RESEARCH METHODS

A. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHIES
Introduction

Research philosophies are concerned with the way in which you collect data to
answer your research question.
You usually begin to think about your research by considering whether you should,
for example, administer a questionnaire or conduct interviews.
However, thoughts on this question belong in the centre of the research structure
by which means we have chosen to depict the issues underlying the choice of data
collection techniques and analysis procedures.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any
research paradigm.
The research philosophy you adopt contains important assumptions about the way
in which you view the world. These assumptions will underpin your research
strategy and the methods you choose as part of that strategy.
In part, the philosophy you adopt will be influenced by practical considerations.
However, the main influence is likely to be your particular view of the relationship
between knowledge and the process by which it is developed.
In this discussion we examine two major ways of thinking about research
philophosy: epistemology and ontology. Each contain important differences which
will influence the way in which you think about the research process. This is the
purpose of this chapter. It is not to offer a shopping list from which you may wish
to choose that philosophy or approach that suits you best. It is to enhance your
understanding of the way in which we approach the study of our particular field of
activity.
Epistemology
Epistemology concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of
study.
The key epistemological question is ‘can the approach to the study of the social
world, including that of management and business, be the same as the approach to
studying the natural sciences?’
The answer to that question points the way to the acceptability of the knowledge
developed from the research process.
Ontology
Ontology, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of reality.
To a greater extent than epistemological considerations, this raises questions of the
assumptions researchers have about the way the world operates and the
commitment held to particular views.
The two aspects of ontology we describe here will both have their devotees among
business and management researchers. In addition, both are likely to be accepted as
producing valid knowledge by many researchers.
UNDERSTANDING YOUR RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
Positivism
If your research philosophy reflects the principles of positivism, then you will
probably adopt the philosophical stance of the natural scientist.
You will prefer ‘working with an observable social reality and that the end product
of such research can be law-like generalisations similar to those produced by the
physical and natural scientists’
Like the ‘resources’ researcher earlier, only phenomena that you can observe will
lead to the production of credible data.
To generate a research strategy to collect these data you are likely to use existing
theory to develop hypotheses.
These hypotheses will be tested and confirmed, in whole or part, or refuted,
leading to the further development of theory which may then be tested by further
research.
Another important component of the positivist approach to research is that the
research is undertaken, as far as possible, in a value-free way.
At first sight this is a plausible position, particularly when one contrasts the
perspective of the ‘resources’ researcher with the ‘feelings’ researcher.
The ‘resources’ researcher would claim to be external to the process of data
collection in the sense that there is little that can be done to alter the substance of
the data collected.
The assumption is that ‘the researcher is independent of and neither affects nor is
affected by the subject of the research.
After all, the ‘resources’ researcher cannot change the fact that there are five
trucks and ten computers.
Realism
Realism is another epistemological position which relates to scientific enquiry.
The essence of realism is that what the senses show us as reality is the truth: that
objects have an existence independent of the human mind.
The theory of realism is that there is a reality quite independent of the mind.
Realism is a branch of epistemology which is similar to positivism in that it
assumes a scientific approach to the development of knowledge. This
assumption underpins the collection of data and the understanding of those data.
This meaning (and in particular the relevance of realism for business and
management research) becomes clearer when two forms of realism are contrasted.
The first type of realism is direct realism.
Direct realism says that what you see is what you get: what we experience
through our senses portrays the world accurately.
The second kind of realism is called critical realism.
Critical realists argue that what we experience are sensations, the images of the
things in the real world, not the things directly.
Critical realists point out how often our senses deceive us.
For example, when you next watch an international rugby or cricket match on
television you are likely to see an advertisement for the sponsor in a prominent
position on the actual playing surface. This looks like it is standing upright on the
field. However, this is an illusion. It is in fact painted on the grass. So what we
really see are sensations, which are representations of what is real.
The direct realist would respond to the critical realist that what we call illusions are
actually due to the fact that we have insufficient information. We don’t perceive
the world in television images. We move around, move our eyes and ears, use all
our senses. In the case of the television advertisement, the complete experience of
it would include seeing it from all directions and angles.
A simple way to think about the difference between direct and critical realism is as
follows.
Critical realism claims that there are two steps to experiencing the world. First
there is the thing itself and the sensations it conveys. Second, there is the mental
processing that goes on sometime after that sensation meets our senses.
Direct realism says that the first step is enough. To pursue our cricket (or rugby)
example, the umpire who is the critical realist would say about his umpiring
decisions: ‘I give them as I see them!’ The umpire who is a direct realist would say
‘I give them as they are!’
Business and management research is concerned with the social world in which we
live. Their argument is that as researchers we will only be able to understand what
is going on in the social world if we understand the social structures that have
given rise to the phenomena that we are trying to understand. In other words, what
we see is only part of the bigger picture.
Interpretivism
The interpretivist position that it is necessary to explore the subjective meanings
motivating the actions of social actors in order for the researcher to be able to
understand these actions. Social constructionism views reality as being socially
constructed. Social actors, such as the customers you may plan to study in your
organisation, may place many different interpretations on the situations in which
they find themselves. So individual customers will perceive different situations in
varying ways as a consequence of their own view of the world. These different
interpretations are likely to affect their actions and the nature of their social
interaction with others. In this sense, the customers you are studying not only
interact with their environment, they also seek to make sense of it through their
interpretation of events and the meanings that they draw from these events. In turn
their own actions may be seen by others as being meaningful in the context of
these socially constructed interpretations and meanings. Therefore, in the case of
the customers you are studying, it is therefore your role as the researcher to seek to
understand the subjective reality of the customers in order to be able to make sense
of and understand their motives, actions and intentions in a way that is meaningful.
All this is some way from the position that customer service in an organisation has
a reality that is separate from the customers that receive that reality. The
subjectivist view is that customer service is produced through the social interaction
between service providers and customers and is continually being revised as a
result of this. In other words, at no time is there a definitive entity called ‘customer
service’. It is constantly changing. This objectivist- subjectivist debate is somewhat
similar to the different ways in which the theoretical and practical approaches to
organisational culture have developed in recent years. Smircich (1983) noted that
objectivists would tend to view the culture of an organisation as something that the
organisation ‘has’. On the other hand the subjectivist’s view would be that culture
is something that the organisation ‘is’ as a result as a process of continuing social
enactment. Management theory and practice has leaned towards treating
organisation culture as a variable, something that the organisation ‘has’: something
that can be manipulated, changed in order to produce the sort of state desired by
managers. The subjectivist viewpoint would be to reject this as too simplistic and
argue that culture is something that is created and re-created through a complex
array of phenomena which includes social interactions, physical factors such as
office layout to which individual attach certain meanings, rituals and myths. It is
the meanings that are attached to these phenomena by social actors within the
organisation that need to be understood in order for the culture to be understood.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism argues that the most important determinant of the research philosophy
adopted is the research question- one approach may be ‘better’ than the other for
answering particular questions.
Moreover, if the research question does not suggest unambiguously that either a
positivist or interpretivist philosophy is adopted this confirms the pragmatist’s
view that it is perfectly possible to work with both philosophies. This mirrors a
theme which recurs in this book.
This is that mixed methods, both qualitative and quantitative, are possible, and
possibly highly appropriate, within one study suggest that it is more appropriate for
the researcher in a particular study to think of the philosophy adopted as a
continuum rather than opposite positions.

B. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

WHAT IS A RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

A research hypothesis is a specific, clear, and testable proposition or predictive

statement about the possible outcome of a scientific research study. This is done

based on a particular property of a population, such as presumed differences

between groups concerning a particular variable or relationships between variables

TYPES OF HYPOTHESES

Depending on the nature of your research and what you expect to find,
your hypothesis will fall into one or more of the seven main categories.
Keep in mind that these categories are not exclusive, so the same
hypothesis might qualify as several different types.

1 Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis suggests only the relationship between two variables:

one independent and one dependent.
 Examples:

 If you stay up late, then you feel tired the next day.

 Turning off your phone makes it charge faster.

2 Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis suggests the relationship between more than two

variables, for example, two independents and one dependent, or vice
versa.

Examples:

 People who both (1) eat a lot of fatty foods and (2) have a family history of
health problems are more likely to develop heart diseases.

 Older people who live in rural areas are happier than younger people who
live in rural areas.

3 Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis, abbreviated as H0, suggests that there is no relationship

between variables.

Examples:

 There is no difference in plant growth when using either bottled water or tap
water.

 Professional psychics do not win the lottery more than other people.
 4 Alternative hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis, abbreviated as H1 or HA, is used in conjunction

with a null hypothesis. It states the opposite of the null hypothesis, so that
one and only one must be true.

Examples:

 Plants grow better with bottled water than tap water.

 Professional psychics win the lottery more than other people.

5 Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis suggests a relationship between

variables without actual evidence. Claims are instead based on reasoning
or deduction, but lack actual data.

Examples:

 An alien raised on Venus would have trouble breathing in Earth’s

atmosphere.

 Dinosaurs with sharp, pointed teeth were probably carnivores.

6 Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis, also known as a “working hypothesis,” is one that

is currently being tested. Unlike logical hypotheses, empirical hypotheses
rely on concrete data.
 Examples:

 Customers at restaurants will tip the same even if the wait staff’s base
salary is raised.

 Washing your hands every hour can reduce the frequency of illness.

7 Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is when you test only a sample of a population and

then apply statistical evidence to the results to draw a conclusion about the
entire population. Instead of testing everything, you test only a portion and
generalize the rest based on preexisting data.

Examples:

 In humans, the birth-gender ratio of males to females is 1.05 to 1.00.

 Approximately 2% of the world population has natural red hair.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTION

1. Definition
Hypothesis is a tentative prediction about the relationship between two or more
variables.
Research Question is the question a research study sets to answer.
2. Nature
Hypothesis is predictive in nature.
Research Question is inquisitive in nature.
3. Existing Research
Hypothesis can be used if there is significant knowledge or previous research on
this subject.
Research Question can be used if there is little previous research on the subject.
4. Quantitative vs Qualitative
Hypothesis is mainly used in experimental quantitative studies.
Research Question can be used in both quantitative and qualitative studies.
5. Outcomes
Hypothesis doesn’t allow a wide range of outcomes.
Research Question allows a wide range of outcomes.

o Make sure that the hypothesis clearly defines the topic and the focus
of the experiment.
2. Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement.
o Follow this template: If a specific action is taken, then a certain
outcome is expected.
3. Define the variables
o Independent variables are the ones which are manipulated, controlled,
or changed. Independent variables are isolated from other factors of
the study.
o Dependent variables, as name suggests are dependent on other factors
of the study. They are influenced by the change in independent
variable.

Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables in a Hypothesis:

Example1
The greater number of coal plants in a region (independent variable) increases
water pollution (dependent variable).
If you change the independent variable (building more coal factories), it will
change the dependent variable (amount of water pollution).

Example2
What is the effect of diet or regular soda (independent variable) on blood sugar
levels (dependent variable)?
If you change the independent variable (the type of soda you consume), it will
change the dependent variable (blood sugar levels)
CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD HYPOTHESIS?

No matter what you’re testing, a good hypothesis is written according to the

same guidelines. In particular, keep these five characteristics in mind:

Cause and effect

Hypotheses always include a cause-and-effect relationship where one

variable causes another to change (or not change if you’re using a null
hypothesis). This can best be reflected as an if-then statement: If one
variable occurs, then another variable changes.

Testable prediction

Most hypotheses are designed to be tested (with the exception of logical

hypotheses). Before committing to a hypothesis, make sure you’re actually
able to conduct experiments on it. Choose a testable hypothesis with an
independent variable that you have absolute control over.

Independent and dependent variables

Define your variables in your hypothesis so your readers understand the

big picture. You don’t have to specifically say which ones are independent
and dependent variables, but you definitely want to mention them all.

Candid language
Academic writing can easily get convoluted, so make sure your hypothesis
remains as simple and clear as possible. Readers use your hypothesis as a
contextual pillar to unify your entire paper, so there should be no confusion
or ambiguity. If you’re unsure about your phrasing, try reading your
hypothesis to a friend to see if they understand.

Adherence to ethics

It’s not always about what you can test, but what you should test. Avoid
hypotheses that require questionable or taboo experiments to keep ethics
(and therefore, credibility) intact.

How to write a hypothesis in 6 steps

1 Ask a question

Curiosity has inspired some of history’s greatest scientific achievements, so

a good place to start is to ask yourself questions about the world around
you. Why are things the way they are? What causes the factors you see
around you? If you can, choose a research topic that you’re interested in so
your curiosity comes naturally.

2 Conduct preliminary research

Next, collect some background information on your topic. How much

background information you need depends on what you’re attempting. It
could require reading several books, or it could be as simple as performing
a web search for a quick answer. You don’t necessarily have to prove or
disprove your hypothesis at this stage; rather, collect only what you need to
prove or disprove it yourself.

3 Define your variables

Once you have an idea of what your hypothesis will be, select which
variables are independent and which are dependent. Remember that
independent variables can only be factors that you have absolute control
over, so consider the limits of your experiment before finalizing your
hypothesis.

4 Phrase it as an if-then statement

When writing a hypothesis, it helps to phrase it using an if-then format,

such as, “If I water a plant every day, then it will grow better.” This format
can get tricky when dealing with multiple variables, but in general, it’s a
reliable method for expressing the cause-and-effect relationship you’re
testing.

5 Collect data to support your hypothesis

A hypothesis is merely a means to an end. The priority of any scientific

research is the conclusion. Once you have your hypothesis laid out and
your variables chosen, you can then begin your experiments. Ideally, you’ll
collect data to support your hypothesis, but don’t worry if your research
ends up proving it wrong—that’s all part of the scientific method.
6 Write with confidence

Last, you’ll want to record your findings in a research paper for others to
see. This requires a bit of writing know-how, quite a different skill set than
conducting experiments.

That’s where Grammar can be a major help; our writing suggestions point
out not only grammar and spelling mistakes, but also new word choices
and better phrasing. While you write, Grammar automatically recommends
optimal language and highlights areas where readers might get confused,
ensuring that your hypothesis—and your final paper—are clear and
polished.

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

To devise and perform an experiment using scientific method, you need to make
sure that your hypothesis is testable. To be considered testable, some essential
criteria must be met:

1. There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is true.

2. There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is false.
3. The results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.

Without these criteria, the hypothesis and the results will be vague. As a result, the
experiment will not prove or disprove anything significant.