This chapter provides a detailed description of the research design and methodology for this study. The chapter starts by introducing the research and discussing the research onion diagram, it proceeds onto the research philosophy focusing on the philosophical stance of the study. The approach to theory development of the study and methodological choice are then discussed narrowing into method of data collection. The chapter ends by discussing the ethical considerations considered during the study.
2.1 Introduction to research
As a process, research is described as a systematic approach to investigating a subject matter with the purpose of increasing knowledge or making new discovery (Saunders et al. 2016). Making recommendations to improve the EIA follow-up in the Nigerian oil sector is the expected outcome of the thesis. Saunders et al. (2016) argues, the tag attached to a research strategy is not as important as its appropriateness for the research to be carried out. Methodology reflects the overall research strategy which has taken the theoretical, philosophical and ethical dimensions into consideration (Henn et al. 2006). However, methods are the precise research techniques that have been selected as the best fit for solving the research problems (Silverman 2000). In explaining the logical sequence employed in accomplishing the objectives of this research, the research onion diagram developed by Saunders et al. (2016) would be used in describing the position and assumptions that has guided the choice of research designed (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: The research onion adapted from (Saunders et al 2016)
Based on the layers of the research onion, the discussion starts the research philosophy; which provides the assumptions underpinning the nature of reality and the construction of knowledge and truth. This is the background for understanding the approach to the development of theory and the methodological choice employed for the inquiry, which are discussed subsequently. The time horizon layer would not be discussed as it is not a crucial component, integral to the research objectives. The overarching aim of this research is to evaluate EIA follow-up in the Nigerian oil sector and make recommendations for its improvement, which leans more to being a cross-sectional study rather than a longitudinal study which considers change and development over a period (Saunders et al. 2016).
2.2 Research philosophy
A research philosophy is an order of ideas, beliefs and assumptions about the construction of knowledge (Saunders et al. 2016). Among the assumptions made by a researcher include the stance taken about the nature of reality, how knowledge is discovered and the extent of influence the researcher may have over the research process. The methodological choice selected, the research strategy designed and the mode of data collection and process of analysis are all underlined by the philosophical perspective (Creswell 2009; Saunders et al. 2016). In discussing research philosophy, it is essential for the researcher to engage in a discussion of the assumptions and their implications for the study.
2.2.1 Philosophical assumptions
Ontology: formed from two Greek words, ‘onto’ meaning being and ‘logia’ interpreted as study, science, theory, Ivankova and Creswell (2009) defined ontology as a set of beliefs about the nature of reality. It raises the question what is the nature of reality? (Guba 1990) and requires researchers to take a stance regarding their perception of the world, the entities or phenomena that make it up and how they work (Matthews and Ross 2010; Scotland 2012). This assumption places attention on the nature and form of social reality by questioning if the social phenomena is real, objective and if it exists outside of the human mind or dependent on the attributed meaning given by the subject (Corbetta 2003). It is the ontological position that establishes the process of understanding through the differences between reality, the researchers’ perception of reality and the possible influence this may have on the behavior exhibited with the social context.
Epistemology: This is an assumption about human knowledge (Saunders et al 2016) which raises the question, what is the relationship between the researcher and what is being researched? (Creswell et al. 2007; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Guba 1990). From the Greek word episteme, meaning knowledge, epistemology is a theory of knowledge interested with the nature and scope of knowledge (Slevitch 2011). This standpoint is primarily concerned with how knowledge is created, discovered, obtained and transferred (Scotland 2012), in other words how can we know what we know (Saunders et al. 2016). Within this context, Crotty (1998) writes that epistemology provides the philosophical foundations for deciding what kind of knowledge is possible and how to ensure that the knowledge is adequate and legitimate. Simply put, a justification for what can be known as knowledge and the criteria that it must meet to be regarded as knowledge.
Axiology: The Axiological point of view refers to the influence values and ethics in the research process (Saunders et al. 2016). It aims to address ethical dilemmas that arise in the research context. According to (Mertens 2007) the three principles underlying ethics in research are “respect, beneficence, and justice”. It seeks address issues of ethics when conducting research in culturally complex communities. Axiology gives the researcher the opportunity to understand the possible influence that their own values and opinion may have in collecting and interpreting the data gathered for the study. This enables a review of how the researcher plans to address their own values and those of the research participants. Creswell et al. (2007) believes that researchers assuming the axiological perspective should actively express their values and admit their biases together with the value-laden nature of data collected from the field of study.
As a summary, Table 2.1 gives a brief overview of the different philosophical assumptions, their descriptive questions, their characteristics and the relevance to this study. It should be noted that the presented perspectives are not mutually exclusive and depending on the approach to the research, anyone of them can be suitably used in the creation of a research process.
Table 2.1: Philosophical assumptions and relevance to study (Creswell 2009; Denzin and Lincoln 2011)
Assumption Descriptive questions Characteristics Relevance to this PhD research
Ontology What is the nature of reality?
What is the world like? There can be a range of reality in existence; which may be external or socially constructed; universal reality experienced by all social actors or different social realities of different social actors. The research admits that the practice of EIA follow-up is in a constant state of change and this may either lead to a universal reality or multiple reality as socially constructed by the participants. Therefore, the research will present the different perspectives experienced by the participants as themes developed in findings.
Epistemology How can the researcher know? What is considered acceptable and legitimate knowledge? Discovering knowledge may be through a medium of observable and measurable facts or as a narrative of opinions, attributed meanings in individual and specific contexts. Research question can be answered by describing and explaining events and gathering of participants’ understanding, beliefs and experiences.
Axiology What role does values and opinions play in the research? Acknowledging the relationship that may or may not exist amongst the social entities, social actors and the researchers as a social being. The researcher acknowledges that the study is value-bound and reflexive in nature. The values that shape the critical interpretation would be presented along with the attributed meanings and narratives obtained from the participants.
2.2.2 Philosophical stance
The philosophical assumptions of a research do not essentially translate directly into the methods and tools used in acquiring data. They are rather routed through interpretive paradigms (Denzin and Lincoln 2011) or theoretical perspectives (Creswell 2009) in designing the strategies of inquiry that will inform the procedures. The catalogue of philosophical worldviews is continually expanding as researchers find new approaches in carrying out their research. For instance, literature seems to resolve around some philosophies; positivism, critical realism, constructivism/interpretivist, and pragmatism. However, others such as feminist, ethnic, Marxist, cultural studies, queer theory (Denzin and Lincoln 2011), advocacy/participatory and disability theory (Creswell 2007) have emerged from their interpretive communities which has also given rise to multiple versions of those variants.
Positivist: The positivist paradigm of research is also called the scientific method of research; it is the traditional way research has historically been conducted. Positivists ‘believe that there is only one, fixed, agreed-upon reality, so research must strive to find a singular, universal ‘truth’. They see the world as real, as something that exists independently. They believe that this reality can be quantified, and that the purpose of research is to measure it as precisely as possible’ (Ivankova and Creswell 2009). Thus, the problems studied by positivists reflect the need to identify and assess the causes that influence outcomes, such as found in experiments. It is also reductionist in that the intent is to reduce the ideas into a small, discrete set of ideas to test, such as the variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions. The knowledge that develops through a positivist lens is based on careful observation and measurement of the objective reality that exists ‘out there’ in the world. Thus, developing numeric measures of observations and studying the behaviour of individuals becomes paramount for a positivist. Finally, a positivist paradigm tests or verifies and refines theory of world understanding. Collecting data that either supports or refutes the theory, and then makes necessary revisions before additional tests are made (Creswell 2003).
Constructivism/ interpretivist: The constructivism paradigm’s goal is to understand the world in which we live and work in. A researcher with a constructivist ideology focuses on research from a multi-dimensional view rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. It aims to achieve this, by relying as much as possible on the participants’ view of the situation being studied. Research questions raised are broad and general so that the participants can construct the meaning of a situation, typically forged in discussions or interactions with other persons. The more open-ended the questioning, the better, as the researcher listens carefully to what people say or do in their life settings. Often these subjective meanings are negotiated socially and historically. Constructivism puts emphasis on understanding the importance of interaction with others (hence social constructivism) and in specific historical and cultural contexts people live and work that could shape their opinions and decisions. The constructivist researcher’s intention is to interpret meanings others have about the world. The researcher generates or inductively develops a theory or pattern of meaning (Creswell 2003).
Advocacy/ participatory: An advocacy/participatory paradigm holds that research inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political agenda. Thus, the research contains an action agenda for reform that may change the lives of the participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life. Moreover, specific issues need to be addressed that speak to important social issues of the day, issues such as empowerment, inequality, oppression, domination, suppression, and alienation. The researcher often begins with one of these issues as the focal point of the study. This research also assumes that the inquirer will proceed collaboratively to not further marginalize the participants because of the inquiry. In this sense, the participants may help design questions, collect data, analyse information, or reap the rewards of the research. Advocacy research provides a voice for these participants, raising their consciousness or advancing an agenda for change to improve their lives. It becomes a united voice for reform and change. This philosophical paradigm focuses on the needs of groups and individuals in our society that may be marginalized or disenfranchised (Creswell 2003).
Pragmatism: as a paradigm arises out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in positivism). Pragmatists do not focus on a particular method; researchers emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available to understand the problem. Pragmatism has been widely considered as the best underpinning paradigm for the mixed method strategy. Pragmatists see the world as divergent, as such does not commit to any one system of philosophy and reality. A researcher can draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in their research. The pragmatist researcher looks at what and how to research, to achieve research goals. Researchers adopting mixed method need to establish a purpose for their combining of methods, a rationale for the reasons why quantitative and qualitative data need to be mixed in the first place (Creswell 2003).
For this research, a pragmatic paradigm will be adopted for its varied approach in achieving research objectives. Pragmatism is not restricted to a philosophical system (Creswell 2009), as researchers have the liberty to work from either a post-positivist paradigm or constructionist principle in the first stage of their study and switch to the other philosophical position in the next phase of the study (Creswell et al. 2007). In other words, researchers have the discretion to select the best methods, techniques and strategies that are well suited to the purpose and intent of their study.
Pragmatists have often been labelled as being unconcerned in respect of the methods they use in a research (Feilzer 2010), however the viewpoint highlights philosophical implications and justifications of their design which assist researchers to ask better and clearer questions (Biesta 2010). The research question asked is the focus of this worldview rather than the method employed (Creswell et al. 2007). The researcher aligns with the stance that the world is not an absolute unity and would therefore subscribe to multiple approaches in the collection and analysis of data than to restrict to only one means (Creswell 2009). Even though the word pragmatic implies a lack of principles governing the course of the action (Denscombe 2008), the approach provides another option for researchers; when neither a quantitative or qualitative route alone will be sufficient to provide adequate data for the study being carried out. Pragmatism has been adopted for this study as a suitable philosophy as it provides the platform for both top-down deductive research and grounded inductive research (Feilzer 2010).
2.3 Approach to theory development
Approach to theory development occupies the second layer of the research onion. In this case, theory itself is described as a set of premise that can be used to explain and understand social phenomena (Matthews and Ross 2010). The notion of theory includes related concepts regarding cause and effect relationship that may exist between two or more variables, that may have been previously tested or proposed (Saunders et al. 2016). From the above descriptions, theory is either tested in a research or created as an outcome of a research. It is on this basis of ordering and relationship between theory and data collection in research that the reasoning of deduction, induction and abduction are considered as an approach to theory development.
Based on the pragmatic paradigm adopted for this research, the abductive reasoning has been selected as a suitable approach in achieving the objectives of this research. Unlike the other two processes (deduction and induction), it offers an iterative approach (see Figure 2.2) that provides deeper levels of knowledge of a phenomenon (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010). Originating either from a deductive reasoning (theory to data; a form of reasoning where the conclusion is logically derived from a set of premises) (Ho 1994; Ketokivi and Mantere 2010) or inductive (data to theory; where a general principle is discovered or developed from specific occurrences or observations (Plowright 2016), abduction is a process that allows the researcher to move between the two logical reasoning (Suddaby 2006). With this approach to theory development, the researcher can maximize the advantages of both reasoning’s without suffering their limitations.