Philosophy: towards an Understanding - Research Proposal Example

Research philosophies Introduction Every research project is underpinned by a philosophical framework which evidences the world view within which the research is situated and which can be seen in every step of the research process. This is where the issue of fit becomes critical. Each step in the research process, as designed by the researcher, should be appropriate to, or should fit with, the purpose and focus of the research (Quinlan 2011, p. 95). In order to answer certain research questions or develop some hypotheses, all researchers face with a challenge of choosing or designing a research methodology for their studies (Abawi, 2012). Thus, the choice of methodology for answering a research question or investigating a specific problem is an important decision for the final result or outcome. The way in which people collect and interpret data or information during the research is broadly varying and depends on the research philosophy followed by a researcher. Every methodology has its own philosophical groundwork, which is important for understanding as it promotes better informed research (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The aim of this research is to provide an overview of the literature related to various research philosophies including both ontological and epistemological research stances, and to explore such main philosophical research paradigms, as idealism, realism, positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and phenomenology. Research philosophy Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012) explain that practically every stage of research process is based on assumptions about human knowledge, and state that these assumptions shape the researcher’s understanding of the questions he/she is looking answers for. Therefore, assumptions of the researcher predefine his/her research philosophy – the way which he or she views the world (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2012; Crossan, 2003). Research philosophy is defined by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012, p. 127) as “the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge”. Proctor (1998) explains that research philosophies depend on the level of enquiry and can be differentiated by three categories: epistemological (what can be known?); ontological (what is the nature of reality?); and methodological (how can a researcher explore/find what he/she believes can be known?). More detailed overview of ontological and epistemological stances in provided in the next section. While researchers rarely take time to explore and analyze assumptions related to their personal values, this practice could be very helpful in understanding wider philosophical aspects (Crossan, 2003; Proctor, 1998). There are identified many other reasons of why understanding of philosophical issues play an important role in human intellectual affairs (Crossan, 2003). Understanding of philosophical issues help a research to understand better why qualitative data can be collected and analyzed in many different ways (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).This knowledge predefines the choice of a researcher in relation to strategy, methodology, data and other research aspects. In addition to helping a researcher with research methods, philosophy helps to identify the limitations of particular methods and approaches and to avoid unnecessary work (Crossan, 2003). According to Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008) philosophy of social sciences is comprised of the following concepts: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and paradigm. While these concepts are different in nature, and even contrasting, they still relate to each other in various ways (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). All these concepts are reviewed in more details in the remainder of this paper. Ontology Ontology is often defined as a study of being (McLaughlin, 2012), which is built around the question: “What is there in the world?” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, p.7). More specifically, it is a study of the ideas related to the relationship between society, people, and the world (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In order to examine what can be known about the world and the nature of existence Snape and Spencer (2003) cited by McLaughlin (2012) have formulated the three following questions: (1) Whether or not human conceptions and interpretations exist independently with social reality; (2) Whether social reality has common and shared context; and (3) whether or not ‘laws’ regulate social behavior. In order to address these main ontology-referred questions there are defined two key philosophical positions: idealism and realism (McLaughlin, 2012). Idealism is an approach based on the belief that reality is knowable through socially constructed meanings and through the human mind. Therefore, the real are viewed only the ideas, confined to what is in the human mind. Realism, in contrast to idealism, implies that in addition to human beings and human mind there might be other sources of external reality such as nature, galaxies, etc. These sources existed before the evolution of Homo sapiens and therefore, should be viewed to be independent from human understanding or views about it (McLaughlin, 2012). Taking into consideration the fact that idealism and realism are quite different philosophical research concepts, there were made some attempts to modify it. Thus, for example, Bhaskar has offered a concept of critical realism, and later, Hammersley (1992) has developed a concept of subtle realism (cited in McLaughlin, 2012). Epistemology Epistemology is another key philosophical concept of social science research. The main question that this concept aims to answer is formulated in the following way: “What is knowledge and what are sources and limits of knowledge?” (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). It is worth to mention that epistemological claims are closely related to ontological claims (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Epistemology helps researcher to define what kind on knowledge is available for scientific research and to evaluate the limits for this knowledge (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). In other words, epistemology identifies the framework and defines the criteria by which knowledge can be gained. However, Foucault (1974) views epistemologists as people who are not just attempting to establish the relationship between what is known and the person who own this knowledge but also as people who are eager to explore the very discursive conditions of possibility of scientific statements (cited in Epistemology, 2003). There are identified several different epistemological directions and commitments for defining the answer for research question(s). These directions are include empiricism (often associated with philosophical paradigm of positivism), subjectivism (associated with philosophical paradigm called interpretivism), and substantialism (often associated with philosophical paradigm called critical realism) (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Qualitative and Quantitative approaches Many theorists and researchers prefer to divide research approaches into quantitative and qualitative. These two approaches make researchers to set research questions in different ways (VanderStoep & Johnston, 2009). Therefore, quantitative researchers are recognized to have a “distinctive view about the nature of our knowledge about the physical and social world” (DiVanna, 2010, p. 44). Meanwhile, qualitative researchers doubt this view and often reject quantitative practice (DiVanna, 2010). Qualitative and quantitative approaches differ not only in the way of setting research questions, but also in purpose, method, focus, and criteria for truth (DiVanna, 2010). The purpose of qualitative research has a more predictive and descriptive character, whereas the main objective is to explore in depth the viewpoint of an individual participating in research (DiVanna, 2010). However, it is also worth to mention that research participants are more likely to have different backgrounds (social, cultural, etc.) and therefore their interpretations will vary significantly. Interpretation of a researcher is also an important aspect in this case, as his/her personal, social, cultural characteristics will also impact the way of data/information interpretation (DiVanna, 2010). That is why the qualitative approach is not normally followed by aggregate generalizations, as much of the information/data gained cannot be generalized (DiVanna, 2010). The quantitative research is different to the qualitative research as it is possible to make some generalizations based on statistical evidence. In contrast to predictive purpose of quantitative research, the purpose of qualitative research is description with a focus made on generalizations to large population (DiVanna, 2010). While for quantitative approach researchers use deductive methods of units’ analysis (individuals, companies, etc.), for qualitative approach they use inductive analysis of dry “texts” (DiVanna, 2010). Criteria for truth also are absolutely different for these two research approaches. In qualitative research methods used are described in great details enabling thus other researchers to replicate the study. If the results of several different researches are similar, the study is recognized to reveal the truth. For quantitative research statistics is recognized to be the key proof or criteria for truth (DiVanna, 2010). Research paradigms Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches may be located in a research paradigm. Patton (1990) has defined a research paradigm as a perception regarding the complex phenomenon of the real world. Khan (2014, p.298) has given more detailed explanation of the term saying that it is “a structure or a set of suppositions and ideas that provides a pathway to see what the world looks like when its scientific aspect is related to its assumptions”. There are identified many different philosophical paradigms based on ontological and epistemological approaches. The researchers often face with a challenge of choosing which philosophical paradigm better to apply in the research. However, Morgan (2014) explains that paradigms should be recognized as more than simple statements about future research, as paradigms help to create new social contexts and new worldviews that have essential impacts on the inquiry. Therefore, the researcher has to identify clearly the research objectives and research requirements for selecting the right paradigm. There are many different categories and classifications of the research paradigms. Thus, for example, Gephart (1999) identified positivism, critical postmodernism, and interpretivism as key philosophical research paradigms. Other researchers have identified phenomenology as another important philosophical research paradigm (Khan, 2014). Khan (2014) also cites Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran (2001) in order to explain that each philosophical paradigm has both strengths and weaknesses. More detailed overview of these research paradigms and their characteristics are presented below. Intepretivism Interpretivism philosophical research paradigm is recognized to be the major source of qualitative research as it is based on interpretation of multiple truths and realities, which are subject to social, cultural, personal, and other factors (Khan, 2014). This type of research paradigm is also considered to be extremely complex comparing to others as it involves a direct interaction between individuals, society, family, culture, and other stakeholders (Black, 2006). Interpretivist researchers and research participants are interactively linked within the context of the study or inquiry, and this aspect causes criticisms related to subjectivity factor (Khan, 2014). Positivism Proctor (1998) believes that before deciding on what research methodology to use a researcher should understand and explore the two extremes of research philosophy: positivism and post-positivism. According to Crossan (2003) positivism is one of the research philosophies, which adopts a clear “quantitative approach to investigating phenomena”. More specifically, positivism is defined as a philosophical doctrine closely associated with the concept of fact-based investigation (DiVanna, 2010). This philosophical paradigm implies that knowledge undergoes three stages, including: theological, metaphysical, and positive state (Paley, 2008). In contrast to Interpretivism, positivism is based on the reality which is independent on human perceptions (Khan, 2014). Also, in comparison to inrepretivists subjective values, positivist researchers and research participants are independent entities and therefore, the results of their study are recognized to be more objective in the nature (Khan, 2014; Neuman 2011). Phenomenology Phenomenology is a research paradigm or research philosophy referred to the category of qualitative research methods. This philosophical paradigm is based on pre-reflective or lived experience (Adams & Manen, 2008). In other words, it is a way of studying or exploring the lifeworld as it is immediately experienced, rather than conceptualizing, categorizing, theorizing or reflecting on it (Adams & Manen, 2008). Phenomenological researchers try to learn how human phenomenon is experienced in cognitive, perceptual, and conscious acts and how it can be aesthetically appreciated (Wilson, 2002 cited in Abawi, 2012). Therefore, phenomenology as a research paradigm, is especially helpful in exploring the meanings of human phenomenon or experience as it attempts to define and interpret experiential or lived meanings as they emerge (Adams & Manen, 2008). There is distinguished a variety of phenomenological traditions and schools, which include the following: transcendental, hermeneutic, existential, linguistic and ethical phenomenology (Adams & Manen, 2008). Comparing to other philosophical paradigms, phenomenology is recognized to be very practical paradigm as since the middle of the 1990s it was widely applied in professional sciences such as education, pedagogical disciplines, health sciences and clinical psychology (Adams & Manen, 2008). Pragmatism Pragmatism is another philosophical movement, which was first introduced in the mid-1980s. There are many different definitions of the term “pragmatism”. Some define it as “practical, matter-of-fact way of accepting the facts of life and approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems”, while others define it as the function of reflective thought and relationships to guide action and that truth is relative to the practical consequences of any belief” (McCaslin, 2008, p. 8). From these definitions it is possible to state that the main focus of pragmatism is made on the nature of truth (McCaslin, 2008). Based on this philosophical approach truth is relative to the current situation as it is found in “what works” (McCaslin, 2008, p.3; Morgan, 2014). Pragmatism as well as phenomenology is seen as a practical philosophy. However, pragmatism is based on the truth that is a movable and usable element for understanding the reality (McCaslin, 2008). Durkheim (1983) has clarified this statement arguing that (1) truth changes through space because people share differing ideas, and (2) truth changes over time because the reality changes. Conclusion The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the literature related to various research philosophies including both ontological and epistemological research stances and relevant philosophical research paradigms. The importance of understanding these philosophies is recognized by many social researchers as this knowledge promotes better informed research and helps with a choice of methodology for various studies. There has been indentified and clarified the role of philosophical framework embedded into different research paradigms, including: idealism, realism, positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and phenomenology. Idealism and realism were identified as ontology-based paradigms with two extreme positions. While idealism is based on the belief that reality is knowable through socially constructed meanings and through the human mind, realism, in contrast to idealism, implies that besides human being and his/her mind there might be other sources of external reality. Interpretivism as a philosophical research paradigm was found to be quite different to idealism and realism, as this specific approach is based on the interpretation of multiple realities and truths. Another paradigm in the paper was positivism is more closely related to realism paradigm as it is also based on the reality rather than on human perceptions. One more philosophical research paradigm defined in the literature was phenomenology – philosophical paradigm of studying or exploring the lifeworld as it is immediately experienced, rather than conceptualizing, categorizing, theorizing or reflecting on it. This philosophical paradigm seems to sit in the middle between interpretivism and idealism, as it includes both human mind and interpretation of human phenomenon. Finally, there was discussed pragmatism – the philosophical research paradigm where the main focus is made on the nature of truth. Truth is the main pillar of pragmatism, which is movable and usable element of understanding the reality. All the paradigms and approaches reviewed in the paper have different strengths and weaknesses. Before deciding which paradigm to apply (or combination of paradigms) a researcher is recommended to give a thorough review of key philosophies. References: Abawi, L. (2012). Introducing refractive phenomenology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(2), 141-149 Adams, C., & Manen, M. (2008). Phenomenology. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 615-620). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Black I, (2006) "The presentation of interpretivist research", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 4, pp.319 – 324. Crossan, F. (2003). Research philosophy: towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher, 11(1), 46-55. DiVanna, I. (2010). Positivism. In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. (pp. 1054-1057). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Durkheim, É. (1983). Pragmatism and Sociology . (J. Allcock, Ed., ed. , & J. C. Whitehouse, Trans.)., ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Epistemology. (2003). In Key contemporary concepts. Retrieved from http://0-search.credoreference.com.wam.city.ac.uk/content/entry/sageukcc/epistemology/0 Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). 2 Research Philosophy. In Qualitative Methods in Business Research. (pp. 11-25). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods. Research Methods Forum, Vol. 4 [Published by the Academy of Management. Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method - phenomenology. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 298-310. McCaslin, M. (2008). Pragmatism. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 672-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. McLaughlin, H. (2012). The philosophy of social research. In Understanding social work research. (2nd ed., pp. 24-47). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Morgan, D. (2014). "Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research". Qualitative inquiry (1077-8004), 20 (8), pp. 1045-1053. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (D. Musslewhite Ed. 7th ed.). USA: Allyn and Bacon. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Paley, J. (2008). Positivism. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (pp. 647-651). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Proctor, S. (1998), Linking philosophy and method in the research process: the case for realism. Nurse researcher, 5(4), 73-90. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, Harlow: Pearson Education. VanderStoep, S., & Johnston, D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Read More