Research Philosophy and Paradigms

A research philosophy defines the significant assumptions made as to how the researcher perceives knowledge and its development, which underlines subsequent research paradigms, decisions and approaches (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007).

There are three major research philosophies (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 2002):

• Ontology: assumptions made about the nature of reality;

• Eptistemology: set of assumptions about the most appropriate methods of inquiring into the nature of the world; and

• Methodology: techniques used to collect data on specific situations.

A paradigm is a ‘set of the most fundamental assumptions adopted by a professional community that allows its members to share similar perceptions and engage in commonly shared practices’ (Liu, 2000, p.21). The adoption of a certain paradigm determines the research methods selected and the overall interpretation of the research theory (Liu, 2000).

The following sub-sections identify the different types of the philosophies and which paradigm, i.e. what characteristics of each type of each philosophy and assumptions, are adopted by this research.

4.2.1 Ontology

Ontology is a philosophical specification of a conceptualisation (Easterby-Smith et al.

2002). It is a theoretical branch of metaphysics (Audi, 1995; Kim and Sosa, 1995) that conceptualises social entities, categories and the relationship between them (Rawnsley, 1998; Tsagdis, 2002) in the context of a knowledge system (Saunders et al. 2007).

Metaphysics describes the absolute nature of things beyond their physicality, distinguishing what makes it possible (Rawnsley, 1998; Tsagdis, 2002).

4.2.1.1 Objectivism

Objectivism is an ontological paradigm that eliminates the social actors concerned with the existence of a social entity and its reality (Saunders et al. 2007). It assumes that there is an objective reality that reflects a subject-independent world made up of self-existant realities (Liu, 2000). Lakoff (1987) argues that an objective reality exists independently of humans and is a basic version of realism.

4.2.1.2 Subjectivism

Subjectivism is an ontological paradigm that considers the social actors, their perceptions, and subsequent actions, concerned with the existence of a social entity and its reality (Saunders et al. 2007); ‘whereas objectivism assumes a single reality and explains differences of ideas as aberrations, subjectivism treats different ideas of individuals as starting points for shared reality’ (Liu, 2000, p.24). Subjectivism recognises that individuals have freedom to choose their course of actions and associated moral responsibilities (Liu, 2000), which impacts upon their perception of reality.

4.2.1.3 Pragmatism

Pragmatism is an ontological paradigm that accepts the possibility to research with elements of both interpretivist (section 4.2.2.2) and positivist (section 4.2.2.3) philosophical perspectives to assist data collection and interpretation necessary to address the research question (Saunders et al. 2007). Pragmatists uphold that there is no way to collate a truly objective version of reality as if there is one ‘privileged description of events’ (Davidson, 1984, 1990), but a certain level of scientific objectivity sets the ground-rules of research (Wicks and Freeman, 1998).

Philosophical pragmatism deems that ‘ideas and practices should be judged in terms of their usefulness, workability and practicality and that these are the criteria of their truth, rightness and value’ (Reason, 2003, p.104). Hence, in terms of research, it creates an objective as possible single version of reality because that will yield a contribution to knowledge that is both applicable and valuable.

4.2.2 Epistemology

Epistemology is a philosophy intrinsic to research activities (Rawnsley, 1998) that translates research questions into issues of research methodologies (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). It analyses the nature of the research topic knowledge (Rawnsley, 1998;

Saunders et al. 2007) and assesses its correlation with the researcher (Huberman and Miles, 2002); in terms of postivistism and interpretivistism, as displayed in Figure 4.1.

The appropriate epistemological stand point influences the research paradigm adopted and subsequently determines the data collection methods adopted in the research (Denscombe, 2003). Positivist and interpretevist approaches and also the realist approach are discussed in the following sub-sections.

Figure 4.1 Positivist Paradigm vs. Interpretivist Paradigm Approach Assumptions View of Casuality Existence of Real Causes Multiple, Simultaneous

Shaping Events

Source: Adapted from Hudson and Ozanne (1988)

4.2.2.1 Positivist

The positivist research paradigm takes an epistemological view that considers its research social reality as observable (Saunders et al. 2007), quantifiable and measurable (Wittenstein, 1992). It subsequently follows well-structured and rigorous scientific principles and research methods (Kolakowski, 1993; Huberman and Miles, 2002) whilst rejecting the inclusion of the non-observable characteristics of a social reality (Thomas, 2004). Logical thought and quantifiable measures of cause and effect are used to deduce general laws that explain the ‘whys’ of the observable social reality (Merton, 1967; Denzin, 1989a; Henwood and Pidgeon, 1993), aiming to predict behaviour excluding any subjective experiences (Smith, 1986). Based on theory, hypotheses are developed and are presented as a set of interrelated research

variables and proposed explanations for their causal relationships (Holman 1964;

Kolakowski, 1993; Jupp and Norris, 1993). These hypothetical generalisations are tested, proved and legitimised through quantitative experimental data (Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar and Newton, 2001; Malhotra, 2007).

Positivists contend that qualitative research approaches that analyse opinion and experiences should not be an element of research (Denzin, 1989b), and that there is a single reality that can only be objectively measured through quantitative methods. The interpretivist perspective criticises this lack of qualitative elements in a positivist approach to research (Gill and Johnson, 2002). Positivist methods are also criticised by Glaser and Strauss (1967), who argue that unless social phenomena theories are based on observation and direct experience they are irrelevant. It is argued that theories should not be developed after analysis of empirical research (a pilot study) and should be a posterior (Fielding and Fielding, 1986).

4.2.2.2 Interpretivist

Interpretivism is an eptistemological paradigm that encourages the necessity to recognise the differences between the roles of humans and social actors (Saunders et al. 2007) and focuses on the way in which humans make sense of the world (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). Interpretivists reject the notion of a single reality and that to effectively conduct research, researchers need to emmerse themselves in a situation before they can understand it (von Wright, 1993). The interpretivists’ paradigm sees the world as social and as a result, can only be accurately interpreted through an elimination of objectivity and active participation in a situation (Husserl, 1931).

Interpretivists reject positivist methodologies, including hypotheses testing using deductive reasoning, external laws governing human behaviour and objectivity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). They interpret qualitative data within a socially constructed context in attempt to describe the respondent’s reality and develop concepts (Henwood and Pidgeon, 1993). The advantage of interpretivist research is that it provides insight into the phenomena under investigation, however, positivists criticise this approach claiming that biased results develop from subjective interpretation. Further criticisms include that interpretivist research tends to lack

design and structure and subsequent results cannot therefore, be generalised (Giddens, 1976).

Interpretivist research could be considered not to be a rational process of data collection and analysis; resulting in appropriate or concrete conclusions, and the interpretation of findings shaped by the researcher’s own personal experiences (Creswell, 2009). However, Szimigon and Foxall (2000) contend that an understanding of different consumers’ realities is invaluable for marketing managers as an analysis of the fluidity, complexity and dynamism of consumers.

4.2.2.3 Realist

Realism is an epistemological paradigm that supports the idea that the existence of objects is independent of human knowledge (Saunders et al. 2007). It accepts the interpretivist view that the world is made meaningful by human interpretation but also accepts the positivist view that the interpretation is not necessarily meaningful (Thomas, 2004). Interpretation consists of ‘abstract things… born of people’s minds’

but exist independently of any one person (Magee, 1985), a concept mix of a positivist world that consists of objective material things, and an interpretivist world, a subjective world of minds. Feyerabend (1985) argued that realism reflects the reality of a specific group, hence positivistic research methods reflects the reality of a specific group, and positivistic research methods reflect that specific reality, although without the contention that the results reflect a generic reality.

The realist paradigm contends that there are associated symbolic meanings (Sayer, 1992; Godfrey and Hill, 1995) and cause and effect relationships (Fielding and Fielding, 1986) between objects, process and inanimate objects. Realists believe that the social groups within the social world have their own culture and ‘context-dependent’ perspective (Winch, 1958; Fielding and Feilding, 1986; Healey and Perry, 2000). Hence, there cannot be a single objective reality as each social group has a different perception of reality (Winch, 1958) and researchers in a realist’s view, must analyse research problems in the context-dependent environment in which they occur (Sayer, 1992).

4.2.3 Research Paradigm Adopted

This research accepts the pragmatic ontological perspective and realist epistemological standpoint whereby reality is ‘real’ but is difficult to scientifically uncover in its entirety. It accepts that the data collected via a positivist methodology, and its analysis and conceptualisation, can be considered mostly true and as objective as the limitations of research allow. Hence, it contends that utilising a positivist methodology in a pragmatic context within a realist paradigm, will yield a deep and statistically precise analysis and conceptualisation of the plus size fashion online shopping motivations through research into specific reality of plus size fashion consumers.

4.3 Research Approaches