METHODOLOGY

Research, according to [ CITATION Smi91 \l 2057 ], is concerned with problem solving

investigating relationships and building on the body of knowledge. It is a plan or design with
the view to finding a solution to the research problem by social workers. Formulating and
clarifying the research topic is the most important aspect of the research project as it is the
starting point of the entire process (Alvesson & Skoldberd, 2000 ; Ghauri & Gronhaug,
2005 ; Mouton & Marais, 1990). Once the research topic is ascertained along with the
objectives, the researcher must give considerable thought to the methodologies and the
methods that may be employed and what perspectives lie behind the methodologies being
adopted [ CITATION Cro98 \l 2057 ].

Methodology is a way of thinking about and studying social reality [ CITATION Str90 \l
2057 ] and is a way to systematically unearth the reasons behind a phenomenon [ CITATION
Kot05 \l 2057 ]. The sheer latitude available to business students in terms of research
strategies, techniques and tools is vast and it becomes imperative that a relevant and suitable
approach be chosen for the study [ CITATION Rem02 \l 2057 ]. Du Plooy (2001, pp 20-21)
suggests that it is wise to consider the ontological, epistemological and theoretical
assumptions about the research should be considered when deciding amongst the various
methodologies available.

Bazeley (2004) mentions that approaches taken to defining “qualitative” and “quantitative”
have long been associated with different paradigmatic approaches to research, different
assumptions about the nature of knowledge (ontology), and the means of generating it
(epistemology) . Qualitative and the quantitative are two pragmatically different approaches
to research and based on their assumptions, these two approaches study the phenomena and
realise the reasons behind it in their own ways (Bryman & Bell, 2003 ; Saunders et, al.,
2003). While quantitative approach draws heavily from ‘positivism’ and seeks to study the
phenomena from an objective and deterministic point of view striving to answer the question
“what”, qualitative approach is more influenced by ‘interpretivism’ and gives more weight to
the subjective side of the problem, delving into the “why” of the phenomena being studied
(Bryman A. , 1984 ; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).

1
Positivism alludes to the belief that the research in the social sciences should be done as it is
performed in the natural sciences [ CITATION Lee99 \t \l 2057 ]. Positivist approach
implies that that essential ‘truth’ can either be assertions which are capable of logical
(mathematical) proof or scientifically or empirically verifiable (Remenyi et. al, 1998) i.e. the
world is deterministic. It involves the manipulation of theoretical propositions using the rules
of formal logic and hypothetico–deductive logic such that these confirm to logical
consistency and explanatory power [ CITATION Lee91 \l 2057 ]. Positivism is based on the
ontological assumption that the reality exists in the world, independent of whether an attempt
is being made to uncover it. Since the observer and the phenomena are different entities, the
observer can study the phenomenon without influencing it (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ; Sale, et.
al,. 2002 ; Weber, 2004). Many positivists believe that the phenomena and its cause can be
studied by a researcher and presented accurately with empirical proof and this is the only way
of towards true knowledge [ CITATION Dur06 \l 2057 ]; “inquiry takes place as through a
oneway mirror” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, pp 110).

Positivists tend to favour empiricism and often use surveys, field research and laboratory
experiments as their research methods. They collect huge amounts of data which can then be
analysed statistically and any regularity can be uncovered and studied (Bryman, 1984). The
sample sizes used in the surveys are of a much larger size than used in qualitative approach
for example, so that the samples are representative of the target audience and statistics can be
used to analyse the collected data[ CITATION Car98 \l 2057 ]. The main idea is there is
coherence between the phenomena being studied and the analysed regularities and the results
should be replicated by any researcher who is studying the phenomena as the reality should
be universal, predictable and controllable (Cohen et. al., 2007, pp 21). Any differences in the
results are usually attributed to the researcher bias, background, differences in the context of
research or simply, measurement errors [ CITATION Web04 \l 2057 ].

The terms ‘positivist’ or ‘empiricist’ often tend to denote the same fundamental approach
which is the quantitative (Bryman, 1984). Quantitative research allows the researcher to
familiarize him/herself with the problem or concept to be studied, and perhaps generate
hypotheses to be tested. This approach is often viewed in contrast to qualitative approach
[ CITATION Bog92 \l 2057 ] [ CITATION Fir87 \l 2057 ]. This approach is taken to
generalize the phenomena and test causal hypothesis. Researcher clearly knows in advance
what he or she may be looking for and while trying to be objective, i.e. validates it through
precise measurements and analysis. While using the qualitative approach, much emphasis is
2
placed on defining and adhering to a methodological protocol so as to keep the objectivity
and the reliability of the data intact.

Quantitative research focuses more on the empiricism and requires a large amount of data to
analyse (large samples). However, the technology behind the SaaS ERP is still in the nascent
stage and not many organisations have adopted this cloud offering. Considering the strategic
importance of ERP in any organisations, it is more prudent to consider the social settings,
culture, and corporate environment when unearthing the individual factors and their relevance
to the organisation with respect to the SaaS ERP adoption. (Qualitative more suitable)

Despite the fact that quantitative research is much more prevalent in social research, not all
problems lend themselves to this paradigm [ CITATION Rem02 \t \l 2057 ]. The problem
under observation here relates to the factors considered and their relative importance to the
organisations who are wishing to adopt the SaaS ERP. The number of variables involved
coupled with the fact that the relative importance of each factor may depend on the tolerance
level of that particular organisation, makes it the approach of positivism a difficult one to
adopt in this particular scenario. In this paradigm, the emphasis is on facts and objective data
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) leaving out the circumstantial evidence. Quantitative research
overlooks these issues such as human behaviour, or the motives (world views) while
exploring a problem[ CITATION Dai91 \l 2057 ]. The research problem touches various
aspects of an organisation and hence it has to be dealt with, in a subjective manner
(Jankowicz, 2005, pp 114) as the adoption of any ERP software is a strategic issue that is not
relegated to a certain problem category with a fixed solution.

Guba & Lincoln, (1994) say that research and it has been dominated by a need to quantify the
hypotheses. Guba & Lincoln (1994) have further challenged the effectiveness of quantitative
techniques to quantify hard facts due to the objective nature of the approach as it tends to
leave out the contextual nature of the information which is precisely what the researcher is
trying to achieve here. Additionally, positivism is described reductionistic as it seeks to
measure precise quantities about people [ CITATION Bry03 \l 2057 ]. Individual
organisation has its own backgrounds, corporate culture, beliefs etc which may differ from
others. Also, it limits the scope of the research as it does not encourage the researcher to look
beyond the aims and objective which is important while exploring a research problem dealing
with emergent technology[ CITATION Str90 \l 2057 ].

3
A CASE FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The ground belief of interpretivism is that the reality exists as the perception of the individual
and the society he is surrounded with. The basic idea is that by studying the problem along
with the social context it is present in, gives a more in-depth idea of the entire scenario and
helps to understand the reasons which form the individual perceptions [ CITATION Hus97 \l
2057 ]. This research paradigm is concerned with the uniqueness of a particular situation,
contributing to the underlying pursuit of contextual depth (Myers, 1997 ; Silverman, 2004).
Interpretive approach to research believes that objectivity is illogical and the main aim of the
researcher should be to understand the subjective reality of the problem and the context in
which it exists. Interpretivism is based on the premise that there are multiple realities of
single phenomena as the different persons can have different perceptions of the same problem
and this can differ across time and place [ CITATION Str90 \l 2057 ].

Interpretivism emphasizes the use of qualitative data in the pursuit of knowledge. The
significance of the qualitative approach has increased tremendously over the last decade.
Initially the perception of qualitative methods was that of a paradigm that stood for
everything quantitative is not [ CITATION Str90 \l 2057 ], which has changed over the time
to that of being a supplement to quantitative research and thus has gained a lot of importance
in the field of business research (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002 ; Bryman & Bell, 2003).
There is an epistemological distinction between a qualitative researcher, who uses methods to
gain insight in the subjective reality of the problem and taking into account the circumstantial
evidence to improve the comprehension of the issue as a whole, when compared to
quantitative researchers who adopt rigor in methods to remain removed from the problem
maintaining the objectivity (Bryman A. , 1984 ; Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ; Bryman & Bell,
2003 ; Silverman, 2004).

4
Strauss & Corbin (1990) mention that "any kind of research that produces findings not
arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" in reference to
qualitative research. Babbie and Mouton (2001), Denzin and Lincoln (1994), Du Plooy
(2001), Marshall and Rossman (1995), and Mason (2002) describe qualitative research as a
paradigm that allows the researcher to get an “insider perspective on social action”. Babbie
and Mouton (2001) further describe the primary goal of this research approach as describing
and then understanding as opposed to merely explaining social action. Qualitative research
contributes to discovery and theory-building [ CITATION Imp00 \l 2057 ] which is what is
being attempted by the researcher here with respect to a SaaS ERP.

The strength of qualitative research is in their ability to understand the meaning and the
context of the phenomena under study and the particular events and processes that make up
the phenomena over time in real life, natural settings (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ; Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998 ; Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994). It seeks to develop sensitizing concepts and the
meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects [ CITATION May94 \l 2057 ].
Since the acquisition of a SaaS ERP is a major decision which affects the organisation on
multiple levels, the ‘intangible’ factors related to changes and its adaptability or competitive
advantage, are difficult to quantify and a qualitative approach is a better suited mode of
research here. Also, the way these factors are related to each other and their relative
importance with respect to different organisations is much better understood with the
organisational perspective in place.

Qualitative methods can be used to explore substantive areas about which little is known or
have conflicting views (Stern 1980; Rossman & Marshall, 1999). Since there is no clear
mandate on SaaS ERP and cloud computing as a whole that could be verified, this approach
is better suited to this research topic. Qualitative approach is based on the belief that the
persons are actors who take an active role in responding to situations and the realisation that
the response is based on a certain meaning (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 ; Rossman & Rallis,
2003). It allows for the finer differences to be brought to light, without imposing any
perspective on the issue under study, which will allow the researcher to investigate his
research problem thoroughly. Denzin & Lincoln, (1998) summarise the characteristics of this
approach as enabling the researcher to study phenomena in their natural settings, while
attempting to interpret these phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

5
INDUCTIVE vs. DEDUCTIVE

Much of the literature treats inductive and deductive approach to research as polar opposites

which are comparable to the arguments between qualitative and quantitative approach.

Deductive line of reasoning employs the type of logic that goes from general statement to a

specific conclusion (Saunders et. al., 2003) and usually the conclusion follows as a specific

aspect of the founding arguements.

Analysis 
General Ideas
Condensed

result

The major disadvantage with respect to deductive approach to research is the fact that many
themes can remain obscured due to pre-conceived notions of the researcher who might
overlook any other themes [ CITATION Tho04 \l 2057 ]. These might add to the result but
remain invisible in such a scenario, which makes its usage in a research that investigates a yet
to mature technology, problematic.

Johnson (1996) describes the inductive theory as a mirror image to deductive which starts
with an established theory [ CITATION Spe06 \l 2057 ]. An individual makes a number of
observations which are then moulded into a concept or generalization. The idea behind the
use of inductive approach is to allow the significant themes to emerge from the analysis of
collected data in a natural way without having preconceptions of any kind as observed by
(Patton, 1980, pp 306) who says ‘ Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and
categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed
on them prior to data collection and analysis’.

Analysis  Generalized
Logical Premise
concept
/ Theory

Since the researcher is trying to develop and understanding of the factors influencing the
decision to adopt a SaaS ERP which is based on the paradigm of cloud computing in its
nascent stage, this approach is much more suitable to the this research. Added to that,

6
inductive approach is a better option as it helps to deal with uncertainty by linking all the
contextual factors into a single overall view [ CITATION Lif95 \l 2057 ]. Inductive
reasoning is a hallmark of qualitative research approach and is the logic behind it.

A CASE FOR GROUNDED THEORY

Qualitative research comprises of multiple traditions and different methods. Creswell (1998)
stresses the importance of approach taken by the qualitative researcher since this tends to shape
the design of the study; “baffling number of choices of tradition”. He proposes five qualitative
approaches that can be adopted by the researcher which are grounded theory, phenomenology,
ethnography, case study and biography (narrative).

When using narrative, the researcher may use storytelling, life history or biography. This method
favours the role of a researcher in a study rather than the traditional theory oriented classical
approach[ CITATION Cre94 \l 2057 ] . The author has an authority over the data he is
collecting and relates to characters that might be present in his “story” [ CITATION Den89 \t \l
2057 ]. This form of qualitative is not suitable to this research as the research problem (REFER
AND COMPLETE). Phenomenology is a line of thought that emphasizes the study from an
individual’s perspective that takes into account his view of the world [ CITATION Cre94 \l
2057 ]. A phenomenalist considers that each event is unique and is controlled by variables
such as time, location and culture which lead to the conclusion that in probability, no two
events are of similar or identical [ CITATION Bol98 \l 2057 ] when taken with their context.
It is sometimes referred to as “lived experience” [ CITATION Dev \l 2057 ]. This approach does
not concern itself with the cause of the experience or analyses it. Instead, it explores the
experience itself from the subject’s perspective and how he or she might perceive the world due
to this [ CITATION Den07 \l 2057 ] . The researcher refines the gathered data from several
sources to form a central theme. This approach is not suitable to this research as (REFER AND
COMPLETE)

Ethnographic research was used to describe and interpret a social group and to understand the
inherent behavioural mannerisms and actions along with interaction amongst the people
themselves. [ CITATION Dev \l 2057 ]. As evident, it requires an up-close and personal
involvement of the researcher within his subject organisations or culture and it may be important
to participate as well. Ethnographic studies are usually site based as the researcher has to spend a
considerable amount of time before he can gather enough data to analyse. The ethnographer
listens and records the voices of the informants with the intent of generating a cultural portrait

7
and in the process undergoes through the same experience himself (McCaslin & n Scott, 2003;
Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002). (LACK OF TIME) ??

Case Study is a in depth study of a particular case within a specific issue being researched
[ CITATION Cre94 \l 2057 ] , the focus either being on the case or the issue, to understand the
dynamics within a single setting [ CITATION Eis89 \l 2057 ]. This approach would not work
for the researcher for the simple reason that this research attempts to develop a generalized
framework that could be applicable to each organisation irrespective of any differences they may
be having.

Observations are the starting point for this approach [ CITATION Kva97 \l 2057 ] and seek
to develop theory, but not test it[ CITATION Ros03 \l 2057 ]. Qualitative researchers analyze
their data inductively using a bottom up approach. Induction is usually described as moving
from specific observations to broader generalisation and theories (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Glaser & Strauss (1967) and later Strauss & Corbin (1990) mentioned grounded theory where
the theory is grounded in the observations made by the researcher. Inductive approach is
intended to aid the researcher to understanding of meaning in data through the development
of emergent themes or categories. These themes are likely to be based on premises of the
research such as security, adaptability, performance factors, scalability etc and will guide the
researcher when examining and analysing the data, thereby forming theory.

Grounded theory is an inductive, comparative, and interactive approach research that offers
several open-ended strategies to identify emergent themes. Grounded theory used the
inductive approach towards the research with no preconceived notions [ CITATION The \l
8
2057 ] about the research topic. This use of induction and deduction is supported by Bryman
and Bell (2003) who argue that grounded theory is an iterative process which includes
elements of both induction and deduction. The analysis within grounded theory is done as
the constant comparative method. This included comparing incidents within each category,
comparing categories to each other, clarifying the developing theory, and writing a coherent
theory as a result. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A key concept for this
approach is “theoretical sensitivity” (Glaser, 1978), which can be described as an ability to
perceive the interactions between the relevant themes and factors. The researcher finds this an
apt approach due to his interpretivist nature and the fact that the cloud computing is a novel
concept that can be adopted by every organisation due to various set of factors which can
have a varying degree of influence on the decision.

Silverman (2004) summarises the main features and stages of grounded theory:

1. An attempt to develop categories which derive from the data;

2. Attempting then to give as many examples as possible in the categories developed in order
to demonstrate their importance

3. Then developing these categories into more general and broader analytical frameworks
(or theories) with relevance to other situations outside the research subject.

Generalizability is the degree of universal applicablility outside of the specific problem

researched [ CITATION Rob041 \l 2057 ]. The researcher here is trying to establish a
framework of factors that would be applicable to any organisation that may be willing to
adopt the SaaS ERP and generalizability of the research is an important aspect here.

Interview is the primary technique of the researcher here. The main task in interviewing is to
understand the meaning of what the interviewees say [ CITATION Kva97 \l 2057 ]. An
interview seeks to determine the factual information along with the contextual information.
An interview with the subject in its natural environment brings out the nuances in their
perspectives and the definitions are continuously refined (Kalnis 1986 as cited in Marshall
and Rossman, 1995). However a cloud based ERP is a relatively new concept and is a major
decision on behalf of an organisation to actually adopt it. It is important that the data gathered
from an interview be viewed in relevance to the background of the subject being interviewed

9
as some of the factual information may not make much sense or may stand to be
misinterpreted if it is not seen along with the circumstances that affected it (Saunders, et al.,
2003).

Every method has its drawbacks and qualitative approach is no exception. According to
Stiles (1993), Patton ( 2001) and Lincoln & Guba (1985), validity and reliability are the
factors that affect the quality of the traditional qualitative research. Denzin & Lincoln (1998)
put forward four factors to establish the correctness of the data and research: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability. It would be very difficult for another
researcher to reproduce the survey and replicate the finding for confirmation of the research
with the same amount of validity and personal bias. Generalizing the findings of the report is
an aspect of the high quality reports. Maxwell (1992) suggests that it is easier to generalize
findings in the quantitative research and is a potential drawback in this study. Patton (2001)
argues that the generalizability is a criteria that is subjective to the individual case study.
Also, according to Cassell & Symon (1994), it is easy to drift from the original context of the
research when using the qualitative approach due to the changing context of the research

. Every organisation may have its own reasons to either acquire or shun a cloud based ERP
and these factors are unique to each organisation which reflects the disposition of the
organisation lending itself to being subjective. The end result would be a descriptive that is
mainly expressed in qualitative terms.

In general, the researcher is pursuing an inductive qualitative approach due to which a

relation can be established between what the subject is expressing, what he means, the
background and the culture he is from and what he requires. This is supported by Elliott
(1995) and Strauss and Corbin (1990) who has taken the position that qualitative research
lends itself to understanding participants’ perspectives Saunders et al. (2003) and Bazeley
(2004) articulate a case for the epistemological relevance of both forms of knowledge and
that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded. It is not that the
researcher does not want to pin the issues empirically and statistically. It has more to do with
the caution of not rushing into the subject and realising the fact that the decision to adopt a
cloud based ERP by an organisation is influenced by a lot of contextual factors and the
responsible factors are is not easily fathomed through quantification [ CITATION Str90 \l
2057 ]. Apart from this, an ERP is not pervasive, “everyday” computing and it becomes
difficult to gather statistical data from varied sources.

10
11
12