The Research Design

The research design philosophy is a very important step that should be made in order to facilitate the research methodology (Creswell, 2003). Regarding the importance of understanding the philosophical issues of the research design, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) identify three reasons; first the research design philosophy knowledge allows the researcher to identify the needed data and how to collect it. Secondly, this knowledge can help the researchers recognize the feasible or unfeasible research designs. And thirdly the knowledge of the research design philosophy can help researchers create new research designs with which that they were not familiar.

Earlier, Oppenheim (1992) has explained that the research design or strategy is the basic plan of the research that will lead to the intended results conclusions. This can be achieved by solving the research problem through forming the research questions and finding their answers. By developing an effective research design Chisnall (2001) and Creswell (2003) argue that researchers may be able to reach the research objectives. Hussey and Hussey (1997), Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) and Creswell (2003) seem to share the same opinion;

they argue that researchers must choose the research design at the beginning stages of a research project. The research design involves determining the research methodology, the primary data collection methods, and the data analysis and interpretation methods.

Moreover, research design is based on organizing the research process so as to achieve the research objectives (Hussey and Hussey 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). Each research is considered as a unique case, therefore there is no design that is superior to other designs, but Malhotra and Birks (2000) state that one design may be more appropriate than others in a particular case.

In addition, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) and Creswell (2003) mention two philosophical paradigms of research designs which are; positivism and phenomenological. They can be also identified as quantitative and qualitative according to other authors such as Hussey and

Hussey (1997). Remenyi et al. (1998, p. 287) identify Positivism as “a theory of nature, omni competence and unity of science as understood in the physical world”. On the other hand, the phenomenological approach is based on the science of the phenomena.

Furthermore, there is continuous debate between philosophers regarding which paradigm should be used, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) mention that there was a trend away from the positivism philosophy towards phenomenological philosophy since the early 1980s, and researchers in the management field are increasingly adopting combined research methods that include both philosophies.

Also, the positivistic (quantitative) paradigm is called the traditional, the experimental, or the empiricist paradigm (Creswell, 2003). The primary idea of the positivism philosophy, according to (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002), is that the social world exists externally, and that its properties should be measured by using objective methods by using observation, reflection or intuition rather than being inferred subjectively. In investigating a phenomenon, the positivism philosophy takes an ontological assumption which perceives reality as external and objective throughout studying a social phenomenon. This paradigm considers that studying the human behaviour should be conducted in the same method as studying the natural sciences. Hussey and Hussey (1997) add that the positivistic (quantitative) paradigm is the dominant paradigm in business research.

As for the phenomenological (qualitative) paradigm, which is also known as the naturalist or interpretative approach, it has surfaced mainly during the last four decades as a result of the intensive criticisms directed towards the quantitative paradigm by the pro-qualitative philosophers (Creswell, 2003). The phenomenological philosophy views reality not as objective and exterior, but it is socially constructed and given meaning by people. The fundamental idea of the phenomenological philosophy lies in the fact that it focuses on the ways in which people make sense of things and view the world especially through sharing their experiences. Therefore, this view perceives reality as determined by people rather than by objective and external factors. Consequently, it does not focus on gathering facts and measuring how certain patterns occur, but rather on appreciating the different constructions and meanings that people place upon their experience. People’s feelings, thinking, and interpretations of the phenomenon being investigated are fundamental issues in the

phenomenological paradigm. This involves thoroughly explaining why and how people see different experiences rather than searching for external causes and fundamental laws to explain their behaviour (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). Table 6.9 shows the main characteristics of the two paradigms.

Table 6.1 Main characteristics of the two paradigms (Positivistic, Phenomenological)

Positivistic paradigm Phenomenological paradigm Tends to produce quantitative data Tends to produce qualitative data

Uses large sample Uses small sample

Concerned with hypotheses testing Concerned with generating theories

Data is highly specific and precise Data is rich and subjective

The location is artificial The location is natural

Reliability is high Reliability is low

Validity is low Validity is high

Generalises from sample to population Generalises from one setting to another

Source: Hussey and Hussey (1997, p.54)

As it can be identified from Table 6.1, the positivistic research provides quantitative data that is derived from a large sample, whilst the phenomenological research provides rich qualitative data that is derived from a small sample with in-depth understanding. Therefore, it is important to understand the philosophical issues of the research design paradigms so as to choose a certain research paradigm that leads the researcher to adopt a specific research design and research methodology for the research topic. Hussey & Hussey (1997) and Creswell (2003) summarize the differences between adopting quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Adopting the quantitative (positivists) paradigm results in

adopting the methodologies of experimental, longitudinal, cross-sectional studies and surveys. On the other hand, adopting the qualitative (phenomenological) paradigm leads the researcher to employ the methodologies of action research, case studies, and grounded theory approaches. Creswell (2003) adds that another major difference between the positivists (quantitative) paradigm and the phenomenological (qualitative) paradigm is that the first aims at generalizing from a sample to a population but the second aims at generating theory and exploring new ideas. Table 6.2 shows the positivism and constructionism (phenomenological) philosophies and the implications of each philosophy.

Table 6.2: Contrasting Implications of Positivism and Social Constructionism.

Positivism (quantitative) Social Constructionism

The observer Must be independent Is part of what is being observed Human interests Should be irrelevant Are the main drivers of science Explanations Must demonstrate causality Aim to increase general

understanding of the situation Research progress

through

Hypotheses and deductions Gathering rich data from what ideas are induced

Concepts Need to be operationalized so that they can be measured terms

Should incorporate stakeholder perspectives

Units of analysis Should be reduced to simplest May include the complexity of

“whole” situations Generalisation

through

Statistical probability Theoretical abstraction

Sampling requires Large numbers selected randomly

Small numbers of cases chosen for specific reasons

* Source Easterby-Smith et al. (2002, p.30).

In reality, there are very few pure quantitative or qualitative research projects that adopt one single paradigm and neglect the other. As Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) and Creswell (2003) indicate that most of the research projects use a blend of both paradigms. The reason for adopting a combined philosophy is that each philosophy has its points of strength and weakness. So the researchers can choose which methods are helpful in a given research and by doing this, they can minimize the weaknesses and maximize the strengths of each method.

For instance, the points of strength of the positivism philosophy and quantitative methods are that they have a wider range of situations, are faster and more economic than the phenomenological philosophy. On the other hand, the qualitative methods have some weaknesses in the positivism philosophy, such as being inflexible and artificial in understanding processes or the significance that people attach to actions, and they do not help in producing theories. Qualitative methods are also more time consuming, costly, and result in data that might be difficult to analyse and interpret (Hussey and Hussey 1997;

Easterby-Smith et al. 2002).The strengths of the phenomenological philosophy and qualitative methods are that they provide the ability to understand people’s interpretations, produce new theories, and provide more depth to the research being investigated compared to their quantitative counterparts.

In an attempt to have a full understanding of the combinations between the two methodologies, Creswell (2003) pointed out that the combination of the two paradigms is described as the “triangulation” between paradigms, methodologies and methods of data collection in the study of the same phenomenon. The triangulation between paradigms is based on the assumption that it would reduce any bias inherent in particular data collection sources and methods by combing them with other data collection sources and methods.

Triangulation must be used as an integral part of a good research design, and must not be used to rectify a poor research design. Hussey and Hussey (1997) emphasized that using triangulation in one study has a number of advantages such as providing a type of convergence of results. In this field, Creswell (2003) comments that mixing methods can

add scope and breathe to a study. Accordingly, this research has drawn its design and primary data collection methods based on triangulating methods. These involved primary data collection in which this research has predominantly employed the quantitative paradigm by conducting a survey (using a questionnaire) on all global banks customers in Jordan, and a less dominantly employed qualitative paradigm by conducting a number of in-depth interviews with marketing managers and as a second primary data collection method.

Generally speaking, in using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, the model of the combination must be determined. Creswell (1994) has conceptualized three models or approaches on combining a research design. First, the two-phases design approach. According to this approach, the researcher conducts a qualitative phase of the study and a separate quantitative phase of the study. Second, the dominant-less dominant design approach which means that the study is presented within a single, dominant paradigm with one small component of the overall study drawn from the alternative paradigm. Third, the mixed-methodology design approach. This approach represents the highest degree of mixing paradigms of the three designs. In this research the two phase design was employed.

For more illustration, by using this approach, the researcher may mix some aspects of the qualitative and quantitative paradigms or many methodological steps in the design. It is revealed by examining these three combined research design approaches that this research represents a dominant quantitative approach with less-dominant qualitative designs and data collection procedures. Consequently, for the design of this research, it was decided to employ both quantitative and qualitative paradigms which would utilize the best advantages of each paradigm and neutralize the disadvantages of each at the same time (Creswell 2003).

Therefore, once the research design has been chosen the choice of the research methodology is largely determined as well as the type of methodology that is chosen by the researcher which should reflect the assumptions of the research paradigm (Hussey and Hussey 1997).

In the field of business research methodology, there is no wrong or right methodology in conducting a research project. "There are factors that affect the choice of a research methodology which lead to the adoption of a specific research methodology according to the research aims and objectives". As been said earlier, although there is no right or wrong methodology, there are methodologies which are more or less useful which can be employed in the research project to achieve its aims and objectives (Oppenhein 1992;

Silverman 2001; Easterby-Smith et al 2002; Creswell 2003).

6.3 Types of the Research

The type of this research can be defined as a cross-sectional research survey in which all global banks functioning in the Jordanian market are included. It is a single cross-sectional design in which the collection of information from the research population and respondents (marketing managers) was carried out only once as stated by Oppenheim (1992), Hussey and Hussey (1997), Sekaran (2000), Malhotra and Birks (2000) and Churchill (2001). The aim of the cross sectional research survey in this study is to investigate the integrated global marketing communication mix and its degree of acceptance by the Jordanian market (the acceptance or rejection of the existing standardised global marketing communication tools by global banks` audience in Jordan).

Again, the rationale for using the survey approach in this research is supported by the facts that this approach has been extensively used in the field of marketing strategy research, it is consistent with the research design or paradigm philosophy and with its aim, objectives and questions, this approach is also by far the most common approach to primary data collection in addition to being the overwhelming choice for collecting primary data in marketing research (Hussey and Hussey; Malhutra and Birks 2000; Sekaran 2000; Aaker at al 2001; Creswell 2003).