Proposing a Spider Web Model: An Evolutionary Pattern Utilizing the Research Onion Framework

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Associate Professor; Management Department; Faculty of Economics, Management & Social Science; Shiraz University; Shiraz; Iran

2 PhD Student in Human Resource Management; Management Department; Faculty of Economics, Management & Social Science; Shiraz University; Shiraz; Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
 
Introduction and Objectives: Within the field of research methodology, numerous frameworks have been designed to guide researchers in planning and conducting scientific inquiries. Among these, Saunders’ Research Onion is one of the most widely cited, conceptualizing the research process through layered stages that address philosophical assumptions, methodological approaches, and research strategies. This model assists researchers in systematically advancing their studies by considering different dimensions of research, including philosophy, approach, and strategies. However, in recent years, this framework has faced the need for development and revision due to methodological advancements and emerging criticisms. In response to the rising complexity of contemporary research and the growth of interdisciplinary methods, this study employs a scoping review to analyze recent methodological literature and introduces a new framework titled the Spider Web Research Model. The proposed model leverages the “subjective-to-objective” continuum in research methodology, enabling researchers to select the most appropriate methods based on the nature of their study and, if necessary, integrate multiple models effectively. This model consists of three main layers: the objective layer, the subjective layer, and the subjective-objective layer. The objective layer emphasizes measurable, quantitative data and employs precise, systematic scientific methods for data analysis. The subjective layer focuses on the interpretive and subjective dimensions of research, encouraging researchers to consider individuals’ subjective experiences alongside objective data. And the subjective-objective layer combines both approaches, offering a balanced perspective for complex research questions. A key distinction between the proposed model and Saunders’ Research Onion is its enhanced flexibility. While Saunders’ model primarily focuses on traditional methods, which may not fully address the needs of modern and interdisciplinary research, the Spider Web Model’s layered and integrative structure allows for greater adaptability to contemporary methodologies. This model is particularly beneficial for studies requiring multidimensional analysis and the integration of diverse perspectives, thereby improving the quality and accuracy of research outcomes. The present study demonstrates that the Spider Web Model can serve as a comprehensive methodological framework, either as a replacement or a complement to traditional models. By aligning with the specific requirements of each research question or hypothesis, this model significantly aids in the proper selection and application of research methods. Furthermore, it provides a structured yet flexible approach that can accommodate the evolving demands of modern research. Finally, it is recommended that future research further develop this model by incorporating additional layers and advanced data analysis techniques, while also evaluating its effectiveness and applicability across various research domains.
Method: In this research, the scoping or rapid review method was used to explore key concepts of research methods and models, with the aim of finding primary sources and types of evidence, in accordance with the five-stage process presented by Arksey and O’Malley. Internal scientific and citation databases along with scientific search engines such as Google Scholar and Science Direct were examined over the past two decades (2004-2024). Using keywords related to research questions, review studies, and highly cited works, as well as employing Boolean or combinatorial operators and utilizing “backward searching” to review reference lists of relevant articles, each stage was guided by the PRISMA-ScR diagram (the enhanced PRISMA program for scoping reviews). In the process of reviewing and thoroughly examining the large number of retrieved articles, only those that addressed the research questions were selected for further analysis, and the unrelated articles were excluded. Finally, for recording and classifying the results, the selected studies were categorized into three groups: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Following the modified PRISMA systematic review process, a total of 25 studies were ultimately registered and classified for conducting the research.
Results: Given the weaknesses of Saunders’ Research Onion, this study aims to address these shortcomings by presenting a Spider Web model, redesigning and expanding upon the original concept. The proposed Spider Web model establishes three layers as the foundation of its framework, arranged from the innermost to outermost layer (from core to external shells): Layer 1: Objective Layer - This layer emphasizes objective, measurable, and quantitative data. In this layer, researchers use precise and systematic scientific methods to collect and analyze data to achieve accuracy and objectivity in research results, allowing findings to be generalized to larger populations. This layer helps researchers present reliable and objective results that are useful for scientific and practical decision-making. Layer 2: Objective-Subjective Layer (Mixed) - This layer combines both objective and subjective approaches, allowing researchers to benefit from the advantages of both methodologies. Using this layer improves research methods by creating balance between depth and precision, enabling researchers to employ mixed methods and achieve a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, especially for complex issues requiring multidimensional analysis and integration of different perspectives. Layer 3: Subjective Layer - This layer relates to the subjective and interpretive dimensions of research. In this layer, the researcher seeks deeper understanding of phenomena through experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of individuals. Using this layer helps researchers value subjective experiences of individuals rather than focusing solely on objective data. This layer is particularly important in social sciences and humanities research.
Discussion and Conclusions: Saunders’ Research Onion model, as a comprehensive methodological framework, has been widely embraced in research literature. This model helps researchers make coherent decisions regarding philosophy, approach, strategy, methods, and research techniques. However, this model also faces limitations that require development and completion. The present research, considering the complexities and diversity in scientific research, has presented a proposed Spider Web model and an evolutionary pattern by applying the Research Onion model, offering a diverse and combined model that can lead to improved quality and precision of results. This model, with greater flexibility and utilization of three layers - subjective, objective, and subjective-objective - can be used for a wide range of research studies. This proposed model helps researchers select the most appropriate methods according to the nature of their study and, if necessary, leverage combinations of different models. Despite efforts to comprehensively cover the suggestions presented in previous studies, the present research faces certain limitations. These include its complexity for novice researchers due to its layered and integrative structure, the need for thorough training and familiarity with concepts of mixed-method and interdisciplinary methodologies to effectively utilize this model, and the time-consuming nature of its implementation, which requires deep and multi-layered analyses.

Keywords

References

منابع
دانایی‎فرد، حسن، الوانی، مهدی، و آذر،  عادل (1383). روش‎شناسی پژوهش کمّی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع. تهران: صفار، اشراقی.
شیرویه‎پور، شهریار، و فضلی، صفر (1401). از پیش‎نگری تا آینده‎نگاری: ابتنای روش‎شناسی آینده‎پژوهی بر مدل پیاز پژوهش. روش شناسی علوم انسانی، 28(113)، 31-50.
طیبی ابوالحسنی، سیدامیرحسین (1398). درآمدی بر روش تحقیق: رویه‎های استاندارد تحلیل داده‎های کیفی. سیاست نامه علم و فناوری، 09(2) ، 67-69.
گودرزوند چگینی، مهرداد، و یوسفی، ثمین (1402). واکاوی مدل پیاز پژوهش و کاربست آن در پژوهش علوم اجتماعی. نخستین همایش ملی روش‎های پژوهش در علوم انسانی و اجتماعی: رویکردهای نوپدید و چالش‎های پیش رو، تهران.
محمدپور، احمد (1402). ضدروش: زمینه‎های فلسفی و رویه‎های عملی در روش‎شناسی کیفی. تهران: نشر لوگوس.
References
Alharahsheh, H. H., & A. Pius (2020). A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39-43.  https://doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2020.v02i03.001.
Arksey, H., & O’malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, & P. R. Jackson (2012). Management research. SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Babbie, E (2022). The practice of social research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. from https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780357360767&i=stripbooks&linkCode=qs
Basias, N., & Y. Pollalis. (2018). Quantitative and qualitative research in business and technology: Justifying a suitable research methodology. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 7, 91-105. from https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3363016
Bell, E., A. Bryman, & B. Harley ( 2019). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/business-research-methods-9780198869443
Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods, pp. 365-440. from  https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9780198869443
Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2019). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. John Wiley & Sons. from https://www.wiley.com/en-jp/Designing Social Research:The Logic of Anticipation,3rd Edition-p-9781509517411
Bronfenbrenner, U (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. from https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674224575
Bryman, A (2020). Social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/social-research-methods-9780199689453
Cohen, L., L. Manion, & K. Morrison (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020322434
Cooper, H (2024). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Synthesis-Meta-Analysis-Step-Step/dp/1483331156
Creswell, J. W (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386710
Creswell, J. W., & C. N. Poth (2023). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386711
Creswell, J. W., & J. D. Creswell (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386709
Creswell, J. W., & J. D. Creswell (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386712
Creswell, J. W., & V. L. P. Clark (2021). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386711
Crotty, M (2020). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE Publications. from https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5019222
Danayifar, H. , Alvani, M. & Azar, A. (2004). Quantitative Research Methodology in Management: A Comprehensive Approach.Tehran:Saffar-Eshraghi [ln persian] . from https://eshraghipub.com
Denzin, N. K., & Y. S. Lincoln (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/SAGE-Handbook-Qualitative-Research-Handbooks/dp/1412974178
Field, A. 2023. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Fletcher, A. J (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International journal of social research methodology, 20(2), 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1144401
Flick, U (2023). Introduction to qualitative research (7th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Gall, M. D., J. P. Gall, & W. R. Borg (2023). Educational research: An introduction (9th ed.). https://doi.org/1010.2307/3121583
Gamage, A. N. (2025). Research Design, Philosophy, and Quantitative Approaches in Scientific Research Methodology. Sch J Eng Tech, 2, 91-103. https://doi.org/10.36347/sjet.2025.v13i02.004
Godin, B. (2003). Measuring science: Is there “basic research” without statistics. Social science information, 42(1), 57-90.           https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030420017
Goodarzvand Chegini, M., & Yousefi, S. (2023). Analysis of the Onion Model of Research and Its Application in Social Science Research. The National Conference on Research Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Emerging Approaches and Future Challenges, Tehran,(1-18). [ln persian] from           https://civilica.com/doc/2024893
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.51005
Hayashi, P., G. Abib, & N. Hoppen (2019). Validity in qualitative research: A processual approach. The Qualitative Report, 24(1), 98-112.     https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3443
Herr, K., & G. L. Anderson (2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. from            https://uk.sagepub.com
Holden, M. T., & P. Lynch (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: Understanding research philosophy. The Marketing Review, 4(4), 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347042772428
Israel, M (2014). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5019247
Johnson, B., & R. Gray (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2, 69-94. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2024). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE publications, (7th ed.), pp. 179-206. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Jones, M. (2007). Using software to analyses qualitative data ,429,1-24. from http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/429
Kairuz, T., Crump, K., & O’Brien, A. (2007). Tools for data collection and analysis. Pharmaceutical Journal, 278. from              https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Keith-Crump/publication/43499524_Perspectives_on_qualitative_research_Part_2_Useful_tools_for_data_collection_and_analysis
Kaushik, V., & C. A. Walsh (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
Khalil, H., Jia, R., Moraes, E. B., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., Peters, M., ... & Evans, C. (2025). Scoping reviews and their role in identifying research priorities. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 111712.                      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111712
Khan, S. N (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International journal of business and management, 9(11), 224-233.            https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p224
Kivunja, C., & A. B. Kuyini (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.  https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
Liang, T. P., & Y. Liu (2018). Research landscape of business intelligence and big data analytics: A bibliometrics study. Expert Systems with Applications, 111, 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.05.018
Malalgoda, C., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2018). Empowering local governments in making cities resilient to disasters: research methodological perspectives. Procedia engineering, 212, 902-909.                   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.116
Maxwell, J. A (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Melnikovas, A (2018). Towards an explicit research methodology: Adapting research onion model for futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies, 23(2), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201812_23(2).0003
Miles, M. B., & A. M. Huberman (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Mohammadpour, A. (2023). Counter-Method: The Philosophical underpinnings and practical Procedures of qualitative methodology. Tehran: Logos,64-65. [ln persian] from https://irlogos.com
Morgan, D. L (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. SAGE Publications. from https://uk.sagepub.com
Omodan, B. I. (2025). A Model for Selecting Theoretical Framework through Epistemology of Research Paradigms. African Journal of Inte, 4(1), 275-285.    https://doi.org/10.51415/ajims.v4i1.1022
Pallant, J (2022). SPSS survival manual (8th ed.). Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Pathirage, C. P., R. D. G. Amaratunga, and R. P. Haigh (2008). The role of philosophical context in the development of research methodology and theory. The Built and Human Environment Review, 1(1), 1-10. from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/22646/
Phair, D. & K. Warren (2021). Saunders’ Research Onion: Explained Simply. [Online]. 2021. Available from https://gradcoach.com/saunders-research-onion. [Accessed: 7 September 2022].
Ragab, M. A., & A. Arisha (2018). Research methodology in business: A starter’s guide. https://doi.org/10.5430/mos.v5n1p1
Ryan, A. B (2018). Post-positivist approaches to research. Researching and Writing your Thesis: A Guide for Postgraduate Students, 12-26. from https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/id/eprint/874
Sahay, A (2016). Peeling Saunder’s research onion. Research Gate, Art, 3(2), 1-5.from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309488459_Peeling_Saunder%27s_Research_Onion
Saunders, M., & Bristow, A. (2023). Research Methods for Business Students Preface (9th edition) (pp.i-xxvii, Pearson,128-174) from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367780349_2023_Research_Methods_for_Business_Students_Preface_and_Chapter_4
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson ,128-175.from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240218229_Research_Methods_for_Business_Students
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English language teaching, 5(9), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
Shah, S. R., & A. Al-Bargi (2013). Research paradigms: Researchers’ worldviews, theoretical frameworks and study designs. Arab World English Journal, 4(4), 252-264. from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260158808_Research_Paradigms_Researchers’_Worldviews_Theoretical_Frameworks_and_Study_Designs
Shirooyehpour, Sh. & Fazli, S. (2022). from Forecasting to Foresight: basing the Methodology of Futures Studies on Research Onion Model. Methodology of the Humanities, 28(113), 31–50. [ln persian]       https://doi.org/10.30471/mssh.2022.8534.2319
Singh, S. (2019). Purpose and process of research. In Methodological issues in management research: Advances, challenges, and the way ahead (pp. 27-36). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-973-220191003
Smith, L. T (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books. from https://a.co/d/c5CLY49
Sook, L. C., & T. N. Heng (2020). A refined research onion model for accounting information systems implementation. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(5), 287-292. from https://thesai.org/Publications/ViewIssue?volume=11&issue=5&code=IJACSA
Tashakkori, A. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. SAGE Publications. from https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Methods-Social-Behavioral-Research/dp/1412972663
Tayebi Abolhasani, S. A. (2019). An introduction to research methodology: Standard procedures for qualitative data analysis. Policy Letter of Science and Technology, 9(2), 67–69. [ln persian] from https://stpl.ristip.sharif.ir/article_21535.html
Thanh, N. C., & T. T. Thanh (2015). The interconnection between interpretivist paradigm and qualitative methods in education. American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 24-27. from        http://www.aiscience.org/journal/allissues/ajes.html?issueId=70380102
Zolfagharian, M., B. Walrave, R. Raven, & A. G. L. Romme (2019). Studying transitions: Past, present, and future. Research Policy, 48(9), 103788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.012
Žukauskas, P., J. Veinhardt, & R. Andriukaitienė (2018). Philosophy and paradigm of scientific research. Management culture and corporate social responsibility, 121(13), 506-518. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70628

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics