Demo

Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research An Essential Guide Suteera Chanthes

Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research Suteera Chanthes Mahasarakham University Cataloguing in Publication First edition Published 2023 by Suteera Chanthes Mahasarakham Business School 41 Moo 20 Mahasarakham University Khamriang Kantarawichai Mahasarakham, 44150 Thailand [email protected] Copyright ©Suteera Chanthes 2023 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, stored in a database and/or published in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

For Noa and Nikki –Suteera Chanthes–



Preface Grounded theory is widely used as a qualitative research approach across science and social science disciplines. Although qualitative research is less favorable to most economists in economics and management sciences than mathematical models and statistics, it undeniably remains important in the academic community because not all research inquiries in these areas can be investigated using quantitative techniques, especially those involving observing human experiences and examining social interactions between actors or stakeholders. Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research focuses on grounded theory employment for research in the fields of economics and management. The main objective of this book is to discuss the fundamental principles and uses of the grounded theory study approach. The book’s organization comprises three parts. The first part discusses research philosophy, from ontology and epistemology to the methodology of grounded theory in social science research. Different types of how the method is used by various researchers are also explained. The second part deals with the design and management of the method. This part outlines how grounded theory is used to collect and analyze data and successfully deliver the study results. It also includes examples of economics and management research adopting the method. This part finally discusses different techniques for the reflection and evaluation of the grounded theory study. Finally, the third part provides essential concluding remarks, comprising the author’s verdicts on various issues raised when the grounded theory method is employed in practice, together with critical and useful suggestions for students and researchers who choose the method for their research. This book is an essential guide suitable for economics and management students and researchers who want to understand the essence of using grounded theory as a qualitative research technique. It can also help qualitative researchers in other disciplinary subjects who are thinking about using the grounded theory method in their research and want to strengthen their philosophical foundations.



About the Author Suteera Chanthes is an assistant professor of economics at Mahasarakham University, Thailand. She is the instructor of a qualitative research methods course in an international program at the postgraduate level. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Southampton, UK, in 2010. She has been accepted to the Practical-Oriented for New Researchers course, which is part of the DIES (Dialogue on Innovative Higher Education Strategies) program, which is jointly coordinated by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and German Rectors’ Conference (HRK) and financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation (BMZ). She has work experience in leading research projects nationally and internationally in the fields of economics and management for more than 12 years. She has done collaborative research projects with colleagues in the USA and the UK. She has received funding from the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) to support her collaborative research at the University of Washington at Seattle, USA. She has been a principal investigator for a research project receiving joint funding from the UK’s Newton Fund and Thailand’s the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). She has been an honorary associate at the University of Liverpool and a visiting researcher at Lancaster University, UK. She has received research grants from major national funding agencies, including the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) and the Office of the Higher Education Commission. She has served on the editorial board of committees and reviewed research publications at high-quality journals indexed in Tier 1 of the Thai Journal Citation Index Centre (TCI) and multiple international conferences. In addition to her academic work, she has provided consultation services to the public sector at the national level as a secretary committee in the 3rd Macroeconomy, Monetary, and Fiscal Policy Working Group of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council (NESAC). She also has provided consultation services to the private sector as a member of the advisory committees for the development of national logistics knowledge at the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI).



Acknowledgement The publication of Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research represents a commitment to disseminate the fundamental principle of the grounded theory method in qualitative economics and management research to students and researchers in these fields. This book has benefited greatly from the continuing stream of ideas and suggestions from my collogues and postgraduate students. For all the feedback, I am most grateful. Among those who have contributed to the book writing and editing are the following reviewers: Professor Direk Pattamasiriwat, Ph.D. National Institute of Development Administration Associate Professor Thanet Wattanakul, Ph.D. Khon Kaen University Assistant Professor Attasuda Lerskullawat, Ph.D. Kasetsart University I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Teerapan Ungphakorn, Dr. Sujinda Popaitoon and Dr. Weerasak Sawangloke of Mahasarakham Business School, my esteemed colleagues, for their supports, academically and morally. My deep gratitude also goes to Dr. Trairong Swatdikun of Walailak University International College, my former Southampton University Ph.d. program peer and long-term colleague, for his kind encouragement and motivation toward the completion of this book. In this regard, I also want to extend my special thanks to Dr. Kornchai Phornlaphatrachakorn of Nakhon Phanom University, who always provides helpful guides to my professional development in the academic career. The authoring of this book is possible with all the valuable encouragements. I would also like to thank all the students and researchers who are going to use Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research as an essential guide to using this method in economics and management research. I will welcome any reactions and suggestions you would like to pass on for future editions. Suteera Chanthes



Contents Preface v About the Author vii Acknowledgement ix Contents xi Figures xvii Tables xix I Philosophical Discussions 1 1 Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 3 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Three Generic Philosophical Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3 Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3.1 Positivism and Post-Positivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3.2 Anti-Positivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.4.1 Positivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.4.2 Interpretivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.4.3 Pragmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.5 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.5.1 Quantitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.5.2 Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.5.3 When to Choose Qualitative Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.5.4 Mixed Methods Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.7 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2 Qualitative Economics and Management Research 37 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2 Qualitative Turn in Economics and Management Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.2.1 Phenomenology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 xi

xii Contents 2.2.2 Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.2.3 Narrative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.2.4 Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.2.5 Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.2.6 Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3 Fundamental Considerations for Method Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.1 Investigative Focuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.2 Interpretive Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.3 The Use of Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2.3.4 Qualitative Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2.4 When to Choose Grounded Theory Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.4.1 To Have Variable-Oriented Investigative Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.4.2 To Use an Etic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.4.3 To Use Iterative Theoretical Sampling Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.4.4 To Explore Emerging Causal Explanation as the Outcome . . . . . . . . 54 2.5 Flexible Qualitative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2.7 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3 Three Types of Grounded Theory 71 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2 Separate Directions of Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.2.1 Classical Positivist Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3.2.2 Interpretive Pragmatic Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.3 Interpretive Constructivist Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.3 Comparing the Three Types of Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 II Grounded Theory in Practice 89 4 Qualitative Data 91 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.2 Qualitative Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.3 Qualitative Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.3.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.3.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4.3.4 Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.3.5 Audiovisual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 5 Grounded Theory Design and Management 109

Contents xiii 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 5.2 Asking Grounded Theory Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.3 Identifying the Unit of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 5.4 The Literature Review in Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 115 5.4.1 Preliminary Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 5.4.2 During the Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 5.4.3 Finalizing the Theory Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.5 Grounded Theory Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 5.5.1 The Theoretical Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.5.2 Coding Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.5.3 Writing Memos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5.5.4 Fieldwork Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5.5.5 The Constant Comparison Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 5.6 Grounded Theory Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 5.6.1 The Emerging Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5.6.2 Substantive and Formal Grounded Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.7 Research Triangulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.7.1 Data Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.7.2 Investigator Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.7.3 Theoretical Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.7.4 Methodological Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.8 Using Computer Software in Grounded Theory Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.9 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.10 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 161 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.2 Discourses on Qualitative Research Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3 Classical Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 6.3.1 Validity in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 6.3.2 Reliability in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 6.3.3 Generalizability in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 6.3.4 Rationales for Considering Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory 167 6.4 Method-Appropriate Criteria in Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 6.4.1 Method-Appropriate Criteria for Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . 169 6.4.2 Choosing Evaluating Criteria for a Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . 170 6.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 6.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 III Concluding Remarks 179 7 A Critical Review of the Methodology 181 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 7.2 Key Takeaways of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

xiv Contents 7.3 Author’s Verdicts on Grounded Theory Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.3.1 Myth 1: Economists and Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.3.2 Myth 2: Importance of Preliminary Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . 184 7.3.3 Myth 3: A Requisite Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.3.4 Myth 4: The Worldview of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7.3.5 Myth 5: Grounded Theory as a Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7.3.6 Myth 6: Multi-Phase Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 7.3.7 Myth 7: Evaluations of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 7.4 Critical Suggestions for Students and Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 7.4.1 The Literature Review is Crucial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 7.4.2 Beware of Grounded Theory Wrongdoings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 7.4.3 Maintaining Ethical Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 7.4.4 Successful Delivery of Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 7.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 7.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Glossary 199 References 206 Index 221 Author’s Vitae 221





List of Figures 1.1 Three Generic Dimensions of Philosophical Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2 Two Paradigmatic Controversies of Social Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Ontological Worldviews of Positivist and Anti-Positivist Paradigms . . . . . . . . 9 1.4 Three Assumptions of Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.5 Three Approaches to Acceptable Social Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.6 Three Types of Mixed Methods Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.1 Comparison of Basic Patterns of Deduction and Induction in Research . . . . . . 39 2.2 Different Investigative Focuses in Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3 Three Alternatives for Using Theory in Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.4 The Basic Iterative Theory-Building Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.5 Key Characteristics of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.1 Three Alternatives of Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.2 Discussing the Grounded Theory’s Underpinning Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.3 The Logic of Inquiry in Pragmatic Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.4 The Basic of Constructivist Theory-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5.1 Essential Components of the Grounded Theory Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5.2 Seven Functional Purposes of the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.3 The Basic of Theoretical Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5.4 The Basic of Coding in Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.5 The Basic of Constant Comparisons in Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . 134



List of Tables 1.1 Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Ontological Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.2 Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Epistemological Stance . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Essential Issues for Methodological Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.4 Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Characteristics . . . . . 19 1.5 Various Systems for Classifying Mixed Methods Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.1 Different Approaches to Qualitative Research and the Outcomes . . . . . . . . . 53 3.1 Alternatives for Doing Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.2 Philosophical Underpinnings in Different Grounded Theory Designs . . . . . . . 80 4.1 Qualitative Data Instrumentation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.1 Considerations on Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . 168 6.2 Different Selections of Criteria for Judging Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 171 7.1 Key Takeaways of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182



PART I Philosophical Discussions



C1 Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 1.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Three generic philosophical Economics and management are subject areas in social sciences. discussions, page 4: Doing research in these fields apply standard procedure commonly Ontology, used by social researchers. There are a large variety of social research Epistemology, methodology textbooks available to help guide researchers on how to Methodology do social research. However, students and novice researchers, or even Approaches to research, experienced ones, often find these textbooks challenging to read; they page 15: are full of unfamiliar terms and lengthy discussions with many Quantitative research, references to philosophical debates. However, despite the challenging Qualitative research, and time-consuming, the researchers cannot deny the necessity of Mixed methods research going through these debates as they design the investigation. When to choose qualitative Therefore, the process of trying to understand and choose specific method, page 18 philosophical stances and methodological designs most suitable for Practical examples, page 29 the social inquiries being made is an unskippable process. This chapter aims to help students and researchers become familiar with standard terms typically used in philosophical research discussions. It also introduces common steps for discussing philosophical underpinnings since every researcher embarking on a research project must carefully examine a method most suitable for the inquiry they make into studying the social reality of their interests. The chapter will begin with the three generic dimensions of social research design: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Then it introduces the three approaches to research, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. After that, it will provide criteria for deciding on an appropriate research method to choose from among these three research approaches. Finally, given that this book is about the use of grounded theory study, known as one of the

4 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research qualitative methods, the final part of the chapter will offer critical guidance on when to choose a qualitative method. 1.2 Three Generic Philosophical Discussions Three generic philosophical Social researchers try to make sense of the social reality of their discussions: interests. All researchers must claim a philosophical paradigm of their 1. Ontology, choice as they approach the social reality with an inquiry and an 2. Epistemology, attempt to find the answer. Clarifying the chosen philosophical 3. Methodology. paradigm means that when making social inquiries, social researchers must define their underpinning principles of social research, known as the study’s ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Silverman, 2020). This essential process is known as the \"three interconnected generic activities\" of doing research (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017, p.52). The three activities refer to the researcher asking questions about the philosophical traditions underpinning the study, including ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions. According to Goulding (2002), the ontological question means asking what the form and nature of reality is; the epistemological question means asking what the relationship between the researcher, or the knower, and what can be known; the methodological question means asking how the researchers can go about finding out what they believe can be known. Similar to Denzin and Lincoln (2017) who state that when making social inquiries, the researchers need to clarify a set of ideas about the worldview (ontology) that specifies a set of questions (epistemology) that they then examine in specific ways (methodology). Different philosophical paradigms define these dimensions differently to form various conceptual and practical tools the researcher can use to solve specific research problems (Kaushik and Walsh, 2019). Figure 1.1: Three Generic Dimensions of Philosophical Discussions Source: the author. The following three sections will outline different perspectives on ontology, epistemology, and methodology of social research with a particular focus on research designs economic and management disciplines.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 5 1.3 Ontology Ontological issues deal with the research perspective of the nature of Ontology concerns asking reality and its characteristics (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). There are what is the nature and two controversial paradigms of social investigations: one is characteristics of reality. positivism, and another is anti-positivism (Goulding, 2002). These paradigms are alternative knowledge claims social researchers use to claim their philosophical beliefs as they make sense of the social reality (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The researcher must explain the nature of subject matters, the investigative rationales, and the nature of valid and proper methods they choose to sense the world (Hughes and Sharrock, 2016). This section explains the controversial ontological matters of positivism/post-positivism and anti-positivism paradigms. Source: the author. Figure 1.2: Two Paradigmatic Controversies of Social Inquiries 1.3.1 Positivism and Post-Positivism Positivist ontology views the social world as objective Positivism is the traditional paradigm of social inquiries (Gomm, and external. 2008; Miller, 2017). Researchers who believe in positivism perceive Post-positivist ontology \"the social world to exist externally\" and assert that its properties views the social world as should be measured through objective methods rather than being objective and external while inferred subjectively through sensation, reflection, or intuition accepting the existence of (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015, p.22). Positivism adopts the fundamental subjectivity. procedure of scientific research, which is logically based on careful observation and measurement of objective cause-and-effect reasoning, for studying the social world. However, by perceiving the social reality objectively, this paradigm is often argued to deny the facts of the human being. For example, Denzin and Lincoln (2017) point out that issues of elements of subjectivity (i.e., motive, thoughts, beliefs, values, desires) are essential elements of social studies, considering that social research looks into human experiences and their interactions with society. Similarly, positivism is claimed by Corbetta (2011) to have intrinsic limits because the social world is inevitably involved with subjects. Also, according to Guba and Lincoln (2017), looking at the social reality as if it were an object or a thing is not appropriate. Consequently, the critical arguments about the impractical implications for subject matters of positivist beliefs lead to the redefinition of positivism, known as post-positivism (Corbetta, 2011) or new positivism (Kyrychok, 2018). Post-positivist researchers accept

6 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Difficulties in applying imperfect objectivity in social studies while retaining the positivist positivism in doing underpinning beliefs (Guba and Lincoln, 2017). Post-positivism economics and tradition accepts that social researchers cannot be absolutely positive management research about what they claim of knowledge when studying the behavior and involves issues of evaluating actions of humans (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). scientific knowledge. Post-positivist economics The contemporary issues with the growth of humanities research and management research methodology more generally, as well as the issues with economics and attempts to apply scientific management scieices’ methodological apparatus. Post-positivist techniques to make sense of ontology serves as the foundation for economic and management the multiple angles of social studies. According to Kyrychok (2018), the paradigm in economic reality. science is built on positivist principles with a critical view added to Post-positivist research the findings of the studies. All authors, in one way or another, draw design favors scietific attention to the difficulty of determining the worth and dependability theories-derived knoweldge of the results when a sizable portion of the research has an production. interdisciplinary nature. In general, when more scientific material becomes available, applying conventional methods of evaluating scientific knowledge becomes increasingly difficult. Economic research techniques and methodologies have always received a lot of attention. Every science institution has contributed to creating a standard economic science methodology. Traditionally, a methodological and terminological apparatus, as well as multiple strategies for support and opposition, have been established by postpositivism. The achievements and ground-breaking discoveries in the natural sciences boosted the respectability of their methodology and piqued the interest of experts from other fields. Due to this, attempts have been made to apply positivism’s principles in economic terminology and methodology, both directly by appropriating the term and indirectly by relying only on the method. The application of other positivist philosophical philosophies or the use of the idea of positivism, on the other hand, typically does not imply a critical view of the research findings. On the contrary, frequently hiding behind positivism’s authority increases ambiguity. The post-positivist paradigm is also frequently applied in management research, according to Chia (2002). The post-positivist worldview considers reality from various angles (Turyahikayo, 2021). It argues that having a perfect dualism between knowledge and humans is impossible. The paradigm views scientific positivist theories-derived knowledge as little more than guesswork. According to post-positivists, organizational issues are not discipline-specific, necessitating the use of multiple knowledge spheres to address them. One of the leading proponents of post-positivism in management research holds that scientific discovery did not lead to knowledge but to theoretical guesses that were subject to rejection just in case previously unobserved information surfaced. This view is similar to concerns in economics research. This explains why many economists

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 7 and management scholars have argued that theories may possibly A critical concern of falsified rather than verified. post-positivist research is the use of scientific Considering this strong criticism, however, to substantially verification criteria for underline that acceptable knowledge generation needs to consider the evaluating such approach to verifiability of the method used to make sense of the social reality. For obtain social knowledge. this reason, current qualitative approaches have been developed in response to the concerns for verification. One such method is grounded theory. According to Goulding (2002), grounded theory method is a qualitative research technique that allows tracking, checking, and validating the development of theory from a qualitative standpoint. 1.3.2 Anti-Positivism Anti-positivism paradigms contradict those philosophical traditions Anti-positivist ontology rooted in positivism, both positivism, and post-positivism. They views the social world as believe that subjectivity should not, or even cannot, be excluded from subjective and multiple. studying human experiences in social reality. Denzin and Lincoln Interpretivism does not (2017) emphasize that social sciences are normative disciplines deal with measurements. embedded in value issues. These paradigms account for the issues of Instead, it focuses on values in studying the reality of human values as part of the human analyzing a behavior or being. Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) even suggest social research event in light of the cultural philosophical stance to not logically derived from positivism in any norms and values of the way. Von Wright (1993, p.10) also asserts that anti-positivism is “a society in which it occurs. much more diversified and heterogeneous trend” than positivism. A culture’s norms and Examples of anti-positivist paradigms are interpretivism, social beliefs are its most crucial constructivism, pragmatism, postmodernism, and critical realism components. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017; Turyahikayo, 2021). A concise explanation of these paradigms are given below. Interpretivist ontology perceives a behavior or event in light of the cultural norms and values of the society in which it occurs. It is a qualitative technique used in sociology to examine information about human behavior. It analyzes human behavior by giving motives to specific behaviors. Data that cannot be stated numerically is referred to as qualitative data. Instead, it is typically articulated verbally, frequently using verbatim language. While quantitative data deals in measures, interpretivism, on the contrary, is focused on accurately interpreting the cultural and sociological significance of specific behaviors. Interpretivist researchers believe that human and cultural interpretations are more significant than objective rules. In other words, interpretivism holds that rather than the physical occurrence of the events themselves, the reality is controlled by the viewpoints of individuals and the beliefs of societies regarding their actions. According to interpretivism, a culture’s norms and beliefs are its most

8 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Constructivism perceives crucial components. One will be able to comprehend why others act social knowledge as in certain ways if they have a proper comprehension of these. subjective, and the observer of it is included as a social Constructivism claims that social knowledge is subjective, which agent. contradicts the traditional scientific paradigm. According to the traditional scientific paradigm, a theory is only considered scientific if Pragmatism rarely sees it is objective, which in this case, means that the traits of the observer specific ontological stances throughout observation are not taken into account. But because significant to social observer-independent observations are impractical in economics, all research. Rather, it economic knowledge is subjective, and objectivity becomes a form of concentrates on dispersed subjectivity. (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014). Thus, emphasis explanatory and is placed on the observer as a social agent or on the distinction methodological concerns. between knowledge formation’s individual and social aspects and the Critical realism separates necessity of coordinating them. According to the perspectives of the real world from the economics and management sciences, since they were entirely created observable world. It by people under their value preferences (which can significantly believes that the deviate from rational ones), they must become an object for explanation of social reality themselves. However, a pure subject cannot become an object for can only be the result of itself without primary duality existing within the person (the person comprehensive systems is, at the same time, both the subject and the object of nature). This used by those who observe dualistic nature of economic phenomena cannot be decreased it. because, in line with our theoretical framework, it also serves as the foundation for all theoretical explanations. Pragmatism argues that ontological questions in the social sciences have often been given too much attention in the past, which contends that we should think less (or not at all) about the philosophical ontology of the social sciences. Instead, as Lohse (2017) asserts, social science philosophers should concentrate more on work in epistemology and methodology. In other words, pragmatic ontology, according to pragmatists, rarely concentrates on the various sources of social ontology; instead, it focuses on explanatory and methodological concerns in the social sciences. Pragmatists believe that, in terms of the social world knowledge, social theories and explanations do not necessarily need to depict the social world’s structure or be derived from ontological principles. Critical realism is a philosophical tradition that divides the real world from the observable world. According to critical realist scholars, the actual reality of the social world cannot be viewed and exists independently of human perceptions, beliefs, and creations. The world as it is known and comprehended is built via the viewpoints and experiences of individuals and what is observable. Similar to pragmatism, this philosophical tradition does not see the necessity to specify an ontological stance in research. To be a realist regarding ontology, one must be able to discuss and comprehend being apart from human thoughts and languages. Thus, according to critical realists, unobservable structures create observable events, and social

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 9 reality can only be comprehended if the systems that generate events are comprehended. Considering the introductory explanation given above, it is recognizable that anti-positivist paradigms are against empirical realism, typically known as positivism, and transcendental realistic, idealistic, and interpretive approaches to social reality. The various positivist traditions mutually believe in the idea of multiple realities, meaning that reality is various, as seen through many views. Anti-positivist research supposes different researchers to embrace different realities (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The comparisons of common characteristics of social reality worldview, or ontology, by paradigms rooted in the two controversial social research traditions of positivist/post-positivist and anti-positivist worldviews. As summarized in Figure 1.3, positivist and post-positivist worldviews see the social world as an objective reality, or objective worldviews, that exists externally of the worldview. On the contrary, various paradigms of the anti-positivist worldview see the social world as multiple realities with subjectivity included in the worldviews. Figure 1.3: Ontological Worldviews of Positivist and Anti-Positivist Paradigms Source: the author. Table 1.1 helps compare the various researcher rationales for selecting an ontological stance for a study in simple terms. Table 1.1: Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Ontological Stance Source: the author.

10 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research The following section will explain the second generic philosophical discussion, namely the research epistemology. Epistemology concerns 1.4 Epistemology asking what acceptable knowledge is. Epistemology is the researcher’s clarification of the creation and Figure 1.4: Three dissemination of knowledge in the inquiry areas (Bryant, 2017). Assumptions of Discussion on epistemological issues ask about the relationship Epistemology between the researcher and the social reality they attempt to make sense of. Bryman (2021) defines epistemology as a branch of philosophical discussion concerning the information regarded as acceptable knowledge in the discipline and how it should be acquired and interpreted. Similarly, concerning the epistemological considerations, Bryant (2017) calls the researcher as the would-be knower and those of the study as what can be known. This section is going to explain the different patterns offered by positivist and anti-positivist traditions for the researcher’s relationship with the social reality of the study. In social science studies, there are three assumptions of epistemology, as outlined in Figure 1.4: positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism. Source: the author. Positivist epistemology 1.4.1 Positivism aims to find objective meanings in social Positivism brings the logic of the scientific method into the study of interactions. human social behavior and attaches the investigation to the logical manner of scientific research (Goulding, 2002). Positivism-rooted paradigms, both positivist and post-positivist, believe in causes-and-effects determination. Positivist researchers seek to identify and assess the causes that influence the results. Positivist epistemology aims to find objective meanings in social interactions. Positivist research accounts for the ontological objective worldview; it makes sense of the social world based on careful observation and measurement of objective reality (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Social researchers who adopt the positivism paradigm focus on examining causal explanations and predictions about \"an external knowable world\" (Charmaz, 2014, p.6). They prefer using a unitary method and believe in the objectivity of truth, quantifiable variables, and unbiased results. Despite its strength in valid instruments,

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 11 technical procedures, generality, and replication of research, the Positivist epistemology positivist approach is criticized for too narrowly focusing on the believes in using scientific procedure rather than allowing the researcher to gather the procedures to approach the complexity of social realities and human experiences (Charmaz, 2014). knowable world objectively. In summary, positivist epistemology believes in accepting knowledge in the form of objective meanings of the studied reality acquired through scientific examination of cause and effect. Unlike positivism, interpretive epistemology believes in the determination of knowledge in the form of subjective meanings of the studied reality acquired through the interpretation of social interactions. The interpretive paradigm also believes in the knowledge acquired via multiple interpretations, given its traditional worldview of multiple realities of human experiences and the social phenomenon being studied. 1.4.2 Interpretivism Interpretivist epistemology uses interpretive Interpretivism is used to group together diverse approaches. approaches to understand Interpretivism, in contrast to positivism, focuses on developing multiple subjective subjective meanings of the studied social reality. According to Collins meanings of social actions. (2018, p.49), interpretivism research designs are “approaches that Three commonly used reject the objectivist view that meaning resides within the world interpretive research in independently of consciousness” Consistent with the anti-positivist econonomics and ontological tradition, interpretive approaches believe that subjective management research: meanings of social actions can be varied and multiple. The three 1. Phenomenology, interpretive approaches commonly adopted by economic and 2. Hermeneutics, management research are phenomenology, hermeneutics and 3. Constructivism. constructivism, see below: 1. Phenomenology The first interpretive epistemology tradition is phenomenology. Interpretive phenomenology social researchers taking this stance believe that social reality is the understanding of the nature of human experiences and events as they are directly and immediately experienced. It resists the prior use of any concepts or predetermined ideas that might distort the direct experiential basis for understanding the events. 2. Hermeneutics Interpretive hermeneutics or hermeneutics focuses on interpreting and understanding texts. The philosophy of hermeneutic process is adopted in economic research to help the researcher synthesize the evidence of economic phenomena through logical text processing of questioning, making hypotheses, verifying the hypotheses, making arguments,

12 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Interpretivism research explaining and generalizing the social interpretation looks for the complexity of (Bailesteanu, 2009). views rather than 3. Constructivism narrowing the meanings The third interpretive approach is constructivism. Interpretive into a set of theoretical constructivism researchers believe in the construction of social ideas. meanings as acceptable knowledge rather than examining the meanings through generalizable logical explanation (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Social sciences researchers deciding on taking interpretivism as the epistemological stance for their studies, they must subsequently specify the interpretive approaches of their choice (Goulding, 2002). Unlike positivist research, in which the conduct follows the norm of logical examination for cause and effect in the situation being studied, interpretivism research looks for the complexity of views rather than narrowing the meanings into a set of theoretical ideas. However, the interpretive meanings are arguably seen as intuitive realizations causing the analysis and interpretation in research of this tradition to be questioned about its scientific value in its discipline (Charmaz, 2014). In other words, interpretive practice is often criticized for being less strong than positivism concerning analytical research testing, replication, and verification of results. Pragmatic epistemology 1.4.3 Pragmatism concerns investigative practices not limited to Pragmatism prefers to concentrate on the purpose of doing research only single but can also be as the researcher attempt to achieve the study goal. Instead of rooting plural philosophical into specific underpinning research philosophies, pragmatism underpinnings. research discusses the underpinning philosophies focusing on how the Pragmatic research accepts researcher creates investigative patterns to produce knowledge of the a practical combination of inquired social reality. Pragmatist studies are therefore regarded as different orientations of heuristics. The rhetoric of pragmatism research embraces a plurality positivism and of methods. Kaushik and Walsh (2019) asserts that pragmatism interpretivism regarding involves heuristic research processes; it allows social researchers to how social researchers mobilize to inform their investigations. Pragmatist researchers can make sense of the integrate philosophical assumptions of different research paradigms complexities of the real to suit the goals of their study. world. Pragmatism claims to bridge the gap between positivism and interpretivism, regarding their different orientation regarding how social researchers make sense of the complexities of the real world. On the one hand, it embraces the scientific method and structuralist orientation of the traditional positivist basis of objectivity, standardization, and generalizability. On the other hand, it holds the naturalistic methods and unrestricted orientation of newer approaches concerning the constructivist basis of literary and

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 13 informal rhetoric, which accepts ununiformed subjectivity. Therefore, Pragmatic researchers qualitative methods choosing to follow pragmatism constitute the believe in multiple research coherent patterns of their data analysis influenced by specific philosophies to underpin disciplinary ways of thinking, subjective experiences, beliefs, values, the methodology. contexts, and other societal or human factors. Similar to positivism, pragmatism believes in the objective reality of social meanings existing externally. However, unlike the traditional perspective of positivism, pragmatism does not limit the truth, or acceptable social knowledge, to be single. Instead, the knowledge can be multiple, grounded in the environment, and involving human experiences. Therefore, although the underpinning philosophy of pragmatism is driven by positivist ontology, its viewpoint of approaching the inquiry is different since it accepts multiple realities. As pointed out by Kaushik and Walsh (2019), pragmatist researchers believe that achieving knowledge is based on beliefs and habits that are socially constructed. Given the explanation of positivism, Interpretivism and pragmatism, this section will compare three approaches to acceptable social knowledge based on the three assumptions of epistemology. Figure 1.5 outlines these three different approaches to acceptable social knowledge. Figure 1.5: Three Approaches to Acceptable Social Knowledge Source: the author. Table 1.2 helps compare the various researcher rationales for selecting an epistemological stance for a study in simple terms.

14 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Table 1.2: Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Epistemological Stance Source: the author. The following section will explain the third generic philosophical discussion, namely the research methodology. Discussions on the research 1.5 Methodology methodology is to ask about how to go and find Discussions on the research methodology involve asking questions on out what we beleive can be how researchers can go and find out what they believe can be known known. (Goulding, 2002). The term research methodology is distinct from Two basic types of research research method. While research method is about the technique or methods are quantitative approach chosen for conducting research, the methodological and qualitative. discussions of the method choice deal with broader issues. Clarification of the research methodology covers the philosophical rationales underpinning the chosen method, including the use of theory and the reasoning approach, details of the research design and chosen investigative techniques, and criteria for the justification of the method (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). This section explains the details on these issues. There are two types of research methods, namely quantitative and qualitative. The two types are different in various aspects. Denzin and Lincoln (2017) suggest that quantitative research differs from qualitative research in five dimensions: ontology, epistemology, research design, significance of context and production of results.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 15 These dimensions help organize essential issues and associated debates for a researcher to consider as they decide on employing either quantitative or qualitative research methods, As outlined in Table 1.3, the five dimensions are used for comparing and outlining debates on traditional beliefs and the rhetoric of different research methods. These debate help with the clarification of the researcher’s ontological worldview (objective vs. subjective realities), the acceptance of subjectivity (excluded vs. embedded), the social meaning rationales (objective vs. subjective), the approach to acceptable knowledge of social reality (positivism vs. interpretivism), the use of theory (theoretical testing vs. theoretical construction), the social reasoning approach (deductive vs. inductive), the research data and identifiable variables (quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable), the significance of context (context-free vs. context-oriented), and the logical procedure for the production of results (causation vs. classification). Table 1.3: Essential Issues for Methodological Discussions Source: the author. There are two types of research methods: quantitative and Three approaches to qualitative. While each method is acknowledged for their strengths, it research: quantitative, also faces criticized issues in adopting for conducting a social sciences qualitative, and mixed research project. Researchers must choose the approach they believe methods. is the most suitable method for their study after carefully considering and clarifying philosophical rationales. Otherwise, some may choose an alternative way of using both methods, known as mixed method research (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). This section explains the characteristics and the uses of these three methodological approaches to social sciences research. Also, the section will critically discuss the advantages of using each method and

16 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research the challenges regarding its creditability when adopted for economic and management research. Quantitative research is 1.5.1 Quantitative Research rooted in the positivist tradition. Quantitative research in social sciences is an investigative approach Deductive reasoning is a implying a natural science rooted in a positivist tradition to study theory-testing approach social phenomena. Given the underpinning of positivist ontology, aiming at theory quantitative studies are characterized as the exhibition of the verification, either as preoccupation with occupational definitions, objectivity, replicability, accepted or rejected, using and causality (Bryman, 2021). From the positivist epistemological the research data from the perspective, quantitative researchers believe that an approach to fieldwork. making sense of social realities is to ask a question about how Quantitative research theoretical ideas are generated. designs favor quantifiable logical scientific Quantitative methods prefer adopting theoretical assumptions as procedures. standardized procedures, the process for data collection of experimental, empirical or statistical scientific variables (Merriam, 2006). For this reason, quantitative research commonly emphasizes testing and measuring existing theories and tries to make sense of the inquired phenomenon. As a result, a body of knowledge is produced through the physical or statistical control of variables and rigorous measurement (Goulding, 2002). Examples of quantitative methods used in economic and management research are questionnaire servers and secondary data analysis through advanced statistical and mathematical models. Quantitative research design is usually a logical manner (Goulding, 2002). Considering the method is rooted in the positivist tradition, it adopts the objective worldview and sees human experiences as external realities. That is, quantitative methods remain the logic of physical sciences, trying to logically explain the cause-and-effect relationships of related factors in human affairs and behaviors. Therefore, the production of results from this deductive process reflects the experimental and quantifiable variables used to form a model for social research and establish universal law, known as acceptable theories. Consequently, the identifiable variables and their relationships can be used as the characteristic of explanations of events; the relationships between variables are context-free, meaning they will be held constant across relevant circumstances. According to Radović-Marković and Alecchi (2016), most economists believing in the positivist paradigm advocate the application of mathematics in economic research and use quantification to strengthen the status of this science. Despite its multiple methodological strengths of logical, replicable, and generalizable ability, quantitative research is often criticized for the negligence of unscientific part embedded in the

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 17 reality of social and human beings (Goulding, 2002). Gould (1995) There are unscientific parts defines this part to cover human experience reflected by one’s of social reality that thoughts, feelings, sensations, and behaviors. Hammersley and scientific research Atkinson (2019) highlight the limitation of positivist research that procedure is often argued there is little room for flexibility in standardized procedures based on to neglect, e.g., beliefs, theoretical conceptions and framework concerning the explanation to feelings, sensations, and build upon. values. Although most economics and management researchers prefer the quantitative method, there are areas of investigation criticized for not being suitable to adopt the technique. Charmaz (2014) and Goulding (2002) point out these areas as involving intangible and irrational aspects of complex interactional and conflicting influences that constitute human behaviors, interactions, and experiences. Therefore, research questions dealing with these areas often opt for qualitative instead of quantitative methods. 1.5.2 Qualitative Research Qualitative research can be rooted in the post-positivist Qualitative research is an approach for discovery instead of or anti-positivist ontology. verification (Bryman, 2021). The method sees the social world as Inductive reasoning is a multiple realities, which can be made sense of through various lenses. theory-building approach The term qualitative research is often seen as \"the umbrella term\" seeking emergent comprising various philosophical orientations (Punch, 2013, p.117). explanations guided by the Goulding (2002) claims that making sense of qualitative methods is data to build into not limited to subjective meanings; it can be either objective or theoretical grounds subjective depending on the choice of methods used. Thus, the Qualitative research design method can either be rooted in post-positivist or anti-positivist is flexible and multiple due ontological traditions. to the underpinning worldviews to see through Both post-positivist and anti-positivist studies can employ the various perspectives. inductive approach of qualitative research (Goulding, 2002). For researchers who follow the post-positivist paradigm, which is objectivity-oriented, using qualitative methods can assist the researchers in obtaining objective meanings using systematic, unbiased qualitative analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser, 1992). Alternatively, for those believing in anti-positivism, biases are inevitably embedded (Corbetta, 2011; Von Wright, 1993). For the latter type of studies, subjective meanings are the key concern. these studies make sense of the world while including biases and subjective matters in interpretive practices. Qualitative research designs vary depending on how the researchers define their roles as observers while observing those being studied or observed (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). Merriam and Tisdell (2015) point out two types of qualitative researchers’ perspectives for interpreting and producing social meanings: emic and etic. \"Emic perspective\" refers to researchers attempting to deliver study results

18 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Qualitative research is from the observed participants’, known as the insider’s viewpoint. exploratory by nature Otherwise, there is an \"etic perspective\", meaning the researchers (Bryman, 2021). interpret and explain the studied social realities from their views, Qualitative research is often known as the outsider’s viewpoint (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015, p.230). criticized for research credibility concerning the Qualitative research is exploratory by nature (Bryman, 2021). The flexible and unified method prefers inductive reasoning approaches, which seek emergent sampling procedure and explanations guided by the data to build into theoretical grounds. measurements of accuracy, Qualitative results aim to uncover the meaning of the studied validity, and generalization phenomenon rather than determining cause-and-effect, predicting or of results. describing the distribution of identified theoretical variables. Most qualitative research does not focus on explaining what is questions; Either quantitative or instead, they often ask how and why. Furthermore, qualitative research qualitative research is commonly context-oriented, trying to capture the complex “privileges no single meanings of the social world, believing in the influences of contexts methodological practice on human experiences, interactions, and behaviors (Partington, 2002). over another” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017, p.46). Despite its strengths of emergence, variety, and flexibility in deriving the meanings of social realities, qualitative research is often criticized for its credibility, especially from positivist viewpoints (Goulding, 2002). Criticisms undermine qualitative research against the diverse techniques of the qualitative research itself. Concerning the flexible investigative processes and diverse researchers’ perspectives, the credibility of qualitative research is often questionable concerning the flexible sampling procedure, accuracy, reliability, validity of measures, and generalization of the results. Choosing a methodology is a time-consuming, personal and reflective process (Goulding, 2002). Following the explanations of qualitative and qualitative research this section has provided, Table 1.4 compares the two methods regarding typical characteristics of their philosophical dimensions consisting the ontology, epistemology, research design, significance of context and the production of results. However, given the comparisons, it does not mean that all quantitative studies share the same characteristic components of all debating matters and vice versa for qualitative ones. Instead, those comparisons mainly help social researchers choose a method for their studies by comparing the two methods and considering each issue before making the final decision. Furthermore, the two approaches can also be combined when used in practice, known as mixed methods research, which will be explained in the following section. 1.5.3 When to Choose Qualitative Method Given the philosophical discussions this chapter has explained in all the previous sections, below are five essential questions social researchers need to provide a specific answer to each as they try to decide on the most appropriate method for their research. That is,

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 19 Table 1.4: Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Characteristics Source: the author. Explanation: Comparison of the two research methods, quantitative and qualitative, regarding typical characteristics of their philosophical dimensions consisting the ontology, epistemology, research design, significance of context and the production of results. after the comprehensive discussions on the three dimensions of research philosophy, researchers need to answer the following five questions. Then, a specific choice of each question needs to be confirmed before choosing a suitable method for the study. 1. What paradigm is the study rooted in? A. Positivism paradigm B. Anti-positivism paradigm 2. What type of social meanings does the study seek to understand? A. Objective meanings B. Subjective meanings 3. What is the reasoning approach for making sense of the reality? A. Deductive reasoning (theory-testing) B. Inductive reasoning (theory-building) 4. What is the significance of context? A. Context-free B. Context-oriented 5. What type of method should be suitable for the research aims? A. Quantitative research B. Qualitative research C. Mixed methods research

20 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Grounded theory is a When deciding on a suitable method, the researcher must retain qualitative method. that either quantitative or qualitative research “privileges no single methodological practice over another” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017, p.7). As also discussed previously, each method has strengths and distinctive abilities in helping social researchers achieve their investigation objectives, trying to find the answers to their inquiries. Therefore, researchers may either choose one or, in some circumstances, both as a mixed methods as they see fit for the research goals. Considering this book is about grounded theory study, a type of qualitative research, this section will guide students and researchers on when to choose a qualitative research method. Therefore, before moving on to the next part of the book about the use of grounded theory in practice, it needs to ensure that researchers have carefully examined all essential methodological debates for ultimately choosing to conduct the qualitative technique. This considerate step is necessary for supporting the researcher’s final decision of the philosophical stance of their choice, confirming that the qualitative approach is the most suitable for the investigation. Choosing qualitative research often results in a unique design that requires the researcher to educate others to understand the intent of the proposed method. This section provides five essential components that help confirm the choice of qualitative research as the most suitable method: a focus on subjective worldviews, the researcher as the key instrument, an inductive process, a context-oriented design and a production of rich descriptive results. Further explanations are provided below: Qualitative researchers may 1. A Focus on Subjective Worldviews either believe in positivist First, subjective worldviews are the essential component of or anti-positivist qualitative research (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Qualitative ontological traditions. researchers may either believe in positivist or anti-positivist Qualitative researchers are ontological traditions. For positivist researchers, when they the resaerch intrument. choose the positivist stance and intend to make sense of the world externally and objectively, they need to accept the imperfect objective; it means that these researchers must obtain the unavoidable subjective influence embedded in the objective implications of the study results. Alternatively, those choosing the anti-positivism ontology automatically accept the subjectivity of the results, given that the paradigm intentionally seeks to understand the social world subjectively. 2. The Researcher as the Key Instrument Secondly, for qualitative research, the researcher is a primary instrument for the data collection and analysis (Creswell and Creswell, 2017;

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 21 Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Trying to approach the subject meanings of the social world, the researcher functions as a human instrument that can be responsive and adaptive. This essential component supports qualitative research by not trying to eliminate values, biases, and subjectivities of the social realities and human experiences of the studied phenomenon. However, considering the critiques against the ambiguous and questionable reliability of the study procedure, the qualitative researcher also needs to clarify how they shape the collection and interpretation of the data (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, various qualitative techniques are developed with systematic organization, and interpretation of the data encounters critiques and strengthens the creditability of research results. 3. An Inductive Process Thirdly, the qualitative research process Qualitative research is is inductive. Qualitative methods allow the researchers to build exploratory by nature. It toward theory from observations and intuitive understanding favors inductive reasoning. they make from being in the field gathering data, ranging from interviews, observations, documents, or visual materials. Qualitative researchers commonly work from the particular to the general. In other words, qualitative findings are typically derived from the data being systematically classified and ordered to form themes, categories, typologies, concepts, and tentative hypotheses about the particular situation under the study (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, when qualitative research is a suitable choice, existing theories informed by the discipline-specific related literature are not used to form any theoretical frameworks, as often used in typical quantitative processes. Instead, they are preserved for comparing and triangulating purposes (Goulding, 2002). 4. A Context-Oriented Design Qualitative research Fourthly, qualitative research includes the context of the concerns context-specific studied settings in its interpretation of the social world. Novel insights and accept subject social knowledge or the theoretical explanation resulting from sensitivities. qualitative approaches is made about the context in which it is implemented. Unlike context-free qualitative studies, qualitative methods are typically context-oriented (Corbetta, 2011). Concerning the traditional interpretive epistemology that qualitative research focuses on the subjective meanings of the world, it accepts subjectivities to vary from one setting to the others. Thus, the results of qualitative studies are often seen as multiple realities and context-bound (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). These also included social and environmental factors of

22 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research The abstraction level of the phenomenon under study. For this reason, making sense of results depends on the the social facts requires the researchers to undertake different approaches investigations concerning context-specific insights and selected for the sensitivities. investigation. 5. A Production of Rich Descriptive Results Finally, qualitative research produces richly descriptive results. The interpretation of subjective meanings of those under the study can be drawn from the involved individuals, activities, social settings, and other contexts relevant to the inquiry made into studying the phenomenon (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, the choice of qualitative method is expected to be emergent, flexible, and responsive to changing conditions of the study in progress. The common characteristics of qualitative results are richly descriptive, comprehensive classifications, context-oriented, holistic, expansive, and systematically organized. Given the above five essential components of choosing qualitative research, Case 1.41 in the Chapter’s Appendix provides an example of the writing to clarify the choice of conducting a qualitative study. Mixed methods research 1.5.4 Mixed Methods Research intends to overcome criticized weaknesses of Many researchers conduct mixed methods research to encounter quantitative and qualitative critiques against the practical implications and credibility of research. quantitative and qualitative methods. These researchers choose mixed methods designs to help overcome the limitations of each practice. This section will discuss multiple approaches for combining quantitative and qualitative methods. It will also discuss examples of empirical economic and management research using mixed methods. Mixed methods research combines inferential analysis with a narrative description based on interpreting the observed social realities. This method aims to take advantage of the strengths and distinctive affordances of multiple research techniques to achieve the best of both worlds of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Also, mixed methods research is flexible in terms of the research design; the classification of how to carry out a mixed methods research can be very diverse in terms of the design typology utilization (Schoonenboom and Johnson, 2017). 1See Case 1.4, \"Triple Helix Model in Practice: A Case Study of Collaboration in University Outreach for Innovation Development in Local Farming Community Enterprise in the Northeast Region of Thailand\" by Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021), at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 23 Table 1.5 outlines several examples of different terminology recommended as systems for the mixed method research classification. Table 1.5: Various Systems for Classifying Mixed Methods Research Sources: Creswell and Creswell (2017), Creswell and Plano Clark (2017), Greene et al. (1989), Johnson et al. (2007), Morse (2009), Tashakkori et al. (2020). Explanation: Several examples of different terminology recommended as systems for Mixed methods research the mixed method research classification. takes advantage of multiple research techniques’ Notwithstanding the various recommended classifying systems, it strengths and distinctive can be recognized that mixed methods research involves collecting affordances to achieve the quantitative and qualitative data, which require different analysis best of both quantitative techniques. Furthermore, using them in combination needs to and qualitative research integrate the production of results concerning an ultimate research methods. objective shared by the two methods of the study. Additionally, these systems share common interests considering the different sequences of using the two methods in one study: quantitative before qualitative

24 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research and qualitative before quantitative and using the two methods simultaneously. These three possible sequential practices fit the recommended terminology used in Creswell and Creswell (2017), seen as the three designs for mixed methods research: explanatory, exploratory, and convergent designs, respectively. Explanations of how researchers employs explanatory, exploratory and convergent mixed methods in economic and management studies are provided as follows. Explanatory mixed Explanatory Design methods research performs the quantitative before the Explanatory mixed methods research is also known as quantitative qualitative phases. dominant or quantitative driven mixed methods research (Johnson et al., 2007). It is a mixed-method design where the researcher collects and analyzes quantitative data and then uses the results to guide the qualitative study phase. Qualitative data is collected and analyzed based on quantitative results (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The practice of using two methods for serving explanatory purpose is to use qualitative data to explain the quantitative findings. Researchers choosing this design rely on the post-positivist view of the research process (Johnson et al., 2007). They adopt deductive scientific research procedures to identify the causal relationships of testing variables. Then, considering that the post-positivist tradition accepts the imperfect objectivity of social sciences (Guba and Lincoln, 2017), qualitative study is consequently used to explain the quantitative results by considering the prospect of subjective values embedded in the interpretation of the findings. 2 Exploratory mixed methods Exploratory Design research performs the qualitative before the Exploratory mixed methods research is also known as qualitative quantittative phases. dominant or qualitative driven mixed methods research (Johnson et al., 2007). It is a mixed-method design where the researcher collects and analyzes qualitative data and then uses the results to guide the quantitative study phase. The study begins with qualitative data being collected and analyzed to inform the theory in developing the quantitative research instrument (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The qualitative results help explore testing variables to create the quantitative tool. Researchers choosing this design rely on the anti-positivism, also known as the interpretive view of the research process (Johnson et al., 2007). Then, they adopt inductive research procedures to explore a 2See Case 1.1, \"Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand\" by Sriboonlue and Puangpronpitag (2019), at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 25 studied phenomenon before deciding which variables are needed for the quantitative measurements. The quantitative research phase aims to strengthen the credibility of results from the qualitative research concerning critiques, particularly from the objectivist tradition, about the representational and legitimization of the study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). As a result, the use of exploratory mixed method design is expected to help increase the study’s credibility concerning the traditional objective assessment criteria known as reliability, validity, and generalization.3 Convergent Design Convergent mixed methods research performs Convergent mixed methods research is also known as equal-status interactive qualitative and mixed methods research (Johnson et al., 2007) and interactive mixed quantitative phases. method research (Greene et al., 1989). The quantitative and qualitative Mixed methods combine components are believed to have equal value and importance in the hard science of helping the researcher achieve the research objectives. Greene et al. qualitative and the human (1989) suggests the two methods are in constant interaction; the science on qualitative production of research results is to be integrated during, throughout, approaches to social reality. and until the end of the research process. Researchers choosing this design expect the quantitative and qualitative data and approaches to concurrently add insights as one considers most given the research questions. This design allows the researchers to collect quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously and analyze them separately (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Then, the conclusion can be drawn as the researcher combine or compare the results. Often, the convergent design is chosen when the researcher needs to construct a holistic understanding of the studied phenomenon by comparing statistical results with the qualitative elements.4 Figure 1.6 compares the conduct of the three types of mixed methods research design. It needs to bear in mind that in addition to conducting either qualitative or quantitative research, researchers may consider choosing a mixed methods study. In practice, the quantitative method is often recognized as a hard science while the qualitative method is seen as a human science. On the one hand, using the quantitative method in a mixed methods study allows the researcher to grasp the vitality of the scientific procedure, which offers uniform and unbiased techniques in trying to find out the quantifiable causal relation of 3See Case 1.2, \"Thailand 4.0’s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Indicator Level\" by Potjanajaruwit (2019), at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example. 4See Case 1.3, \"High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand\" by Suangsub et al. (2022), at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

26 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Figure 1.6: Three Types of Mixed Methods Research Design Source: the author. factors influencing the results of human experiences. On the other hand, the flexibility of the qualitative method in such a study allows the researcher to gather more complex occurrences and explore subjective human experiences like using a camera with many lenses (Charmaz, 2014). Molina-Azorin (2016) suggests three critical issues for business and management researchers for considering whether to conduct mixed methods research. First, they need to clarify why the mixed methods approach is necessary. Secondly, after the researcher confirms the use of the technique, they must outline how the quantitative and qualitative methods will be combined in the study. Thirdly, considering the combination in practice, the assessment of what resources needed to allow the possibility of research conduct. Therefore, the choice of qualitative research can either be a qualitative project or be part of a mixed methods study depending on the suitability and necessity of the research objectives. The researcher needs to 1.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms deliberate whether qualitative research is This introductory chapter began with the three generic dimensions of suitable before considering philosophical underpinnings for conducting research: ontology, the selection of a grounded epistemology and methodology. All social sciences investigations, theory study. economic and management studies included, need to clarify the philosophical stances concerning what is believed to be the form of social realities (ontology), how the realities can be made sense of (epistemology) and how researchers can go and find out what they inquire. Then the chapter discussed two controversial ontological traditions: positivism and anti-positivism. Then it moved to the two epistemological paradigms of social research: positivism and interpretivism. After that, it outlined five essential components of methodological discussions: ontology, epistemology, research design, the significance of context, and production of results. Every research

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 27 project must claim its philosophical underpinnings concerning these five components when deciding on a suitable type of research method. The chapter then details the three research approaches. It started with outlining quantitative and qualitative research and then suggesting critical considerations on when to choose a qualitative approach as an appropriate method. After that, the following section outlines the three possible combinations of using both quantitative and qualitative techniques known as mixed method research. This book is about grounded theory study, which is a type of qualitative method. Thus, before continuing to the following parts of the book, it is necessary that this chapter helps guide considerate issues for researchers to be particular about the suitability and necessity of choosing qualitative research. The next chapter will explain various available qualitative techniques for economic and management research then critically discuss when to select a grounded theory over other methods. Key Terms Anti-positivism, 7 Ontology, 5 Convergent mixed methods, 25 Phenomenology, 11 Epistemology, 10 Pragmatism, 12 Explanatory mixed-methods, 24 Positivism, 5 Exploratory mixed-methods, 24 Positivist epistemology, 5 Interpretivism, 11, Positivist ontology, 5 Interpretive hermeneutics, 11, Post-positivism, 5 Hermeneutics, 11, Qualitative research, 17 Mixed methods research, 22 Quantitative research, 16

28 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 1.7 Exercises 1. Critically compare the characteristics of positivism and anti-positivism paradigms of social sciences research. 2. Describe how the sequence of quantitative and qualitative techniques in mixed methods research differs among the three designs: explanatory, exploratory and convergent. 3. Explain the distinctive critical components that make qualitative research suitable as a choice for economics and management research. 4. Assuming you have been assigned to investigate the influences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry. Discuss the following designing issues for research methodology, then decide what approach is suitable for the study: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. • Ontology • Epistemology • Research design • Significance of context • Production of results 5. Critically provide examples of philosophical beliefs to support economic and management researchers for not choosing qualitative research as a suitable method.