Research Philosophy and Assumptions – SOBT

Font Size:

All research builds on philosophical and theoretical foundations.  You’ll remember from Track I that these are based on the Quantitative or Qualitative paradigm, your specialization in the program, and specific theories of business/management and information technology.

• Philosophical assumptions derived from a paradigm that guides the design. These include
• Ontological assumptions about the nature of reality.
• Epistemological assumptions about what can be known.
• Axiological assumptions about what is important and valuable in research.
• Methodological assumptions about what methods and procedures are allowable within the paradigm.
• Specialization assumptions derived from the school of thought whose point of view supports the research topic. These include assumptions about the kinds of research that can be done within the specialization, and topical assumptions derived from the literature about the specific topic of the dissertation.
• Theoretical Frameworks, which are specific theories (from within the specialization) adopted by a researcher to develop the concepts and variables to be studied and to guide the data analysis.

You learned about specialization assumptions when you studied the various schools of thought in the scholarly literature in your field. When you study a field, you were adopting—whether you realized it at the time—a set of specialization assumptions, that is, ideas and practices that are taken for granted within that school of thought.

You will address your dissertation’s theoretical framework in Track 3—qualitative researchers should note that, except in grounded theory, most qualitative research deigns do not use a theoretical framework—although each design or approach within qualitative methodology does have a set of theoretical premises and commitments to which it must adhere. (More on that in Track 3.)

Here in Track 2, our focus is on the philosophical assumptions and paradigms that underlie your research. In this study guide, you will review

• The two main paradigms that govern most traditional social science research.
• The four kinds of philosophical assumptions derived from those paradigms.

Finally, in Unit 3, you'll apply this material to your own study and complete the "Assumptions" section of your school's Research Plan for Track 2.

Research Philosophy

Terms synonymous with research philosophies include:

• Research traditions.
• Philosophical paradigms (world view lenses).
• Epistemological paradigms.
• Cultures of inquiry.

Research traditions or philosophies play this role:

• They tell us about the philosophical assumptions researchers have about the world and how to go about studying phenomena.
• As a result, the research tradition you select will reflect your assumptions about the world, and will shape the decisions you make throughout the entire research process.
• They make four key assumptions: ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions.

These four key assumptions have imposing sounding names, but they are understandable. When you design a research project (indeed, when you design any project at all), there are certain kinds of things you take for granted, that is, assume. You don't need to prove them or calculate them, you simply accept them as givens.

For instance, if you wish to study the concept of leadership, you take it for granted that leadership is something real. We call this an ontological assumption, from the Greek word that means "reality".

You also assume that leadership can be studied productively, that we can learn something meaningful and useful about it. This comes from the Greek word "episteme-" which means knowledge. Epistemological assumptions are about what can be known.

You take it for granted that to learn about leadership would be a good thing, and that there are right and wrong ways to go about doing it. This kind of assumption comes from the Greek word axioma, meaning something that is worthy and fitting.

And finally, you take certain methods for learning about leadership for granted—you assume that there are some methods of inquiry that will be workable and others that will not. These methodological assumptions are based on the previous three kinds of assumptions.

How do we know what we should assume? The answer to that is in the paradigm we choose to work within. In Track 2, we will focus on the two main paradigms in social science research. There are others, but these two have stood the test of time since the days of Plato and Aristotle. They are logical positivism and interpretivism. We will take them one at a time.

Positivism (Logical Positivism)

Positivism is a philosophy that holds that empirical evidence obtained through the senses is the only firm foundation for knowledge. Further, it insists that valid knowledge can only be assumed if all observers come up with essentially the same description of a thing. Last, it requires that these descriptions be uniform across all researchers or observers, which leads to the requirement that measurement is the royal road to knowledge. Thus, positivism leads to the following four sets of assumptions:

• Ontological assumptions (nature of reality): There is one defined reality, fixed, measurable, and observable.
• Epistemological assumptions (knowledge): Genuine knowledge is objective and quantifiable. The goal of science is to test and expand theory.
• Axiological assumptions (role of values): Objectivity is good, and subjectivity is inherently misleading.
• Methodological assumptions (research strategies): Using quantitative research methods such as experiments, quasi-experiments, exploratory and analytical models, case studies, and so on—which require objective measurement and analysis—is the only acceptable method to generate valid knowledge.

As should be obvious, such assumptions lead to quantitative studies, which rely on objective measurement of observable phenomena.  That which cannot be measured cannot be reliably known.

Positivistic Research Study Example:

In 2012 Venkatesh, Thong and Xu  published their article, "Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology," examining consumer acceptance and use of information technology. (If you wish to review the entire article, it is linked in the Track 2 Courseroom Resources section.) Venkatesh, Thong and Xu made the following assumptions:

• Ontological assumption:  Consumer acceptance and use of information technology can be observed and measured. There is one defined reality for these constructs  and if measured, will be readily visible to all who observe it.
• Epistemological assumption: The acquisition of knowledge of consumer acceptance and use of information technology is an objective process, one that can be measured, and that measured and objective report is reliable and useful knowledge.
• Axiological assumption: The measurements for consumer acceptance and information technology will objectively inform the theory of acceptance and use of technology, which is a valuable to understand.
• Methodological assumption: Quantitative design—A new survey instrument was adapted from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)—a four input construct model of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions which influence behavioral intentions of use (Vankatesh et al., 2003).  Additional existing scales were also adapted to measure variables of hedonic motivation, price value, and habit with moderating variables of age, gender and experience. After a pilot study,  a two-stage online survey was conducted to explain behavioral intention and the subsequent mobile use behavior. The measurement and structural models were tested using Partial Least Squares to create UTAUT2.

References

Interpretivism (Social Constructivism)

A second main paradigm or philosophical camp is known as interpretivism, or social constructivism. This philosophy has been more recent in development, but its roots are in the philosophy of Plato and his teacher Socrates, who held that the truth, even if it is only dimly shadowed by human approximations of it, can only be approached through careful reflection and dialog with others. Simply put, we can only interpret the truth, not measure it. We can only know what we can learn in thoughtful discussion with other seekers. Human beings, that is, construct their realities and truths by talking together about them.

Here is how the four groups of assumptions look to an interpretivist (a social constructivist):

• Ontological assumptions (nature of reality): There must be multiple realities, socially constructed by individuals together.
• Epistemological assumptions (knowledge): Knowledge is gained through an empathic understanding of participants' lived social realities; the goal of science is to describe people's subjective lived realities, experiences, and understandings.
• Axiological assumptions (role of values): The researcher's subjective values, intuition, and biases are important—they play a role in the dialog of social construction and inform his or her interpretation of the data.
• Methodological assumptions (research strategies): Using qualitative research methods such as phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and ethnography provides access to participants inner, subjective experiences.

As the positivist paradigm leads inevitably to objective, quantifiable methods, the interpretivist paradigm leads to methods that involve qualitative inquiry—researcher and participant talking together, constructing a new reality together.

Interpretivistic Research Study Example:

Kreiner, Hollensbe, and  Sheep (2009) published a qualitative study, "Balancing Borders and Bridges: Negotiating the Work-Home Interface via Boundary Work Tactics," designed to determine attitudes and opinions of clergy in balancing their work and home lives. (If you wish to read the entire article, it is available as a link in the Resources area of the Track 2 Courseroom.) “Attitudes and opinions” are classic qualitative focuses.  Quantitative opinion surveys simply ask people to rate pre-determined opinions on a scale of some sort, but the qualitative approach is to ask for the opinions and attitudes in the participant’s own words.  Then the researcher interprets those words to create a new reality, a set of themes or descriptions that transcends what any single individual may have thought before.

The four sets of assumptions look different from this interpretivist perspective:

• Ontological assumption – There are multiple social realities of attitudes about practices to balance work and home life. “Reality” cannot be easily defined by the researcher alone. It is more important to capture the meanings, experiences, and perceptions of those participants.
• Epistemological assumptio – The study of these participants’ experiences could only be captured by hearing what they have to say since they are the ones who lived through this process.
• Axiological assumptions – The types of questions asked were influenced by the researchers’ worldviews. The analysis of the findings; extrapolation of themes are also influenced by the researchers’ values, personal experiences, and worldviews.  At the same time, the values, experiences, and worldviews of the participants interact with those of the researchers to deepen the analysis.
• Methodological assumptions – Using a qualitative design and in-depth, face-to-face interviews, with open-ended questions, allows researchers to obtain deep and rich understandings of what these participants experienced.

Reference

Summary of Research Paradigms and Their Related Assumptions

Use Table 1 below to review the two major paradigms operating in social science research today, and the assumptions associated with them.

Table 1. Dominant Research Paradigms and Their Assumptions

Doc. reference: phd_t2_sobt_u03s1_h01_assumptn.html