Philosophical foundations of the study

‘Every research tool or procedure is inextricably embedded in commitments to particular versions of the world and ways of knowing that world made by researchers using them’.

– Hughes (1980, p. 13) Social science research cannot be conducted without a researcher taking particular positions on philosophical issues and answering philosophical questions (Corbetta, 2003;

Rosenberg, 2012). Researchers have to conduct their research within a certain paradigm or world view, and two world views have mainly framed social science research: positivism and interpretivism. According to Corbetta (2003), these paradigms are distinguishable based on how they answer three interrelated questions: (1) the ontological question – does reality exist; (2) the epistemological question – can it be understood; and (3) the methodological question – how can knowledge about it be generated. Thus, they have contradictory visions of social reality, how it should be understood and different methods of inquiry.

Corbetta (2003) views the ontological question as the question of ‘what’, as it is concerned with the ‘nature and form of social reality’. On ontology, Blaikie (2000, p. 8) states the following:

Ontological claims are claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. In short, ontological assumptions are concerned with what we believe constitutes social reality.

The epistemological question according to Corbetta (2003) is the ‘question of the relationship between the “who” and the “what” and the outcome of this relationship’. It is concerned with how social reality can be understood and the link between the observer and the reality being observed. The methodological question concerns the ‘how’ – how social reality be can studied. It pertains to the techniques of social inquiry (Corbetta, 2003).

The interrelatedness of these questions has been confirmed by various scholars. They explain that answers to the epistemological question are dependent on those to the ontological question; that is, if social reality exists independently from human action/

influence, then the aim to understand it in an objective manner will be legitimate (Corbetta, 2003; della Porta & Keating, 2008). Similarly, the methodological question is dependent on answers to the ontological and epistemological question. As Corbetta (2003, 13) notes that

‘a vision of social reality as an external object that is not influenced by the cognitive research procedures of the scientist will accept manipulative techniques (e.g. experimentation, the control of variables, etc.) more readily than a perspective that underlines the existence of interactive processes between the scholar and the object studied’. Corbetta (2003) adds that the interrelatedness between these three questions is also evident in the difficulties in outlining the boundaries between them.

The following paragraph explains the two aforementioned paradigms – positivism and interpretivism – in relation to the fundamental questions.

Ontologically, positivism adopts the view that social reality is real and knowable (Corbetta, 2003). With regard to the epistemological question, positivism believes that knowledge is attainable based on the assumption that the researcher and the object of study are independent entities, and thus objects can be studied without being influenced by the researcher (i.e. objectively). Simply put, social facts are considered ‘given’ and ‘unmodifiable’

(Corbetta, 2003). The positivist view of society holds that social life is subject to natural laws, and it is for the researcher to discover such laws. Positivists adopt the epistemological position of empiricism; that is, knowledge of the world can be justified only by sensory evidence such as experience, observation and experiment (Corbetta, 2003; Rosenberg, 2012). The techniques of positivist research are derived from the empiricist approach to natural sciences (Corbetta, 2003). Thus, theories that cannot be verified or falsified by experience are meaningless (Rosenberg, 2012).

Contrary to the positivist paradigm, the interpretive paradigm adopts a constructivist view of social reality, suggesting that ‘the knowable world is that of the meanings attributed by individuals’ (Corbetta, 2003, p. 21). Under this school of thought, a common universal social reality does not exist; instead, there are multiple realities formed by the different perspectives from which individuals view and attach meanings to social facts.

Ontologically, interpretivists reject the existence of an objective world. They hold the epistemological position that the researcher and the research object are interdependent and cannot be separated. This is because the objective of social science research is to understand individual behaviour/events and search for meanings that human beings attribute to their behaviour and to the world (della Porta & Keating, 2008).

The methodological view under the interpretive paradigm differs from that of the positivist paradigm. Here, reality is interpreted based on the interactions between the researcher and the research subject. Qualitative and subjective research techniques are favoured as they help understand the meanings research subjects attribute to their behaviour. Knowledge is ‘discovered in reality by the researcher who approaches it without prejudices or preconceived theories’ (Corbetta, 2003, p. 24).

The fundamental differences in each paradigm at the levels of ontology, epistemology and methodology are reflected in the different research techniques and procedures used in the social science research today. Of these two paradigms, Schell (1992, p. 10) posits that very few researchers ‘occupy either of these polar positions, but rather, there is a spectrum of beliefs which span the epistemological spectrum’. This is reflected in this study as the subsequent paragraphs present the philosophical positions taken in this research.

As adeptly summarised by Sayer (1992, p. 5) ‘particular philosophies are not simple or self-contained but exist through their opposition to a range of alternative positions’.

Post-positivist approaches such as realism emerged to counter the criticisms against the ontological and epistemological positions of the positivist paradigm (Corbetta, 2003;

Given, 2008). The post-positivist approach of critical realism holds the ontological position that there is some level of objective reality to the world and that reality exists independent of observers (Easton, 2010; Sayer, 1992). Corbetta (2003) notes that post-positivism adopts a position similar to positivism in that social reality is real and objective; however, it departs from the positivist assumption that reality is knowable. Post-positivists hold that it is knowable only in an imperfect manner.

Epistemologically, critical realism assumes that there is a level of detachment between the observer and the observed; however, the observer may influence the observed, causing a reaction (Given, 2008; Sayer, 2000). Critical realism acknowledges the role of the researcher as the interpreter of knowledge but affirms that it exists regardless of the researchers’

interpretation (Given, 2008; Sayer, 2000). Sayer 1992 notes that ‘our knowledge of the world is fallible and theory-laden’. Critical realists view knowledge production as a ‘social activity’. Similar to the interpretive notion, realism acknowledges that social phenomena are ‘concept dependent’ in that they are affected by the meanings ascribed to them; however, this does not rule out causal explanations (Sayer, 2000). Nonetheless, critical realists aspire to generate knowledge by emphasising rigour in the research process, use of multiple sources of data and employing theory in data analyses, theory building and testing (Given, 2008).

This research is guided by the post-positivist paradigm and adopts a critical realist view of reality. This is in line with the purpose of my research, which is to examine how Sino–

African economic relations might affect HCD in Africa by investigating the nature and characteristics of the engagement and its opportunities and implications for HCD.

For critical realists, a social phenomenon has to be evaluated critically in order for it to be explained and understood. This entails ‘identifying the causal mechanisms, how they work and discovering if they have been activated and under what conditions’ (Sayer, 2000, p. 14). Accordingly, this study undertakes a critical evaluation of CEE in Africa in order to understand its opportunities and implications for HCD in Africa. The study identifies the different contextual factors and conditions and how they interact to produce certain HCD-related outcomes. In line with the critical realist notion on theory, which considers theory an ordering framework with which observational data are used to predict and explain empirical events, this study acknowledges the role of theory and concepts to structure data and explain social phenomena.

On methodology, critical realism employs a range of research methods. Methodological choices should be based on the nature of the object of study and the objective of the study (Sayer, 2000). Easton (2010, p. 119) argues that critical realism is well suited for case study research. He notes that it ‘justifies the study of any situation, regardless of the numbers of research units involved but only if the process involves thoughtful in-depth research with the objective of understanding why things are as they are’.

The critical realist approach to methodology supports the focus of this study, which is studying Sino–African relations to understand and explain the nature and characteristic of the relationship and its implications. Further, this study realises that it is crucial to move beyond a general overview of China–Africa relations and delve into case studies for a more nuanced and deeper understanding of the relations and its outcomes and implications for Africa. The methodological choices of this study are in line with critical realism as this study employs a conceptual research approach which aims to make sense of Sino–African engagement, understand what it is, explaining how it works, why it is important and what it means for Africa’s development. This research also adopts a case study method, relies on multiple sources of data and conducts a theory driven analysis to investigate the HCD implications of CEE in Africa.