W01 Research Methodological Position for a Doctoral Study on Apportioning Liability in Delay Claims

Transcription

1 W01 Research Methodological Position for a Doctoral Study on Apportioning Liability in Delay Claims Nihal Perera (School of the Built Environment,University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT., United Kingdom) Monty Sutrisna (School of the Built Environment,University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT., United Kingdom) Abstract Central to successful resolution of delay based claims is the fair and equitable apportioning of parties liabilities. However, such fairness and equity in apportioning may be fettered by many factors in contemporary practices adopted by both contractors and clients. The principal goals and rationale of this research are inspired by the need to identify and curb such major obstructive factors. Thus, the research study aims to bring about contractually sound, practical improvements to problematic situations in contemporary practices. Such improvements are expected to produce more equitable, efficient, transparent and less contentious outcomes in delay claims resolution. To achieve the aim and objectives, it is considered necessary to establish a firm methodological position for the research study. This paper has strived to establish such position. In this effort, various ontological, epistemological and methodological stand points are considered. Consequently, the paper has concluded the appropriateness of using the naturalist paradigm in this study. Keywords Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Positivist and Naturalist Paradigms. 1. Introduction This research aims to critically examine how the apportionment of liabilities in delay claims is practiced in the local context with a view to identifying problematic situations associated with such practices towards developing a framework for improvement. Thus, the research methodology is developed with the following objectives, in response to the key research questions 1 : i. To investigate how the apportioning of liabilities in delay claims is carried out by practitioners, particularly in the local context; ii. To find out what problematic situations stem from the approaches and methods currently used by practitioners; iii. To explore what constructive improvements can possibly be perceived in order to deal with the problematic situations; and 1 Due to limited space, the key research questions are not discussed here. However, they are based on the Maxwell s (1996) three types of questions for qualitative research, namely, Descriptive Question, Interpretive Question and Theoretical Question

2 iv. To assess the extent to which the proposed framework is evident to improve the current approaches and methods in terms of contract documentation,claims administration, and delay analysis methodology. The research design is the logical sequence that connects the empirical data to study s research questions and ultimately to its conclusions (Yin, 2003). This paper describes how the research design is developed in order to achieve these research objectives. Firstly, the theoretical perspective for the development of research strategy is established. In this, a critical review of typology of major social paradigms is carried out in order to identify the appropriate philosophical position of the research. Consequently, within the Naturalistic approach, the Constructivist paradigm is selected instead of the dominant Positivist or Post-positivist paradigm or Critical theory et al as the principal paradigm to be adopted. This philosophical position is mainly guided by the works of Lincoln and Guba (1985), Guba and Lincoln (1989, 1994), and Denzin and Lincoln (1994). Once the ontological and epistemological positions have been established, the focus of the paper shifts to the research methodology that is required for addressing the research questions and the answers to be found for them. It observes how the selection of methodology has been constrained by the already considered ontological and epistemological positions. Finally, Naturalistic inquiry paradigm is selected for formulating the overall methodology and inquiry strategy. 2. Establishing Methodological Position Denzin and Lincoln (1994) defined a paradigm as a basic set of beliefs that guide action. Paradigms deal with first principles, or ultimates. These beliefs can never be established in terms of their ultimate truthfulness. Each paradigm encompasses three elements, namely ontology, epistemology and methodology; Ontology raises questions about the nature of reality while epistemology asks how do we know the world ; Methodology concerns on how we gain knowledge within the context of the selected nature of reality (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). 2.1 Basic Paradigms Guba and Lincoln (1994) conceptualized four basic paradigms as belief systems based on the philosophical assumptions of ontology and epistemology to see the world and how it should be studied and understood. These basic paradigms are identified as Positivism, Post-positivism, Critical Theory et al, and Constructivism. With regard to Ontological position, Positivism is commonly called naive realism, whereas Post-positivism is identified as critical realism (reality is assumed to exist, but to be only imperfectly apprehendable because of basically flawed human intellectual mechanisms and fundamentally intractable nature of phenomena). Critical Theory et al are treated as historical realism. On the other hand, Constructivism is based on relativism, that is when realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental constructions, socially and experiential constructions are not more or less true, in any absolute sense, but simply more or less informed and/ or sophisticated. Constructions are alterable, as are their associated realities. Thus, Constructivism differentiates from other three

3 paradigms as it is guided by relativism while the others are by various forms of realism. In Epistemological analysis, Positivism, which is a dualist and objectivist approach, assumes the investigator and investigated object are to be detached, independent entities, and the investigator to be capable of studying the object without influencing it or being influenced by it. Inquiry takes place as through a one-way mirror. Replicable findings are, in fact, true. In Post-positivism approach, though dualism is largely abandoned, objectivity remains a regulatory ideal. Replicated findings are probably true but always subject to falsification. Constructivism and Critical Theory et al have transactional and subjectivist approach and assume that the investigator and investigated object are to be interactively linked, with the values of the investigator (and of situated others ) inevitably influencing the inquiry. Findings are therefore value mediated. In this posture the traditional distinction between ontology and epistemology is challenged. What can be known is inextricably intertwined with the interaction between a particular investigator and a particular object or group. Accordingly, Constructivism and Critical Theory et al are different from other two paradigms in their approach to the subjectivist - objectivist dichotomy. In Methodological analysis, Positivism takes an experimental and manipulative approach with carefully controlled (manipulated) conditions to prevent outcomes from being improperly influenced. This methodology thus focuses on verification of hypotheses and uses chiefly quantitative methods. Post-positivism emphasizes on and has mainly invested in critical multiplism (a refurbished version of triangulation) focusing on falsification (rather than verifying) of hypotheses. In Critical Theory et al the transactional nature of inquiry requires a dialogue between the investigator and the subject of inquiry. That dialogue must be dialectical in nature to transform ignorance and misapprehensions (accepting historically mediated structures as immutable) into more informed consciousness. This methodology aimed at the reconstruction of previously held constructions. As for Constructivism the variable and personal (intra-mental) nature of social constructions suggest that individual constructions can be elicited and refined only through interaction between and among investigator and respondents. These varying constructions are interpreted using conventional hermeneutical techniques and are compared and contrasted through a dialectical interchange. The final aim is to distill a consensus construction that is more informed and sophisticated than any of the predecessor construction. Except for that, this also aims at the reconstruction of previously held constructions, similar to Critical Theory paradigm. 2.2 Selecting the Paradigm The above paradigms, as sets of basic beliefs, are not open to proof in any conventional sense and there is no way to elevate one over another on the basis of ultimate, foundational criteria. Guba and Lincoln (1994) argued that any given paradigm represents simply the most informed and sophisticated view that its proponents have been able to devise, given the way they have chosen to respond to the three defining questions appear below: (i) Ontological question What s the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? If a real world is assumed then what can be known about it is how things really are and how things really

4 work. Then only those questions that relate to matters of real existence and real action are admissible. (ii) Epistemological question: What is the nature of the relationship between the knower or would be knower and what can be known? (The answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answer already given to the ontological question; for example, if a real reality is assumed as to ontology, then the posture of the knower must be one of objective detachment or value freedom in order to be able to discover how things really are and how things really work ). (iii) Methodological question: The question here is how can the inquirer (knower) go about finding out whatever he believes can be known? Again the answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answers already given to the first two questions; that is, not just any method is appropriate. For example, a real reality pursued by an objective inquirer mandates control of possible confounding factors, whether the methods are qualitative or quantitative. In the selection of the appropriate paradigm for the research, the following philosophical assumptions provide answers to the said three defining questions: Ontological assumptions The question here is what s the form and nature of reality and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? The answer to this can be found in the following considerations. Central to successful resolution of delay based claims is the fair and equitable apportioning of parties liabilities. Therefore, parties primarily desire that the apportioning of liabilities is carried out fairly and equitably. However, whether these aspirations of parties are met or not will largely depend on how the apportioning of liabilities is carried out by the practitioners on both sides. The perception of fair and equitable apportioning of liabilities is mainly constructed by those practitioners tacit and explicit knowledge of the applicable contract and case law, approaches, notions of fairness and equity, and also choice of analysis methods to be used. The concepts of knowledge, approaches, recognition and implementation of appropriate law and analysis methods, notions of fairness and equity etc. are identified as constructed realities rather than objective realities (realism). These are conceived as constructed in mind though they are intrinsically related to tangible entities such as delay-events and similar phenomena. Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued: Events, persons, objects are indeed tangible entities. The meanings and wholeness derived from or ascribed to these tangible phenomena in order to make sense of them, organize them, or recognize a belief system, however, are constructed realities. Thus, they are not created as pure objective phenomena; they are related to human cognition rather than to a physical object. They are constructed notions, and in turn resident in the minds of individuals. They do not exist outside of the persons who create and hold them; they are not part of some objective world that exists apart from their constructors (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Accordingly, how the apportionment of liabilities in delay claims is practiced, and what problematic situations are deriving from such practices can be perceived only through the individual practitioners subjective experience, tacit or explicit awareness, and interpretation of what they have implemented in practice. Crotty (1998) suggested that their meaning is not discovered, but constructed. As this

5 obtained perception is built around individual cognition, its existence or being is primarily idealist and relative. Therefore, in terms of ontology they can be perceived as constructed realities (Constructivism, Relativism) only and not through Positivist (naive realism) or Post-positivist (Critical realism) or Critical Theory (Historical realism) approach. Guba and Lincoln (1994) identified ontology with local and specific constructed realities under Relativism-Constructivism paradigm of inquiry. It is suggested that the Constructivist philosophy is pluralist and relativist; they are multiple and often conflicting and potentially meaningful (Guba and Lincoln, 1985). In this instance, the research setting is found to be situated within the specific and localized circumstances of the practices as they are situated in the UAE, in Dubai; also the research inquiry intends to capture information from multiple approaches and methods of practitioners who may construct meaning in different ways even for the same occurrence (Pluralism); each of these approaches and methods, though they can be divergent and mutually conflicting, may still be meaningful as fair and equitable under different circumstances, providing they are implemented aptly and pertinently (Relativism), for example a delay analysis technique which is not consistent with the terms of one particular contract may be consistent with those of another contract. In the current research, these multiple constructed realities can be studied holistically only. Therefore, using a design that assumes a single, identifiable, isolated, and measurable treatment to deal with them would be less appropriate. Inquiry into such multiple realities will inevitably be divergent, comprehensive, variable, and dynamic so that prediction and control are unlikely outcomes although some level of understanding can be achieved. In view of the foregoing considerations, Constructivist Relativism (Naturalist paradigm) is vindicated over Positivist or Post-positivist Realism or Critical Theory as the approach to the nature of reality (ontology) in the current research settings Epistemological assumptions The question here is what s the nature of the relationship between the knower (inquirer) and what can be known? The answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answer already given to the ontological question. That is not just any relationship can now be postulated (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Patton (2002) argued that in practice human interventions are often quite comprehensive, variable, and dynamic, and this creates considerable difficulty for controlled experimental designs that need specifiable, unchanging treatments to relate specifiable predetermined outcomes. Thus, it is suggested that under realworld conditions where programs are subject to change and redirection, Naturalistic inquiry replaces the fixed treatment /outcome emphasis of the controlled experiment (Positivist approach). The propositions in the current research settings can hardly be converted into precise mathematical formula expressing functional relationships. Therefore, Positivist or Post-positivist inquiry which is used to verify or falsify a priori hypotheses through mathematical relationships is less appropriate paradigm for the current research. Human behaviour, unlike that of physical objects, cannot be understood without reference to the meanings and purpose attached by human actors to their activities. Qualitative data, it is asserted, can provide rich insight into

6 human behavior (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). In the current research settings, the human factor is dominant which is informed by the practitioners (respondents) and their activities. That can be understood only through non-mathematical paradigms like naturalist inquiry. In the current research the thing that can be known is firstly the manner that the contemporary practices in local industry deal with the apportionment of liabilities. This is to be known primarily in order to perceive the problematic situation which is the next thing that can be known. Thereafter, in order to know the necessary improvements required for the existing practices, the views of the practitioners who experience the problematic situation are to be captured by the researcher (knower). This knowledge can be captured only through the interaction between the researcher and the respondent practitioners. For that, the knower and the object to be known have to be interactively linked. Thus, the inquiry process cannot be routed through a one-way mirror. Therefore, any approach to treat this as a relationship between detached, independent entities (Positivism) is simply inappropriate. In view of the foregoing considerations, it can be concluded that what is required is a Naturalistic approach to the relationship of knower to the known (Epistemology) rather than a Positivist approach in the research Methodological assumptions The question here is how can the inquirer (knower) go about finding out whatever he believes can be known? Again the answer that can be given to this question is constrained by the answers already given to the first two questions; that is, not just any method is appropriate. The methodological question cannot be reduced to a question of methods; methods must be fitted to a predetermined methodology (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggested that, if the researcher takes an objectivist standpoint to reckon the social world as a hard and objective reality existing outside to the individual cognition (Realism) then his method of inquiry of research would be seeking to explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for regularities and causal relationships between its constituent elements (Positivism); he will treat human beings as product of their environment (Determinism) and his research methodology would be aiming to search for universal laws which explain and govern the reality that is being observed (Nomothetic methodology). However, as we discussed above, the philosophical position applicable to the current research takes a subjectivist standpoint to reckon the social world. It does not reckon a hard and objective reality existing outside to the individual cognition; nor does it assume that there is one objective reality experienced the same way by everyone. Instead, it considers the reality involved is multiple realism and is constructed by participants differently. As Robson (2002) suggests with reference to Constructivism, here the reality is socially constructed. These varying constructed realities are to be compared through dialectical interchange in order to distill a consensus construction that is more informed and sophisticated than any of the predecessor construction. This requires a method of inquiry of research that would focus on different issues in different ways to understand from the inside rather than the outside (Anti-positivism); it will treat human beings as possessing free will to act voluntarily (Voluntarism). Thus, a methodology that focuses on verification or falsification of hypotheses (Positivism, Post-positivism) mainly engaging quantitative methods would not be appropriate in such research setting

7 Accordingly, similar to the ontological and epistemological assumptions, it can be concluded that a Naturalistic approach is appropriate to inquire and know in this investigation rather than a Positivist approach in the research inquiry process Inquiry Strategy Method of Inquiry and Trustworthiness Having established the philosophical position above for methodology, it requires developing the specific inquiry strategy. For this, Naturalistic inquiry paradigm is selected on similar philosophical position and beliefs as Constructivist Relativism and Interpretive paradigm. [It is noted that Constructivism is identified as one of many Interpretive paradigms (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Therefore, it may be suggested that the research s philosophical position is consistent with the interpretive paradigm as well]. Accordingly, in determining the specific inquiry strategy for the current research the methodological considerations presented by Naturalistic inquiry paradigm are regarded for necessary guidance. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that major and sometimes only data collection instrument utilized in Naturalistic inquiry is the inquirer him-or herself, and the sources that instrument utilizes may be both human and non-human. As to the human sources they are tapped by interviews (structured and /or unstructured) and observations, while non-human sources include documents and records, as well as the unobtrusive informational residue (conventionally called unobtrusive measures ) left behind by humans in their everyday activities that provides useful insights about them. In accord with Naturalistic inquiry paradigm, as for method of inquiry, several of qualitative methods are selected for collecting and analyzing empirical data. From the five approaches suggested by Cresswell (2007), phenomenological study and case study are identified in terms of the primary focus of the study and within qualitative approach. As with phenomenological study the focus is on understanding the essence of experiences about a phenomenon or a concept while case study has focus on developing an in-depth analysis of single or multiple cases. The required information is captured through the practitioners perceptions, experience and application of fairness and equity in the apportioning liabilities in delay claims. Accordingly, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, discussions, observations, analysis of pre-existing texts are selected as the principal methods for collecting and analysing data. Miles and Huberman (1994) proposed a series of approaches in the form of questions for assessing goodness of qualitative work. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested four basic questions based on truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality which must be addressed in the validity of any research inquiry. They also argued that those conventional criteria of internal and external validity, reliability, objectivity etc. used in Positivist approach are inappropriate for the Naturalistic inquiry approach. Instead they suggested credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability as more appropriate alternative criteria together with techniques such as triangulation, peer debriefing, discrepant evidence, thick description and audit trail. These approaches will form the evaluative criteria for trustworthiness of the research findings and whether the study is persuasive and believable

8 3. Summary and Further Research Considerations of ontological and epistemological positions have shown that the Constructivist Relativism is vindicated over Positivist or Post-positivist Realism or Critical Theory et al as the paradigm required in the current research settings. On the other hand, these considerations also constrain the approach to be taken as to methodological position for research inquiry. Thus, a Naturalistic inquiry approach is selected rather than a Positivist approach for the inquiry strategy and process. Selection of naturalist inquiry paradigm entails engaging variety of qualitative methods in the development of the research. Using such qualitative methods, the research is now to proceed to the next stage of collecting and analysing the empirical data which have to be captured through phenomenological and case studies. 4. References Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann. Creswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2 nd edition), Sage Publication, London. Crotty, M. (1998), The Foundation of Social Research, Sage Publication, London. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publication, London. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994), Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publication, London. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, CA:Sage. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publication, London. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded Source Book (2 nd edition), Sage Publication, London. Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 rd edition), Sage Publication, London. Robson, C. (2002), Real world Research (2 nd edition), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3 rd edition), Sage Publication, London