the research onion model

Saunders’ Research Onion: Explained Simply

Peeling the onion, layer by layer (with examples).

By: David Phair (PhD) and Kerryn Warren (PhD) | January 2021

If you’re learning about research skills and methodologies, you may have heard the term “ research onion ”. Specifically, the research onion developed by Saunders et al in 2007 . But what exactly is this elusive onion? In this post, we’ll break Saunders’ research onion down into bite-sized chunks to make it a little more digestible.

Saunders’ (2007) Research Onion – What is it?

At the simplest level, Saunders’ research onion describes the different decisions you’ll need to make when developing a  research methodology   – whether that’s for your dissertation, thesis or any other formal research project. As you work from the outside of the onion inwards , you’ll face a range of choices that progress from high-level and philosophical to tactical and practical in nature. This also mimics the general structure for the methodology chapter .

While Saunders’ research onion is certainly not perfect, it’s a useful tool for thinking holistically about methodology. At a minimum, it helps you understand what decisions you need to make in terms of your research design and methodology.

The layers of Saunders’ research onion

The onion is made up of 6 layers, which you’ll need to peel back one at a time as you develop your research methodology:

• Research philosophy
• Research approach
• Research strategy
• Time horizon
• Techniques & procedures

Onion Layer 1: Research Philosophy

The very first layer of the onion is the research philosophy . But what does that mean? Well, the research philosophy is the foundation of any study as it describes the set of beliefs the research is built upon . Research philosophy can be described from either an  ontological  or  epistemological  point of view. “A what?!”, you ask?

In simple terms,  ontology  is the “what” and “how” of what we know – in other words, what is the nature of reality and what are we really able to know and understand. For example, does reality exist as a single objective thing, or is it different for each person? Think about the simulated reality in the film The Matrix.

Epistemology , on the other hand, is about “how” we can obtain knowledge and come to understand things – in other words, how can we figure out what reality is, and what the limits of this knowledge are. This is a gross oversimplification, but it’s a useful starting point (we’ll cover ontology and epistemology another post).

With that fluffy stuff out the way, let’s look at three of the main research philosophies that operate on different ontological and epistemological assumptions:

• Interpretivism

These certainly aren’t the only research philosophies, but they are very common and provide a good starting point for understanding the spectrum of philosophies.

Research Philosophy 1:  Positivism

Positivist research takes the view that knowledge exists outside of what’s being studied . In other words, what is being studied can only be done so objectively , and it cannot include opinions or personal viewpoints – the researcher doesn’t interpret, they only observe. Positivism states that there is only one reality  and that all meaning is consistent between subjects.

In the positivist’s view, knowledge can only be acquired through empirical research , which is based on measurement and observation. In other words, all knowledge is viewed as a posteriori knowledge – knowledge that is not reliant on human reasoning but instead is gained from research.

For the positivist, knowledge can only be true, false, or meaningless . Basically, if something is not found to be true or false, it no longer holds any ground and is thus dismissed.

Let’s look at an example, based on the question of whether God exists or not. Since positivism takes the stance that knowledge has to be empirically vigorous, the knowledge of whether God exists or not is irrelevant. This topic cannot be proven to be true or false, and thus this knowledge is seen as meaningless.

Kinda harsh, right? Well, that’s the one end of the spectrum – let’s look at the other end.

Research Philosophy 2: Interpretivism

On the other side of the spectrum, interpretivism emphasises the influence that social and cultural factors can have on an individual. This view focuses on  people’s thoughts and ideas , in light of the socio-cultural backdrop. With the interpretivist philosophy, the researcher plays an active role in the study, as it’s necessary to draw a holistic view of the participant and their actions, thoughts and meanings.

Let’s look at an example. If you were studying psychology, you may make use of a case study in your research which investigates an individual with a proposed diagnosis of schizophrenia. The interpretivist view would come into play here as social and cultural factors may influence the outcome of this diagnosis.

Through your research, you may find that the individual originates from India, where schizophrenic symptoms like hallucinations are viewed positively, as they are thought to indicate that the person is a spirit medium. This example illustrates an interpretivist approach since you, as a researcher, would make use of the patient’s point of view, as well as your own interpretation when assessing the case study.

Research Philosophy 3: Pragmatism

Pragmatism highlights the importance of using the best tools possible to investigate phenomena. The main aim of pragmatism is to approach research from a practical point of view , where knowledge is not fixed, but instead is constantly questioned and interpreted. For this reason, pragmatism consists of an element of researcher involvement and subjectivity, specifically when drawing conclusions based on participants’ responses and decisions. In other words, pragmatism is not committed to (or limited by) one specific philosophy.

Let’s look at an example in the form of the trolley problem, which is a set of ethical and psychological thought experiments. In these, participants have to decide on either killing one person to save multiple people or allowing multiple people to die to avoid killing one person. 

This experiment can be altered, including details such as the one person or the group of people being family members or loved ones. The fact that the experiment can be altered to suit the researcher’s needs is an example of pragmatism – in other words, the outcome of the person doing the thought experiment is more important than the philosophical ideas behind the experiment.

To recap, research philosophy is the foundation of any research project and reflects the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the researcher. So, when you’re designing your research methodology , the first thing you need to think about is which philosophy you’ll adopt, given the nature of your research.

Onion Layer 2: Research Approach

Let’s peel off another layer and take a look at the research approach . Your research approach is the broader method you’ll use for your research –  inductive  or  deductive . It’s important to clearly identify your research approach as it will inform the decisions you take in terms of data collection and analysis in your study (we’ll get to that layer soon).

Inductive approaches entail generating theories from research , rather than starting a project with a theory as a foundation.  Deductive approaches, on the other hand, begin with a theory and aim to build on it (or test it) through research.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at two examples:

An  inductive approach  could be used in the study of an otherwise unknown isolated community. There is very little knowledge about this community, and therefore, research would have to be conducted to gain information on the community, thus leading to the formation of theories.

On the other hand, a  deductive approach  would be taken when investigating changes in the physical properties of animals over time, as this would likely be rooted in the theory of evolution. In other words, the starting point is a well-established pre-existing body of research.

Closely linked to research approaches are  qualitative and  quantitative  research. Simply put, qualitative research focuses on textual , visual or audio-based data, while quantitative research focuses on numerical data. To learn more about qualitative and quantitative research, check out our dedicated post here .

What’s the relevance of qualitative and quantitative data to research approaches? Well, inductive approaches are usually used within qualitative research, while quantitative research tends to reflect a deductive approach, usually informed by positivist philosophy. The reason for using a deductive approach here is that quantitative research typically begins with theory as a foundation, where progress is made through hypothesis testing. In other words, a wider theory is applied to a particular context, event, or observation to see whether these fit in with the theory, as with our example of evolution above.

So, to recap, the two research approaches are  inductive  and  deductive . To decide on the right approach for your study, you need to assess the type of research you aim to conduct. Ask yourself whether your research will build on something that exists, or whether you’ll be investigating something that cannot necessarily be rooted in previous research. The former suggests a deductive approach while the latter suggests an inductive approach.

Need a helping hand?

Onion Layer 3: Research Strategy

So far, we’ve looked at pretty conceptual and intangible aspects of the onion. Now, it’s time to peel another layer off that onion and get a little more practical – introducing research strategy . This layer of the research onion details how, based on the aims of the study, research can be conducted. Note that outside of the onion, these strategies are referred to as research designs.

There are several strategies  you can take, so let’s have a look at some of them.

• Experimental research
• Action research
• Case study research
• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Archival research

Strategy 1: Experimental research

Experimental research involves manipulating one variable (the independent variable ) to observe a change in another variable (the dependent variable ) – in other words, to assess the relationship between variables. The purpose of experimental research is to support, refute or validate a  research hypothesis . This research strategy follows the principles of the  scientific method  and is conducted within a controlled environment or setting (for example, a laboratory).

Experimental research aims to test existing theories rather than create new ones, and as such, is deductive in nature. Experimental research aligns with the positivist research philosophy, as it assumes that knowledge can only be studied objectively and in isolation from external factors such as context or culture.

Let’s look at an example of experimental research. If you had a hypothesis that a certain brand of dog food can raise a dogs’ protein levels, you could make use of experimental research to compare the effects of the specific brand to a “regular” diet. In other words, you could test your hypothesis.

In this example, you would have two groups, where one group consists of dogs with no changes to their diet (this is called  the control group) and the other group consists of dogs being fed the specific brand that you aim to investigate (this is called the experimental/treatment group). You would then test your hypothesis by comparing the protein levels in both groups.

Strategy 2: Action research

Next, we have action research . The simplest way of describing action research is by saying that it involves learning through… wait for it… action. Action research is conducted in practical settings such as a classroom, a hospital, a workspace, etc – as opposed to controlled environments like a lab. Action research helps to inform researchers of problems or weaknesses related to interactions within the real-world . With action research, there’s a strong focus on the participants (the people involved in the issue being studied, which is why it’s sometimes referred to as “participant action research” or PAR.

An example of PAR is a community intervention (for therapy, farming, education, whatever). The researcher comes with an idea and it is implemented with the help of the community (i.e. the participants). The findings are then discussed with the community to see how to better the intervention. The process is repeated until the intervention works just right for the community. In this way, a practical solution is given to a problem and it is generated by the combination of researcher and community (participant) feedback.

This kind of research is generally applied in the social sciences , specifically in professions where individuals aim to improve on themselves and the work that they are doing. Action research is most commonly adopted in qualitative studies and is rarely seen in quantitative studies. This is because, as you can see in the above examples, action research makes use of language and interactions rather than statistics and numbers.

Strategy 3: Case study research

A case study is a detailed, in-depth study of a single subject – for example, a person, a group or an institution, or an event, phenomenon or issue. In this type of research, the subject is analysed to gain an in-depth understanding of issues in a real-life setting. The objective here is to gain an in-depth understanding within the context of the study – not (necessarily) to generalise the findings.

It is vital that, when conducting case study research, you take the social context and culture into account, which means that this type of research is (more often than not) qualitative in nature and tends to be inductive. Also, since the researcher’s assumptions and understanding play a role in case study research, it is typically informed by an interpretivist philosophy.

For example, a study on political views of a specific group of people needs to take into account the current political situation within a country and factors that could contribute towards participants taking a certain view.

Strategy 4: Grounded theory

Next up, grounded theory. Grounded theory is all about “letting the data speak for itself”. In other words, in grounded theory, you let the data inform the development of a new theory, model or framework. True to the name, the theory you develop is “ grounded ” in the data. Ground theory is therefore very useful for research into issues that are completely new or under-researched.

Grounded theory research is typically qualitative (although it can also use quantitative data) and takes an inductive approach. Typically, this form of research involves identifying commonalities between sets of data, and results are then drawn from completed research without the aim of fitting the findings in with a pre-existing theory or framework.

For example, if you were to study the mythology of an unknown culture through artefacts, you’d enter your research without any hypotheses or theories, and rather work from the knowledge you gain from your study to develop these.

Strategy 5: Ethnography

Ethnography involves observing people in their natural environments and drawing meaning from their cultural interactions. The objective with ethnography is to capture the subjective experiences of participants, to see the world through their eyes. Creswell (2013) says it best: “Ethnographers study the meaning of the behaviour, the language, and the interaction among members of the culture-sharing group.”

For example, if you were interested in studying interactions on a mental health discussion board, you could use ethnography to analyse interactions and draw an understanding of the participants’ subjective experiences.

For example, if you wanted to explore the behaviour, language, and beliefs of an isolated Amazonian tribe, ethnography could allow you to develop a complex, complete description of the social behaviours of the group by immersing yourself into the community, rather than just observing from the outside.  

Given the nature of ethnography, it generally reflects an interpretivist research philosophy and involves an inductive , qualitative research approach. However, there are exceptions to this – for example, quantitative ethnography as proposed by David Shafer.

Strategy 6: Archival research

Last but not least is archival research. An archival research strategy draws from materials that already exist, and meaning is then established through a review of this existing data. This method is particularly well-suited to historical research and can make use of materials such as manuscripts and records.

For example, if you were interested in people’s beliefs about so-called supernatural phenomena in the medieval period, you could consult manuscripts and records from the time, and use those as your core data set.

Onion Layer 4: Choices

The next layer of the research onion is simply called “choices” – they could have been a little more specific, right? In any case, this layer is simply about deciding how many data types (qualitative or quantitative) you’ll use in your research. There are three options – mono , mixed , and multi-method .

Let’s take a look at them.

Choosing to use a  mono method  means that you’ll only make use of one data type – either qualitative or quantitative. For example, if you were to conduct a study investigating a community’s opinions on a specific pizza restaurant, you could make use of a qualitative approach only, so that you can analyse participants’ views and opinions of the restaurant.

If you were to make use of both quantitative and qualitative data, you’d be taking a  mixed-methods approach. Keeping with the previous example, you may also want to assess how many people in a community eat specific types of pizza. For this, you could make use of a survey to collect quantitative data and then analyse the results statistically, producing quantitative results in addition to your qualitative ones.

Lastly, there’s  multi-method . With a multi-method approach, you’d make use of a wider range of approaches, with more than just a one quantitative and one qualitative approach. For example, if you conduct a study looking at archives from a specific culture, you could make use of two qualitative methods (such as thematic analysis and content analysis ), and then additionally make use of quantitative methods to analyse numerical data.

As with all the layers of the research onion, the right choice here depends on the nature of your research, as well as your research aims and objectives . There’s also the practical consideration of viability – in other words, what kind of data will you be able to access, given your constraints.

Onion Layer 5: Time horizon

What’s that far in the distance? It’s the time horizon. But what exactly is it? Thankfully, this one’s pretty straightforward. The time horizon simply describes how many points in time you plan to collect your data at . Two options exist – the  cross-sectional  and  longitudinal  time horizon.

Imagine that you’re wasting time on social media and think, “Ooh! I want to study the language of memes and how this language evolves over time”. For this study, you’d need to collect data over multiple points in time – perhaps over a few weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, you’d make use of a  longitudinal time horizon. This option is highly beneficial when studying changes and progressions over time.

If instead, you wanted to study the language used in memes at a certain point in time (for example, in 2020), you’d make use of a  cross-sectional  time horizon. This is where data is collected at one point in time, so you wouldn’t be gathering data to see how language changes, but rather what language exists at a snapshot point in time. The type of data collected could be qualitative, quantitative or a mix of both, as the focus is on the time of collection, not the data type.

As with all the other choices, the nature of your research and your research aims and objectives are the key determining factors when deciding on the time horizon. You’ll also need to consider practical constraints , such as the amount of time you have available to complete your research (especially in the case of a dissertation or thesis).

Onion Layer 6: Techniques and Procedures

Finally, we reach the centre of the onion – this is where you get down to the real practicalities of your research to make choices regarding specific techniques and procedures .

Specifically, this is where you’ll:

• Decide on what data you’ll collect and what data collection methods you’ll use (for example, will you use a survey? Or perhaps one-on-one interviews?)
• Decide how you’ll go about sampling the population (for example, snowball sampling, random sampling, convenience sampling, etc).
• Determine the type of data analysis you’ll use to answer your research questions (such as content analysis or a statistical analysis like correlation).
• Set up the materials you’ll be using for your study (such as writing up questions for a survey or interview)

What’s important to note here is that these techniques and procedures need to align with all the other layers of the research onion – i.e., research philosophy, research approaches, research strategy, choices, and time horizon.

For example, you if you’re adopting a deductive, quantitative research approach, it’s unlikely that you’ll use interviews to collect your data, as you’ll want high-volume, numerical data (which surveys are far better suited to). So, you need to ensure that the decisions at each layer of your onion align with the rest, and most importantly, that they align with your research aims and objectives.

Let’s Recap: Research Onion 101

The research onion details the many interrelated choices you’ll need to make when you’re crafting your research methodology. These include:

• Research philosophy – the set of beliefs your research is based on (positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism)
• Research approaches – the broader method you’ll use (inductive, deductive, qualitative and quantitative)
• Research strategies – how you’ll conduct the research (e.g., experimental, action, case study, etc.)
• Choices – how many methods you’ll use (mono method, mixed-method or multi-method)
• Time horizons – the number of points in time at which you’ll collect your data (cross-sectional or longitudinal)
• Techniques and procedures (data collection methods, data analysis techniques, sampling strategies, etc.)

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

59 Comments

This is good

Wow this was sooo helpful. I don’t feel so blank about my research anymore. With this information I can conquer my research. Going ‘write’ into it. Get it write not right hahahaha

I am doing research with Bolton University so i would like to empower myself.

Really thoughtful presentation and preparation. I learnt too much to teach my students in a very simple and understandable way

Very useful, thank you.

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your research!

thanks alot for your brief and brilliant notes

I am a Student at Malawi Institute of Management, pursuing a Masters’ degree in Business Administration. I find this to be very helpful

Extremely useful, well explained. Thank you so much

I would like to download this file… I can’t find the attachment file. Thanks

Thank you so much for explaining it in the most simple and precise manner!

Very thoughtful and well expained, thanks.

This is good for upgrade my research knowledge

I have enjoying your videos on YouTube, they are very educative and useful. I have learned a lot. Thanks

Thank you this has really helped me with writing my dissertation methodology !

Thanks so much for this piece. Just to be clear, which layer do interviews fit in?

well explained i found it to be very engaging. now i’m going to pass my research methods course. thank you.

Thank you so much this has really helped as I can’t get this insight from uni due to covid

well explained with more clarity!

this is an excellent piece i find it super helpful

Beautiful, thank you!

Beautiful and helpful. Thank you!

This is well done!

A complex but useful approach to research simplified! I would like to learn more from the team.

A very simplified version of a complex topic. I found it really helpful. I would like to know if this publication can be cited for academic research. Thank you

You’re welcome to cite this page, but it would be better to cite the original work of Saunders.

Thirteen odd years since my MSc in HRM & HRD at UoL. I’d like to say thank you for the effort to produce such an insightful discussion of a rather complex topic.

I am a PhD in Media Studies student. I found this enormously helpful when stringing together the methodology chapter, especially the research philosophy section.

Hello there. Thank you for summarising the work on the onion. A more recent version of the onion (Saunders et al., 2019) refers to ‘methodological choices’ rather than choices. This can be downloaded, along with the chapter dealing with research philosophies at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330760964_Research_Methods_for_Business_Students_Chapter_4_Understanding_research_philosophy_and_approaches_to_theory_development or https://www.academia.edu/42304065/Research_Methods_for_Business_Students_Chapter_4_Understanding_research_philosophy_and_approaches_to_theory_development_8th_edition

Thank you Mark Saunders. Your work is very insightful

Thank you for the update and additional reading Mark, very helpful indeed.

THROUGHLY AND SIMPLY BRIEFED TO MAKE SENSE AND A CLEAR INSIGHT. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

Thank you for the sharing the recent version of the Onion!

I want to keep it in my reference of my assignment. May I??

Great summary, thank you taking the time to put this together. I’m sure it’s been a big help to lots of people. It definitely was to me.

I love the analysis… some people do not recognize qualitative or quantitative as an approach but rather have inductive, abductive, and deductive.

This has been helpful in the understanding of research . Thank you for this valuable information.

Great summary. Well explained. Thank you, guys.

This makes my fears on methodology go away. I confidently look forward to working on my methodology now. Thank you so much I ma doing a PhD with UNIMA, School of Education

simple and clear

Simple guide to crafting a research methodology. Quite impactful. Thank you

Thank you for this, this makes things very clear. Now I’m off to conquer my research proposal. Thanks again.

Thank you for this very informative and valuable information. What would the best approach be to take if you are using secondary data to form a qualitative study and relying on industry reports and peer journals to distinguish what factors influence the use of say cryptocurrency ?

Thanks for providing the whole idea/knowledge in the simplest way with essential factors which made my entire research process more efficient as well as valuable.

what is about research design such as descriptive, causal-comparative, correlation, developmental where these fall in the research onion?

This is very helpful. Thank you for this wonderful piece. However, it would be nicer to have References to the knowledge provided here. My suggestion

This material is very important for researchers, particularly for PhD scholars to conduct further study.

This was insightful. Thank you for the knowledge.

Thank you for the wonderful knowledge !Easy to understand and grasp.

thanks very much very simple. will need a coach

Hi this is a great article giving much help to my research. I just wanted to mention here that the example where you mentioned that ” schizophrenic symptoms like hallucinations are viewed positively, as they are thought to indicate the person is a spirit medium” is completely false as those are different cases and a bit out of context here. We are medically and psychologically well versed and obviously understand the difference between the two. As much as I am grateful to this article I would like to suggest you to give proper examples.

Thank you very much, sincerely I appreciate your efforts, it is insightful information. Once again I’m grateful .

In short, a complete insight of and for writing research methodology.

This information was very helpful, I was having difficulties in writing my methodology now I can say I have the full knowledge to write a more informative research methodology.

Thank you so much for this amazing explanation. As a person who hasn’t ever done a research project, this video helped me to clear my doubts and approach my research in a clear and concise manner. Great work

very well explained , after going through this there is no need any material to study . a very concise and to the point.

I have one small query. If I choose mixed -methods (quantitative and qualitative techniques), Then, my research Philosophy will also change to both Positivists and Interpretivist. Isn’t?

well explained and thank you

Thanks for this presentation. Quite simple and easy to understand, and to teach others.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Essay Writing
• Dissertation Writing
• Assignment Writing
• Report Writing
• Literature Review
• Proposal Writing
• Poster and Presentation Writing Service
• PhD Writing Service
• Coursework Writing
• Tutoring Service
• Exam Notes Writing Service

Editing and Proofreading Service

Technical and Statistical Services

• Appeals and Re-Submissions

Personal Statement Writing Service

• Sample Dissertations
• Sample Essays
• Free Products

Understanding the Research Onion

The research onion model.

The research onion model was presented by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill in their book titled Research Methods for Business Students . This model aims to explain the different stages of writing a dissertation to help students create a better organised methodology. The below Research Onion model symbolically illustrates the ways in which different elements involved in the research could be examined to develop the final research design.

Layers of the Research Onion

The research onion consists of six main layers, which can be explained as:

It refers to the set of principles concerning the worldview or stance from which the research is conducted. It is usually studied in terms of ontology and epistemology. Here, ontology refers to the authenticity of the information and how one understands its existence, whereas epistemology refers to the valid information required for the research and how one can obtain it. Philosophical positions used in academic studies are often divided into positivism and interpretivism, where positivism assumes that knowledge is independent of the subject being studied, and interpretivism claims that individual observers have their own perception and understanding of reality. Hence positivist studies are often more scientific and result in testing phenomena, whereas interpretivist studies are often qualitative in nature.

Once the student has chosen the appropriate methodology, the research onion suggests that an appropriate research must be picked. The deductive approach starts with a specific hypothesis development based on the literature review that has been observed by the researcher, and gradually tries to test this hypothesis and check if it holds in particular contexts. In contrast, the inductive approach starts with observations that the researcher uses to create a new theory.

After this, the student is expected to devise the strategy of the study. The research onion suggests that strategies can include action research, experimental research, interviews, surveys, case study research or a systematic literature review. The strategy is chosen based on the data required for the research and the purpose of the study.

Choices of Methods

The research onion suggests mono-method, mixed method and multi-method as possible choices for conducting research. The mono-method comprises only one method for the study. The mixed method is based on the use of two or more methods of research and commonly refers to the use of qualitative and quantitative methodology. Finally, the multi-method uses a wider selection of methods.

Time Horizons

It refers to the time frame of the research. Generally, observations can be of two types based on time horizons, namely cross-sectional and longitudinal. The cross-sectional data is used when all observations are for a single point of time such as in most surveys. Longitudinal data, in contrast, implies the observations for a particular variable that are available for several years, quarters, months or days.

Data Collection and Analysis

This is the final layer of the research onion and consists of the techniques and procedures used. It is used to clearly explain the ways and purposes of the research conducted. At this stage, the student is expected to choose between the primary and secondary data and between qualitative and quantitative data collected from different sources. Data is considered the central piece in the research onion framework.

If you are struggling with choosing the right methods for your dissertation, feel free to use our methodology generator tool that uses elements of the research onion.

Monday - Friday:   9am - 6pm

Saturday: 10am - 6pm

Got Questions?

Email:  [email protected]

*We do NOT use AI (ChatGPT or similar), all orders are custom written by real people.

Our Services

Essay Writing Service

Assignment Writing Service

Coursework Writing Service

Report Writing Service

Reflective Report Writing Service

Literature Review Writing Service

Dissertation Proposal Writing Service

Dissertation Writing Service

MBA Writing Service

Understanding the Research Onion (Saunders et al., 2015)

• January 18, 2024

• Published: Jan. 18, 2024

This article provides a comprehensive guide to understanding and writing a compelling and effective research methodology chapter of your thesis/dissertation, focusing specifically on the research onion framework by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2016) .

Table of Contents

Introduction.

Research is an incredibly important tool for understanding and navigating through the world around us. It is defined as a systematic and structured process of gathering data, analyzing information, and drawing conclusions in order to answer research questions or address a specific problem. Research plays a crucial role in shaping policies, decision-making, validating existing ideas, and gaining insights into how the world operates (Sujatha, 2016)

However, conducting research is not an easy task. It often involves a continuous process of inquiry and response, leading to a multitude of questions such as: where do I start from? What research questions should I formulate? What research design or philosophy is best for my study? How do I select the suitable method for data collection/analysis? 

Recent statistics show that academic research demands rigorous commitment and resilience. A study by Styger Vuuren and Heymans (2014) revealed that, in South African universities , the dropout rates for Master’s degrees ranged from 30% to 67% , while for doctoral degrees, the rates were between 50% and 68% . Similarly, Bekova and Dzhafarova (2019) reported that the dropout rate for certain Ph.D. programs in Spain ranges 70% to 90% , while in Australia , it was approximately 30% , and around 50% in the USA . Even the most developed European countries face 40% to 50% dropout rate of engineering students during their first year, and the rate can be as high as 80% for some engineering disciplines (Sultana et al., 2017; Kabashi et al., 2022).

The high dropout rates for postgraduate students can be attributed to a multitude of factors, including individual, institutional, and sociodemographic considerations.

Individual-related factors such as mental health, regret, anxiety, and age have been identified as potential contributors to dropout intentions among postgraduate students (Peng et al., 2022; Nadeem & Palaniappan, 2021). Additionally, the demanding nature of postgraduate studies, inadequate research preparation, and insufficient institutional and financial support have been highlighted as intrinsic (student-related) and extrinsic (institutional-related) factors influencing dropout rates (Cobbing et al., 2017). Furthermore, gender disparities and educational equality have been associated with higher dropout rates among postgraduate female students compared to their male counterparts (Alabi et al., 2019). Socioeconomic factors, such as the cost of education and economic background, have also been recognized as influential in student dropout from postgraduate studies (Nadeem, Palaniappan & Haider, 2021).

Furthermore, institutional factors, such as inexperienced and overburdened supervisors, inadequate research preparation, and insufficient institutional and financial support, have also been recognized as contributors to the high dropout rates for postgraduate students (Cobbing et al., 2017; Styger et al., 2014). Furthermore, the lack of adequate computer literacy, typing skills, and effective internet usage among postgraduate students has been identified as a challenge, particularly in the context of coursework and research (Havenga & Sengane, 2018).

The lack of proper guidance or academic counseling is yet another factor that has been identified as a significant obstacle contributing to the dropout rates of postgraduate students (Schmidt & Umans, 2014; Deri, 2022). Without proper career guidance or academic counseling, students may find themselves in courses that do not align with their interests or career aspirations, leading to dissatisfaction, prolonged or non-completed  studies (Schmidt & Umans, 2014) and, eventually, dropout. Additionally, the lack of experience and competencies in academic writing has been cited as a barrier to progression for PhD students (Litalien & Guay, 2015).

However, despite the complexity and challenges of conducting research, it is important to highlight that there are many resources and tools available to help researchers navigate the process and write a compelling and effective research methodology chapter. One such resource is the research onion framework (Saunders et al., 2016), which provides a comprehensive structure for conducting research and effectively organizing the methodology chapter. The framework provides a roadmap to guide a researcher from the initial stage of a project to the finished product.

In this comprehensive article, we will delve deeper into the research onion framework and explore in detail how it can be effectively used to write a compelling research methodology chapter for your dissertation/thesis. We will also discuss some common misconceptions about research methods and how understanding the onion can help researchers avoid these errors.

1. Defining the Research Onion

The research onion is a concept that describes the stages of planning and designing a research project. It is a metaphorical model used in research methodology to illustrate the various layers or stages involved in the research process. It is based on the idea of layering, with each layer representing a different stage of the research process.

As the word suggests, this process is similar to peeling an onion; as you go deeper into your research project, you will see more layers that need to be peeled off before reaching the core of your data analysis. Each layer of the onion represents a different step in the process of conducting research, and each step builds upon the previous one. The main idea behind the research onion is that researchers need to understand how their decisions at each stage can affect the quality and validity of their findings.

The concept was first developed by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) to visualize the research process and the various stages researchers must go through to achieve a successful outcome. 

The research onion consists of six layers: (1) the research philosophy, (2) the research approach, (3) the research strategy, (4) the research choice, (5) the time horizon, and (6) the data sources. Each layer of the onion has a unique purpose and is fundamental to the success of a research project. The overall research will likely suffer if any of these layers is neglected. Therefore, researchers need to understand the research onion concept and how the layers interact with each other. This understanding can give them the confidence to accurately plan, design, and execute their research projects and ensure that the results are valid and reliable. 

2. The Research Onion's Layers

The diagram below shows the structure of the onion and how each layer provides a different perspective on the research process:

2.1. Research Philosophies

The first layer of the research onion is the research philosophy. This is the outermost layer and represents the researcher’s underlying philosophical beliefs and assumptions. Research philosophy is about how you view the world. It includes your beliefs about the nature of the truth you are investigating: WHAT is important, and WHY is it important?

As such, the researcher should be able to answer the following questions: what personal values do you bring to the topic? How will they influence your choice of methodologies and procedures? What impact might they have on the validity of your results? Bajpai (2011) suggested the research philosophy helps you decide what types of data to collect, how to collect it, and how to analyze it.

Academic studies frequently adopt four distinct philosophical orientations in research: positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and realism (Saunders et al., 2007; Žukauskas, Vveinhardt, & Andriukaitienė, 2018).

1.1. Positivism

Positivism is based on the assumption that the world is objective and that scientific methods are the best way to understand it. The advocates of positivism support the idea of objectivism. In other words, reality can be known objectively through systematic observation and measurement. From this viewpoint, researchers are considered objective observers who examine phenomena that are independent of them (Rehman and Alharthi, 2016). They use symbols and words to describe things as they exist without any interference (Rehman & Alharthi, 2016).

The positivist approach is fundamentally rooted in scientific methods, diligently attempting to explain the underlying causes and effects of various phenomena. It is particularly well-suited for quantitative studies, where researchers employ techniques such as surveys, experiments, and simulations to rigorously gather and analyze data (Holden & Lynch, 2004).

1.2. Interpretivism

Interpretivism focuses on understanding human behaviour by closely examining people’s experiences, interpretations, and perspectives (Bajpai, 2011). The advocates of positivism support the idea of subjectivism. They believe reality is subjective and there are no universal truths (Saunders et al., 2009). This means truth must be created and interpreted subjectively. Individuals must make sense of their own experiences to understand and interpret the world around them. Interpretivism often uses qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and observations to collect data (Bajpai, 2011).

1.3. Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes practicality or usefulness as the ultimate criterion for judging truth (Saunders et al., 2009). In other words, pragmatism is committed to using evidence and reason to determine what works best in the real world. It focuses on practical outcomes rather than abstract theories. Pragmatist researchers believe in the efficacy of using practical experience and empirical evidence to determine the truth or falsity of propositions.

The meaning of concepts or ideas cannot be ascertained apart from their use in the context of actual situations. Pragmatism is often contrasted with the epistemological perspective, which holds that knowledge can be derived from a source independent of experience. The following research methods are commonly associated with Pragmatism: empirical observation, experimentation, and survey research.

1.4. Realism

Realism is a philosophical position that believes that the world is fundamentally the same as it is in reality and that the only thing that really matters is what is real. Researchers who adhere to this view believe that there are facts out there that exist independently of human thought or perception. While our perceptions may influence what we observe, ultimately the real world exists outside of our experience or belief. As a result, science can provide us with knowledge about these objective realities (Bajpai, 2011).

Despite the inherent disparities among these philosophical approaches, it’s important to note that one isn’t inherently superior to the others. Instead, researchers may tend to gravitate towards a particular philosophy based on their preferences and the nature of their research (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

2.2. Research Approaches

The second layer of the research onion is the research approach. The onion suggests that a research approach must be selected once the appropriate methodology is chosen. 

According to Saunders et al (2015), there are two main approaches to research: inductive and deductive .

2.1. Inductive research

Inductive research is a type of inquiry that starts with specific observations or experiences and then generalizes them to form theories or hypotheses. The inductive approach is based on interpretivism (Temitope and Udayangani, 2015). This means that the researcher uses his or her personal experiences, observations, and knowledge to form theories that explain the phenomenon being studied. For this reason, inductive research is often considered a more qualitative approach than deductive research.

For example:  suppose you are interested in how people use social media to learn about products. In that case, you might start by collecting data through surveys or interviews, asking people about their experiences buying products online or offline and then draw conclusions based on those interviews. We can see here that the researcher goes from specific to general levels of focus.

As outlined by Bryman and Bell (2011), the inductive approach is predominantly employed in qualitative research. This is particularly advantageous because it obviates the necessity for a guiding theory, which, in turn, diminishes the likelihood of researcher bias during the data gathering phase.

Figure 2 below provides a visual representation of the procedural steps entailed in conducting research utilizing an inductive approach:

2.2. Deductive research

Deductive research starts with a hypothesis or theory that has been established by previous research and then seeks evidence to support or reject it. Here, the researcher goes from general principles to make predictions about what will happen in a specific situation. This approach is based on positivism, i.e. the researcher uses objective methods to gather data from many sources in order to make generalizations about human behavior.

2.3. Research Strategies

2.4. methodological choices, 2.5. time horizons, 2.6. data collection & analysis techniques, common mistakes to avoid.

Nephtali Tshitadi

Nephtali Tshitadi is a researcher and professional content writer with more than 5 years of experience. He holds a Masters's qualification (Mcom) in Finance, Honours Degree in Financial Management, and BCom in Economics.

Recent Posts

Happy new year 2024 to all our valued customers: a year of growth and success, when it’s all been said and done, what truly matters (part 4), nephsonic design.

Nephsonic Design is a dynamic service-based company that excels in delivering a wide spectrum of professional offerings. From expert writing services to innovative website design, captivating photography, and cutting-edge graphic design solutions, we are your comprehensive partner for all your creative and business needs.

Quick links

• Our Services
• Website Design

Writing Services

• Graphic Design
• Social Media Marketing
• Academic Writing
• Literature review
• Research proposal
• Company profile
• Business plan

Contact Info

• [email protected]
• +27 63 507 7611
• Johannesburg, South Africa
• Terms of use
• Privacy policy

Privacy Overview

Are you a master's / PhD student seeking professional guidance for your dissertation/thesis? See how we can assist you!

Blog 132-Research Onion: A Systematic Approach to Designing Research Methodology

• Google Plus

Developing a good research design is important while undertaking quality social science research, and in this blog Dr Mahesh BT illustrates the different stages in designing a research methodology using the Research Onion framework.

When I joined for my PhD, as many of you, I too was curious about research. Along with the curiosity came seriousness, but only after one of my mentors said: “Your thesis is your brainchild and indeed a reflection of you”. I am here now to share a few of the specifics that I learnt during my PhD journey. I will be discussing how to design and present a robust research methodology. Why do I find this concept very crucial? It is because these answers to research questions are valid and reliable – if they are answered through a systematic method(s). Often we find dissertations with a poorly explained research methodology chapter, which is required to be crystal clear in every step, so I was in search of something that can explain things clearly. During my desk research, I came across various ways and means to design research methodology; one of the most crucial revelations for me was a research vegetable called ‘Research onion’. Let us first see what this research onion is all about.

WHAT IS ‘RESEARCH ONION’?

Saunders et al. (2012) proposed the research onion framework (Figure 1), which explains pictorially the various aspects of the research to be examined and planned in order to come up with a sound research design. In other words, the research onion guides the researcher through all the steps that need to be taken when developing a research methodology.

Saunders et al. (2019), divided the research onion into three levels of decisions: 1. First two outer rings, i.e., Research philosophy and Research approach; 2. Research design which constitutes (a) methodological choices, (b) research strategy and (c) time horizon; and (3) tactics, i.e., the inner core of the research onion, which includes data collection and analysis aspects.

Before we strip the research onion let us do an activity. Take an onion and try to peel it from the inside without using a knife. You tried but could not peel it, the systematic way is to peel it from the outside to inside, and this is what we have to do with the research onion as well.

To develop a sound research methodology scholarly research starts with the research question(s), the objectives followed by the series of decisions on choice of research philosophy, approach to research, then the research design, i.e., methodological choices, research strategy, the time horizon, and the last inner core – data collection and data analysis. All the layers of research onion are interrelated and interdependent. In other words, the choice of philosophy influences the approach, which in turn influences the selection of methodological choice, strategy, time horizon, data collection and analysis.

PEELING OUT THE RESEARCH ONION 

1.RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY Knowingly or unknowingly a researcher will be making numerous assumptions while embarking on research (Burrell and Morgan 2016).

These assumptions are of three types:

• Ontological assumptions –  Assumptions regarding the reality faced in the research or what makes something a reality, and how a researcher can understand existence.
• Epistemological assumptions – Assumptions associated with human knowledge or what forms valid knowledge, whether it can be known, and how a researcher can get it and transfer it.
• Axiological assumptions  -These are assumptions about the level of influence of the researcher’s values on the research process or what is essential and valuable in the research.

Further, these assumptions help a researcher to design the research questions, choose appropriate methods, and influence the interpretation of findings (Crotty 1998). These assumptions altogether form the research philosophy of the study. According to Saunders et al. (2012), the term research philosophy refers to ‘a system of beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge’.

The  ontological assumption  is the assumption made by a researcher regarding the nature of reality. Here reality means the study area or a subject domain, such as agricultural extension. The extension fraternity has various assumptions regarding the subject of extension, we assume it to be a study of human (farmers) behaviour, and others say it is the transfer of technology, and so on and so forth. These ontological assumptions may also be with regard to a specific research area in the subject domain. For instance, we study farmers’ adoption of agro-technology, in most adoption studies the researchers presumed that a lower level of adoption (a reality) of technology is the reason for lower crop production. Therefore, the focus was on studying the level of adoption by farmers and how to increase it. On the other hand, some researchers assume technology adoption as a mental process and see that there is low level of adoption everywhere, and so they try to understand why there is a low level of adoption and what are the factors determining the adoption. From this, it is clear that your assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) decides how you view the subject domain (Agricultural Extension) or the research area, which in turn influences what you want to research (what research questions to ask or what research objectives to study).

The  epistemological assumption  is an assumption made by a researcher regarding knowledge. What forms valid and reliable knowledge? How do we acquire and communicate it? We know that the subject matter of agricultural extension is derived from different disciplines. Therefore, the nature of knowledge will be diverse; it may constitute numerical data (e.g., number of women FPOs) to textual data (results of in-depth interview or focused group discussion), or even visual data (social map, resource map, sociogram). In extension research, facts, opinions, narratives and stories constitute valid knowledge, provided it follows a systematic process of enquiry. You will come across various research studies in extension where the researcher has used different epistemology in their research, research purely based on case studies, and some dealing only with factual stuff.

The  axiological assumption  is an assumption made by a researcher regarding the influence of values and beliefs on the research. The researcher tries to be free from values and beliefs intruding into the research or positively considers and acknowledges values and beliefs influencing the research process and the conclusions. Sometimes we need to decide on whether the values and beliefs of the research respondents should be considered or not. Researchers argue, as reported by Saunders  et al.  (2019), that it is very tough to keep ourselves free from the influence of values and beliefs. For instance, as a researcher you might have come across your advisor saying “parametric test is stronger than non-parametric”, “qualitative data gives in-depth understanding about a phenomenon than quantitative data”. What are these assumptions? They are the aspects of research your advisor values more.

At this juncture, you might have questioned yourself – why should I be making assumptions and know the different research philosophies when I can directly collect data, analyse and report the results? There are several aspects for which these assumptions are essential they are listed below.

• Assumptions are your research tour guide; they tell you how to conduct the research, what should be your role – whether you should maintain objectivity or can subjectivity be expressed. They tell you what methods you can follow.
• The researcher has to defend his/her work at various levels. As a student researcher, we get suggestions from the advisory committee or institutional review board to strictly go for quantitative methods with probability sampling, and try to avoid qualitative methods. This is due to the difference in the assumptions or more specifically, the research philosophy they follow. The most challenging is to convince the journal reviewers and editors, there are chances of your paper getting rejected because your philosophy is different from what they follow. Therefore, to show that your overall approach to research is justifiable, you should state your assumptions (research philosophy) very clearly.
• Another issue we come across is sweeping apologies in our dissertation, for instance, a researcher apologises for not interviewing a large number of respondents in qualitative research; and the other one is failing to get an in-depth understanding due to the quantitative nature of research. No! You need not apologise, all that you need to do is follow the standard methods and procedure that suits your research philosophy. Therefore it is very important to understand the various research philosophies.

According to Saunders  et al.  (2019), there are five research philosophies: (1) positivism; (2) critical realism; (3) interpretivism; (4) postmodernism; and (5) pragmatism. The detailed explanation of these five research philosophies is presented in Tables 1 to 5.

2. THE RESEARCH APPROACH OR APPROACH TO THEORY DEVELOPMENT

The second ring in the research onion contains the research approach. If we critically think on what a researcher does in research, we can classify them into three aspects – theory testing, theory building, and theory modification. The point I am trying to make here is that the research we undertake involves the use of theory which we may or may not name in our research design. You will find the essence of theory in the conclusions of research findings. The selection of a particular philosophy that was discussed in the first section will determine the approach you choose for the development of the theory or for the reasoning behind your findings. Further, the approach you select will influence the choice of research design and methods (Babbie 2010).

Source: Developed from Saunders et al. (2019) Note: Application of positivist philosophy in social science research is a matter of scholarly debate. However, a researcher can apply some of the assumptions and methods with caution and rationality.  Suggested reading: Thomas Houghton, Does positivism really ‘work’ in the social sciences? Link: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/09/26/does-positivism-really-%E2%80%98work%E2%80%99-in-the-social-sciences/ 

Source: Developed from Saunders et al. (2019) Suggested reading : Fletcher Amber J. Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology meets method.  Link:   https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401?journalCode=tsrm20 

Source: Developed from Saunders et al. (2019) Suggested reading : Chen Y Y, Shek D T L and Bu F F. 2011. Applications of interpretive and constructionist research methods in adolescent research: Philosophy, principles and examples. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 23(2).doi:10.1515/ijamh.2011.022 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21870675/

Source: Developed from Saunders et al. (2019) Suggested reading : Rosenau P V. Postmodernism: Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00692-6    Link : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767006926

Source: Developed from Saunders et al. (2019) Suggested reading: Crist J D, Parsons M L, Warner-Robbins C, Mullins M V and Espinosa Y M. 2009. Pragmatic action research with 2 vulnerable populations. Family & Community Health 32(4):320–329. doi:10.1097/fch.0b013e3181b9

According to Saunders et al. (2012), there are three research approaches viz., induction, deduction, and abduction. A brief overview of the research approaches is presented in Table 6.

2.1 In this section I have graphically explained all the three research approaches using flowchart with hypothetical examples. 2.1.1 Inductive approach to research

Suggested reading: Ferguson  K M, Kim M A and McCoy S. 2011. Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 28(1):122.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0217-6

2.1.2 Deductive approach to research

Suggested reading: Chia-Pin Yu, Shu Tian Cole and Chancellor Charles. 2018. Resident support for tourism development in rural midwestern (USA) communities: Perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life perspective. Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal 10(3):1-17.

2.1.3 Abductive approach to research

You may find some surprising or incomplete observations or conclusions regarding any social aspect; you wanted to study it both empirically as well as know the subjective opinions of people for better understanding. In this situation, you follow the abduction approach in which your research will combine the elements of both the inductive and deductive approaches. To put it in simple words, in abduction ‘You build a theory and then go for its empirical testing’.

Suggested reading: Bristow A, Robinso S K and Ratle O. 2017. Being an early-career CMS academic in the context of insecurity and ‘Excellence’: The dialectics of resistance and compliance. Organization Studies 38(9):1185–1207.

Research design:  It is the overall plan of a research project which involves three distinct but interrelated aspects. They are: methodological choice, research strategy and time horizon. Let us understand them separately. Sanders et al. (2019) classified research designs into three types: (1) quantitative research design; (2) qualitative research design; and (3) mixed methods research design. I have attempted to develop a schematic explanation for qualitative and quantitative research design (Figures 4 and 5, respectively) for better understanding.

3. METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE

Methodological Choice involves   the selection and use of a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research design. In the mono method, a single data collection technique is utilized, followed by corresponding qualitative or quantitative analysis procedures. In the multiple method design, more than one data collection techniques and analysis procedures are employed (Collis and Hussey 2013). Alternatively, a mixed-method approach utilizes both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques and analysis procedures (Creswell 2013).

According to Saunders et al. (2019), mixed method research can be classified into three ways which are as follows:

• Concurrent mixed methods research: Here a researcher collects both qualitative and quantitative data and analyses them in a single phase study.
• Sequential mixed methods research : Here a researcher collects and analyses data in two phases, which can further be divided into two forms:
• sequential exploratory research design: where a researcher collects and analyses qualitative data in the first phase, followed by quantitative data collection and analysis in the second phase;
• sequential explanatory research design: Here a researcher collects and analyses quantitative data in the first phase followed by qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase.
• Sequential multi-phase: In this a researcher collects and analyses data in more than two phases, in sequence. For example, qualitative followed by quantitative and then qualitative.

4. THE RESEARCH STRATEGY

The research strategy describes how the researcher aims to carry out the work (Saunders  et al . 2007). There are several research strategies, viz., Experimental design, Survey design, Archival research, Case study, Ethnography, Action research, Grounded theory and Narrative inquiry (Saunders  et al. 2012). Here we can include other research strategies appropriate to our study.

• Experimental design : Here, a researcher tries to study a cause-effect relationship between two or more variables. He/she decides to systematically manipulate the independent variable to study the corresponding changes in the dependent variable.
• Survey design:  Here, a researcher tries to seek answers for ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘where’, ‘how much’ and ‘how many’ types of research questions. Data is collected and analyzed from a sample of individuals.
• Case study: is an empirical inquiry of an individual social unit. Here the researcher tries to seek answers for ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions.
• Action research : A systematic inquiry to address real-life practical problems. Here a researcher tries to find practical solutions for problems through participation and collaboration with members of a social unit.
• Grounded theory:  This is a systematic inductive method for conducting qualitative research to develop a theory.
• Ethnography : is a research strategy adopted to explore cultures and societies. Here a researcher collects data through direct interaction and involvement so as to gain firsthand information from research subjects.
• Archival research: A systematic inquiry wherein primary sources held in archives are studied for evidence collection or deep understanding. Here a researcher does not use secondary sources relevant to the research topic.

5. TIME HORIZON

Research can be grouped into two types based on time, i.e., longitudinal or successive independent samples; and cross-sectional (Bryman and Bell 2015). The longitudinal study refers to the study of a phenomenon or a population over a period of time (Caruana et al. 2015). A cross-sectional study is a ‘snap-shot’ study, it means a phenomenon or a cross-section of the population is studied for one time (Setia 2016). Please read the suggested reading given below to understand one of the longest researches in the history of social science research.

Suggested reading: Hastorf A H 1997. Lewis Terman’s longitudinal study of the intellectually gifted: Early research, recent investigations and the future. Gifted and Talented International 12(1):3–7. doi:10.1080/15332276.1997.11672858

6. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

  The inner circle of research onion is made up of ‘tactics’ which refers to aspects   about the finer details of data collection and analysis. In this section, the following aspects are described.

A. Data collection tools and procedures : Data collection tools such as scale, questionnaire, mail survey, etc., and procedures such as scale construction, interviews, focused group discussion, etc. B. Study Area – A brief description about the study area and why you have selected this locale, supported by reliable data. C. Research population and sampling procedures : Describe the following aspects in this section:

a. Inclusion /exclusion criteria; b. Sample size; c. Sampling method; d. Sampling plan – Flow chart with a table indicating sample details; e. Sourcing samples : Here the researcher has to describe the source of the study samples; it has the following three aspects:

• Source population(N) : This is the group about which the researcher is going to draw inferences and to which the inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied (Example: women farmers of a district – say may be N=1000);
• Study population  (Np): The group which fits the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Example: women farmer growing sunflower, with landholding more than 2 ha and five years of experience, say maybe Np=500);
• Sample (n) : The group selected after following a suitable sampling method, and finally with whom you conduct your study (a representative sample of women sunflower growers sampled from the study population, say maybe n=120).

f.  Sample limitations

D. Study Phases:  describe in how many phases your study will be done (during planning-synopsis) / was done (while reporting in the thesis) if it was done in multiple phases. Explain the list of the tasks using a Gantt chart (Figure 6).

Variables and their measurement:  Describe how the concepts, constructs and the variables were identified; this aspect is linked with the theoretical orientation. Provide the operational definition; it means how the variable is measured, mention the level of measurement also. A schematic table would suffice (for example, see Table 7).

Table 7. List of variables their method of measurement and operational definition

F. Statistical analysis: Mention all the statistics tools applied and software(s) used to analyse the research data (in thesis).

G. Ethical considerations: All the ethical aspects considered in the study need to be clearly planned and mentioned. Mention about respondent consent, how sensitive information (in synopsis) was elicited, if any. Report the approval of Research ethics committees, if applicable.

The difference between a researcher and a non-researcher is, whatever a researcher does she/he does it systematically, justifies logically, subjects it to verification, is always open to criticism, ready for self-correction and explicitly expresses what was done, how it was done, why it was done and what was found. A researcher starts with a research problem, raises questions, and transforms it into workable objectives. To find answers to the research questions, we need a sound research methodology. Research onion is one such framework that helps in designing a robust research methodology; simply put, it will help you to make a series of decisions that allows systematic research. We began with three assumptions, viz., ontological, epistemological and axiological, which constitute our research philosophy. Once we decide on the specific philosophy, an appropriate research approach can be adopted based on the research question and philosophy. The deductive approach is adopted for theory testing, inductive approach for theory building, and abductive approach for theory modification.

Further, these two crucial decisions will guide the next important aspect that is research design, which is made up of three important decisions: 1. Methodological choice – whether to follow a qualitative method, quantitative method or a mixed method; 2. Research strategy; and 3. Time horizon – cross-sectional or longitudinal research. Furthermore, the last decision is about very minute intricacies of research that is data collection, analysis and ethical statement.

Authors’ observation

It is often observed in academic discussions that various aspects of research are presented and (or) perceived to be competitive (quantitative versus qualitative, parametric versus non-parametric, probability sampling versus non-probability sampling, small sample size versus large sample size, experimental design versus non-experimental, cross-sectional versus longitudinal, and so on) rather than complimentary. Every aspect of research has got its own importance and relevance. A research scholar values every logical approach to research, and it is possible only after looking at it through all dimensions via the lenses of different questions (why, what, when, where, who, what).

Acknowledgement

I wish to acknowledge and thank the AESA, CRISP, ICAR-CTCRI, MANAGE, NAARM collaborative National Workshop on ‘Advances in Social and Behavioural Science Research’ held from 12 to 17 November 2018 at ICAR-CTCRI, Kerala. This event was an eye opener for me which oriented me towards social science research methodology, and indirectly helped me in my PhD research.  

Babbie E. 2010. The practice of social research. 12th Edition. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.

Bristow A, Robinson S K and Ratle O. 2017.Being an early career CMS academic in the context of insecurity and ‘Excellence’: The dialectics of resistance and compliance’. Organization Studies 38(9):1185–1207.

Bryman A and Bell E. 2015. Business research methods Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burrell G and Morgan G. 2016. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Abingdon: Routledge (originally published by Heinemann 1979).

Caruana E J, Marius Roman, Jules Hernández-Sánchez and Piergiorgio Soll. 2015. Longitudinal studies. Journal of Thoracic Disease 7(11):537–540. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.10.63. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669300/

Chen Y Y, Shek D T L and Bu F F. 2011. Applications of interpretive and constructionist research methods in adolescent research: Philosophy, principles and examples. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 23(2).  doi:10.1515/ijamh.2011.022  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21870675/

Chia-Pin Yu, Shu Tian Cole and Charles Chancellor.2018. Resident support for tourism development in rural midwestern (USA) communities: Perceived tourism impacts and community quality of life perspective. Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal 10(3):1-17.

Crist J D, Parsons M L, Warner-Robbins C, Mullins M V and Espinosa Y M. 2009. Pragmatic action research with 2 vulnerable populations. Family & Community Health 32(4):320–329. doi:10.1097/fch.0b013e3181b91f

Crotty M. 1998. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage.

Collis J and Hussey R. 2013. Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Creswell J W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry & research design; choosing among five approaches. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferguson K M, Kim M A and  McCoy S. 2011. Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 28(1):1-22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0217-6

Hastorf A H. 1997. Lewis Terman’s longitudinal study of the intellectually gifted: Early research, recent investigations and the future. Gifted and Talented International 12(1):3–7. doi:10.1080/15332276.1997.11672858

Saunders M, Lewis P and Thornhill A. 2007. Research methods for business students. (6th ed.) London: Pearson.

Saunders M, Lewis P and Thornhill A. 2019. Research methods for business students. Eighth edition. London: Pearson.

Setia M S. 2016. Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology 61:261-4. Retrieved from  http://www.e-ijd.org/text.asp?2016/61/3/261/182410

Thomas Houghton. 2011.Does positivism really ‘work’ in the social sciences? Link: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/09/26/does-positivism-really %E2%80%98work%E2%80%99-in-the-social-sciences/

You may also like

Blog 213-Climate Justice, Human Rights, and Hope for The Future

Blog 212-Can We Generate Spaces for the Transformation of Gender Norms through Extension Services?

Blog 211-Moo’ing Forward: Supporting Pastoralism in India

Cancel reply.

Very interesting blog. Enjoyed reading it. I do have a small difference of with respect to one of the statements. Author says ‘you need not be apologetic in saying that sample was small or methods limit interpretation’. I am a firm believer of transparent communication and I feel that it is the role of a researcher to know the limits of the study and also communicate it to the readers, and there is nothing to be apologetic about it (Bsically I disagree with the term too). Infact I see many paper where they make very strong causal statements, when the methods are not really designed for it which I see as a more serious concern. This is my humble opinion, as academician I really enjoyed the blog. I appreciate the efforts of the author in elaborating on a very Important topic.

Thank you Aditya, thank you for your observations and. The very purpose of this blog was to make things systematic and clear. Yes the author strongly believe in reporting every aspect of the research including limitations provided they are indeed limiting the research design. Here the author is trying to state that when the research design demands or permits certain conditions those conditions should not be expressed as limitations, and it doesn’t imply any aspect should be hidden. I welcome your disagreements in the usage of words, we can disagree to agree. I strongly agree with you that even I enjoyed working on this blog. Thank you once again.

Well written.

Very comprehensively covering different paradigms in research methodology, with interesting analogy, Dr Mahesh could peel out research onion, explaining each layer starting from research philosophy to the data collection. Congratulations to Dr Mahesh. Further one important inner layer could be added to the onion, which would make it complete-the layer of research reporting/research communication. Unless we plan how we are going to communicate our research to the others, and communicate effectively through research paper, conference etc., research remains incomplete.

Very Good effort to write the blog to make research methodology easy to understand, Dear Mahesh , I enjoyed reading it

Understanding Research Onion for Research Methodology

Research onion is a framework for developing different types of research methodology, depending upon the objective of the study. Research onion was developed by Saunders et al (2007) in their book “Research Method for Business Students”. The model consists of multiple layers that are arranged in a way similar to the layers of an onion.

Research Onion Methodology Examples

The outermost layer represents four types of research philosophies that include positivism , interpretivism , pragmatism , and realism  (Saunders, 2007) .  The first decision is to choose a research philosophy to develop foundation of the overall research methodology.

Quantitative Research

The purpose of quantitative research is to understand patterns, causes, and relationship between different variables. Quantitative research is actually positivist research that aims to validate hypothesis derived from existing theories. Such studies are based on deductive reasoning approach. These studies intend to test existing theories by utilizing a specific dataset collected from samples. Explanatory research  is a type of investigation used in quantitative research to explain statistical relationship between variables within the scope of the study (Seakran, 2003). Monomethod quantitative research uses only one method to gather data from sources and performing analysis of data.

Also Read: Time Horizon in Research onion

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research aims to understand different process, subject, or phenomenon. Interpretivist studies are qualitative research aiming to develop a deeper understanding of the underlying phenomenon. E thnographic research, phenomenological research, case study, grounded theory , and action theory  are different types of qualitative research. The purpose of inductive reasoning is to develop theories using organized observation and analysis of observations. In these studies, researchers do not use hypothesis testing to test existing theories but rather focus on developing new theories.

Mixed Research

Mixed research is a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. Pragmatism enables researchers to develop research methodology that can address the research objectives and problem statement effectively. Pragmatism is flexible and not based on limitations of qualitative and quantitative research. Mixed research integrates advantages of qualitative and quantitative research within a single study to overcome their respective limitations. Such research is sequential that understands a phenomenon and tests the hypothesis derived from findings of the study.Researchers use the sequential approach of employing inductive and deductive reasoning in such studies (Creswell, 2007).

Creswell. (2007). Research Design- Qualitative and mixed methods approaches.  London: Sage Publishers. Saunders, M. L. (2007). Research methods for business students  (5th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Seakran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business.  United States: John Wiley and Sons. Retrieved from https://iaear.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/2/5/26257106/research_methods_entiree_book_umasekaram-pdf-130527124352-phpapp02.pdf

Recent Posts

Strategic planning in small and medium-sized enterprises, what are types of strategy in strategic management.

Importance of Measurement Scales in Research: Measuring What Matters

Discovering the magic of digital marketing: your guide to online success.

Strategic Management Frameworks

Types of Strategies in Strategic Management

Role of Strategic Management in Organizations

What is Strategic Management, Definition and Importance?

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Layers of Research Design

2012, The Layers of Research Design

Within this article we use the metaphor of the “Research Onion” (Saunders et al., 2012: 128) to illustrate how these final elements (the core of the research onion) need to be considered in relation to other design elements (the outer layers of the research onion). It is the researcher’s understandings and associated decisions in relation to these outer layers that provide the context and boundaries within which data collection techniques and analysis procedures will be selected. Please note, this is the published version and has been uploaded with permission from Karen Moxom (ANLP) Please note, with Pearson's permission I have uploaded the proofs of chapter 4 for the 7th edition of Research Methods for Business Students (published in August 2015) to academia.edu. This contains the latest version of the research onionademia.edu. The direct link is: https://www.academia.edu/13016419/Research_Methods_for_Business_Students_Chapter_4_Understanding_research_philosophy_and_approaches_to_theory_development_

Related Papers

Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication

Peter Kastberg

In this essay I will present an integrative view on research design. I will introduce what Itake to be the skeleton components of any research design within the social sciences, i.e.the elements of research question, philosophy of science, methodology, method and data.With this as my point of departure I will go on to focus on a presentation, a discussionand an evaluation of a new appreciation of the interdependencies of the elements in theresearch design. An appreciation that favors a relational rather than an atomistic outlookand which gives rise to an ecological conceptualization of research design. A research design,in other words, which promotes plasticity and fluidity over adherence to static protocol.And which, at the same time, does not relinquish control over project-relevant, multifaceteddecision-making processes – and their respective interdependencies – but which deliberateseach and every one of them. The aim of the paper is twofold. At a more abstract level, itaims at p...

International Research Journal of MMC

Umesh Raj Aryal

Research design, which is a plan or framework for conducting an investigatory study, engrosses the ways for collecting and analyzing data. It is circumspectly planned in advance as it influences the quality and validity of the research outcomes. There are broadly three sorts of research designs, namely quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research designs. Quantitative research designs involve the collection and analysis of numerical data, qualitative research designs include the collection and analysis of non-numerical data, such as words, images, and observations, and mixed methods research designs embrace both qualitative and quantitative data. There are also certain types of research designs under these major research designs, and a researcher normally has to select one of them to carry out his/ her research study. The key objective of this article is to navigate the research landscape and provide a concise guide to the selection of the right research design. This article...

Marco Antonio Perez

The Global Management Series

Kevin D O'Gorman

After many years of working with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students we recognise only too well the struggles that they often experience wrestling with the somewhat strange and seemingly obtuse language used to describe research philosophy. We once experienced similar difficulties and empathise with the confusion and lack of confidence that flows from being unclear whether you have really understood terms such as methodology, ontology or epistemology. We set out to produce a text that dealt with two problems. The first was to provide something that guides novice researchers through the whole process from identifying a topic to the writing up of findings via engagement with the literature and a brief overview of both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The second problem we wanted to tackle related to what we often refer to as ‘the ologies’. Here we wanted to offer a structured approach to familiarising yourself with the terminology and to demonstrate how a nested set of descriptions builds towards a coherent, comprehensive and consistent articulation of your research paradigm. We are indebted to our colleagues for their help in delivering on the first of these two problems in the first edition of the book. This was achieved at a pace which seemed frankly ridiculous but which produced a remarkably coherent guide for novice researchers. Despite positive feedback on many aspects of the first edition from both students and colleagues, we were however convinced that we could improve in relation to ‘the ologies’. For this reason, the second edition features some relatively minor changes to many chapters and a complete rewrite of our account of research philosophy. Central to the revised text is the methods map (see Chapter 4), which sets out a logical process for researchers to articulate their position in relation to five key aspects of their research philosophy. We have road tested this approach with many colleagues and students to ensure that it is clear and concise. In addition, we have developed a free app to accompany the book and this enables novice researcher to quickly develop a comprehensive justification of their particular research design in an interactive way. We would acknowledge that the methods map makes some simplifications and would suggest that for all but the most sophisticated of purposes, this is entirely appropriate. Indeed, if you are well enough versed in the philosophical nuances of knowledge explored in the method map then you are probably not part of our intended audience since you already possess the skills, confidence and capacity to articulate and defend the underpinning philosophical assumptions of your research. For everyone else, we hope that the second edition of Research Methods for Business and Management helps demystify the dreaded ‘ologies’.

Bostley Asenahabi

For a research to be carried out successfully, it requires suitable research design. This is a plan adopted by a researcher before data collection commences so as to achieve the research objective in a valid way. The essence of research design is to translate a research problem into data for analysis so as to provide relevant answers to research questions at a minimum cost. This paper investigates what research design is, the different kinds of research design and how a researcher can choose the appropriate research design for his/her study. The study reveals that research design choice is guided by a careful analysis of statement of the problem, research questions, conceptual /theoretical framework and analyzing the relevant literature.

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET)

International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET) ijarcet , Bostley Asenahabi

A research turns out to be successful if a suitable research design has been incorporated. Research design is a blueprint adopted by a researcher before data collection begins and it acts as a guide to achieving the research objective in a valid way. A suitable research design guides the researcher in translating a research problem into data for analysis so as to provide relevant answers to research questions at a minimum cost. This paper highlights what research design is, the different kinds of research design and shows the dilemmas a researcher faces in choosing a suitable research design and how the researcher can choose an appropriate research design for his study. This review paper will make use of secondary data to explain the different types of research design. This study reveals that choice of a research design is guided by a careful analysis of: statement of the problem, research questions, conceptual or theoretical framework and analyzing the relevant literature.

Research Methods for Business Students

Mark N K Saunders , Alexandra Bristow

This is the proof copy of the Preface, Contents pages and Chapter 4 from the 9th edition, published in March 2023. It is uploaded with full permission from Pearson. The chapter introduces the research onion, defines ontology, epistemology and axiology, and explain their relevance to business research; explains the main research paradigms that are significant for business research; explains the relevance for business research of philosophical positions of positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, postmodernism and pragmatism; helps you reflect on and articulate your own philosophical position in relation to your research; Discusses and explains deductive, inductive, and abductive approaches to theory development. It also contains a tool developed by Alexandra Bristow and Mark Saunders called 'HARP' that will help you diagnose your own research philosophy.

Dagobert Soergel

Introductory note on scope and limitations: • The classification is focused on social and behavioral sciences, but the principles are general. • It is a resource for students in a one-semester course in research methods (for many the only course in research methods they will take), so it is selective rather than encyclopedic. • It started out as a guide through Wildemuth 2017 Application of social research methods to questions in Information and Library Science t. So the selection of topics included in parts 3 - 5 largely follows Wildemuth; the topic sequence is different. • There are many definitions, explanations, and/or examples, some from me ({DS}), others assembled from many sources given in {} (see list at the end); source tracking is not complete. Annotations represent different perspectives with some disagreement and some repetition. • While independence of dimensions is desirable, reality is not so simple. Two dimensions may look at the same conceptual distinction from different perspectives or overlap in other ways. • Distinction are rarely dichotomous but rather the two ends of a continuum. • Research, research design, and (research) study are used somewhat interchangeably, with word choice depending on context. Wildemuth chapters are indicated by ● , e.g., ●Quasi-experimental Studies. W-Ch. 11, p. 91 – 102 Tip: To find a concept number, search for the number followed by a space

Mahesh Hemachandra

Rob Roggema , Rob Roggema

In this article, the many definitions of research by design are used to build a coherent model for a research by design process. Three phases are identified, each with their own characteristics and types of activities: the pre-design, the design and the post-design phase. In combination with several practical examples of design-led research projects and design studios, these phases are adhered to practical activities and outcomes. Using all this information, the article concludes with proposing a renewed definition of research by design.

RELATED PAPERS

Aslia Mulyani

Josep Comelles

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

2LT WILFREDO SANTOS

janvi someshwar

Andres Pastrana

Pim Edelaar

Kati Turtiainen

Town and Regional Planning

Ernst Drewes

Edita Gruodytė

Elmar Noeth

Pachi Reigosa

Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia

Jane Manfron

María Elizabeth García Torres

Numerische Mathematik

Hassane SADOK

Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto)

Ana Paula Porto Noronha

Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Dergisi

Md. Nazrul Islam Mondal

Maria Paula Paes

Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies

Ismail Said

Nikita Simpson

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Samuel Romero

Giuliano Ordoñez Lozada

Journal of pain and symptom management

María Luisa Martínez Muñoz

Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Joseph Delehanty

Plant Physiology

Deborah Delmer

Mary Masson

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

TechBullion

Unpacking the layers: understanding the research onion.

Have you ever wondered how researchers go about collecting data and analyzing information? It may seem like a complex process, but fear not—the research onion is here to help unravel the mystery! Join us as we peel back the layers of this metaphorical vegetable and explore the depths of understanding in research methodology.

Introduction to the Research Onion

Research is a systematic approach to finding solutions to problems or gaining new knowledge and understanding. It involves a series of steps that are carefully designed and executed in order to produce reliable and valid results. The research process can be complex and challenging, which is why researchers often use different frameworks or models to guide their studies.

One such model that has gained popularity in the academic world is the “Research Onion.” Developed by Saunders et al. (2009), this framework provides a structured approach for conducting research, ensuring that all important aspects are considered and addressed. The Research Onion acts as a guide through the different stages of the research process, from broad topic selection to data analysis and interpretation.

The term “onion” is used because, just like an onion has multiple layers, each with its own purpose and contribution towards making it whole, so does the research process have various layers that work together to produce a robust study. Each layer represents a different stage in the research journey, with each stage building upon the previous one.

What is the research onion, and why is it important?

The research onion is a widely used metaphor in the field of research, particularly in the social sciences. It was first introduced by Saunders et al. (2007) as a way to conceptualize the different stages and components of a research project. Just like an onion has multiple layers that need to be peeled in order to get to its core, the research process also involves various layers that need to be carefully navigated.

At its core, the research onion consists of six main layers or stages: philosophy, approach, strategy, method(s), technique(s), and time horizon. Each layer represents a specific aspect of the research process and builds upon one another to form a comprehensive understanding of the topic being studied.

Firstly, the philosophy layer refers to the underlying beliefs and assumptions that guide the researcher’s perspective on knowledge and reality. This includes ontological considerations about what constitutes reality and epistemological considerations about how knowledge can be acquired. Understanding these philosophical foundations is crucial, as they shape our approach to conducting research.

The approach layer encompasses two main approaches: deductive and inductive. The deductive approach starts with developing a theory or hypothesis based on existing literature and then gathering data to test it. On the other hand, the inductive approach involves collecting data first and then deriving theories or themes from it.

Moving on, at the strategy layer, researchers must decide between quantitative or qualitative methods for data collection based on their chosen approach. Quantitative methods rely on numerical data, while qualitative methods focus on non-numerical data such as words or images.

The method(s) layer involves selecting specific techniques for data collection, such as surveys, interviews, observation, etc., depending upon which strategy was chosen previously. Similarly, at the technique layer, researchers have to choose appropriate tools for analyzing their data, such as statistical software for quantitative analysis or coding procedures for qualitative analysis.

At the outermost layer—the time horizon—researchers must consider important practical considerations such as budget, time constraints, and ethical implications. This layer also includes the presentation of findings and conclusions that can inform future research.

The Layers of the Research Onion:

As the name suggests, the research onion is a metaphor for understanding the different layers involved in conducting a research study. Each layer represents an aspect that needs to be carefully considered and addressed in order to ensure a strong and valid research outcome.

Layer 1: Philosophy

The first layer of the research onion is philosophy. This refers to the underlying beliefs and assumptions that guide your research approach. It involves identifying and acknowledging your own biases, as well as understanding how these may impact your study. The three main philosophical approaches are positivism, interpretivism, and realism, each with its own unique perspective on how knowledge is acquired.

Layer 2: Approach

The second layer deals with choosing an appropriate approach for your study based on your philosophical stance. This includes deciding whether you will use a deductive or inductive approach, which determines whether you will start with a theory and test it (deductive) or gather data and then develop theories from it (inductive).

Layer 3: Strategy

The third layer relates to selecting an appropriate strategy for data collection and analysis. This could include methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Your chosen strategy should align with your research question(s) and overall approach.

Layer 4: Choices

At this layer, researchers make specific choices about their study design, including sample selection, data collection instruments, and sampling techniques. These choices should be carefully considered based on their relevance to the research question(s) and alignment with previous layers.

Layer 5: Time Horizon

The time horizon refers to the length of time over which data is collected for a particular study. It can be either cross-sectional (data collected at one point in time) or longitudinal (data collected over an extended period). The choice of time horizon depends on the nature of the research question(s) being investigated.

Layer 6: Techniques

This layer involves selecting appropriate techniques for data analysis. These could include statistical tools, content analysis, or thematic analysis. The selected techniques should be able to effectively answer the research question(s) and align with the previous layers of the research onion.

Layer 7: Ethics

The final layer of the research onion is ethics. As researchers, it is our responsibility to ensure that our studies are conducted in an ethical manner, prioritizing the rights and well-being of participants. This includes obtaining informed consent, maintaining confidentiality, and being transparent about any potential risks or benefits involved.

The research onion model serves as a valuable tool for researchers to understand the various layers involved in conducting a successful research study. Each layer represents a crucial aspect that needs to be carefully considered and addressed in order to ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings.

Recommended for you

Trending Stories

XRP and Shiba Inu Plunge as Market Turns Sour; Is DTX Positioned to Be the Safe Haven Investors Need Right Now?

Crypto bigwigs such as XRP and Shiba Inu (SHIB) are experiencing a significant decline,...

From Data to Insights: Chandra Sekhar Naidu Vuppulapati’s Journey in AI and Analytics

The power of data lies in its interpretation, remarks Chandra Sekhar Naidu Vuppulapati, a...

Zulu Network: Moving the Bitcoin Economy Forward With a Two-Tiered Bitcoin Layer 2 Architecture

While Bitcoin has gained greater institutional acceptance with the recent ETF launches in the...

BlockDAG’s X100 Mining Rigs Drive Home Mining Success With $2.2M in Sales; Uniswap Drops 32% Amid Litecoin’s Bullish Forecast

The effects of the Bitcoin halving may initially burden miners, but the anticipated bull...

5 Buzziest Companies Heading to the RSA 2024 – Why You Should Watch Out For Them

As the cybersecurity landscape continues to evolve at breakneck speed, industry professionals eagerly anticipate...

Student Coin Rolls Out Redemption Process for STC Token Users

Student Coin, the blockchain ecosystem founded in 2019 by students who are enthusiasts of...

Amazon Will Open Cloud Regions In Southeast Asia

Werner Vogels, Amazon Chief Technology Officer, stated in a special interview that the company...

Stay Ahead of the Curve: Don’t Miss These Top Tech Events in 2024

Are you ready to stay ahead of the curve and dive headfirst into the...

DICT IEO Now Live on P2B Exchange! Empowering Innovators and Creating a Web3 Community of Trailblazers!

We are super thrilled to announce that  DICT’s Initial Exchange Offering (IEO) has successfully...

Decoding Cryptocurrency: 10 Essential Facts Every Investor Should Understand

  In recent years, the world of finance has been transformed by the emergence...

Mark Your Calendar: The Most Exciting Tech Events of 2024

Get ready to geek out and mark your calendar because 2024 is shaping up...

From Bitcoin to Altcoins: Exploring the Diversity of the Cryptocurrency Universe

Cryptocurrency has evolved far beyond its humble beginnings with Bitcoin. What started as a...

A Look at Worldwide Cryptocurrency Adoption

Cryptocurrency adoption is rapidly transforming the global financial landscape. What started as a novel...

Meta and EssilorLuxottica Adds New Features to Ray-Ban Smart Glasses.

Meta, in partnership with EssilorLuxottica, has added new features to its Ray-Ban smart glasses....

Huawei will Present its IDS at the 26th World Energy Congress.

Huawei is presenting its innovative Intelligent Distribution Solution (IDS) at the 26th World Energy...

The Importance of Technology in Modern Logistics: Enhancing Efficiency and Transparency

The logistics sector has undergone a transformative shift with the advent of sophisticated technologies...

Blockchain Life 2024 thunderstruck in Dubai

Dubai, April 17, 2024 – The 12th edition of the Blockchain Life Forum, known...

Find a Best Mobile App Development Company in Saudi Arabia

The need for mobile applications has increased in the current digital era, particularly in...

Educational Entertainment: 10 Tech Gadgets Redefining Learning and Fun for Kids

In today’s digital era, the line between learning and entertainment is becoming increasingly blurred....

Destination Recovery: Choosing the Perfect Inpatient Rehab Retreat

Embarking on the courageous journey towards sobriety marks a profound turning point in one’s...

Like Us On Facebook

Latest interview.

Technology White-label Solution for Programmatic Advertising; Interview With Anastasia-Nikita Bansal, CEO of Teqblaze

Hey there! I’m Niki. More than six years ago, I started my journey in AdTech, initially as a project manager at Smarty...

Latest Press Release

NTT DATA and Reiz Tech Announce New Venture to Target DACH 

The joint venture – LITIT — built on previous collaborative successes of its parent companies, aims to transform the IT landscape of...

Pin It on Pinterest

Analysis of Saunders Research Onion

Click to know more about us

1.0       introduction to saunders research onions.

The Saunders Research onion illustrates the stages involved in the development of a research work and was developed by Saunders et al, (2007). In other words, the onion layers give a more detailed description of the stages of a research process. It 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). Saunders et al (2012) noted that while using research onion one has to go from the outer layer to the inner layer. When viewed from the outside, each layer of the onion describes a more detailed stage of the research process (Saunders et al., 2007). Saunders et al sees research process as unwrapping of an onion layer by layer, for the inner layer to be seen the outer layer must be unwrapped first. For a goal to be achieved the right steps must be taken accordingly, this applies in research, cover one step first before proceeding to another.

1.1       The Layers of the Saunders research onions

The approach taken in using the research onion framework is to go from the outer layer to the inner layer of the research onion.

The outermost layer is the research philosophy which sets the stage for the research process and defines the method which is adopted as the research approach 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.

The Saunders research onion stages include:

• Research philosophy
• Research Approach
• Research strategies
• Research Choice
• Research time horizon

1.2       Philosophy to Saunders research onions

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. Also, 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 different, but the choice of research philosophy is defined by the type of knowledge being investigated in the research project (May, 2011).

There are three main philosophies that are significant in the research process.

Ontology – ontology is more or less the study of reality. It describes the nature of reality; what comes to mind when conducting the research and what relational impact does it possess on the society and surroundings. Ontology clears the difference between reality and how you perceive reality. Furthermore, it makes you learn how it influences the behavior of the people. Mainly, three philosophical positions come under the ontological worldview. Those are objectivism, constructivism and pragmatism. Goddard & Melville (2004) noted that it helps one to know how reality actually is and the effect it has on our environment and people living in the environment. Ontology differentiates the actually reality and how one sees reality . Ontology includes ; objectivism, constructivism and pragmatism. Objectivism makes you know a social event and the different meaning that different people attach to it. It differentiates the impact of social phenomena of different people. Constructivism proposes that it is people that create social phenomena; it is the opposite of objectivism. Pragmatism uses theories to identify a solution of a given issue. When compared with others it is relatively new, it is an alternative to others

Epistemology –  Epistemology is mostly used in scientific research and it is like that because it helps you in finding the information that you can prove without a doubt; in other words, it tries to find the common acceptable knowledge and address the facts accordingly. Here, you have to define the acceptable knowledge about the field of your research and give information on results after rigorous testing. Positivism, critical realism and interpretivism are the philosophical positions under the epistemology worldview.

Bryman (2012) noted that epistemology includes; positivism, realism and interpretivism. Positivism uses research question that can be tested. It helps you find explanation by using the generally accepted knowledge of the people. Realism allows one to use new methods of research. For you to know reality you have to carry out research first. It is similar to positivism, the difference is that realism does not support scientific method while positivism does. Interpretivism assists you to interpret how people see their action and others’ own. It helps to understand people’s culture and their participation in social life.

Axiology – Axiology helps you learn how valuables and opinions impact the collection and analysis of your research. Silverman (2013) noted that it make one understand the impact that peoples opinion have on collecting and analysing of research. It helps you to understand that people’s opinion maters a lot while carrying out a research.

1.2.1    Objectivism, Constructivism and Positivism

Objectivism makes you aware of a social phenomenon and their different meanings and influences these phenomena have on their actors. On the other hand, constructivism rather defers that social actors are responsible in creating a phenomenon. Conversely, constructivism suggests that the inherent meaning of social phenomena is created by each observer or group (Östlund et al, 2011). In this philosophy, one can never presume that what is observed is interpreted in the same way between participants and the key approach is to examine differences and nuances in the respondents understanding.

Positivism comes up with research questions and hypothesis that can be evaluated and analyzed. Common knowledge of the world can be measured and explained using Positivism. An example of it is the law of gravity.

Despite the inherent differences between these philosophical practices, one philosophy is not inherently better than the other, although researchers may favor one over the other (Podsakoffet al., 2012). The philosophy simply provides the justification for the research methodology. The methodology should be informed by the nature of the phenomena being observed.

1.3       Approach to Saunders research onions

Deductive and inductive are the two terms that the second layer of the research onion includes. Here, the previous layer of the onion has an effect on this one so it is important to know the research aim and its limitations.

1.3.1    The 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). The deductive approach can 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). It is characterized 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). 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). Deductive approach uses questionnaire to create understanding of observation which allows you to compare different understanding of the people through empirical data. The data gathered helps to confirm or reject the question, the process can be repeated.

1.3.2    The Inductive

The inductive approach allows for you to create a theory rather than adopt a pre-existing one as in the deductive. This clearly outlines the difference in the two approaches. The inductive approach is characterized as a move from the specific to the general (Bryman & Bell, 2011). 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 analyzed that it may be found to fit into an existing theory (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This method is commonly used for qualitative research. 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 analyzed first and significant patterns are used to inform the generation of results.

1.4       Strategies to Saunders research onions

The research strategy describes 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.

1.4.1    experimental

Experimental research refers to the strategy of creating a research process that examines the results of an experiment against the expected results. 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).

1.4.2    Survey

Survey strategy of the research onion is often linked with the deductive approach. It is one of the finest and economical research strategy. You can collect rich and reliable data through this method. Surveys tend to be used in quantitative research projects, and involve sampling a representative proportion of the population (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The Survey strategy is mostly used to observe contributing variables among different data. It permits the collection of vast data that will be used to answer the research question.

1.4.3    Case Study

This strategy is focused on a one or more people or a single area. 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 strategy is more useful in financial research. Case study research is the assessment of a single unit in order to establish its key features and draw generalizations (Bryman, 2012). 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.

1.4.4 Action research; 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). This strategy is used mainly to find the solution that can be used to solve a certain problem.

1.5       Choice to Saunders research onions

This is the fourth layer of the research onion, it is also known as research choice. This layer helps you to know whether it is fine to combine both quantitative and qualitative methodology or to use only one methodology. According to Saunders et al (2007), there are three outlined choices in the research onion that includes the Mono, Mixed and Multi method research choice or approach.

Mono method; when using this method you are required to gather one type of information; that is using either quantitative or qualitative methodology. You cannot combine the two.

Mixed method; this method permits one to combine quantitative and qualitative methodology in a research to create a precise set of data. According to (Flick, 2011), the mixed method combines methods to create a single dataset while the multi method is used where the research is divided into segments; with each producing a specific data set.

Multi-method; this method is similar with the mixed method because the two combines quantitative and qualitative methodology in a study. Although they are similar but still have their differences. While mixed method combines methodology to establish particular set of data, multi-method does not.

1.6       Time Horizon to Saunders research onions

The time horizon describes the required time for the completion of the project work. wo types of time horizons are specified within the research onion: the cross sectional and the longitudinal (Bryman, 2012).

1.6.1    Cross Sectional

The cross sectional time horizon is the one already established, whereby the data must be collected. This is used when the investigation is concerned with the study of a particular phenomenon at a specific time.

1.6.2    Longitudinal

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).

1.7       Analysis and Data collection

This is the sixth and last layer of the research onion; it is the innermost layer of Saunders research onion. The process used at this stage of the research contributes significantly to the study overall reliability and validity (Saunders et al., 2007). Data collection and analysis is dependent on the methodological approach used (Bryman, 2012). This layer explains how the data used in the research are collected and analysed. It also explains the source of data, the research design, the sample, the sample size, sample ethics, sample limitations, the research reliability and validity. The data collected could be primary data or secondary data. Primary data is a direct data, it is obtained directly from the source. Secondary data is the opposite of primary data, secondary data is indirect data.

1.7.1    Primary Data is defined as data collected from the source or first hand. This can be done via the use of several instruments questionnaires, oral or written interviews, etc

1.7.2    Secondary Data is derived from the work or opinions of other researchers (Newman, 1998).

1.8       Conclusion

This study has been able to describe the different layers of the Research onion by Saunders et al., 2007. Although surface, the study critically examines the onion and how it can be used as a guide to successfully develop a research work. You can also click to view Prof. Dino Schwaferts pdf File explanation of Saunders research onion [pdf-embedder url=”https://thesismind.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Saunders_Research_Onion.pdf”]

Read more about literature review , problem statement , research methodology , journal publication , essay and thesis writing, project writing guideline.

Assignment Help UK (2017) Research Onion – Made easy to understand and follow. Retrieved from https://www.allassignmenthelp.co.uk/blog/research-onion-made-easy-to-understand-and-follow/?share=twitter&nb=1

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

Essays, UK. (November 2018). Research Onion – Explanation of the Concept. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sychology/explanation-of-the-concept-of-research-onion-psychology-essay.php?vref=1

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.

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-4ffbd6e5e339.

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:

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.

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.

Hey contact us for your research. Simply fill the form below and we shall get back to you immidately. You can also chat with our customer care online.

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Select Programme Level PhD MBA/MSc BSc/Undergraduate Others

Your Message

Upload File

70 thoughts on “Analysis of Saunders Research Onion”

This is an interesting research. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you for your comment

Thanks for sharing such research, I will work on it.

This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

Greetings I am so delighted I found your blog. I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on the net for something else, Nonetheless, I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a remarkable post. Thanks for the nice write-up.

Thank you for the detailed explanation of the Saunders Research Onion.

Pingback: Research & Summaries Question The topic will be ”Information Technology Integration” Subject: Re - coures studys

Pingback: My Site

Pingback: Amazing Site

Pingback: Buy Research Methodology Assignment - Quality Paper-Pro

Pingback: Research methodology - EssayBy.com

Pingback: Research methodology - Scholars Papers

Almost all of the things you say is astonishingly accurate and that makes me ponder the reason why I had not looked at this with this light previously. Your piece really did switch the light on for me personally as far as this particular topic goes. Nevertheless at this time there is actually one particular point I am not necessarily too comfortable with so whilst I try to reconcile that with the main theme of the issue, allow me observe exactly what the rest of your readers have to say.Well done.

Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!

Great post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed!Extremely useful information particularly the last part🙂 I care for such info a lot. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.

Heya i am for the primary time here. I came across this board and I to find It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I’m hoping to give something back and aid others like you helped me.

I quite like reading an article that can make men and women think. Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

What’s up, after reading this amazing article i am also delighted to share my experience here with colleagues.

These are actually great ideas in concerning blogging. You have touched some nice things here.Any way keep up wrinting.

Very good article post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

Thank you for your blog.Really thank you! Keep writing.

I appreciate you sharing this post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.

I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back in the future. Cheers

I think this is a real great blog.Much thanks again. Will read on…

Thanks a lot for the article post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

Hi everybody, here every person is sharing these know-how, therefore it’s fastidious to read this blog, and I used to pay a quick visit this blog everyday.

Really informative blog.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

Really enjoyed this article post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

Hi to every one, the contents present at this web page are really remarkable for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice work fellows.

I like the valuable info you provide in your articles. I will bookmarkyour blog and check again here regularly. I am quite sure I will learn a lot of new stuff right here!Good luck for the next!

Thank you for your blog.Thanks Again. Cool.

Very neat blog post. Keep writing.

Really enjoyed this article.Really thank you! Much obliged.

Say, you got a nice blog article.Thanks Again.

I value the blog article.Really looking forward to read more.

Awesome blog.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

There is certainly a great deal to find out about this subject. I really like all the points you’ve made.

Really enjoyed this article post.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular article! It is the little changes that make the greatest changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!

Looking forward to reading more. Great blog post.Really thank you!

Good post. I’m dealing with a few of these issues as well..

Hello there! This post could not be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this post to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

A round of applause for your post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

Wow, great post.Really thank you! Really Great.

I would like to thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this site. I’m hoping to view the same high-grade blog posts from you later on as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own website now 😉

Fantastic article.Much thanks again. Cool.

Thank you ever so for you blog post.Really thank you! Really Great.

Amazing blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog jump out. Please let me know where you got your design. Thanks a lot

I really like and appreciate your post.Much thanks again.

I was just looking for this information for a while. After six hours of continuous Googleing, at last I got it in your website. I wonder what’s the lack of Google strategy that don’t rank this type of informative websites in top of the list. Normally the top websites are full of garbage.

This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks!

Really informative article post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

Im grateful for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.

A big thank you for your article.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.

You can definitely see your enthusiasm in the work youwrite. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe.Always go after your heart.

Very informative article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

Good way of telling, and nice paragraph to take facts about my presentation focus, which i am going to convey in school.

A round of applause for your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

Hi there, yeah this paragraph is in fact pleasant and I have learned lot of things from it about blogging. thanks.

Great blog.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.

What’s up, the whole thing is going nicely here and ofcourse everyone is sharing data, that’s actually good, keep upwriting.

I think the admin of this web site is genuinely working hard for his web site, as here every stuff is quality based material.

Aw, this was a really good post. Finding the time and actual effort to create a greatarticle… but what can I say… I put things off a lot anddon’t seem to get nearly anything done.

Say, you got a nice article post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information I was looking for this information for my mission.

It’s going tto be ending off mine day, except before endiing I am readingthis impressive paragraph to improve myy know-how.

Really enjoyed this blog article.Really thank you! Awesome.

My relatives always say that I am killing my time here at web, except I know I am getting familiarity all the time by reading such pleasant content.

Hello I am so excited I found your blog, I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Aol for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to say cheers for a fantastic post and a all round enjoyable blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the minute but I have saved it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Enhancing General Education with Strategic Foresight
• Foresight’s role in Collective Impact Initiatives
• Macrohistory, Peace and Futures | An Interview with Johan Galtung
• After Corporate Capitalism: Economics for People and Planet
• Call for Papers: WFSF XXV Conference Special Issue
• Youth Foresight with Umar Sheraz
• Stories from the Future— an Experiential Lens on the post- pandemic landscape
• Special Issue: AI and Future of Futures

Towards an Explicit Research Methodology: Adapting Research Onion Model for Futures Studies

Journal of Futures Studies, December 2018, 23(2): 29–44

DOI:10.6531/JFS.201812_23(2).0003

A R T I C L E

Aleksandras Melnikovas, The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania Lithuania

This article explores the issues of developing the research methodology and construction of research design within the field of futures studies. The article analyzes systematic approach for developing a research methodology in business studies – the “research onion” model and examines the relevance and appropriateness of this model for futures studies. On the basis of the research onion model analysis, the research onion for futures studies is developed. The article delineates and explains seven steps of developing the research methodology and construction of research design for researching the future, starting with definition of main philosophical stance and gradually leading to the construction of the research design.

Keywords: Futures Studies, Methodology, Research Onion, Research Design.

Introduction

The beginning of acquaintance with futures studies might be quite complicated for students and scholars – the new field of study opens interesting and broad possibilities, however the core question before writing a thesis or dissertation usually stands out: “ What should I start with?” And, of course, methodology is one the most important aspects that should be addressed in the first place.

The experts in the field of futures studies claim that majority of methods came to futures studies from other fields (Bell, 2003; May, 2000), thus it might be said that futures studies is a rather flexible field of study having a great potential of adapting various techniques and methods. However, the lack of literature on methodology of futures studies makes it complicated to distinguish between different philosophies and methods thus building up a distinct research design is much of a task especially for futures studies newcomers. The majority of scholarly articles on methodology of futures studies focus on distinct methods and their implementation (Amara, 1991; Ramos, 2002; Saul, 2001), however the logic behind choosing one of them or the mixture of few is not quite clear. Although future studies for a certain period of time suffered from methodological chaos which put the legitimacy of futures studies as such under question (Delaney, 2002; R. Slaughter & R. A. Slaughter, 1999) a substantial amount of work of such foresight researchers as List (2005), Patomaki (2006), Saleh, Agami, Omran and El-Shishiny (2008), Inayatullah (2004, 2008, 2013), Poli (2011), Miller, Poli and Rossel (2013), Sardar and Sweeney (2016) and others has been done in order to increase the methodological coherence of the field. However, constantly changing and rather chaotic nature of modern social reality imposes the new challenges on futures studies – Sardar and Sweeney (2016) still question if existing futures studies methods can cope with researching the complex, contradictory and uncertain futures.

Exploration of future is not a recent phenomenon, though it is comparatively new approach for scientific studies (Delaney, 2002), therefore it is necessary to analyze the development of futures studies as a scientific approach in order to distinguish the basics for theoretical framework. Even though the methodology of futures studies is quite widely discussed within futurologists’ society, building up a decent futures research methodology is still much of a challenge due to the lack of coherent and systemized models of futures methodology development. In order to fill this gap and provide students and scholars with a tool for methodology development it would make sense to analyze existing systemic models within related fields. One of the existing models – so called “research onion”, developed by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016) for business studies is widely used in social sciences for construction of theoretical framework of the research. Muranganwa (2016) notices that research onion concepts create a firm basis for development of coherent and justifiable research design. Raithatha (2017) also claims that on the basis of the research onion model an appropriate research methodology can be designed step-by-step, thus it can be used as the main academic research model. Although the research onion is an efficient model widely used in social sciences (works of Raithatha (2017), Ramdhani, Mnyamana and Karodia (2017) in marketing), it is also used in exact sciences (work of Muranganwa, 2016 in computer science, Lloyd, 2012 in information technology). However, it is crucial to assess whether this model is suitable in the context of futures studies and adapt it to the specifics of researching the future.

Futures Studies: From Intuitive Forecast Towards Scientific Approach

People think about the future and prepare themselves for desirable and undesirable events on a constant basis. In psychology this phenomenon is known as future-oriented thinking – our plans, hopes, expectations, predictions and construction of possible scenarios of future outcomes – is a natural part of our mental life and in many cases has a potential to determine the present behavior (Aspinwall, 2005). Miller, Poli and Rossel (2013) define these efforts to know the future as “antic- ipation” or imagination of actions, which is, in fact, the way of thinking about the possible conse- quences of decisions that allows considering and evaluating future options. According to Miller, Poli and Rossel (2013) anticipation covers all ways of knowing the “later-than-now” thus forming the discipline of anticipation . Being an integral part of futures studies, discipline of anticipation focuses on the processes how later-than-now enters the reality, thus enabling the conscious use of future in the present (Miller, Poli, & Rossel., 2013). Similarly, Voros (2017) defines anticipation as a way of foresight. As a cognitive or methodological approach anticipation may be associated with explor- ative and predictive ways of thinking (Voros, 2017) and on individual level may be summarized by the demands to (Aspinwall, 2005; Miller et al., 2013; Molis, 2008; Voros, 2017):

• Anticipate future situations and their possible impacts for himself/herself and surrounding people;
• Decide on current actions, taking into account possible future scenarios;
• Balance short-term and long-term interests to reach stated goals;
• Determine and control the causes of significant events;
• Enhance motivation, assuming that it is possible to improve the current situation.

Closer examination of these demands makes it obvious that future-oriented thinking and will to know the future on the individual level may be primarily associated with decision-making process. But the demand to know future rises not only on individual level – as Phillips (1973) claims, governments and leaders throughout the history made a lot of efforts to achieve foresight – from hiring astrologers to establishing special committees and even academies for futures research as a means of strategic planning. Thus the demand for futures studies may be originated from both – inner individual and external collective levels.

On the other hand, changeability and unpredictability are the main attributes of future as such, making it nearly impossible to apply modern investigative tools and expert systems, therefore many scientists put the “research ability” of the future and thus scientific basis of future studies under question. The main critics of researching the future may be summarized by following conclusions:

• Social reality is constantly changing and developing in a non-repetitive way, therefore scientific prediction as such is impossible (Popper, 1965).
• Scientific predictions may be applied only to isolated, stationary and recurrent systems, which are rare in nature. Social system is an open-system, thus application of prediction to such system cannot be referred to as scientific (Popper, 1965).
• Prediction is usually derived from present factors which may change or be irrelevant in the future, and as a result cause false assumptions about the future in the first place (R. A. Slaughter, 1990).
• Predictions precisely derived from present are rather synthetic, therefore impertinent. On the other hand, predictions derived too far from reality are considered as utopias (Molnar, 1973).
• Adaption of future techniques creates a possibility to confuse the analogy with causal relationship, thus finding nonexistent causal relationship between variables (Molis, 2008).

There is, of course, a lot of common sense in critics of futures studies as a scientific field, though, Slaughter (1990) and Bell (2002) argue, that most of the critics are based on misunderstanding of the main aspects of futures studies.

First of all, to discuss the scientific basis of futures studies it is crucial to distinguish what is “science” and its key features. As Ruse (1982) reasonably notices it is quite complicated to give a decent definition of “science”, as this phenomenon has developed through centuries, separating itself from religion, superstitions, philosophy and other domains of mental activities, therefore it is crucial to unfold the key features of what can be called “science”. The definition of “science” according to Ruse (1982) may be summarized by a number of characteristic fea- tures:

• Science is aimed at searching for laws – orders or natural regularities.
• Explanation is used to describe the law, its possibilities and limitations.
• Prediction, being a natural extension of explanation, is used to describe how the law indicates future events.
• Testability – in order to make sure the law is causing predicted effects, it has to be tested in real world, usually conducting an experiment.
• Confirmation – in a classical scientific approach after experiment a scientific theory is either confirmed by positive evidence or rejected.

On the basis of these statements it can be noticed, that prediction per se is a natural part of a scientific approach. Niiniluoto (2001) notices that futuristic trend is a common feature of many scientific disciplines, such as economics, physics and psychology – laws, orders or natural regularities create a set of constraints for present environment and lead to prediction of observable events in the future. Niiniluoto (2001) argues that without prediction any scientific theory will not meet testability criteria. Patomaki (2006) also claims that even though social sciences usually do not use predictions, anticipation of futures is an integral part of all social actions, thus social sciences should also have the ability to give explanations of possible or likely futures in order to stay relevant in a contemporary environment.

Niiniluoto (2001) notices, however, that according to Plato, from a classical point of view, knowledge is a justified true belief , thus author questions if “foresight” as such can possibly be a form of knowledge and states that even though there are propositions about the future that can be verified as true at present, this mostly applies to the field of exact sciences, and predictions about contingent events or states in the future can not be known in a classical sense. On the other hand, Slaughter (1990) argues that foresight should not be considered from an earlier worldview for that it is based on assumptions which do not comply with current circumstances or needs. For this reason, Niiniluoto (2001) proposes a clear distinction between the object and the evidence of the research: the object of futures studies is not the future but the present and the knowledge of the present is evidence about the future.

Another approach to define the object of futures studies is based on assumption that there is no “the one and the only” future, which can rather be defined as a “branching tree” (Niiniluoto, 2001) or a variety of alternative possibilities as a part of real world which is not manifested yet (Patomaki, 2006). Therefore, the future consists of multiple possibilities and non-actualized powers of existing environment which may unfold under certain circumstances. In terms of researching the future in an open-system, contemporary futures studies have changed the research perspective from prediction to trend analysis, possibilities and scenario construction (Patomaki, 2006), and moved from forecast or prediction towards foresight – possible, preferable future analysis and designing the future. (Kosow & Gaßner, 2008; Niiniluoto, 2001).

Further attempts to consolidate futures studies as a scientific approach may be associated with the discussions on ontological assumptions of futures studies. Jouvenel (1967) attempted to define the ontology of futures studies through facta and futura concepts, claiming that facta refers to scientific approach which primarily based on collecting data about tangible past events, so that predictions can be made on the basis of collected data using extrapolation method. On the contrary, the concept of futura implies the absence of past data, which could be analyzed. Futura refers to cognitive products, such as wishes, fears, expectations, etc. thus it cannot be linked with science.

This paradigm was further developed by Polak and Boulding (1973). Researching human perception authors admit the dual nature of reality and distinguish the present which is actual and the imagined which is referred to the thought-realm. This dualism shapes the preconditions for the definition of future as such – the division and categorizing of feelings, perceptions and responses within time continuum enables men to experience the movement of the events in time, thus distinguish between before , now and after or the past, present and the future. However, Polak and Boulding (1973) also claim the future must not only be perceived, but shaped as well through the image of the future .

A critical shift of futures studies ontology paradigms can be associated with introduction of disposition concept by Bell (2003). According to Poli (2011) the core difference in understanding the future was the concept of multiple possibilities where disposition is referred to as a fact, that can actualize in future under certain circumstances. From ontology point of view, disposition is no longer a cognitive product, but a fact that has a potential to condition the future.

Although these assumptions create a firm basis for building up theoretical framework of the research, it still does not provide a coherent notion for designing research methodology and building up a distinct research design. In order to develop a coherent futures research design it is crucial to identify the logical steps which would link epistemological and ontological assumptions with research methods and ways to interpret the findings.

Research Onion as a Model of Designing Research Methodology

Methodology is a general research strategy which delineates the way how research should be undertaken. It includes a system of believes and philosophical assumptions which shape the understanding of the research questions and underpin the choice of research methods. Research methodology is an integral part of a dissertation or thesis which helps to ensure the consistency between chosen tools, techniques and underlying philosophy.

One of the ways of research methodology construction is based on theoretical concept of “research onion” (Figure 1), proposed by Saunders et al. (2016). The research onion provides a rather exhausting description of the main layers or stages which are to be accomplished in order to formulate an effective methodology (Raithatha, 2017).

The research methodology has its starting point with delineation of the main philosophy, choosing approaches, methods and strategies as well as defining time horizons, which altogether take the research logic to the research design – main techniques and procedures of data collection and analysis (Figure 1).

The research onion consists of six main layers:

• Research philosophy – forms a basis of the research by delineation of ontology – nature of reality, epistemology – nature, sources of knowledge or facts and axiology – values, beliefs  and ethics of the research.
• Approach to theory development – can be implied by the research philosophy on previous level and usually include: deduction – the research starts with an existing theory, then rising a question or hypothesis and data collection in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis; in- duction – the research starts with observation and data collection, moving to description and analysis in order to form a theory; abduction – observation of an empirical phenomena is followed by the research which comes up with a best guess or conclusion based on available evidence. Deductive approach is applied for existing theory testing, while inductive approach is commonly used in developing a theory or in fields with little researches on the topic. Abductive approach usually starts with a surprsing fact and is moving between induction and deduction in order to find the most likely explanation
• Methodological choice – determines the use of quantitative and qualitative methods or various mixtures of both.
• Strategy – to collect and analyze data: experiment, survey, archival research, case study, ethnography, action research, grounded theory, narrative inquiry.
• Time horizons. This layer defines the time frame for the research – cross-sectional or short term study, involving collection of data at a specific point of time; longitudinal – collection of data repeatedly over a long period of time in order to compare data.
• Techniques and procedures include data collection and analysis – the use of primary/ secondary data, choosing sample groups, developing questionnaire content, preparing interviews, etc.

The research onion, proposed by Saunders et al. (2016) is a tool which helps to organize the research and develop research design following the layers of the research onion step by step. However, the research onion model was primarily designed for business studies, therefore it would be incorrect to adapt this model “as is” for researching the future. The analysis of literature on futures studies methodology has revealed that futures studies is a specific research field as it deals with phenomena which are not actualized yet, thus it underpins specific ontological and epistemological assumptions which lead to choice of strategies, techniques and methods different from ones used in business studies.

Adapting the Research Onion Model for Futures Studies

In order to adapt the research onion model it is crucial to analyze and determine the appropriateness of the model for futures studies and make necessary logical corrections within six original layers of the model.

A critical overview of six research onion layers has led to discovery of one additional layer – Layer 2: Approaches to futures research , which could be logically included into original model thus forming a coherent research onion model for futures studies. Altogether, seven main layers of the research onion for futures studies were distinguished: 1) research philosophy; 2) approaches to futures research; 3) approaches to theory development; 4) research strategy; 5) methodological choice; 6) time horizons; 7) techniques and procedures.

Layer 1: Research philosophy

In order to address the matter of scientific basis of futures studies, it is important to highlight the basic techniques of the research first. A classical research methodology is based on a certain philosophical theory which then implies strategies and techniques of the research (Nweke & Orji 2009; Saunders et al., 2016). From a historical point of view there may be distinguished two classical or mainstream – positivist and interpretivist, and two rather recent – pragmatist and critical realist,mpositions of scientific research philosophy (Mingers, 2006; Molis, 2008; Saunders et al., 2016).

• Positivism – mainly reflects philosophical stance of a natural scientist. Ontology is based on objectivist assumptions that entities are observed, atomistic events, existing external to social actors, therefore only observation and empirical data may be referred to as “credible”. Knowledge is obtained by observation and finding event regularities, which are based on causal, law-like and functional relations.
• Interpretivism – an approach based on subjectivist ontological assumptions that entities are constituted of discourse, thus existing or socially constructed reality may be only researched through social constructions as consciousness or language (Myers, 2008). Reality is socially constructed and constantly evolving, therefore knowledge and facts are relative and subjective.

The strict dichotomy between positivist and interpretivist position is a matter of constant critics on the basis of distinction between natural and social sciences. Positivist philosophy admitting that entities such as ideas or social structures exist independently of human beings, does not take into account the role of individual in a social reality. Conversely, interpretivists claim that existence of the world, independent of human thought and perception is impossible. In the middle of 1970’s a new philosophy challenging ideas of positivism and interpretivism has emerged on the basis of Bhaskar’s works.

Bhaskar proposed an idea of transcendental realism and critical naturalism, combined into a theory of critical realism . First of all, Bhaskar (2008) challenges the classical empiricism idea of atomistic events, being the ultimate object of knowledge and distinguishes two types of knowledge:

• Transitive – knowledge as a product of social activity; changing objects of knowledge. Objects of such knowledge depend on human activity.
• Intransitive – knowledge of things, not produced by men; relatively stable/unchanging objects of knowledge. Objects of such knowledge would remain exactly the same even if humanity ceased to exist.

According to Bhaskar (2008) the existence of present, past and future does not depend on our knowledge or experience of it – real entities exist independently of events and events occur independently of experience, thus the domains of real , actual and empirical can be distinguished (Table 1).

Table 1. Domains of reality 2

The core aim of science is to produce knowledge of mechanisms (which are intransitive objects, existing independently of men) and the statements (laws), describing these mechanisms. Traditional scientific approach is aimed at discovering the natural sequences, laws and causation mechanisms which then are tested by conducting an experiment in a controlled environment – relatively “closed system”. Traditional definition of causal laws based on Hume works implies that causation mechanism is based on a simple conjunction of events, where event 2 follows event 1, although such causation is true mostly for closed systems. The reality is complex and changeable, therefore is referred to as an “open system”, where event 2 does not always follow event 1 – the real world consists of actual, as well as non-actualized possibilities and non-manifested powers of existing structures and mechanisms within given environment. In this context causal laws are defined as generative mechanisms of nature , which can be determined within closed system by experimental activity and are efficacious outside closed system, therefore – transfactual . Causal laws are understood to operate as tendencies, for that they do not explain what would happen under certain circumstances, rather than what is happening in an unmanifested way.

According to Bhaskar (2008), social phenomenon is both – causal and interpretive in nature, thus critical realism in a certain way reconciles the two main ontological positions – positive and interpretive, providing a basis to bridge explanation and understanding. Empirical observation, however, cannot be the only basis for explanation – causality can be understood only in regard to hidden, unobservable causal mechanisms, which are activated under certain conditions and these mechanisms or tendencies, whether actualized or not, may not be empirically observable (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, 2011). Causation cannot be reduced to the search for regularities due to the fact that relationship between cause and effect does not necessarily produce regularity, therefore development of causal explanations should be based on exploration of generative mechanisms (Danermark, Ekstrom, Jakobsen & Karlsson, 2002). Within the scientific research this position causes the change of focus – from researching events as such to investigation of mechanisms, producing these events. In case of futures research, the exploration of generative mechanisms is significant in the search for regularities, having potential to foster future events.

Saunders et al. (2016) also admit, that choosing between positive or interpretive position may be unrealistic, thus other philosophical positions of scientific research are proposed in addition to the two offered above:

• Pragmatism – based on assumption that within the research it is possible to adapt both positivist and interpretivist positions whichever works best for particular research question.
• Critical realism – based on two ontological assumptions: 1) the world consists of real entities; 2) we perceive the sensations and images of real entities, not the real entities themselves (Saunders et al., 2016). Knowledge is obtained by discovering generative mechanisms.

Within the field of futures studies there exist various ways of understanding the future and its relation to the present and past. Kosow and Gaßner (2008), claim that from the present perspective future can be perceived in three different views: 1) first view – future is predictable , anything that is going to happen can be predicted; 2) second view – future is evolutive , purposeful control of future is impossible; 3) third view – future is malleable , therefore can be influenced to some extend by participating actors. Inayatullah, (2013) proposes quite similar distinction of three basic views of future: 1) predictive – assumes deterministic nature of future, therefore the future can be known; 2) interpretive – is aimed not at prediction, but insight, therefore is mainly based on interpretive analysis of different images; 3) critical – there is no one determined future, rather than one among many possible futures. It may be stated, that Kosow and Gaßner (2008) and Inayatullah, (2013) propose quite similar views of future, which may be linked to three positions of scientific research philosophy discussed above – positivism, interpretivism and critical realism :

Assumes the predictability and controllability of future. Future prognoses are based on our knowledge of present and past – finding events regularities, based on causal, law-like and functional relations, enables precise calculation of future events by extrapolation.

Interpretivism

Assumes unpredictable nature of future. The future is perceived as random, chaotic and unpredictable chain of events, thus the control or prediction of future as such is impossible, knowledge of future can only be obtained through intuitive strategy.

Critical Realism

Assumes the flexibility of future. The future is real, although not manifested yet, it consists of multiple possibilities and actualizes through transformative events, therefore the future can be influenced (at least to some extent) by participating actors.

Patomaki (2006), Bell (2003), Van der Heijden (2000) claim critical realist position provides rather distinct basis for futures studies, while List (2005) and Aligica (2011) reasonably notice that critical realist approach can be employed for explanation of possible future constraints.

On the basis of analysis of Patomaki (2006), Bell (2003) and Van der Heijden (2000) critical realist ideas for futures studies, the most significant assumptions may be summarized as follows:

• Reality can be divided into three domains (table 1) – the domain of real being the largest, the domain of actual and the domain of empirical being respectively the smallest, therefore there are much more real possibilities, than actual or empirically observed events even in closed systems. Knowledge about the world lies within the domain of real, therefore real world can be known.
• Future as an entity is real, even though not manifested yet, consists of multiple possibilities, which actualize through different transformative events and nodal points, creating particular context and presupposing actions for certain possibilities realization.
• Social reality is an open-system, containing both – observable, as well as non-observable components and dimensions, therefore precise scientific prediction as such is impossible. However, anticipation of future, based on observation of generative mechanisms can still take place.
• The knowledge of the future is possible on the basis of logical deduction from the past and the present – observation of unfolding events create conditions to discern a certain trend, which lead to exploration of its causal mechanisms and extrapolation of the trend.
• Analysis of possible futures creates different narratives of how the future may unfold. The complex of these narratives may constitute a grand narrative of the possibilities for researched phenomenon.
• Futures studies are focused on on-going processes and actions, rather than on past events, therefore futurologists explain the development of various social structures, specify the boundary conditions and construct a narrative up to a certain point in the future, creating an explanatory history and future scenarios.

All things considered, it can be argued that critical realist philosophy provides rather distinct theoretical framework for futures studies. The idea of multiple futures, which are real, but not manifested yet, shifts the focus from precise scientific prediction of the future to exploration of causal mechanisms and extrapolation of trend by construction of narratives up to a certain point in the future and creating possible development scenarios.

On the basis of ontological classification of futures studies stated above it can be concluded that positive philosophy has a potential to provide theoretical ground for futures studies in areas where obtaining tangible data is possible, for instance in fields such as demography, economic development. Interpretive position is based on understanding the spectrum of images of the future, rather than on scientific forecasting, therefore it aims to provide an insight not a prediction. Criti cal realism on the other hand, assumes the possibility of different futures which can be influenced from present at least to some extent, thus it can be employed as ontological position for scenario construction and analysis in areas such as institutions, culture, politics.

Layer 2: Approaches to futures research

List (2005) distinguishes two approaches of studying the future: quantitative forecasting is based on mathematical operations such as extrapolation, econometric modelling, etc.; alternative futures refer to idea of multiple futures and is based on methods of foresight. Inayatullah (2013) distinguishes four main approaches of futures studies: predictive – based on empirical sciences; in- terpretive – understanding competing images of the future; critical – focused on asking who benefits from certain future; participatory action learning/research – focused on developing the future. By the way of summarizing these ideas, Kosow and Gaßner (2008) claim that from a historical point of view approaches of futures studies have gradually evolved from forecasting, based on quantitative techniques, towards foresight – based on qualitative/combined techniques, being more appropriate for studying complex futures. The first approach – forecasting , is mainly applied in areas where tangible quantitative data is available, e.g. demography, economic development, while the second approach – foresight , leading to a complex cognitive-analytical view of multiple futures, is used in areas such as institutions, culture, politics.

Layer 3: Approaches to theory development

Saunders et al. (2016) distinguish three main approaches to theory development – deductive , inductive and abductive . Deductive research logic is referred to reasoning moving from general rule to a specific law-like inference and is usually used for theory testing. Inductive reasoning is a way of theory building, starts with specific observation on the basis of which a general rule is formulated. According to Kuosa (2011), in futures studies inductive reasoning is mainly associated with “intuitive” techniques, while deductive reasoning, based on physical argumentation, is aimed to control functions and direct knowledge.

Kuosa (2011) also argues that one of the most significant errors in contemporary futures studies is the demand to control or exactly predict the future, because future as an entity is changeable and unpredictable. A failure to provide “exact” prediction of future is often considered by contemporary scientists as a lack of scientific basis of futures studies per se . However, failure in real life is a common phenomenon which is also a part of scientific knowledge, therefore it is important to accept failing as a part of scientific approach. Although both deductive and inductive inferences are widely used in contemporary futures studies, Kuosa (2011) reasonably notices the shift towards abductive reasoning. According to Paavola, Hakkarainen and Sintonen (2006) abductive reasoning is a form of inference, starting with observation of clue-like signs, which provide the basic notion for further research. Thus, abductive inference is a best guess or conclusion based on available evidence.

Referring to Kuosa (2011) three research approaches may be distinguished for futures studies:

• deductive – aimed to direct knowledge and functions control, involves the use of physical argumentation; 2) inductive – aimed to control information, involves the use of structural and categorization argumentation; 3) abductive – aims to identify structures, connections, contexts and constraints, involves the use of cognitive argumentation.

Layer 4: Research strategy

Presenting research strategies, Saunders et al. (2016) suggests experiment, survey, archival research, case study, ethnography, action research, grounded theory and narrative inquiry to be the main strategies for research. However, research strategies in the field of futures studies can be distinguished in a slightly different manner.

Research strategy can be referred to as a general way which helps the researcher to choose main data collection methods or sets of methods in order to answer the research question and meet the research objectives. List (2005) distinguishes two main types of research methods in futures studies – quantitative and qualitative . Kosow and Gaßner (2008), Puglisi (2001) besides quantitative and qualitative distinguish explorative and normative groups of research methods. Explorative methods are aimed at studying multiple futures and exploration of possible developments, while normative methods aim to shape the desirable/undesirable future and build the pathways or chain of events for reaching it. In futures studies all these groups of methods may be used for reaching the specific research objectives – to describe the exact patterns of future development, what future will be like; prescribe the set of actions in order to reach desirable future; explore the possible development of future events. Therefore, the three main research strategies may be distinguished – descriptive , nor- mative (prescriptive) and explorative .

Layer 5: Methodological choice

Saunders et al. (2016) define research choices with reference to the use of quantitative and qualitative research methods, as well as the simple or complex mix of both or the use of mono methods. Qualitative research methods involve numbers and mathematical operations, while qualitative methods imply collection of a vast descriptive data. Mono method is used when the research is focused either on quantitative or qualitative data gathering; mixed methods – quantitative and qualitative methods used within the same research in order to achieve different aims and offset the constraints of the use of single method; multi-method choice undermines the use of both, qualitative and quantitative methods, although the research is based on of them, while the other method is auxiliary or supplementary.

Such presentation of research choices is also relevant to futures studies, according to Saleh et al., (2008) the scope of methods can also be divided into quantitative methods, such as time series analysis, causal analysis, trend analysis, etc., as well as qualitative – Delphi surveys, futures wheel, environmental scanning, etc. There are also methods, that are successfully employed as both quantitative and qualitative – scenario construction, modelling.

Layer 6: Time horizons

Time horizons in futures studies usually refer to periods to be studied or chronological horizon of varying breadth. Kosow and Gaßner (2008) distinguish three basic time horizons: short-term – up to 10 years; medium-term – up to 25 years; long-term – more than 25 years.

Kosow and Gaßner (2008) also distinguish static observations from a point in time in future, usually associated with normative strategies as an alternative time horizon. Such point of retrospec- tive is usually used for “static” or “end-state” scenarios construction.

Layer 7: Techniques and procedures

Following the research onion step-by-step, the final layer – techniques and procedures, moves the research design towards data collection and analysis. All previous choices determine the type of basic data collection and analysis procedures, which will help to answer the research question.

Construction of Research Design Using Research Onion for Futures Studies

The construction of research design in futures studies may be based on the concept of research onion, proposed by Saunders et al. (2016). After adapting the concept for futures studies the research onion may be presented as a system that integrates certain theoretical knowledge already developed within the field of futures studies and can be summarized by seven layers (Figure 2).

Choosing the research methodology and building up a research design in futures studies may be carried out following seven steps corresponding the seven layers of the research onion for futures studies:

Choosing philosophy in futures studies may be complicated due to the fact that there is no empirical evidence of the future as such. In order to choose an appropriate philosophy, it is important to determine the operational field of the research and available data sources. Positivism may be chosen as the main philosophical stance for the research where tangible quantitative data is available, which makes the basis for “calculating” the future and make exact predictions, usually in fields such as demography, economic development. If the research will focus on the use of qualitative data which is often the case, interpretivism or critical realism may be chosen as the main philosophy. Interpretive position can be chosen if the research would mainly focus on construction of futures narratives and understanding the spectrum of images of the future to provide an insight. Critical realist position assumes the possibility of different futures which can be influenced from present at least to some extent, thus it is often used for scenario construction in areas such as institutions, culture and politics.

Approaches to Futures Research

The second step is to choose the right futures research approach. Positive philosophical stance is usually followed by forecast approach. Forecasting is based on mathematical operations such as extrapolation, econometric modelling and is aimed at discovering the exact future events. Foresight is based on qualitative/combined techniques and is used for studying a complex view of multiple futures.

Approaches to Theory Development

Choosing the right approach also depends on chosen philosophy and research approach – de- ductive theory development approach may be associated with forecast, as deductive reasoning leads to certain conclusions which are logical necessities and developed theory is tested or ver- ified by data collection. Inductive and abductive approaches start with data collection and then move to development of a clear theoretical position. According to Patokorpi and Ahvenainen (2009) deductive and inductive approaches in futures studies are based on projection prom past probabilities, whereas abductive approach focuses on discovery of “weak signals”, which are the first symptoms of change. Abductive approach is mainly applied to draw a conclusion from low knowledge (Patokorpi & Ahvenainen, 2009).

Descriptive strategy may be associated with forecasting approach and deductive reasoning as it primarily aims at exact description of future events. Normative strategy is aimed at exploring what the future should or should not be like and to search for the ways of reaching it. Explorative strategy is aimed at the study of multiple futures and exploration of possible developments.

Methodological Choice

The choice for methods within the research may be implied by research problem question and the overall aim of the research, therefore at this stage mono, mixed or multi methods may be chosen for reaching specific tasks of the research.

Time Horizons

Depending on the objectives of the research, long-term , mid-term , short-term future as well as  point of retrospective may be selected as research time horizon.

Techniques and Procedures

At this step a research tool such as questionnaire or interview is constructed in a way it fits all choices, made within previous layers.

Within the past few decades’ futures studies have developed into a scientific approach. Distinct methods create a theoretical basis for studying the future, however methodological uncertainty and chaotic nature of modern social reality does not add to the coherence of futures studies. In this situation the research onion for futures studies can serve as a heuristic approach for building up methodology and developing research design.

The research onion for futures studies, however, does not aim to become “the one and the only” approach for developing the research design, on the contrary – it aims to bring the general notion on the use of existing methodologies and approaches developed within the field of futures studies and serve as a guide for futures studies researchers and practitioners. The research onion for futures studies offers a flexible model of methodology development as it enables the researcher to choose most suitable theories or practices within existing layers in order to answer the research questions.

The presented model may be considered as a process guiding step-by-step towards construction of theoretical framework of the research, which helps to ensure the consistency between chosen tools, techniques and underlying philosophy, thus leading to a construction of a research design in coherent and logical manner.

Correspondence

Aleksandras Melnikovas

The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania Department of Political Science

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3940-4320 E-mail: [email protected]

• From: Research Methods for Business Students, (p.124), by Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill, 2016, England, Pearson Education Limited. © 2015 Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill, reproduced with permission of the authors.
• From: A Realist Theory of Science, (p.2) by Bhaskar, 2008, London and New York, Routledge.

Aligica, P. D. (2011). A critical realist image of the future Wendell Bell’s contribution to the founda- tions of futures studies. Futures, 43 (2011), 610-617.

Amara, R. (1991). Views on futures research methodology. Futures, 23 (6), 645-649.

Aspinwall, L. G. (2005). The Psychology of Future-Oriented Thinking: From Achievement to Pro- active Coping, Adaptation, and Aging. Motivation and Emotion , Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2005, pp. 203-235.

Bell, W. (2002). A community of futurists and the state of the futures field. Futures, 34 (2002), 235- 247.

Bell, W. (2003). Foundations of Futures Studies. History, Purposes and Knowledge: Human Science for a New Era Volume 1. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A Realist Theory of Science . London and New York: Routledge.

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences . London: Routledge.

De Jouvenel, B. (1967). The Art of Conjecture . London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Delaney, K. (2002). Futures: In Search of Strategy. Journal of Futures Studies , 6 (4), 65-86.

Heijden, K. (2000). Scenarios and forecasting: Two perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Nr. 65 (1), 31-36.

Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader . Tamsui, Taiwan: Tamkang Uni- versity.

Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures Thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10 (1), 4-21.

Inayatullah, S. (2013). Futures Studies: theories and methods. There’s a Future: Visions for a better world , Madrid, 2013, 36-66.

Kosow, H., & Gaßner, R. (2008) Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis: Overview, assessment, and selection criteria. Studies/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, Germany, Bonn.

Kuosa, T. (2011). Evolution of futures studies. Futures, 43 (2011), 327-336.

42 List, D. (2005). Scenario Network Mapping: The Development of a Methodology for Social Inquiry.

Doctoral dissertation: Division of Business and Enterprise University of South Australia.

Lloyd, B. (2012). The use of internet applications for the dissemination of knowledge for career management (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University).

May, G. (2000). Worldviews, assumptions and typologies of the future. Journal of Future Studies , 5 (2), 37-51.

Miller, R., Poli, R., & Rossel, P. (2013). The discipline of anticipation: Exploring key issues. IN: fu- mee.org.

Mingers, J. (2006). Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in Management Science.

New York: Springer.

Molis, A. (2008). Bendrosios ES saugumo ir gynybos politikos plėtros scenarijų tyrimas . Doctoral dissertation. Vilnius: Vilnius university.

Molnar, T. (1973). Elements for a Critique of Futurology. The Georgia Review, 27 (4), 560-565.

Muranganwa, R. (2016). Design and implementation of a multi-agent opportunistic grid computing platform. Doctoral dissertation. University of Fort Hare.

Myers, M. D. (2008). Qualitative Research in Business & Management . London: SAGE Publica- tions.

Niiniluoto, I. (2001). Futures studies: science or art? Futures, 33 , 371-377.

Nweke, E., & Orji, N. (2009). A Handbook of Political Science . Abakaliki: Department of Political Science, Ebonyi State University.

Paavola, S., Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2006). Abduction with dialogical and trialogical means. Logic Journal of IGPL, 14 (2), 137-150.

Patokorpi, E., & Ahvenainen, M. (2009). Developing an abduction-based method for futures re- search. Futures, 41 (3), 126-139.

Patomaki, H. (2006). Realist Ontology for Futures Studies. Journal of Critical Realism, 5 (1), 1-31. Phillips, D. C. (1973). Futurology: Difficulties and doubts. Politics, 8 (2), 346-355.

Polak, F., & Boulding, E. T. (1973). The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Compa- ny.

Poli, R. (2011). Steps Toward an Explicit Ontology of the Future. Journal of Futures Studies, Sep- tember 2011, 16 (1), 67-78.

Popper, K. R. (1965). Prediction and Prophecy in the Social Sciences. Conjectures and Refutations,

London, 1965, 339-340.

Puglisi, M. (2001). The study of the futures: an overview of futures studies methodologies. Interde- pendency between agriculture and urbanization: conflicts on sustainable use of soil water. Bari: CIHEAM. Options Mediterraneennes, Serie A. Seminaires Mediterraneens, 44, 439- 463.

Raithatha, Y. (2017). Understanding the economic impact terrorism has on the destination decision making: Northern Irish tourists. Doctoral dissertation. Dublin Business School.

Ramdhani, A., Mnyamana, X., & Karodia, A. M. (2017). Investigating the Impact of Service Deliv- ery on Consumer Satisfaction: A Case Study of Ford-Gauteng Province, Republic of South Africa. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies , 51 (138), 1-30. Ramos, J. M. (2002). Action research as foresight methodology. Journal of Futures Studies, 7 (1), 1-24.

Ruse, M. (1982). Creation Science Is Not Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7 (3), 72- 78.

Saleh, M., Agami, N., Omran, A., & El-Shishiny, H. (2008). A survey on futures studies methods.

Cairo: Faculty of Computers and Information-Cairo University-INFOS, pp. 38-46.

Sardar, Z., & Sweeney, J. A. (2016). The three tomorrows of postnormal times. Futures , 75, 1-13. Saul, P. (2001). This way to the future. Journal of Futures Studies, 6 (1), 107-119.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students . England: Pearson Education Limited.

Slaughter, R. A. (1990). The foresight principle. Futures, 22 (8), 801-819.

Slaughter, R., & Slaughter, R. A. (1999). Futures for the third millennium: Enabling the forward view. Prospect Media.

Voros, J. (2017). Big History and Anticipation. Handbook of anticipation: Theoretical and applied aspects of the use of future in decision making , pp. 1-40.

Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of Inter- national Business Studies , 42, 740-762.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.