Should The Choice Of Method Be Based On Epistemological Or Practical Consideration - Research Paper Example

EPISTEMOLOGIGAL ESSAY: SHOULD THE CHOICE OF RESEACH METHOD BE BASEED ON EPISTEMOLOGICAL OR PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION? This research paper aims to explore the validity of epistemology over practical considerations in the choice of research methods, especially its influence on qualitative research method. Within and across the disciplines diverse perceptions have been expressed to define research. However, the basic notion of research revolves around two key aspects; description of research and how it is associated to the type of knowledge being generated. Therefore, paradigm enables researchers to receive the knowledge according to their pre-set belief system. Therefore, this theory or belief-system sets a pre-defined path for a researcher to interpret ideas, actions and most importantly his thoughts. Thus, it influences the thought process or pattern and establishes one’s foundation of practices. Consequently, paradigms manipulate one’s judgement and establish rules for interpretation of collected data through personalized views (Holyoak & Morrison, 2012). According to Patton, Paradigm is a general perspective of the world, which enables one to comprehend and grasp intricate facts of the world (2002). However, Guba has described paradigm as one’ capability to view the world mainly due to his beliefs and feelings. Thus, Lincoln and Denzin have classified these beliefs into three main divisions, to describe the type of paradigm a researcher follows in his course of research. Hence, they are as follow: Ontology Epistemology Methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2006). Ontology is a subdivision of metaphysics which deals with the relationship among nature and being. Hence, it is a realistic presumption regarding the characteristics of being or the real things which subsist on Earth (Velasquez, 2011). Epistemology contemplates with the notion of pre-received knowledge and its association with the knower. Hence, it is a subdivision of philosophy which establishes a relationship between the acknowledged information and the inquirer. Thus, it is a branch of study which ponders over the process of knowledge attainment and its rationality with respect to its nature (Gall M., Borg, Gall J., 2007). Methodology refers to the process of extracting knowledge through a specific research method. Hence, it is a planned set of approach towards the research theme. Some of the examples are qualitative, quantitative, empirical, dialectic, Marxist, Feminist, ethnographic methods of research (Williams & Vogt, 2011). Guba has suggested that a paradigm enables human’s to receive information according to his philosophical theory of ontology (reality) epistemology (how one knows, what he knows?) and finally methodology (how to research further). Therefore, the above mentioned divisions of philosophical distribution of knowledge; construct holistic perception of one’s inspection of knowledge in-terms of oneself and the devised strategies to know them (Denzin & Lincoln. ,2006). Now the question lies how ones choice of research method is influenced by his epistemological or ontological perception. Therefore, it’s a fundamental reality that whenever a political science or social science researcher initiates his research, his research is either inclined towards ontological or epistemological view. However, these inclinations of researchers are not apparent neither they are documented for evidence, but they are easily detected in the content produced by the researcher in the form of his adaptive approach or methodology to research. Furthermore, the adopted approach of the researcher influences his methodology and which consequently affects his research content and thus, one can observe knowledge of the world woven in the belief system of the researcher. Hence, these stances have been referred to as skins, which cannot be worn on or taken off, whenever one likes (Marsh & Stoker, 2010). Thus, to conclude it epistemology and ontology are two completely diverse positions, which have nothing in common. However, epistemology and methodology are closely related as the earlier denotes source of a belief and the later entails practices over it, but both of them are simultaneously reflected in various research methods. In social science research process two prominent doctrines of philosophy or paradigms are positivism and post-positivism. Philosophical study of Positivism and Post-positivism: Positivism is mainly reliant on ontological fundaments due to the fact that it is developed from empiricist institution of natural science; therefore, it suggests that the social science is capable of the same methods. Thus, it entails the idea that corporal and social facts are autonomous of the influence of the observer. Furthermore, if the observations taken into account are impartial, they are comprised as logical knowledge, thereby, rejecting any external dichotomy or metaphysics notions. It mainly adheres to the idea that objectivity is achievable and they are described by laws of social sciences. Therefore, Positivist researchers use quantitative method to research; hence, they mainly look for the causes of specific behaviour not its meaning through measured observations. Nonetheless, researchers in the field of Education and psychology need to adapt positivist epistemology to produce hypothesis of their collected observations (Dills & Romiszowski, 1997). On the other hand, post-positivism is also known as the philosophy of critical-realism. Hence, this theory entails that all the social phenomena of the world are created by individuals through their participation. Therefore, social realities have different patterns due to the distinction of participation by the individuals. Hence, interpretists suggest that objective reports about the social constructions of the real world are not achievable, as individual’s participations constructs society and without their contribution autonomous interpretation is not possible. Thus, it rejects ontological method of inquiry and proclaims that human mind is not Tabula Rasa (blank slate); therefore, any observation it receives will be consequently affected by its pre-set pattern of thinking and will be narrated accordingly. Hence, interpretists believe that epistemology affects researcher and the hypothesis extracted through the research is influenced by the view of individual interpreting this knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is evasively laden. Subsequently, relativists apply qualitative research options, instead of being like positivist; who majorly explore the reasons of social behaviour instead of drawing conclusion through its meaning (Groff, 2008). No matter what the position of knowledge under a sociological perspective is, a researcher will validate that these theories (ontology, epistemology and methodology) are substantial and inter-linked to each other. As ontological view is directly influenced by epistemological affiliation, which effects human temperament and it eventually affects the choice of research method. However, it is important for a researcher to be aware of his philosophical assumption and its impact on its subject of research. Qualitative Research Method: Qualitative research is constructed of diverse theories and it mainly depicts the approach of phenomenological, humanistic and interpretivist, who are recognised as subjectivists. The objective of this kind of research is to investigate, what is the association of the subject under research (individual or individuals) with his/their personal or social experiences. Hence, it sheds light on the potential of the researcher to expound on the unknown factors, with no prior knowledge. Likewise, the research begins with none clear research question or hypothesis, instead the research question develops impulsively. However, it aims to find wide social perceptions of a society so it lays emphasis on subjects, their behaviour and meaning of their conducted behaviour rather than analysing the causes of behind their behaviour (Berg & Lune, 2012). Throughout, the research process main emphasis is given on subjects’ interview and diverse strategies are adapted to extract more knowledge from the participants in the form of their experiences (Haverkamp &Young, 2007).Hence, then the data collected is in a form of factual narrations, which cannot be calculated to ascertain a single hypothesis. However, collective discourse is analysed and interpreted through technical language or with the help of metaphors or imagery. Since qualitative research is directly dependent upon the subjects’ perceptions, opinions and experience, thus, it requires researcher to possess comprehensive knowledge of comprehending social occurrences of the subjects (Manson, 2012). Qualitative research method is always applied on a group of people related to a community or society to study the behavioural patterns along with the presumed notions. Therefore, the data collected from the participants is eventually contextualised to draw conclusions and to propose meaning and potential causes for prevalent conducts. Due to the fact that the data gathered this way is subjective, therefore, it’s not necessary that the results can be used to draw hypothesis for a larger group. Because quantitative study narrows down the research onto a specific group therefore, its implications can be according to that group only. For example, if a group of Latino population (abused by violent activists) is under study, the hypothesis of its results cannot be applied to whole Latino population, as the participants under study would have distinctive pattern of thought process due to their diverse experiences, therefore, its results would not be applicable to the whole Latino population (Welland & Ribner, 2008). Researchers opting for qualitative research method have to develop reliance of their subjects onto them, as this is the only way they would be able to produce their reports or draw hypothesis. The most prominent aspect of qualitative study is; its association to epistemological notion. Thus, researcher has the liberty to gather, interpret and analyse the collected knowledge through his own observation either influenced by the prior knowledge or not. Then the hypothesis will be based on anti-ontology concept of reflexive method. This type of research emphasizes on researcher’s role, perceptions, persuasive drive to research phenomena and observations, which would be directly dependent upon his intellectuality and comprehensive skills. Therefore, qualitative research enables the researcher to understand; experiment and generate (Mason, 2012) the hypothesis through peoples’ lives, behaviour, conducts and communications. Thus, relativists researcher mostly use qualitative research methods to produce new hypothesis, to achieve deep insight of the issues under study, to extract truth behind the generalizibility and finally to go beyond the numerical facts of quantitative truths. Since for a fact that a qualitative researcher’s hypothesis is usually presented in the form of language rather than numeric, which can be disputed, as their reports are less likely to be measured for validity and consistency. Hence, the peculiar element of generalizibility in qualitative research is still investigated (Gavin, 2000). How to fill the gap? The differences between qualitative and quantitative methods can be adjusted as these methods are mainly reliant upon the researcher’s epistemological or ontological requirements of knowledge. Therefore, researchers applying these methods work according to their epistemological positions, hence, they can adapt the strategy of other methods along with their preferred method to research; to eliminate its inadequacies (Marsh & Stoker, 2010). Although, quantitative research is mainly reliant upon, interviews, surveys, observations and participation of the researcher, but the data gathered from it can be easily interpreted or documented into quantitative form (Gavin, 2008). Like a survey result can be saved in statistical form through quantitative coding. Simultaneously, all the quantitative data received is chiefly reliant upon qualitative reviews or judgements (Morra & Rist, 2009). Therefore, a researcher cannot work and produce hypothesis, entirely independent of the influence of the both aforementioned research methods. The choice of research method either qualitative or quantitative is mainly reliant upon philosophical assumptions of epistemology or ontology of the researcher. Therefore, the futile debate over the validity and authenticity of quantitative over qualitative is redundant, unless it is used in the right context of social phenomena under study (Collins et al., 2010). Therefore, the significant view of qualitative researchers is to investigate any phenomena or entity in its context, rather than framing it under a generalized formula used for larger number of individuals of the same context. On the other hand, many qualitative researchers study the world under their ontological hypothesis. They try to find concrete facts rather than exploring hidden meanings behind behavioural actions. Conclusion: Research philosophy plays a vital role in realizing a researcher what method to adapt and how it will be influenced by epistemological or ontological consideration of his. Furthermore, it establishes a ground for researcher to ponder over the possibilities, skills, shortcomings and failures involved in his adapted research technique. However, the aim of the researcher is mainly reliant upon what, how and why to research? This philosophy of what (social, psychological or behavioural) will lead the researcher to how (methodology) and eventually he will be able to find the answer to his (why). Nevertheless, a researcher cannot undermine the philosophical position of his research criteria, which might go in vain unless appropriate method is adopted to investigate. Consequently, a wrong choice of research method only due to researchers epistemological view can generate false hypothesis which would in-turn affects his validity of research. Thus, a researcher can only be successful in his research if he considers his area of research under its matching philosophy and then applies appropriate methodology to investigate it further. Bibliography: Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston [etc.], Pearson. Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2010). Toward a broader understanding of stress and coping: mixed methods approaches. Charlotte, NC, Information Age Pub. Denzin & Lincoln. (2006). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, 2005. Dills, C. R., & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). Instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Educational Technology Publications. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: an introduction. Boston [etc.], Pearson-Allyn & Bacon. Gavin, H. (2008). Understanding research methods and statistics in psychology. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE. Gavin, N. T. (2000). The economy, media and public knowledge. London, Leicester University press. Groff, R. (2008). Critical realism, post-positivism, and the possibility of knowledge. London, Routledge. Haverkamp, B. E., & Young, R. A. (2007). Paradigms, Purpose, and the Role of the Literature: Formulating a Rationale for Qualitative Investigations. Counseling Psychologist. 35, 265-294. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2012). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mason, J. (2012). Qualitative researching. Los Angeles [etc.], Sage. Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (2010). Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Morra Imas, L. G., & Rist, R. C. (2009). The road to results: designing and conducting effective development evaluations. Washington DC, The World Bank. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods ( 3rd ed.).Sage. Velasquez, M. G. (2011). Philosophy: a text with readings. Australia, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Welland, C., & Ribner, N. (2008). Healing from violence: Latino mens journey to a new masculinity. New York, Springer Pub. Williams, M., & Vogt, W. P. (2011). The SAGE handbook of innovation in social research methods. Los Angeles, SAGE. Read More