The research strategy

The terms “research strategy” and “research methods” have been used interchangeably (e.g. Yin 2003; Myers 2007) to refer to the general plan of how a researcher will go about answering the research questions (Saunders et al. 2009).

Research methods can be classified in various ways; however one of the most common distinctions is the one between qualitative and quantitative research methods (Bryman and Bell 2007; Myers 2007).

5.2.1. Qualitative vs. Quantitative strategies

The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research lies in the different philosophical foundation that drives both kinds of research; namely epistemology, ontology and the connections between theory and practices (Bryman and Bell 2007).

Quantitative research strategy is based on positivist objectivist foundation. It emphasizes quantification in the collection and analysis of data and is often linked to a deductive approach where theories are tested for their validation. Conversely, qualitative research strategy usually produces findings by making sense of or interprets people’s words and views and is often related to the inductive approach where emphasis is placed on the generation of theories (Bryman and Bell 2007).

90 Figure 7: Epistemological Assumptions for Qualitative and Quantitative Research, based on

Myers (2007, 2011)

Myers (2011) argued that qualitative research is not equivalent to an interpretive approach as a term and that qualitative research may or may not be interpretive, depending upon the underlying philosophical assumptions of the researcher as seen in Figure 7. Interpretive research assumes that ”our knowledge of reality is gained only through social constructions such as language, consciousness, shared meanings, documents, tools, and other artefacts” (Klein and Myers 1999, p. 69). Nonetheless, qualitative research is a broader term investigating a social problem in its natural context and provides a rich description and explanation as well as a careful examination of the participants’ words and views (Creswell 1994; Bryman and Bell 2007). Therefore, qualitative research can be applied to positivist, interpretivist or critical types of research.

5.2.2. Rationale behind a qualitative evaluation strategy for this study

The preceding discussion has highlighted the underpinning philosophical assumptions of this study, while the following justifies the adopted research strategy. A qualitative evaluation case study inquiry has been employed to understand DMS effectiveness and explore aspects that need to be considered for its evaluation. The following subsection justifies the choice of ‘a qualitative inquiry’ in relation to the aims, while the succeeding one justifies the adoption of ‘a qualitative evaluation’ for investigating the case of this study.

Quantitative research

Qualitative research

Positivist Interpretive Critical

Influences/guides

91 5.2.2.1. Adopting a qualitative inquiry

In line with the interpretive epistemology and the subjective ontology employed by this study, a qualitative research strategy is adopted for the following reasons:

1. The exploratory nature: qualitative research is less structured than quantitative research which facilitates a degree of openness to explore the phenomenon under investigation (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). Patton (1990) emphasized this point by stating that “Qualitative methods are particularly oriented towards exploration, discovery and inductive logic” (1990, p. 44).

2. The natural setting: informed by an interpretive perspective, the emphasis of this study is on exploring, understanding and interpreting stakeholders’

perspectives in their natural setting. Seen in this light, the principles of qualitative research are consistent with the needs of this study (see Section ‎5.2.1). In addition, Kaplan and Maxwell (1994) argued that the goal of understanding a phenomenon, from participants’ viewpoints, and its particular social and institutional context is largely lost if textual data are quantified.

Therefore, the choice of qualitative research strategy is consistent with the aim of this research.

3. Exploring the inter-subjective meanings about DMS effectiveness from the perspective of the stakeholders requires a close relation between the researcher and the participants. In this respect, qualitative research enables direct relations and deep investigation and understanding of emergent issues through qualitative techniques such as interviews and focus groups.

Also, the main outcome of this study is generating a theory for enhancing the understanding of DMS effectiveness and its evaluation. One of the key principles of qualitative research is its focus on the process rather than on the outcome (Punch 2002). The process of generating the theory is important so as to ensure the validity of the outcome.

92 5.2.2.2. Why a qualitative evaluation approach

Qualitative evaluation research is a branch under qualitative inquiries. Patton (2002) indicated that fourth generation evaluation and process evaluation are types of qualitative evaluation. A qualitative or interpretive approach to evaluation is also termed ‘goal-free evaluation’ (e.g. Patton, 2002; Cronholm and Goldkuhl 2003). The aim of this kind of evaluation is exploration, and it is carried out by investigating a wide range of stakeholders’ views. Cronholm and Goldkuhl (2003) argued that the qualitative or interpretive type of evaluation can be used to gain “a deep understanding of the nature of what is to be evaluated” (2003, p. 3). Guba and Lincoln (1989) emphasized the importance of distinguishing between evaluations that are intended to add knowledge or understanding (e.g. goal-free evaluation) and those intended to assess some state of affairs (e.g. goal-based evaluation). The exploration and understanding of a phenomenon can be researched by different means;

qualitative evaluation is one of them. This study approaches a qualitative evaluation case study aiming for understanding and exploration (Hirschhheim and Smithson 1988 cited in Cronholm and Goldkuhl 2003; Patton 2002), in order to identify the aspects that need to be considered for effectiveness evaluation. In this respect, Greene (2000), Patton (2002) and Guba and Lincoln (1989) asserted that researchers do not need prior knowledge of what they will evaluate when following a qualitative evaluation approach, because in this kind of evaluation researchers start by considering the views, values and experiences of stakeholders whose involvement is essential in this kind of evaluation.

According to Cronholm and Goldkuhl (2003), doing a qualitative evaluation should include the description of the functionality of the system via study the system itself through the examination of relevant documents or interviews with the stakeholders, as well as considering the description of the users (their pre-knowledge, interaction between the users and the system). More details on how the strategy of this study was conducted (‘A qualitative evaluation case study’) is presented in Chapter 6.