Research Philosophy

A philosophical paradigm is a whole system of thinking (Neuman, 2006). Regarding research, the philosophical paradigm is the researcher’s system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2016). This is important as the researcher’s philosophical position shapes the research questions, and underpins the methodological choice, research strategy, data collection techniques and analysis of findings (Saunders et al., 2016). In the social sciences, the main research philosophies are positivism, interpretivism, realism (or critical realism) and pragmatism. The research philosophy employed contains important ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin the research strategy and the research methods and methodology (Saunders et al., 2016). Therefore, the ontology, epistemology, and methodology of this research are explored prior to discussing pragmatism as the philosophical positioning.

107 | P a g e 5.2.1 Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

Competing approaches in the social sciences are contrasted based on their ontological, epistemological and methodological base (Corbetta, 2003; Della Porta and Keating, 2008). Ontology refers to the researchers’ system of beliefs that reflect the interpretation about what constitutes fact, influences the researcher’s choice of what to research, and shapes the way the chosen research objects are perceived and studied (Saunders et al., 2016). The two alternative perspectives of ontology are objectivism and subjectivism.

Objectivism represents the position that things (e.g. social entities) exist as meaningful reality external to those social actors concerned with their existence (Crotty, 1998;

Saunders et al., 2016). Subjectivism assumes that social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent actions that are in a constant state of revision, of those social actors concerned with their existence (Saunders et al., 2016).

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge and is therefore related to the possibility of knowing the world and the forms that knowledge would take (Corbetta, 2003). It refers to how human beings have come to have knowledge of the world around them and is concerned with the possibilities, nature, sources and limitations of knowledge in the field of study (Dudovskiy, 2016; Blaikie, 2004). It provides a philosophical grounding for establishing what kinds of knowledge are possible and for deciding how knowledge can be judged as being both adequate and legitimate (Blaikie, 2004). The understanding of what knowledge is and how we acquire it defines the nature of the questions the researcher might ask when carrying out research, as well as the methodology and methods the researcher considers appropriate to address the research questions (Hammond and Wellington, 2013). Therefore, Hammond and Wellington (2013) argued that ontology and epistemology should be at the top of the hierarchy of issues for consideration when it comes to shaping the research project.

The methodological base refers to the technical instruments that are used to acquire that knowledge (Corbetta, 2003). According to Della Porta and Keating (2008), the methodological question refers to the instruments and techniques we use to acquire knowledge. Given that there are multiple ways of acquiring each type of knowledge, the methodological question is independent of the ontological and epistemological questions

108 | P a g e (Della Porta and Keating, 2008). Questions about methods come together with epistemology and theory in discussions about methodology, which refers to the way in which methods are used (Della Porta and Keating, 2008).

5.2.2 Philosophical Debate

The debate on ontology and epistemology is often framed in terms of either positivist or interpretivist research philosophy (Saunders et al., 2016). Positivism implies that the research findings are objective facts and therefore established truths (Gray, 2014; Altinay and Paraskevas, 2009). Consequently, positivists tend to use quantitative methods concerned with statistical analysis (e.g. survey research or field experiments) and aim to generate knowledge based on sensory experiences obtained from experimentation, as well as interviews, surveys and observations (Altinay and Paraskevas, 2009; Neuman, 2006). The ontological position of the quantitative paradigm is that there is only one truth:

an objective reality that exists independent of human perception (Sale et al., 2002).

Epistemologically, from the positivist perspective the investigator and the investigated are independent entities; therefore, the researcher can study a phenomenon without influencing it or being influenced by it (Sale et al., 2002).

In comparison, from a constructivist or interpretivist perspective, concepts are nominal and emerge from social interaction to reflect human needs and interests (Hammond and Wellington, 2013). That is, humans create meanings, which makes them different from physical phenomena, therefore, each must be studied differently (Saunders et al., 2016).

Specifically, interpretivists assert that as people of different cultural backgrounds, under different circumstances and at different times, make different meanings, they create and experience different social realities, leading interpretivists to be critical of the positivist attempt to discover definite, universal laws that apply to everybody (Saunders et al., 2016). Overall, the purpose of interpretivist research is to create new, richer understanding and interpretations of social worlds and contexts (Saunders et al., 2016).

In comparison, positivists find issues such as reliability, validity, and bias relevant, whereas interpretivists are more likely to be as interested in the consequences of the phenomena as they are in accounting for the phenomenon in the first place (Hammond and Wellington, 2013). However, some would argue that choosing either a positivist or

109 | P a g e interpretivist position is somewhat unrealistic, and therefore, adopt a pragmatist position (Saunders et al., 2016). It is assumed that predetermining the methodology restricts the choice of methods and techniques and their appropriateness for problem solving (Guthrie, 2010). Therefore, pragmatists employ the method most suitable for answering the particular research question, problem or aim and objectives (Saunders et al., 2016;

Guthrie, 2010). As such, they may use a range of methods including mixed, qualitative, quantitative or action research and regardless of the method used, the emphasis is on practical solutions and outcomes (Saunders et al., 2016). A pragmatist philosophy underpins this research and consistent with prior research (Saunders et al., 2009;

Guthrie, 2010), it is argued that the most important determinant of ontology and epistemology is the research question, problem or aim and objectives. Accordingly, the following sections focus on detailing specifically how the pragmatist philosophical positioning underpins each aspect of this research project.

5.2.3 Applying Pragmatist Philosophy to this Research Project

The research approach is based on the research philosophy and determines the research design. Specifically, induction, deduction and abduction are research approaches and forms of logical reasoning that are used in every type of research (Reichertz, 2014).

Inductive approach argues that empirical generalisations and theoretical statements should be derived from the data, therefore, hypotheses are derived from theory and then tested against data (Miller and Brewer, 2003). In comparison, deduction begins with a specific theory or rule and examines how the raw data support the rule (Reichertz, 2007).

Kennedy (2018), argued that the risk with deduction is that researchers become less sensitive to participants, the field under study, and the data collected, since the main concern simply is to prove or demonstrate the theory and assert a priori arguments. On the other hand, induction remains close to the data and can reveal new understandings of existing knowledge and conclusion (Reichertz, 2007). In qualitative research, induction means that patterns, concepts and theories emerge from data through the researcher’s interactions with the data without pre-supposing such outcomes a priori (Kennedy, 2018).

However, it is argued that inductive conclusions are often hypothetical and fallible, as observations could be in existence in a given situation; they just have not yet been observed (Kennedy, 2018).

110 | P a g e Taking an alternating focus between induction and deduction is known as abductive reasoning, which aims to overcome these proposed limitations of the two approaches by employing a pragmatist perspective (Hammond and Wellington, 2013). Abduction is concerned with discovering new concepts, ideas and explanations by finding surprising phenomena, data or events that cannot be explained by pre-existing knowledge (Kennedy, 2018). Specifically, abduction requires interplay between data collection and analysis and also data and theory (Kelle, 2014). In this case, the ongoing analysis suggests plausible hypotheses to investigate further and the researcher must draw implicitly or explicitly on previous theoretical knowledge (Kelle, 2014). Additionally, the researcher must re-think, revise or challenge established assumptions to resolve surprising or puzzling data (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2011).

Mixed methods may use both deductive and inductive approaches by, for example, employing qualitative methods as the preliminary stage to test a theoretical proposition, followed by further quantitative research to develop a richer theoretical understanding (Saunders et al., 2016). For this study, an abductive approach was implemented.

Accordingly, given the limited research investigating the phenomenon under study, exploratory data were collected to test the employed theories in the context of this study, to identify themes and patterns from the data analysis, and then locate these in a conceptual framework to test through subsequent quantitative data collection (Saunders et al., 2016). The findings were incorporated with existing theory where appropriate to modify existing theory to the study context (Saunders et al., 2016).

5.2.4 Research Purpose: Exploratory and Explanatory

According to Saunders et al., (2016), the research purpose can be categorised as exploratory, descriptive, explanatory or evaluative. Exploratory research seeks to discover, describe or map patterns of behaviour in areas or activities which have not been previously studied and therefore aims to gain insights into a topic of interest by asking questions associated with the what and how (Saunders et al., 2016; Veal, 2006). This type of research is common in the tourism domain because of the changing nature of the phenomena being studied (e.g. the relative popularity of different tourism destinations changes) and the frequent separation between research and action (Veal, 2006).

111 | P a g e Exploratory studies tend to use a qualitative approach such as interviews given their exploratory nature, and the qualitative findings are often useful in guiding the subsequent stage of the research (Saunders et al., 2016). Exploratory research requires flexibility and adaptability to change and in comparison, explanatory research requires a clear picture of the phenomenon under investigation and therefore could be an extension of a piece of exploratory research (Saunders et al., 2016). Research projects could concentrate on only one of the research types, however, often two or more of the approaches are included in the same research project (Veal, 2006; Saunders et al., 2016). Therefore, in order to reach the overall aim, this study combined exploratory (Research Phase 1) and explanatory (Research Phase 2) research, which was achieved by the use of mixed methods research design outlined above and discussed in more detail in the following subsections.