Introduction
The primary focus of this research is to delve into the intricacies surrounding the evolution and characteristics of office spaces. Additionally, it engages in a critical discussion concerning the rationale behind choosing interpretivism and social constructivism as the research paradigms for this study.
Reasons for Opting for Interpretivism
Adopting interpretivism as the research philosophy for this endeavour stems from multiple compelling reasons. Firstly, interpretivism allows researchers to decipher various elements pertinent to the study. These elements include the underlying factors contributing to the formation of ‘Hoffice’ and the defining features of traditional office spaces. In pursuing our research objectives, we have embraced the interpretive approach, incorporating human interests into attaining these objectives.
The integration of interpretivism into this study has been facilitated by its inclination toward critiquing the positivist approach within social sciences (Fraser & Pechenkina, 2016). Interpretivism, as a research philosophy, centres on analyzing and evaluating diverse viewpoints among respondents. Our current study focuses on the significance of research inquiries and questions about the problem instead of relying solely on the research methodology.
Consequently, numerous facets of interpretivism’s research framework have played a pivotal role in shaping the design of this research endeavour. An integral factor motivating the selection of this research philosophy is its commitment to an objective and quantifiable philosophical reality. Scholars enjoy the flexibility to choose from various qualitative and experiential methods that best align with their research requirements.
Furthermore, interpretivism is rooted in the idea that the world is not a monolithic or purely objective reality (Walliman, 2015). Instead, it emphasizes the subjective aspects of research methods that offer the most comprehensive insights into the study’s subject matter. Consequently, in this research, interpretivism’s research philosophy has been deemed suitable for the collection and analysis of data given its inherent nature.
Moreover, the outcomes of research inquiries align effectively with the utilization of this philosophy, as it presents context-specific findings and avoids prioritizing a reality detached from the human mind. Employing the interpretivism research philosophy to investigate the phenomenon enables researchers to unearth how and what aspects of the research should be explored instead of basing research on preconceived outcomes.
In the present research, interpretivism’s research philosophy is leveraged to interpret various components of the analysis, emphasising integrating the human dimension into the study (Creswell and Poth, 2017). Following this research philosophy, we posit that access to social reality can only be achieved through the lens of social constructs such as consciousness, language, instruments, and shared meanings.
In accordance with the principles of interpretivism, it is imperative that researchers, as active participants in the social arena, discern the distinctions among individuals. Additionally, interpretive studies often prioritize the interpretation of meaning and provide multiple avenues to reflect upon diverse aspects. Thus, the researcher has chosen to adopt the interpretivism research philosophy, as it aligns most aptly with the research issue: understanding the factors contributing to the success of ‘Hoffice(s)’ in the United Kingdom.
Interpretivism as a research philosophy is helpful in social science research, particularly when exploring complex situations rooted in reality. In our current study, which aims to ascertain the reasons behind the emergence of ‘Hoffices,’ data will be collected within the complex environments of ‘Hoffices,’ where members will be encouraged to furnish insights into the factors underpinning their growth.
Furthermore, interpretivism’s research philosophy is considered the most appropriate approach for analyzing and comprehending the factors that have driven the proliferation of ‘Hoffices’ in the U.K. This choice is based on the researcher’s intention to discern specific issues related to the evolution of office workspaces through an extensive review of existing literature, including the examination of coworking spaces.
Employing the interpretive research approach, the researcher will adopt an inductive research methodology. This approach involves analyzing empirical observations and subsequently applying these observations to formulate specific theories explaining the emergence and development of ‘Hoffices.’ Subsequently, these theories will be interpreted, with the interpretivism research philosophy playing a pivotal role in this process.
The roots of interpretivism’s research philosophy can be traced back to the annals of philosophy, where Max Weber introduced the notion of the “ideal type” to facilitate exploration of the social world. In this context, interpretivism has been chosen as the research philosophy due to its profound influence on the evolution of research paradigms, aiding in understanding the underlying factors driving the emergence of ‘Hoffices.’
The ideas of Franz Boas are intertwined with interpretivism and anti-positivism, contributing to an understanding of verstehen sociology within the realm of social sciences. This perspective is further reinforced by the insights of Georg Simmel and Max Weber (Chowdhury, 2014, p. 432). Interpretivism’s research philosophy has been selected because it effectively combines causal analysis with verstehen, as encapsulated in Weber’s interpretive sociology. This approach’s historical adoption to comprehend the social world has generated substantial interest.
Verstehen entails a multifaceted process through which individuals interpret the meanings behind their actions in everyday life and decipher the importance attributed to the efforts of those with whom they interact (Chepp and Gray, 2014, p. 10).
Conversely, hermeneutic phenomenology zooms in on the subjective experiences of both groups and individuals. Its primary objective is to unveil the real-world experiences of subjects through their narratives. Nonetheless, Anney (2014, p. 3) contends that phenomenology may not offer a practical grasp of the processes and the significance individuals attach to their actions. It also challenges policymakers in determining the appropriate course of action, as it tends to focus predominantly on recent developments.
For instance, applying phenomenology to the discussion of ‘Hoffices’ would primarily concern itself with contemporary developments and current reasons for adopting this approach, disregarding potential future directions.
As hermeneutics concerns itself with the study of experiences, the researcher’s susceptibility to bounded rationality poses limitations. Despite best efforts to remain impartial, personal biases can influence the researcher’s ability to comprehend the reasons behind ‘Hoffices’ as the observed parties (hosts) reported. Consequently, subconscious biases may emerge as the researcher grapples with reconciling these biases with the reported experiences.
Conversely, symbolic interaction, an essential facet of interpretivism research, is often employed by researchers in participant observations to scrutinize individual actions and social interactions (Ragab and Arisha, 2017, p. 1). By focusing on the meaning and symbols inherent in these interactions, the objective extends beyond mere identification of events to discerning the root causes of the research issue.
In light of this, the interpretivism approach aims to identify the types of interactions prevalent within ‘Hoffices,’ with the researcher concentrating on decoding the symbolic meaning of both spoken and written language. However, Lindlof and Taylor (2017, p. 45) argue that employing symbolic interaction places substantial responsibility on the researcher to decipher the intended meanings accurately. This task becomes even more complex as various individuals studying a similar research phenomenon may assign multiple interpretations to the same symbol.
Thus, it becomes evident that each symbol encountered while communicating with ‘Hoffice’ hosts can carry a multitude of interpretations, potentially leading to varying understandings among different individuals.
Reasons for Choosing Social Constructivism:
The study has embraced a social constructivist research approach to explore the specific circumstances that have led to the growth and development of ‘Hoffices.’ While many social science researchers raise concerns about the generalizability of research focused on capturing complex social situations (Moon and Blackman, 2014; Kukla, 2000), the unique nature of our study demands a different perspective.
In this context, we argue that generalizability is not a primary concern. The ever-evolving nature of the business world means that today’s situations may not apply in just a few months, rendering generalization less valuable. Similarly, recognizing the inherent uniqueness of each entity diminishes the importance of abstraction.
As previously mentioned, the social constructivism research paradigm has its roots in the interpretivism research philosophy, which proves particularly effective in understanding the ‘Hoffice’ phenomenon from the perspective of its members. ‘Hoffice’ represents a highly dynamic, personalized, and individualized form of workspace. Consequently, we have chosen constructivism to align with relativism, which accommodates diverse, distinct, and valid realities (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 29).
Constructivists maintain that reality is constructed in an individual’s mind rather than being an external, objective entity. Ponterotto (2005) argues that meaning is initially hidden but can be brought to the surface through profound thinking, encouraged by the interaction between participants and investigators. Therefore, constructivism views reality as a product of the human mind, inherently subjective.
Another compelling reason for employing the social constructivism research philosophy is our desire to engage with both ‘Hoffice’ convenors and members to gain insight into the underlying conditions that led to ‘Hoffice’s formation. We aim to comprehend the factors behind the success of ‘Hoffice’ from the perspective of its members. Given these research considerations, the constructivism research philosophy posits that subjectivity and knowledge are valued and worthwhile in a reality shaped by the mind.
Individuals are inevitably influenced by their values, impacting various aspects of the research process, including research questions, data collection and analysis methods, interpretation of results, and reporting (Kukla, 2000, p. 56).
Therefore, as constructivists, we acknowledge the inherent value-laden nature of the study and clarify the proposed connection to the subject matter, which may affect neutrality. Another reason for selecting this research approach is our alignment with a social constructivist perspective, which acknowledges that qualitative researchers inevitably introduce subjectivity.
Research outcomes result from a symbiotic relationship between investigators and respondents. The researcher also acknowledges the interpretive challenge inherent in constructivism, often characterized by the question, ‘Why should I believe one version of events over another?’ However, social constructivism offers a mechanism for dialogue, fostering a highly socially interactive learning environment. Given the research issue, we prefer to learn about the reasons for ‘Hoffice’s development through conversations with ‘Hoffice’ members.
A significant rationale for utilizing social constructivism is its inherent connection to data quality, which closely aligns with this research paradigm. This alignment enhances the quality of research outcomes. From a constructivist standpoint, qualitative research design fosters innovative inquiry methods, emphasizing storytelling and the relationship between the participant and the researcher in narrative research (Berger and Luckmann, 1991, p. 48).
One of the research questions pertains to understanding the nature of interaction within ‘Hoffice.’ This can be best elucidated when a positive rapport exists between the researcher and the participants. Participants tend to respond to the form of narratives, thus making social constructivism an invaluable approach. In this context, social constructivism isn’t perceived as a singular, rigid approach or theory but rather as an innovative research paradigm that encourages expanded and novel ways of thinking and conversing about concepts.
Consequently, employing the social constructivism theory has aided in uncovering ‘Hoffice’ hosts’ perceptions regarding what attracts members to join a particular workspace, the precursors and consequences of social interactions within these spaces, and the motivations behind choosing to work in such an environment. Social constructivists also emphasize that knowledge is constructed through a shared agreement process closely linked to language, traditions, and community culture (Lin, 2015; Vall Castelló, 2016).
Hence, it is posited that members select ‘Hoffice’ based on their cultural inclinations, and this approach has facilitated a deeper understanding of the hosts’ experiences. Furthermore, the social constructivism approach has been selected because it maintains the researcher’s self-awareness while interacting with ‘Hoffice’ members. Consequently, this approach has been instrumental in comprehending how ‘Hoffice’ has evolved into a social construct for both members and society.
Debate on the Choice of Research Philosophy: Why Not Positivism but Interpretivism?
In the current research issue context, employing positivism as a research philosophy is considered less suitable for several reasons. Firstly, positivism’s emphasis on objectivity and empiricism is inconsistent with the intricate social phenomenon under investigation. The study focuses on understanding the myriad factors contributing to the development of ‘Hoffices’ in the United Kingdom, with a significant emphasis on integrating the perspectives and experiences of those involved in ‘Hoffice,’ which forms an essential part of the study.
Houghton et al. (2013, p. 13) also argue that positivism’s reliance on claims of empiricism and objectivity is often challenged when applied to natural and social sciences. Another reason for opting for interpretive research philosophy over positivism is that positivists aim to gain a broad understanding, which may not adequately address the specific context of the research, such as the intricate reasons behind the development of ‘Hoffices.’ Employing positivism may result in overly abstract knowledge that lacks direct applicability to the unique local situation in the U.K.
Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the current research issue does not involve hypothesis development. The absence of a hypothesis stems from the fact that our research does not seek to establish causality, relationships, or consequences within a situation. Instead, we focus on investigating and comprehending the underlying reasons contributing to the growth of ‘Hoffices’ in the United Kingdom. Consequently, positivism’s research philosophy may impose limitations due to its heavy emphasis on quantifiable measurements and calculations.
Why Not Critical Realism but Interpretivism?
The critical realism research philosophy is also deemed less suitable for the present research issue due to its strong emphasis on the physical world. Moreover, it is argued that critical realism primarily addresses concrete needs and tangible experiences, disregarding imagination and subjective attitudes. Critical realism prioritizes scientific aspects of the natural world while neglecting the realms of art and literature, resulting in an uneven scope. Furthermore, Brown’s study (2014, p. 113) suggests that employing the critical realism research philosophy holds little significance for ideals and values.
The research issue focuses on discerning the underlying reasons for individual values contributing to the heightened growth of ‘Hoffices’ in the United Kingdom, so employing critical realism is considered inappropriate. Critical realism posits that the real world operates independently of individual perceptions and constructions, which is incongruent with our research focus.
As a result, the researcher has embraced social constructionism because it does not assume that the social world is inevitably constructed solely from individual standpoints and perspectives. Instead, it is contended that ongoing evolving changes shape the meanings within the social world.
Another compelling rationale for rejecting critical realism is the contention by Eriksson and Kovalainen (2015) that this research philosophy posits reality as independent of the human mind. Given our research question’s objective to identify the underlying conditions that led to the formation of ‘Hoffice’ in the U.K., it is evident that these conditions are intricately linked to the human mind, contributing to the development of ‘Hoffices.’
Furthermore, critical realism research philosophy employs a scientific approach to generate knowledge. In contrast, the current research domain does not utilise a scientific or technical approach to arrive at conclusions. Instead, it focuses on how humans interpret the various reasons behind the development of ‘Hoffices.’
A further reason for dismissing critical realism is that it does not acknowledge that mental attributes and states are part of the natural world, even if they are not directly observable. Consequently, observing who works in ‘Hoffices’ and how members select a workspace forms an integral aspect of the natural world that should be meticulously observed to discern the research issue’s explicit and implicit meanings.
Conclusion:
Robson and McCartan (2016) have emphasized the pivotal role of selecting the appropriate research philosophy, highlighting how an incorrect choice can significantly impact the research process. Choosing the wrong philosophy can lead to incongruence between the preferred and desired methods. For example, suppose a quantitative researcher opts for an interpretivism philosophy. In that case, the approach may not yield scientifically rigorous and precise findings, as it primarily delves into individuals’ subjective experiences rather than quantifiable numerical data.
In exploring office environments, the researcher has adopted interpretivism and social constructionism as the underlying research philosophies. This selection enables incorporating diverse approaches, encompassing social structure, phenomenon, and hermeneutics. This approach rejects the notion of impartiality, recognizing that meaning is not inherent in the world but somewhat shaped by consciousness.
By employing these research philosophies, the study aims to navigate the intricacies of understanding the growth and development of ‘Hoffices’ in the United Kingdom. This multifaceted approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the subject matter, acknowledging human experiences’ subjective nature while delving into the intricate social constructs underpinning the phenomenon. Through this combination of interpretivism and social constructionism, the study seeks to unearth valuable insights into the world of ‘Hoffices.’