In this section, the research traditions, theories, and also the validity and reliability of data are discussed in order to provide a general view about how the research is carried out and which factors influence the justification of research method.
3.2.1 Review of different research traditions
Based on the methodology used, research theories can be classified into different types. In accordance with Gephart (2004), there are three research traditions, namely positivism, interpretive research and critical postmodernism.
Positivism makes use of the stance of realism in which the objective reality can be understood by mirror of science. Added to this, it assumes that a social world exists externally that should be measured objectively (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). In accordance to Fisher (2004), the majority of positivist research incorporates the comparison of qualitative case studies to analyze if there are any connections between variables.
While positivism stresses on objectivity, interpretative research focuses on subjective interpretations to describe meanings and understand reality. Fisher (2004) notes that the linkage between interpretations are dialogic and hence interpretive research aims at soliciting people’s accounts of how they find the world, together with the structures and processes within it.
As for critical postmodernism, it underlines the assumption of symbolic reality, which is shaped by values and crystallizes over time. Fisher (2004) further reveals that critical postmodernism is a kind of realism which comprises three levels of reality, including experiences, events and mechanisms. Experiences are our perceptions and encounters of the world. Events are concerned about what has happened in the world by our experiences to them. Finally, mechanisms are the roots of events which are regarded as the deepest level among the three.
3.2.2 Quantitative versus qualitative analysis
Generally, research methods can be classified in a dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research. As far as the description and explanation of phenomena are concerned, quantitative research focuses on analyzing numerical data whereas qualitative research deals with meanings, examining the attitudes, feelings and motivations of people (Babbie, 2004; Dey, 1993). In the field of research, qualitative research is sometimes regarded as a relatively minor methodology than its quantitative counterpart and there are some assumptions that only experimental data, official statistics, random sampling
and quantified data can lead to valid or generalizable social facts. That is why it is suggested that qualitative research should be used more often at the early or exploratory stage of a study (Silverman, 2000). Nevertheless, both of them are not perfect in a sense that they need to serve as a complement to each other. As suggested by Easterby-Smith et al. (2002), research needs a partnership and it could be beneficial to collaborate rather than compete between the different kinds of research methods.
Both the quantitative research and qualitative research have their own advantages and disadvantages. Quantitative research surpasses qualitative in a sense that it can analyze data based on representative samples from a large population (Proctor, 2000), having a complete set of categorization for the events or activities described (Silverman, 2000). In this way, quantitative analysis is stronger than qualitative analysis in that it can persuade readers with large-scale, numeric data.
As for qualitative research, it is more likely to look into people’s in-depth feelings, for example, attitude (Kirk and Miller, 1986). Unlike quantitative research, which uses ad hoc procedures to define and measure variables (Blumer, 1956; Cicourel, 1964; Silverman, 1975), qualitative research tends to focus on describing the process of how we define and measure variables in everyday life (Silverman, 2000). Qualitative analysis, however, suffers from the problem of ‘anecdotalism’ in which it just narrates some examples of phenomenon without taking less clear data into account (Silverman, 1989). Besides, the reliability of tape-recorded and transcribed data is argued by some to be weakened owing to the possibility of missing some trivial but crucial pauses and overlaps (Silverman, 2000).
3.2.3 Reliability and validity of data
The reliability and validity of the data and findings are of pivotal importance to the whole research. These determine whether the research can engender
useful findings or not.
Reliability connotes to the consistency on the research results, which are judged by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions (Hammersley, 1992). As pointed out by Davis and Bremner (2006), to justify reliability, one can replicate the same research to see whether the same outcomes are obtained on subsequent occasions. While reliability is correlated to consistency, validity concerns about the truth (Silverman, 2000), giving an accurate account to the social phenomena (Hammersley, 1992). However, it is found that having reliable research results is not always attributable to valid outcomes (Davis and Bremner, 2006).
This dissertation makes use of the qualitative research method and there have been some discussions on qualitative research regarding its reliability and validity. As mentioned by Saunders et al. (2003), the findings of qualitative research are not necessarily repeatable since they reflect reality at the time of data collection. This may affect the reliability of the research findings. Besides, the research cannot be claimed valid so long as there are only few exemplary instances reported, and the original form of the materials is unavailable (Silverman, 2000). These underlie the importance of ensuring reliable methods and making valid conclusions in the research process.