Ontological Considerations

“I think that, among contemporary cynics, the use of the word “mystery” is almost a fright word. To admit that there is any mystery about the universe’s existence is to suggest that there is, ultimately, something incomprehensible and unsolvable about it (something that cannot be reduced to a function or a problem), and this is a “no-no.”~ Albert Einstein.

Ontology originates from historical philosophy examining the nature of reality (Guarino, 1995, p.626). Abstractly, ontology is concerned with what kind of things exists and what entities are contained in the universe (Guarino, 1998, p.2; Mylopoulous, 1998, p.136). Mindful that ontology has a focus on the real world, it is appropriate to apply it to studies on information systems

(technology-based services). Particularly because such services are real-world systems, ontology may aid in identifying essential concept to be modelled about them (Wand & Weber, 1989). That said, there are two competing ontological views in IS research and these are: the realist and relativist views. These views as posited by Fitzgerald and Howcroft (1998) are illustrated in table 4.1, and subsequently discussed.

Table 4.1 Ontological views (Fitzgerald & Howcroft, 1998, p.323)

Realist Relativist

A realist scholar believes that the external world is made up of pre-existing tangible structures with an independent existence of an individual’s cognition (Fitzgerald & Howcroft, 1998, p.323).

A relativist scholar believes that a variation in reality is a subjective construction of the mind. Further, he or she believes that socially transmitted terms influence our perception of reality, which varies across

languages and cultures (Fitzgerald & Howcroft, 1998, p.323).

4.1.1.2 The researcher’s exposition of Realism vs Relativism

The realist considers the external world as granted; the existence of the external world is independent of thought or experience (Healy & Perry, 2000), and that it is possible for science to realize cognitive knowledge of this reality (Quale, 2007, p.235). It is a world we find ourselves implanted and which we reside in. We are able to alter the world by our actions which initiate change. For instance, we construct roads, plant and nurture crops, degrade our environment through man made pollution, etc. However, we did not create the world, the entities which comprise the world, the laws of nature which rule the conduct of contained entities. Therefore, above human ideology or knowledge as a principal informant of our view of reality, the realist considers human ideology to form a rather insignificant part of that reality. Conversely, relativists believe that all viewpoints are equally legitimate and that all truth is relative to an individual (Jackson, 2015); it is not cognitively meaningful to speak of an objective reality. The common theme holds that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is someway relative to something else. Exemplary, standards of rationalization, ethical opinions or truth are considered relative to words, customs, or genetic forms. In essence, diversity, not consensus, is the central fact of life (Fitzgerald & Howcroft, 1998). Therefore, the relativist view is critical of the usefulness of the concept of pre-existing tangible structures as a standard for defining reality.

4.1.1.3 The Researcher’s Ontological Stance

The relativist view is an inappropriate ontology for this study because it holds a solipsistic observation of reality. Burns (2000) opines that scientific studies are empirical and objective, thus a subjective approach cannot answer scientific RQs, like those posed in this study: (i) what are the antecedents of user continuance intention towards M-pesa, and (ii) what are the determinants of user continuance intention towards M-pesa? Techniques of the relativist are not designed to answer experimental questions (Burns, 2000; Gigerenzer, 2014, p.321). For illustrative purposes, Quale (2007, p.242) writes that: given a relativist’s view that knowledge is created by the individual knower, and exists in his or her mind: it will be problematic to assess the individual’s knowledge that there is anyone out there, with whom he or she can connect and share knowledge with. In essence, how would the individual know that there is a world external of them? A relativist can therefore not negate the likelihood that he or she is living a fantasy.

In this study, the researcher concedes to a lack of inherent knowledge surrounding user continuance intention towards M-pesa and therefore seeks scientific methods to discover knowledge of the M-pesa continuance phenomenon. As such, an objective approach to studying user continuance intention is imperative because: first, objectivity is the prerequisite of scientific discovery. Second, an objective approach reduces biased interpretations of the results because investigation protocols are documented, and data and methodology are accessible for scrutiny by other scientists; thus enabling other researchers the opportunity to validate results by attempting to reproduce them.

In this vein, from a realist perspective, there exists only one true reality. To capture and correctly present this single reality, it is argued that the researcher must remain objective (Hammersley, 2000). Objectively, within the consumer behaviour context, utility³⁵ is considered the goal of a consumer and a profit enabler for a vendor. In a continuance context, explicating utility, the base model posited by Bhattacherjee (2001a) focuses on the motivations for user continuance with technology that emerges in the IS post adoption era. Motivation is fundamental to consumer cognition and behaviour because it is the impellent within an individual that directs him or her

35 Utility is the desire or contentment that an individual gains from the consumption of goods and services(Wang & Zhang, 2011).

towards a given action (Evan, Jamal, & Foxall, 2009). Prerequisites to actions are decision- making, which is a multi-stage process (Bettman, 1979; De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). Afore-noted in chapter 3, the PAM is an adaptation of the ECT, and follows similar flow processes in decision- making. The causal flow goes: (i) a user’s contact with information about a product or service performance features leads to the realization of product or service specific expectations of the consumer (Olson & Dover, 1979) (ii) a rational comparison between expectations and real experiences leads to a subjective assessment of disconfirmation (Oliver et al. 1994), and (iii) a composite of expectations and disconfirmation regulates the satisfaction level, that in turn, influences repurchase intentions. For user continuance with M-pesa, the consumer behaviour literature presents an individual’s utilization of any product or service as a rational choice³⁶ (Bartels & Johnson, 2015). Goals, options and constraints set the boundaries for rational choices (Hantula & Wells, 2014). Rationality here implies resolute, where an individual acts reasonably:

sets goals and makes a logical effort to achieve them, given available alternatives and constraints.

That said, this study treats users of M-pesa as rational, and their decision making as one of rationality; consumers make decisions after collecting information and weighing all alternatives.

Mindful of the above discussion, the study lends itself to a realist perspective which professes that the world consists of structures independent of an individual’s cognition; human behaviour is passive, controlled and determined by the external environment. Within this sphere, observation and reason are the preeminent means of comprehending human behaviour, in that true knowledge is dependent on experiences of senses and is obtained by observation and experiment. This ontological view suits the research goals of this study which is to model and test determinants (quantifiable measures) of user continuance intention towards M-pesa. Measures are quantified, in that: their selection is drawn from literature that presents precise measurement and analysis of target concepts that are posited to influence human behaviour towards technology. The RQ’s (antecedents and determinants) allude to testing of factors which decisively affect continuance intention towards M-pesa. Thus, responses to these questions requires that the researcher pursues objectivity because this will eliminate results dependent on the researcher’s beliefs and will provide scientific documented protocols to enable replication and validation of the findings. Also, it will enable results reported on exact levels of significance. The employment of a self-

36Decisive selection directed analytically towards the realization of goals given options and constraint of the situation (Ostrom, 1998).

administered survey instrument is part-strategy to eliminate the researcher’s bias and to enable survey participants’ to respond to the questions put to them without the intervention of the researcher or his assistants during the survey administration phase. This approach allows to a degree, time and context free generalizations to be made about responses (Nagel, 1986).