The Nature and Philosophy of Social Science Method - Research Paper Example

Introduction It is quite clear that the meaning of Science is not only confounding to the general public who are to misconceptions and stereotypes but also among social scientists where the perspectives of what science is may be contradictory (Bell, Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 2000, 563-581). There is, however, consensus that it is concerned with generating knowledge through systematic ways as is well put by Singleton, Straits and Straits (1993, 3) that ‘The world lies awaiting for the curious to observe, manipulate, make judgments and understand. They also state that the fundamental question is how this will be done…. Learning which questions to ask and which tools to use is essentially the business of research methods.’ The central issue thus is the research methods of inquiry that science uses i.e. their nature, philosophical framework and role in science. Here, rationalism, empiricism, positivism, interpretivism, logical positivism and logical empiricism are all concepts that have emerged as philosophical underpinnings of research. Research methods have been categorised into either qualitative or quantitative. In social sciences, there is much debate on the supremacy of quantitative methods (based on positivism) or qualitative inquiry that is based on interpretivism (Spratt, Walker and Robinson 2004, 7). This leads to a question on the possibility of a mixed method being better for social science research. To effectively study these aspects, a background of science and its essence will be established first followed by a discussion of the method that is central to the scientific enterprise. The guiding thesis of this study is that a mix-method approach based on integrating interpretivism and positivism (qualitative and quantitative) method may be an attractive method for undertaking social science research. Background A study into the history of science is essentially a study into its philosophical background which enables us to trace the roots of scientific thinking. Hence, it is essential to establish the place of philosophy in scientific inquiry where it is clear that philosophy lies at the interface of the real world and the theoretical world. Here, the real world is the physical one in which we exist and observe while the theoretical world is based on the premise of theorising, hypotheses, ideology and concept-building. From this prospective, philosophy is concerned with relating ideas from theory with the real world, transfer of real world knowledge back to theory and finally the gaining of understanding into the nature of the real world (Lee and Lings 2008, 25), alternatively starting with observation into the real world and ending up with theoretical knowledge. In this respect, the roots of science are traced to the specific time in history. First is when man broke from the tradition of relying on supernatural explanations of the things he did not understand. For this reason, the Milesians are observed to be the first true philosophers. Pythagoras, a Greek mathematician who lived in 571-496 BC insisted that truth should be proved rather than just accepted. Pythagoras and other early philosophers who lived before Socrates provided a useful foundation on the philosophy of science through conceptualising proof and reasoning to generate truth out of observations. Socrates and most of his students such as Plato heralded clear philosophy through questioning and inquiry into observations to a large extent. Aristotle’s ideologies are of main interest to this study since he first established the concepts of deductive and inductive reasoning, hence generalisations which allow for the prediction based on theory. From the age of Aristotle, scientific philosophy was to take a backseat as politics and religion took center-stage for over a millennium, a period during which the main focus of philosophy was politics, morality and theology. It is argued that during the Dark Ages and Church domination, the works of the early philosophers were kept alive only in the Muslim world, and their reintroduction into Latin is what set alight the Renaissance (Lee and Lings 2008, 27). From this period modern scientific philosophy was embroiled in debate over rationalism (knowledge from reasoning) and empiricism (observatory knowledge - humans do not possess innate knowledge), which helps us focus on two fundamental concepts; induction and deduction. Rationalism and empiricism are two conceptualisations that have played a key role in the establishment of the philosophy of scientific method. The debate between the two ideas was based on the importance of reasoning on one part and observation on the other, with different workers and philosophers taking opposite sides on the superiority of one over the other. To begin with, Descartes commented to the idea that the senses could not be trusted to provide scientific knowledge (senses mainly deal with observations). He was of the opinion that reasoning was of primarily importance over empirical observation since they could be easily fooled, which set him as a rationalist. Rationalism thus generates knowledge based on deduction, where the researcher is informed by observation of an experience. The main demerit of rationalism lies in the inability to provide evidence that a number of thought items already exist in the mind before they have been experienced. On the contrary, empiricists were of the opinion that observation was superior to reason since human beings are not born with innate knowledge and first have to observe the world in order to reason. Empiricism thus attaches importance to observation with the view that all reasoning arises from observations since one cannot synthesise content that is nonexistent. Empiricism informs science based on a collection of verified observations, which can then be integrated through induction and thus a bottom-up approach, as opposed to rationalism’s up-bottom deductive approach (Prinz 2004, 2). The advent of the Vienna Circle of physical scientists led to the rise of positivism, where concepts were considered meaningful to knowledge only if they could be verified. According to Spratt, Walker and Robinson (2004, 7), positivism is based on the premise that phenomena under investigation have an objective reality that can be measured and then appropriately analysed to generate knowledge on them. Positivism as a philosophical underpinning has largely informed the method of inquiry based on quantitative approaches, where variables are treated as entities under objective observation in a manner that separates the entities from the researcher. Positivism is also based on the concept that reality is external to the observer (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004, 14-26). Interpretivism versus Positivism An inquiry into the philosophy of scientific method is guided by what scientific knowledge should be. The idea that informs scientific knowledge is that it should be a body of statements of declaration about reality bearing some credibility hence allowing human beings to trust them in practice to some extent (Ruiz 2007). Such knowledge is dependent on sufficient evidence, absence of which leads to labelling as the claim or opinion. The question thus is the avenue to be followed in providing evidence for the declarative statements. This led to the establishment of the scientific method, a widely used but largely debated approach as can be observed when Kuhn stated that radical breaks from the scientific method have contributed to a lot of knowledge generation and paradigm shifts (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 2004, 29). The advent of social sciences raised a lot of questions on the approach that would be followed in generation of knowledge through research. Livesey (2006, 2) explains positivism narrowed down to sociology as set forth by Auguste Comte (1798-1857); it involves isolation, analysis and comprehension of human behaviour in a bid to understand how social forces are capable of shaping behaviour. Here, the evidence on social behaviour is only valid and reliable when one is able to observe and test it. There arose a number of problems of using an approach that was essentially positivist in nature for the social science research method. It had demerits in its assumption that humans can be treated as objects which will have certain qualities independent of the researcher and will react objectively according to stimuli besides excluding fields such as psychology since things such as human thought cannot be objectified for measurement (Kim 2003, 10). An alternative philosophy to positivism in social research thus arose based on interpretivism. Interpretivism is of the view that social study cannot be based on the premise that human beings are objects without consciousness of self and others (including the researcher); human action is informed by deliberate choice and hence cannot be predictable as positivist studies assume. Many argue that facts about behaviour can be established, but these are not generalised into theories as they are based on the context (Stoneham 2005, 139; Blaikie 2007, 132). An example is social construction which Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (2004, 30), identify as a concept based on Interpretivism. It is based on the argument that reality is not objective and external but is rather constructed socially and given meaning by people. A contrast of positivism and social constructivism gives us an understanding of the basic differences between the concepts of positivism and interpretivism. To begin with, the quantitative method maintains that the positivist observer must be independent and human interests remain irrelevant in the study. Explanations in positivism are supposed to explain casualty. Besides, the research progresses from hypothesising to generation of deductions with the concepts in the study being operationalised to make them measurable. The units of analysis require being as easy as possible, with generalisation being achieved through statistical probability, and lastly such studies involves large randomised sample. In contrast, interpretivism involves the observer as part of the observation being made with human interests being the main drivers of social science. The research progresses from gathering data induction is used to generate knowledge. Instead of operationalising the concepts to be measurable, interpretivism instead incorporates perspectives from all involved stakeholders. Generalisation is based on theoretical abstraction with the sampling designs involving small numbers selected basing on specific reasons (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 2004, 30). Mixed Methods in Social Sciences Spratt, Walker and Robinson (2004, 7) explain that quantitative research methods are traditionally based on positivism while qualitative ones are base on interpretivism. Quantitative and qualitative research methods are accompanied by certain merits and demerits. For example, one of the merits of positivist approach is its provision for predictions based on tentative theories in social science. However, it assumes that humans can be treated as objects with certain qualities independent of the researcher and will react objectively according to stimuli, which translates to human beings illogical and not relating with the researcher (Kim 2003, 10). The main merit of interpretative inquiry is based on its appreciation that human consciousness influences action; hence the observation may be dependent on reaction to the researcher or deliberate choice that is not in line with the variables involved, hence the context is supreme. It, however, has drawbacks in its insistence that knowledge is what is experienced by individuals when it is quite obvious that some reality must exist beyond peoples perceptions (Weber 2004, 5). Other factors that contribute to adoption of an integrated method in social sciences, referred to as mixed methods, include the observation that positivism and Interpretivism were developed from integration of several concepts upon which the founding philosophers did not ascribe to all. The consequence of this is that a philosopher from one side of the debate would produce ideas that instead explained the other side’s views better. As a result, a good number of researchers, for example, in the management field deliberately combine methods from both philosophies (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 2004, 28). Bazeley (2002, 1) argues that quantitative and qualitative approaches are,in fact, indicators of direction and cannot be distinguished clearly from each other. He argues that the two methods have been distinguished based on a number of paradigms; type of data (numeric versus textual or unstructured versus structured), logic (deductive versus inductive), investigation (confirmatory versus explorative). However, if one uses numeric figures they still have to undertake interpretation; texts may still involve counting; variables may not be clearly objectified while processes may be revealed through numerical analyses besides narrative approaches. This inability to clearly distinguish two approaches leads to acceptability of mixed methods for use in social research or their oblivious use among extremists from both positions. Creswell (2002, 5) explains that mixed methods of research entails both philosophical assumptions and methodology in which the collection and analysis of data involves both qualitative (interpretive) and quantitative (positivist) approaches in the many phases of the research process. Use of mixed methods in social research is informed by the view that combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in research helps achieve a better understanding of research problems than when each approach is used independently. An exploration of what mixed methods entail can be done through studying various elements of the concept. To begin with, it contains both qualitative and quantitative data (6). In social science research, quantitative data is close-ended information on parameters such as attitudes and performance or from documents such as census figures and attendance records. The qualitative part will involve open-ended data gathered from participants such as through interviews. Such data can then be mixed through merging, embedding or connecting. The result is a better understanding of the phenomenon being investigated (7). The advantages put forth for mixed method research versus either of the two basic approaches include the view that it provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research methods in social science. It covers up for the failure of quantitative methods in capturing participant’s views and the incorporation of bias and lack of generalisation that accompanies qualitative research. It also provides more comprehensive evidence than quantitative or qualitative methods besides answering pertinent questions that both methods of research ask of each other. It is, however, accompanied by a number of demerits based on its being a considerably challenging undertaking. The reasons for this include the time and resources required to collect and analyse both sets of data. It also complicates the procedures involved in the research being undertaken and the researcher has to go a long way to clearly present or communicate the research to the audience. Furthermore, most researchers specialise in either qualitative or quantitative research methods, hence undertaking mixed research may prove difficult (Creswell 2002, 9-10). Despite all the challenges that mixed research faces, there is considerable although not general consensus that such problems encountered are not insurmountable (Creswell 2002, 10; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004, 14). Opposition to mixed method of research in social science is largely based on the incompatibility thesis in which opponents argue that the philosophical bases of qualitative and quantitative research (positivism and interpretivism) are immiscible. However, Howe (1988, 10-16 cited in Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004, 14) argues that the philosophical paradigms should demonstrate their worth in social sciences in a two-way relationship with research methods; how they influence and get influenced by research methods. Conclusion It is widely appreciated that learning the unknown is based on credible research into it. The history of science is characterised by debates and discussions about the philosophical background that should inform scientific inquiry, with the concepts of radicalism, empiricism, positivism and Interpretivism emerging in various stages of the timeline of science. In social science, the debate has been between positivism, which informs (quantitative research methods) and interpretivism (informs qualitative methods) with the central argument being whether human beings can be objectified or not. Amidst this debate, the concept of the mixed research method has gained prominence with its proponents seeking to use the merits of quantitative and qualitative research methods to overcome the demerits of both. References Bazeley, P 2002, Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, Palgrave Macmillan, UK. Bell, RL, Lederman, LG & Abd-El-Khalick 2000, “Developing and acting upon ones conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 563-581. Blaikie, N 2007, Approaches to social enquiry: advancing knowledge, Polity, USA. Creswell, JW 2002, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches 2nd edition, SAGE Publications Ltd, UK. Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R & Lowe, A 2004, Management research: an introduction 4th edition, SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Howe, KR 1988, “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard,” Educational Researcher, vol. 17, pp. 10-16. Johnson, RB & Onwuegbuzie, AJ 2004, “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,” Educational Researcher, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 14–26 Kim, S 2003, “Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes of inquiry,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 9-18. Lee, N & Lings, Ian 2008, Doing business research: a guide to theory and practice, SAGE, UK. Livesey, C 2006, Sociological methods: The relationship between positivism, Interpretivism and sociological research methods, AS Sociology viewed 17 October 2011 from http://www.sociology.org.uk/revgrm5.pdf Prinz, JJ 2004, The return of concept empiricism, University of North Carolina, viewed 17 October 2011 from http://subcortex.com/PrinzConceptualEmpiricismPrinz.pdf Ruiz, E 2007, Science and scientific method, viewed 17 October 2011 from http://www.slideshare.net/Euler/science-and-scientific-method Singleton, RA, Straits, BC & Straits, MM 1993, Approaches to social research, Oxford University Press, UK. Spratt, C, Walker, R & Robinson, B, 2004, Mixed research methods, Commonwealth of Learning, UK. Stoneham, LM 2005, Advances in sociology research, volume 2, Nova Science Publishers, New York. Weber, R 2004, “The rhetoric of positivism versus Interpretivism: A personal view,” Journal MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3-12. Read More