75
can understand is relative and space-time, not absolute and universal. This study tends to be sceptical, so the scope is limited to the context of Taiwan. With respect to cognitive standards, there are generally three types of views: (a) the correspondence theory of truth, which means that the perception or proposition must be judged as per the empirical facts of the outside world based on experience as the norm of truth; (b) the coherent theory of truth, wherein the truth states that cognition must conform to the consistency of the system of reasoning and knowledge and (c) the pragmatic theory of truth, which believes that truth is based on its ability to help solve everyday problems. This study leans toward the pragmatic view of truth, which holds that‘what works is true’. The main goal of this study is to construct an assessment method that can truly utilise social impact assessment.
3.2 Research Approach
Research approach is essentially the broad collection of steps, procedures and plans used by researchers to conduct their projects, which include collecting, analysing, and interpreting data (Bajpai, 2011). Research approaches are broadly categorised into three groups, including inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches. The presence of hypotheses with research is basically the main distinctive point between deductive and inductive approaches because the former approach essentially tests the validity of theoretical and hypothetical assumptions (theories/hypothesis), whereas inductive approaches essentially contribute to the emergence of new generalisations and theories (Tsang, 2016). Abductive approaches, on the other hand, normally begin with surprising facts of which the analysis is dedicated to explaining them. For deductive studies, when the premises are true, the conclusions are also perceived to be true. For inductive studies, researchers basically use known premises in order to come up with untested findings. Finally, for abductive studies, researchers use premises to generate testable conclusions (Saunders et al., 2009).
77
guided the study. Further, known premises were not used in generation testable conclusions, thus the abductive approach could also not suffice. In their place, known premises were used in generating untested conclusions implying that the research assumed the inductive approach.
Table 2.0 below lists the differences between inductive, deductive, and abductive research approaches:
Table 2.0: Differences Between Inductive, Deductive and Abductive Approaches
Inductive Deductive Abductive
Generalizability Moves from specific to general
Moves from general to specific
Constantly interacts between the specific and the general
Theory It generalises
theories
It verifies theories It modifies theories
Use of data Data is used to identify themes and patters
Data is used to evaluate theories and hypotheses
Data is used to explore phenomena, identify themes, and uncover conceptual frameworks
Source: Bajpai, 2011
3.3 Research Method
Research methods essentially refer to the tools researchers make use of to carry out their projects, e.g., qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or a mixture of both. Qualitative methods, on the one hand, are non-numerical and focus on developing patterns or themes from
a data set. Tables can be used in rare cases to present qualitative data as researchers mainly focus on discussing the themes that they have uncovered. Quantitative methods, on the other hand, centre on numerical data to establish the relationship between different variables, and normally requires the use of statistical tools to analyse and present data. Quantitative data is normally presented using tables and graphs (Edmonds & Kennedy, 2016). Finally, the mixed method approach centres on using both qualitative and quantitative tools to come up with findings of a research. The benefit of this method over the only qualitative and quantitative methods is that the mixed methods approach gives a researcher enough room to explain unexpected findings in their research (Bergin, 2018). Because of the nature of this research, i.e., its comparative approach, the qualitative approach was applied because it was believed that most data would be qualitative. Table 3.0 below compares the main differences between qualitative methods and quantitative methods:
Table 3.0: Difference Between Qualitative Methods and Quantitative Methods
Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods
Explore ideas and formulate theories and hypotheses
Test theories and hypotheses
Analysis is conducted through summary and interpretation
Analysis is statistical-based
The results are mainly expressed in words The results are mainly expressed numerically, graphically, or using tables Traditionally based on a few samples Traditionally based on many samples Key term: understanding Key term: testing
Source: Bergin, 2018
79
3.4 Data Collection
This study was based on primary data, which were collected using semi-structured interviews from 12 experts, entrepreneurs and middle-level executives in companies based in Taiwan because of the focus of the research. To be included in the qualitative interview, the experts had to confirm that they understand CSR and cross-strait development with especially for Taiwanese and Chinese companies. The experts were recruited from the following companies, which had clear statements on their websites that they practice some form of CSR: WangWang Group, SinoPac Holdings, Huang Hsiang Construction Corporation, HAOLIYOU FOOD CO., LIMITED, ShanDong Energy Group CO. LTD. and Ping An Insurance (Group). A list of the semi-structured interview questions was formulated based on practices and prospects of CSR mainly in Taiwan and China. The list of questions can be retrieved from Annex C. The questions were four in total, which asked the interviewees to share their thoughts on such matters as: (1) the obvious differences in the development of CSR in Taiwan and China, (2) the impact of cultural heritage on CSR in Taiwan and China, (3) and the similarities of CSR in Taiwan and China. The experts were sourced through LinkedIn using the search phrase “Corporate Social Responsibility Manager at [NAME OF THE COMPANY].” From the list that was generated at LinkedIn, the experts were assessed for eligibility for inclusion based on their years of experience, availability of contact information, and specification of additional roles that they play for their companies. The interview questions were sent to the participants using Google forms that also included a Consent Agreement Letter to voluntary take part in the study. The interviews were carried out online and it was anticipated that the participants would take around 30-50 minutes to respond to all the four questions.
The small number of participants used in this research are known as a focus group. Focus groups are a widely used research method that involves a small group of individuals who
share similar characteristics or experiences and are brought together to discuss a specific topic or issue. While focus groups typically involve a small number of participants, they can provide valuable insights and rich data that can inform and enhance research studies (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). In particular, focus groups allow for in-depth exploration of a topic, including participants' beliefs, attitudes, and experiences. Additionally, focus groups facilitate the exchange of ideas and opinions among participants, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand. The use of focus groups in research can also help to identify common themes and trends that may not have been evident in individual interviews or surveys (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Therefore, while the small number of participants in a focus group may seem limited, the richness and depth of the data they provide can be invaluable in informing and enhancing research studies.
The research processes of this study began with the collection of extensive information on relevant topics. The research motivations, background, aim and objectives are presented, followed by a review of the literature of scholars from Taiwan and others; a framework for research questions with regard to the research objects was established; research methods were utilized to understand the situation and differences of the study objects.
3.5 Data Analysis
This study utilises a comparative approach. The British historian Toynbee (1934) pointed out that when it is necessary to construct a relationship between two or more events, it requires an outlining approach that involves the methodology of comparative study. In other words, comparative study addresses different aspects of the same thing or different varieties of things of the same nature—whose common points and differences can be found through comparison—
in attempts to conduct in-depth discussions into the nature of things. Therefore, the fundamental principles of the comparative study method are ‘comparing the common points’ and ‘comparing
81
the differences.’ The purpose of comparing the common points is to study, compare and refer to similar situations for explaining or predicting phenomena in which the same cause yields the same result. The purpose of comparing differences is to prove that different causes produce different effects; therefore, researchers cannot regard their current research object with other control phenomena (Alber, 1995). The comparative study process usually consists of four stages, as shown in Table 2 in conjunction with the aims and objectives of this study.
The primary data was manually analysed by the lead researcher. A thematic analysis approach was deemed as the most appropriate approach to comprehending the responses of the experts because of its ability to produce not only rich, but also complex data (Vaismoradi et al.
2013). Vaismoradi et al. (2013) recommended a 6-step approach to conducting thematic analysis of data, which was applied in this research. They include:
1. Understanding data 2. Writing the codes 3. Identifying themes 4. Reviewing themes 5. Defining themes, and 6. Writing the main report
The MAXQDA software was used in conducting the qualitative data analysis. Table 4 . 0 below illustrates the processes of a comparative study
Table 4.0: Processes of a Comparative Study
Step Step
Description
Data collection describes the items, systems, etc. that we intend to study. It requires a systematic statement of information regarding the research subject to have an objective and accurate understanding of it. For detailed discussion, it is necessary to collect extensive and complete information and establish a clear outline of the research plan
Step Step
in advance to provide proper guidance regarding the collection of data. This study begins with the topic of corporate social responsibility. It collects relevant literature on the current situation in China and Taiwan and describes the situations and high-level items of data.
Interpretation
Explains the causes, significance and impacts of the content in the narration from different perspectives. Based on the aim and objectives of this study, this phase involves the analysis of CSR-related project planning in mainland China and Taiwan, including its connotations, policies and regulations, indicators and trends.
Juxtaposition
To avoid meaningless or false comparisons, it is necessary to analyse and judge the same issues and facts from the same point of view. The main objective of juxtaposition is to find a basis for comparative study based on appropriate criteria.
During this phase, an outline of primary items of comparison will be proposed through the literature analysis of the
collected data; the items will be explained in depth; and the data will be classified and juxtaposed based on the outline.
Comparison
A comparative study is conducted on the basis of the
objectives of the study to obtain a conclusion. This study will further analyse and discuss the items following the
classification and understand differences and commonalities, provide explanations and consolidate the conclusion.
3.6 Threats to Validity
While secondary data was also applied to come up with the main findings of this research, this research was mainly influenced by primary data. The validity of the primary data was assessed through such factors as credibility, confirmability and transferability. Credibility is essentially the level of confidence one can have on the collected data (Clarke et al., 2015). In this study,
83
credibility was assessed through data triangulation. The primary data was checked against the secondary data in order to confirm whether they would be comparable. Further, the themes, which was derived from the analysis were sent back to the 12 experts for verification before publishing. Transferability, on the other hand, is the extent to which the results of a qualitative study can be generalised or transferred to other contexts or settings (Clarke et al., 2015). In this research, transferability was confirmed by comparing the results to comparable past studies.
Confirmability is the extent to which the findings of a qualitative study can be corroborated or confirmed by others (Clarke et al., 2015). This was confirmed by the sole inclusion of CSR experts from Taiwan, who also showed knowledge and understanding of China’s CSR.
Finally, in order to ensure that the secondary data used in this research was valid, the Delphi theory approach was used to assess the data sources. This research could not apply some methods are the Cronbach’s Alpha to check for the internal consistency of the results because no validated instrument was used to collect the data. The Delphi theory advised researchers to consider a number of issues prior to using certain data in their studies, including data source, source bias, and time scale (Olabode et al., 2019). The secondary sources of this study include:
peer-reviewed journal articles, government publications, and official policy documents. The Delphi theory advises researchers to consider using more than one data source so as to compare whether the data are similar (Olabode et al., 2019). It is also important to avoid using outdated data as even most censuses take place at 10 years’ intervals. This study sought to use contemporary data that relates to Taiwan’s and China’s current CSR practices. A majority of the secondary data presented in this research were published as from 2010.
3.7 Ethical Approach
The ethical consideration assumed when carrying out the research were as follows: informed consent, voluntary participation, anonymity and confidentiality, and communication of results.
After contacting the likely interviewees, they were notified that participation was not mandatory
and that if they consented to partaking in the study and, at any time, felt like withdrawing, they could do so, and their data would immediately be destroyed. In addition, the interviewees were not requested to provide any other information regarding themselves other than what had been publicly listed in their LinkedIn accounts. All interviewees were assured that their information would not be shared to anyone so as to protect their privacy. Furthermore, each interviewee was given a pseudonym when conducting the data analysis so as to ensure their privacy. When the analysis was finalised, the themes were sent back to the interviewees for their verification.
3.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the methodological approach of this research. The following sections were discussed in this chapter: research philosophy, research approach, research method, data collection, data analysis, threats to validity and ethical approaches. For the philosophy, study advocated for idealism, wherein objective facts exist based on subjective concepts, and thus, the being is perceived and not being perceived is not present. Also, known premises were used in generating untested conclusions implying that the research assumed the inductive approach.
Because of the nature of this research, i.e., its comparative approach, a qualitative methods approach was applied because it was believed that most of the data would be qualitative. This study was based on primary data, which were collected using semi-structured interviews from 12 experts, entrepreneurs and middle-level executives in companies based in Taiwan because of the focus of the research. A thematic analysis approach was deemed as the most appropriate approach to comprehending the responses of the experts because of its ability to produce not only rich, but also complex data. In order to ensure that the secondary data used in this research was valid, the Delphi theory approach was used to assess the data sources.
Finally, the ethical consideration assumed when carrying out the research were as follows:
85
of results. The primary findings of this research are presented in the next chapter.