Research Philosophy

When undertaking research, it is important to understand research philosophy (Saunders et al., 2007, Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Research philosophy is often known as ‘research paradigm’ and it is defined as the basic belief systems or world views that guide researchers (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.105). According to Weaver and Olson (2006) paradigms are “patterns of beliefs and practices that regulate enquiry within a discipline by providing lenses, frames, and processes through which investigation is accomplished”. The phenomenon relates to important assumptions researchers make about the way they view the world, and that underpin their research strategy and the method they choose to investigate their inquiry (Saunders et al., 2007, p.108). From that perspective, a research paradigm is a philosophical understanding of research investigation which guides researchers with their data collection, data analysis and interpretation (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Thus, it helps researchers to make choices with regards to choosing an effective research strategy and suitable research methods, and that will have significant impacts on their research investigation outcomes (Johnson et al., 2007).

90

Numerous research paradigms are reported in the literature; these include positivism, postpositivism, constructivism, interpretivism, realism, pragmatism and so forth (Fitzgerald and Howcroft, 1998, Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). However, an examination of the IS literature shows that two research paradigms: positivism and interpretivism are most commonly used (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991, Fitzgerald and Howcroft, 1998, Walsham, 1995). The two paradigms are also known as ‘hard’

and ‘soft’ paradigms by many IS scholars (Fitzgerald and Howcroft, 1998).

Researchers have also argued that realism (critical realism) provides great explanation in IS research, and therefore it is utilised in many IS studies (Smith, 2006). Accordingly, the current literature review shows that researchers are largely guided by three main research paradigms; these are positivism, interpretivism, and realism.

Researchers have taken two major approaches - epistemology and ontology - to study research paradigms (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). The epistemological approach or assumption relates to what makes up knowledge in a field of study (Saunders et al., 2007). According to Bryman (2008) epistemology refers to the ways to acquiring knowledge. Therefore it is the question of what knowledge is and how it is acquired.

It is concerned with the question of how humans can achieve true knowledge (Niehaves, 2007). On the other hand, the ontological approach or assumption is concerned with the nature of reality, and therefore it is a question of the way the world operates (Saunders et al., 2007, p.110). In their book Saunders et al. (2007) further identify two aspects of ontology, objectivism and subjectivism. The first aspect ‘objectivism’ assumes that a social phenomenon exists in reality external to social actors (Saunders et al., 2007, p.110). The second aspect ‘subjectivism’ assumes that social phenomena are developed from the perceptions and consequent actions of social actors (Saunders et al., 2007, p.111). From that perspective, the existence of a social phenomenon in the real world is the consequence of human actions. Thus, ontology is concerned with the question of whether or not a real world exists and does reality exist beyond human speech or cognition process.

91 4.2.1 Positivism

Positivism focuses on hypothesis testing through empirical approaches and any results have to be objective through a scientific method. According to Mackenzie and Knipe (2006), positivism is referred to as a scientific method or science research that aims to test theory though rationalistic and empiricism. The paradigm assumes the existence of a real world and that one can in principle achieve objective knowledge about reality (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). Thus, positivism assumes that reality is objective and external from humans and does not need any human interpretation (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). According to Niehaves (2007), in positivism the data and its analysis are free from researchers’ beliefs and values and therefore the data do not change because they are being observed (Krauss, 2005). Thus, the researchers distance themselves from the world they study, and therefore they don’t have to participate in the real world life to better understand a phenomenon (Krauss, 2005). For example, Guba and Lincoln, (1994) have stated that with positivism, researchers are natural observers, and do not have any influence on their research outcomes and therefore their study outcomes are not biased by their values and beliefs. Furthermore, Bryman (2008) stated that with this paradigm the researchers aim to achieve objectivity by distancing themselves from the research subjects (research participants) during the data collection and data analysis. In addition, according to several researchers, the paradigm assumes that there are certain truths that can be known and therefore it typically focuses on hypothesis testing (Scott and usher, 1996). Thus, the paradigm assumes true reality can be discovered through rigorous empirical investigation (Creswell, 2007). For that reason, positivism is usually linked to deductive theory testing strategy to examine research hypotheses (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).

4.2.2 Interpretivism

Interpretivism is concerned with acquiring knowledge through investigating a social phenomenon in many ways and that will result in obtaining many

92

interpretations (Saunders et al., 2007). The paradigm suggests that there is a difference between humans and social actors (Saunders et al., 2007). Therefore it assumes that there is difference conducting research between humans (people) and objects such computers and machines (Saunders et al., 2007). Interpretivism assumes the existence of real world but neglects the possibility of achieving objective knowledge of it. Therefore, it allows researchers to develop subjective meanings from research subjects (Creswell, 2007, Bryman (2008). Thus researchers can often be biased by their values and beliefs as they try to understand a phenomenon through their interpretation and that is affected by their individual experiences (Creswell, 2007). Therefore, unlike positivism, Interpretivist researchers do not distance themselves from the research subjects as they are interacting directly with research participants. For example, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) have reported that Interpretivism assumes that reality is socially constructed and researchers rely on participants’ view of a phenomenon being studied, and any findings are directly impacted by the researchers’ background and experiences. Another major difference between positivism and Interpretivism is that researchers generally do not begin with theory when taking an interpretivist approach (Mackenzie and Knipe 2006). Thus, interpretivist research is generally linked to inductive reasoning approach (Mackenzie and Knipe 2006). Contrary to positivism, interpretivist researchers usually rely on a qualitative data collection approach to investigate a phenomenon (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006).

4.2.3 Realism

The realism paradigm has elements of both positivism and interpretivism (Krauss, 2005) as it focuses on what senses show us is reality and true (Saunders et al., 2007, p.114). The paradigm has elements of positivism as it assumes that a social phenomenon is a reality independent from humans, and therefore realism is about constructing the knowledge. There are two types of realism: direct realism and critical realism (Saunders et al., 2007). Direct realism suggests that what you see is what you

93

get, whereas critical realism suggests that the experience of the real world are sensations and images but not necessarily the real work (Saunders et al., 2007).

Realism also has elements of interpretivism as it suggests that knowledge of reality tends to change by certain conditions such as criticising the practical, politics, and social issues, and therefore, research results can be subjective (Saunders et al., 2007).

For example, Guba and Lincoln (1994) stated that realism assumes that reality is shaped by social, political, economic and demographic values. According to the paradigm, knowledge of reality is the result of social conditions and that cannot be understood without the researchers’ interference in the knowledge derivation process (Dobson, 2002). Since realism has elements of both positivism and interpretivism, it is believed that both qualitative and quantitative methods are seen as appropriate for the paradigm (Krauss, 2005).

An examination of the literature revealed that two research paradigms (positivism and interpretivism) could be applied to help selecting the research method. However, problems occurred when attempting to implement these two research philosophies.

First, interpretivism paradigm was implemented, and this allowed for utilising only a qualitative approach to answer the research question. However, this approach was seen as incomplete because to answer the research question this study required testing a theoretical framework and this was achievable through a quantitative approach.

Second, positivism was tried and similar issue occurred. This is because by adopting positivism, this study was tied to selecting a quantitative method. This would limit the ability to answer the research question, because a qualitative approach was needed to develop the measure for active participation.

From the above discussions it is clear that, this study could not follow the traditional route by first selecting an appropriate research paradigm then choosing a research method. Accordingly, it was concluded that choosing an effective paradigm can depend upon the necessary research method based on the formulated research questions and research objectives. The chosen research method is discussed in the subsequent sections and the chosen research paradigm is further discussed in a later

94

section (See Section 4.3.4). This is to help to understand the research philosophy that underpins this study.