Lecture 2: PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO RESEARCH

Transcription

1 Lecture 2: PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES TO RESEARCH Introduction All research is based on ideas about how the world is perceived and how we may best come to an understanding of it. Throughout the ages philosophers have debated these issues. In this part of the course we will alert you to how contemporary social scientists approach these questions and trace some of their roots. In many texts you will see that these approaches are often labelled quantitative versus qualitative. These distinctions are made largely because the nature of data. In the quantitative approach this is numerical whereas in qualitative studies the data consists of words in a variety of forms. We would suggest that the labels quantitative versus qualitative should be restricted to describe the nature of the data products from research. Crotty (1998) uses the distinction objectivism versus subjectivism to describe different epistemological perspectives in social science research. He argued (Crotty 1998:15) that every beginning researcher learns at once that all research is divided into two parts and these are qualitative and quantitative respectively. He suggests that this divide the objectivist research associated with quantitative methods over against constructionist or subjectivist research associated with qualitative methods is far from justified. Most methodologies known today as forms of qualitative research have in the past been carried out in an utterly empiricist, positivist manner on the other hand quantification is by no means ruled out within non-positivist research. We may consider ourselves utterly devoted to qualitative research methods. Yet, when we think about investigations carried out in the normal course of our daily lives, how often measuring and counting turn out to be essential to our purposes. The ability to measure and count is a precious human achievement and it behoves us not to be dismissive of it. We should accept that, whatever research we engage in, it is possible for either qualitative methods or quantitative methods or both to serve our purposes. In addition to Crotty s use of terms such as objectivist versus subjectivist you will also find a range of other labels used to differentiate research. These labels are given to describe what has become known as the paradigm war. The other labels include traditional, nontraditional, scientific versus artistic, experimental versus naturalistic, reductionist versus holistic and prescriptive versus descriptive. In this unit we will use a range of labels reflecting

2 differing philosophies and approaches to research. The major areas we will cover are positivist, critical realist, constructivist, interpretativist, post-modernism and feminist critique. We would suggest that, rather than think in dichotomous terms, it is possible to see the development of philosophical thought in relation to social sciences as one of a continuum. Over time the various perspectives that have emerged have done so through a series of arguments and counter arguments amongst philosophers. However, there is no doubt that what we refer to as the positivist persuasion has held sway over the years despite shifts towards a more interpretative approach to social science research. The various paradigms of research can be seen to be underpinned by particular metaphors. A fundamental difference between researchers is often the metaphor of the person perceived to be the focus of the investigation of the study. In Figures 1 and 2 we juxtapose the model of person-as-a-machine as a metaphor underpinning much of positivist research, with its emphasis on the control of variables and nomothetic large scale studies, as representing legitimate research in the field, with an alternative constructivist/ interpretativist model, with the notion of person as scientist as the pivotal theme. This alternative metaphor is elaborated in Pope and Denicolo (2001) Transformative Education: Personal Construct Approaches to Practice and Research, Chapter Three. Figure 1: Positivist Model Knowledge as Accumulation of Facts Correspondence theory of truth Correspondence theory of truth PERSON PERSON AS AS MACHINE MACHINE Rules Reliability Generalisations + Validity Unilateral Generalisations Control Reductionist Explanatory Reductionist Non-interactive Non Interactive Constructivist/Interpretative Model

3 Figure 2: Interpretativist/constructivist approach Knowledge as Construction of Reality Authenticity Utility Descriptive PERSON AS SCIENTIST Non-reductionist Holistic Interactive Adopting an interpretativist/constructivist approach places an onus on researchers to strive hard to capture the persona l meanings portrayed in the language of participants within their research. This entails an interactive, more idiographic approach which gives bi- lateral control to the researcher and participant. Rigid subject/experimenter boundaries are rejected in preference to research as a co-operative enterprise. The researcher s aim is an understanding and illumination of the rich diversity of meanings participants have in relation to their lives. Knowledge is seen as a construction of reality and, in helping to illuminate personal meanings, the researcher will provide an opportunity for reflection which may help individuals or groups to consider alternatives and engender emancipatory praxis. The terms used in both figures will become more familiar as you make your journey through various parts of the web based course. Before we move into the details of the different philosophical approaches within the various strands we alert you to a useful set of distinctions made by Cresswell (1994:5) where he drew attention to some of the assumptions of what he refers to as the quantitative and qualitative

4 paradigms. We have added the terms positivist and interpretative in brackets because we think Cresswell s dichotomy represents distinctions between the positivist and interpretative approaches to social science which we cover in the various strands. Table 1: Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigm s Question Quantitative(Positivist) Qualitative(Interpretative) Ontological What is the nature of reality? Reality is objective and singular, apart from the researcher. Reality is subjective and multiple as seen by participants in a study. Epistemological Axiological (Value) Rhetorical What is the relationship of the researcher to that researched? What is the role of values? What is the language of research? Researcher is independent from that being researched. Value-free and unbiased. Formal; Based on set definitions; Impersonal voice; Use of accepted quantitative words Researcher interacts with that being researched. Value-laden and biased. Informal; Evolving decisions; Personal voice; Accepted qualitative words Methodological What is the process of research? Deductive process Cause and effect Static design-categories isolated before study Context-free Generalisations leading to prediction, explanation, and understanding Accurate and reliable through validity and reliability. Inductive process; Mutual simultaneous shaping of factors; Emerging design categories identified during research process; Context-bound; Patterns, theories developed for Understanding; Accurate and reliable Mutual simultaneous shaping of Factors; Emerging design categories identified during research process; Context-bound; Patterns, theories developed for understanding Accurate and reliable through verification SOURCE: Cresswell 1994:5

5 From the early 1960 s the dominance of quantitative methods based on positivist philosophy has been challenged and this led to a series of debates or paradigm wars that we referred to earlier. Much of the debate emphasised an either/or approach to research although more recently there has been a shift from distain to détente and many now advocate a combination of approaches recognising different philosophical assumptions. See for example Hammersley (1992). We feel that it is important that we address fundamental issues regarding different philosophies of research, the values and ethics underpinning these. Without addressing such issues methods and techniques can become divorced. As May (1997:1) put it, practitioners maybe left with the impression that they simply have to learn various techniques in order to undertake research. An understanding of these debates will allow you to choose between various approaches and, in due course, defend your chosen stance in your dissertation or thesis. The various strands should be seen as jumping off points for your exploration of philosophies of social research. We have endeavoured to choose theorists that have been influential in shaping social science research. However, these are only exemplars. There are others, whom we have omitted, that have also been influential. In an introductory text it is impossible to cover all those theorists that have had an impact on social research. We encourage you to work closely with your supervisor, who may introduce you to further theorists that they have found influential in guiding their research. For many of you this will be your first introduction to the realm of philosophy of research and we hope that you find your journey interesting. As you go through the various strands in this unit you may care to bear in mind the following questions. Which of the various philosophies (if any) fits with your own assumptions? What are the similarities and differences between them? Reading 1 Crotty M (1998) The Foundations of Social Research. London: Sage. pp1-17

6 Table 2: Summary of strengths and weaknesses of the research approaches Approaches Strengths Weaknesses A. Quantitative Research Investigation involving Numerical and statistical data in determination the analysis when separating causes,effects and events Random variables can be observed, described and measured independently. Has concept of in depth accuracy. Deals in statistics and can allow manipulation of data for consistency and comparability Promotes precision on accounting data and testing of different variables within a population. Easy to predict random variables through trends analysis and extrapolations. Flexible to allow comparison analysis on degrees of development on various conditions e.g. literacy, disease or poverty. Supports easy data presentations e.g. pie charts, pie charts, graphs and bar charts for comparability.. Approaches Strengths Weaknesses B. Qualitative Research Research method that uses non numerical data for investigating and developing findings of the study Applicable where quantitative methods research cannot be used e.g. measurements of attitude. Encourages creative thinking where data is not available. Uses ICT, mind mappings or conversations analysis usable in meetings and workshops Uses non-numerical data to bring out the situational analysis for problem solving. Accommodates historical designs through previous data collection records Gives individualistic expressions from Issues of attitudes /perceptions cannot be statistically presented. Cannot solve problems easily through quantifiable measures.. Sometimes difficult and painstaking to find good quality, sufficient and updated data. Data prediction and cleanings are costly, time consuming, technical, and needs experts. Accuracy is relative since it allows individual interpretations on the problems. Due to narrative nature, difficult to fish out precise data for accuracy. May give different views on one single problem. Difficult to analyze and compare issues based on perceptions and attitudes.

7 C. Mixed Research Approach Research method combining both Quantitative and Qualitative approaches for investigating problems involving statistics, attitude and feelings at the same time focused groups discussions, in-depth interviews and case study. Flexible and expandable, uses various types of methods. Reflects true precision and reality in social science research problems. Brings about deep insights to the problems through flexibility. Uses related quantitative data of research while qualitative approach assists understand attitude on the problem research. Neglects non measurable factor by obscuring the reality. Demands relevant skills due to its complexity Presents different approaches to problem thus different solutions Sometime biased since it leans on statistics more than narrations.

8 References Cresswell JW (1994) Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage Eisner, E. (1988) The Primary Experience and the Politics of Method. Educational Researcher, 17, 5, Glesne C. and A. Peshkin. 1992, Becoming A Qualitative Researchers. Introduction Longman. New York Hammersley M (1992) Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide. In Brannen J (Ed) Mixing methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Aldershot: Avebury pp May T (1997) Social Research: Issues, Common Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mugenda Research Methods Qualitative and Qualitative Approaches Pope ML and Denicolo PM (2001) Transformative Education: Personal Construct Approaches to Practice and Research, Chapter Three. London: Whurr.