Research Philosophy

According to Easterby-Smith et al. (2002), there are three main reasons for why an understanding of philosophical issues is very useful for researchers. These are: (i) to enable the researcher to clarify research designs which help to provide acceptable answers to the basic questions being investigated in the research; (ii) a knowledge of research philosophy can aid the researcher to identify which research designs will work within the specific research purpose and which will not; and (iii) knowledge of research philosophy can help the researcher identify and create research designs that may be outside the prior knowledge and experience of the researcher. It may also guide the researcher in adapting research designs according to the constraints of different subjects or knowledge structures.

The term research philosophy (paradigm), according to Hussey and Hussey (1997, p. 47), refers to the “progress of scientific practice based on people’s philosophies and assumptions about the world and the nature of nowledge”. ccording to Collis and Hussey (2003) there are two main traditional research paradigms or philosophies: the positivism paradigm and the phenomenological paradigm (social constructionism or interpretivism). Denscombe (2007, p. 332) defines the positivistic paradigm as “an approach to social research which seeks to apply the natural science model of research

184

to investigations of the social world”. In contrast, the phenomenological paradigm was defined as “a fact or occurrence that appears or is perceived, especially one of which is the cause in question” ( llan, 1991, p. 893).

According to the positivism paradigm, knowledge of the world can be obtained through applying scientific methods to experiences. The phenomenological paradigm, in contrast, believes that knowledge about the world is socially constructed. As Howe and Eisenhart (1990) explained, positivism was primarily considered as partly an explanation of, and partly a prescription for, the conduct of natural sciences. Positivists have faith in empiricism: the idea that observation is the essence of scientific venture (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).

Essentially, the positivistic approach searches for the facts or causes of social phenomena and stresses the objective truth, with little concern for the subjective state of the individual (Collis and Hussey, 2003). According to Cavana et al. (2001), positivist research utilises precise, objective measures, and it is typically associated with quantitative data. The standard process under the positivistic paradigm is to review the literature to establish an appropriate theory and formulate hypotheses.

Collis and Hussey (2009) concluded that positivistic research involves a deductive procedure with a view to providing explanatory theories to understand social phenomena. The positivistic research approach includes cross-sectional studies, experimental studies, longitudinal studies, and surveys, and because of the way in which data is collected and analysed, it is also referred to as quantitative research (Collis and Hussey, 2003).

The phenomenological paradigm, in contrast, is concerned with understanding human behaviour from the participant’s own frame of reference (Collis and Hussey, 2003), and involves research methods such as action research, case studies, ethnography, feminist perspectives, grounded theory, hermeneutics, and participative enquiry. The phenomenological research starts with the direct, existed experience as a starting point, not just the ‘articulation’ of that experience; this is because phenomenological perspectives consider much of individuals experience to be ‘intuitive’ (Lee and Lings, 2008).

185

Additionally, phenomenological research is not intended to test hypotheses, but aims to understand a phenomenon by letting the data talk for itself, and by attempting to put aside personal biases (Osborne, 1990). More precisely, Denscombe (2007, p. 75) indicated that phenomenological research is seen as an approach that emphasises:

• Subjectivity (rather than objectivity) • Description (more than analysis)

• Interpretation (rather than measurement) • gency (rather than structure)

Overall, the philosophical terms are used interchangeably and consequently there is a misperception about their meaning (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). Table 6.1 shows some of the more common terms used by other scholars, as alternative terms for the positivist and phenomenological paradigms (philosophies).

Table 6.1: Alternative terms for the main research paradigms Positivistic Paradigm Phenomenological Paradigm Quantitative Objectivist Scientific Experimentalist Traditionalist Qualitative Subjectivist Humanistic Interpretivist

Source: Hussey and Hussey (1997)

Research philosophy depends on the way that researchers think about the development of knowledge. Hence, from the underlying research aims and objectives of this study, both positivist and phenomenological paradigms have been adopted. The main reason for utilising both paradigms is that the study will rely upon the hypothetic-deductive method of conducting the study (i.e. deductive reasoning), identifying causal effects, testing pre-existing theory, exploring the views and perceptions of those preparing commercial ban s’ annual reports (i.e. inductive reasoning), and using a semi-structured interview technique. Deductive reasoning, as Kriksson and Kovalainen (2008) explained, is concerned with the formulation of hypotheses and theories from which specific phenomena can then be explained.

186

As Hussey and Hussey (1997) pointed out, interviews are linked with both positivist and phenomenological methodologies; however, a positivistic approach suggests a structured interview technique (closed questions) to be used, unlike in the phenomenological approach which suggests using unstructured or semi-structured interview methods (unstructured questions). In this context, Collis and Hussey (2003, p. 55) outline a list of the main features of the two philosophy paradigms, as shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Distinctive features of the two philosophy paradigms Positivistic Paradigm Phenomenological Paradigm Tends to produce quantitative data Tends to produce qualitative data Uses large samples Uses small samples

Concerned with hypothesis Concerned with generating theories Data is highly specific and precise Data is rich and subjective

The location is artificial The location is natural Reliability is high Reliability is low

Validity is low Validity is high

Generalises from sample to population Generalises from one setting to another Source: Collis and Hussey (2003)