ITM32033

RESEARCH METHOD FOR IT

SEU.IS.19.AT.115

ASSIGNMENT -02

3RD YEAR

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF ARTS AND CULTURE

SOUTH EASTERN UNIVERSITY OF SRI LANKA

2
Research philosophy is a vast topic and here we will not be discussing this topic in great details.
Research philosophy is associated with assumption, knowledge and nature of the study. It deals
with the specific way of developing knowledge. This matter needs to be addressed because
researchers may have different assumptions about the nature of truth and knowledge and
philosophy helps us to understand their assumptions.

In business and economics dissertations at Bachelor’s level, you are not expected to discuss
research philosophy in a great level of depth, and about one page in methodology chapter
devoted to research philosophy usually suffices. For a business dissertation at Master’s level, on
the other hand, you may need to provide more discussion of the philosophy of your study. But
even there, about two pages of discussions are usually accepted as sufficient by supervisors.

Discussion of research philosophy in your dissertation should include the following:

1. You need to specify the research philosophy of your study. Your research philosophy can
be pragmatism, positivism, realism or interpretivism as discussed below in more details.
2. The reasons behind philosophical classifications of the study need to be provided.
3. You need to discuss the implications of your research philosophy on the research strategy
in general and the choice of primary data collection methods in particular.

The Essence of Research Philosophy

Research philosophy deals with the source, nature and development of knowledge[1]. In simple
terms, research philosophy is belief about the ways in which data about a phenomenon should be
collected, analysed 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.

In respect to business and economics philosophy has the following important three functions[2]:

3
 1. Demystifying: Exposing, criticising and explaining the unsustainable assumptions,
inconsistencies and confusions these may contain.
2. Informing: Helping researchers to understand where they stand in the wider field of
knowledge-producing activities, and helping to make them aware of potentialities they
might explore.
3. Method-facilitating: Dissecting and better understanding the methods which economists
or, more generally, scientists do, or could, use, and thereby to refine the methods on offer
and/or to clarify their conditions of usage.

In essence, addressing research philosophy in your dissertation involves being aware and
formulating your beliefs and assumptions. As illustrated in figure below, the identification of
research philosophy is positioned at the outer layer of the ‘research onion’. Accordingly it is the
first topic to be clarified in research methodology chapter of your dissertation.

Each stage of the research process is based on assumptions about the sources and the nature of
knowledge. 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 (Interpretivist)

The Choice of Research Philosophy

The choice of a specific research philosophy is impacted by practical implications. There are
important philosophical differences between studies that focus on facts and numbers such as an
analysis of the impact of foreign direct investment on the level of GDP growth and qualitative
studies such as an analysis of leadership style on employee motivation in organizations.

4
 The choice between positivist and interpretivist research philosophies or
between quantitative and qualitative research methods has traditionally represented a
major point of debate. However, the latest developments in the practice of conducting
studies have increased the popularity of pragmatism and realism philosophies as well.
Moreover, as it is illustrated in table below, there are popular data collection methods
associated with each research philosophy.

Pragmatism Positivism Realism Interpretivism

Highly structured,
Mixed or multiple Methods chosen
large samples, Small samples, in-
method designs, must fit the subject
Popular data depth
matter,
collection method measurement, investigations,
quantitative and quantitative or
quantitative, but qualitative
qualitative qualitative
can use qualitative

Positivism
When you think positivism, think hard sciences – physics, biology, astronomy, etc. Simply put,
positivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations
and measurements. In other words, the positivist philosophy assumes that answers can be found
by carefully measuring and analysing data, particularly numerical data.
As a research paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use
of quantitative data, and oftentimes (but not always) adopt experimental or quasi-
experimental research designs. Quite often, the focus is on causal relationships – in other words,
understanding which variables affect other variables, in what way and to what extent. As a result,
studies with a positivist research philosophy typically aim for objectivity, generalisability and
replicability of findings.

Let’s look at an example of positivism to make things a little more tangible.

Assume you wanted to investigate the relationship between a particular dietary supplement and
weight loss. In this case, you could design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) where you assign

5
participants to either a control group (who do not receive the supplement) or an intervention
group (who do receive the supplement). With this design in place, you could measure each
participant’s weight before and after the study and then use various quantitative analysis methods
to assess whether there’s a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the two
groups. By doing so, you could infer a causal relationship between the dietary supplement and
weight loss, based on objective measurements and rigorous experimental design.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the
viewpoint that knowledge and insight can be obtained through carefully controlling the
environment, manipulating variables and analysing the resulting numerical data. Therefore, this
sort of study would adopt a positivistic research philosophy. This is quite common for studies
within the hard sciences – so much so that research philosophy is often just assumed to be
positivistic and there’s no discussion of it within the methodology section of a dissertation or
thesis.

Interpretivism
If you can imagine a spectrum of research paradigms, interpretivism would sit more or less on
the opposite side of the spectrum from positivism. Essentially, interpretivism takes the position
that reality is socially constructed. In other words, that reality is subjective, and is constructed by
the observer through their experience of it, rather than being independent of the observer (which,
if you recall, is what positivism assumes).
The interpretivist paradigm typically underlies studies where the research aims involve
attempting to understand the meanings and interpretations that people assign to their experiences.
An interpretivistic philosophy also typically manifests in the adoption of a qualitative
methodology, relying on data collection methods such as interviews, observations,
and textual analysis. These types of studies commonly explore complex social phenomena and
individual perspectives, which are naturally more subjective and nuanced.
Let’s look at an example of the interpretivist approach in action:
Assume that you’re interested in understanding the experiences of individuals suffering from
chronic pain. In this case, you might conduct in-depth interviews with a group of participants and

6
ask open-ended questions about their pain, its impact on their lives, coping strategies, and their
overall experience and perceptions of living with pain. You would then transcribe those
interviews and analyse the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and
patterns. Based on that analysis, you’d be able to better understand the experiences of these
individuals, thereby satisfying your original research aim.
As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the
viewpoint that insight can be obtained through engaging in conversation with and exploring
the subjective experiences of people (as opposed to collecting numerical data and trying to
measure and calculate it). Therefore, this sort of study would adopt an interpretivistic research
philosophy. Ultimately, if you’re looking to understand people’s lived experiences, you have to
operate on the assumption that knowledge can be generated by exploring people’s viewpoints, as
subjective as they may be.

Pragmatism
Now that we’ve looked at the two opposing ends of the research philosophy spectrum –
positivism and interpretivism, you can probably see that both of the positions have their merits,
and that they both function as tools for different jobs. More specifically, they lend themselves to
different types of research aims, objectives and research questions. But what happens when your
study doesn’t fall into a clear-cut category and involves exploring both “hard” and “soft”
phenomena? Enter pragmatism…
As the name suggests, pragmatism takes a more practical and flexible approach, focusing on the
usefulness and applicability of research findings, rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually
exclusive philosophical position. This allows you, as the researcher, to explore research aims that
cross philosophical boundaries, using different perspectives for different aspects of the study.
With a pragmatic research paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative methods can play a part,
depending on the research questions and the context of the study. This often manifests in studies
that adopt a mixed-method approach, utilising a combination of different data types and analysis
methods. Ultimately, the pragmatist adopts a problem-solving mindset, seeking practical ways to
achieve diverse research aims.
Let’s look at an example of pragmatism in action:

7
Imagine that you want to investigate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving
student learning outcomes. In this case, you might adopt a mixed-methods approach, which
makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. One part
of your project could involve comparing standardised test results from an intervention group
(students that received the new teaching method) and a control group (students that received the
traditional teaching method). Additionally, you might conduct in-person interviews with a
smaller group of students from both groups, to gather qualitative data on their perceptions and
preferences regarding the respective teaching methods.
As you can see in this example, the pragmatist’s approach can incorporate both quantitative and
qualitative data. This allows the researcher to develop a more holistic, comprehensive
understanding of the teaching method’s efficacy and practical implications, with a synthesis of
both types of data. Naturally, this type of insight is incredibly valuable in this case, as it’s
essential to understand not just the impact of the teaching method on test results, but also on the
students themselves!

Conducting robust research requires awareness of the major philosophical assumptions

underpinning their investigation. The ‘paradigm’ a study falls within is shaped by the
researcher’s views on how research should be conducted, both in general terms and specific to
the study aim. It is used to inform the research methods adopted, research processes undertaken,
and the nature and generalizability of conclusions subsequently drawn. To this end, Guba (1990,
p.18) contends that “[Paradigms] ... can be characterized by the way their proponents respond to
three basic questions, which can be characterized as the ontological [different ways of
understanding the nature of being], the epistemological [one’s world view and how this shapes
what can be known about the world], and the methodological questions”. Accordingly, Ritchie
and Lewis (2007) highlight that different research paradigms yield different understanding types
while stressing that diversity in philosophical perspective does not counteract an external reality.
In other words, “the argument should not be about which paradigm is superior, but rather the best
to achieve the research aims” (Jennings, 2001, p.135). As such, while researchers are advised to
remain loyal to their chosen paradigm throughout their study (Kuhn, 1996), depending on the
nature of their inquiry, there may be scope to adapt the nature of the investigation if a

8
‘multiparadigm and/or ‘meta-triangulation’ approach proves consistent with the aims of the
research (Lewis and Grimes, 1999).

POSITIVISM & POST-POSITIVISM

Popularized by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, the positivist paradigm first rose to
prominence during the Age of Enlightenment, with this period characterized by nascent attempts
at increasing the breadth with which scientific principles were applied in the hope of better
understanding the social world (Crotty, 1998; Scotland, 2012). However, while still rooted in the
principles of the natural sciences (Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013), positivism has
nevertheless found contemporaneous favor with tourism and hospitality scholars, with recent
work demonstrating the benefits of the precise, measurable data typically collected by those
adopting this stance. Core to positivism is belief in a singular, sovereign ‘truth’; this is used to
shape subsequent attempts to explain phenomena by developing and testing hypotheses.
Accordingly, research undertaken from a positivist perspective contends that reality is
independent and external, with its many parts open to objective measurement (Saunders et al.,
2012). Further, the positivist paradigm dictates that individual values, biases, and beliefs are
incapable of altering any robustly conducted study results due to this objective view of ‘reality
(Guba & Lincoln, 1998). As a result, positivist research contends that knowledge is unearthed,
not manufactured or interpreted, with measured and measurable facts, propositions, and
hypotheses core to knowledge creation (Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013).

However, while capturing an ‘observable and measurable reality remains the core goal,
postpositivism also contends that researchers are not value-free. As such, research undertaken
from a post-positivist perspective allows scholars to openly reflect on any inherent assumptions
and biases which have held the potential to shape research design, methods, and findings
(Schurr, 2007). Regarding ontology, critical realism remains the most popular guise for post-
positivism within the context of social science research. Schurr (2007, pp.165-166) defines this
perspective as one where “...reality exists in time and space independent of the human mind

9
 PRAGMATISM

The contemporary notion of pragmatism emanates from Charles Peirce, William James and John
Dewey (Cherryholmes, 1992). It considers “efficacy in practical application” (Honderich, 2005,
p.747), contending that truth is determined simply by what “works” practically and most
effectively (Honderich, 2005). Philosophically, pragmatism is characterized by a compromise
between realism and relativism (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012; Visser, 2019). Pragmatists believe
knowledge emerges from a range of specific outcomes, with this not necessarily shaped by
antecedences. However, they do not believe that there are “predetermined frameworks” that form
truth and knowledge (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 32). Therefore, researchers adopting a
pragmatist philosophical perspective can draw upon various approaches to understand a research
problem (Maarouf, 2019). In contrast to both positivism and social constructivism that conceive
of a value-free and valuebound standpoint of inquiry respectively (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009),
for pragmatists, human action and interaction shape the scholarly pursuit of description, theory,
explanation, and narrative (Cherryholmes, 1992; Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Further,
philosophical pragmatists challenge the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity,
contending that epistemology is fluid, existing on a continuum instead of characterized by polar
diversity (Maarouf, 2019). Methodologically, the pragmatist approach does not favor inductive
or deductive reasoning alone. Instead, it contends that research projects fall within the inductive-
deductive research cycle at various points (Baggio, 2019; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Accordingly, as a practical alternative to core methodological issues, abduction is used to
support a process of inquiry that assesses previous inductive results (Morgan, 2007). At the
abduction stage, the goal is to explore the data, identify patterns, and develop plausible
hypotheses via robust categorization. Therefore, from a pragmatist perspective, deduction aims
to build logical and testable hypotheses based upon plausible premises, with induction used to
approximate the truth while recognizing that researchers’ beliefs shape scholarly inquiry
(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This abductive approach to reasoning is commonly employed
when integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in sequential designs (Baggio, 2019;
Morgan, 2007). Pragmatists view their relationship to the research process as inter-subjective
instead of subjective or objective (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), with knowledge capable of
being generated through any number of methodological approaches (Morgan, 2007). As a result,

10
pragmatism also values the transferability of knowledge through research to other settings
instead of seeking generalisability (positivism/post-positivism) or contextual-dependability
(interpretivism/social-constructivism) (Morgan, 2007). Thus, epistemologically, the pragmatist
perspective does not consider research processes as objective or subjective, but

instead inter-subjective, with knowledge generated through combined actions associated with
various methodological approaches (Morgan, 2007). Therefore, the methodological assumption
underlying the pragmatist approach acknowledges the usefulness of qualitative and quantitative
methods, relating the decision to use either or mix them in response to research questions
(Creswell, 2014; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Such a collective approach to data collection
allows selecting the most appropriate methods to build knowledge based on the research
questions (Creswell, 2009; Morgan, 2007). Accordingly, adopting a pragmatist approach enables
researchers to capitalize on numerical and narrative data (Johnson et al., 2007; Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009). Again, concerning a recent systematic literature review of the use of
philosophical paradigms within tourism and hospitality studies (Khoo-Lattimore et al., 2019),
pragmatism is explicitly identified in several recent studies (e.g., Azer, 2018; Hanna & Rowley,
2015; Pansiri, 2006; Ryan & Gu, 2010). For instance, in a study exploring forms and triggers of
negatively-valenced influencing behavior (NVIB) and the impacts on other actors in online
review settings, Azer (2018) employed a pragmatist approach for multiple reasons. First, given
that philosophical pragmatism acknowledges that human action and interaction underpin the
development of descriptions, theories, explanations, and narratives (Cherryholmes, 1992), this
approach was consistent with investigating a new concept (NVIB) overlooked by literature (Azer
and Alexander 2018). Therefore, to conceptualize its forms and identify its triggers, it was
necessary to explore how customers engage in NVIB (human actions and interaction values) then
proceed with explanations and narratives that provide relevant descriptions and theories.

Second, epistemologically, the pragmatist approach does not view a research process as objective
and subjective, but rather as inter-subjective (Morgan, 2007); Azer’s (2018) work involved two
studies; the first explored NVIB and the second measured its impact (Azer and Alexander 2020).
When combined, the individual components of this research process would be positioned at the
two opposite poles of subjectivity and objectivity. As such, by instead viewing this process as
inter-subjective, knowledge could be generated by combining multiple – hitherto incompatible -

11
methodological approaches (Morgan, 2007). Finally, as the pragmatist approach is not restricted
to induction or deduction, an abductive inquiry process enabled the exploration of NVIB as a
new concept to identify its forms and triggers before developing hypotheses to measure its
impact (Azer, 2018).

Accordingly, the underpinning research philosophy adopted for any research project inherently
shapes the methodological approach, data collection methods adopted, and analysis techniques
deployed. Further, it holds the potential to influence how findings are presented, with an
interpretive approach incorporating a degree of reflection and reflexivity into presenting results.
It is recommended that researchers go beyond strict objective or subjective perceptions, which
may lead to the polarisation of research, consequently, less productive and meaningful. It would
be better to think broadly try to choose the philosophical stance that best matches their inquiry.
Dialogue between different research paradigms and their proponents is also recommended. A
collective approach toward paradigms that advocate against research polarity or philosophically
resist the incompatibility issues is necessary to select the most appropriate methods that can build
knowledge based on the research questions. To this end, with philosophy firmly in mind, the
following chapters go into greater detail with regards to specific methodological approaches to
undertaking hospitality and tourism research.

12
Reference

 Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge.

New York: Routledge Azer, J., & Alexander, M. (2018). Conceptualizing negatively
valenced influencing behavior: forms and triggers.
 Journal of Service Management, 29(3), 468-490. Azer, J., & Alexander, M. (2020).
Negative customer engagement behaviour: the interplay of intensity and valence in online
networks.
 Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3-4), 361-383. Azer, J. (2018). Negatively-
valenced influencing behaviour: forms, triggers and impacts. (PhD Thesis in Marketing).
University of Strathclyde,https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.814006.
 Baggio, R., & Mariani, M. (2019). The relevance of mixed methods for network analysis
in tourism and hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2019-0378 Bryman,
 (2006). Paradigm Peace and the Implications for Quality. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 9(2), 111-126. doi:10.1080/13645570600595280 Cherryholmes,
 (1992). Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism. American Educational Research
Association, 21(6), 13-17. Cohen, L., Manion,

13