Research Philosophy
Research Philosophy
Research Philosophy
Research philosophy deals with the source, nature and development of knowledge. In simple
terms, a research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a phenomenon should
be collected, analyzed and used.
Although the idea of knowledge creation may appear to be profound, you are engaged in
knowledge creation as part of completing your dissertation. You will collect secondary and
primary data and engage in data analysis to answer the research question and this answer marks
the creation of new knowledge.
Each stage of the research process is based on assumptions about the sources and the nature of
knowledge. The research philosophy will reflect the author’s important assumptions and these
assumptions serve as base for the research strategy. Generally, research philosophy has many
branches related to a wide range of disciplines. Within the scope of business studies, in particular
there are four main research philosophies:
1. Pragmatism
2. Positivism
3. Realism
4. Interpretivism
Positivism
As a philosophy, positivism adheres to the view that only “factual” knowledge gained
through observation (the senses), including measurement, is trustworthy. In positivism studies,
the role of the researcher is limited to data collection and interpretation in an objective way. In
these types of studies, research findings are usually observable and quantifiable.
Positivism depends on quantifiable observations that lead to statistical analyses. It has been
noted, “As a philosophy, positivism is in accordance with the empiricist view that knowledge
stems from human experience. It has an atomistic, ontological view of the world as comprising
discrete, observable elements and events that interact in an observable, determined and regular
manner”.
Moreover, in positivism studies, the researcher is independent form the study and there are no
provisions for human interests within the study. Crowther and Lancaster
Second, argue that as a rule, positivist studies usually adopt deductive approach,
whereas inductive research approach is usually associated with a phenomenology philosophy.
Moreover, positivism relates to the viewpoint that researcher needs to concentrate on facts,
whereas phenomenology concentrates on the meaning and has provision for human interest.
Researchers warn that “if you assume a positivist approach to your study, then it is your belief
that you are independent of your research and your research can be purely objective. Independent
means that you maintain minimal interaction with your research participants when carrying out
your research.”
In other words, studies with positivist paradigm are based purely on facts and consider the world
external and objective.
The five main principles of positivism research philosophy can be summarized as the following:
A study into the impact of the global economic crisis of 2007 – 2009 on the brand equity of US-
based listed companies
An analysis of effects of foreign direct investment on GDP growth in Vietnam
A study of relationship between diffusion of innovation of mobile applications and saturation of
applications in a country
Positivists prefer quantitative methods such as social surveys, structured questionnaires and
official statistics because these have good reliability and representativeness.
Positivists see society as shaping the individual and believe that ‘social facts’ shape
individual action.
The positivist tradition stresses the importance of doing quantitative research such as large
scale surveys in order to get an overview of society as a whole and to uncover social trends,
such as the relationship between educational achievement and social class. This type of
sociology is more interested in trends and patterns rather than individuals.
Positivists also believe that sociology can and should use the same methods and approaches
to study the social world that “natural” sciences such as biology and physics use to
investigate the physical world. By adopting “scientific” techniques sociologists should be
able, eventually, to uncover the laws that govern societies just as scientists have discovered
the laws that govern the physical world.
Suitable for research projects that require a structured and qualitative approach
Good for research projects, for example, that are descriptive in nature, i.e. identifies and
quantifies the element parts of any phenomena: the ‘what’ aspects of research
Research methods easier to reproduce and for other researchers to test your conclusions.
Highly structured research design imposes pre-arranged limits and boundaries to research
Not a particular good approach to take if you are trying to explain why things happen
Assumes that researchers can be totally objective, but researchers may allow their own
values, interests to influence the approach, for example, in the questions posed
You need to use a large sample to be able to make generalisations from results
Interpretivism (interpretivist) Research Philosophy:
An Interpretivist approach to social research would be much more qualitative, using methods
such as unstructured interviews or participant observation
Interpretivists, or anti-positivists argue that individuals are not just puppets who react to
external social forces as Positivists believe.
According to Interpretivists individuals are intricate and complex and different people
experience and understand the same ‘objective reality’ in very different ways and have their
own, often very different, reasons for acting in the world, thus scientific methods are not
appropriate.
Advantages
They examine micro approaches that see the individual as having agency, not simply a
recipient of external social forces
Enables us to see how social reality is constructed through meanings and negotiations
Disadvantage
Verstehen (meaningful understanding) sociology assumes that all individuals engage in
rational behavior
This understanding leads them to believe that individuals understand the motivations
behind their own actions
Symbolic Interpretivism ignores the impact of structural elements on individuals
Labeling assumes that social actors passively accept being labelled and tends to ignore
resistance labels
Basic differences between positivism and interpretivism
Focus of interest What is general, average and What is specific, unique, and
representative deviant
Desired information How many people think and do a What some people think and do,
specific thing, or have a specific what kind of problems they are
problem confronted with, and how they deal
with them
I Support Positivists
The first reason is that Positivists are interested in looking at society as a whole,
in order to find out the general laws which shape human action, and numerical data is really the
only way we can easily study and compare large groups within society, or do cross national
comparisons – qualitative data by contrast is too in-depth and too difficult to compare.
Numerical data allow us to make comparisons easily as once we have social data reduced down
to numbers, it is easy to put into graphs and charts and to make comparisons and find
correlations, enabling us to see how one thing affects another.
For example, Durkheim famously claimed that the higher the divorce rate, the higher the suicide
raste, thus allowing him to theories that lower levels of social integration lead to higher rates of
suicide (because of increased anomie).
The second reason for preferring quantitative methods is that Positivists think it is important
to remain detached from the research process, in order to remain objective, or value free.
Quantitative methods allow for a greater level of detachment as the researcher does not have to
be directly involved with respondents, meaning that their own personal values are less likely to
distort the research process, as might be the case with more qualitative research.
This should be especially true for official statistics, which merely need to be interpreted by
researchers, but less true of structured questionnaires, which have to be written by researchers,
and may suffer from the imposition problem.
Third reason is the positivist researcher observes relationship between small numbers of
variables and study them thoroughly so that he may make general notions relevant to real life.
Fourth reason is Positivist researcher’s focus is the observable phenomena.
“Working with an observable social reality…the end product can be law-like generalizations
similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientist”
Fifth reason is Positivist Paradigm puts emphasis on the idea that the techniques or
Positivists recommend that scientific knowledge can be achieved through verified facts.
confirmatory approach
Both are showing reality through different lenses. Therefore, to me mixed method is an
appropriate choice. Positivist and interpretivist both study the same phenomena but with
different questions. One paradigm puts emphasis on measurement of objective facts, and answers
what and how? While the other one, interpretivist, tries to observe each and everything by direct
observation with the help of interviews and participant observation. Therefore, by mixing both
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/30646_mukherji_chp_1.pdf
http://researchonline.nd.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1030&context=these
s&type=additional9/12/2014
Lee, Aleen S.(Nov 1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Organizational