|
|
Methodology is more than just the way to conduct research. It is the sum of all the procedures, processes, constraints, analysis, working assumptions and intentions of the researcher in a particular context for a particular project.
There are two competing views of the link between methodology and research. The view that informs much ‘casual’ research is that ‘research is research.’ This perspective divorces the methods used from some of the deeper philosophical discussion of why certain approaches may be better suited to one type of question. One way in which this is evident is the use of statistics in mass market research to measure answers to questions that might be better researched using case studies.
On the other side is the idea that research is an integrated process from the start. At its most basic level, research can be seen as an extension of the researcher. It is one type of relationship that individuals forge with their environment. In the context of the social sciences, these relationships are the study of interactions of human beings with each other and with the world. Broken down further, an investigation of relationships between nonprofits and for-profits is the study of individuals in the peculiar structure of organisations. With this view, it is impossible to separate the integrity of the research process from a thorough understanding of the intent, framework and consequences of research, whatever methodology is employed. Devine and Heath have called this ‘reflexive consideration’ of method (1999); others describe it as the process of deliberation (Young 1966).
Western educational institutions have had a history of focusing on the physical sciences for the model to which all things purportedly scientific should aspire. The legitimation of some types of research and the discarding of other approaches have been profoundly influenced by a particular worldview. Rigid theoretical and methodological boundaries have obscured the deeper quest for meaning that lies in the notion of science. For example, the scientific method is one model for creating, carrying out and evaluating research. As can be seen from Hoover and Donovan’s (1995) definitions (Appendix A), there are assumptions immanent to that process itself. Words like ‘reality test’ and ‘hypothesis’ presuppose the kinds of research to be conducted and the results to be expected.
Any meaningful examination of methodology must transcend these limitations. In Social Research Methods, Neuman quotes Randall Collins: ‘Modern philosophy of science does not destroy social science; it does not say that science is impossible, but gives us a more flexible picture of what science is’ (Neuman 1997, p. 61). Mills (1959) also points to that question of science as an important issue of clarification for social scientists.
However, although hybrid methodologies may be used to broaden understanding of a topic and afford depth to theory testing, they should not be undertaken without first considering the implications of such decisions (Devine & Heath 1999; Goia & Pitre 1990; Poole & Van de Ven 1989).
In this chapter, it is argued that research into relationships between nonprofits and for-profit organisations can be framed in a model that links these two approaches. Without losing sight of the need for clear boundaries for some parts of the research or resorting to functionalist ‘absolutes’ of how research ‘should’ be conducted, a theoretical paradigm for this project is presented that incorporates hybrid methodologies firmly rooted in prevailing assumption frameworks.
One basic assumption is that the philosophical and therefore theoretical framework of research is an integral part of the methodology itself. A useful way to conceptualise this approach to methodology is that of a mirror. The research questions precede the method, which means that the methodology reflects the assumptions underlying the research questions. These assumptions are based on philosophical factors that identify the context and characteristics of human nature and social reality. With this in mind, two sets of factors determine how the methodology will be constructed. In short, both the fundamental assumptions and the research questions that evolve from those understandings affect which methodological approach provides the most satisfactory fit.
The first step in a discussion of methodology with this atomic approach is to clearly define terms that will be used throughout the chapter. It is a crucial part of ensuring that the author and the reader are well-placed to maintain the same assumptions of meaning, and provides an excellent example of how making assumptions explicit can add value to the research endeavour. In fact, this in itself is an exercise in understanding how methodological assumptions function in research. Terms as referred to throughout this research are defined in Appendix A.
Trochim (1999) raised a general methodological issue concerned with the types of questions studied in research. In his typology, descriptive, relational and causal questions require different methodological approaches, depending on the outcome expected and the intent of the researcher. Studying any organisational phenomenon comprehensively may require two or more types of questions to be asked during the research process.
There are two sets of complementary tasks contained in the research questions for this investigation into relationships between third and private sector organisations. The first is to describe the experiences of individuals and organisations working in nonprofit organisations and their perceptions of power, individual social agency and organisational capacity. The second is to assess to what extent the drivers of these changes are found in other nonprofits in