Research paradigms

To best achieve the aims of the research, the researcher must first consider the most appropriate paradigm within which to carry out the research. A research paradigm is the set of beliefs or principles which shape and define the way the researcher

perceives the world. It “represents a worldview that defines for its holder, the nature of the „world‟, the individual‟s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that

90 world and its parts” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 107). The research paradigm

determines the ontology of the research, or the philosophical assumptions a researcher holds about how the world is perceived, and its epistemology or how knowledge about the world can be investigated, discovered and known (Easton, 2002). Selecting the correct research paradigm is essential to successfully answering the research question (Johnson, Buehring, Cassell and Symon, 2006). Different paradigms seek different types of knowledge, and therefore different methods of data collection may better answer the questions posed by the research (Lee and Lings, 2008). This is because the research paradigm shapes the logic of the methods used and the interpretation of findings (Malhotra and Birks, 2003).

Research paradigms align along a spectrum ranging from positivism, under which research has historically followed a scientific methods approach, to social

constructionism or interpretivism, where reality is assumed to be socially constructed and interpreted subjectively. Intermediate positions have also been identified. The two research paradigms of positivism and interpretivism will be examined for their

suitability for the proposed research, and the intermediate position represented by the realism paradigm will be proposed as the most appropriate design for the research conducted in the town centre image study.

4.2.1 Positivism

The majority of research on town centre image, in using survey methodology to measure the attributes found in the town centre as described in Chapter Two,

generally adopts a positivist paradigm. Positivism is a scientific approach to research, and is commonly used in the natural sciences (Malhotra and Birks, 2003). Positivists believe that social and natural worlds are organised according to pre-determined stable laws, and the aim of positivist research is to uncover cause and effect

relationships explaining the phenomena being studied (Lee and Lings, 2008; Malhotra and Birks, 2003). Truth is assumed to be stable and neutrally accessible (Hunt, 1990;

Johnson, Buehring, Cassell and Symon, 2006).Therefore positivist research requires

91 consistent and reliable factual information, and “a focus upon objectivity, rigour and measurement” (Malhotra and Birks, 2003, p. 136).

Positivist researchers assume that knowledge is gained through direct observation, and reality exists externally to and independently of the observer; the existence of unobservable entities is denied (Hunt, 1990, 1991; Lee and Lings, 2008; Easton, 2002). Research participants are objects to be measured in a consistent manner, and the researcher aims to avoid bias and subjectivity by remaining neutral and external to the research (Malhotra and Birks, 2003). The positivist approach is deductive, in that problems are investigated on the basis of theory about phenomena and

relationships between variables (Lee and Lings, 2008; Malhotra and Birks, 2003).

Hypotheses are tested in experimental situations to gain evidence in support of the theory (Easton, 2002; Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006; Lee and Lings, 2008).

Although not exclusively associated with quantitative methods, positivist research most commonly makes use of quantitative methodology. Quantitative methods using survey methodology allow the collection of substantial information from the target population to make accurate measurements (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006).

Measurement enables the researcher to examine and validate relationships between variables to test hypotheses by asking respondents structured questions (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006). Reliability is based on replication and validation to enable the prediction of behaviour. Using rigorous sampling techniques and given sufficient sample sizes, the positivist approach enables generalisations about patterns of behaviour to be extended to the wider population beyond the participants in the research (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002; Johnson, Buehring, Cassell and Symon, 2006).

4.2.2 Interpretivism

Whereas under the positivist approach phenomena are allowed to exist only if they are observable, many constructs have properties which are abstract and intangible (Lee and Lings, 2008). Such constructs include beliefs, attitudes, perceptions,

92 intentions and images, all of which are internal thought processes (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006). In a strictly positivist sense, these cannot be studied since the

researcher is unable to directly observe or measure them. The interpretivist paradigm enables these to be studied. In the interpretivist paradigm, reality is understood to be socially and culturally constructed as an output of human thought processes (Hunt, 1990; Peter, 1992). Hence this paradigm is also called social constructionism (Johnson, Buehring, Cassell and Symon, 2006; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002). Rather than measurement, the aims of interpretivist research are to

understand how people make sense of their environments. This understanding is gained through studying the language people use in creating meanings (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002).

Unlike positivism, where reality is considered to be stable and predictable, the intepretivist approach accepts that human beings are complex, contradictory and changing (Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992). Hence a range of individual interpretations of varying realities exists within the minds of its perceivers as they idiosyncratically interpret their own subjective images (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003; Hunt, 1990;

Malhotra and Birks, 2003; Peter, 1992; Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992). Within

interpretivism, the researcher is also a participant in the interpretation of realities. It is accepted that the researcher‟s own values may affect how they question respondents and interpret responses, and the researcher is thus engaged in the shared creation of meaning with respondents (Malhotra and Birks, 2003).

The interpretivist approach is based on induction rather than deduction, in that it seeks to develop theory from data rather than impose existing theory on data (Lee and Lings, 2008). Theory construction involves observing, interpreting and examining data and drawing conclusions about how phenomena appear to work (Peter, 1992).

The emphasis of interpretivist research is on gathering rich data from small samples, and this research paradigm is usually associated with exploratory research and qualitative methods (Malhotra and Birks, 2003; Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Interpretivist research necessarily follows an unstructured format and interpretation of

93 data is subjective (Malhotra and Birks, 2003). Interpretivist research thus limits the researcher‟s ability to generalise data to the wider population due to the unstructured format of the questions and the small sample size (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006; Lee and Lings, 2008). The reliability of interpretivist research is evaluated differently to positivist research. Interpretivist research is judged through iterative processing and debate among researchers (Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992) as to whether the

theories that are generated are believable and consistent with others‟ understandings of reality (Peter, 1992).

The subject of this thesis, town centre image, is a construct which is subjective and abstract, and as such is not directly observable. Formed from consumer perceptions, it represents various intangible attributes which include personal affective responses and symbolic meanings that consumers apply to their interactions with town centre environments. Because the town centre image construct has not yet been fully established theoretically in academic research, an interpretivist approach appears to be most suitable for this research, in that qualitative data could be collected to

generate a theoretical explanation of how consumers subjectively perceive this construct (Bryman, 2004; Lee and Lings, 2008).

However, an interpretivist approach cannot achieve the aim of the research to create a measure of town centre image using survey methodology which is generalisable to the wider population and across locations. Since the research is concerned with identifying town centre image as a phenomenon with a subjective component which is not directly observable by researchers, neither is a positivist approach compatible with the research aims. However, neither positivist nor intepretivist research paradigms are followed exclusively by researchers (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002; Lee and Lings, 2008). Whereas both positivism and interpretivism are considered extreme manifestations of research paradigms, researchers in marketing frequently adopt a middle ground (Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992). The realist view represents such an approach, which takes a middle ground between the positivist and interpretivist paradigms.

94 4.2.3 Realism

Realism is similar to positivism in that it contends that a reality exists which is measurable and generalisable (Lee and Lings, 2008; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002). Realists also agree that the world exists independently of its being perceived (Hunt, 1990). However, realism differs from positivism in accepting that concepts which are not directly observable can still be usefully measured (Hunt, 1991). Such constructs are known as latent constructs or variables, and include

“beliefs, motivational states, expectancies, needs, emotions and perceptions” (De Vellis, 2003, p. 7). Researchers investigate such constructs in terms of their tangible manifestations, or manifest indicators, by reducing them to their simplest possible elements which can be directly observed and measured (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006; Hunt, 1991).

Realism is therefore more conducive to researching constructs which are latent and unobservable, such as image. Although image is subjective and interpreted

individually, Lynch (1960) suggests there is a “public image ... which is the overlap of many individual images”, hence there is sufficient commonality in perceptions among perceivers to enable measurement to be carried out (p. 46). Realism does not claim to accurately depict and measure such abstract constructs; instead they are assumed to be close approximations of reality which can nevertheless be successfully

measured (Hunt, 1990). Assumptions of accuracy depend on the building and testing of successive theoretical models to assess how closely they represent the world (Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992). Similar to positivism, the role of theory is central to the realist approach whereby empirical observations representing reality are verified against theoretical predictions (Lee and Lings, 2008; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002). Abstract unobservable constructs are assumed to have a real existence if their measurement repeatedly and consistently confirms theory (Hunt, 1990).

Within the realist paradigm, theoretical knowledge is developed in terms of structures of relationships which exist and operate independently of perceptions (Zinkhan and

95 Hirschheim, 1992). Unobservable latent constructs are considered valid and reliable if they are related to other constructs within a hypothesised theoretical, or nomological network (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham, 2006; Malhotra and Birks, 2003;

Spector, 1992). Latent constructs are operationalised using sub-components which represent the construct‟s abstract and intangible properties (Hair, Bush and Ortinau, 2006). Theoretical validations of these relationships suggest that latent constructs exist if they influence behaviour as predicted (De Vellis, 2003; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham, 2006). Research examining latent constructs can be applied more generally to the wider population by testing these nomological networks

(Malhotra and Birks, 2003; Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992), and hence the realist paradigm allows generalisation.

The realist paradigm appears most suitable as the basis for the research design for investigating town centre image, as a latent construct. The realist paradigm does not imply any specific methodological technique, however, a mixed methods approach has frequently been associated with realist research (Hunt, 1990). Mixed methods are useful to give different perspectives on a research problem within the realist position, particularly where exploratory work is necessary (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002). The next section outlines the mixed method research design and

methodological approaches which are adopted to test the town centre image model and hypotheses.