Executive Summary
In retrospect, social research was ostracized from the landscape of scientific inquest because of the high levels of subjectivity which purists claimed were involved in the study of human subjects. However, with consistent application of systematic, coherent, objective tests to the study of ‘human subjects’ which delivered sound conclusions through empirical analysis, this group has successfully defended their place on the scientific scenery. It is however, a continuously evolving and expanding exercise with scholars in various fields of social science applying different methodological approaches to their study. Presently, there are three (3) dominant methodological approaches in social research namely: the objectivity driven quantitative approach, the subjectivity capturing qualitative approach and the intervening, multi- layered mixed methods approach; mutually thriving, and complementarily coexisting amidst the controversies in the social science landscape. These approaches coexist with their unique strengths and weaknesses, being notable alternatives but not absolutely exclusive to any particular field of study.
Introduction
The debate in science has been up until recently, sharply divided between the positivists and the interactionists. In fact, this discourse can be seen as a subsidiary to the debate on what fields of study should be included as a science. Science, in its simplest form, is the quest for ‘objective’ knowledge. It is this ‘need to know’ which has inspired scholars in social science fields such as accounting, finance, sociology, psychology even government among others to begin to impartially test variables using different hypotheses to deduce particular conclusions. Similar to the rich discussion on the qualifications for scientific study, the paradigms in social research have been laden with discussions for change and redefinition. This discussion has highlighted the need for a type of theoretical framework, or model of analysis which is permissible to change; multidimensional and engaging to capture and reflect the perceptions of, and the realities of contemporary social research (Denscombe 2008).
This has become the watershed of research in the social sciences. There has subsequently been a plethora of inquiries into social phenomena from various fields of study. However, there is also a distinction in the approaches used to acquire new knowledge and or prove/ disprove previous theories. According to Kerlinger 1970, a theory is a system of ideas, or a group of interrelated concepts and principles which are intended to explain or predict a relationship between a set of variables (Kerlinger 1970).To this end, Babbie (2004) explained further that theories provide a systematic explanation of observations which relate to a particular aspect of life. They form a critical part of research methodologies, as the presence or absence of a theory helps to determine the purpose and approach for a study. The methodology is concerned with the way(s) of producing and analyzing data so that theories can be tested, proven or disproven (Haralambos and Holborn 2008). Therefore, the methodological approach in any research is preceded by considerations of its rationale and purpose, whether it is to explore, explain or describe and the time dimension. The methodological approach can be either quantitative, qualitative or an intersection of both as presented in the mixed method approach. This discourse will endeavor to further the literary discussion by analyzing and evaluating the research methodological approaches used in academic journal articles ranked 3* or above by the Association of Business Schools (ABS).
Literature review of research methodologies
Quantitative Research
Macionis and Plummer (2008) defined quantitative research as “an investigation by which a researcher collects numerical data” (p. 66) Social scientists in this group, in essence, attempt to duplicate of natural sciences. They advocate the use of scientific and numerical statistical methods (Haralambos and Holborn 2008). Their focus is the ‘quantification of social data’ or conversion of data into numerical format (Babbie 2004).
Quantitative research methods rely primarily on experiments, surveys, and analysis of secondary data. The primary aim of the quantitative research method is to quantify and analyze data. It focuses strongly on the causes and effects, or outcomes of social behaviors (Neuman 2011, &Babbie, 2004). The systematic and structured, yet repetitive nature of the instruments used in quantitative research methods permits prompt data gathering from a large cross-section, especially when compared to qualitative approaches. It thus favors probability sampling and greater generalizations.
However, the quantitative method eliminates personal thoughts and individuality (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2013).This approach employs a deductive line of reasoning which attempts to validate a theory, in the event where the theory is rejected, the researcher is tasked to repeat the research process. This is unlike the qualitative research approach which is driven by an inductive strategy to unearth ‘new’ theories (Babbie 2004) irrespective of their relations to the researchers’ own assumptions.
Qualitative Research
On the other hand, qualitative research holds as its subject ‘conditioned interactions’. Hence, its aim is the discovery of “underlying meanings and patterns of relationships” (Babbie 2004, p. 394). According to Creswell (1998) qualitative research is an examination to primarily intend to explore and appreciate the underlying meanings, motives, opinions and perceptions of social subjects (Chaneta 2014 &Creswell 1998). It is intrinsically methodological whilst paying attention to the interpretive, humanistic, naturalistic and subjective elements in their approach (Haralambos and Holborn 2008, &Denzin and Lincoln 2004). This approach involves the construction of a composite picture; words analyses; detailed reporting of informants’ views, and attempts to be as unobtrusive as possible in the natural setting (Babbie 2004, &Creswell 1998).Social scientists who employ the ‘interpretive approach’ are the strongest proponents of qualitative research methodologies.
This method utilizes in-depth interview, case study, documents study, focus groups, participant/non-participant observation (field research) (Bryman 2006, &Babbie 2004). The qualitative research approach focuses on the meanings behind the numbers. It seeks to unearth the stories beyond the quantifiable data; meaningful characterization and expressive descriptions to social phenomena which would otherwise elude the boundaries of manipulated numerical data. It utilizes several approaches including the Case Study, Ethnographic Phenomenological, and Grounded Theory approaches to understand the ‘why’ of social realities (Cohen, Manion& Morrison 2013).
However, inherent to the qualitative research method is a reliance on the researcher as the primary instrument of data gathering, as such much of its validity and credibility depends on his capacity to perform in the field. The nature of the content which accentuates this method also entertains a level of reluctance or obscurity of subjects, as such sampling is usually non- probability techniques including purposive, convenient, snowballing, etc. Furthermore, the nature of this approach dictates that only a small number of participants can be engaged, hence the results are not apt for generalizations.
Mixed Methods Research
Pawson rightly asserted that the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative methodologies have been exaggerated. In fact, there has been a mixture of both approaches in studies predating the literature on mixed methods research (Haralambos and Holborn 2008). Douglas (1967) noted that Durkheim, the acclaimed positivist, was one of the first to blur the lines when he strayed from his analysis of ‘social facts’ to include the ‘subjective states of individuals in his study on suicide (Haralambos and Holborn 2008, & Douglas 1967). As a consequence, mixed methods research has received a significantly improved reputation in the research arena and as such is articulated as the third major research methodological approach (Denscombe 2008).The literature as promulgated by Brown et al contended that built on the compatibility of the quantitative and qualitative methods, the third research model has made significant process in its methodological orientation and the attention elements” (Denzin& Lincoln 2011, &Denscombe 2008).
Accordingly, this approach is hailed in a number of circles as the flagship of modern research (Bryman 2006) due in part to the fact that more than its counterparts, mixed methods research facilities triangulation. By triangulation, one refers to the process of using various data collection methods, sources of data, analysts, and or theories to check, compare and corroborate the validity and consistency of the data findings (Angen 2000, Creswell 1998, and Guba& Lincoln 1985). Cohen & Crabtree added that triangulation is used to ensure that the findings are substantive yetall-inclusive and reflecting the true picture (Cohen & Crabtree 2006). Triangulation serves as a safety valve in research which helps to reduce errors and biases which might result from relying exclusively on one research method. For instance, in a study where data is collected through qualitative data collection, this data can be validated through quantitative data-collection methods. Despite its glaring ability to complement the numbers of quantitative methods with the rich meanings of qualitative approaches, mixed methods research have been noted to have a number of variations and inconsistencies.
Discussion, Analysis and Evaluation of Different Research Methodological Approaches
(Woods and Peel 2015)(Harvey, Kelly, Morris & Rowlinson 2010) noted that the ABS academic journal Quality guide is the result of an amalgamated assessment resulting from areas of focus, namely: “peer review”, “statistical information relating to citation” and the “judgments of the editorial team based on detailed evaluations” (Wood & Peel 2015, Harvey, Kelly, Morris, & Rowlinson 2010). It aims to compile the best works in selected fields based on objective metrics and the subjective input of the academic community.
An example of Quantitative survey can be seen in the paper “A Survey of Board Practices” by Ward and Handy (1988). Qualitative technique can be seen in the paper by War and Pyett (1999) wherein they conducted qualitative interviews to base their study on. The ABS adopted a hybrid approach which commits neither to the quantitative nor qualitative methodologies (Morris, Harvey & Kelly 2009). There were a number of factors which could have been included in its assessment including the approach used at its inception (Harvey, Kelly, Morris, & Rowlinson 2010, Morris, Harvey & Kelly 2009). But in the process of compiling the Guide, a robust combination of elements from the ‘institutional lists, peer surveys, citation studies and derived lists’(Morris, Harvey & Kelly 2009) were used. This multi- layered approach to assessing academic journals was done within a framework that borrowed elements from several approaches to research.
Similar to the mixed methods research, its approach borrows from different research paradigms. An example of such a research can be seen in the paper by Molina-Azorín et. al. (2015). On one hand, it facilities the objective measure of the subject matters collated in each journal but on the other hand it captures the real, subjective impressions of the articles held by the people in the academic arena. Pagano (2007) asserted that scientific research is central to finding truths either by deductive reasoning or inductive analysis (Pagano 2007). In the case of the ABS, the interloping nature of quantitative and qualitative strategies bolsters the conclusive features of the results. In this instance, the differing strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative and quantitative methods applied when taken together evade the potential biases of the ABS assessment. To this endWood & Peel 2015 concluded that the Guide “is comprehensive in the coverage of research conducted in business schools internationally” (p.6).They continued by affirming the approach used by the ABS that it is “taking an inclusive approach to what constitutes research” (Wood & Peel 2015, p.6).
In the final analysis, the evidence indicated that the research arena, like the ABS which assesses the quality of the researches being conducted internationally have at their disposal several methodological approaches. The different fields of studies can apply multi- strategy research particularly mixed methods or employ either of the twooriginal paradigms. This is due to the fact that the approaches, taken individually or collectively are inherently built for the rigours of unearth truths about social reality. In defence of the so- called ‘soft methods’ of the qualitative methodological approach Guba and Lincoln 1985 reckoned that there is ‘no reason’ why the approach and techniques of the naturalistic cantered, interpretive researcher should be questioned to any greater extent than the practices of their quantitative colleagues (Guba and Lincoln, 1985). Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches can be used for data collection in any given study. In fact, this is the premise of the mixed methods paradigm which argues in favour of the merger of the preceding two schools of research methods. The ABS, in its methodology and assessment, consider this principle and employ it to create a robust, unbiased premise to evaluate the journals.
Findings and Conclusion
The scope and depth of literature in this area is expanding proportional to time and content. The traditional vacuum between quantitative and qualitative research methods is increasingly being intersected by the crisscrossing variant of mixed method research. This is reflected in several researches wherein both methods complement each other. The quantitative approach finds out how much, to what extent, and the differences while the qualitative counterpart provides richness of meaning while the intervening mixed methods approach highlight the compatibility of the two preceding research methodologies. Each method is equipped with its own advantages and disadvantages relative to the area of subject but consists of perspectives which are essence to the holistic understanding of social reality; hence, which approach is applied or what order they are applied is therefore determined by the rationale for the particular study.
References
Angen, M.J., 2000, "Evaluating Interpretive Inquiry: Reviewing The Validity Debate And Opening The Dialogue." Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 10 no. 3, pp. 378-395
Babbie, E.,2004,ThePractice Of Social Research, Wadsworth: USA.
Bryman, A., 2006. ‘Integrating Quantitative And Qualitative Research: How Is It Done?’, Qualitative research, vol.6 no. 1, pp.97-113.
Chaneta, I., 2014, ‘Effects Of Job Evaluation On Decisions Involving Pay Equity’. Asian Social Science, vol. 10 no.4, p.145.
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B., 2006 "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." Retrieved from: http://www.qualres.org/HomeTria-3692.html
Cohen, L.,Manion, L.,& Morrison, K., 2013. Research Methods In Education. Routledge.
Creswell, J.W., 1998, Qualitative Inquiry And Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions,2ndeds.,Sage Publications: Lincoln
Denscombe, M., 2008,‘Communities Of Practice A Research Paradigm For The Mixed Methods Approach’, Journal Of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp.270-283.
Denzin, N.K.,& Lincoln, Y.S., 2004, The SAGE Handbook Of Qualitative Research, 4th eds., SAGE Publication: London
Douglas, J.W., 1967, TheSocial Meaning Of Suicide, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ
Lincoln, Y.S.,&Guba, E.G., 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA.
Haralambos, M.,&Holborn, M.,2008,Sociology: Themes And Perspectives,7th eds., HarperCollins Educational: London.
Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H.,&Rowlinson, M., 2010, Academic Journal Quality Guide, 4theds., The Association of Business Schools, London. Retrieved from: http://charteredabs.org/
Kerlinger, F.N., 1970, Foundations of Behavioral Research, Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York.
Macionios, J.J.,&Plummer, K., 2008,Sociology: A Global Introduction, 4th eds.,Pearson Education: Essex.
Morris, H., Harvey, C.,& Kelly, A., 2009. ‘Journal Rankings And The ABS Journal Quality Guide’. Management Decision, vol. 47 no. 9, pp.1441-1451.
Neuman, W.L., 2011, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th eds., Pearson: New York
Pagano, R., 2007,Understanding Statistics In The Behavioural Sciences, 9thedn. Wadsworth:USA
Wood, G.,& Peel, D., 2015, Academic Journal Guide 2015, The Association of Business Schools, London. Retrieved from: https://steffenroth.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/abs-2015-steffen-roth-ch.pdf
Ward, John L. and Handy, James L, 1988, A Survey of Board Practices, Family Business Review September, Vol. 1 (3) pp. 289-308
Warr, D.J. & Pyett, P.M , 1999, Sex Work, Love and Intimacy, Sociology of Health and Illness 21(3), 209-309.
Molina-Azorín et. Al., (2015), The Effects Of Quality And Environmental Management On Competitive Advantage: A Mixed Methods Study In The Hotel Industry, Tourism Management, Vol 50, pp. 41-54.
