Research Philosophy

The research procedure consists of a number of stages or events that should be taken to conduct research; each of these stages requires logical decision-making choices. The nature of the knowledge and its development was related by the term research philosophy. Saunders et al. (2007) reported the stages of research process could be viewed as layers of a research onion. The research onion consists of six layers; research philosophies, approaches, strategies, choices, time horizons, techniques and procedures (see figure 6.1). Before deciding about data collection and data analysis you need to have peeled away the layers of the research onion to arrive there.

Under the research philosophy adopted by researchers, the research philosophy can influence the way in which the research is undertaken. In social sciences, like

117

accounting, when undertaking research, it is important to consider assumptions about the nature of social science and the nature of society.

Figure 6.1: The research onion

Source: from Saunders et al. (2007, p.102)

6.3.1 The nature of social science

Burrell and Morgan (1979) identified four sets of assumptions that inform social science research, namely: ontological, epistemological, human nature, and methodology. One’s conception of social reality (ontology) determines one’s beliefs about the most appropriate ways of knowing (epistemology), which in turn determine one’s assumptions about free will and determinism (human nature), and ultimately the methods and tools one adopts to answer the research question

(methodology). Under each of these assumptions there are two positions (see figure

6.2). The objective subsumes realism, positivism, determinism and the nomothetic approach, whereas the subjective dimension contains the nominalist, anti-positivist, voluntarist and ideographic perspectives (Burrell and Morgan, 1979.p.3). Objectivism means the perspective of where social entities occur in a reality outside of social actors (Saunders et al., 2007). Bryman (2004) clarifies this meaning by stating that:

118 “Objectivism is an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors It implies that social phenomena and the categories that we use in everyday discourse have an existence that is independent or separate from actors” (p.16).

The subjectivist believes in free will: everyone has the freedom to make decisions that change the path of their lives (May, 2005). In addition, Blaikie (1993) argued that these aspects are very relevant to Social Science since the humanistic factor introduces an element of ‘free will’ that adds a complexity beyond that seen in the natural sciences and others. In sum, objectivists look at social entities as objective entities held in a reality outside of the social factor, while the subjectivists see themselves as social constructions built up from social factor perceptions and activities (Bryman, 2004).

Figure 6.2 The subjective–objective dimension

Source: from Burrell and Morgan (1979, p.3)

6.3.1.1 Ontology

The first set of assumptions is ontological, ‘ont-’ means ‘being’ or ‘existence’ while ‘-ology’ means ‘knowledge’ or ‘theory’, In other words, it is the theory of being (Marsh and Stoker, 2002). It focuses on understanding ‘what is’ and what about the nature of reality. Blaikie (1993) reported that ontology is concerned with assumptions about what represent social reality. In ontology, two contrasting

119

positions can be classified, Realism and Nominalism. Realism is explaining about the social world by real, factual and tangible structures, because objects have a being independent of human mentality (Saunders et al., 2007). Meanwhile, nominalism means using names, concepts and labels in order to give a structure to reality. In other words, nominalism believes the social world to be external to individual recognition (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The construction of research objectives is an ontological position (Iskander, 2008).

6.3.1.2 Epistemology

The second set of assumptions is epistemological. Epistemology considers visions about the most suitable ways of investigating the nature of the world (Easterby-smith et al., 2008). Most questions in epistemology are concerned with what awareness is and what the sources of awareness are (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). In other words, the theory of knowledge is epistemology (Marsh and Stoker, 2002). The research method is the beginning of questions of epistemology (Blaikie, 1993). The methods associated with this study’s particular epistemology are explained further below. In general, on epistemological positions, two contrasting positions can be classified, Anti-positivism and Positivism (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

Positivist epistemology means illustrate and guess of natural science; it is characterised by seeking for regularities and causal relationships among its elements by using the hypothesis testing (deductive or theory testing). Positivism depends on the values of reason, truth and validity, and a focus on facts by direct observation and experience and using quantitative methods, such as surveys, experiments and statistical testing (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Blaikie, 1993; Saunders et al., 2007). In other words, the hypotheses are generated by using theories, Therefore, the research is a testing and developing of theories (Saunders et al., 2007). Therefore, positivism tends to explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for relationships and patterns. That means hypotheses are developed then tested (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

120

Anti-positivism means that the researcher should understand the differences between humans as social factors, by involvement in the activities that are under study. As Burrell and Morgan (1979) say, “One has to understand from the inside rather than the outside” (p.5). Anti-positivism tends to reject that observation of behaviour can help people to understanding; thus, Social Science rejects the notion that science can create objective knowledge of any kind (ibid.).

In sum, positivism uses methods such as experiments, surveys, and statistical testing, from which the research can produce generalisations; while anti-positivism uses other methods, such as observation and interviews, and generalisability is not of crucial importance (Saunders et al., 2007).

6.3.1.3 Human nature

The third set of assumptions about the nature of social science is around human nature, which concerns the relationship between human beings and their environment. In social science, one should understand human activities to help in any assumption about human nature. There are two contrasting positions that can be classified, voluntarism and determinism. Voluntarism holds that a human is completely autonomous and free-willed; on the other hand, determinism claims that humans and their activities are products of the environment in which they are located (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

6.3.1.4 Methodology

The last set of assumptions about the nature of social science is the methodology, which means to discuss which methods are used to examine and gain knowledge of the social world. There are two contrasting positions that can be classified, ideographic and nomothetic (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The ideographic approach assumes that beliefs in the social world can only be understood by obtaining first- hand knowledge of the subject under investigation. In addition, the ideographic methodology implies the analysis of subjective accounts “by “getting inside” the situations, and involving oneself in the everyday flow of life” (Burrell and Morgan, 1979.p.6). On the other hand, nomothetic methodology indicates conducting research based upon systematic protocols and techniques; the nomothetic approach adopts

121

standards of scientific rigour to achieve its goals, like testing research hypotheses, and uses quantitative methods of data analysis (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

6.3.2 The nature of society

According to the nature of society, two positions on or approach to sociology may be distinguished, sociology of radical change and sociology of regulation. The first position uses radical change to illuminate society. “It looks towards potentiality as

much as actuality; it is concerned with what is possible rather than with what is; with alternatives rather than with acceptance of the status quo”, according to Burrell and Morgan (1979, p.17). On the other hand, the second position is the sociology of regulation that looks to illuminate society in terms of its unity and consistency. It relates the demand for regulation in human affairs with some questions. In contrast to sociology of radical change, it is more concerned with problems of change, conflict and regulation and is concerned with the actuality and the present situation (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Saunders et al., 2007).