Chapter Three: Rearch Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The way in which rearch is conducted may be conceived of in terms of the rearch philosophy subscribed to, the rearch strategy employed and so the rearch instruments utilid (and perhaps developed) in the pursuit of a goal - the rearch objective(s) - and the quest for the solution of a problem - the rearch question. We have outlined our rearch question and rearch objectives in Chapter One. The purpo of this chapter is to:
• discuss our rearch philosophy in relation to other philosophies;
• expound our rearch strategy, including the rearch methodologies adopted;
• introduce the rearch instruments that we have developed and utilid in the pursuit of our goals.
3.2 Rearch Philosophy
A rearch philosophy is a belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon should be gathered, analyd and ud. The term epistemology (what is known to be true) as oppod to doxolo
gy (what is believed to be true) encompass the various philosophies of rearch approach. The purpo of science, then, is the process of transforming things believed into things known: doxa to episteme. Two major rearch 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 obrved 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 obrvations 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.
Predictions can be made on the basis of the previously obrved 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 dismisd 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 rearch 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 rearch methodologies ( Kuhn, 1970; Bjørn-Andern, 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 ca 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 rearch, such as the apparent inconsistency of results, may be attributed to the inappropriateness of the positivist paradigm for the domain. Likewi, some variables or constituent parts of reality might have been previously thought unmeasurable under the positivist paradigm - and hence went unrearched (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 tho phenomena they study. They admit that there may be many interpretations of reality, but maintain that the interpretations are in themlves 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 Discussion and Rationale for Choice of Approach
Both rearch 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 venteenth centuries. Since that time, well known positivists have included Bacon, Descartes, Mill, Durkheim, Rusll and Popper. On the opposing side we have Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Polanyi and Kuhn (Hirschheim, 1985).
Vreede (1995) obrves that in both Organisation Science and Information Systems rearch, interpretive rearch ud 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 rearch in the leading US IS journals conform to this paradigm. Pervan (1994b), in a review of 122 articles in the GSS literature, obrves that only 4 (3.27%) could be described as interpretivist.
It has often been obrved (e.g. Benbasat et al., 1987) very accurately that no single rearch methodology is intrinsically better than any other methodology, many authors calling for a combination of rearch methods in order to improve the quality of rearch (e.g. Kaplan and Duchon, 1988). Equally, some institutions have tended to adopt a certain "hou style" methodology (Galliers, 1991); this ems 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 rearcher, should be chon (Benbasat, 1984; Pervan, 1994b). In this rearch, we have tried to avoid what may be characterid as methodological monism, i.e. the insistence on using a single rearch 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 ud appropriately, that rearch can include elements of both the positivist and interpretivist approaches, if managed carefully.
Our over-riding concern is that the rearch we undertake should be both relevant to our rearch question, as t out in Chapter One, and rigorous in its operationalisation. Overall we believe that an interpretivist philosophy is required for this purpo, i.e. the understanding of how groups adopt and adapt to the u of
Information Systems, specifically Group Support Systems. This rearch involves an element of technology transfer, insofar as the technology was not previously installed in some of the organisations we study. This thus requires that we play a part in the implementation process. Furthermore, in order to measure how organisations can improve their meetings with the support of GSS, we make recommendations for u of the GSS after analysing existing meeting process. To do all the things without being involved would be impossible. However, recognising the lack of objectivity sometimes associated with interpretivist rearch methods, we adopt a positivist, quantitative approach to the development of our key rearch instrument.
The various elements of our rearch approach are further elaborated in the following ctions: Rearch Strategy, Rearch Instruments, Facilitation Software and Rearch Operationalisation.
3.3 Rearch Strategy
A large number of rearch methodologies have been identified, Galliers (1991) for example listing fourteen, while Alavi and Carlson (1992), reported in Pervan (1994b), u a hierarchical taxonomy with three levels and eighteen categories. In Table 3.1 below, we list the methodologies identified by Galliers (1991, p.149), indicating whether they typically conform to the positivist or interpretivist paradigms. Before introducing the methodologies we u in this rearch, we summari the key features of the key methodologies in the table, identifying their respective strengths and weakness. In the following ctions, we justify our choice of methodologies and explain how they both operate and interoperate in our rearch.
Table 3.1 A Taxonomy of Rearch Methodologies
Scientific/Positivist Interpretivist/Anti-positivist
Laboratory Experiments Subjective/Argumentative
Field Experiments Reviews
SurveysüAction Rearchü
Ca Studies Ca Studiesü
Theorem Proof Descriptive/Interpretive
Forecasting Futures Rearch
Simulation Role/Game Playing
Laboratory experiments permit the rearcher to identify preci relationships between a small number of variables that are studied intensively via a designed laboratory situation using quantitative analytical techniques with a view to making generalisable statements applicable to real-life situations. The key weakness of laboratory experiments is the "limited extent to which identified relationships exist in the real world due to oversimplification of the experimental situation and the isolation of such situations from most of the variables that are found in the real world" (Galliers, 1991, p.150).
Field experiments extend laboratory experiments into real organisations and their real life situations, thereby achieving greater realism and diminishing the extent to which situations can be criticid as contrived. In practice it is difficult to identify organisations that are prepared to be experimented on and still more difficult to achieve sufficient control to make replication viable.
Surveys enable the rearcher to obtain data about practices, situations or views at one point in time through questionnaires or interviews. Quantitative analytical techniques are then ud to draw inferences from this data regarding existing relationships. The u of surveys permit a rearcher to study more variables at one time than is typically possible in laboratory or field experiments, whilst data can be collected about real world environments. A key weakness is that it is very difficult to reali insights relating to the caus of or process involved in the phenomena measured. There are, in addition, veral sources of bias such as the possibly lf-lecting nature of respondents, the point in time when the survey is conducted and in the rearcher him/herlf through the design of the survey itlf.
Ca studies involve an attempt to describe relationships that exist in reality, very often in a single organisation. Ca studies may be positivist or interpretivist in nature, depending on the approach of the rearcher, the data collected and the analytical techniques employed. Reality can be captured in greater detail by an obrver-rearcher, with the analysis of more variables than is typically possible in experimental and survey rearch. Ca studies can be considered weak as they are typically restricted to a single organisation and it is difficult to generali findings since it is hard to find similar cas with similar data that can be analyd in a statistically meaningful way. Furthermor
e, different rearchers may have different interpretations of the same data, thus adding rearch bias into the equation.
