News

ARTICLE 69: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Scientism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Why do academics write less about scientism than about most other paradigms?

Is it because paradigms deal with philosophy while natural scientists are more interested in cause and effect, exact data and timeless facts?

If this is the case, is research in natural science always more objective, accurate and valid than research in social science?

Or do natural scientists keep the philosophy about their research methods divorced from philosophical arguments?

I discuss the nature and elements of scientism in this article.

Scientism is the belief that science and its method of sceptical inquiry is the most reliable path to the truth. As such it represents the technicist group of paradigms.

Scientific researchers tend to believe that the methods normally used to investigate natural sciences are the only true way in which to investigate any academic problem or topic. Some even believe that any research that is not “scientifically” conducted is not true science at all. This is often called scientific imperialism because of the exaggerated trust in the validity and accuracy of the quantitative methods as opposed to qualitative research methods.    

Supporters of the scientism paradigm claim that it is based on the “rule of law” of science.  The “rule of law” of science refers to the prescription of a domain, a set of practices and an attitude to the world, which should match the development of new knowledge. This implies that the truth can only be known through scientific proof.

Scientism believes that scientific research can be applied to almost any field of research, not only natural sciences. Although a quantitative research approach is more suitable, some scientists believe that the methods of science are not only appropriate for discovering physical truth, but also all other truths, including those traditionally utilised in philosophy, ethics and morality, political and cultural philosophy, and the rights and wrongs of human interaction. This often leads to a mixed approach.

Scientism developed from empiricism. By extending the scope of scientism, it tends to overlap with other technicist paradigms, for example positivism, modernism and rationalism.

Constructivism and post-positivism reject scientism because of its etic approach, which is regarded as divorced from reality and not providing for qualitative arguments, such as morality and philosophy in general. Scientism, in turn, rejects the former two paradigms because of their emic (participatory) approach, which is regarded as unscientific.

Scientism, furthermore, creates a closed system of knowing, that certifies itself by scientific discoveries or evidence that fits its own closed system of paradigm understanding. If the new knowledge does not fit the paradigm, it is usually assumed that there was something wrong with the methodology that produced it, rarely with the paradigm understanding itself. In terms of the nature of research this is a rather risky point of view.

Research should always provide for the possibility that a hypothesis can be disproven, which does not mean that there is anything wrong with the research process, gathered information or conclusions made. It might be possible that not sufficient information was gathered or that the information was not sufficiently corroborated. However, questioning the methodology because you do not agree with the research findings may well be subjective and unscientific.

Summary

Scientism belongs to the group of technicist paradigms.

Many natural scientists regard it as the most reliable path to the truth.

They also regard natural science as the only true science.

Social scientists regard the attitude of the natural scientists as scientific imperialism.

Scientism is mostly used with quantitative research methods.

Scientism can be associated with empiricism, positivism, rationalism and modernism.

Scientism is opposed to constructivism and post-positivism.

Points of criticism against scientism include:

  1. That it is a closed system of knowing.
  2. It ignores qualitative arguments.
  3. And natural scientists tend to blame the research process if the project fails.
Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 68: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Romanticism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

What can be better than a philosophy that encourages you to follow your dreams?

Imagine how great it will be if you could create your own space in life.

To do the things that you enjoy doing and that makes you happy.

Don’t you think that life would be so much better if you could live your personality, be your own unique self?

Perhaps you can have such freedom by paying more attention to romanticism as your philosophical perspective of life.

I discuss romanticism as a paradigm in this article.

Romanticism originally dealt with art, culture and literature on an intellectual level, starting as a revolt against social and political norms and a reaction against the scientific explanation of nature. It strives towards an understanding of people and nature.

Romanticism, however, no longer deals with art only. It is also not always historical in nature. Many recent phenomena, such as nationalism, existentialism, leadership, interpersonal relationships, democracy, politics and many more are affected by romanticism.

Romanticism focuses on imagination, creativity, uniqueness, emotion, and freedom. Even though appearing to be a rigid and intolerant stance, romanticism promotes tolerance and acceptance of the irrationality of human behaviour. This means that romanticism acknowledges and accepts liberalism, decency and a measure of increased rational self-understanding.

Romanticism accepts as fact that human conclusions and the structuring of knowledge are ubiquitous, though not always accurate. This means that the absence of truth is regarded as truth and the absence of values is regarded as a value. Rejection is regarded as a form of creativity which rejects cause and effect and even logic. Reason is regarded as a kind of confinement, and freedom a triumph of will. Training and culture are regarded as synonymous.

Romanticist researchers believe in naturalness, freedom from boundaries and rules, and living a solitary life free from communal restrictions. Imagination is regarded as superior to reason. Romanticism is individual rather than group oriented, even though some of the romantic values, such as social solidarity, lean towards group cohesion. The mysterious, occult and satanic are often researched following a romanticist paradigm.

Romantic nationalism developed as an extension of romanticism. It can include the manner of government practice, language, race, culture, religion and customs in a country and nation. Romantic nationalism would typically oppose autocratic, discriminatory and corrupt government. Self-determination is often a key issue. The use of a command and control hierarchy is frowned upon.

Romanticism draws a measure of parallelism with liberalism and relativism by claiming that there are many compatible values. It is enlightening and supports values such as striving for justice, the power of science, love of truth, happiness and a focus on wisdom.

In terms of its view of especially power relations, romanticism is the opposite of structuralism, with the former challenging it and the latter embracing it as the foundation for the development of knowledge. Unwittingly romanticism erodes itself by promoting new ideas and creativity which, it seems, is not what romanticists originally had in mind.

Conducting research in topics such as the occult and satanism may invite the disapproval of some people, especially if the purpose of the research is to erode integrity and ethics. This may be regarded as misuse and unprofessional conduct.

Summary

Romanticism:

  1. No longer deals with art and culture only.
  2. Can manifest as a revolt against social and political norms.
  3. Opposes the scientific explanation of nature.
  4. Strives towards the understanding of people and nature.
  5. Promotes tolerance and acceptance.
  6. Focusses on imagination, creativity, uniqueness, emotion and freedom.
  7. Acknowledges liberalism, decency and some rational self-understanding.
  8. Frowns upon the use of a command and control hierarchy.
  9. Researches the mysterious, occult and satanic.
  10. Believes in naturalness, freedom from boundaries and rules and living a solitary life.
  11. Is associated with liberalism and relativism and opposed to structuralism.

Freedom is regarded as a triumph of will.

Rejection is creativity.

The absence of value is value.

The absence of truth is truth.

Reason is a confinement.

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 67: Research Methods for P. Hd. and Master’s Degree Studies: Relativism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

I discuss relativism in this article, but I have some questions about the concept.

To me it seems like anything that is relatively one thing is also relatively the opposite.

A relatively near destination is also relatively far.

Relatively healthy food is also relatively unhealthy.

Relatively happy is also relatively unhappy.

Relatively strong is also relatively weak.

How can this be the philosophical foundation for scientific research?

Let’s discuss the paradigm.

Relativism asserts that intangible concepts such as moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, meaning, etc. are individually relative to a particular framework or point of view. Relativists, furthermore, deny that any point of view can be the only truth in terms of objectivity, accuracy, validity, reliability, etc. over any other points of view.

The most basic form of relativism, i.e. focusing exclusively on the truth (or not) is often called alethic relativism. Because of this flexible approach to research, some researchers regard it as incoherent.

A standard way of defining and distinguishing between different types of relativism is to begin with the claim that one phenomenon is dependent on and co-varies with some underlying, independent other variable.  Justice, for example, can be relative to local norms. Driving on the right side of the road might be legal in Germany, but not in England. Keep in mind that co-variation relates to quantitative analysis, specifically statistical analysis. A quantitative change in one variable is accompanied by a positive or negative change in a second variable.

Perhaps I should point out that co-variance indicates the direction of a linear relationship between two variables. Natural scientists mostly use correlation, which measures both the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables.

Despite being flexible in terms of judgement, relativist arguments always apply to a certain context, often excluding other contexts. Such arguments, consequently, always need to be qualified, either overtly or covertly. When an argument needs to be qualified and justified, we are dealing with epistemic relativism.

Different cultures often have different values, tastes, beliefs, etc. For example, if a political leader claims that bribery is an invention of Western civilisation, his argument might be true in his country and culture, but probably not in many other countries. In some countries it is regarded as bad manners to eat noisily while in others it is regarded as a compliment to the host or chef. These are examples of cultural relativism.

Relativism is often claimed to be the paradigm of the tolerant. In this respect all ways of life, values and points of view are regarded as worthy of respect. No point of view can possibly be objectively superior to any other. This is often called moral relativism and is characterised by tolerance, open-mindedness and anti-authoritarianism.

Moral relativism can be a risky and, perhaps, irresponsible point of view because of the circular nature of relativistic reasoning. It is, for example, doubtful if a society will flourish, or at least survive, in an environment where “everything goes”, i.e. where everyone does as they please, where the situation determines moral truth, and where lying and cheating is acceptable as long as you don’t get caught.

In the spirit of moral relativism abortion may be judged to be good or bad, depending on the point of view and reasoning of the evaluator. Even so, one cannot deny that truth applies to a particular context and value system, or culture.

The result of the circular argument about relativism being relative is that different people can argue different points of view, with each participant in the discussion offering sound and seemingly valid explanations and proof that their respective arguments are true. Consequently, some researchers are of the opinion that there can, indeed, be more than one truth about a particular issue while others regard this as incompatible with the science and the purpose of academic research.

Relativism is associated with constructivism in the sense that both believe that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world. However, relativism uses subjective reasoning without experiential evidence for this, while constructivism leans strongly on such evidence.

Relativism clashes with the technicist paradigms because of the tolerant and laissez-faire way in which the former deals with evidence of truth.

There are those who feel that the lack of accuracy, consistency and validity means that the results of research based on a relativistic approach cannot have essential endurance.

Ironically, relativism is a beast that devours itself by labelling those who believe in absolute truth as intolerant bigots. Relativist might claim that you are wrong if you judge anybody or anything, thereby labelling their point of view as the only valid one.

If everything is relative, then relativism is also relative. This is countered by arguing that relativist claims only apply in a particular context and, often, scope. It is when we try to superimpose the truth of one context or culture on another that relativism becomes a questionable paradigm.

Summary

According to relativism, no one point of view is the only truth.

Intangible concepts are relevant as data for research.

Relativist arguments always apply to a certain context.

Relativism can be cultural, moral, alethic or epistemic.

The type of relativism can be identified by determining the interrelationship between different variables.

There can be more than one truth about an issue.

Truth often depends on how well an argument can be motivated.

Relativism is associated with constructivism and opposed to scientism, positivism and modernism.

Points of criticism against relativism include that the paradigm has no essential endurance, that it contradicts itself and that relativist claims only apply in a particular context and scope.

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 66: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Rationalism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

What is more important for research – knowledge or experience?

What is more important for truth – reason or observation?

Do all events consist of a cause and an effect?

Can knowledge be gained without making use of our senses?

Are sense experiences always infallible and accurate?

I discuss how rationalism would answer these and other related questions in this article.

Rationalism took shape in modern times as an integral system of epistemological views, because of the development of mathematics and the natural sciences. Seeking to substantiate the absolute reliability of the principles of science and the tenets of mathematics and the natural sciences, rationalism attempts to explain how knowledge obtained through human cognitive activity could be objective, universal and necessary truth. Rationalism maintains that scientific knowledge can be attained through reason, which serves as the source of knowledge and a precondition for truth.

Rationalists assume that the world is deterministic in the sense that cause and effect hold for all events. There are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. They also assume that these can be understood through deep thinking. Rationalism, therefore, believes that truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought without experience.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge surpasses the information that sense experience can provide. Rationalists believe that evidence gained through the senses, i.e. seeing, touching, tasting, hearing and smelling, is fallible, confusing and misleading. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides additional information about the world.

Rationalism adopts at least one of five claims: the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, the innate concept thesis, the indispensability of reason thesis and the superiority of reason thesis. 

The intuition/deduction thesis. The intuition/deduction thesis claims that some propositions in a particular subject area are knowable to us by intuition only, while others are knowable by being deducted from intuited propositions. Intuition is regarded as a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just “know” it to be true in such a way as to form a true, defensible belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premise through valid arguments, one in which the conclusion must be true if the premise is true. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

The innate knowledge thesis. Innate knowledge means having knowledge of some truth in a particular subject area. Like the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis also asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, i.e. independently of experience. The difference between the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate knowledge thesis rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The intuition/deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning as the source of knowledge. Deductive logic begins with regularities that have previously been identified and that need to be explained; a theory that might offer an explanation is either borrowed or constructed, one or more hypotheses are deducted, and these are then tested by matching them against some data.

Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Some may even call it, together with the innate concept thesis, human instinct. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along.

The innate concept thesis. According to the innate concept thesis some of the concepts are not gained from experience – they are part of our rational nature. While sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. The content and strength of the innate concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems to be removed from experience and the mental options we can perform on experience, the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate.

The indispensability of reason thesis. The indispensability of reason thesis claims that the knowledge that we gain by intuition and deduction, and the knowledge that is innate to us, could not have been gained through sense experience. We need to think deeply in a way that is divorced from sensual experience to gain knowledge. Deep thinking is a way in which we can use the mind to create knowledge. It requires thinking beyond sensual experience.

The superiority of reason thesis. The superiority of reason thesis claims that the knowledge we gain by intuition and deduction, or have innately, is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.

The intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis or the innate concept thesis are necessary for a paradigm to be rationalist. The indispensability of reason thesis and the superiority of reason thesis may also be adopted by rationalists, although they are not essential. Rational knowledge claims hold across time and space. This means that rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true. Rational argument implies a superior intellect and we all use it although the truth of our assertions is often open to question.

Rationalism falls back on critical theory although critical theory also uses experience to develop knowledge, which rationalism does not. It supports scientism in the sense that it is scientific knowledge that can be gained though reason. Modernism is also related to rationalism because it also collects deep rather than superficial information to develop knowledge.

Rationalism is challenged by positivism, which seeks empirical evidence rather than relying on the perceived unreliability of individual thinking and is opposed by empiricism on the question of the source of knowledge and the techniques for verification of knowledge.

Not all academics regard rationalism as a paradigm. Some claim that it is closer to an ideology in the sense that it represents a belief system rather than a philosophy of how knowledge is created and developed. Some argue that the ideological stance of rationalism is unrealistic in the sense that the belief that knowledge originates exclusively from reason is obviously incomplete and false. Not taking other sources of knowledge, such as experience, into consideration means that rationalism is a closed system with little chance of survival or growth.

Summary

Rationalism is based on objective, universal and necessary cognitive thinking.

Truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought.

Therefore, knowledge is gained independently of sense experience.

Sense experience is regarded as confusing and uncertain.

Rationalism substantiates the absolute reliability of the principles of science and the tenets of mathematics.

Cause and effect hold for all events.

The world is regarded as deterministic.

Reason surpasses all other forms of knowing.

Rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true.

Knowledge can be more valuable than experience for research.

Research is based on five possible theses, namely the superiority of knowledge thesis, the indispensability of reason thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate concept thesis.

Rationalism is associated with critical theory, scientism and modernism, and opposed to positivism, relativism and empiricism.

Criticism against rationalism includes that it is a closed system, unrealistic and not a paradigm.

Continue Reading

News

No Comments

ARTICLE 66: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Rationalism

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

What is more important for research – knowledge or experience?

What is more important for truth – reason or observation?

Do all events consist of a cause and an effect?

Can knowledge be gained without making use of our senses?

Are sense experiences always infallible and accurate?

I discuss how rationalism would answer these and other related questions in this video.

Rationalism took shape in modern times as an integral system of epistemological views, because of the development of mathematics and the natural sciences. Seeking to substantiate the absolute reliability of the principles of science and the tenets of mathematics and the natural sciences, rationalism attempts to explain how knowledge obtained through human cognitive activity could be objective, universal and necessary truth. Rationalism maintains that scientific knowledge can be attained through reason, which serves as the source of knowledge and a precondition for truth.

Rationalists assume that the world is deterministic in the sense that cause and effect hold for all events. There are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. They also assume that these can be understood through deep thinking. Rationalism, therefore, believes that truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought without experience.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge surpasses the information that sense experience can provide. Rationalists believe that evidence gained through the senses, i.e. seeing, touching, tasting, hearing and smelling, is fallible, confusing and misleading. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides additional information about the world.

Rationalism adopts at least one of five claims: the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, the innate concept thesis, the indispensability of reason thesis and the superiority of reason thesis. 

The intuition/deduction thesis. The intuition/deduction thesis claims that some propositions in a particular subject area are knowable to us by intuition only, while others are knowable by being deducted from intuited propositions. Intuition is regarded as a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just “know” it to be true in such a way as to form a true, defensible belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premise through valid arguments, one in which the conclusion must be true if the premise is true. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

The innate knowledge thesis. Innate knowledge means having knowledge of some truth in a particular subject area. Like the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis also asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, i.e. independently of experience. The difference between the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate knowledge thesis rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The intuition/deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning as the source of knowledge. Deductive logic begins with regularities that have previously been identified and that need to be explained; a theory that might offer an explanation is either borrowed or constructed, one or more hypotheses are deducted, and these are then tested by matching them against some data.

Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Some may even call it, together with the innate concept thesis, human instinct. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along.

The innate concept thesis. According to the innate concept thesis some of the concepts are not gained from experience – they are part of our rational nature. While sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. The content and strength of the innate concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems to be removed from experience and the mental options we can perform on experience, the more plausibly it may be claimed to be innate.

The indispensability of reason thesis. The indispensability of reason thesis claims that the knowledge that we gain by intuition and deduction, and the knowledge that is innate to us, could not have been gained through sense experience. We need to think deeply in a way that is divorced from sensual experience to gain knowledge. Deep thinking is a way in which we can use the mind to create knowledge. It requires thinking beyond sensual experience.

The superiority of reason thesis. The superiority of reason thesis claims that the knowledge we gain by intuition and deduction, or have innately, is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.

The intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis or the innate concept thesis are necessary for a paradigm to be rationalist. The indispensability of reason thesis and the superiority of reason thesis may also be adopted by rationalists, although they are not essential. Rational knowledge claims hold across time and space. This means that rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true. Rational argument implies a superior intellect and we all use it although the truth of our assertions is often open to question.

Rationalism falls back on critical theory although critical theory also uses experience to develop knowledge, which rationalism does not. It supports scientism in the sense that it is scientific knowledge that can be gained though reason. Modernism is also related to rationalism because it also collects deep rather than superficial information to develop knowledge.

Rationalism is challenged by positivism, which seeks empirical evidence rather than relying on the perceived unreliability of individual thinking and is opposed by empiricism on the question of the source of knowledge and the techniques for verification of knowledge.

Not all academics regard rationalism as a paradigm. Some claim that it is closer to an ideology in the sense that it represents a belief system rather than a philosophy of how knowledge is created and developed. Some argue that the ideological stance of rationalism is unrealistic in the sense that the belief that knowledge originates exclusively from reason is obviously incomplete and false. Not taking other sources of knowledge, such as experience, into consideration means that rationalism is a closed system with little chance of survival or growth.

Summary

Rationalism is based on objective, universal and necessary cognitive thinking.

Truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought.

Therefore, knowledge is gained independently of sense experience.

Sense experience is regarded as confusing and uncertain.

Rationalism substantiates the absolute reliability of the principles of science and the tenets of mathematics.

Cause and effect hold for all events.

The world is regarded as deterministic.

Reason surpasses all other forms of knowing.

Rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true.

Knowledge can be more valuable than experience for research.

Research is based on five possible theses, namely the superiority of knowledge thesis, the indispensability of reason thesis, the innate knowledge thesis, the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate concept thesis.

Rationalism is associated with critical theory, scientism and modernism, and opposed to positivism, relativism and empiricism.

Criticism against rationalism includes that it is a closed system, unrealistic and not a paradigm.

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 65: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Radicalism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Can a drive to achieve change be justified if it is radical?

Is “being radical” not an indication that the motives for the drive might be suspect?

Does it not mean that one group is trying to enforce its will on other people?

Will such a drive not lead to resistance?

Do people who become involved in a radical campaign consider the origin and merit of the drive?

Or do they just participate because it is fashionable or because they are the victims of mass hysteria?

I discuss radicalism in this article.

The increasing occurrence of radical actions, for example by university students and the communities at large campaigning for certain privileges and against corruption and other ills in many countries brought radicalism as a paradigm to the fore. Some researchers regard radicalism as a research method. Radical research focuses on understanding the need to change existing situations and practices from a transformative socio-economic perspective.

At the individual level people tend to think in terms of their own interests. According to radicalist thinking this can be managed. In addition, the way people behave is largely determined by their respective levels of academic development and financial capacity. Consequently, people in organisations treat one another according to their status, which is to some extent determined by their qualifications and income.

Research using radicalism as a paradigm mostly investigates social arrangements between people, for example nations, communities, student groups, etc. The epistemological aim of such research would be to analyse and improve the knowledge of people about emancipation and change.

Research is conducted on groups to investigate the nature and behaviour of such groups. Radical research can also be used to do research on individuals, for example to help people “fit in” with a particular group or community or to determine why individuals do or do not fit in with a particular social setting. The higher up the community hierarchy level the target group for the research is, the more difficult it becomes to institute radical change. It would, for example, be much easier to radically change the policies of a university than the policies of a country.

Key elements of radical research include covering a network of role players, continuous fieldwork, a bottom-up perspective, studying real events, a networked design process, using a prototype that is as real as possible, real world evaluation and becoming part of innovation initiatives. As many role players as possible should be included in the target group for radical research. This is necessary to gain deep insight into the relationships and interactions across the network of organisations relevant to the research topic.

Even though examples of real work provide the best research results, mock-ups and prototypes may be used to address specific issues related to the research, for example when setting up real scenarios would be too expensive, time-consuming or impractical. However, prototypes should be as close to the real item as possible to be relevant.

You should follow your research up by providing role players with feedback, and fieldwork should be spread over a period rather than just one or two short interventions. Fieldwork requires the study of real events. Simulated activities do not provide as accurate information as real work.

Real work conditions are subject to many more unexpected occurrences than simulated conditions or scenarios. Even small and routine incidents are dynamic and coloured by many complex issues that might impact on the research. Although observation while an activity takes place will provide the best information, inspections after the fact might sometimes be necessary as a second-best option.

Radical research follows a bottom-up perspective. Many of the good insights and important aspects relevant to the research can be found on grass-root levels in organisations. You can cover rich descriptions and relevant insights by focusing on people who work with issues relevant to the research daily. Although higher level managers should also form part of the target group, rich information about management can be obtained from people on lower levels in the organisation. 

A networked design process is used in radical research. A design perspective enables you to move from a descriptive to a constructive focus. Design workshops, prototyping and early evaluations and focused field work may be conducted to cover newly found aspects that are important. All target groups in the research are not necessarily linked or even aware of one another.

In radical research, you should become part of innovation initiatives. Maintaining a strong and close relationship to the target group enables you to study real world responses and events. Having the opportunity to follow an innovation project from the inside is a good way to get access to underlying assumptions and real-world challenges, organisational issues, financial aspects, etc. Radicalism cannot be applied with the same measure of success in all fields of research. The less a field of research deals with human interaction, the less applicable will a radicalist paradigmatic approach be.

Because of its focus on positive change, radicalism is associated with critical theory, neoliberalism, post-colonialism, feminism, romanticism and critical race theory.

One can perhaps argue that the technicist paradigms, namely rationalism, positivism, scientism and modernism are in opposition to radicalism because of a difference in research methods. Radicalism favours qualitative research methods, although it can also be used with quantitative research methods.

The inequalities between people in a community sometimes lead to advocacy campaigns to eliminate or at least reduce discrimination against minorities or otherwise disadvantaged members of the community. However, radical change in a short space of time is mostly difficult to achieve because of the large number of variables involved.

We increasingly witness advocacy campaigns that try to speed up the change by keeping the drive running at an intense level for as long as they possibly can.

Summary

Radicalism is a social arrangement aimed at emancipation and change.

People are treated in accordance with their status in the community or group.

Organisational structured are hierarchical and stratified.

Individual self-centredness is managed.

Radicalism studies real events.

A bottom-up perspective is followed.

Continuous fieldwork is done.

Deep and rich insight are sought.

An emic approach towards the target for the research is preferred.

Groups are mostly researched.

A network of role players is covered.

Radicalism is associated with neoliberalism, feminism, post-colonialism, romanticism, critical theory and critical race theory.

Radicalism is opposed to scientism, positivism, modernism and rationalism.

Criticism against radicalism includes:

  1. That it does not apply equally to all fields of research.
  2. That large numbers of variables are involved in change, making it difficult to achieve permanent change.
  3. And that it is difficult to institute radical change on high levels in society.
Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 64: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Pre-modernism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Is there any justification for universities to conduct research for the sake of research?

Stated differently, should universities spend time and money on research that does not solve any social, technological, economic, legislative, environmental or political problems?

Should universities be allowed to spend time and money on research just to flex their intellectual muscles?

To show other universities and the world how advanced they are?

Is such research a step backwards?

After all, that is what pre-modernists did centuries ago.

I discuss pre-modernism in this video.

Originally pre-modernism was based upon revealed knowledge from authoritative sources. It was believed that ultimate truth could be known and the way to this knowledge was through direct revelation. This direct revelation was believed to come from a god with a church as the primary authority source.

Pre-modernists see the world as a totality with a unified purpose. The human being is seen as part of the whole, which is greater than its parts. This means that value is added to the sum of the values of each part by combining them into one phenomenon from which knowledge can be gained.

Pre-modernists strive to progress away from historical developments. As part of the whole, human beings also share the blame for the mistakes that the collective made through history. The rationale for this is that each individual is personally and collectively responsible to act morally correctly. However, there is no distinction between individual and collective responsibility.

Although an emic approach fits in better with the spirit of pre-modernism, research can also be done by a researcher who is not a member of the target group for the research, i.e. an etic approach. Qualitative or quantitative research methods can be used to investigate the human being as part of the whole.

Pre-modernism, modernism and post-modernism can be seen as periods of time and as philosophical systems, the one evolving into the next.

Although pre-modernism is seen as the forerunner of modernism, they differ in the sense that modernism is a scientific paradigm, preferring quantitative research methods, whereas pre-modernism favours qualitative research methods.

Criticism of pre-modernism is that it is almost irrelevant except, perhaps for historical development study purposes. The reason for this is that the notions of divine interventions and the mystical have been pushed aside by what is regarded as reason. Even so, some of the most advanced universities world-wide support the notion that ‘research for the sake of research’ is an advanced approach to research. This includes understanding events and cultures that no longer exist. In this respect one can argue that pre-modernism still has a role to play, although it is now technicist paradigms rather than interpretive paradigms that support free inquiry.

The notion that research should not be restricted by considerations of immediate practical relevance applies to any field of research. The pursuit of knowledge for the purposes of deepening understanding might, eventually, support or at least inspire practical and occupational value.

Summary

Pre-modernism originally believed that ultimate truth could come from direct revelation.

Now pre-modernism is moving away from historical beliefs.

The world is a totality with a unified purpose.

The whole is regarded as greater than its parts.

Each individual is held personally and collectively responsible to act morally correct.

People share the blame for mistakes.

An emic approach to data collection is preferred.

Qualitative and quantitative research methods can be used.

Pre-modernism is associated with some elements and opposed to other elements of modernism and post-modernism.

Some academics regard the value of pre-modernism for research purposes as insignificant.

Close

On my question if universities should spend time and money on research just for the sake of research:

Yes, I think they should.

In fact, in my opinion there is no such things as worthless research.

Research that is well structured, logical and based on corroborated data will always add value.

Even if only to serve as an example of how academic research should be conducted.

Enjoy your studies.

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 63: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Pragmatism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

How is truth discovered in different paradigms?

Should it be based on exact and timeless facts?

Or perhaps how well an argument can be motivated?

Or will it be different for different contexts and communities?

I discuss how truth is discovered through pragmatism in this article.

Pragmatism is concerned with action and change. It focuses on communication and shared meaning-making to develop practical solutions to social problems. To be understood, a society must be observed and interpreted in terms of the action that takes place in the society. Without action, according to the pragmatist point of view, any structure of relations between people is meaningless. Action is used to change existence. To perform meaningful change, action needs to be guided by purpose and knowledge. The world is thus changed through an intervention consisting of reason and action. There is an inseparable link between human knowing and human action.

The purpose of pragmatic inquiry is to create knowledge in the interest of change and improvement. In this respect pragmatism is futuristic in the sense that it does not focus on existing knowledge, but rather strives to create new, improved, knowledge. The knowledge character of pragmatism is not restricted to explanations and understanding. Other forms of knowledge such as prescriptive, normative, descriptive, explanatory, and prospective are essential in pragmatism. 

Prescriptive knowledge refers to giving guidelines.

Normative knowledge refers to the process of exhibiting social and moral values.

Descriptive and explanatory knowledge are self-explanatory.

Prospective knowledge refers to the action of suggesting possibilities or options.

Pragmatism strives to identify actions that will make a constructive difference to a community while seeking general principles that will enable the implementation of the actions in other communities or geographical areas with the same or similar good results. Therefore, pragmatism does seek to identify generalisation of the research findings.

Pragmatism does not seek truth or reality for its own sake because truth and reality are always debatable, changing and dependent on the perceptions of those who are in power or have the initiative. Therefore, pragmatism strives to facilitate human problem-solving.  According to pragmatist assumptions the dynamic reality is based on our actions. As a pragmatic researcher, you will fall back on your own epistemology while making use of scientific research methods to collect and analyse data objectively. This means that you will need to do empirical research in a natural context.

 Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy or reality. Pragmatist researchers focus on the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the research problem, i.e. the ontology as well as the epistemology. The pragmatic paradigm places the research problem central and applies all approaches to understanding the problem. Data collection and analysis methods are chosen as those most likely to provide insights into the problem statement or question.  To achieve this, pragmatism makes use of abduction, which means a spiral process between induction and deduction by converting observations into theories and then testing the theories in practice.

For research, inquiry is central to the application of pragmatist thinking. It is seen as a natural part of life aimed at improving the conditions of society in the world by adapting the context in which it finds itself. This implies the controlled and directed transformation of an uncertain situation into one that is so precise in its constituents, distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole. 

A host of data collection methods can be used, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc. Data collected in this fashion can then be further analysed by means of quantitative or qualitative methods. Also, some data can be analysed quantitatively while others are analysed qualitatively. Corroboration can, however, become problematic in the sense that quantitative data can mostly not be compared with qualitative data.

In terms of research approach, pragmatism is a practical and applied research philosophy that can support a mixed approach. Pragmatism favours an emic approach with you and the target group working together to solve a social problem.

Pragmatism rejects the distinction between realism and anti-realism, which has been the core of debates about positivism versus interpretivism in the social sciences. It can be associated with constructivism, seeing that experience and reflection are required for change to take place.

Pragmatism disagrees with ethnomethodology in the sense that the former focuses on the research problem or question whereas the latter focuses more on social life. This differentiation, however, is not significant. Both pragmatism and ethnomethodology accept qualitative research methods and both seek the improvement of social life. This largely applies to the other interpretive paradigms as well, namely hermeneutics, symbolic interactionism, interpretivism and phenomenology.

Many academics criticise the pragmatic paradigm. However, most of the critique is aimed at qualitative research methodology rather than at pragmatism. Some criticism is directed at a particular context or field of research, such as religion. The paradigm as such is criticised for focusing too much on the research problem or question while the purpose of the research might be neglected. This argument, however raises the question if the problem does not lie with the manner in which the research problem or hypothesis is formulated. After all, the research problem or hypothesis should be articulated to the purpose of the research. Research should indeed, focus on the research problem or hypothesis.

Summary

Pragmatism investigates action to achieve change.

Observation is mostly used to collect data.

Truth and reality are regarded as debatable and dynamic.

The paradigm is not committed to any specific reality.

Knowledge can be descriptive, exploratory, prescriptive, prospective and normative.

A variety of research methods can be used.

An emic approach towards the target for the research is mostly followed.

Data collection and analysis focus on the research problem.

Empirical research in a natural context is conducted.

Research is aimed at solving problems as well as generalisation.

Principles for improvement are developed.

Pragmatism is associated with some elements of the interpretivist paradigms and opposed to other elements of the interpretivist paradigms.

Criticism against the paradigms is that the purpose of the research is sometimes neglected.

However, neglecting the purpose of the research is not necessarily unique to pragmatism.

Close

Pragmatism is, in my opinion, a good and logical foundation for research in the post COVID-19 reality.

It investigates action.

It solves immediate and real problems.

Change is always part of the purpose of the research.

Existing knowledge is used to create new knowledge.

And it is flexible and efficient.

Enjoy your studies.

Thank you.  

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 62: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Post-structuralism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Introduction

I don’t like this paradigm.
Too many authors wrote about it and twisted the nature and elements of the paradigm to fit their own agendas.
No wonder Michel Foucault denied supporting structuralism and, by implication, post-structuralism.

Besides, it is not the mode of communication that defines a philosophical point of view, but rather how it understands and uses meaning.

Despite my reservations about post-structuralism, I would like to invite you to judge for yourselves if the paradigm is the one for your research.

Post-structuralism

Post-structuralism is a critical point of view that questions the validity in structures, such as culture and language. It is applied mainly in the field of languages and linguistics. It is in fact a reaction against the notion that structure is required for investigation and comprehension.

The purpose of post-structuralism is to interpret, understand and shape our social environment.

Post-structuralism does not have as a purpose the achievement of generalisation. This is because the structures of meanings are not universal and do not reflect a generally applicable and valid definition of human beings or societies.

It provides clarity on the significant role of ethical choice, that is deciding what the meaning of an event or phenomenon is without having to fall back on moral or political principles.

For post-structuralism, disruption is often seen as having a positive meaning because disruption can lead to renewal and change. Text as a construction of human beings is therefore fallible and the original meaning of the author is not easy to determine. Therefore, text needs to be “deconstructed” continually. Not having certainty about what authors originally meant by what they wrote leads to a constant stream of interpretations rather than fixed meaning.

According to post-structuralism, identifying and creating knowledge requires actually experiencing a phenomenon or event, which is typical of phenomenology, as well as an analysis of the different parts making up a system, which would be the structure in the case of structuralism.

Written documents are regarded as more accurate evidence for research purposes than the spoken word. Therefore, literature study is preferred over interviewing, a stance that is shared with ethnomethodology.    

Post-structuralism grew out of, and in response to, the philosophy of structuralism. It is a loose connection of authors and ideas, holding the general view that “structures” are not easily discovered. Post-structuralism is closely linked to the post-modernist paradigm in the sense that both believe that disruption can lead to improvement.

Post-structuralism is often criticised and rejected because of the underlying structure or text that is slippery and deep; and authorial intentions that are hard to unravel. It argues about limits, but the limits are not defined or even explained. It presupposes a core, but the core is not defined, let alone explained, making it easy to bend arguments to fit personal preferences or points of view labelling it post-structural. However, apart from linguistics it also has an influence on other disciplines, for example art, culture, history and sociology.

Post-structuralism should be adopted with great caution because it is interpreted and, therefore, used in many different ways by different people to support controversial points of view. Post-structuralists can overturn assumptions about purity in morals, about essences in terms of race, gender and backgrounds, about values in art and politics and about truth in law and philosophy.

The end-result of this approach is that no link can be found between the core and the limits and you can set your own limits and core without paying much attention to coherence or corroborated truth.

Summary

Post-structuralism:

  1. Questions the validity of structures.
  2. Is a critical point of view.
  3. Believes that text is fallible.
  4. Focuses mainly on language and linguistics.

Knowledge is gained through experience and the analysis of structures.

The written text is regarded as a better source of data than the spoken word.

Post-structuralism is associated with post-modernism and structuralism.

It is opposed to modernism.

Criticism against post structuralism includes:

  1. That its use of personal preferences as data can damage the accuracy of research findings.
  2. Coherence and corroboration are neglected.
  3. It is hard to unravel the intentions of writers with what they wrote.
  4. And different researchers interpret post-structuralism differently.
Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 61 Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree studies: Post-positivism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Here we have a soft teddy bear with teeth.

How do you reconcile values and passion with politics?

And the teddy bear can also be quite cynical.

It believes that all knowledge is flawed.

And that reality can never be fully understood.

What I do not understand, is how a paradigm that values passion and involvement with the target group for the research can favour an etic approach.

I discuss the multi-faceted nature of post-positivism in this article.

Post-positivist approaches assume that reality is multiple, subjective and mentally constructed by individuals. As opposed to truth and evidence being critical factors of the positivist research, values, passion and politics are more important for post-positive research. Post-positivist thinkers focus on establishing and searching for evidence that is valid and reliable in terms of the existence of phenomena rather than generalisation. This contrasts with the positivist approach of making claims about absolute truth through the establishment of generalisation and laws.

Researchers working within the post-positivist paradigm follow a critical-realist ontology, implying that all knowledge is flawed in some way or another.  This means that, in the eyes of post-positivist researchers, reality does exist but can never be fully understood.

Objectivity is recognised as an ideal that can never be achieved, and research is conducted with a greater awareness of subjectivity. Reality is not a fixed entity and it is to a certain degree accepted that reality is structured in the minds of individuals involved in the research. Post-positivists caution, however, that the constructed reality does not exist in a vacuum, but is influenced by context (culture, gender, etc.). For this reason, post-positivists claim that objective reality as proposed by positivist philosophy can only be seen as one aspect or dimension of reality, the focus being on the context and purpose of the research.

Post-positivism is a useful paradigm for researchers who maintain an interest in some aspects of positivism such as quantification, yet wish to incorporate interpretivist concerns around subjectivity and meaning, and who are interested in the pragmatic combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Research, therefore, is broad and general while theory and practice are studied as an integrated unit.

The positivist claims about truth and scientific knowledge are questioned by those supporting a post-positivist paradigm. You will, therefore, rely on your own epistemology, that is how you understand the scope and nature of your research as well as the factors that have an impact on it. You will also need to investigate more widely than you own understanding by taking into consideration how others construct and maintain their perceptions of the environment of relevance.  It is necessary to “see” the research topic and scope from the outside, in order to obtain a holistic picture of the research problem. This implies that you might need to follow an etic approach, even though an emic approach can also be followed, especially if an interpretivist paradigmatic focus is adopted.

From the above argument you can see that in research making use of a post-positivist approach, considering your research and the target group for your research from the outside does not always mean a purely etic approach. It is necessary to consider your research topic more objectively than would have been the case if you became part of the target group for the research. However, an emic approach will enable you to employ sound judgement and to critically consider your data, analysis, conclusions and findings. This would be preferable if a degree of passion and involvement with the target group for your research is called for. You can also combine elements of an etic and emic approach. This will require paying special attention to ethics in the sense that you need to respect and uphold the human rights of the members of your target group.

Like critical theory, post-positivism occupies the space between positivism and constructivism. It also shows elements of relativism in the sense that it is more flexible than the scientific paradigms from which it seems to have evolved. It is also associated with interpretivism; that is the search for meaning, although this is mostly linked to positivism, because quantification can also be used for analysis of data. It, furthermore, shares with post-modernism the characteristic that it can be disruptive in the way data is analysed.

 The limitations of post-positivist approaches generally relate to the interactive and participatory nature of quantitative and qualitative methods. In using interactive and participatory approaches, post-positivists are heavily criticised by positivists who claim that post-positivisms are qualitative methods that are merely an assembly of anecdotes and personal impressions, which are highly suspect in terms of research objectivity and researcher impartiality. Contrary to this, those in favour of approaching research from a more functionalist point of view argue that the two research paradigms could be used complementary, to strengthen the data collection and analysis process.

Summary

Post-positivism focuses on values, passion and politics.

Realty is regarded as multiple, subjective and mentally constructed.

The paradigm seeks truth and evidence that are valid and reliable in terms of phenomena, not in terms of generalisation.

Post-positivism is based on a critical-realist ontology.

All knowledge is flawed.

Reality is not a fixed entity and is influences by context and purpose.

Objectivity is a volatile entity.

Post-positivism can be associated with relativism, interpretivism, constructivism and positivism.

Post-positivism is also opposed to positivism.

Criticism against post-positivism includes:

  1. That the objectivity of research making use of the paradigm is questioned.
  2. That the impartiality of the researcher is questioned.
  3. And that some academics regard the paradigm as an assembly of anecdotes and personal impressions.
Continue Reading
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 14