Research Paradigms

A compelling research question is one of the most important considerations in any project and each possible research question requires the use of an appropriate research approach to produce high quality evidence, relevant for the research question (Broadbent and Unerman, 2011). In order to place this research in its epistemological, ontological and paradigmatic context, the philosophical stance and choice of research approach will have to be explicitly expressed (Biedenbach and Muller, 2011). In IS research there has been an extensive debate amongst academics, regarding which research approach is most suited for use while carrying out IS research. Some have argued in favour of positivist approach, whilst others have argued in favour of interpretive approach (Oates, 2006, Moore, 2010). The three main philosophies, which constitute the base of modern research are positivism, interpretive and critical social science (Myers, 2009, Neuman, 2000). Chua (1986) also agrees with these classifications of research epistemologies. The characteristics of these three philosophies, approaches or paradigms are presented in Table 3.1, the individual options are discussed in detail below.

Table 3.1: Adopted from Guo and Sheffield (2008)

Research Paradigm

Positivist Interpretive Critical pluralist

Theoretical perspective Concerns Assumptions Utility To discover

universal laws that can be used to predict human activity

Objective world which science can measure and ‘mirror’ with expert, privileged Human agency To uncover socially constructed meaning of reality as understood by an individual or group Inter-subjective world which science can

represent with concepts and

Power relations

To uncover socially constructed meaning of reality as

understood

by an individual or group

Material world of structured contradictions and/or exploitation which can be objectively known only by discourse on tacit ideological

63

Stands aloof and apart from stakeholders and subject matter so that decisions can be made objectively Conventional bench- marks of ‘rigor’; internal and external validity; reliability, objectivity Holsapple and Joshi (2004) social construction of reality

Becomes more fully involved with stakeholders and subject matter to achieve a good understanding of the stakeholders' world Trustworthiness and authenticity;

Fit with social norms and values

Orlikowski (2004)

Active involvement with stakeholders to surface illusions and to implement alternatives that will improve their world

Historical context; erosion of ignorance

and misapprehensions; sincerity of beliefs; action stimulus

Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2006)

3.1.1.0 Positivism

Oates (2006), Moore (2010) and Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) all emphasized that an IS research is positivist if the researcher is strictly empirical and emphasizes what they directly experienced while carrying out the research. Positivists therefore attempt to use theories to enhance the understanding of phenomena. Auguste Comte (1798–1857) is associated with the positivist philosophical position which underlies much of scientific reasoning (Moore, 2010). As highlighted in table 3.1, positivism is summarised by Biedenbach and Muller (2011) as being objective, assuming one reality, using traditional scientific approaches and often quantitative methods. Positivism assumes that the highest form of knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that scientific knowledge comes from studying directly observable and measurable events (Moore, 2010).

64

There is also the assumption that developing statistical measures of observations and studying the behaviour of an individual are of paramount importance for positivism (Creswell, 2008). The researcher who is positivist reflects on the need to examine causes that influence outcomes, such as having identified problems being examined in experiments (Creswell, 2008). Positivism can then be understood as the application of scientific methods to solving information system problems (Hirschheim, 1985, Siponen, 2005) and proposes that meaningful statements are only those which can, in theory at least, be verified (Ryan et al., 2002). Positivism places high value on the principle of replication and this replication occurs when studies are conducted using a repetition of the basics of the study and obtaining results or findings that are either identical or similar. Hence positivists emphasise replication as the fundamental test of knowledge because they believe that when identical research is carried out under the same conditions and limitations using clear facts, then the results obtained will be similar if ideas are carefully specified as well as facts and standards precisely measured and adhered to (Guo and Sheffield, 2008, Chen and Hirschheim, 2004). As a result, when IS researchers carry out similar empirical studies using known facts and follow a precise measurable standard and achieve similar results, other academics indicate increased confidence that the researchers have captured data accurately as well as applied the correct research method. Therefore using theories in the correct context contributes to an increase in scientific knowledge which can be generalised to the sample of population (Neuman, 2007).

3.1.1.1 Criticisms of Positivism

The application of the positivist paradigm is most suited and associated with either laboratory or survey research (Guo and Sheffield, 2008), because it assumes the determination of cause and effect to be the highest goal of science and equates data integrity with the control afforded by laboratory experiment (Hirschman, 1986). Unlike in the current study where the process of identifying and adopting an IS/IT system is expensive and due to this financial constraint can only be performed once. The positivist paradigm remains the dominant approach in conducting research in IS field (Chen and Hirschheim, 2004, Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991) with Chen and Hirschheim (2004) and Biedenbach and Muller (2011) arguing that the positivist paradigm

65

paradigmatic and methodological research in the IS research community could have a negative impact (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991, Chen and Hirschheim, 2004) and these researchers further proposed the importance of employing other research methodologies to better investigate research questions of interest.

Therefore, there is an argument that the positivist paradigm does not provide different dimensions for a research investigation, since most studies can only confirm or reject existing hypothesis and theories and do not lend themselves to investigate new areas of knowledge discovery. There is also the argument that although the positivist paradigm focuses on data and business processes, it fails to equally focus on people and the more non-dominant aspects of an organisation (Vickers, 1999, Smith, 1999). This seemingly neglected aspect is indisputably vital in the current study and could contribute to successful IS/IT decision making and pre-adoption as a result of the contribution of these non-dominant human factors to the overall business processes re-engineering in the organisation. Although the positivist paradigm is popular in laboratory work and is based, for example, on survey data, it is less popular in case study research, which limits its application and adoption (Guo and Sheffield, 2008, Hirschman, 1986, Chen and Hirschheim, 2004). In the current study, adopting the positivist paradigm would be inappropriate in light of the research settings and aims, since human interactions and involvement with ERP systems and their functionality are of interest here.

3.1.2.0 Interpretivism

Interpretive studies, as a research paradigm, attempt to understand phenomena through the meaning people involved assign to them. Interpretive approaches to research are associated with producing a subjective understanding (see table 3.1) of the context of the information system and of the process, whereby IS influences and is influenced by the context (Black, 2006). Table 3.1 indicates that the interpretive approach intends to uncover socially constructed meaning of reality as understood by an individual or group. Table 3.1 also illustrates the interpretive assumption, which is the existence of an inter-subjective world which science can represent with concepts and indicators such as the social construction of reality

66

The interpretive paradigm is summarised by Biedenbach and Muller (2011) as being subjective, using phenomenological social science approaches and often is based on qualitative data collection and analysis methods. It has also been argued, in favour of the current study, to provide the participant's understanding of a particular social settings (Guo and Sheffield, 2008). Generally, management studies often report 10% qualitative and 90% quantitative studies, however there is a steady increase in interpretive studies (Aguinis et al., 2009).

The interpretive ontology assumes a subjective reality as seen by individuals, because it is socially constructed and this leads to the assumption of multiple realities (Collis and Hussey, 2009, Biedenbach and Muller, 2011). Interpretivism stresses the necessity for the researcher to understand the difference between humans in their roles as social actors. Therefore, it is suitable to understand meanings and perceptions individuals attach to phenomena. Interpretivism has also been identified as being very suitable in addressing particular research questions (Biedenbach and Muller, 2011, Smyth and Morris, 2007). Interpretivism has emerged and is used in the field of IS and has become more widely accepted even in traditionally positivist-oriented journals such as MIS Quarterly (Chen and Hirschheim, 2004, Trauth and Jessup, 2000). With this growing popularity and acceptance, interpretivism should be welcomed and encouraged because it provides an essential dimension for research investigation which the positivist paradigm would not be able to accomplish (Chen and Hirschheim, 2004).

3.1.2.1 Criticisms of Interpretivism

Interpretivism has been identified as being fairly useful in addressing exploratory and explanatory research questions, but has also been criticised for being poor at addressing generic research problems (Biedenbach and Muller, 2011). The term ‘generic research problem’ refers to a research problem which provides generalisation to the samples population. As a result, when the research question being investigated takes a more generic perspective, the use of interpretivism is discouraged. In the current study, the research question looks at how OIPT can be used as the theoretical lens when streamlining business process and adopting suitable IS/IT system, which is not particularly generic.

67

The interpretive approach has also been criticised as being time consuming and thus researchers are likely to choose a less time consuming approach in response to Chen and Hirschheim’s (2004). In the current study, the consideration of taking longer time to apply an interpretive approach does not imply the quality of the research conducted is compromised. Rather, could imply that the time could be better spent achieving better results. Walsham (1995) also criticised the interpretive paradigm by stating that there is no homogenous school of thought with respect to knowledge claims. This implies that various researchers could apply various differing categorising schemes using different justifications and arriving at different outcomes. Given this potential bias, researchers using the interpretive paradigm can only claim that their findings serve as a reflection of IS research (Chen and Hirschheim, 2004) this is also applicable in the current study.

Denzin (1970) suggests using multiple unique methodologies in a triangulation to reach the same conclusion to enhance reliability, indicating that researchers are able to combine several methodologies, such as observation, interviews, meetings and documentary sources, in a single case study (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994).

3.1.3.0 Critical Pluralist

Critical pluralism focuses primarily on its explanatory power and on the dismissal of issues (see table 3.1), such as context and distribution of power (Faria and Wensley, 2002). Many critical studies conducted stress the need to understand and explain phenomena, that is to find the reasons for their existence, rather than to describe the existence and prescribe solutions for eliminating their symptoms (Adamides et al., 2012). Critical realist perspective is situated somewhere in the middle between positivism and interpretivism (Bhaskar, 1979). It admits the existence of a more complex, multi-level reality (ontology) as well as aiming at challenging the ontological assumptions and certainties of the positivist paradigm (Adamides et al., 2012). This challenge of ontological assumptions and certainties is via qualitative and multi-faceted, pluralistic research methodologies employing a retroductive mode of inference (Adamides et al., 2012). With the above, in the field of IS adoption and implementation research, Biedenbach and Muller (2011) summarised the critical study as being built on objective mechanisms, events and subjective experiences.

68

This perspective challenges the rationality behind information systems research by building an argument based on objective mechanisms, events and subjective experiences without putting into consideration the human and cultural aspects of information systems usage and adoption. Finally, the critical pluralist paradigm has been credited for providing participants with the understanding of particular social settings as required (Guo and Sheffield, 2008).

3.1.3.1 Criticisms of Critical Pluralist

The critical pluralist is criticised as embracing the concept of adopting or using information systems without questioning the ethos of industrial society and this limits human choice (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996). As a result, the use of this approach while investigating human related aspects or influence in information systems could provide unreliable results, due to the approach not considering the human and cultural aspects of information systems usage and adoption. Guo and Sheffield (2008) argues that among 120 empirical articles surveyed, only 1% actually applied critical pluralist stance. This argument was also supported by the findings presented by Chen and Hirschheim (2004), this may be linked to the above criticism.