable reality, with unchanging outcomes, contends that symbols and language are accepted as clear representations of the real world. A postmodern epistemological perspective has challenged this view by taking into account processes of change and the notion that the extent to which reality can be known is limited (Gray, 2004). Ontological and epistemological perspectives have led to the formation of distinct paradigms towards academic research (Cresswell, 2007).

120

For instance, positivism is aligned to the traditional ontological perspective where reality consists of what can be experienced by the senses and can be measured through direct scientific observation and scientific inquiry (Gray, 2004). However, positivism has received criticism from many social scientists for failing to provide a wider representation of reality and for a tendency to present results as facts (Gray, 2004). Although the post-positivist paradigm recognises many of these criticisms, many scholars have argued that positivist paradigms can only provide limited understanding of social phenomenon. Thus, many social researchers align themselves to constructivism, which contends that reality is socially constructed and the notion of an objective reality that can be known is rejected (Robson, 2002; Gray, 2004). The understanding or meaning of phenomena is formed through research participants and their subjective views, and participants are viewed as helping to construct the reality with the researcher (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007;

Robson, 2002). However, positivists argue that such research lacks the objectivity

necessary to test a hypothesis without a degree of bias (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).

Pragmatism diverts away from the traditional connection between the researcher‟s

philosophical worldview and the choice of methodology, by focusing on the consequences of the research and the selection of a methodology that is most suited to the research questions. Thus, pragmatism offers a theoretical philosophy that supports the use of a variety of research methods. Consequently, it has been closely associated with mixed methods research, which combines both qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Bergman warns that although many mixed methods texts encourage researchers to be pragmatic, “pragmatism is difficult to apply as an antidote to incompatibility” (Bergman, 2008 p12). In other words, pragmatism should not be seen as a means to justify a vague, and methodologically unsatisfactory “anything goes” approach to research.

Although this thesis takes a pragmatic perspective, the philosophical assumptions

underlying this study reflect two distinct paradigms. The collection of quantitative data (i.e.

ICE appliance electricity consumption measurements) reflects an ontology and epistemology that is aligned with the post-positivist paradigm. Reality is viewed as

objective and independent of the researcher, although it is appreciated that the research is

121

restricted by limits in experimental control (e.g. participants may alter their behaviour

during the monitoring period and monitoring equipment may introduce a degree of error).

For the qualitative interviews, the reality is not independent, due to the participation of the researcher in the data collection process. Responses from participants are viewed as subjective and context dependent. Unlike a fundamental constructivist perspective (which contends that responses cannot be considered as an accurate representation of a

participant‟s inner reality), this thesis considers qualitative responses to be representative of participants‟ attitudes, beliefs and such like. Thus, this element of this research is situated between the post-positivist and constructivist paradigms. Ontologically and epistemologically, this “middle ground” approach follows work by Wall (2006) and Reeves (2009) who both contend that although no research method can provide direct access to participants‟ mental states, the responses gained from participants provide a useful means (and arguably the only available means) to explore participants actions in the real world.

Therefore, this thesis views participant responses as realistic language (e.g. I refrain from using standby because of my environmental beliefs), whilst recognising a degree of uncertainty that they are truly representative of reality.

The socio-technical approach applied by this thesis is a reflection of the pragmatic research philosophy. Socio-technical research combines the collection of technical data (e.g. energy consumption) and social data (e.g. interview or questionnaire responses) and spans the physical and social sciences. In contrast, inter-disciplinary research can remain in the distinct domains of the physical or social sciences. For instance, combining aspects of psychology and sociology can be considered as inter-disciplinary, within the boundaries of the social sciences, but without the inclusion of a technical component, it cannot be considered as socio-technical. The range of cross-disciplinary elements inherent to this thesis are summarised in Table 5-1.

122

Table 5-1 Summary of the cross-disciplinary nature of this thesis Cross-disciplinary

themes

Description

Pragmatism This thesis‟ research paradigm includes perspectives from post-positivism and constructivism.

Socio-technical This thesis uses methods from the physical sciences and social sciences to collect: (i) technical data to quantify the electricity consumption of ICE appliances and patterns of use; (ii) “social” data to explore the behavioural factors that affect the measurements recorded.

Inter-disciplinary This thesis uses approaches from the physical sciences, psychology and sociology. The inter-disciplinary work includes: (i) combining research methods from the physical and social sciences (i.e. socio-technical);

(ii) combining perspectives from psychology and sociology to investigate both internal and external factors that influence household behaviour.

Mixed methods approach

Includes the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data.