Research design and knowledge framework

The research knowledge framework, depicted in Figure 9, outlines the main knowledge claims or assumptions that are being brought to this study (Creswell 2003). The framework clearly illustrates the five interconnecting knowledge levels within the research process: the paradigm, ontology, epistemology, theoretical perspective, and methodology (Crotty 1998).

The research paradigm: constructivism

Within this study, the research paradigm of constructivism defines what knowledge can be known and how it can be gathered (Grix 2010; Babbie 2007) further guiding the research process (Daly 2007). The relevance of the positivist paradigm was considered in relation to current knowledge and using concepts, boundary objects, to promote collaboration, knowledge sharing, between public health and tourism communities of practice within local government and the theoretical gaps identified.

Figure 9: Research knowledge framework (adapted from Crotty 1998)

Positivism

The positivist paradigm is philosophically and epistemologically rooted in the perception that knowledge is identifiable and objective and can be measured using surveys and multivariate analysis techniques to enable statistical prediction (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). Positivism views social reality as existing separately from personal ideas or thoughts and is ruled by laws of cause and effect (Neuman 2003; Crotty 1998). Positivism is underpinned by the basic assumption that the primary aim of science is to develop objective methods that capture the closest version of reality (Ulin et al. 2004). These types of quantitative studies test relationships between variables to explain cause and effect relationships rather than aiming to understand social processes (Denzin and Lincoln 2003). These types of positivist quantitative studies in wellness tourism have resulted in a theoretical gap in the social processes that may enable collaboration between public health and tourism departments synergised through a wellbeing construct. This study focuses on the subjective experiences of the participants which are embedded in their multiple interpretations of reality. The positivist paradigm however, focuses on an objective understanding of the potential means of synergistic working. This study explores subjective knowledge of wellbeing and how it may synergise

collaboration, thus requiring individual’s relativistic interpretations. A positivist approach to this research would not allow the exploration of synergies through interactions and processes, as it focuses on observed fact which can be quantifiably measured.

Constructivist paradigm

The identification of research gaps in understanding how wellbeing, public health and tourism could work together revealed the types of knowledge required to understand the social processes which could catalyse collaborative working between departments within the local government. This study has been organised within the constructivist research paradigm, which refutes the existence of an objective reality, rather putting forward that realities are social constructions of the mind and that there are a wide range of constructions (Charmaz 2014; Guba and Lincoln 1989). This study focuses on how participants make sense of their realities and the ways in which meaning is constructed. Thus, the researcher focuses on how participants make sense of events and experiences rather than in the actual events and situations themselves.

The research paradigm of constructivism has been increasingly used within health- related studies hence, being appropriate for this study with a focus on wellbeing (Appleton 2002; Koch 2000; Huebner and Betts 1999). Constructivist knowledge claims brought to this study assist the researcher in framing assumptions about the relativism of numerous social realities, the co-creation of knowledge by the researcher and the participant, and the goal of interpretive understandings of participants’ meanings (Charmaz 2005). Approaching this study as a constructivist, the researcher views grounded theories as consequences of emergent processes that arise through interaction. Moreover, researchers construct their theories from the material of the interactions as lived and witnessed. The denial of an objective reality thus, assumes a relativistic ontological position (Guba and Lincoln 1994).

Ontology: relativism

Ontology is linked to the philosophical question about the existence of things and relation to the external world (Corbetta 2003). Ontology can be understood as the study of being, the nature of existence. The main ontological question is a matter of what, and refers to the nature and the form of social reality and its characteristics. Further, it is proposed that researchers embrace different realities (Creswell 2007) thus, it is important to situate the researcher’s stance towards the nature of reality (Mason 2002).

The constructivist paradigm holds that individuals view the world in their own distinctive way thus, meaning is both fundamentally plural and context-dependent (McNeil 2006). This is representative of the world of relativism and is reflective of the postmodern assumption that suggests that all knowledge is embedded culturally, politically and

historically which is further framed by both the values and experiences of those who create it (McNeil 2006). In addition, Wakefield (1995) contends that these situation- specific meanings are fundamental to the understanding of human experience. Hence, in the construction of a theory, this study considers the plurality and context-dependency of meaning. The ontological claim is further embedded within the epistemology of social constructionism, which assumes an understanding of the world based on social artifacts, products and historically contextualised interactions between people (Schwandt 1998). Relativism is evidenced to be embedded in later strands of grounded theory, where Strauss and Corbin (1990) maintain that a reality cannot be known, rather it is always interpreted. Additionally, Strauss and Corbin (1994) claim that knowledge is closely connected with time and place, truth is enacted, and refers to local and specific constructed realities. The epistemological assumptions underlying explanations of grounded theory methodology have been suggested to have developed over the last thirty years (Annells 1996). Charmaz (1989) further emphasises that grounded theory methodological analysis can be further enriched by clarifying the researcher’s epistemological stance. From this perspective, Charmaz (1989) also cautions that grounded theory as a methodology can be misused if the researcher is not fully aware of the epistemological assumptions and underlying theory. Where ontology is interested in ‘what is’, epistemology is interested in ‘what it means to know’ (Gray 2009).

Epistemology: social constructionism

Epistemological assumptions are related to how the researcher knows what they know (Creswell 2007). Epistemological positions are often divided, based on whether they are foundationalist or anti-foundationalist, a simplified conceptual continuum of key epistemological positions. Foundationalism proposes that knowledge must be based upon indisputable truth that is logically deduced (Hughes and Sharrock 1997). Central to this viewpoint, is that reality is believed to exist separate to our knowledge of it (Grix 2010). Conversely, anti-foundationalists believe that reality is constructed by human actors (Grix 2010). The other fundamental belief is that there is no central value that can be either rationally or universally grounded. The importance of these starting points cannot be understated as they are significant based on their interrelationship to ontology, epistemology, methodology and methods, the key foundations of research (Grix 2010). The social constructionist approach is based on the assumption that an understanding of the world is based on the social artifacts, products and historically contextualised interactions between people (Schwandt 1998). Charmaz (2014) acknowledges that social constructionism has a strong connection to the constructivist paradigm and constructivist grounded theory. The four key assumptions associated with social constructionism as they relate to this study are:

(1) Observations made in the field are interpretations that are based on unbiased observations of the world;

(2) Categories and concepts used have both historical and cultural specificity, thus differences would be expected within the last fifty years;

(3) In understanding organisational dynamics, the researcher recognises that knowledge is sustained through social processes and that the role of language is particularly interesting; and

(4) Knowledge and social action are interwoven, hence there are a variety of social constructions of the world that will produce a range of actions.

Theoretical perspective: symbolic interactionism

Crotty (2003) proposes that the theoretical perspective acts as the philosophical stance which informs the methodology, further providing the context for its process and grounds its logic and criteria. The theoretical perspective guiding this study is symbolic interactionism, which postulates that a person’s reality is created through the attachment of meaning to situations and symbols, which are further used to express personal meanings and beliefs (Jeon 2004). The main focus of symbolic interactionism is on human activity and the interrelationships that exist within experiences, particularly within interpersonal meetings (Schroeder 1981). This theoretical viewpoint is particularly appropriate to guide this study as there is a focus on situational meanings as they may potentially lead to collaborative synergies.

Timmerman and Tavory (2007) maintain that grounded theory methodology is anchored within the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism. One of the foundational questions in symbolic interactionism is, what common set of symbols and understandings have arisen to provide meaning to human interactions (Bryman 2008)? Parallel to the aim of this study, the main emphasis of this perspective is on the shared meanings that are created through human interactions, and the meanings that then become reality (Patton 2002). Symbolic interactionists contend that interaction is a continual process where the individual is continually interpreting the symbolic meaning within their environment (Bryman 2008). From the perspective of the researcher, it requires that the nuances of interpretation are understood as the actors construct their actions (Blumer 1962).

Symbolic interactionism is recognised as being both a theory of human behaviour as well as an approach to inquiry that focuses on individual and group behaviour. The principle notion emerging from Mead’s (1934) interactionist perspective is that the self is defined through social roles and expectations of those in society. Moreover, he argued that individuals come to understand collective social definitions through the process of socialisation (Annells 1996). This viewpoint maintains that individuals are in a constant

process of interpretation and definition, in their move from one situation to another (Eaves 2001).

A former student of Mead’s, Blumer developed the three core assumptions of symbolic interactionism, which are: (a) people’s actions towards something are based on ascribed meanings, (b) meanings are produced through social interaction; and (c) meanings are adapted through an individual’s interpretive process (Blumer 1969). While there has been much evolution in the symbolic interactionist perspective since Blumer’s conception, these three premises remain a benchmark (Fine 1993).

Applied to theorising intra-organisation synergies through boundary objects within this study, these premises support a means for understanding human-object relationships and the construction of meaning. From this perspective, the study focuses on: how participants’ interactions with the concept of wellbeing are based upon meanings that they ascribe; how ascribed meanings to wellbeing are produced through the processes of social interaction; and how wellbeing meanings are adapted through each participant’s process of interpretation. Also, it is acknowledged that the meanings of boundary objects (wellbeing) perceived are neither innate, individual, nor static. Rather, these objects are defined within the context of the situation and through interaction with others coupled with the awareness of community and societal expectations.

Much literature proposes that symbolic interactionism is a foundation of grounded theory methodology, where grounded theory is recognised as a method of symbolic interactionism (Glaser 2005). Grounded theory methodology aiming to develop explanatory theory about social life patterns, emerges from symbolic interactionism (Chenitz and Swanson 1986). Where it is further contended that symbolic interactionism and grounded theory make for a strong ‘theory-methods-package’ (Clark 2006; 2005; Fujimura 1992; Star 1989).

Methodological considerations

Grounded theory methodology offers a set of research strategies to study the experience of boundary object interaction. This study uses grounded theory methodology to understand people in local government, from public health and tourism communities of practice, and assesses how wellbeing as a boundary object effects the development of synergistic alliances. The grounded theory approach is proposed to be the most appropriate to achieve the study aim and objectives and best respond to the main research inquiry, as the literature indicates that there is a theoretical gap in extant knowledge explaining how wellbeing may synergise public health and tourism communities of practice. The main goal of grounded theory methodology is to develop an explanatory theory of social processes that are grounded in the data (Eaves 2001;

Glaser and Strauss 1967) through the examination of meaning as constructed through interactions (Strauss and Corbin 1998a). As the main aim of this study is to explain synergistic processes between local public health and tourism practitioners, grounded theory is an appropriate research methodology.

The main aim of grounded theory methodology is to explore social processes and better understand the diversity of interactions that produce variation within that process (Heath and Cowley 2004). Grounded theory methodology provides a set of useful tools to better learn about individuals’ perceptions and feelings regarding a particular subject area. It is advised that grounded theory is an appropriate methodology to use in under- researched areas (Burck 2005; Chenitz and Swanson 1986). In addition, Locke (2001) suggests that grounded theory methodology is particularly appropriate for new theorizing in substantive areas within management studies, in practice-oriented studies, and exploring situated processes related to individual and or group behaviour. In past studies purporting to use grounded theory methodology, it is advised that they tend to be generally lacking an explanation as to how it has been applied (Charmaz 2006; Henry et al. 2005). Grounded theory methodology was selected for this study as it was both consistent with the research query and the researcher’s epistemological assumptions. The aim of the study is to make knowledge claims about the social production of meanings about concepts and actors within an actual setting (Gephart 2004). Therefore, this study, seeks to contribute to the methodological body of knowledge pertaining to constructivist grounded theory and offer flexible procedures to inform future studies.