Research Philosophy: Types & Examples

What research philosophy actually means

Every piece of research rests on assumptions, whether the author states them or not. Research philosophy is simply the act of making those assumptions explicit and choosing them deliberately. When you say your study is positivist, you are committing to a particular view of what the world is like and how you can study it reliably; when you say it is interpretivist, you are committing to a very different one. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, whose “research onion” is the most widely taught model of methodology in UK business and social-science programmes, place philosophy in the outermost layer for exactly this reason — it is the assumption that governs everything beneath it.

Why does it matter for your dissertation? Because markers do not just assess whether your methods “worked”; they assess whether your design is coherent. A student who claims an interpretivist philosophy and then runs a regression on 600 survey responses has produced a contradiction that any examiner will spot immediately. Getting the philosophy right means that your sampling, your instruments, your analysis and even the way you write up findings all point in the same direction. It is the difference between a methodology that reads as a defensible argument and one that reads as a shopping list of techniques.

The most efficient way to choose a philosophy is to interrogate three building blocks: your assumptions about reality (ontology), your assumptions about knowledge (epistemology), and the role of your own values (axiology). Decide where you stand on each and your philosophy almost names itself.

The three building blocks: ontology, epistemology, axiology

Ontology — the nature of reality

Ontology asks: what is the nature of the reality I am studying, and does it exist independently of the people in it? At one extreme, an objectivist (or realist) ontology holds that social phenomena — organisations, markets, illnesses, crime rates — are real, external things that exist whether or not anyone perceives them, much like a rock or a planet. At the other extreme, a subjectivist (or relativist/nominalist) ontology holds that social reality is constructed in and through the meanings, interpretations and language of the people who experience it; ‘leadership’ or ‘customer loyalty’ exists only because actors make sense of the world in those terms.

This single choice has enormous consequences. If reality is objective and external, your job is to measure it accurately. If reality is subjective and constructed, your job is to interpret the multiple realities your participants hold.

Epistemology — the nature of knowledge

Epistemology asks: what counts as acceptable, valid knowledge in my field, and how do I produce it? A positivist epistemology trusts only what can be observed and measured — numbers, facts, regularities — and prizes objectivity, replication and generalisable findings. An interpretivist epistemology treats knowledge as something built up from the rich, contextual accounts that people give of their experience; understanding (the German Verstehen) matters more than statistical prediction. Between them, a critical-realist epistemology accepts that a real world exists but insists our knowledge of it is always partial, theory-laden and fallible.

Axiology — the role of values

Axiology asks: what is the role of my own values and judgements in the research? Positivists strive to be value-free — the researcher stands outside the phenomenon and tries not to contaminate it. Interpretivists accept that research is inevitably value-laden: the researcher is part of what is being studied, brings their own lens, and should be reflexive about it rather than pretend to a false neutrality. Pragmatists take a middle line — values inform which problems are worth solving, but the test of knowledge is whether it works in practice.

The four main research philosophies

Although philosophers list many positions, four dominate dissertation methodology. They are best understood as points along a continuum from fully objective to fully subjective.

1. Positivism

Ontology: objective — one external, measurable reality. Epistemology: only observable, quantifiable facts count as knowledge; the researcher is independent. Axiology: value-free. Positivism applies the logic of the natural sciences to social problems: form a hypothesis, operationalise variables, measure, test statistically, generalise. It typically uses deductive reasoning and quantitative methods — experiments, structured surveys, secondary numeric data — analysed with statistics.

2. Postpositivism / critical realism

Ontology: a real world exists, but it is stratified and only partly accessible to us. Epistemology: knowledge is objective in aim but fallible, theory-laden and probabilistic — we get closer to truth through critique, not certainty. Axiology: values are acknowledged and controlled for. Critical realism (associated with Roy Bhaskar) is increasingly popular because it lets researchers seek underlying causal mechanisms while accepting that measurement is imperfect. It is comfortable with both quantitative and qualitative data and often supports a mixed design.

3. Interpretivism (constructivism)

Ontology: subjective — multiple socially constructed realities. Epistemology: knowledge comes from understanding the meanings, motives and experiences of social actors in context; the researcher is part of what is studied. Axiology: value-laden and reflexive. Interpretivism uses inductive reasoning and qualitative methods — in-depth interviews, focus groups, ethnography, documents — analysed through approaches such as thematic analysis. Findings are rich and context-specific rather than statistically generalisable.

4. Pragmatism

Ontology: reality is whatever is useful for answering the question — both singular and multiple. Epistemology: knowledge is judged by its practical consequences; if a method helps answer the question, use it. Axiology: values play a role in choosing what matters. Pragmatism refuses to be boxed into the objective–subjective war. It is the natural home of mixed-methods research, combining quantitative and qualitative strands because the research problem, not philosophical purity, drives the design.

Figure: the philosophies along the objectivism–subjectivism continuum

Master table: philosophy, ontology, epistemology, methods, example

How philosophy cascades into approach and methods

The reason philosophy is taught first is that it constrains every later decision. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill capture this with the research onion, a layered model you peel from the outside in: philosophy → approach to theory development → methodological choice → strategy → time horizon → techniques and procedures. Each inner layer must be consistent with the layer outside it.

“The research ‘onion’ … provides an effective progression through which a research methodology can be designed.” (Source: Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students)

Concretely, the cascade usually runs like this:

1. Philosophy fixes your approach to theory. Positivism pairs with a deductive approach (test existing theory); interpretivism pairs with an inductive one (build theory from data); pragmatism and critical realism often use abductive or retroductive reasoning.
2. Approach fixes your methodological choice. Deductive testing leans quantitative; inductive theory-building leans qualitative; pragmatism legitimises mixed methods. The broader quantitative vs qualitative decision is essentially downstream of philosophy.
3. Methodological choice fixes your strategy. Experiments and surveys suit positivism; case studies, ethnography and grounded theory suit interpretivism; explanatory or convergent designs suit pragmatism.
4. Strategy fixes your techniques. Only now do you choose your sampling, instruments and analysis — and they will already be coherent because every layer above them agreed.

This is why examiners can tell within a page whether a methodology will hold together. If you start from a clear philosophy, the rest reads as one continuous argument. If you start from a method you simply liked, the seams show.

Worked example: choosing a philosophy for a research aim

Strengths and limitations of each stance

• Positivism — strong on replicability, generalisability and clear causal testing; weak at capturing meaning, context and the ‘why’ behind numbers.
• Critical realism — strong at explaining causal mechanisms while staying honest about uncertainty; demanding to apply well and harder to write up cleanly.
• Interpretivism — strong on depth, nuance and lived experience; limited generalisability and more exposed to researcher bias if reflexivity is weak.
• Pragmatism — flexible and problem-driven, ideal for applied and policy questions; risks incoherence if the researcher cannot justify why each strand is needed.

Common mistakes students make

• Naming a philosophy in one sentence and never connecting it to the actual methods — a label, not an argument.
• Claiming interpretivism but then chasing statistical generalisability (or claiming positivism but reporting rich subjective quotes as ‘findings’).
• Confusing ontology with epistemology — treat them as separate questions about reality and knowledge.
• Defaulting to pragmatism to avoid choosing, without justifying why the problem genuinely needs mixed methods.
• Copying a philosophy from a previous dissertation without checking it fits the new research aim.
• Forgetting axiology entirely, then writing as if the research were value-free when it plainly is not.

How to write your research-philosophy section well

1. State the philosophy explicitly in the first line of your methodology and name it (positivism, critical realism, interpretivism or pragmatism).
2. Justify it through ontology, epistemology and axiology — show, in your own words, why your view of reality and knowledge leads here.
3. Tie it to your research aim and questions, quoting your own aim to demonstrate the fit.
4. Show the cascade — one sentence each on how the philosophy drives your approach, methodological choice and strategy.
5. Acknowledge the trade-off — note the main limitation of your stance and how you mitigate it (e.g. reflexivity for interpretivism, robustness checks for positivism).
6. Keep it tight — three to five well-argued paragraphs beat two pages of philosophy-textbook summary.

Done well, your philosophy section is short, confident and load-bearing: the foundation on which the rest of the methodology stands. For deeper companion reading, see our guides on the positivist paradigm and on inductive and deductive reasoning, both of which sit directly beneath the philosophy layer in your design.

Frequently Asked Questions