Search results
94 results found.
ARTICLE 82: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Data Collection Methods: Observation Part 2 of 2 Parts: Participant Observation versus Non-participant Observation
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Does participant observation mean that a player is also made the referee?
Should you, as a researcher, intervene in the problem that you are studying?
Is it ethically justifiable to observe and collect information about people without them knowing what you are doing?
Can you do research on yourself?
I discuss possible answers to these questions in this article.
Participant observation versus non-participant observation. Participant observation is also direct observation. It is a mode of field-based research whereby researchers locate themselves in the real-world field setting being studied, participating and observing in the setting while also collecting data and taking notes about the field setting, its participants, and its events.
As a participant observer you will participate in the event or action about which data is being collected. An example of this would be if you participate in an advocacy campaign while taking photos or perhaps just notes, on the behaviour of members of a crowd marching on a government office building.
Making observations as part of qualitative research will probably not involve either a formal observational instrument or a large sample of observations made under highly comparable conditions. Instead, your observations will likely be part of a participant-observer role or will be made more by chance during your interviews or other field activities. Most importantly, in most qualitative research, you are unlikely to be making multiple and repetitive observations at a single, fixed location or at pre-specified time intervals.
In acting as a participant-observer, you are likely to locate yourself in some field setting that is fluid in time and space. Such fluidity will require you to make explicit decisions about your observational choices. For instance, the fluidity means that you cannot be at all places at the same time. You also cannot watch everything that is going on, especially if the event that you are observing is complex or takes place at different places at the same time. You will, therefore, need to decide where to position yourself. It might also be necessary to use the assistance of other people.
You should plan your observation procedure well to ensure that you collect the data that you need to satisfy your research question. Record keeping is important and should reflect what you observed and when. You will need to write down who participated in the process that you observed, what you saw, how it is relevant to your research topic and the conclusions that you can make from your observations.
Objectivity, representativeness, authenticity and accuracy can be improved by repeating observations at different times or different, though similar locations.
It would be unrealistic to list all possible observations that can be done for research purposes. Some examples include observing the characteristics of individual people (mannerisms, clothes, behaviour, etc.); interactions between and among people; processes; physical surroundings, etc.
A host of different paradigmatic approaches can be used with participant observation, including, behaviourism, constructivism, ethnomethodology, functionalism, phenomenology, pragmatism, radicalism, romanticism, scientism, and symbolic interactionism.
Participant observation is an interactive technique of “participating” to some degree in naturally occurring situations over an extended time and writing extensive field notes to describe what occurs. You should not collect data to answer a specific hypothesis; rather the explanations are inductively derived from the field notes. Since the context of the observations is important, you should be careful to document your role in the situation and what effect that may have on the findings.
Most field workers remain a respectful distance from the informants – cultivating empathy but not sympathy, rapport but not friendship. Collaborative and participatory research introduces the notion of active participation by you and sharing the research role with the participants. In each variation of participant observation, the research role is established at the beginning of the study and then monitored while records are kept.
To intervene or not is an important question when doing participant observation. Your intervention in an event or action, for example asking members of your target group questions while they are doing something, might change their behaviour. Perhaps this is what you want – you need to observe how people react to certain stimuli, which you will produce or arrange. However, mostly your observations will be much more natural and valid if you don’t intervene with the target group and what they do.
As a non-participant observer, you will observe “from the outside”. In this instance you will not participate in the event. If we use the example of an advocacy campaign – you might take video footage from the top of a building of a marching crowd becoming involved in a violent riot and clashes with the police. You should recognise this as an etic approach.
Overt observation versus covert observation. Overt observation would be if you observe an event, phenomenon openly and, if necessary, with the permission of those who have an interest in the event or phenomenon. You might, for example, need the permission of the police to take footage of a march in support of an advocacy campaign.
Covert observation would be if you collect images without those who are being observed, or those who should give permission, knowing that the data is being collected. This often happens when the events or actions will be different, probably artificial, if people know that they are being observed, especially if evidence, such as photos or video footage, is being collected.
Obstacles in the way of observation. Observation can be a valuable tool with which to collect and analyse data, but it is by no means perfect.
One of the most important considerations to keep in mind when doing observations is ethics. Especially covert observation and intervening with the activities of your target group can be contentious. Collecting evidence without the consent of the target group might violate the requirement of informed consent, invade the privacy and private space of participants, and insult people by treating them as research objects.
However, the validity, authenticity and accuracy of research sometimes depend on conducting covert observation. Covert observation might, for example, be necessary for groups who would otherwise not agree to being observed even though the research is in their interest. Another example is where people will not act naturally, thereby damaging the validity of the research, if they know that they are being observed. A third scenario justifying covert observation is where the knowledge of being observed might move people to act in an unsafe manner, for example a peaceful march turning violent to provoke the police or people doing dangerous deeds because they know that video cameras are on them.
People who act illegally and under the protection of “darkness” such as burglars, child abusers, murderers, etc. can and should usually not be asked for their permission to be observed, although this might lead to rather serious arguments about denying people their constitutional rights. The ethical dilemmas are numerous. At issue is the dilemma that arises between protecting the rights of an individual versus protecting the rights of the community at large.
A second obstacle in the way of objective and accurate observation is intervention. Should you intervene if you observe a child being abused, a person being murdered or raped, a crime being committed when your intervention will deny you a once in a lifetime opportunity to obtain valuable data for your research?
These are issues that cannot be solved by means of a code of conduct. Legislation, religion and your personal value system might serve as a guideline to help you decide. However, you will probably need to consider a host of variables to decide what you should do when confronted with ethical considerations.
A third obstacle in the way of collecting valid and reliable information through observation is the issue of bias. All human beings are subjective and largely, if not entirely, guided by their own perceptions. The following are examples of factors that can lead you to the wrong interpretations and conclusions:
- Our focus decides what we see and how we interpret what we see. We can easily be distracted.
- People do not behave the same when they know that they are being watched as when they think they are alone or can hide in a crowd or in the dark.
- Your state of mind, state of health and whether you are tired or not influence how you observe and think.
- Body language can lead us astray.
- Our personal preferences and value system largely determine what we see and how we interpret what we see.
- The longer we take to record our observations, the more likely it is that we will have forgotten details, facts and the order of events.
- We are subjectively influenced by our memory – what we observed previously. We tend to believe that events will repeat themselves and people will always act and respond the same under the same or similar circumstances.
- We are influenced by what we expect or wish to happen.
Self-observation versus observation of others. It is possible to conduct research on the self. An example of self-observation is where a person recorded video footage and wrote down his feelings and reactions while taking drugs. Mostly, however, you would observe the target for your research.
Summary
Participant observation is also direct observation and fieldwork.
It is an interactive technique.
Therefore, you will mostly follow and emic approach.
An etic approach is also possible.
You need to decide what your role towards the target group for your research will be before you start collecting data.
To intervene with the target group or not is an important decision to make when planning observation.
Participant observation can often be semi-structured or even unstructured in qualitative research.
Even so, it is advisable to plan your observation procedure well.
You can use the assistance of other people when using participant observation to collect data.
You need to keep record of what you observed and when.
Corroboration of data can be achieved by repeating observations at different times but at similar locations.
Participant observation fits in well with the interpretivist paradigms, although it can sometimes also be used in conjunction with technicist and critical paradigms.
Overt observation would be if you observe an event or phenomenon openly.
Covert observation would be if you collect images or other data without the knowledge or permission of the target for your research.
Covert observation is sometimes necessary but needs to be done with circumspection.
Ethics is an important consideration when using observation to collect data.
A second important consideration is if you should intervene in an event or phenomenon that is relevant to your research.
A third important consideration is bias.
This means that you need to persistently guard against subjectivity in your data collection and interpretation.
It is possible and can be valuable to conduct research on yourself.
Close
I hope you noticed that it is possible to act as player and referee when collecting data through observation.
There are three preconditions for this.
Firstly, you need to act ethically.
Secondly, you should not intervene in the activities of the target group for your research, unless ethical considerations make intervention necessary.
And thirdly, you need to persistently act objectively when collecting and interpreting data.
Enjoy your studies.
Thank you.
ARTICLE 71: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Symbolic Interactionism
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
What do you think is the one single concept that can save the world?
It is a concept that can solve all conflicts between individuals, communities and even countries.
It can solve corruption, prevent wars, heal physical and psychological illnesses.
And one day, when the aliens arrive, it is the concept that will decide if we will receive them as friends or enemies.
Sadly, our inability to utilise that concept to the full is responsible for most, if not all the things that it is supposed to solve.
I introduce you to the concept that can save the world in this video.
‘Symbolic interactionism’ emphasises the understanding and interpretation of interactions between human beings. Human interaction in the social world is mediated using symbols like language, which helps people to give meaning to objects. Symbolic interactionists, therefore, claim that by only focusing attention on individuals’ capacity to create symbolically meaningful objects in the world, human interaction and resulting patterns of social organisations can be understood. As a result, not only individuals change themselves through interaction, but also societies.
According to symbolic interactionism, human behaviour depends on learning rather than biological instinct. People communicate what they learn through symbols, the most common system of symbols being language. Linguistic symbols amount to arbitrary sounds or physical gestures to which people, by mutual agreement over time, have attached significance or meaning.
Symbolic interactionism also emphasises the role that the inner mental processes play in people’s subjective experiences. The mental processes are regarded as the key to understanding the link between individuals and the society to which they belong. Individuals and society are intrinsically linked. The individual is born into an already formed society and thus he or she emerges from, and is defined, in terms of an ongoing flux of social activity. Words of habit, fads, jargon, etc. lose their meaning, or the meaning is changed, if it is used in different contexts and different societies.
The emphasis on meaning and its influence on social behaviour are the key features of symbolic interactionism. There are three aspects to this. Firstly, people act towards things based on the meanings that these things have for them. An example is how some, probably most, people react to how athletes from their own country or rival countries perform at the Olympic Games.
The second premise of symbolic interactionism is that meaning arises out of social interaction. For example, students who would otherwise not have acted aggressively might well do so under group pressure during advocacy campaigns.
The third premise of symbolic interactionism is that meaning is handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process. Meaning is not permanently fixed or unchanged. For example, an inexperienced soldier might be highly upset the first time he sees the body of a comrade or even an enemy killed in action. As he gains experience in war and as he sees more bodies, he loses his sensitivity towards other people and, to an extent, his respect for life. The meaning of a message, regardless of the medium though which it is conveyed, requires time to be absorbed and reflected on before it will make sense to the receiver.
The core task of research following a symbolic interactionist philosophical perspective is to capture the essence of the process for interpreting or attaching meaning to various symbols.
Strictly speaking, symbolic interactionism is utilised in all research, be it quantitative or qualitative in nature. Logically a quantitative research approach will rely more heavily on the use of symbols to convey and interpret messages that require counting, measuring or statistical analysis. Data collection methods need to be selected with the value that symbols have to offer as an important deciding factor. Written questionnaires, for example, do not convey idiosyncratic expressions, such as irony, mocking, sarcasm, etc. as well as a face-to-face interview would. Written documents cannot have the same intonation value as spoken words.
Symbolic interactionism adopts a measure of romantic philosophy by accepting fiction and art as sources of information for research purposes. However, some qualitative researchers regard these sources as less rigorous, less useful, inaccurate, and even wrong while a second group considers such information as insightful and significant.
Symbolic interactionism can be used in conjunction with constructivism, ethnomethodology, hermeneutics, interpretivism, romanticism and phenomenology.
Symbolic interactionism does not agree with the preference of the technicist paradigms in favour of quantitative research methods. They include rationalism, scientism, positivism and modernism.
The peculiarity of this approach is that human beings interpret and define each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions.
Some researchers regard symbolic interactionism as too unfocused in the research methods that it supports, while at the same time being unsystematic in their philosophies. This loose approach to the research results in the findings of the research being difficult to motivate or prove and, therefore, also difficult to test for validity and accuracy.
Summary
Symbolic interactionism emphasises the understanding and interpretation of interactions between human beings.
Human behaviour depends on learning.
The role of inner mental processes is emphasised.
Individuals and society are intrinsically linked.
The emphasis on meanings and its influence on social behaviour are key.
Meaning:
- Can change in different contexts and societies.
- Is handled in and modified through interpretation.
- Is mediated using symbols.
- Is not permanently fixed or unchanged.
- Arises out of social interaction.
- Influences the actions and behaviour of people.
Symbolic interactionism can be used with quantitative or qualitative research.
Data collection methods are an important consideration in research.
The core task of research making use of symbolic interactionism is to capture the essence of processes.
Symbolic interactionism can be associated with all the interpretive paradigms.
And is opposed to all the technicist paradigms.
Points of criticism against symbolic interaction include:
- That it lacks focus.
- That findings are not based on testable evidence.
- That data is interpreted but not reacted upon.
In closing,
I hope you noticed that the concept that can save the world is meaning.
And meaning is what symbolic interactionism is all about.
How we act on the meanings that things have for us determine if our lives will be good or bad.
I hope you will inject some positive meanings to the world through your research.
Thank you for watching my videos.
ARTICLE 69: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Scientism
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:
- That it is a closed system of knowing.
- It ignores qualitative arguments.
- And natural scientists tend to blame the research process if the project fails.
ARTICLE 67: Research Methods for P. Hd. and Master’s Degree Studies: Relativism
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.
ARTICLE 65: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Radicalism
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:
- That it does not apply equally to all fields of research.
- That large numbers of variables are involved in change, making it difficult to achieve permanent change.
- And that it is difficult to institute radical change on high levels in society.
ARTICLE 64: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Pre-modernism
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.
ARTICLE 63: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Pragmatism
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.
ARTICLE 61 Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree studies: Post-positivism
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:
- That the objectivity of research making use of the paradigm is questioned.
- That the impartiality of the researcher is questioned.
- And that some academics regard the paradigm as an assembly of anecdotes and personal impressions.
ARTICLE 60: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree studies. Post-modernism
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
How would you define knowledge?
Is knowledge “a final verdict by an expert or authoritarian figure”?
Is knowledge dependent on time?
Does context influence knowledge?
Can the meaning of knowledge be changed and still remain valid?
Post-modernism offers interesting, liberating and unexpected answers to these and other questions about the nature of knowledge.
I discuss post-modernism in this article.
Post-modernism gradually became popular from the 1950s onwards. Instead of relying on one approach to knowing, post-modernists support a pluralistic epistemology which utilises multiple ways of knowing. Post-modernism is more than just a philosophical movement or school of thought based on a definite point of view, value system or goal. It is applied mainly in the artistic and social sciences, although it has also gained acceptance in other fields of learning, for example economics, architecture, etc. Different from modernism, which is technicist in nature, post-modernism is critical but also interpretive.
Post-modernism regards knowledge as fundamentally fragmented and unstable. It rejects the possibility that we can have objective knowledge. Any research should question the validity and accuracy of current knowledge, and the paradigms that are used with research methods should be articulated to the way this is achieved.
Post-modernism questions the existing knowledge upon which we base our thinking and deconstructs this to convey a different way of interpretation and reality. Narratives of truth and knowledge, text or written content, previous authority sources of power, for example the church and government are deconstructed. Language is fluid and arbitrary and rooted in power or knowledge relations. Meaning is, therefore, vague and the result of deconstruction without scientific proof. Following on from this reasoning, post-modernists caution that we should be careful with generalisations, seeing that events and phenomena are mostly only true in a particular context or point in time or both.
Post-modernism values the subjective and multiple opinions of individuals and communities rather than predetermined rules for action. It assigns value to multiple meanings rather than the single, authoritative voice of the expert researcher. This is because what we call knowledge must be made with the linguistic and other meaning-making resources of a particular culture, and different cultures can see the world in different ways.
All knowledge of reality bears the mark of human culture, personality and biology, and these cannot be separated from what a specific group of people or culture would call knowledge or truth. Post-modernism argues that what we call knowledge is a special kind of story that puts together words and images in ways that portray the perspective of a particular culture or some relatively powerful members of that culture.
According to post-modernists universal, objective truth does not exist. All judgements of truth exist within a cultural context. This is sometimes also called “cultural relativism”. Stated differently, our endeavour is not to find absolute truth or facts, but the best approximation of truth as it applies to a specific group in a specific situation and a specific time. This does not mean that just anything can be accepted as truth.
Post-modernists reject the idea of a fixed, universal and eternal foundation for reality. They argue that because reality is in part culturally dependent and culture changes over time and varies from community to community, we can logically assume that reality is not the same for everybody. In addition, it is asserted that we construct reality in accordance with our needs, interests, prejudices and cultural traditions.
Because power is distrusted, post-modernists try to set up a less hierarchical approach in which authority sources are more diffuse. The knowledge that we construct refers more to probability than to certainty. It is constantly changing as each individual or group gives a particular interpretation to it, reflecting distinctive needs and experiences. For this reason, we must deconstruct previous authority sources of power and text to uncover the hidden or intended meanings and discourse.
Facts are seen as temporary and volatile, with the result that they should not be regarded as an only truth. Reality is in part socially constructed with the result that reality is the product of subjective human interpretation with no sharp fact-value distinction. All factual statements reflect the values they serve, and all value beliefs are conditioned by factual assumptions. What we call facts are only somewhat less value-determined, but they are not independent of values.
The idea of a socially constructed reality leads directly to a radical shift in the idea of method. Some post-modernists hold that a research method not only discovers a part of reality, it simultaneously constructs it. No longer do we see ourselves as seeking to uncover a pre-existing reality, but rather as involved in an interactive process of knowledge creation. As researchers we are part of developing an explanation and understanding of reality and life. What we arrive at is in part autobiographical: it reflects our personal life-story and our interpretation of the meaning of life.
In terms of research, convention is challenged, research approaches are mixed, ambiguity is tolerated, diversity is emphasised, innovation and change are embraced, and multiple realities are focused on. It is a broad term that encompasses many different research methods, most of them valuing uncertainty, disorder, indeterminacy and regression rather than progress.
Post-modernism rejects the emphasis on rational discovery through the scientific method. It replaces rational discovery through scientific research with respect for difference and a celebration of the local at the expense of the universal.
Post-modernism is often associated with post-structuralism. It can include elements of pre-modernism and modernism along with many other ways of knowing, for example intuition, relational and spiritual. Generally, post-modernism accepts the basic ontological assumption of relativism and claims that there can be no “objective” or final truth as all “truth” is a socially constructed entity. Although post-modernism accepts some elements of modernism, the issue of objective truth is not shared by them.
Reason and science are seen by some as simply myths created by people. It, therefore, rejects the notion that science can be viewed as objective. It consists of a loose alliance of intellectual perspectives which collectively pose a challenging critique of the fundamental premise on which modernism, specifically the scientific research method, is based. Therefore, the notion that science, or scientism, is the paradigm of all true knowledge is rejected.
Technicist researchers, favouring paradigms such as scientism and positivism, claim that post-modernism questions existing knowledge on account of opinions, perceptions and presuppositions that are not corroborated by substantial and authoritative evidence. This, they feel, renders research, making use of the post-modernist paradigm, unscientific. Post-modernism, they feel, is based on an anti-realist, subjective ontology, because the formulation of facts is based on human interpretation.
Even proponents of post-modernism do not always agree on what scientific research really means. There are progressive and conservative post-modernists. Some post-modernists seek reaction while others seek resistance. Then there are those who strive for reform and others who like to disrupt the status quo. All post-modernists do not agree to the claim that reality is a human construct.
Not all researchers support the idea of post-modernism. According to the opponents of post-modernism the approach is too tentative, inconclusive frivolous and rigid. Some academics feel that post-modernism adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge because it is not based on any principles and supports no consistent and new theories. While some regard post-modernism as not sufficiently objective, there are also those who feel that it is not sufficiently flexible.
The ability of post-modernism to generate truth is questioned because, like any research, findings need to be reported. Post-modernists are of the opinion that the use of language (to write research reports) damages the accuracy of what is shared because language cannot relate reality accurately.
Summary
Post-modernism is based on a pluralistic epistemology.
This means that multiple ways of knowing are applied.
Power is distrusted.
Knowledge is fragmented and unstable.
It refers more to probability than certainty.
Reality is not the same for everybody.
Research focuses on multiple realities.
Facts and values interact.
Universal, objective truth does not exist.
Convention is challenged through research.
Any research approach and a variety of research methods can be followed.
Rational discovery through science is rejected.
An interactive process of knowledge creation is used.
Ambiguity is tolerated.
Diversity is emphasised.
Innovation and change are embraced.
Multiple opinions and meanings are valued.
Post-modernism is associated with post-structuralism, post-colonialism, post-positivism, relativism, pre-modernism and modernism.
Post-modernism is opposed to positivism, pre-modernism and modernism.
Criticism against post-modernism is that it is resisted by some academics, who regard it as too tentative, inconclusive, frivolous and rigid. Academics also disagree about the meaning of the concept.
ARTICLE 59: Research Methodology for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Post-colonialism
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Was colonialism a success?
Who benefited from colonialism?
Who were damaged by the empire building process?
What would the empires and colonies of old have looked like if the transitive process did not take place?
Does it still matter or is it water under the bridge?
Questions like these show that there is lots of potential for interesting social research in the colonial past.
I discuss post-colonialism in the article.
Post-colonialism is the study of the impact of colonial rule on colonised people and how it impacted on their culture, economy, religion, government, etc. The key to post-colonialism, as to colonialism, can be found in the presence of any form of oppression. It is often a reaction to what especially the victims of colonial rule would regard as a variety of different injustices.
Post-colonialism is mostly based on a description of the colonial past, often by writers from the colonies; a tradition of gaining insight and knowledge by learning from the past. Ironically, it was academics from colonial powers that mostly studied and wrote about the social and political power relationships between the colonial powers and their colonies. This, however, gradually changed as colonies regained their freedom and started delivering their own academics, writers and researchers.
Post-colonialism is a set of approaches to the interpretation and understanding of colonialism that draws both continuities with, and challenges, the grand narratives of colonial rule.
Political power, cultural identity and culture are often the focus of post-colonial studies. The purpose of such studies is often the redress of injustices of the past and regaining cultural, intellectual, political, national and judicial independence and autonomous status.
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods can be used to do research in post-colonialism.
Feminism, critical race theory, ethnomethodology and post-modernism are closely associated with post-colonialism in the sense that all these paradigms can be used to investigate oppression.
In a feministic vein post-colonialism is seen as an effort to subjugate women. In a critical race-theory vein, an attitude of superiority towards people of a different culture, gender, language, or colour are often indications of post-colonialism that can, and often should be researched with the aim of achieving equity and growth.
In an ethnomethodological vein post-colonialism focuses on common-sense reality as it plays out in interaction between people, i.e. social life.
In a post-modernistic vein, it is believed that independence and freedom are Western ideologies used to colonise foreign cultures.
Post-colonialism is a good example of a paradigm that exposes a rather unsettling disagreement amongst academics about the true meanings of paradigms. This can be found in discussions and arguments about paradigms in books, to some extent, and magazine articles, to a much larger extent. Different writers discuss paradigms from different perspectives and in different contexts, making it difficult to generalise about which paradigms are in opposition to which others and in terms of what criteria they differ. The disruptive nature of post-colonialism is yet another characteristic that it shares with post-modernism.
Post-colonialism, for example, differs from colonialism in the sense that it focuses more on the results of colonialism rather than the nature of colonialism as a philosophical point of view. It, furthermore, can be said to be in opposition to any of the technicist paradigms in the sense that it focuses more on the study of subjective interpretation of social interaction, whereas technicist paradigms, such as positivism, focus more on statistical analysis and cause and effect. Both, however, explore social reality. That is why claims to opposition or association between paradigms should be qualified, or at least understood as being true in a specific context and in terms of specific criteria. This means that the same paradigm can be associated with and opposed to a second paradigm. Even this, however, is not perfectly accurate because every opposition or association should be qualified.
Some writers focus on the disappointing results of colonialisation, for example inequalities, cultural conflicts, fragmentation and refugee problems, while others emphasise the benefits of colonialism, for example educational systems, infrastructure and technology as elements of post-colonialism. These, however, are often sensitive issues that lead to conflict and heated arguments.
Because of its historical nature (colonies belong in the past) research in post-colonialism leans heavily on written documents. Written documents invariably require a measure of deconstruction, which should not be a problem seeing that it is typical of virtually all qualitative research.
Some academics feel that most literature on colonialism is written by countries that were colonial powers. This, however, is rapidly changing as academics in colonies of the past increasingly write about topics such as colonialism, racism, discrimination, equity and justice.
Post-colonialism is also criticised for its obsession with national identity. Some researchers feel that national identity is a rather fluid concept that changes over time and, therefore, does not justify any claims to what could have been, or what could not have been, if a particular country was not colonised.
Summary
Post-colonialism mostly deals with oppression, learning from and describing the colonial past.
The research process focuses on interpretation and understanding.
Post-colonialism draws continuities with and challenges the grand narratives of colonial rule.
A quantitative or qualitative research approach can be followed.
However, a qualitative approach is preferred.
Post-colonialism can be associated with ethnomethodology, post-modernism, critical race theory and feminism.
It is opposed to positivism and structuralism.
Criticism against post-colonialism includes:
- That it is too dependent on literature study.
- It is mostly written by die “wrongdoers”.
- It is often obsessed with national identity.
- And that colonization was a failure.