Chapter Three

The Research Process

Scientific research is the process of acquiring scientific knowledge using the scientific method. But how is
such research conducted? This chapter delves into the process of scientific research, and the assumptions
and outcomes of the research process.
Paradigms of Social Research
Our design and conduct of research is shaped by our mental models or frames of references that we use to
organize our reasoning and observations. These mental models or frames (belief systems) are called
paradigms. The word “paradigm” was popularized by Thomas Kuhn (1962) in his book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, where he examined the history of the natural sciences to identify patterns of
activities that shape the progress of science. Similar ideas are applicable to social sciences as well, where a
social reality can be viewed by different people in different ways, which may constrain their thinking and
reasoning about the observed phenomenon. For instance, conservatives and liberals tend to have very
different perceptions of the role of government in people’s lives, and hence, have different opinions on how
to solve social problems. Conservatives may believe that lowering taxes is the best way to stimulate a
stagnant economy because it increases people’s disposable income and spending, which in turn expands
business output and employment. In contrast, liberals may believe that governments should invest more
directly in job creation programs such as public works and infrastructure projects, which will increase
employment and people’s ability to consume and drive the economy. Likewise, Western societies place
greater emphasis on individual rights, such as one’s right to privacy, right of free speech, and right to bear
arms. In contrast, Asian societies tend to balance the rights of individuals against the rights of families,
organizations, and the government, and therefore tend to be more communal and less individualistic in their
policies. Such differences in perspective often lead Westerners to criticize Asian governments for being
autocratic, while Asians criticize Western societies for being greedy, having high crime rates, and creating
a “cult of the individual.” Our personal paradigms are like “colored glasses” that govern how we view the
world and how we structure our thoughts about what we see in the world.
Paradigms are often hard to recognize, because they are implicit, assumed, and taken for granted. However,
recognizing these paradigms is key to making sense of and reconciling differences in people’ perceptions
of the same social phenomenon. For instance, why do liberals believe that the best way to improve
secondary education is to hire more teachers, but conservatives believe that privatizing education (using
such means as school vouchers) are more effective in achieving the same goal? Because conservatives place
more faith in competitive markets (i.e., in free competition between schools competing for education
dollars), while liberals believe more in labor (i.e., in having more teachers and schools). Likewise, in social
science research, if one were to understand why a certain technology was successfully implemented in one
organization but failed miserably in another, a researcher looking at the world through a “rational lens” will
look for rational explanations of the problem such as inadequate technology or poor fit between technology
and the task context where it is being utilized, while another research looking at the same problem through
a “social lens” may seek out social deficiencies such as inadequate user training or lack of management
support, while those seeing it through a “political lens” will look for instances of organizational politics that
may subvert the technology implementation process. Hence, subconscious paradigms often constrain the
concepts that researchers attempt to measure, their observations, and their subsequent interpretations of a
phenomenon. However, given the complex nature of social phenomenon, it is possible that all of the above
paradigms are partially correct, and that a fuller understanding of the problem may require an understanding
and application of multiple paradigms.
13
Two popular paradigms today among social science researchers are positivism and post-positivism.
Positivism, based on the works of French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), was the dominant
scientific paradigm until the mid-20th century. It holds that science or knowledge creation should be
restricted to what can be observed and measured. Positivism tends to rely exclusively on theories that can
be directly tested. Though positivism was originally an attempt to separate scientific inquiry from religion
(where the precepts could not be objectively observed), positivism led to empiricism or a blind faith in
observed data and a rejection of any attempt to extend or reason beyond observable facts. Since human
thoughts and emotions could not be directly measured, there were not considered to be legitimate topics for
scientific research. Frustrations with the strictly empirical nature of positivist philosophy led to the
development of post-positivism (or postmodernism) during the mid-late 20th century. Post-positivism
argues that one can make reasonable inferences about a phenomenon by combining empirical observations
with logical reasoning. Post-positivists view science as not certain but probabilistic (i.e., based on many
contingencies), and often seek to explore these contingencies to understand social reality better. The post-
positivist camp has further fragmented into subjectivists, who view the world as a subjective construction
of our subjective minds rather than as an objective reality, and critical realists, who believe that there is an
external reality that is independent of a person’s thinking but we can never know such reality with any
degree of certainty.
Burrell and Morgan (1979), in their seminal book Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,
suggested that the way social science researchers view and study social phenomena is shaped by two
fundamental sets of philosophical assumptions: ontology and epistemology. Ontology refers to our
assumptions about how we see the world, e.g., does the world consist mostly of social order or constant
change. Epistemology refers to our assumptions about the best way to study the world, e.g., should we use
an objective or subjective approach to study social reality. Using these two sets of assumptions, we can
categorize social science research as belonging to one of four categories (see Figure 3.1).
If researchers view the world as consisting mostly of social order (ontology) and hence seek to study
patterns of ordered events or behaviors, and believe that the best way to study such a world is using objective
approach (epistemology) that is independent of the person conducting the observation or interpretation,
such as by using standardized data collection tools like surveys, then they are adopting a paradigm of
functionalism. However, if they believe that the best way to study social order is though the subjective
interpretation of participants involved, such as by interviewing different participants and reconciling
differences among their responses using their own subjective perspectives, then they are employing an
interpretivism paradigm. If researchers believe that the world consists of radical change and seek to
understand or enact change using an objectivist approach, then they are employing a radical structuralism
paradigm. If they wish to understand social change using the subjective perspectives of the participants
involved, then they are following a radical humanism paradigm.

Figure 3.1. Four paradigms of social science research (Source: Burrell and Morgan, 1979)
14
To date, the majority of social science research has emulated the natural sciences, and followed the
functionalist paradigm. Functionalists believe that social order or patterns can be understood in terms of
their functional components, and therefore attempt to break down a problem into small components and
studying one or more components in detail using objectivist techniques such as surveys and experimental
research. However, with the emergence of post-positivist thinking, a small but growing number of social
science researchers are attempting to understand social order using subjectivist techniques such as
interviews and ethnographic studies. Radical humanism and radical structuralism continues to represent a
negligible proportion of social science research, because scientists are primarily concerned with
understanding generalizable patterns of behavior, events, or phenomena, rather than idiosyncratic or
changing events. Nevertheless, if you wish to study social change, such as why democratic movements are
increasingly emerging in Middle Eastern countries, or why this movement was successful in Tunisia, took
a longer path to success in Libya, and is still not successful in Syria, then perhaps radical humanism is the
right approach for such a study. Social and organizational phenomena generally consists elements of both
order and change. For instance, organizational success depends on formalized business processes, work
procedures, and job responsibilities, while being simultaneously constrained by a constantly changing mix
of competitors, competing products, suppliers, and customer base in the business environment. Hence, a
holistic and more complete understanding of social phenomena such as why are some organizations more
successful than others, require an appreciation and application of a multi-paradigmatic approach to research.
Overview of the Research Process
All scientific research is an iterative process of observation, rationalization, and validation. In the
observation phase, we observe a natural or social phenomenon, event, or behavior that interests us. In the
rationalization phase, we try to make sense of or the observed phenomenon, event, or behavior by logically
connecting the different pieces of the puzzle that we observe, which in some cases, may lead to the
construction of a theory. Finally, in the validation phase, we test our theories using a scientific method
through a process of data collection and analysis, and in doing so, possibly modify or extend our initial
theory. However, research designs vary based on whether the researcher starts at observation and attempts
to rationalize the observations (inductive research), or whether the researcher starts at an ex ante
rationalization or a theory and attempts to validate the theory (deductive research).
However, most research tends to be deductive and functionalistic in nature. Figure 3.2 provides a schematic
view of such a research project. This figure depicts a series of activities to be performed in functionalist
research, (it refers to conducting a research using objective approach (epistemology) that is independent of
the person conducting the observation or interpretation such as by using standardized data collection tools
like surveys) categorized into three phases: exploration, research design, and research execution.
The Exploration Phase: This phase includes exploring and selecting research questions for further
investigation, examining the published literature in the area of inquiry to understand the current state of
knowledge in that area, and identifying theories that may help answer the research questions of interest.
Identifying one or more research questions: This is the first step in the exploration phase and deals with
a specific behavior, event, or phenomena of interest. Research questions are specific questions about a
behavior, event, or phenomena of interest that you wish to seek answers for in your research. Examples
include what factors motivate consumers to purchase goods and services online without knowing the
vendors of these goods or services, how can we make high school students more creative, and why do some
people commit terrorist acts. Research questions can delve into issues of what, why, how, when, and so
forth. More interesting research questions are those that appeal to a broader population, address real and

15
complex problems and where the answers are not obvious. Narrowly focused research questions (often with
a binary yes/no answer) tend to be less useful and less interesting and less suited to capturing the subtle
nuances of social phenomena. Uninteresting research questions generally lead to uninteresting and
unpublishable research findings.

Literature Review: In this step, the researcher should conduct a literature review of the domain of interest.
The purpose of a literature review is three-fold: (1) to survey the current state of knowledge in the area of
inquiry, (2) to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that area, and (3) to identify gaps in
knowledge in that research area. Literature review is commonly done today using computerized keyword
searches in online databases. Once a shortlist of relevant articles is generated from the keyword search, the
researcher must then manually browse through each article, or at least its abstract section, to determine the
suitability of that article for a detailed review. Literature reviews should be reasonably complete, and not
restricted to a few journals, a few years, or a specific methodology. A well-conducted literature review
should indicate whether the initial research questions have already been addressed in the literature (which
would obviate the need to study them again), whether there are newer or more interesting research questions
available, and whether the original research questions should be modified or changed in light of findings of
the literature review. The review can also provide some intuitions or potential answers to the questions of
interest and/or help identify theories that have previously been used to address similar questions.
Identify one or more Theories: The third step is to identify one or more theories can help address the
desired research questions. While the literature review may uncover a wide range of concepts or constructs
potentially related to the phenomenon of interest, a theory will help identify which of these constructs is
logically relevant to the target phenomenon and how. Forgoing theories may result in measuring a wide
range of less relevant, marginally relevant, or irrelevant constructs, while also minimizing the chances of
obtaining results that are meaningful and not by pure chance. In functionalist research, theories can be used
as the logical basis for postulating hypotheses for empirical testing. Obviously, not all theories are well-
suited for studying all social phenomena. Theories must be carefully selected based on their fit with the
target problem and the extent to which their assumptions are consistent with that of the target problem.

16
The Research Design Phase: It concerns with creating a blueprint of the activities to take in order to
satisfactorily answer the research questions identified in the previous phase. This includes operationalizing
constructs of interest, selecting a research method, and devising an appropriate sampling strategy.
Operationalization is the process of designing precise measures for the theoretical constructs.
Operationalization starts with specifying an “operational definition” (or “conceptualization”) of the
constructs of interest. Next, the researcher can search the literature to see if there are existing pre-validated
measures matching their operational definition that can be used directly or modified to measure their
constructs of interest. If such measures are not available or if existing measures are poor or reflect a different
conceptualization than that intended by the researcher, new instruments may have to be designed for
measuring those constructs. This means specifying exactly how exactly the desired construct will be
measured (e.g., how many items, what items, and so forth). This can easily be a long and laborious process,
with multiple rounds of pretests and modifications before the newly designed instrument can be accepted
as “scientifically valid.”
The Research Method: Simultaneously with operationalization, the researcher must also decide what
research method wish to employ for collecting data to address their research questions of interest. Such
methods may include quantitative methods such as experiments or survey research or qualitative methods
such as case research or action research, or possibly a combination of both. If an experiment is desired, then
what is the experimental design? If survey, do you plan a mail survey, telephone survey, web survey, or a
combination? For complex, uncertain, and multi-faceted social phenomena, multi-method approaches may
be more suitable, which may help leverage the unique strengths of each research method and generate
insights that may not be obtained using a single method.
Target population and Sampling Strategy: Researchers must also carefully choose the target population
from which they wish to collect data, and a sampling strategy to select a sample from that population. For
instance, should they survey individuals or firms or workgroups within firms? What types of individuals or
firms they wish to target? Sampling strategy is closely related to the unit of analysis in a research problem.
While selecting a sample, reasonable care should be taken to avoid a biased sample (e.g., sample based on
convenience) that may generate biased observations.
Research Proposal: Once the researcher has done well with the exploration and research design phases,
and before proceeding to the next phase, it is often a good idea to write a research proposal. The research
proposal details all of the decisions made in the preceding stages of the research process and the rationale
behind each decision. This multi-part proposal should address what research questions you wish to study
and why, the prior state of knowledge in this area, theories you wish to employ along with hypotheses to
be tested, how to measure constructs, what research method to be employed and why, and desired sampling
strategy. A research proposal may serve as a useful vehicle for seeking feedback from other researchers or
supervisors and identifying potential problems with the research project (e.g., whether some important
constructs were missing from the study) before starting data collection. This initial feedback is invaluable
because it is often too late to correct critical problems after data is collected in a research study.
The Research Execution Phase: Having decided who to study (subjects), what to measure (construct), and
how to collect data (research method), the researcher is now ready to proceed to the research execution
phase. This includes pilot testing the measurement instruments, data collection, and data analysis.
Pilot testing is an often overlooked but extremely important part of the research process. It helps detect
potential problems in your research design and/or instrumentation (e.g., whether the questions asked is

17
intelligible to the targeted sample), and to ensure that the measurement instruments used in the study are
reliable and valid measures of the constructs of interest. The pilot sample is usually a small subset of the
target population.
Data Collection: After a successful pilot testing, the researcher may then proceed with data collection using
the sampled population. Data collection is done using data collection instruments identified in the previous
phase. The data collected may be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the research method employed.
Data Analysis: Following data collection, the collected data is organized, analyzed and interpreted for the
purpose of drawing conclusions regarding the research questions of interest. Depending on the type of data
collected (quantitative or qualitative), data analysis may be quantitative (e.g., employ statistical techniques
such as regression or structural equation modeling) or qualitative (e.g., coding or content analysis).
The Research Report: The final phase of research involves preparing the final research report documenting
the entire research process and its findings in the form of a research paper, dissertation, or monograph. This
report should outline in detail all the choices made during the research process (e.g., theory used, constructs
selected, measures used, research methods, sampling, etc.) and why, as well as the outcomes of each phase
of the research process. The research process must be described in sufficient detail so as to allow other
researchers to replicate your study, test the findings, or assess whether the inferences derived are
scientifically acceptable. Of course, having a ready research proposal will greatly simplify and quicken the
process of writing the finished report. Note that research is of no value unless the research process and
outcomes are documented for future generations; such documentation is essential for the incremental
progress of science.
Common Mistakes in Research
The research process is fraught with problems and pitfalls, and novice researchers often find, after investing
substantial amounts of time and effort into a research project, that their research questions were not
sufficiently answered, or that the findings were not interesting enough, or that the research was not of
“acceptable” scientific quality. Such problems typically result in research papers being rejected by journals.
Some of the more frequent mistakes are described below.
Insufficiently motivated research questions. Often times, we choose our “pet” problems that are
interesting to us but not to the scientific community at large, i.e., it does not generate new knowledge or
insight about the phenomenon being investigated. Because the research process involves a significant
investment of time and effort on the researcher’s part, the researcher must be certain (and be able to
convince others) that the research questions they seek to answer in fact deal with real problems (and not
hypothetical problems) that affect a substantial portion of a population and has not been adequately
addressed in prior research.
Pursuing research fads. Another common mistake is pursuing “popular” topics with limited shelf life. A
typical example is studying technologies or practices that are popular today. Because research takes several
years to complete and publish, it is possible that popular interest in these fads may die down by the time the
research is completed and submitted for publication. A better strategy may be to study “timeless” topics
that have always persisted through the years.
Unresearchable problems. Some research problems may not be answered adequately based on observed
evidence alone, or using currently accepted methods and procedures. Such problems are best avoided.
However, some unresearchable, ambiguously defined problems may be modified or fine tuned into well-
defined and useful researchable problems.
18
Favored research methods. Many researchers have a tendency to recast a research problem so that it is
amenable to their favorite research method (e.g., survey research). This is an unfortunate trend. Research
methods should be chosen to best fit a research problem, and not the other way around.
Blind data mining. Some researchers have the tendency to collect data first (using instruments that are
already available), and then figure out what to do with it. Note that data collection is only one step in a long
and elaborate process of planning, designing, and executing research. In fact, a series of other activities are
needed in a research process prior to data collection. If researchers jump into data collection without such
elaborate planning, the data collected will likely be irrelevant, imperfect, or useless, and their data collection
efforts may be entirely wasted. An abundance of data cannot make up for deficits in research planning and
design, and particularly, for the lack of interesting research questions.

19