Saunders’ (2019) Research Onion

Saunders’ research onion is a framework that maps the six methodology decisions every research project involves – starting with your research philosophy at the outer layer and working inward to your specific data collection and analysis techniques. It was developed by Saunders et al for the textbook Research Methods for Business Students (first appearing in the 2007 edition and refined in every edition since, most recently 2019). In this post, we’ll peel it apart one layer at a time, in plain language, with examples.

What (exactly) is the research onion?

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 six layers, which we’ll peel back one at a time:

1. Research philosophy
2. Research approach
3. Research strategy
4. Choices
5. Time horizon
6. Techniques & procedures

Work from the outside in: each outer layer’s decision shapes the choices available in the layers inside it.

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 cover ontology vs epistemology in detail here).

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:

• Positivism
• Interpretivism
• Pragmatism

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: the subject can only be studied objectively, without 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 – all knowledge is a posteriori, gained from research rather than from human reasoning alone.

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.

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

Research philosophy 2: Interpretivism

On the other side of the spectrum, interpretivism emphasizes 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. Under 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.

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 carries an element of researcher involvement and subjectivity, specifically when drawing conclusions from participants’ responses and decisions. Pragmatism is not committed to (or limited by) any one philosophy.

Take the trolley problem as an example, 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 pragmatism at work: the outcome matters more 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 – 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. Quantitative research typically begins with theory as a foundation and progresses through hypothesis testing: a wider theory is applied to a particular context, event or observation to see whether they fit, as with our evolution example 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.

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) – that is, to assess the relationship between the two. 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.

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. It’s conducted in practical settings such as a classroom, a hospital or a workspace – as opposed to controlled environments like a lab.

Action research helps researchers understand problems or weaknesses in interactions within the real world. 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 analyzed 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 generalize 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”: 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. Grounded 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 artifacts, 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 behavior, 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 analyze interactions and draw an understanding of the participants’ subjective experiences.

For example, if you wanted to explore the behavior, language, and beliefs of an isolated Amazonian tribe, ethnography could allow you to develop a complex, complete description of the social behaviors 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 Williamson Shaffer.

Strategy 6: Archival research

The final strategy on our list 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.

As you can see, there is a wide range of choices in terms of research strategy. The right choice for your project will depend largely on your research aims and objectives, as well as the choices you make in terms of research philosophy and approach.

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 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 analyze 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 analyze 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 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 analyze 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: what kind of data will you actually 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 center 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, 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.

Now that we’ve peeled the onion, it’s time for you to get cooking. Most importantly, remember that designing your research methodology all starts with your research aims and objectives, so make sure those are crystal clear before you start peeling. When you’re ready to apply the framework to your own project, we’ve written a practical companion: how to use the research onion in your methodology chapter.

Still have questions?

What are the six layers of Saunders’ research onion?

From the outside in: research philosophy, research approach, research strategy, choices (mono, mixed or multi-method), time horizon, and techniques and procedures. Each layer’s decision shapes the ones inside it.

Do I have to use the research onion in my dissertation?

No. It’s a thinking tool, not a requirement – though many advisors (supervisors) like it because it shows that your methodology decisions connect. If your university prescribes a methodology structure, follow that; the onion still helps you check that your choices align.

Which research philosophy should I choose?

It follows from your research aims and questions rather than personal preference. Broadly: testing something measurable points toward positivism, exploring people’s experiences points toward interpretivism, and a practical mix-what-works stance is pragmatism.

Is the research onion only for business students?

No. It originated in a business research textbook, but the decisions it maps – philosophy, approach, strategy, methods – apply to any dissertation or thesis, in any discipline.

What’s the difference between a research strategy and a research design?

They’re largely the same thing seen through different vocabularies: what the onion calls a strategy (experimental, case study, ethnography and so on) is called a research design outside it.

Can’t find your answer here? Ask a Grad Coach directly – the initial chat is free.

Speak with a friendly coach →