Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research

Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research A Concise Guide to Design and Implementation Suteera Chanthes Mahasarakham University

Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research Suteera Chanthes Mahasarakham University ISBN (e-book) 978-616-598-169-9 National Library of Thailand Cataloguing in Publication Data Suteera Chanthes. Grounded theory study in economics and management research.– Maha Sarakham : Suteera Chanthes, 2023. 240 p. 1. Management. 2. Economics . I. Title. 658 ISBN (e-book) 978-616-598-169-9 First edition Published 2023 by Suteera Chanthes Mahasarakham Business School Mahasarakham University 41 Moo 20 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 provides a concise guide to the design and implementation of the grounded theory method. It is 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 guide qualitative researchers from other disciplinary fields who are considering using the method in their research and want to strengthen their philosophical discussions for implementing the grounded theory processes.



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 xv Tables xvii 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.4.1 Positivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.4.2 Interpretivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4.3 Pragmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.5 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.5.1 Quantitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.5.2 Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.5.3 When to Choose Qualitative Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5.4 Mixed Methods Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1.7 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.2 Interpretive Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.3 The Use of Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.3.4 Qualitative Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.4 When to Choose Grounded Theory Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.4.1 To Have Variable-Oriented Investigative Focus . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.4.2 To Use an Etic Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2.4.3 To Use Iterative Theoretical Sampling Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.4.4 To Explore Emerging Causal Explanation as the Outcome . . . . . 60 2.5 Flexible Qualitative Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.7 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.2.3 Interpretive Constructivist Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.3 Comparing the Three Types of Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . 82 3.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 II Grounded Theory in Practice 87 4 Qualitative Data 89 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4.2 Qualitative Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4.3 Qualitative Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.3.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4.3.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.3.4 Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.3.5 Audiovisual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 5 Grounded Theory Design and Management 107

Contents xiii 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5.2 Asking Grounded Theory Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 5.3 Identifying the Unit of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.4 The Literature Review in Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 5.4.1 Preliminary Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 5.4.2 During the Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 5.4.3 Finalizing the Theory Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 5.5 Grounded Theory Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.5.1 The Theoretical Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 5.5.2 Coding Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.5.3 Writing Memos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5.5.4 Fieldwork Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5.5.5 The Constant Comparison Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.6 Grounded Theory Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 5.6.1 The Emerging Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 5.6.2 Substantive and Formal Grounded Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 5.7 Research Triangulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.7.1 Data Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.7.2 Investigator Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.7.3 Theoretical Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.7.4 Methodological Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.8 Using Computer Software in Grounded Theory Data Analysis . . . . . . . 149 5.9 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5.10 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 6 Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 157 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.2 Discourses on Qualitative Research Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 6.3 Classical Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 6.3.1 Validity in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 6.3.2 Reliability in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 6.3.3 Generalizability in Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 6.3.4 Rationales for Considering Using Classical Criteria . . . . . . . . . 163 6.4 Method-Appropriate Criteria in Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 6.4.1 Method-Appropriate Criteria for Grounded Theory Study . . . . . 165 6.4.2 Choosing Evaluating Criteria for a Grounded Theory Study . . . . 166 6.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 6.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 III Concluding Remarks 175 7 A Critical Review of the Methodology 177 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 7.2 Key Takeaways of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

xiv Contents 7.3 Author’s Verdicts on Grounded Theory Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 7.3.1 Myth 1: Economists and Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 7.3.2 Myth 2: Importance of Preliminary Literature Review . . . . . . . 180 7.3.3 Myth 3: A Requisite Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 7.3.4 Myth 4: The Worldview of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . 182 7.3.5 Myth 5: Grounded Theory as a Research Approach . . . . . . . . . 182 7.3.6 Myth 6: Multi-Phase Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 7.3.7 Myth 7: Evaluations of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7.4 Critical Suggestions for Students and Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7.4.1 The Literature Review is Crucial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7.4.2 Beware of Grounded Theory Wrongdoings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 7.4.3 Maintaining Ethical Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 7.4.4 Successful Delivery of Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 7.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 7.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Glossary 195 References 203 Index 217 Author’s Vitae 217

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 . . . . . 10 1.4 Three Assumptions of Epistemology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.5 Three Types of Mixed Methods Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 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 . . . . . . . . 47 2.4 The Basic Iterative Theory-Building Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2.5 Key Characteristics of Grounded Theory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3.1 Three Alternatives of Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.2 Discussing the Grounded Theory’s Underpinning Paradigms . . . . . . . . 76 3.3 The Logic of Inquiry in Pragmatic Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.4 The Basic of Constructivist Theory-Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5.1 Essential Components of the Grounded Theory Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 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 . . . . . . 140



List of Tables 1.1 Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Ontological Stance . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2 Researcher’s Rationale for Choosing the Epistemological Stance . . . . . . 15 1.3 Essential Issues for Methodological Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.4 Comparing Quantitative and Qualitative Methodological Characteristics . . 20 1.5 Various Systems for Classifying Mixed Methods Research . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.1 Different Approaches to Qualitative Research and the Outcomes . . . . . . 59 3.1 Alternatives for Doing Grounded Theory Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.2 Philosophical Underpinnings in Different Grounded Theory Designs . . . . 83 4.1 Qualitative Data Instrumentation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6.1 Considerations on Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory Study . . . 164 6.2 Different Selections of Criteria for Judging Grounded Theory . . . . . . . . 167 7.1 Key Takeaways of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178



PART I Philosophical Discussions



C1 Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 1.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Three generic Economics and management are subject areas in social sciences. philosophical Doing research in these fields apply standard procedure commonly discussions, page 4: used by social researchers. There are a large variety of social Ontology, research methodology textbooks available to help guide researchers Epistemology, on how to do social research. However, students and novice Methodology researchers, or even experienced ones, often find these textbooks Approaches to challenging to read; they are full of unfamiliar terms and lengthy research, discussions with many references to philosophical debates. However, page 16: despite the challenging and time-consuming, the researchers cannot Quantitative research, deny the necessity of going through these debates as they design the Qualitative research, investigation. Therefore, the process of trying to understand and Mixed methods choose specific philosophical stances and methodological designs research most suitable for the social inquiries being made is an unskippable When to choose process. qualitative method, page 22 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

4 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 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 qualitative methods, the final part of the chapter will offer critical guidance on when to choose a qualitative method. Three generic 1.2 Three Generic Philosophical Discussions philosophical discussions: Social researchers try to make sense of the social reality of their 1. Ontology, interests. All researchers must claim a philosophical paradigm of 2. Epistemology, their choice as they approach the social reality with an inquiry and 3. Methodology. an attempt to find the answer. Clarifying the chosen philosophical Figure 1.1: Three paradigm means that when making social inquiries, social Generic Dimensions researchers must define their underpinning principles of social of Philosophical research, known as the study’s ontology, epistemology, and Discussions 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). 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 reality and its characteristics (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). There asking what is the are two controversial paradigms of social investigations: one is nature and positivism, and another is anti-positivism (Goulding, 2002). These characteristics of paradigms are alternative knowledge claims social researchers use to reality. 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 Difficulties in applying positivism Positivism is the traditional paradigm of social inquiries (Gomm, in doing economics 2008; Miller, 2017). Researchers who believe in positivism perceive and management \"the social world to exist externally\" and assert that its properties research involves should be measured through objective methods rather than being issues of evaluating inferred subjectively through sensation, reflection, or intuition scientific knowledge. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015, p.22). Positivism adopts the fundamental 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

6 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Post-positivist researchers accept imperfect objectivity in social studies while economics and retaining the positivist underpinning beliefs (Guba and Lincoln, management 2017). Post-positivism tradition accepts that social researchers research attempts to cannot be absolutely positive about what they claim of knowledge apply scientific when studying the behavior and actions of humans (Phillips and techniques to make Burbules, 2000). sense of the multiple angles of social The contemporary issues with the growth of humanities reality. research methodology more generally, as well as the issues with Post-positivist economics and management scieices’ methodological apparatus. research design Post-positivist ontology serves as the foundation for economic and favors scietific management studies. According to Kyrychok (2018), the paradigm in theories-derived economic science is built on positivist principles with a critical view knoweldge added to the findings of the studies. All authors, in one way or production. another, draw attention to the difficulty of determining the worth and dependability of the results when a sizable portion of the research has an 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

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 7 information surfaced. This view is similar to concerns in economics research. This explains why many economists and management scholars have argued that theories may possibly falsified rather than verified. Comparing the two positivist-rooted ontological stances, positivism and post-positivism, in social sciences research: • Positivist ontology views the social world as objective and external. • Post-positivist ontology views the social world as objective and external while accepting the existence of subjectivity. Considering this strong criticism, however, to substantially A critical concern of underline that acceptable knowledge generation needs to consider post-positivist the verifiability of the method used to make sense of the social research is the use of reality. For this reason, current qualitative approaches have been scientific verification developed in response to the concerns for verification. One such criteria for method is grounded theory. According to Goulding (2002), evaluating such grounded theory method is a qualitative research technique that approach to obtain allows tracking, checking, and validating the development of theory social knowledge. from a qualitative standpoint. 1.3.2 Anti-Positivism Anti-positivist ontology views the Anti-positivism paradigms contradict those philosophical traditions social world as rooted in positivism, both positivism, and post-positivism. They subjective and believe that subjectivity should not, or even cannot, be excluded multiple. from studying human experiences in social reality. Denzin and Lincoln (2017) emphasize that social sciences are normative disciplines embedded in value issues. These paradigms account for the issues of values in studying the reality of human values as part of the human being. Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) even suggest social research philosophical stance to not logically derived from positivism in any way. Von Wright (1993, p.10) also asserts that anti-positivism is “a much more diversified and heterogeneous trend” than positivism. Examples of anti-positivist paradigms are interpretivism, social constructivism, pragmatism, postmodernism, and critical realism (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

8 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Four often claimed about human behavior. It analyzes human behavior by giving anti-positivist motives to specific behaviors. Data that cannot be stated numerically ontolotical stances in is referred to as qualitative data. Instead, it is typically articulated economics and verbally, frequently using verbatim language. While quantitative data management deals in measures, interpretivism, on the contrary, is focused on research: accurately interpreting the cultural and sociological significance of 1. Interpretivistm; specific behaviors. Interpretivist researchers believe that human and 2. Constructivism; cultural interpretations are more significant than objective rules. In 3. Pragmatism; other words, interpretivism holds that rather than the physical 4. Critical realism. 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 crucial components. One will be able to comprehend why others act in certain ways if they have a proper comprehension of these. Constructivism claims that social knowledge is subjective, which contradicts the traditional scientific paradigm. According to the traditional scientific paradigm, a theory is only considered scientific if it is objective, which in this case, means that the traits of the observer throughout observation are not taken into account. But because observer-independent observations are impractical in economics, all economic knowledge is subjective, and objectivity becomes a form of dispersed subjectivity. (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014). Thus, emphasis is placed on the observer as a social agent or on the distinction between knowledge formation’s individual and social aspects and the necessity of coordinating them. According to the perspectives of economics and management sciences, since they were entirely created by people under their value preferences (which can significantly deviate from rational ones), they must become an object for themselves. However, a pure subject cannot become an object for itself without primary duality existing within the person (the person is, at the same time, both the subject and the object of nature). This dualistic nature of economic phenomena cannot be decreased 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,

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 9 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 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). Comparing four anti-positivist ontological stances often claimed in economics and management research: • Interpretivism does not deal with measurements. Instead, it focuses on analyzing a behavior or event in light of the cultural norms and values of the society in which it occurs. A culture’s norms and beliefs are its most crucial components. • Constructivism perceives social knowledge as subjective, and the observer of it is included as a social agent. • Pragmatism rarely sees specific ontological stances significant to social research. Rather, it concentrates on explanatory and methodological concerns. • Critical realism separates the real world from the observable world. It believes that the explanation of social reality can only be the result of comprehensive systems used by those who observe it.

10 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research This section has compared 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. The following section will explain the second generic philosophical discussion, namely the research epistemology.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 11 1.4 Epistemology Epistemology is the researcher’s clarification of the creation and Epistemology dissemination of knowledge in the inquiry areas (Bryant, 2017). concerns asking what Discussion on epistemological issues ask about the relationship acceptable knowledge between the researcher and the social reality they attempt to make is. 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. Figure 1.4: Three Assumptions of Epistemology Source: the author. 1.4.1 Positivism Positivist epistemology aims to Positivism brings the logic of the scientific method into the study of find objective human social behavior and attaches the investigation to the logical meanings in social manner of scientific research (Goulding, 2002). Positivism-rooted interactions. 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, technical procedures, generality, and replication of research, the positivist approach is criticized for too narrowly focusing on the procedure rather than allowing the researcher to gather the

12 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research complexity of social realities and human experiences (Charmaz, 2014). 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. Interpretivism 1.4.2 Interpretivism research looks for the complexity of views Interpretivism is used to group together diverse approaches. rather than Interpretivism, in contrast to positivism, focuses on developing narrowing the subjective meanings of the studied social reality. According to meanings into a set Collins (2018, p.49), interpretivism research designs are “approaches of theoretical ideas. that reject the objectivist view that meaning resides within the world independently of consciousness” Consistent with the anti-positivist ontological tradition, interpretive approaches believe that subjective meanings of social actions can be varied and multiple. The three interpretive approaches commonly adopted by economic and management research are phenomenology, hermeneutics and constructivism, see below: Three commonly 1. Phenomenology used interpretive Phenomenology is a type of interpretive epistemology research in tradition. Interpretive phenomenology social researchers econonomics and taking this stance believe that social reality is the management understanding of the nature of human experiences and events research: as they are directly and immediately experienced. It resists the 1. Phenomenology, prior use of any concepts or predetermined ideas that might 2. Hermeneutics, distort the direct experiential basis for understanding the 3. Constructivism. 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, explaining and generalizing the social interpretation (Bailesteanu, 2009).

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 13 3. Constructivism The third interpretive approach is constructivism. Interpretive constructivism researchers believe in the construction of social 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. 1.4.3 Pragmatism Pragmatic research accepts a practical Pragmatism prefers to concentrate on the purpose of doing research combination of as the researcher attempt to achieve the study goal. Instead of different orientations rooting into specific underpinning research philosophies, of positivism and pragmatism research discusses the underpinning philosophies interpretivism focusing on how the researcher creates investigative patterns to regarding how social produce knowledge of the inquired social reality. Pragmatist studies researchers make are therefore regarded as heuristics. The rhetoric of pragmatism sense of the research embraces a plurality of methods. Kaushik and Walsh (2019) complexities of the asserts that pragmatism involves heuristic research processes; it real world. allows social researchers to mobilize to inform their investigations. Pragmatist researchers can integrate philosophical assumptions of different research paradigms to suit the goals of their study. 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 informal rhetoric, which accepts ununiformed subjectivity. Therefore, qualitative methods choosing to follow pragmatism

14 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Pragmatic constitute the coherent patterns of their data analysis influenced by researchers believe in specific disciplinary ways of thinking, subjective experiences, beliefs, multiple research values, contexts, and other societal or human factors. philosophies to underpin the Similar to positivism, pragmatism believes in the objective methodology. 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. Comparing three epistemological stances often claimed in economics and management research: • Positivist epistemology research believes in using scientific procedures to approach the knowable world objectively. • Interpretivist epistemology research uses interpretive approaches to understand multiple subjective meanings of social actions. Below are the three commonly used approaches: – phenomenology, – hermeneutics, and – constructivism. • Pragmatic epistemology research concerns investigative practices not limited to only single but can also be plural philosophical underpinnings.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 15 Table 1.2 helps compare the various researcher rationales for selecting an epistemological stance for a study in simple terms. 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. 1.5 Methodology Discussions on the research methodology involve asking questions Discussions on the on how researchers can go and find out what they believe can be research known (Goulding, 2002). The term research methodology is distinct methodology is to from research method. While research method is about the technique ask about how to go or approach chosen for conducting research, the methodological and find out what we discussions of the method choice deal with broader issues. beleive can be Clarification of the research methodology covers the philosophical known. 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.

16 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Two basic types of Denzin and Lincoln (2017) suggest that quantitative research differs research methods are from qualitative research in five dimensions: ontology, epistemology, quantitative and research design, significance of context and production of results. qualitative. These dimensions help organize essential issues and associated Three approaches to debates for a researcher to consider as they decide on employing research: either quantitative or qualitative research methods, quantitative, qualitative, and As outlined in Table 1.3, the five dimensions are used for mixed methods. 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). There are two types of research methods: quantitative and qualitative. While each method is acknowledged for their strengths, it also faces criticized issues in adopting for conducting a social sciences research project. Researchers must choose the approach they believe 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). Table 1.3: Essential Issues for Methodological Discussions Source: the author.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 17 This section will explain 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 the challenges regarding its creditability when adopted for economic and management research. 1.5.1 Quantitative Research Quantitative research is rooted in the Quantitative research in social sciences is an investigative approach positivist tradition. implying a natural science rooted in a positivist tradition to study social phenomena. Given the underpinning of positivist ontology, quantitative studies are characterized as the exhibition of the preoccupation with occupational definitions, objectivity, replicability, and causality (Bryman, 2021). From the positivist epistemological perspective, quantitative researchers believe that an approach to making sense of social realities is to ask a question about how theoretical ideas are generated. Quantitative methods prefer adopting theoretical assumptions as 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. Deductive reasoning is a theory-testing approach aiming at theory verification, either as accepted or rejected, using the research data from the fieldwork. Quantitative research design is usually a logical manner Quantitative research (Goulding, 2002). Considering the method is rooted in the positivist designs favor tradition, it adopts the objective worldview and sees human quantifiable experiences as external realities. That is, quantitative methods deductive logical remain the logic of physical sciences, trying to logically explain the scientific procedures. 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,

18 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research There are meaning they will be held constant across relevant circumstances. unscientific parts of According to Radović-Marković and Alecchi (2016), most social reality that economists believing in the positivist paradigm advocate the scientific research application of mathematics in economic research and use procedure is often quantification to strengthen the status of this science. argued to neglect, e.g., beliefs, feelings, Despite its multiple methodological strengths of logical, sensations, and replicable, and generalizable ability, quantitative research is often values. criticized for the negligence of unscientific part embedded in the reality of social and human beings (Goulding, 2002). Gould (1995) defines this part to cover human experience reflected by one’s thoughts, feelings, sensations, and behaviors. Hammersley and Atkinson (2019) highlight the limitation of positivist research that there is little room for flexibility in standardized procedures based on theoretical conceptions and framework concerning the explanation to build upon. 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. Qualitative research 1.5.2 Qualitative Research can be rooted in the post-positivist or Qualitative research is an approach for discovery instead of anti-positivist verification (Bryman, 2021). The method sees the social world as ontology. multiple realities, which can be made sense of through various lenses. The term qualitative research is often seen as \"the umbrella term\" comprising various philosophical orientations (Punch, 2013, p.117). Goulding (2002) claims that making sense of qualitative methods is not limited to subjective meanings; it can be either objective or subjective depending on the choice of methods used. Thus, the method can either be rooted in post-positivist or anti-positivist ontological traditions. Inductive reasoning is a theory-building approach seeking emergent explanations guided by the data to build into theoretical grounds. Both post-positivist and anti-positivist studies can employ the inductive approach of qualitative research (Goulding, 2002). For

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 19 researchers who follow the post-positivist paradigm, which is Qualitative research objectivity-oriented, using qualitative methods can assist the design is flexible and researchers in obtaining objective meanings using systematic, multiple, believing in unbiased qualitative analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser, 1992). viewing the social Alternatively, for those believing in anti-positivism, biases are world through inevitably embedded (Corbetta, 2011; Von Wright, 1993). For the various perspectives. latter type of studies, subjective meanings are the key concern. these Qualitative research studies make sense of the world while including biases and subjective is often criticized for matters in interpretive practices. research credibility concerning the Qualitative research designs vary depending on how the flexible and unified researchers define their roles as observers while observing those sampling procedure being studied or observed (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). Merriam and and measurements of Tisdell (2015) point out two types of qualitative researchers’ accuracy, validity, perspectives for interpreting and producing social meanings: emic and generalization of and etic. \"Emic perspective\" refers to researchers attempting to results. deliver study results from the observed participants’, known as the insider’s viewpoint. Otherwise, there is an \"etic perspective\", meaning the researchers interpret and explain the studied social realities from their views, known as the outsider’s viewpoint (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015, p.230). Qualitative research is exploratory by nature (Bryman, 2021). The method prefers inductive reasoning approaches, which seek emergent explanations guided by the data to build into theoretical grounds. Qualitative results aim to uncover the meaning of the studied phenomenon rather than determining cause-and-effect, predicting or describing the distribution of identified theoretical variables. Most qualitative research does not focus on explaining what is questions; instead, they often ask how and why. Furthermore, qualitative research is commonly context-oriented, trying to capture the complex meanings of the social world, believing in the influences of contexts on human experiences, interactions, and behaviors (Partington, 2002). 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

20 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research their philosophical dimensions consisting the ontology, epistemology, research design, significance of context and the production of results. 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. However, considering 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 final section of this chapter. 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, 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.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 21 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 When deciding on a suitable method, the researcher must retain that either quantitative or qualitative research “privileges no single methodological practice over another” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017, p.46). 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. Either quantitative or qualitative research “privileges no single methodological practice over another” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017, p.46). The next section will critically discuss when to choose a qualitative method as an appropriate technique. Then, the following section will deal with the possibility for researchers to opt for conducting mixed-method research rather than choosing either one qualitative or quantitative method. In the final section, three alternatives for conducting a mixed-method study will also be explained.

22 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Grounded theory is a 1.5.3 When to Choose Qualitative Method qualitative method. Considering this book is about grounded theory study, a type of Qualitative qualitative research, this section will guide students and researchers researchers may on when to choose a qualitative research method. Therefore, before either believe in moving on to the next part of the book about the use of grounded positivist or theory in practice, it needs to ensure that researchers have carefully anti-positivist examined all essential methodological debates for ultimately ontological choosing to conduct the qualitative technique. This considerate step traditions. is necessary for supporting the researcher’s final decision of the Qualitative philosophical stance of their choice, confirming that the qualitative researchers are the approach is the most suitable for the investigation. resaerch intrument. 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: 1. A Focus on Subjective Worldviews First, subjective worldviews are the essential component of qualitative research (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Qualitative researchers may either believe in positivist or anti-positivist ontological traditions. For positivist researchers, when they 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; 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,

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 23 the qualitative researcher also needs to clarify how they shape Qualitative research the collection and interpretation of the data (Merriam and is exploratory by Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, various qualitative techniques are nature. It favors developed with systematic organization, and interpretation of inductive reasoning. the data encounters critiques and strengthens the creditability Qualitative research of research results. concerns context-specific 3. An Inductive Process Thirdly, the qualitative research insights and accept process is inductive. Qualitative methods allow the subject sensitivities. researchers to build toward theory from observations and intuitive understanding 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 Fourthly, qualitative research includes the context of the studied settings in its interpretation of the social world. Novel social knowledge or the theoretical explanation resulting from 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 the phenomenon under study. For this reason, making sense of the social facts requires the researchers to undertake investigations concerning context-specific insights and sensitivities.

24 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research The abstraction level 5. A Production of Rich Descriptive Results of results depends on Finally, qualitative research produces richly descriptive the different results. The interpretation of subjective meanings of those approaches selected under the study can be drawn from the involved individuals, for the investigation. 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 1.1, \"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), is a practical example of the writing to clarify the choice of conducting a qualitative study.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 25 Case 1.1: Writing the Philosophical Underpinnings Case 1.1: Writing the Philosophical Case 1.1 provides a practical example of how a research Underpinnings. publication write the clarification for their qualitative method \"Triple Helix Model in selection. The writing needs to provide critical considerations Practice: A Case Study on the philosophical underpinnings that make the qualitative of Collaboration in method appropriate for the research. University Outreach for Innovation Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021) studied the development Development in Local of knowledge-based entrepreneurship in an organic rice Farming Community farming community enterprise in Thailand. The project Enterprise in the investigated the extent to which organic rice farming can Northeast Region of increase its economic value through the enhancement of the Thailand\" entrepreneurial ability of local farming business management. (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021) After delivering critical philosophical discussions, the researchers ultimately clarified the choice of choosing a qualitative study as an appropriate research method, quoted below (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021, pp. 75-76) : “[T]his research project was conducted qualitatively for five reasons as follows: • First, qualitative research is rooted in anti-positivist paradigms believing that it is essential to include subjectivity in studying human experience. • Second, the qualitative method would allow the researcher to examine the subjective meaning of the individuals’ experiences. • Third, the researcher sought to directly approach the views of the individuals included in the investigation. • Fourth, the qualitative approach is context-oriented. This case study included examining constraints, or context, of the case’s empirical setting as part of its investigation. • Finally, the qualitative technique would help with researcher to acquire a detailed description of the research inquiry.\"

26 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Mixed methods 1.5.4 Mixed Methods Research research intends to overcome criticized Many researchers conduct mixed methods research to encounter weaknesses of critiques against the practical implications and credibility of quantitative and quantitative and qualitative methods. These researchers choose qualitative research. 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). Table 1.5, next page, outlines several examples of different terminology recommended as systems for the mixed method research classification. Notwithstanding the various recommended classifying systems, it can be recognized that mixed methods research involves collecting quantitative and qualitative data, which require different analysis techniques. Furthermore, using them in combination needs to integrate the production of results concerning an ultimate research 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 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 Explanatory mixed methods research is also known as quantitative performs the dominant or quantitative driven mixed methods research (Johnson quantitative before et al., 2007). It is a mixed-method design where the researcher the qualitative collects and analyzes quantitative data and then uses the results to phases. guide the qualitative study phase. Qualitative data is collected and analyzed based on quantitative results (Creswell and Creswell, 2017).

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 27 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 the mixed method research classification. 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. See Case 1.2, \"Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small

28 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Case 1.2: and Medium Enterprises in Thailand\" by Sriboonlue and Explanatory mixed Puangpronpitag (2019), as a practical example. methods in a management Case 1.2: Explanatory Mixed Methods Research research. Case 1.2 is a practical example of a management research using \"Towards Innovative an explanatory mixed methods. SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Sriboonlue and Puangpronpitag (2019) used explanatory Small and Medium mixed methods research to conduct an empirical study Enterprises in of the academic services of a public university in the Thailand\" Northeast region of Thailand. Since Thai universities are (Sriboonlue and expected to contribute to the national economic development Puangpronpitag, through academic services delivery, their study focused on 2019) how the services promote the innovative entrepreneurship development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The research began with a quantitative research phase, using a questionnaire survey instrument in search of essential variables for promoting entrepreneurship development. Results from the quantitative study formed a set of crucial factors accepted as the causes of innovative entrepreneurship promotion in SMEs. Then, the researcher used these studied factors to develop a qualitative research instrument for conducting in-depth interviews. Outcomes from the qualitative phase confirmed the proposed variables of influencing factors for entrepreneurship development. As a result, the qualitative study helped enhance the interpretation of those testing variables by reporting the subjective experiences of the actors from both academic and private sectors involved in delivering academic services. Exploratory mixed Exploratory Design methods research performs the Exploratory mixed methods research is also known as qualitative qualitative before the dominant or qualitative driven mixed methods research (Johnson quantittative phases. 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

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 29 explore a studied phenomenon before deciding which variables are Case 1.3: Example of needed for the quantitative measurements. The quantitative research economic research phase aims to strengthen the credibility of results from the using an exploratory qualitative research concerning critiques, particularly from the mixed method. objectivist tradition, about the representational and legitimization of \"Thailand 4.0’s the study (Denzin and Lincoln, 2017). As a result, the use of Innovation and exploratory mixed method design is expected to help increase the Technology: Analyzing study’s credibility concerning the traditional objective assessment Indicator Level\" criteria known as reliability, validity, and generalization. See Case (Potjanajaruwit, 1.3, \"Thailand 4.0’s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Indicator 2019) Level\" by Potjanajaruwit (2019), as a practical example. Case 1.3: Exploratory Mixed Methods Research Case 1.3 is a practical example of an economics research using an explanatory mixed methods. Potjanajaruwit (2019) employed explanatory mixed methods research to study the development of innovation and technology of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the coconut sugar business in Samut Songkhram Province of Thailand. The research motivation was based on the national economic development concept, Thailand 4.0, aiming to increase its economic value with innovative business development. The researcher considered the importance of Thailand’s national context and the domestic industrial context of coconut sugar. For this reason, the researcher decided to conduct a qualitative study to explore relevant factors of sugar business development in Thailand. The qualitative results were drawn from three in-depth interviews with key informants purposively selected from business executives or directors of coconut sugar SMEs in the studied province. Consequently, the results were used to guide the construction of a conceptual framework for the following quantitative research phase. The ultimate research outcomes delivered from this empirical study were factors, causes, and results of the innovation and technology affecting the competitiveness of SMEs in the coconut sugar industry in Thailand.

30 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Convergent mixed Convergent Design methods research Convergent mixed methods research is also known as equal-status performs interactive mixed methods research (Johnson et al., 2007) and interactive mixed qualitative and method research (Greene et al., 1989). The quantitative and quantitative phases. qualitative components are believed to have equal value and importance in helping the researcher achieve the research objectives. Greene et al. (1989) suggests the two methods are in constant interaction; the production of research results is to be integrated during, throughout, 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. See Case 1.4, \"High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand\" by Suangsub et al. (2022), as a practical example. Figure 1.5 summarizes the differences between the three mixed methods research designs, explanatory, exploratory, and convergent, that have been explained in this section. Figure 1.5: Three Types of Mixed Methods Research Design Source: the author.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 31 Case 1.4: Convergent Mixed Methods Research Case 1.4: Example of Case 1.4 is a practical example of an economics research using economic research a convergent mixed methods. using a convergent mixed method Suangsub et al. (2022) used a convergent mixed methods design. design to study the key factors affecting higher performance \"High Performance organizations (HPO) in the logistics industry in Thailand. The Organization: A Case study had two objectives. One was to explore the practical Study of the Logistics effects of the high-performance work system (HPWS) on HPO. Industry in Thailand\" The other one was to examine the hypothetical relationships (Suangsub et al., between the components of HPWS and HPO. 2022) For the first objective, the researchers conducted qualitative research using in-depth interviews with purposively selected four senior management of different services logistics companies. The second objective was served by a quantitative study using factor analysis (FA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques. The two methods used were equally important. While retaining the central focus on the relationship between HPWS and HPO, the researcher separately discussed the findings from the qualitative and quantitative studies. As a result, qualitative outcomes derived via the grounded theory analysis helped suggest additional factors in broad areas of organizational management, including organizational culture, external environment, job characteristics, and job satisfaction. Concurrently, the quantitative findings assisted with the critical reflections regarding the hypothetical components of HPWS and HPO. 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.

32 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Mixed methods In summary, when the researcher adopts a mixed-methods combine the hard research, the quantitative method is often recognized as a hard science of qualitative science while the qualitative method is seen as a human science. On and the human the one hand, using the quantitative method in a mixed methods science on qualitative study allows the researcher to grasp the vitality of the scientific approaches to social procedure, which offers uniform and unbiased techniques in trying reality. to find out the quantifiable causal relation of 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). Before considering 1.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms the selection of a grounded theory This introductory chapter began with the three generic dimensions study, the researcher of philosophical underpinnings for conducting research: ontology, needs to deliberate epistemology and methodology. All social sciences investigations, whether qualitative economic and management studies included, need to clarify the research is suitable. 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 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.