This section will explain about the different research approaches there are. We will establish what paradigms there are and how the ontology or epistemology approach fits within the different paradigms. This would give us a clear indication into what approach we are using and why. We will also explain briefly about triangulation and how we can achieve the best results by using a triangulate approach in our research.
In philosophy there are two main areas of which most research has been conducted within;
ontology and epistemology. This section will try to briefly discuss the two approaches and their sub-sections, and we will determine which approach we will employ.
Ontology “concerns the issue of what exists” (Neuman, 2011, p.92). It makes the
assumption about the topics we want to study and its place in the world, and answers to the question ‘what’ (Neuman, 2011; Bryman & Bell, 2003). Epistemology is often considered as the theory of knowledge, we know something exists and to answer any questions we need to ask both ‘how’ and ‘what’ (Bryman & Bell, 2003; Neuman, 2011).
In order to understand the different approaches we will discuss Guba’s (1990) (quoted in Pernecky & Jamal, 2010) different research paradigms and this will help us to recognise where we are situated with respect to the objects and the philosophical (ontological or epistemological) suppositions which will influence our methodological approaches and assumptions of our research (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). Guba (1990) indicates that there are four different paradigms; positivist; post-positivist; critical thinking and constructivist.
Positivist is often associated with realism and Guba (1990) states that the approach within ontology for positivist is realist and post-positivist is critical realist. A positivist approach
“assume that natural and social sciences should and can apply the same principles to collecting and analysing data and that there is a world out there (an external reality) separate from our descriptions of it” (Flick, 2007, p.78). The epistemological approach under the positivist paradigm is a dualist/objectivist or for post-positivist – modified objectivist. This indicates that an ontological approach is more concerned with the reality that is ‘out there’ and is driven by unchangeable natural laws and mechanism. The
epistemological approach is also concerned with the reality; however this approach wants
the researcher to develop a distant, non-interactive posture in order to not influence the outcome (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010).
Critical thinking/theory denotes a set of alternative paradigms, such as neo-Marxism, feminism and materialism. The common breakaway off these approaches is that they are all value-determined in the nature of inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The ontological approach here is called historical realism, where the reality can be changed and shaped over time by social, political, cultural, ethnic and gender factors (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
The epistemological approach is transactional and subjectivist; where the researcher and the object are interactively linked, and the values of the researcher influencing the research, the findings are therefore value mediated (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Constructivist “denotes an alternative paradigm whose breakaway assumption is the move from ontological realism to ontological relativism” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.109). In ontology, constructivism is seen as a relativist, where “realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experientially based local and specific in nature” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.110). The epistemological approach is again transactional and subjectivist where again the researcher and the object are assumed to be interactively linked, but here the findings are created as the research proceeds (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994).
We feel that our research is off a constructivist epistemological approach. Reasons for this are how we have created the findings as we proceeded with the process of interviewing and coding. It is an epistemological approach as we wanted to investigate the knowledge that the participants had regarding climate change and air travel, and by using the question word ‘what’ in our research statement as well as using ‘why’ in the more specific objectives we feel our approach is an epistemological one.
3.4.1 Triangulation
Triangulation is “the idea that looking at something from multiple points of view improves accuracy” (Neuman, 2011, p. 164). Flick (2007) explains about four types of triangulation;
data, investigator, theory and methodological. Data triangulation refers to the different data sources, or what Neuman (2011) describes as method triangulation. It uses different types of tools in order to collect data. It could combine a content analysis with experiments and observations. This way the researcher would collect data and get a broader overall picture.
When different researchers/observers independently observe or collect data in a set situation to detect or minimise research bias is called investigator triangulation (Neuman, 2011; Flick, 2007). The third type is theory, which tries to compare how different
theoretical approaches evaluate the same scenario and lastly measure or methodology triangulation. This type mixes qualitative and quantitative research approaches and data.
As the approaches have complementary strengths. “A study that combine both tends to be richer and more comprehensive” (Neuman, 2011, p.165).
We think that by basing our questions for the interview guide on theory from well-established authors within behaviour and/or awareness and climate change we have achieved theory triangulation. Due to the population size, a quantitative approached was ruled out, we did not see it fit to include a questionnaire for 13 participants, however by asking the general questions about the participants we manage to catch the quantitative part of our research in a proper way. Due to fact that we were always two interviewers and only one interviewee, and only one would be the main interviewer, the other would
automatically take an observer role, although we did not write down any observation in the transcripts, we did get the overall feel at every interview and by including this we can also claim to have observer/researcher triangulation.