Methodology in Social Sciences - Term Paper Example

Social Research Perspectives Name Course Lecture Date Introduction According to Crotty (2003), “Different ways of viewing the world shape different ways of researching the world” (66). This statement implies that the theoretical perspective a researcher uses to approach a research problem will influence the research method he will use in conducting the research. The world contains a variety of research subjects ranging from objects, plants, animal and human subjects. While studying of objects, animals and plants is straight forward, the study of human presents a number of problems to social researchers. This paper explores how diverse theoretical perspectives influence the way research is conducted in the field of social science. The paper starts by exploring the positivism perspective of the world. Positivism is a perspective of the world that calls for empirical investigation of phenomenon and emphasizes on rigid, structured methods of conducting research. Secondly, the reports deals with Constructionism, a perspective that recognizes that knowledge is social rooted. Thirdly, the report focuses on Interpretevism view of the world that is opposed to the positivist notion that the world has some universal truths. In the next section, the paper deals with Marxist critique and notes how it has contributed to the identification of fertile areas of social research. Feminist perspective on research methods closes the first section of this essay. The next section compares explores the paradigm challenge in social research and compares qualitative and quantitative approach as well as participatory and outsider research. The paper also suggests mixed method research as the future direction of social science research. Philosophical Underpinnings of social research: Different Epistemologies Positivism Positivism is a view of the world that is largely founded in empiricist traditions. Positivism was founded by French Philosopher Comte as a rejection of the metaphysical theories that were based upon speculations about the nature of the world (Crotty 2003: 25). According to Comte the only way to establish valid and reliable knowledge was to observe social life and experiment. According to Thyer (2010), positivism is part of the objectivism epistemology that focuses on empirical understanding of social life (18). Positivism reflects the spirit of the age of enlightenment in the seventeenth century. It seeks to offer a less ambiguous and accurate description of the social world. Positivism was founded by French philosopher Comte who had been heavily influenced by the writings of Claude H. Sain-Simon and David Hume (Creswell 2009:27). As formulated by Comte, positivism is a doctrine that asserts that the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge which is established by observing physical and social phenomenon (Crotty 2003:28). Further it explains and describes the co-existence and succession of observable phenomenon. ‘No social fact can have any scientific meaning unless it is associated with other social facts’ (Crotty 2003:23). In the views of positivist knowledge has to be rationalized in order for it to make sense. In the views of positivism, methods used in physical sciences including example, measurement and search for general laws can be applied in sociology. According to Creswell (2009) positivist social research should focus on what can be observed or felt by the senses (58). In other words, sensory experience should be the solitary source of knowledge. In the views of positivist, social research should be conducted in a rigid, linear and methodological way on a based on verifiable facts. In the views of positivist school, subjective or intuitive insight, metaphysical speculation, or purely logical analysis cannot produce true knowledge (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 74). In contrast, the methods used in physical sciences provide accurate ways of establishing knowledge about the world. It follows then that social research should only use these methods. The influence of positivism in sociology is profound as it calls for observation and classification of data about phenomena(Crotty 2003:18). Through positivism the truth of theological and metaphysical speculation can be established. As a way of viewing the world, positivism calls for emphasis on the use of scientific inquiry in investigating social phenomenon. The methods of research that are used in positivism include experiments, observations and empirical analysis. Constructionism Constructionism as a view of the world analyses the way social phenomena develop and what influences its development (Crotty 2003: 45). Constructionism roots knowledge in its social context. According to Creswell (2009: 218), constructionism views knowledge as relative to its social context. According to Constructionism, scientifically supported claims are not more significant than aesthetic claims. Thus, in constructionism there is no eternal and universal truth. In the views of constructionists various social phenomenon have been interpreted differently in different historical periods. According to Thyer (2010), different people may well inhabit different worlds. In each world people synthesize knowledge, and attach different meanings to facts thus leading to a separate reality (46). According to constructionism knowledge is a product of human perception, instead of being a part of the world (Crotty 2003: 50). Constructionism is concerned with explaining the processes by which people comprehend the world they live in. According to Creswell (2013), constructionists believe knowledge is nurtured rather than present in nature (125). Constructionism is criticized in sociology for ignoring the influence of biology on behaviour or culture (Crotty 2003:52). Constructionism suggests that biological make-up such as genes are unimportant in explaining human behaviour. However, it is now well established that human behaviour can be explained by a complex interaction between what is biological and what is cultural. Popular research methods adopted by constructionism include case studies and ethnography. Interpretevism Interpretevism is a perspective that contrast positivist as it believes that the methods for social research have to be significantly different with those employed in researching animals and inanimate objects. According to them the difference in subject matter between sociology and physical sciences calls for different methods of investigation. Positivists believe in the existence of a single, external and objective reality to any research question (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 156). On the other hand, interpretivists believe that reality is subjective and there can be multiple realities (Creswell 2013: 124). Therefore, interpretivists believe in more than one single structured way of accessing a certain reality. However, multiple meanings obtained in research need to be interpreted by other systems for meaning. Interpretevism claims that an understanding of a group’s action must be preceded by a consideration of how the participants understand their actions (Crotty, 2003: 69). It cannot be assumed that there is a social reality that is waiting to be discovered. For social research to be valid, reliability and representativeness have to be sacrificed occasionally. According to interpretivists, human behaviour is intentional and meaningful and occurs in pursuit of a purpose (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 120). Since human behaviour is meaningful it cannot be understood the same way as a natural phenomenon. Therefore, the methods used for researching natural sciences cannot be applied in social research (Robson, 2011:63). Human actively experience and interpret the world through their consciousness. Therefore, reality is subjectively constructed based on a group’s interpretation and interactions (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 126). According to Thyer (2010), social reality cannot be measured objectively (57). To generate value-laden socially constructed interpretations, research has to assume more personal and flexible structures (Creswell 2013: 28). Interpretevism calls for researchers to be more receptive to meanings gained through human interaction and be able to make sense of the perception of multiple realities. Interpretivists research tries to keep away from fixed research design, as it recognizes the complex, multiple and unpredictable nature of social reality (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 39). While a researcher has some prior knowledge about a phenomenon, it is not enough to develop a design to study the unknown phenomenon. Therefore, the researcher works in conjunction with the informant in interdependent and mutual interactions that help the construction of joint understanding of the social reality. Interpretivists believe human’s have the ability to adapt and thus prefer an emergent approach in research. According to Creswell (2009), Interpretevism is not interested in generalizing human behaviour (35). In contrast, this perspective aims to understand and interpret human action and consequently identify cause and effect. Interpretivists know that it is impossible to establish prior knowledge of time and context bound experiences. Hermeneutics is one of the methods that is commonly associated with interpretivists research (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 212). Hermeneutics is a clear example where positivist methods cannot work, as any for any text to be given meaning its time and context must be considered. Critical Realism: Marxist Sociology According to Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: and Hearn (2004:218), Karl Marx is one of the founders of modern social research. In contrast to most social researcher, Marx tried as much as possible to undertake scientific inquiry of modern economic life. Marx wanted capitalism to be scientifically analyzed as a system. Marx took rigorous investigation of empirical facts in his investigation of the capitalist structure. The rigorous investigation undertaken by Marx support the view of critical realism, that reality exists but has to be viewed sceptically and critically analyzed. According to Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: and Hearn (2004:214), theorists who base their work on social critique as proposed by Marx have a hard time locating specific theoretical premises for their work.  According to Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: and Hearn (2004), Marxian Critique can be used in social research to locate areas of investigation (116). First, Marxian Critique enables a researcher look for material institutions such as property, labour and technology in their studies. Secondly, Marxian critique enables analyses of the role of non-material institutions in the society under investigation. Thirdly, Marxist Critique turns the focus on inter-group exploitation and the ensuing struggle. They also examine the lived experience of individual within their social institutions. Marxian critique is also concerned with the centrality of class structures in a particular society. Therefore, Marxian Critique falls short of suggesting specific methods to be used in social research. Feminist Social research Feminist is one of the ways of viewing the world that informs research methodology in the social sciences. Feminism is best described as resistance to a patriarchal society (Letherby, Scott and Williams 2012: 203). However, the differences in cultural system means feminist research is conducted in different contexts. The situated experience in feminist research leads to situated knowledge, and thus diversity of feminism ideology. Some feminist are religious while others are secular (Crotty 2003:164). The differences in feminist realities are analyzed by Rosemarie Tong (Crotty, 2003:169). Tong identifies over seven female typologies. According to Tong, feminists are either Marxist, liberal, radical, psychoanalytical, socialist, post-modern or existentialist. Liberal feminist believe society should safeguard individual rights and ensure individual autonomy for people to achieve self-fulfilment (Babbie 2012: 38). Tong argues that Classical liberalist believe the state should provide equal opportunity and protection for all but interfere in the activities of individuals as little as possible. On the other hand, egalitarian liberals think that government must play a greater role in ensuring social justice (Denzin 2010: 292). The influence of feminist perspective on social research is recognized by Crotty (2003) as the simple interaction of feminist perspectives with existing methodologies (170). According to Creswell (2009), a feminist-oriented methodology is significantly different from an ordinary methodology (207). He goes on the say that female-orientation changes a methodology much in the same way as critical ethnography is different from ordinary ethnography. Recognizing that women have different ways of perceiving things is agreeing their research methods should be different from those of men. Paradigm Wars Quantitative approach vs Qualitative approaches Quantitative approaches are located within the positivism perspective of research as they uses statistics, mathematical or computational methods to investigate social phenomenon. According to Silverman (2013), qualitative research aims to develop theories, models and hypothesis that explain social phenomenon. To answer the narrow questions posed by qualitative research quantitative data such as percentages and statistics is collected. In conducting quantitative research, the researcher collects numerical data from the participants of the research (Bryman, 2012:73). Quantitative research is based on the assumption that the results of research in a sample population can be generalized to the general population. Quantitative methods originated in the physical science and were introduced to social sciences by the positivists such Comte (McLeod and Thomson 2009: 84). On the other hand, qualitative methods are most used for research informed by the interpretevism and constructivism perspectives of the world. Unlike, quantitative methods, qualitative methods ask broader questions, and their objective is to identify themes and patterns in the research sample (Bernard and Bernard 2012; 60) Participatory Research: Insider vs Outsider debate Whereas positivism calls for researchers not to be involved in the research process, participatory considers the participation of the researcher to be crucial. According to Nicholls (2009), participatory research helps to bring local communities into the policy debate, but is can also generate into a process that co-opts local communities into an external agenda (153). Participatory is distinct from other approaches to social research in that it requires dialogue between the researcher and the participant. According to Silverman (2013), for a person to conduct participatory research he/she must appreciate the otherness of the participant of the research (37). In his views, a meaningful relationship cannot arise without recognizing and accepting the separate character of the other. On the other hand, those who advocate for outsider research argue that participatory research has no neutrality and in most cases the research results are skewed towards the researcher’s worldview (Naaeke et al 2012: 9). Future Direction in Social research Future Direction of Social Research: Mixed Method Research In mixed research more than one investigative perspective is adopted in an attempt to understand a social phenomenon. Mixed methodologies combine qualitative and quantitative research to present a wider understanding of a research problem. According Creswell (2009), mixed methods benefit from the in-depth, natural and more contextualized perspective of interpretevism and Constructionism that inform qualitative research (216). Secondly, qualitative research provides a more efficient and compelling power, as is characteristic of positivism research perspectives and quantitative methods. Mixed methods are far more comprehensive in addressing a research problem, in contrast to just using quantitative of qualitative methods on their own. According to Gray and Webb (2012), new strategies and tools have emerged to blend different methods of research (65). In the views of, qualitative and quantitative data are closely related and there is no point in trying to interpret them separately. Mixed methods are very effective in any people focused research and represent the future direction of social research Conclusion The question of methodology in social sciences remains a critical one, with the role of empirical investigation called into question. While positivists approaches such as experiments, statistics, surveys and statistical modelling support empirical analysis, Interpretivists and constructionist methods such as case study, ethnography, action research take into consideration the social context of research. On the other hand critical realism does not identify with any specific methodologies. The ability of a methodology to link theory, research questions and empirical results is essential in choosing methodologies to apply in a social research situation. Critical theory should be first used to set the research agenda and construct research questions. Secondly, research methods should be chosen depending on the underlying epistemological assumptions and the research question being addressed. Researchers should not attempt to separate the methods from the philosophical underpinnings of the problem under investigation. Most importantly, social research should concentrate on constructing social knowledge that can effect social change and raise the welfare of the concerned population. A combination of critical theory empirical methods and qualitative approaches enables social research address broader issues and increases its validity. References Babbie, E 2012, The practice of social research, Cengage Learning, New York. Bernard, HR, & Bernard, HR 2012, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, London. Bryman, A 2012, Social research methods, Oxford university press, Oxford. Creswell, J W 2013, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage Publications, London. Creswell, J.W 2009, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Publications, London. Crotty, M 2003, The Foundations of Social Research. Meanings and Perspective in the Research Process. Sage Publications, London. Denzin, NK 2010, Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs, Qualitative inquiry, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 419-427. Gray, M, & Webb, S 2012, Social work theories and methods, Sage, London. Letherby, G, Scott, J, & Williams, M 2012, Objectivity and subjectivity in social research, Sage, London McLeod, J, & Thomson, R 2009, Researching social change: Qualitative approaches, Sage, London. Monette, DR 2013, Applied social research: A tool for the human services, Cengage Learning, New York. Naaeke, A, Kurylo, A, Grabowski, M, Linton, D, & Radford, ML 2012, Insider and Outsider Perspective in Ethnographic Research. Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association, 2010, vol. 1), pp 9 Reid W 2002, In the Land of the Paradigms, Method Rules, Qualitative Social Work, vol. 1, no.3, pp. 291-295 Robson, C 2011, Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings, Wiley, Chichester. Silverman, D 2013, Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook, SAGE Publications Limited, London Thyer, BA 2010, The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods (2nd Edition), Sage Publications Read More