Research approach

3.4.1 Prevalent research approaches

Broadly speaking, two distinctive, predominant research approaches are discussed in social science: quantitative, and qualitative. Conventionally, it is considered that the choice of research approach is largely dominated by the research paradigm (Creswell, 2002). This dominance is referred to as paradigmatic hegemony (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). For instance, the quantitative approach is often aligned with the positivist or postpositivist tradition, the qualitative approach, on the other hand, is usually associated with the constructivist or criticalist tradition. While the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches remains, paradigmatic hegemony has become

increasingly weakened over the past decade – as evidenced by more positivists or postpositivists taking a qualitative approach to their empirical research – chiefly due to the proliferation of scholars conducting interdisciplinary studies and the emergence of new research paradigms as a result of the pedigrees of various paradigms themselves ‘beginning to interbreed’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 184).

Thus, rather than assuming a particular approach based on paradigmatic hegemony, the research design in this study first considers the notable characteristics and impediments of each approach.

It is worth noting another research approach – mixed-methods, which is a hybrid of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Creswell, 2002). In Denzin and Lincoln’s (2005) view, the mixed-methods approach is a direct descendent of classical experimentalism exclusively connected with the quantitative approach.

Howe (as cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 10) is cautious about the development of mixed-methods:

It is just not the methodological fundamentalists who have brought into this approach. A sizable number of rather influential … educational researchers … have also signed on. This might be a compromise to the current political climate; it might be a backlash against the perceived excess of postmodernism; it might be both. It is an ominous development, whatever the explanation.

Considering the nature of the mixed-methods approach, it suffices to discuss the two predominant approaches, quantitative and qualitative, in the research design of this study.

3.4.1.1 Quantitative approach

As described by Creswell (2002), de Vaus (2001), and Silverman (2000), the quantitative approach, in principal, is influenced by the positivist or postpositivist tradition. This approach primarily employs true experiment, quasi-experiment – a less rigorous experiment, and social survey as methods of collecting and analysing empirical evidence, which subsequently leads to verification or falsification of knowledge. The quantitative approach excludes subjective values from the research and is chiefly evaluated against traditional scientific rigour such as structured, often statistical, analysis, internal and external validity, reliability

and computer-assisted analyses that permit frequency counts and tabulations.

Furthermore, the quantitative researcher is an impartial observer and reporter of objective empirical evidence and results (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Silverman, 2000).

Although the quantitative approach is supported by scholars from various academic disciplines, it attracts criticism, especially from scholars of social science and political science, mainly centring the omission of variables that represent subjective values (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Silverman, 2000).

3.4.1.2 Qualitative approach

As found by Denzin and Lincoln (2005), the attempt to clearly conceptualise the qualitative approach has become enormously challenging, as it is not only associated with constructivism, but also other emergent research paradigms that assume subjective, interpretive epistemology and methodology. Generically, the qualitative approach is defined as:

A situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study; personal experience, introspection; life story; interview; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject matter at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 3).

The qualitative approach attracts criticism from quantitative researchers mainly on two counts. First, most, if not all, empirical evidence collected in qualitative

research is filled with biases. Consequently, from a natural scientist’s perspective, the qualitative approach can hardly be considered as scientific and, at best, only serves the purpose of immersing the researcher in the phenomenon under study (Silverman, 2000). Some positivists or postpositivists accuse qualitative research of being fictional, which ultimately is an assault on the scientific tradition (Denzin

& Lincoln, 2003). Second, any explanation of a subject or phenomenon inevitably involves causality between observable variables. However, qualitative research discounts statistical validation of causality and therefore, the explanatory power of qualitative research, especially when focusing on a single incident, is highly contentious to quantitatively-orientated scholars (Silverman, 2000).

3.4.2 The research approach adopted in this study and the roles of the researcher

As indicated by Creswell (2002) and Silverman (2000), each research approach attracts proponents as well as opponents. In considering a specific approach to adopt, as suggested by those scholars, the researcher should particularly focus on the research questions, the nature of the subject or phenomenon under study, and the research purpose.

With consideration of the above suggestions, a qualitative approach is adopted in this study. This is justified from four perspectives. First, the existing empirical understanding of the social, contextual phenomenon, campaign teams’ utilisation of e-campaigning, is limited, particularly concerning factors that influence the utilisation of e-campaigning. To that end, this empirical study is largely exploratory in nature. Second, as noted, the phenomenon can only be studied in its natural setting. More importantly, the understanding and knowledge of e-campaigning resides within individuals involved in this social phenomenon and therefore can only be acquired, developed, and constructed through interaction with them. Third, the empirical evidence to be collected in this study consists of participants’ beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions. In other words, this study holds that it is the qualitative data that makes it meaningful and relevant. And last, this study does not intend to verify or falsify any facts or realities in relation to

campaign teams’ utilisation of e-campaigning, because, as mentioned, it considers that the phenomenon comprises multiple meanings and realities.

In general, a qualitative researcher is described as a bricoleur by Denzin and Lincoln (2005). As they (2005, p. 4) explain,

A bricoleur makes do by “adapting the bricoles of the world. Bricolage is ‘the poetic making do’” (de Certeau, 1984, p. xv) with “such bricoles – the odds and ends, the bits left over” (Harper, 1987, p. 74). …

The interpretive bricoleur produces a bricolage – that is, a pieced-together set of representations that is fitted to the specifics of a complex situation.

“The solution (bricolage) which is the result of the bricoleur’s method is an [emergent] construction” (Weinstein & Weinstein, 1991, p. 161) that changes and takes new forms as the bricoleur adds different tools, methods, and techniques of representation and interpretation to the puzzle. … Also, in the definition of qualitative approach offered by Denzin and Lincoln (2005), there are a few indications concerning the roles of a qualitative researcher.

For instance, Denzin and Lincoln suggest that qualitative researchers are transformers – who turn the world into a series of representations, sense-makers – who interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings participants bring to them, and knowledge co-producers – who produce knowledge with participants.

Given the various roles associated with, and expected of, a qualitative researcher, the roles specifically emphasised in this qualitative study are outside observer, facilitator, and interpreter. More precisely, the researcher of this study observes an emerging, complex, social phenomenon in its natural setting without any intrusion or manipulation; the researcher also facilitates the production of empirical knowledge and understanding in relation to the phenomenon under study by involving, and interacting with, multiple participants; moreover, the researcher assigns meanings to the empirical observations and evidence, guided by the researcher’s subjectivity.