Research Methodology through Onion

Introduction
Research Philosophy and assumptions, Research Approach, Methodological Choice, Research
Strategy, Time Horizon, unit of analysis, Target Population, Sample size and technique, Data
collection procedure (Pilot Study), Ethical Considerations, Measures, Control Variables

The research onion was developed by Saunders et al. (2007). It illustrates the stages that
must be covered when developing a research strategy. When viewed from the outside,
each layer of the onion describes a more detailed stage of the research process
(Saunders et al., 2007).

The research onion provides an effective progression through which a research

methodology can be designed. Its usefulness lies in its adaptability for almost any type
of research methodology and can be used in a variety of contexts (Bryman, 2012). This
essay will examine and describe the different stages of the research onion, and explain
the concepts at each stage.
1.1: Understanding the Research Process

The research onion was developed by Saunders et al. (2007) in order to describe the
stages through which the researcher must pass when formulating an effective
methodology. First, the research philosophy requires definition. This creates the starting
point for the appropriate research approach, which is adopted in the second step. In the
third step, the research strategy is adopted, and the fourth layer identifies the time
horizon. The fifth step represents the stage at which the data collection methodology is
identified. The benefits of the research onion are thus that it creates a series of stages
under which the different methods of data collection can be understood, and illustrates
the steps by which a methodological study can be described.

Figure 1: The Research Onion

1.2: Research Assumptions and Philosophy

The first and topmost layer of the research onion has to do with a set of beliefs related
to the nature of reality being investigated, and is often studied in the context of
Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology. You should explore it carefully as selection of
a philosophical stance would influence data collection and data analysis going forward.
Let us briefly understand what epistemology and ontology mean and consist of.

A research philosophy refers to the set of beliefs concerning the nature of the reality
being investigated (Bryman, 2012). It is the underlying definition of the nature of
knowledge. The assumptions created by a research philosophy provide the justification
for how the research will be undertaken (Flick, 2011). Research philosophies can differ
on the goals of research and on the best way that might be used to achieve these goals
(Goddard & Melville, 2004). These are not necessarily at odds with each other, but the
choice of research philosophy is defined by the type of knowledge being investigated in
the research project (May, 2011). Therefore, understanding the research philosophy
being used can help explain the assumptions inherent in the research process and how
this fits the methodology being used.

Epistemology – This branch of philosophy is concerned with the question of what is (or
should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline and how we can obtain it.
It basically answers the questions beginning with ‘how’ and ‘what’. Perception,
sensation, intuition, reason and even faith are considered as means to knowledge as per
Epistemology.

In order to understand it better, let us look at positivism, critical realism and

interpretivism (the three philosophical stances that are often linked to Epistemology).

Positivism – This position is based on the idea that scientific knowledge is the true or
acceptable knowledge of the world and is characterized by the testing of the
hypotheses (or research questions) derived from the existing theory of knowledge. The
body of research generated by this philosophical stance is something that can be
replicated by other researchers with same or very similar quantifiable results arising
from statistical analysis. ---

Realism – The philosophy of realism questions reliability of the scientific knowledge and
maintains that all theories can be revised and more reliable results can be obtained
through continual research and application of new methods of research. Hence, new
research methods contribute to the acceptable knowledge in this case.

Interpretivism – interpretivism incorporates human interest into a research study and

recognizes differences between people. Unlike positivism and realism, an interpretive
philosophy emphasizes the use of qualitative analysis over quantitative or statistical
analysis to obtain the results. The interpretivist researcher is often seen playing an
important role in making sense of and interpreting the collected data. Therefore, it
would not be wrong to say that.

Ontology – This branch of metaphysics (philosophy related to the overall nature of

what things are) is concerned with the study of reality or things that exhibit reality. It
answers the question ‘what is’. Physical objects, minds, events, properties, values and
abstract entities such as numbers and sets could all be said to be representing the
ontology (or inventory) of the world. In order to get further insight into Ontology, let us
take a look at objectivism, constructivism and pragmatism that constitute it:

Objectivism – This philosophy is derived from the idea that human knowledge and
values are objective and are determined by the nature of reality. They are not created by
the thoughts which one (i.e. social actor) has. For instance, if it is raining, it is for real and
would, therefore, be acknowledged by every living creature. Such reality is not
dependent on the thoughts of any specific social actor. Rather, it influences them. In
your research, you may, for example, talk about how a specific law (a real phenomenon)
passed by the government is impacting a group of people (social actors).

Constructivism – This philosophical stance focuses on how bodies of knowledge come to

be and how ideas are constructed by human interactions and decisions. Contrary to
what we saw in case of objectivism, constructivism maintains that reality is dependent
on or is constructed by social actors. For example, a new law (reality) passed by the
government may be the outcome of the behavior of a group of people (social actors)
which the law has now impact on.

Pragmatism – This philosophical standpoint centers on the linking of theory and

practice. It asserts that both objectivism and constructivism are practical and valid ways
to approach any research, and they both could be comfortably used to find solutions to
problems.

Axiology - Axiology allows the researcher to understand and recognise the role their
values and opinion play in the collection and analysis of the research as opposed to
eliminating or trying to balance the influence of it. For example, if the researcher is a
vegetarian and they are researching the availability and range of vegetarian food in
hotels this must be declared in their research. How this shapes your investigation of the
issue and how you analyse the results will need to be detailed and analysed in different
ways according to the approach you choose.

Links Wiki about axiology: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/axiology

1.3: Research Approaches

Three types of approaches are outlined here: the deductive, abductive approach and the
inductive approach.

1.3.1: Deductive Approach

The deductive approach develops the hypothesis or hypotheses upon a pre-existing

theory and then formulates the research approach to test it (Silverman, 2013). This
approach is best suited to contexts where the research project is concerned with
examining whether the observed phenomena fit with expectation based upon previous
research (Wiles et al., 2011). The deductive approach thus might be considered
particularly suited to the positivist approach, which permits the formulation of
hypotheses and the statistical testing of expected results to an accepted level of
probability (Snieder & Larner, 2009). However, a deductive approach may also be used
with qualitative research techniques, though in such cases the expectations formed by
pre-existing research would be formulated differently than through hypothesis testing
(Saunders et al., 2007). The deductive approach is characterised as the development
from general to particular: the general theory and knowledge base is first established
and the specific knowledge gained from the research process is then tested against it
(Kothari, 2004).

1.3.2: Inductive Approach

The inductive approach is characterised as a move from the specific to the general
(Bryman & Bell, 2011). In this approach, the observations are the starting point for the
researcher, and patterns are looked for in the data (Beiske, 2007). In this approach, there
is no framework that initially informs the data collection and the research focus can thus
be formed after the data has been collected (Flick, 2011). Although this may be seen as
the point at which new theories are generated, it is also true that as the data is analysed
that it may be found to fit into an existing theory(Bryman & Bell, 2011).

This method is more commonly used in qualitative research, where the absence of a
theory informing the research process may be of benefit by reducing the potential for
researcher bias in the data collection stage (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Interviews are carried
out concerning specific phenomena and then the data may be examined for patterns
between respondents (Flick, 2011). However, this approach may also be used effectively
within positivist methodologies, where the data is analysed first and significant patterns
are used to inform the generation of results.
1.3.3 Combination of approaches – Abduction

However, there is a third choice of approach. Abductive reasoning also referred to as

‘abductive approach’, is set to address weaknesses associated with both deductive and
inductive approaches (see 3. Literature Review below). Abductive reasoning, follows a
pragmatist perspective, taking incomplete (or ‘messy’) observations from experience and
reality that may then lead to a best prediction of the truth, and perhaps even to a new
theory. At the same time, it has to be clarified that abductive reasoning is similar to
deductive and inductive approaches in so far as it is applied to make logical inferences
and construct theories. With the abductive approach, the research process starts with
‘surprising facts’ or ‘puzzles’ and is then devoted to their explanation (Kovács & Spens,
2005). A researcher may encounter an empirical phenomenon that cannot be explained
by the existing range of theories. The researcher then seeks to choose the ‘best’ answer
from among many alternatives in order to explain the ‘surprising facts’ or ‘puzzles’
identified at the start of the research process. Both numerical and cognitive reasoning
may be combined.

1.3.4: The Quantitative Approach

As the name suggests, this approach is concerned with quantitative data (Flick, 2011). It
holds a number of accepted statistical standards for the validity of the approach, such as
the number of respondents that are required to establish a statistically significant result
(Goddard & Melville, 2004).

Although this research approach is informed by a positivist philosophy, it can be used to

investigate a wide range of social phenomena, including feelings and subjective
viewpoints. The quantitative approach can be most effectively used for situations where
there are a large number of respondents available, where the data can be effectively
measured using quantitative techniques, and where statistical methods of analysis can
be used (May, 2011).

1.3.5: The Qualitative Approach

The qualitative approach is drawn from the constructivist paradigm (Bryman & Allen,
2011). This approach requires the researcher to avoid imposing their own perception of
the meaning of social phenomena upon the respondent (Banister et al., 2011). The aim is
to investigate how the respondent interprets their own reality (Bryman & Allen, 2011).
This presents the challenge of creating a methodology that is framed by the respondent
rather than by the researcher. An effective means by which to do this is through
interviews, or texts, where the response to a question can be open (Feilzer, 2010).

Furthermore, the researcher can develop the questions throughout the process in order
to ensure that the respondent further expands upon the information provided.
Qualitative research is usually used for examining the meaning of social phenomena,
rather than seeking a causative relationship between established variables (Feilzer,
2010).

1.4: Research Strategy

The research strategy is how the researcher intends to carry out the work (Saunders et
al., 2007). The strategy can include a number of different approaches, such as
experimental research, action research, case study research, interviews, surveys, or a
systematic literature review.

Experimental research refers to the strategy of creating a research process that examines
the results of an experiment against the expected results (Saunders et al., 2007). It can
be used in all areas of research, and usually involves the consideration of a relatively
limited number of factors (Saunders et al., 2007). The relationship between the factors
are examined, and judged against the expectation of the research outcomes.

Action research is characterised as a practical approach to a specific research problem

within a community of practice (Bryman, 2012). It involves examining practice to
establish that it corresponds to the best approach. It tends to involve reflective practice,
which is a systematic process by which the professional practice and experience of the
practitioners can be assessed. This form of research is common in professions such as
teaching or nursing, where the practitioner can assess ways in which they can improve
their professional approach and understanding (Wiles et al., 2011).
Case study research is the assessment of a single unit in order to establish its key
features and draw generalisations (Bryman, 2012). It can offer an insight into the specific
nature of any example, and can establish the importance of culture and context in
differences between cases (Silverman, 2013). This form of research is effective in
financial research, such as comparing the experiences of two companies, or comparing
the effect of investment in difference contexts.

Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that draws on an inductive approach

whereby patterns are derived from the data as a precondition for the study (May, 2011).
For example, interview data may be transcribed, coded and then grouped accordingly to
the common factors exhibited between respondents. This means that the results of the
research are derived fundamentally from the research that has been completed, rather
than where the data is examined to establish whether it fits with pre-existing
frameworks (Flick, 2011). Its use is common in the social sciences (Bryman, 2012).

Surveys tend to be used in quantitative research projects, and involve sampling a

representative proportion of the population (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The surveys produce
quantitative data that can be analysed empirically. Surveys are most commonly used to
examine causative variables between different types of data.

Ethnography involves the close observation of people, examining their cultural

interaction and their meaning (Bryman, 2012). In this research process, the observer
conducts the research from the perspective of the people being observed, and aims to
understand the differences of meaning and importance or behaviours from their
perspective.

An archival research strategy is one where the research is conducted from existing
materials (Flick, 2011). The form of research may involve a systematic literature review,
where patterns of existing research are examined and summed up in order to establish
the sum of knowledge on a particular study, or to examine the application of existing
research to specific problems. Archival research may also refer to historical research,
where a body of source material is mined in order to establish results.

1.5: Choices

The choices outlined in the research onion include the mono method, the mixed
method, and the multi-method (Saunders et al., 2007). As the names of these
approaches suggest, the mono-method involves using one research approach for the
study. The mixed-methods required the use of two or more methods of research, and
usually refer to the use of both a qualitative and a quantitative methodology. In the
multi-method, a wider selection of methods is used (Bryman, 2012). The main difference
between the mixed and the multi-method is that the mixed-method involves a
combined methodology that creates a single dataset (Flick, 2011). The multi-method
approach is where the research is divided into separate segments, with each producing
a specific dataset; each is then analysed using techniques derived from quantitative or
qualitative methodologies (Feilzer, 2010).

1.6: Time Horizons

The Time Horizon is the time framework within which the project is intended for
completion (Saunders et al., 2007). Two types of time horizons are specified within the
research onion: the cross sectional and the longitudinal (Bryman, 2012). The cross
sectional time horizon is one already established, whereby the data must be collected.
This is dubbed the ‘snapshot time collection, where the data is collected at a certain
point (Flick, 2011). This is used when the investigation is concerned with the study of a
particular phenomenon at a specific time. A longitudinal time horizon for data collection
refers to the collection of data repeatedly over an extended period, and is used where
an important factor for the research is examining change over time (Goddard & Melville,
2004). This has the benefit of being used to study change and development.
Furthermore, it allows the establishment of some control over the variables being
studied. The time horizon selected is not dependent on a specific research approach or
methodology (Saunders et al., 2007).

1.7: Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection and analysis is dependent on the methodological approach used

(Bryman, 2012). The process used at this stage of the research contributes significantly
to the studys overall reliability and validity (Saunders et al., 2007). Regardless of the
approach used in the project, the type of data collected can be separated into two
types: primary and secondary.

1.7.1: The Primary Data

Primary data is that which is derived from first-hand sources. This can be historical first-
hand sources, or the data derived from the respondents in survey or interview data
(Bryman, 2012). However, it is not necessarily data that has been produced by the
research being undertaken. For example, data derived from statistical collections such as
the census can constitute primary data. Likewise, data that is derived from other
researchers may also be used as primary data, or it may be represented by a text being
analysed (Flick, 2011). The primary data is therefore best understood as the data that is
being analysed as itself, rather than through the prism of anothers analysis.
1.7.2: Secondary Data

Secondary data is that which is derived from the work or opinions of other researchers
(Newman, 1998). For example, the conclusions of a research article can constitute
secondary data because it is information that has already been processed by another.
Likewise, analyses conducted on statistical surveys can constitute secondary data
(Kothari, 2004). However, there is an extent to which the data is defined by its use, rather
than its inherent nature (Flick, 2011). Newspapers may prove both a primary and
secondary source for data, depending on whether the reporter was actually present. For
a study of social attitudes in the Eighteenth Century, or for a study of the causes of fear
of crime in present day UK, newspapers may constitute primary data. Therefore, the
most effective distinction of the two types of data is perhaps established by the use to
which it is put in a study, rather than to an inherent characteristic of the data itself.

1.8: Research Design

The research design is the description of how the research process will be completed. It
is a framework which includes the considerations that led to the appropriate
methodology being adopted, the way in which the respondents were selected, and how
the data will be analysed (Flick, 2011). There are a number of different characteristic
research designs, namely the descriptive, explanatory, and the exploratory. The
descriptive research design relates to reflecting the experiences of respondents. It is
thus related closely to ethnographic studies, but a quantitative framework is also an
appropriate framework; for example, the demographic characteristics of a population
subgroup can be reported (Bryman, 2012). An explanatory research design is focused on
how to effectively explain the characteristics of a population or a social phenomenon
(Saunders et al., 2007). This may be seen as effective where using a quantitative
framework, where the influence of one variable on another can be established (Kothari,
2004). The exploratory study is an exploration of an issue that takes place before
enough is known to conduct a formulaic research project. It is usually used in order to
inform further research in the subject area (Neuman, 2003).

1.9: Samples

A sample is a representative segment of a larger population (Bryman, 2012). In

quantitative research, the sample size and how it is selected can be used to establish the
reliability of the results of the study. In qualitative research, the sample characteristics
are also important, but much smaller samples tend to be used.

1.9.1 Sample Size

The sample size represents the number of respondents selected from the overall
population that are used in the research (Newman, 1998). In quantitative research, the
size of the sample is essential in determining the reliability of the results of a study.
Sample sizes of much less than 30 will tend to produce results where individual
respondents may skew the results. In such cases, the larger the sample size the more
reliable will be the results (Flick, 2011). In qualitative research, the size of the sample is
less important, and the concept of representativeness is not as strong a guideline for the
validity of the research.

1.9.2: Sampling Techniques

Sampling techniques are the ways in which an appropriate sample size is selected for
the wider study (Bryman, 2012). There are a number of accepted techniques that can be
used. A random sample represents individuals within a larger population who are
chosen at random. However, this can result in random distribution, which can mean
significant skewing resulting from the random nature of sample selection (Neuman,
2003). For example, a random sample may result in more males than females being
represented in a sample, or an unequal distribution across ages. A stratified sample may
then be used to ensure that the representatives of the population in the sample reflect
the significant characteristics of the wider population, such as making sure that the
demographic characteristics of age and gender are reflected in the sample (Newman,
1998). A convenience sample is where the sample is taken from an existing framework,
such as an educational institution, given that the ways in which respondents may be
recruited is relatively straightforward. This may be appropriate if a study is concerned
with students views, and it proved convenient to sample just one educational institution;
it may be considered unlikely that significant variation in students characteristics will
occur between institutions or that those characteristics will have a significant effect on
the results of a study.

Conclusions
In this study, the different stages of the research onion were described. Given the
research onion comprises different stages of many research projects and can be
effectively adapted to different models, this report has necessarily been summative and
restricted in depth. However, the stages defined by Saunders et al. (2007) have been
expounded upon, and the usefulness of the staged development of the onion
demonstrated. The most effective model of its effectiveness, however, lies in its use.
References
Banister, P., Bunn, G., Burman, E., & Daniels, J. (2011). Qualitative Methods In Psychology:
A Research Guide. London: McGraw-Hill

International.

Beiske, B. (2007). Research Methods: Uses and limitations of questionnaires, interviews

and case studies, Munich: GRIN Verlag.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A., & Allen, T. (2011). Education Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods (3rd ed.) Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the
rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
4(1), pp.6-16.

Flick, U. (2011). Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a

research project. London: Sage.

Goddard, W. & Melville, S. (2004). Research Methodology: An Introduction, (2nd ed.)

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Gulati, P. M. (2009). Research Management: Fundamental and Applied Research, New

Delhi: Global India Productions.

Institut Numerique, (2012). Research

Methodology, http://www.institut-numerique.org/chapter-3-research-methodology-
4ffbd6e5e3391 [retrieved 3rd October, 2014].

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi: New

Age International.

May, T. (2011). Social research: Issues, methods and research. London: McGraw-Hill

International.

Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T. J., & DeJong, C. R. (2005). Applied Social Research: A Tool for
the Human Services, (6th ed.), London: Brooks Publishing.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, London: Allyn & Bacon.

Newman, I. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the

interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative
and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological
review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), pp. 369-383.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, pp.539-569.
Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3),
pp.260-271.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students,
(6th ed.) London: Pearson.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Snieder R. & Larner, K. (2009). The Art of Being a Scientist: A Guide for Graduate
Students and their Mentors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiles, R., Crow, G., & Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: a
narrative review. Qualitative Research, 11(5), pp.587-604.