Research philosophy

This is regarded as the development of knowledge and the understanding of the nature of that knowledge (Saunders et al, 2009). It is the “lens” in which a researcher views the world. And by implication, the chosen research strategy and methods are shaped by the underlying assumptions embedded in that philosophy. An understanding of the research philosophies is not to show that one is knowledgeable in the area but it is to; inform one’s reflection upon the philosophical stance adopted, and to defend them in lieu of alternative philosophies (Johnson and Clark, 2006; cited by Saunders et al, 2009). However, no one philosophy is better than the other. The choice of a philosophical approach will depend on the question(s) the research is trying to answer. Contrary to popular believe, the philosophy we choose to adopt is influenced, in whole or in part, by the lens we view the relationship between knowledge and the process by which we think knowledge is developed (Saunders et al, 2009). A summary of the available philosophies, Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology are given below along with the philosophical stances of this research.

3.2.1 Ontology

According to Saunders et al (2009), ontology is obsessed with the nature of reality - how the world operates and the laws that govern social entities. It seeks to answer two basic questions; do social entities exist independent of social actors (Objectivism) or is social phenomena caused by the ripples produced by the actions of social actors (Subjectivism). In theology, this would be a case of "man for the sabbath or sabbath for the man" or "food for the stomach or stomach for the food" type of argument.

124

Objectivism: This is a branch of ontology, which advocates the view that social entities

exist independent of social actors. On the extreme side, it is of the view that the laws of physics exist outside of human influence. That there is a pattern set by nature or a predetermined cycle which social actors must adhere to. According to Saunders et al (2009) objectivism subscribes to the view that this pattern, cycle or structure is the same everywhere and can be generalised.

Subjectivism: This is the creation of social phenomena from the perceptions and consequent

actions of social actors – an understanding of the meanings individuals attach to social phenomena (Saunders et al, 2009). And because, social actors keep interacting with each other and with their environment, the social phenomena they create, keeps changing. The phenomena themselves are a direct reflection of the social actors “interpretation” of the situation in which they find themselves. According to Saunders et al (2009), not only do social actors try to interpret their situation, they also try to make sense of it.

3.2.2 Epistemology

This is mainly concerned with what constitutes acceptable knowledge within a particular research field. The question here is, how much authority can a researcher place on data (tangible or intangible)? Should the researcher who counted tangible data (e.g. cars) place more authority on his data than the researcher with intangible data, who, for instance, measured knowledge or emotion? There are two extreme poles to epistemology. The first is the positivist philosophy which subscribes to the view that more authority should be

placed on tangible data than on intangible data which is collected by the researcher who subscribes to the interpretivist philosophy. The interpretivist researcher would argue the

negative.

Positivism: The positivist researcher seeks to generalise results by observing social reality.

The positivist research is sort of a cycle which starts by first developing a hypothesis from existing theory. The hypothesis is then tested, confirmed (in part or whole) or refuted, leading to the development of new theory, which can then be further tested. Positivism advocates that only phenomena that can be observed can lead to the production of credible data (Saunders et al, (2009). One of the characteristics of positivism philosophy is that it is value-free. It claims the data collected is free of the influence of the researcher.

125

Realism: this is a branch of epistemology that is similar to positivism only in this case the

realist research assumes that objects exist independent of our knowledge of their existence. That what our senses show us as reality is the truth. There are two types of realism; direct and critical realism. Direct realism say “what we see is what we get: what we experience through our senses portrays the world accurately, while Critical realism advocates to the notion that our sense deceive us sometimes and that what we see may not be the actual reality (Saunders et al, (2009). A mirage, for example, does not portray actual reality. Saunders et al (2009) gave a perfect example of the difference between direct realism and critical realism using the umpire/referee in a game of rugby or football. The direct realist referee would defend his decision by saying “I gave it as it is” while the critical realist would defend his by saying “I gave it as I saw it”.

Interpretivism: this research philosophy advocates for the research among social actors

(people) rather than objects. It suggests that for an adequate understanding of interactions and actions of social actors, the researcher must be part of the process, which enables them interpret the situation according to the role played by the actors. However, the researcher’s interpretation of the situation is seldom constant but one that keeps changing in line with the actions of other social actors. According to Saunders et al (2009) the researcher has to adopt an empathetic stance and enter the social world of the research subjects in order to understand their world from their point of view.

3.2.3 Axiology

This is a branch of research philosophy that is concerned with the extent to which the researcher’s values influence the choice of research and more so, data collected. This is very important because it determines the credibility of the research work. There are two sides to the axiological stance of a research; value-free or value-laden.

3.2.4 Pragmatism

This is the fourth branch of research philosophy, which suggests that the ontological, epistemological, and axiological stance of a research depends on the research question. It

126 argues that there is no one-best position and that, in fact, the three can be adopted within the same research (Saunders et al, 2009).