Research methodology

Abductive reasoning: begins with a surprising fact being observed (as the conclusion), then works backwards to look for premise(s) to explain the conclusion, going backwards and forwards to make sense of it (like deductive + inductive). Obtains rich data to explore the ‘surprising fact’ with the aim of finding themes and patterns that might explain it. Then take this to form a conceptual framework and building up a theory , which could then get tested using old and new data. Probably best for a topic like humour (which has a wealth of information in other contexts but not in the context of coaching – so could modify existing theories).

Axiology: how/if your own values and ethics influence the research process. Includes how we make judgements about what research we are doing and how we do it.

Constructionism: belief that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors, therefore they are also in a constant state or revision. Related to postmodernism.

Critical Realism: believes that we only see a fraction of what is going on at any one time so, although there is a reality, how we each experience that reality is based on our individually observed experiences (and social conditioning). What we experience/sense is our representation of the real world, so we need to understand (1) the experiences/senses we have, then (2) our mental processing of those sensations, including what beliefs we have projected onto the experience (the latter done by backwards reasoning, or ‘retroduction’). Originated from Roy Bhaskar. Reality is external to us and independent of us, therefore researchers need to look at the bigger picture to understand what is going on, such as social structures, and looking for the underlying causes and mechanisms. Believe in ‘epistemological relativism’.

Deductive reasoning: data follows theory, as in the scientific method: starts with a theory, then research tests the theory, outcome (adjust tests, replicate). e.g. does A+B+C lead to X? (opposite to inductive). Data needs to be measurable and replicatable.  Likes large (quantitative ) data samples.

Dualism: separation of researcher and participants in study design and data collection to minimise bias.

Epistemology: how you view / assumptions about knowledge, including what is acceptable, valid and legitimate knowledge, and how we can communicate knowledge to others (e.g. through facts and figures, interviews, stories).

Epistemological relativism: believes that knowledge is historically located (i.e. it is of its time) and that facts are socially constructed rather than existing independently. Promotes use of multiple paradigms in research (e.g. objectivist + subjectivist).

Functionalist paradigm: a objectivist + regulation dimensions. Looks for rational explanations with the aim of creating a set of recommendations within the current structure.

Heightening your Awareness of your Research Philosophy (HARP) test: took in Saunders book. I scored high for Interpretivism (16), Pragmatism (15.5), Postmodernism (14); critical realism was 5.5, positivism (-12).

Hypothetic-Deductive model of science: in short, the scientific method: Review existing theory > create a hypothesis > design an experiment (identifying variables to manipulate and measure > test using control group > confirm or disprove > develop theory based on findings > repeat/replicate … and so on.

Incommensurability: (aka paradigm wars) The idea that the four paradigms  are mutually incompatible and cannot be combined. (Opposite of ‘epistemological relativism’).

Inductive reasoning: theory follows data. e.g. X happened, so let’s find out what caused that. Research aims to get a feel for what is going on and understand the nature of the problem by analysing data (e.g. interviews), then create a theory (often expressed as a conceptual framework). More likely to reveal alternative explanations. Takes context into account. More likely to accept small (qualitative ) data samples than deductive reasoning.

Interpretivism: subjectivist approach that believes different people of different cultural backgrounds, under different circumstances and at different times make different meanings and different social realities; therefore humans and their social worlds cannot be studied like natural sciences. Experiences are complex, often unique. The interpretivist researcher’s aim is to create new, richer understandings and interpretations of social worlds and contexts. See language, culture and history as important in shaping our interpretations of our experiences. Different strands include phenomenologists (focus on recollections and interpretations of lived experiences), hermeneuticists (study cultural artefacts, such as texts, symbols, stories, images), symbolic interactionists (see meaning as something that emerges out of the interactions between people, so focus on observation and analysis of conversations, etc). Accepts that own values and beliefs impact research.

Interpretive paradigm: subjectivist + regulation dimensions. Looks at how we try to make sense of the world, the meanings and discovering irrationalities and failures within a system. e.g. how power and politics are involved.

Methodology: how an approach defines processes associated with conducting research.

Nominalism: reality is created by the people involved (both researchers and social actors), via language, concepts, perceptions and our actions. There is no underlying single truth about the world; there are multiple versions because each person perceives their own version depending on their outlook on the world and how they engage with it.

Objectivism: belief that the social reality we experience (and are researching) is external to us all. It embraces ‘realism’ which considers social factors to be like physical ones (i.e. they exist independently of how we think of them, name them, know about them) and we (‘social actors’) do not influence their existence by our engagement with them. There is only one true reality which is experienced by everyone and does not change. Researchers who believe in objectivism seek to discover this one truth by seeking measurable facts, from which they can confirm law-like generalisations. They remain detached from the subject and aim to keep their personal values out of the research. [Not what I believe]. See ‘subjectivism’ for alternative view.

Ontology: how reality is viewed. For example, I think that humour can help individuals and organisations, but can also cause harm too.

Paradigm: a researcher’s ‘worldview’. A set of taken-for-granted assumptions which underwrite a researcher’s approach (i.e. their school of thought, such as Positivistic)

Pluralism: believes that diverse research approaches is a positive thing.

Positivism: like a natural scientist, positivism believes that there is a single observable social reality, therefore there are unambiguous and accurate law-like generalisations (‘generalisable inferences’) to be made. Relies upon temporal precedence (i.e. for X to cause Y, X must precede Y in time); association (i.e. X and Y are correlated); lack of confounders (i.e. no other factors affect the outcome). The study’s ‘internal validity’ considers how well the study design and evidence gathered support claims for causal inference (see rigor for more details). Knowledge = truth.  Name comes from ‘posited’ (meaning ‘given’), strictly scientific and empiricist method design to supply pure data and facts, free of bias or interpretation. Credible and meaningful data is only that which can be observed and measured, revealing causal relationships in the data, resulting in law-like generalisations. These universal rules and laws would help researcher explain and predict behaviour. Process: review existing theory > create a hypothesis (‘priori hypothesis’) > design an experiment (identifying variables to manipulate and measure, ‘independent variables’) > collect data from test (using control group) > findings/results > confirm or reject hypotheses > develop/refine theory based on findings > repeat/replicate … and so on (note: not always that linear, see Bryman, p21). This is the world of quantifiable observations and statistical analysis (ideally from large data samples). Guiding principles are generalisable inferences, replication of findings and controlled experimentation. Might even try to quantify qualitative data. Must have dualism (separation between research participants and researcher). Originates from Francis Bacon, Auguste Comte, Descartes, Locke and the Vienna Circle. During the enlightenment, thinkers wanted to move away from social elites (i.e. decrees made by royalty being considered the truth, and towards science. Still dominates research in clinical and basic sciences. [Is this the world of FACS?]

Postmodernism: believes everything is in a state of flux, movement, fluidity and change; any sense of order is provisional and foundationless (which is created by language, which is always partial and inadequate and marginalises, suppresses and excludes some aspects). It questions accepted ways of thinking, believing that there is no true reality. Postmodern researchers take apart/deconstruct the realities to search for the gaps and exclusions, which they then make more visible and challenge the established ways of of thinking. e.g. the label of ‘human resources’ serves the interests of managers rather their subordinates. Open to deconstructing any types of data, but would expect researcher to accept their position in the power relationship (which is unavoidable), including their moral and ethical position. Postmodernist thinkers include Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard. (aka Poststructuralism).

Postpositivist: Challenges the traditional positivist view that an absolute truth knowledge, especially when studying behaviour in a social setting/actions of humans. It believes an absolute truth can never be found (knowledge is conjectural and antifoundational) so evidence is always imperfect and fallible so a hypothesis cannot be proven; instead it indicates a failure to reject a hypothesis (i.e. it has not found it to fail). Still believes that causes determine outcomes, in scientific approach, in reductionism (being able to reduce ideas to small sets which can be tested)

Pragmatism: believes that concepts are only relevant where they support action. Includes all approaches from subjectivism to objectivism. Considers theories, concepts, ideas, etc, in terms of their practical consequences. Research starts with a problem and aims to contribute practical solutions that inform future practice (like a way of approaching humour in coaching!). More interested in practical outcomes than abstract distinctions. Research problem and question drives the approach: if it does not unambiguously suggest one particular approach, pragmatism would support using different types of knowledge and methods which would be credible, reliable, relevant, etc for the question being investigated. They recognise that there are many different ways to interpret the world and undertake research, that no single point of view can ever give the entire picture and that there may be multiple realities. Pragmatists include Pierce, James, Dewey.

Radical change perspective: approaches problems with the aim of radically shaking it up/overturning it. A utopian, visionary approach (aka Sociology of radical change) (opposite of regulation perspective).

Radical humanist paradigm: subjectivist + radical change dimensions. Looks to change the status quo, focusing on power, politics, oppression via social constructs, language, processes. Looks at the effects that one’s words and actions have on others.

Radical structuralism paradigm: objectivism + radical change dimensions. Focus achieving fundamental change based on analysing and understanding structural elements (e.g. hierarchies and oppression of the work force). Underpinned by critical realist philosophy.

Reflexivity: examine and question your own thinking and actions.

Regulation perspective: assumption that there is an underlying unity and cohesiveness of social systems and structures. Such research looks at what is happening now with the aim of improving it (aka ‘sociology of regulation’). (Opposite of radical change perspective)

Rigour: the criteria used to justify the quality of research in the approach. Evaluated based on the degree to which the researcher has been able to minimise threats to internal validity. e.g. maturation (naturally occurring change of participants over time); history (events that happen during the research that influences results); instrumentation (measurement issues that reflect how well it is measured); statistical regression (tendency for scores to regress toward the mean in follow-up measurements); testing effect; selection (differences in participants); mortality (participant attrition).

Social actors: people who are being researched.

Social Constructionism: belief that reality is constructed through social interactions in which social actors create a partially shared reality.

Subjectivism: believes that social reality is made from the perceptions and actions of people (‘social actors’). It embraces nominalism and social constructionism. Because interactions are constantly changing, reality is also in constant flux which means that researchers need a rounded understanding of what has gone on in the past as well as looking at what is being experienced now (e.g. historical, cultural, geographical, etc). Therefore subjectivist researchers are interested in different views, opinions and narratives from social actors in order to make sense of and understand the different perceived realities. Subjectivist researchers also acknowledge that they cannot detach their own values and reflect upon how this impacts their research. For example, humour is produced through the social interactions between the ‘initiator’ (giver of humour) and ‘target’ (receiver of the humour), and is continually being revised as a result of this. Different versions of humour are experienced by different people. [adapted from Saunders, p131-2]. 

Unificationism: promote a single research approach (oppose pluralism)

Sources:

• Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Park, Y., Konge, L. and Artino, A., 2020. The Positivism Paradigm of Research. Academic Medicine, 95(5), pp.690-694.
• Saunders, Mark & Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and approaches. (chapt. 4, Research Methods for Business Students. pp.106-135).