Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The way in which research is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the
research philosophy subscribed to, the research strategy employed and so the
research instruments utilised (and perhaps developed) in the pursuit of a goal - the
research objective(s) - and the quest for the solution of a problem - the research
question. We have outlined our research question and research objectives in
Chapter One. The purpose of this chapter is to:
• discuss our research philosophy in relation to other
philosophies;
• expound our research strategy, including the research
methodologies adopted;
• introduce the research instruments that we have developed and
utilised in the pursuit of our goals.
3.2 Research Philosophy
A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon
should be gathered, analysed and used. The term epistemology (what is known to
be true) as opposed to doxology (what is believed to be true) encompasses the
various philosophies of research approach. The purpose of science, then, is the
process of transforming things believed into things known: doxa to episteme. Two
major research philosophies have been identified in the Western tradition of science,
namely positivist (sometimes called scientific) and interpretivist (also known as anti-
positivist)(Galliers, 1991).
3.2.1 Positivism
Positivists believe that reality is stable and can be observed and described from an
objective viewpoint (Levin, 1988), i.e. without interfering with the phenomena being
studied. They contend that phenomena should be isolated and that observations
should be repeatable. This often involves manipulation of reality with variations in
only a single independent variable so as to identify regularities in, and to form
relationships between, some of the constituent elements of the social world.
3-1
,Predictions can be made on the basis of the previously observed and explained
realities and their inter-relationships. "Positivism has a long and rich historical
tradition. It is so embedded in our society that knowledge claims not grounded in
positivist thought are simply dismissed as ascientific and therefore invalid"
(Hirschheim, 1985, p.33). This view is indirectly supported by Alavi and Carlson
(1992) who, in a review of 902 IS research articles, found that all the empirical
studies were positivist in approach. Positivism has also had a particularly successful
association with the physical and natural sciences.
There has, however, been much debate on the issue of whether or not this
positivist paradigm is entirely suitable for the social sciences (Hirschheim, 1985),
many authors calling for a more pluralistic attitude towards IS research
methodologies (see e.g. Kuhn, 1970; Bjørn-Andersen, 1985; Remenyi and Williams,
1996). While we shall not elaborate on this debate further, it is germane to our study
since it is also the case that Information Systems, dealing as it does with the
interaction of people and technology, is considered to be of the social sciences
rather than the physical sciences (Hirschheim, 1985). Indeed, some of the difficulties
experienced in IS research, such as the apparent inconsistency of results, may be
attributed to the inappropriateness of the positivist paradigm for the domain.
Likewise, some variables or constituent parts of reality might have been previously
thought unmeasurable under the positivist paradigm - and hence went unresearched
(after Galliers, 1991).
3.2.2 Interpretivism
Interpretivists contend that only through the subjective interpretation of and
intervention in reality can that reality be fully understood. The study of phenomena in
their natural environment is key to the interpretivist philosophy, together with the
acknowledgement that scientists cannot avoid affecting those phenomena they
study. They admit that there may be many interpretations of reality, but maintain that
these interpretations are in themselves a part of the scientific knowledge they are
pursuing. Interpretivism has a tradition that is no less glorious than that of positivism,
nor is it shorter.
3-2
, 3.2.3 Discussion and Rationale for Choice of Approach
Both research traditions start in Classical Greek times with Plato and Aristotle
(positivists) on the one hand, and the Sophists (anti-positivists) on the other. After
long, dark periods in European scientific thought, the renaissance of the discipline
came in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since that time, well known
positivists have included Bacon, Descartes, Mill, Durkheim, Russell and Popper. On
the opposing side we have Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Polanyi and Kuhn (Hirschheim,
1985).
Vreede (1995) observes that in both Organisation Science and Information
Systems research, interpretive research used to be the norm, at least until the late
1970s. Since that time, however, the positivist tradition has taken a firm hold
(Dickson and DeSanctis, 1990), Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) noting that 96.8% of
research in the leading US IS journals conform to this paradigm. Pervan (1994b), in
a review of 122 articles in the GSS literature, observes that only 4 (3.27%) could be
described as interpretivist.
It has often been observed (e.g. Benbasat et al., 1987) very accurately that no
single research methodology is intrinsically better than any other methodology, many
authors calling for a combination of research methods in order to improve the quality
of research (e.g. Kaplan and Duchon, 1988). Equally, some institutions have tended
to adopt a certain "house style" methodology (Galliers, 1991); this seems to be
almost in defiance of the fact that, given the richness and complexity of the real
world, a methodology best suited to the problem under consideration, as well as the
objectives of the researcher, should be chosen (Benbasat, 1984; Pervan, 1994b). In
this research, we have tried to avoid what may be characterised as methodological
monism, i.e. the insistence on using a single research method. This is not due to an
inability to decide between the various merits and demerits of the various
alternatives. Instead, we believe that all methods are valuable if used appropriately,
that research can include elements of both the positivist and interpretivist
approaches, if managed carefully.
Our over-riding concern is that the research we undertake should be both
relevant to our research question, as set out in Chapter One, and rigorous in its
operationalisation. Overall we believe that an interpretivist philosophy is required for
this purpose, i.e. the understanding of how groups adopt and adapt to the use of
3-3
3.1 Introduction
The way in which research is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the
research philosophy subscribed to, the research strategy employed and so the
research instruments utilised (and perhaps developed) in the pursuit of a goal - the
research objective(s) - and the quest for the solution of a problem - the research
question. We have outlined our research question and research objectives in
Chapter One. The purpose of this chapter is to:
• discuss our research philosophy in relation to other
philosophies;
• expound our research strategy, including the research
methodologies adopted;
• introduce the research instruments that we have developed and
utilised in the pursuit of our goals.
3.2 Research Philosophy
A research philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon
should be gathered, analysed and used. The term epistemology (what is known to
be true) as opposed to doxology (what is believed to be true) encompasses the
various philosophies of research approach. The purpose of science, then, is the
process of transforming things believed into things known: doxa to episteme. Two
major research philosophies have been identified in the Western tradition of science,
namely positivist (sometimes called scientific) and interpretivist (also known as anti-
positivist)(Galliers, 1991).
3.2.1 Positivism
Positivists believe that reality is stable and can be observed and described from an
objective viewpoint (Levin, 1988), i.e. without interfering with the phenomena being
studied. They contend that phenomena should be isolated and that observations
should be repeatable. This often involves manipulation of reality with variations in
only a single independent variable so as to identify regularities in, and to form
relationships between, some of the constituent elements of the social world.
3-1
,Predictions can be made on the basis of the previously observed and explained
realities and their inter-relationships. "Positivism has a long and rich historical
tradition. It is so embedded in our society that knowledge claims not grounded in
positivist thought are simply dismissed as ascientific and therefore invalid"
(Hirschheim, 1985, p.33). This view is indirectly supported by Alavi and Carlson
(1992) who, in a review of 902 IS research articles, found that all the empirical
studies were positivist in approach. Positivism has also had a particularly successful
association with the physical and natural sciences.
There has, however, been much debate on the issue of whether or not this
positivist paradigm is entirely suitable for the social sciences (Hirschheim, 1985),
many authors calling for a more pluralistic attitude towards IS research
methodologies (see e.g. Kuhn, 1970; Bjørn-Andersen, 1985; Remenyi and Williams,
1996). While we shall not elaborate on this debate further, it is germane to our study
since it is also the case that Information Systems, dealing as it does with the
interaction of people and technology, is considered to be of the social sciences
rather than the physical sciences (Hirschheim, 1985). Indeed, some of the difficulties
experienced in IS research, such as the apparent inconsistency of results, may be
attributed to the inappropriateness of the positivist paradigm for the domain.
Likewise, some variables or constituent parts of reality might have been previously
thought unmeasurable under the positivist paradigm - and hence went unresearched
(after Galliers, 1991).
3.2.2 Interpretivism
Interpretivists contend that only through the subjective interpretation of and
intervention in reality can that reality be fully understood. The study of phenomena in
their natural environment is key to the interpretivist philosophy, together with the
acknowledgement that scientists cannot avoid affecting those phenomena they
study. They admit that there may be many interpretations of reality, but maintain that
these interpretations are in themselves a part of the scientific knowledge they are
pursuing. Interpretivism has a tradition that is no less glorious than that of positivism,
nor is it shorter.
3-2
, 3.2.3 Discussion and Rationale for Choice of Approach
Both research traditions start in Classical Greek times with Plato and Aristotle
(positivists) on the one hand, and the Sophists (anti-positivists) on the other. After
long, dark periods in European scientific thought, the renaissance of the discipline
came in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Since that time, well known
positivists have included Bacon, Descartes, Mill, Durkheim, Russell and Popper. On
the opposing side we have Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Polanyi and Kuhn (Hirschheim,
1985).
Vreede (1995) observes that in both Organisation Science and Information
Systems research, interpretive research used to be the norm, at least until the late
1970s. Since that time, however, the positivist tradition has taken a firm hold
(Dickson and DeSanctis, 1990), Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) noting that 96.8% of
research in the leading US IS journals conform to this paradigm. Pervan (1994b), in
a review of 122 articles in the GSS literature, observes that only 4 (3.27%) could be
described as interpretivist.
It has often been observed (e.g. Benbasat et al., 1987) very accurately that no
single research methodology is intrinsically better than any other methodology, many
authors calling for a combination of research methods in order to improve the quality
of research (e.g. Kaplan and Duchon, 1988). Equally, some institutions have tended
to adopt a certain "house style" methodology (Galliers, 1991); this seems to be
almost in defiance of the fact that, given the richness and complexity of the real
world, a methodology best suited to the problem under consideration, as well as the
objectives of the researcher, should be chosen (Benbasat, 1984; Pervan, 1994b). In
this research, we have tried to avoid what may be characterised as methodological
monism, i.e. the insistence on using a single research method. This is not due to an
inability to decide between the various merits and demerits of the various
alternatives. Instead, we believe that all methods are valuable if used appropriately,
that research can include elements of both the positivist and interpretivist
approaches, if managed carefully.
Our over-riding concern is that the research we undertake should be both
relevant to our research question, as set out in Chapter One, and rigorous in its
operationalisation. Overall we believe that an interpretivist philosophy is required for
this purpose, i.e. the understanding of how groups adopt and adapt to the use of
3-3
