Method - aanpak
Inhoud
Paradigm consideration
The four main paradigms in social science are positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism/social constructivism, and pragmatism. The table below (Saunders et al. 2007; Creswell 2009; Bryman and Bell 2011) presents an overview of the main research paradigms.
| Positivism | Post Positivism | Interpretivism and Social Constructivism | Pragmatism | |
| Ontology | Management and organisations are like physical objects, uninfluenced by human values | While a real world exists driven by natural causes, humans cannot accurately perceive it. “ultimate truth” is unknowable | Innovations are a flux of process, experiences and practises that are complex, rich and socially constructed. Multiple meanings, interpretations and realities | Reality is the practical consequence of ideas. |
| Epistemology | Discover the truth and predict the future through observable, measureable facts, cause & effect, and laws, rules and generalisations | Objectivity remains the ideal though can only be approximated. Emphasis is place on external verification of results | Meaning is constructed through the focus on narratives, perceptions and interpretations. New understandings and worldviews are embraced | Solve problems and inform future practise through the search for the practical meaning of knowledge in specific contexts. Build theories enabling successful action and focus on problems, practise and relevance |
| Axiology | Research is value free and the researcher is detached, neutral and independent | The researcher is theory-laden and in order to stay objective triangulation across multiple perspectives is required | Value-bound research in which the researcher is part of the research. Subjectivity, empathy and the researchers interpretations are key to contribution | Value-driven research. Research is initiated and sustained by the researcher’s believes and doubts. The researchers takes a reflexive role |
| Methodology | Quantitative methods, surveys with large samples | Use of multiple methods, use of more natural contexts and qualitative methods | Qualitative methods, small sample, in-depth investigation and interpretations | Range of methods, often mixed and/or action research. Emphasis on practical solutions and outcomes |
AANPASSING NODIG!!!!
In innovation research both the positivist and the non-positivist paradigm have played a prominent role (Jungmann et al. 2015). Originating in the natural sciences, positivism is connected to the realist ontology presuming an ‘external reality’ exists uninfluenced by human values (Creswell 2009). A positivist perspective is often connected to the verification of hypothesis conducted through observing measurable facts and cause and effect relations leading to the establishment of laws and facts (Bryman and Bell 2011). Thus, reality can objectively be perceived and considered (Yin 2014) Typically quantitative approaches have been implemented in positivist innovation research to identify success factors and drivers for innovation as well as the development of measurement tools for practitioners (Ottenbacher 2007; Hoholm and Araujo 2011).
Positivist perspectives of innovation research have been useful in helping to test empirically the impact of technology on innovation and identifying the driving factors for innovation activities (Ottenbacher 2007). For example, scholars aimed at specifying the role of ICT in innovation processes (Gochhait 2014) or identifying the different tools ICT provide in the development of the tourism industry (Hjalager 2015). However, while trying to identify the indicators, drivers, success factors, measurements and roles of ICT for innovation, positivist perspectives in innovation research often fail to reflect the complex interaction between people and people and technology at the core of innovation processes (Hjalager 2010).
While the positivist perspective is often connected to systems of innovation, the interpretivist paradigm is reflected in the second dominant strand of innovation research concerned with the social construction of innovation. Instead of focussing on factors for successful innovation, scholars placed in the Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies have adopted a variety of qualitative approached (e.g. interviews, focus groups and case studies) to tackle innovation processes from a complex socio-technical perspective (Orlikowski 1992; Bijker et al. 1997; Ali and Frew 2014). This interpretive approach in innovation research, encompassing phenomenology, social constructivism and postmodernism, aims to gain insights in the innovation process by exploring the complex interaction between people and technology in the socio-technical context in which they occur (Gretzel 2011). Interpretivist innovation scholars perceive innovation as a complex practise in which heterogeneous actors engage to shape innovations according to their collective personal values (Jungmann et al. 2015). Consequently, interpretivist innovation research recognises meaning is constructed through individual perceptions and interpretations and innovation is always socially constructed (Stirling 2007). The majority of research within S-D logic is associated with the interpretivist paradigm and relativist ontology (Löbler 2013). However, also critical realism and modified objectivity are recognised within the research of this novel worldview. Further, the nature of social innovation can meaningfully be placed within the post positivist paradigm (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). While empirical positivist research is supporting the development of the theoretical underpinnings of S-D logic (Randall et al. 2011; Adams et al. 2014; Bruns and Jacob 2014; Ranjan and Read 2014), there is still a need to explore value and innovation co-creation and the novel role of technology within non-positivist paradigms (Akaka and Vargo 2014; Lusch and Nambisan 2015). Post positivism in particular is drawn on to underpin the S-D logic enquiry and will be discussed in the following section.
Methodological approach
Quantitative/qualitative consideration
AANPASSING NODIG!!!!
Over the last decades, innovation research has been conducted in a variety of disciplines. Overall, research in innovation has been dominated by a focus on commercialisation largely based on the Schumpetarian approach (Hjalager 2010; Jungmann et al. 2015). In line with this, scholars have applied different methods, ranging from quantitative approaches such as network analysis (Wang et al. 2014) and uni-, bi- and multivariate statistics (Amara et al. 2009; Lederman 2010) to qualitative methods including interviews (Reischauer 2015) and ethnographies (Hoholm and Araujo 2011). Overall, innovation research has been dominated by two approaches; systems of innovation focussing on quantitative research (Freeman 1995) and ethnographies encompassing qualitative methods (Jungmann et al. 2015).
The positivist strand of innovation research has largely concentrated on identifying success factors, drivers for innovation and measurement tools to provide practitioners with indicators of innovation (Jungmann et al. 2015). One prominent example is the OECD innovation indicators guide acting as a manual for national and international surveys on the measurement of business innovation (OECD 2015b). However, while a quantitative approach can identify patterns in the correlations between the indicators and cover the differences between regions through statistical causal analysis (Creswell 2009), it fails to observe the processes of innovation in a direct manner (Bund et al. 2015). In order to comprehend the black box processes leading to successful innovation, qualitative research aims to follow the actors involved to identify innovation processes inductively (Freeman 1995). Since innovation processes are ingrained in everyday practises exploring how the process is enhanced by cutting-edge technology depends on inducing evidence from the actors involved in these processes (Akaka and Vargo 2014; Jungmann et al. 2015).
While innovation research has gained significant attention from the industrial sectors, research within the tourism sector is still underrepresented (Hjalager 2010). Consequently, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are argued for (Hjalager 2010; Pikkemaat and Peters 2012). A closer look at the current methodological approaches of innovation research in tourism indicates the presence of two dominant lines. Similar to general innovation research, the quantitative positivist tradition represents a strand of empirical evidence focussed on success factors and drivers for innovation taking on a design based on hard data (Ottenbacher 2007; Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009; Aldebert et al. 2011). However, instead of ethnographic research, a wide range of thick descriptions of single cases also largely represents innovation research in tourism. These studies mostly solely apply qualitative methods and are often bound to a single geographical location (Carson et al. 2014; Malek and Costa 2015; Teodorescu et al. 2015). While Hall and Williams (2008) argue for the essence of quantification of innovation in tourism, this has led to a lack of emic insights and led to less understanding of the richness of these hard data (Hjalager 2010).
In line with the focus of this doctoral thesis, quantitative methodologies do not allow for more in-depth insights supporting the exploratory research aim and objectives of this study. In relation to social innovation as the focus of this doctoral thesis, the exploratory design consequently asks for a rigorous and inductive approach to shed light on the under explored topic of social innovation in tourism and smart technology. Further, while ICT has been recognised as a catalyst for innovation in tourism emphasising its role as an operand resource, the changing nature of the interaction between human actors and technology posits ICT as an operant resource (Akaka and Vargo 2014). In order to comprehend this changing role of technology in co-creation and innovation, scholars such as Akaka and Lusch (2014) and Lusch and Nambisan (2015) argue for the usage of a qualitative methodology. Especially the qualitative case study approach has been perceived as important in tourism since it has the ability to elucidate the various stages of the innovation process. Also Jungmann et al. (2015) plead for the case study approach in innovation research to widen the range of data and provide an more holistic view on the innovation process. In line with this discussion this doctoral thesis takes on the qualitative case study approach, outlined in the following sections.
Case Study Approach
Hier jouw tekst
