Search results
94 results found.
ARTICLE 47: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Empiricism
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Introduction
I often wonder if the developers of paradigms were serious when they made claims like:
The only way in which you can learn is through experience, OR
You cannot learn anything from interviewing people, OR
External reality has no effect on behaviour.
Fortunately, most paradigms are quite flexible when it comes to the ways in which truth can be discovered.
And most, if not all of them, can be integrated.
Empiricism, however, is claimed by many to be an exclusivist paradigm.
Meaning that it cannot be integrated with other paradigms.
Or can it?
I discuss empiricism in this post.
What is Empiricism?
Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.
It means that all evidence of facts and phenomena must be empirical, or at least empirically based.
Evidence should be directly or indirectly observable by the senses.
Also, people must experience things before they will learn.
The idea that people can learn through reasoning independently of the senses or through intuition is rejected.
Innate ideas and superiority of knowledge do not exist.
According to empiricism, people are born with empty brains, like a clean slate.
As people experience phenomena, the brain is filled by what they learn from experience.
Two learning processes take place –
The individual experiences a sensation and then reflects on the sensation.
Reflection, in turn, leads to new or improved knowledge.
Experience can be something that people learn from events in which they participated.
Events can be things that happened to them and observations that they made.
Experience can also be simulated through deliberate and pre-planned experimental arrangements.
Sense experience is, therefore, the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Empiricists present complementary lines of thought if it is integrated with rationalist arguments.
First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists site, insofar as we have it in the first place.
However, the knowledge that we have was obtained through previous experiences.
Secondly, we can “create” experiences by doing experiments and building models, which can be simulations of reality.
In that manner we can gain knowledge through self-created experiences.
Empiricism favours quantitative research methods, although it can be used with quantitative, qualitative or mixed research methods.
Its leaning towards quantitative research is demonstrated by the fact that it can be associated with positivism.
Because positivism is even more technicist in nature.
And secondly, positivism also makes a clear distinction between objective facts and values.
Thirdly, both positivism and empiricism regard sense data that is uncontaminated by value or theory as the ultimate objective.
Empiricism is sometimes used in association with critical theory or any of the paradigms associated with critical theory.
Empiricism can also support scepticism as an alternative to rationalism.
Rationalists argue that, if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge, then we do not have them.
Empiricists do not agree with the rationalists’ account of how reason is the source of concepts and knowledge.
Empiricism is in opposition to structuralism because empiricism believes that learning is derived from gaining experience while structuralism focuses on interrelationships between objects, concepts and ideas.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that structuralism is used in research on events or phenomena that already exist, which means that knowledge also already exists.
According to empiricism, people can learn without reasoning.
Empiricism provides for accumulating further knowledge after having gained knowledge through earlier experiences.
Most empiricists accept that learning is a continuous process.
Accumulating facts and knowledge are a second goal of what is called “naïve empiricism”.
Summary
The philosophy behind empiricism is that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience.
The mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience.
Knowledge must be deduced or inferred from actual events.
Reasoning and intuition are rejected as sources of learning.
Empiricists believe that innate ideas and superiority of knowledge do not exist.
People are born with an empty brain that is filled by experiencing phenomena through the senses.
Two learning processes take place – experiencing and reflection.
Experience can be simulated.
Prior knowledge is accepted in naïve empiricism and if empiricism is integrated with rationalist thinking.
Any research method can use empiricism although quantitative research is favoured.
Empiricism can be associated with:
- Most interpretivist paradigms.
- Some technicist paradigms, notably positivism and rationalism.
- Some critical paradigms, for example scepticism and structuralism.
ARTICLE 45: Research Methods for Ph. D. Studies: Critical Race Theory
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Introduction
What is the truth?
Just think about it – 29 paradigms, 29 different ways in which the truth can be perceived.
And there are many more that I will not discuss because some of them are not suitable for research purposes. Some are concepts, others are value systems, a third group focus more on applications rather than research.
I mentioned in my previous post that paradigms should help us to achieve meaningful patterns and theories and that we should guard against subjectivity.
Accepting more than twenty-nine ways in which to perceive the truth is already gambling with objectivity, authenticity, validity and accuracy in our research.
If we, moreover, ignore our responsibility to do research in an ethical manner, our theses or dissertations will end up being fictitious novels.
I will discuss critical race theory and how it should be approached in this post.
Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory focuses on the application of critical theory in terms of race.
It objects to the perception of racial power, especially where it is overtly or covertly supported by legislation, which would render it institutionalized.
Institutionalized racism is the structures, legislation, policies, practices and norms resulting in differential access and opportunities between racial groups.
It can manifest itself in any situation where needs exist.
Such needs can be material, psychological, political, technological, social, economic or power needs.
In critical race theory intentional discrimination is resisted on all terrains where people are involved.
For example, universities, schools, employment in the private and public sectors, sport, etc.
Critical race theory favours an aggressive, race-conscious, approach to transformation.
Although the starting point is often simple racial inequality, political and legislative transformation can be even more important objectives.
Critical race theory is often used to combat racial discrimination, facilitate the upliftment and growth of disadvantaged communities, redress historical racial discrimination, etc.
Critical race theory focuses on discrimination of one race against another.
It is not the reserve of any one race, and the victims of discrimination can be a minority or majority racial group.
Critical race theory mostly investigates the achievement of racial emancipation and equality.
It can be addressed in any field of study, although social studies embrace the paradigm the most.
Historical and current incidents of racial discrimination are often used as evidence in support of a research problem, question or hypothesis.
Critical race theory is supported by structuralism.
For example, by investigating how legislation and cultural influences impact on the demography of a community.
In this respect, micro-aggression is often an element of research making use of a critical race theory perception.
Micro-aggression can be found in any community where a certain group might feel anger and frustration because of the way the perceived or real privileged elite threaten them or because of one or more privileges that they have at the expense of the discriminated or that the discriminated are denied.
This can erupt into riots, crime, or any other form of violence.
And, of course, such micro-aggression can become the topic of research.
Critical race theory can also be linked to critical theory, neoliberalism, feminism, romanticism, humanism, post-colonialism and post-structuralism.
Liberalism is in opposition with some of the values of critical race theory because of the former’s favouritism towards the elite, the rich and the noble.
Critical race theory and structuralism are also in opposition because structuralism promotes positions of power, which can have a detrimental effect on human relationships.
Positivism is also in opposition with critical race theory because positivism favours quantitative research while supporters of critical race theory feel that the analysis of numbers strip human interaction of its affective values.
Critical race theory is not always structured.
Although it often investigates legislation and cultural influences, the process can be aggressive and unstructured.
It can even include riotous advocacy campaigns.
Hidden motives can also be present.
Critical race theory is, unfortunately, sometimes misused to achieve political agendas and to oppress minority or even majority groups that are vulnerable.
Summary
Critical race theory investigates race-related issues.
It objects to institutionalized racial discrimination.
It often studies situations where needs exist because of the unfair treatment of a racial group.
An aggressive, race-conscious approach to transformation can be favoured.
Any field of study making use of any research method can investigate racial discrimination.
However, social studies predominate.
Micro-aggression is often an element of the research making use of critical race theory.
Critical race theory is supported by structuralism, critical theory, neoliberalism, feminism, romanticism, humanism, post-colonialism and post-structuralism.
Critical race theory is opposed by liberalism, structuralism and positivism.
Criticism against critical race theory include that:
- It is not always structured.
- Hidden motives can be present.
- It is sometimes misused.
ARTICLE 42: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Paradigmatic Approaches
Written by Dr Hannes Nel
Introduction
Do you believe that something can be only true or false, right or wrong?
Do you turn your back on people with whom you disagree?
Do you agree with the notion that the truth is often the perception of an individual?
And do you accept that not all people see the truth the same as you do?
I hope my posts on paradigms will convince you that an argument or premise can be true for some but not for others, sometimes true but not always, only partially true, and true in one context but not in a different one.
An introduction to research paradigms
Most paradigms can also be regarded as research methods.
And what we call research methods are often data collection methods.
There are many paradigms, but not all of them can be used as the foundation for research.
Because some paradigms are only concepts that are too dependent on a specific context for the discovery of generalizations.
But even this is not a general rule.
Because your research, not just the paradigm, will sometimes be dependent on a specific context.
Relativism is an example of a paradigm that always applies to a certain context.
Some paradigms are modifications of classical paradigms.
Research paradigms are sometimes also called:
- Philosophical perspectives.
- Philosophical epochs.
- Epistemological approaches.
- Discipline matrixes.
- Theoretical frameworks.
They represent certain assumptions and perceptions with respect to the nature of the world and how we know it.
A paradigm is a philosophy that includes certain patterns, structures and frameworks or systems.
It is a system of interrelated ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions.
It includes scientific ideas and values that a group of researchers have in common regarding the nature of research and how it should be conducted.
The paradigm or paradigms that you use will add a philosophical perception to the clinical academic meaning of your research.
It also determines the spirit in which you will do your research.
Different groups of researchers see research differently.
That is why there are many different paradigms to choose from.
You should decide which paradigmatic approach you will follow in your research.
It is possible to adopt more than one paradigm.
You can even follow one paradigmatic approach in one section of your thesis or dissertation and a different one in a different section.
You can even use a paradigm as the foundation of just one argument in your thesis or dissertation.
Just as long as they don’t contradict each other.
And you need to be careful of not damaging the consistency of your arguments by making use of too many paradigms.
This can easily happen if you forget your arguments and stance in an earlier section of your report.
Your philosophical stance informs the research method that you will use and the way in which you will interpret the data that you collect.
By choosing a paradigmatic approach, you commit yourself to a particular stance while rejecting a good number of other possibilities.
This need not be a problem – you can always change your stance later while doing your research.
It can easily happen that you need to change your paradigmatic approach, because your knowledge and understanding will grow as you collect and analyze data.
That is great, because you need to be objective and flexible when you embark on doctoral or master’s degree studies.
Always keep an open mind and be prepared to admit it when you are wrong.
Fortunately, you have a computer that allows you to return to and review previous work as many times as might be necessary.
And you can change your mind without other people knowing it.
This applies to natural science as well as social science.
And obviously then also to quantitative and quantitative research.
You should choose your research paradigm with the research problem, question or hypothesis in mind.
Research paradigms allow for a variety of research methods that can be used.
The choice is not so much about the research method that you will use, but rather about your ontological and epistemological assumptions.
The challenge is to select a paradigm or combination of paradigms that are most suited for solving a research problem, question or hypothesis.
The choice of a research paradigm or paradigms should be made in the context of many and often competing influences.
Your personal preferences and many external variables will also play a role.
Even so, don’t get bogged down in too much soul searching and uncertainty about which paradigm to choose.
Study the paradigms carefully and select one to four that look like they fit in well with what you have in mind.
If you do not decide on a paradigm to follow, you will inevitably follow one that fits in with your personal preferences.
And you will not even know that you are following a paradigm if you don’t know them.
The danger of this is that you might switch around between different paradigms too often, with the result that your arguments might be confusing and perhaps even contradict one another.
This is especially true when you investigate a complex research question or hypothesis.
Consistency, structure and logic are critically important in writing a thesis or dissertation.
You run the risk of destroying those requirements if you don’t follow one or a few paradigms that articulates with your research question or hypothesis.
Using more than one paradigm improves the possibility that the knowledge that you develop will be comprehensive and generalizable.
You should choose your paradigm or paradigms early.
That is, when you structure your research approach and methods.
You can even specify your choice in your research proposal if it is doctoral studies that you are embarking on.
It will show your intent, motivation and expectations for your research.
You will need to make some philosophical assumptions when you decide upon a paradigm or paradigms because it will also impact om the focus of your research.
I need to emphasise, be careful of combining paradigms that are in opposition with one another.
This is necessary because opposing paradigms are often based on different ontological and epistemological assumptions.
They, furthermore, do not share a common vocabulary with shared meanings.
And there is no neutral ground from which to adjudicate the merit of the paradigms or their consequences.
I will point out such possible clashes when we discuss the paradigms individually.
In brief – technicist paradigms are often in opposition with interpretive paradigms while critical paradigms fit in somewhere between the two groups.
Being “in opposition with”; “challenged by”; rejected by”; “associated with”; or “disagree with” does not mean that different paradigms completely differ or disagree.
But rather that they agree or disagree in terms of certain characteristics and elements.
You need to be fully aware of the paradigmatic assumptions that you make.
And you need to consistently move from description to explanation in terms of your findings and conclusions without deviating from your paradigmatic assumptions.
Summary
A paradigm is made up of:
- A philosophy.
- A system of interrelated ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions and perceptions.
- Scientific ideas and values.
The paradigm or paradigms that you choose for your research:
- Determines the spirit in which you will do your research.
- Informs the research and data collection methods that you will use.
- Adds a philosophical perception to the academic meaning of your research, and
- Lends consistency, structure and logic to your thesis or dissertation.
The paradigm that you choose will probably apply to qualitative and social research or quantitative and natural research.
A mixed research approach is also possible.
You can change your paradigmatic approach at any stage during your research.
When choosing a paradigm or paradigms for your research, you should consider:
- Your research problem or hypothesis.
- The ontological and epistemological assumptions of your research.
- The context in which you will conduct your research.
- Your personal influences and preferences.
- Many external variables that will be relevant to your research topic.
You can achieve coherence in your research process by articulating your research question or hypothesis and your research method to the paradigm or paradigms of your choice.
Don’t spend too much time and effort on trying to find the perfect paradigm for your research.
Close
In closing, it would be almost impossible to discuss all paradigms that you can find in the literature.
- Academics do not agree which paradigms should be accepted as such.
- Many paradigms overlap and echo the nature and elements of other paradigms.
- Not all paradigms can be used as the foundation for research.
If everything goes according to plan, I will discuss the following paradigms separately in the twenty-nine posts following on this one:
| Behaviourism. | 11. Interpretivism. | 21. Pragmatism. |
| Constructivism. | 12. Liberalism. | 22. Pre-modernism. |
| Critical race theory. | 13. Modernism. | 23. Radicalism. |
| Critical theory. | 14. Neoliberalism. | 24. Rationalism. |
| Empiricism. | 15. Phenomenology. | 25. Relativism. |
| Ethnomethodology. | 16. Positivism. | 26. Romanticism. |
| Feminism. | 17. Post-colonialism. | 27. Scientism. |
| Functionalism. | 18. Post-modernism. | 28. Structuralism. |
| Hermeneutics. | 19. Post-positivism. | 29. Symbolic interactionism. |
| Humanism. | 20. Post-structuralism. |
ARTICLE 43: Research Methods for Ph. D. Studies: Behaviorism
Introduction
Many Baby Boomers will remember the teachers at school who would not allow you to verbally respond to their scolding and reprimands.
“Listen to me and don’t talk back!”, they would say.
The consequence of this was that sometimes, when you had a good reason for behaving in a manner that they did not approve of, you just kept quiet and took your punishment with a stiff upper lip.
Just to set the record straight – I am deeply thankful to every teacher that taught me at school.
They did what they thought was right and they always had the interests of their pupils at heart.
Of course, there were also the difficult teachers, but I was fortunate not to have such a teacher ever.
All right – almost never.
Teachers in those days adopted an exaggerated behavioristic approach towards pupils.
They reacted to what they saw and did not care to think about the reasons why children behaved the way they did.
Hello, my name is Hannes Nel and I will discuss the nature and elements of behaviorism in this article.
Behaviorism
Behaviorism is a set of doctrines that argue that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of external stimuli, responses, learner history and reinforcement.
Behaviorists argue that the human mind cannot be known.
Therefore, it cannot be shown that human thinking has an effect in the individual’s behavior.
All mental states, including beliefs, values, motives and reasons can only be described, defined and explained in terms of observable behavior.
Any data of a mental kind should be regarded as unscientific.
Reinforcement can increase or decrease the desired behavior.
Thus, reinforcement of behavior can be positive or negative.
All human behavior can be understood in terms of cause and effect.
Therefore, research should focus on that which is determined by and is the product of the environment.
This implies that research should focus on observable behavior which can be objectively measured rather than on cognitive processes which can only be inferred.
Intentionality and purposiveness are excluded or regarded as less important.
Behaviorism is related to positivism because positivism also believes that understanding human behavior can be gained through observation and reason.
Behaviorism can also be associated with empiricism because both make use of experimentation, specifically experimentation with experience and the simulation of experience in research.
Symbolic interactionism is also related to behaviorism because both believe that learning takes place through the interaction between human beings, that is, external stimuli.
Both behaviorism and symbolic interactionism depend on language to convey and share research findings.
Consequently, the accuracy and validity of findings through both behaviorism and symbolic interactionism depend on the ability of the researcher to use language.
So, you might have noticed that behaviorism, positivism, empiricism and symbolic interactionism gain comprehension through the observation of cause and effect.
Here we have the possibility of using different types of paradigms together, because:
- Behaviorism, empiricism and symbolic interactionism are predominantly interpretivist paradigms.
- Positivism is a predominantly technicist paradigm.
Behaviorism disagrees with phenomenology because phenomenology considers experience through direct interaction while behaviorism takes external stimuli into consideration.
Behaviorism disagrees with constructivism because constructivism claims that understanding is gained through experience and reflection while behaviorism largely neglects the cognitive processes, especially reflection.
The same applies to pragmatism because pragmatism postulates that knowledge is gained through observation and interpretation.
Again, the difference is vested in cognitive processes.
The problem with behaviorism as a research paradigm is that changes in behavior without taking cognitive processes into consideration are often only temporary.
Consequently, it does not deal with subjective, but lasting, human meaning-making.
Some behaviorists, however, do recognize the fact that cognitive thinking and the accompanying emotions can influence behavior.
This would be called radical behaviorism.
A second criticism against behaviorism is that the causes of changes in behavior are not always scientifically corroborated.
Summary
Behaviorism argues that behavior can be explained in terms of external stimuli, responses, learner history and reinforcement.
The human mind cannot be known.
Cognitive processes can only be inferred.
Therefore, all mental states can only be described, defined and explained in terms of observable behavior.
Behavior can be improved or suppressed.
All human behavior can be understood in terms of cause and effect.
Behaviorism is related to positivism, empiricism, and symbolic interactionism.
Behaviorism disagrees with constructivism and pragmatism.
Criticism against behaviorism includes that change without cognitive processes will probably be temporary.
And that the causes of changes in behavior are not always scientifically corroborated.
Close
In closing, There are four ground rules for research that one should meet regardless of which paradigm or paradigms you use.
Firstly, you should not ignore cognitive processes.
Secondly, you should always try to integrate and systemize your findings into a meaningful pattern and theory.
Thirdly, keep in mind that text constructed by human beings is fallible.
Therefore, you must always corroborate your data and findings.
Fourthly, personal preferences can damage the accuracy of your data collection, analysis, conclusions, finding and recommendations.
Despite paradigms not always supporting all four these ground rules, I strongly recommend that you keep them in mind.
ARTICLE 41: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Transformative Research
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Introduction
Change starts when someone sees the next step.
This is often true, and it is when the need for change becomes critically important that somebody will be motivated enough to apply their minds to finding a solution.
There are many examples of people who discovered wonderful solutions for problems when it looked like everything was lost.
And yes, it is during times of crisis that people often perform at their best.
War, financial depression, a pandemic seem to stimulate the innovative skills of people.
When caught with their back against the wall, people discover the most remarkable solutions.
The jet engine, electronics, vaccines are examples of such inventions.
Transformative research deals primarily with research on and for change.
I discuss transformative research in this article.
We are living in a dynamic environment where environmental, economic, technological, political, legislative, health and social change are the order of the day.
Transformative research focuses on the discovery and development of new ideas, procedures, products, etc.
Change can take place in any field of study, operations, or industry.
Transformative research challenges our current understanding and ways of doing things.
It provides new ways in which to do things, solve problems, even how we perceive life and the world around us.
Transformative research is often not planned.
Examples of things that were discovered by accident include penicillin, post-it notes, saccharine and the pacemaker.
It depends on a receptive and open mind.
It takes advantage of unforeseen events leading to novel hypotheses that might sometimes seem implausible.
It begins with learning, development of new ideas, visualization of problems and exploration of problem-solving techniques.
Communication and debate often prove beneficial in allowing the development of transformative ideas.
Accepted dogma is not allowed to stand in the way of the search for the truth in terms of a problem statement or hypothesis.
Researchers making use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods often favour a transformative research approach.
A good measure of logic, wisdom and creativity is necessary for transformative research.
Cognitive errors can lead to serious, perhaps even tragically destructive implementation.
And experimenting with faulty assumptions can lead to serious damage.
Irresponsible and shoddy research can destroy industries, even countries and populations.
Tainted research with short-term political or economic gain in mind can lead to serious long-term damage.
Research on global warming and the resulting climate change is an example of this.
You can probably think of even more radical examples.
Despite a rather liberal approach, you should keep in mind that researchers remain accountable for their findings and the consequences of their work.
You should, therefore, work in an academic atmosphere and make use of reputable data sources and research methods.
You research findings must be logical, accurate, authentic and valid.
The university, notably your study leader, will require of you to motivate your arguments and prove or at least explain the validity of your findings.
You will probably experience a feeling of elation and personal revelation when you discover something new or come to appreciate newly found information.
Discovering new knowledge or ideas may depend on optimism and hope.
And the development of a concept usually relies on persistence and mental discipline.
It is often claimed that revelations and discoveries happen by chance.
However, it is possible that you just had a better understanding of a system, keener observation or a better ability to think analytically than others.
New knowledge will change you and the environment in which you do your research.
Doctoral studies should lead to such intellectual evolvement and contribute new knowledge that can be used in a field of study.
Master’s degree studies can create an awareness of the need for change.
Transformative discoveries leading to paradigm shifts can effect change at many levels and fields of study.
When this happens, there will often be sociological stages of resistance to the change.
First the change is denied or ridiculed.
Then some people might get angry and resist the change, and
Finally, they will accept the change.
Some people might even claim that they knew all along that the change would happen.
Or that it was their idea.
Transformative research does not always lead to change.
You can expect to stumble upon some inaccuracies, especially in the beginning.
Creativity and an open mind invite trial and error, leading to a gradual progression towards new concepts and ideas.
Change mostly requires persistence and hard work.
Although sudden and unexpected change can happen.
However, observations and findings are often only approximations.
But it is the next step that is needed to trigger change.
Ontologically transformative research evolved from a paradigm to a full-fledged research method.
Paradigms that can be used in association with transformative research include functionalism, liberalism, pragmatism and radicalism.
Because of its focus on everyday life, ethnomethodology opposes transformative research.
Modernism is too bureaucratic, prescriptive, procedural and structured to be used with transformative research.
Summary
Transformative research deals with the search for change.
New ideas, procedures or products are often sought.
Change can be discovered by chance.
It can also be triggered through an open mind, creativity and analytical thinking.
Communication and debate facilitate transformation.
You need to be careful of making cognitive mistakes, because it can sometimes lead to serious damage.
Keep in mind that you are accountable for the outcomes and consequences of your research.
People sometimes resist change.
It can start with denial, followed by anger and resistance, and finally acceptance.
Transformative research does not always deliver creative solutions.
Change can happen suddenly, but it is mostly the result of a gradual process of transformation.
Paradigms that focus on change and survival fit in well with transformative research.
Paradigms that focus strongly on structure, bureaucracy, prescriptions and procedures do not fit in well with transformative research.
ARTICLE 30: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Grounded Theory
Written by Dr Hannes Nel
Introduction
Hello, I am Hannes Nel and I will discuss Grounded Theory in this post.
What is grounded theory?
Grounded theory is a type of inductive thematic analysis (ITA).
It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s.
Glaser and Strauss supported symbolic interactionism as a philosophical perspective.
How is grounded theory used?
Grounded theory uses inductive reasoning to generate the theoretical understandings, of research by grounding the theory in the data that the researcher collected.
It is a highly systematic method for mostly studying social experiences, interactions and structures.
Grounded theory discovers, develops and provisionally verifies phenomena.
This means that the data originate in the framework for the study and should deliver logical and relevant conclusions.
Integrating grounded theory with other research and data collection methods
It is almost always necessary to use grounded theory in conjunction with one or more other research methods.
Any data collection method may be used in conjunction with grounded theory methods, bearing in mind that data collection should build on a naturalistic, interpretive philosophy.
Grounded theory methods specify analytical strategies, not data collection methods.
Grounded theory:
- Is a qualitative research approach.
- Requires an open mind, objectivity and ethical and responsible analysis of data.
- Is especially popular amongst those who study humanistic sciences.
- Can also be used for the study of non-human phenomena.
The purpose of grounded theory
The primary purpose of grounded theory is to generate theory from observations of real life.
Grounded theory aims at the discovery of regularities, the identification of categories or elements and the establishment of their connections.
Theoretical models and new theoretical concepts and arguments should be created and continuously revised as you collect and analyse data.
Grounded theory holds as a basic view that qualitative researchers do not go around testing an existing body of knowledge, but rather that they build new theory by allowing their data collection to steer their thoughts and conclusions into the unknown.
The grounded theory process
Grounded theory research should be done in a specific and well-defined context.
The research should be grounded in social reality and not be just an exercise in theorizing.
It uses a typical research process of data collection, data analysis, coming to conclusions, and formulating findings.
Findings should be transformable into formal theoretical models.
The process of collecting data is a prerequisite for analysis, while theory development should result from the analysis.
Researchers sometimes think that grounded theory is about the research process, especially data collection and analyses.
Although data collection and analysis are important research activities, the essence of grounded theory does not lie in the research process but rather in the attitude of the researcher towards the data and the purpose of the research.
It requires that each piece of the data is systematically compared with other data on the same or related issue or topic.
You should not ignore small units of text.
It just might have the potential to improve current theory and practice.
At the same time, you should not waste time with data that is clearly of no significance, because analysis is a time-consuming activity.
You can compare existing data with other existing data or with new data.
Grounded theory is based on the subjective experiences of humans.
You may also use your own experiences to understand the experiences of others.
Guard against just adopting the ideas, perceptions or models of others.
If you do this, you run the risk of just packaging old, existing knowledge differently.
Verification is a natural element of any scientific research because it strengthens the authenticity and validity of the findings and provides you with a measure of security.
Data collected should not be over-verified, because grounded theory epistemology leans strongly towards the generation of new theory rather than the analysis of existing theory.
Deconstruction can be used to lend a good measure of authenticity to the data.
Do not neglect to acknowledge the work of other researchers that you consulted and quoted.
Computer software
You can use dedicated computer programmes to arrange, compare and analyse the data that you collected.
ATLAS.Ti is an example of software that you can use.
There are a good number of others. I am just mentioning ATLAS.Ti because it is the one that I used and am familiar with.
You can easily find suitable software by just Googling for them.
Most dedicated computer programmes make use of coding.
Coding can be described as a sophisticated form of notecards like the ones that we used many decades ago.
You will create codes for salient data with most of the available relevant software.
You can also write explanatory notes in the form of memorandums.
The programme groups related codes and memorandums together.
This enables you to get a clear and holistic picture of concepts and arguments so that you can more easily come to conclusions and findings.
Your findings should be or lead to new knowledge, theories and models.
From the codes and memorandums, new theory and new theoretical models can be discovered through inductive reasoning.
You will, of course, not be required to develop new knowledge or theories on master’s degree level, but you will need to show that you understand and can apply existing knowledge and theories.
Inductive reasoning entails systematic data collection and analysis which leads to discovery, development and verification.
Most importantly, dedicated programmes substantially simplify the process of writing your research report.
Grounded theory methodology needs not to be limited to computer analysis only.
You can, for example, still use the old notecard system or you can develop your own system on a computer.
The value of grounded theory
Grounded theory enables you:
- To step back and critically analyse situations.
- To recognise the tendency towards bias.
- To think abstractly.
- To be flexible and open to helpful criticism.
- To be sensitive to the words and actions of respondents.
- To adopt a sense of absorption and devotion to the work process.
Utilizing grounded theory for research should enable you to see beyond the ordinary and to arrive at new understandings of social life.
The most important value of grounded theory is that it enables you to generate theory and to ground that theory in data.
Paradigms that can be used with grounded theory
Before we look at paradigms that can be used with grounded theory – don’t be too concerned if at this stage you do not know the paradigms.
I will discuss 29 such paradigms in later posts.
I suggest that you then return to my earlier posts on research methods to get the bigger picture.
Any paradigmatic approach can be used with grounded theory.
Mostly, however, grounded theory displays elements of post-modernism as well as symbolic interactionism.
Post-modernism lends itself to the achievement of formal theory while symbolic interactionism implies that the study is grounded in a specific empirical world.
As already mentioned, grounded theory requires elements of interpretivism as well.
There are two versions of grounded theory, namely objectivist and constructivist grounded theory.
Objectivist grounded theory is rooted in a positivist paradigmatic approach.
The objectivist viewpoint claims that it is possible to discover objective truth.
The data already exists, and you will need to discover theory from them.
Constructivist grounded theory has its roots in an interpretivist paradigmatic approach.
The constructivist viewpoint rejects the objectivist viewpoint, contending that there is no objective truth waiting to be discovered.
Constructivist grounded theory assumes that truth exists only through interaction with the realities of the world.
Meaning is, therefore, constructed rather than discovered.
Summary
The following are the elements of grounded theory:
- The purpose of grounded theory is to build new theory.
- Current theory or observation can serve as the basis for new theory.
- Grounded theory deals with how data and phenomena are interpreted and used rather than how they are collected.
- You should systematically review units of data as they become available.
- Any research method should utilize the philosophy behind grounded theory, meaning that any researcher should be open-minded and objective.
- Building new theory requires analytical induction, meaning that new theory emerges from collected data inductively through a series of steps.
- Grounded theory requires the development of five interrelated properties.
- The theory must closely fit the relevant field of study in which the new theory will be used.
- The new theory must be readily understandable to laymen concerned with the field of study.
- The new theory must be relevant to a multitude of diverse daily situations within the focus area of the field of study.
- New knowledge should be generalizable as widely as possible.
- The new knowledge must allow those who use it to have enough trust in the validity and accuracy of the new knowledge, theories and models.
- Dedicated computer programmes enable you to discover regularities in data, to identify categories or elements and to establish their connections.
ARTICLE 26: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Conceptual studies
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Introduction
Is prostitution all bad?
Are all prostitutes bad people?
When is a person a prostitute?
In laymen’s terms, one would probably call subjective answers to questions like these “labelling the individual”.
The label can easily become a concept for academic research.
Concepts are the elements of which theories are composed.
Also, concepts are symbolic and abstract elements that represent objects, or features of objects, processes, or phenomena.
If prostitution is the topic of your research, you might need to identify characteristics that will define such a person.
Concepts may introduce new ideas or perspectives.
They may also be a means of explaining a broad generalization.
You might, for example, discover through your studies that prostitutes are not all bad, which might question the rather general perception that a prostitute can only be defined in terms of bad characteristics.
In terms of ideas, concepts are important because they are the foundation of communication and thought.
Concepts provide a means for people to let others know what they are thinking and allow information to be shared.
By conceptualizing a set of behaviors or ideas as part of a coherent package, we can describe a range of possible ideas, relations and outcomes with a single term.
Examples of such terms are sociopaths, delinquents, criminals, rapists, altruists, serial murderers, etc.
Conceptual studies are largely based on secondary sources that you, as a researcher, may consult to gain an understanding of concepts.
They aim to add to your existing knowledge and understanding.
An in-depth critical analysis of the literature is intrinsic to concept analysis.
Apart from books and documents, maps and air photos can also be sources of data for concept analysis.
Conceptual cartography takes the process of critical analysis further because maps are both analytical tools and products of concept analysis.
Conceptual studies can comfortably use the interpretivist paradigms, for example, ethnomethodology, hermeneutics, interpretivism.
Some critical paradigms, for example, feminism, can also be used.
The classical concepts analysis-type studies follow a step-by-step procedure.
The following are possible steps:
Step 1: Select the concept.
The concept may be prostitutes, whom you would describe in terms of certain characteristics.
Step 2: Identify the purpose of the analysis.
The purpose of your analysis might, for example, be to determine real and objective characteristics of what defines a person as a prostitute.
Step 3: Analyze the concept’s range of meanings.
You will need to keep an open mind when doing research through conceptual studies.
Kill your preconceived perceptions.
Do not be judgmental.
Let your research discover the range of meanings for you.
Step 4: Determine the critical attributes of the concept.
Critical attributes can also be subjective if you do not wipe out your perceptions and believe the data that you collected.
You will need to consult unbiased sources of information.
Step 5: Select a paradigmatic approach.
Interpretivist paradigms are mostly best for conceptual studies because they accept conversation and personal opinions as data.
Step 6: Construct additional cases.
It would not be a good idea to study just one prostitute, although this is also possible, depending on the purpose of your research.
However, corroboration can be found best by comparing case studies and consulting a variety of data sources.
Step 7: Identify antecedents and consequences.
Real-life experiences can often be the best evidence in social research.
Even natural scientists look for actual cause and effect occurrences in their research.
Summary
Conceptual studies:
- Tend to be abstract, philosophical and rich in theoretical underpinnings.
- Are the foundation of communication and thought.
- Are largely based on secondary sources of data.
- Follow a step-by-step research procedure.
Concepts are the building blocks from which theories are constructed.
They can also be the symbolic and abstract elements of theories.
Conceptual studies aim to:
- Add to existing knowledge and understanding.
- Introduce new ideas and perspectives.
- Explain broad generalizations.
- Describe a range of ideas in a single term.
ARTICLE 44: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Constructivism
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel, D. Com, D. Phil
Introduction
One certainty about post-graduate research is that there is no guarantee that you will succeed.
Many students do not even start because they are afraid that they might fail.
And the uncertainty coupled with the fear of failure after you have done a lot of work causes many students to not even start.
Constructivism is a simple paradigm with lots of promise of success.
Although there is still no guarantee, you can at least embark on your studies in the knowledge that you will have a fair chance to show what you are capable of.
What is more attractive to an intelligent and creative researcher than the opportunity to use his or her mind to develop new knowledge and understanding?
The work will still be a challenge, but thanks to constructivism, not an insurmountable one.
Constructivism
Constructivism is a rather liberal paradigm, that allows the researcher to create new knowledge and understanding through cognitive reasoning.
It claims that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.
We reconcile new observations and experiences with our previous ideas and experiences.
This might change our perceptions, or the new information and experiences might be discarded.
How we respond to new information and experiences depends on how we process the data in our minds.
This means that we create our own knowledge by asking questions and exploring things.
To compensate for the subjectivity of constructivism, you need to pay special attention to ethics.
The way in which you collect, and construct, data are prerequisites for the validity and accuracy of your analysis.
Also, the quality of data and the way in which it is analyzed determine how reality is interpreted.
Constructivism is mostly used with grounded theory methodology.
Human interests are important for research purposes.
Therefore, constructivism can also be used with several other research methods.
For example, action research, case study research, ethnography, etc.
A multitude of data collection methods can be used.
For example, interviews, participant observation, artifacts and almost any documents that are relevant to the field of study can be consulted.
The aim of research using constructivism is often to understand situations or phenomena, not only to create new knowledge.
Rich data is gathered from which ideas can be formed.
It involves a researcher collaborating with participants.
That is an emic approach.
For those who might not be familiar with the etic and emic approaches to research – an emic approach is where the researcher works with the target group for the research.
She or he can even become part of the target group.
In an etic approach, the researcher observes the target group from the outside.
The interaction of several people is researched in their context or setting.
It mostly involves the social problems of the target group for the research.
The accuracy of research findings is validated and creates an agenda for change or reform.
This entails a rather well-known sequence of steps that are followed in most qualitative research methodologies.
The following are typical steps:
- Identify human interests.
- Formulate the aim of the research.
- Gather rich data.
- Collaborate with participants.
- Research target group interaction.
- Validate the accuracy of the findings.
- Create an agenda for change or reform.
Constructivism is associated with pragmatism, relativism, liberalism, interpretivism, symbolic interactionism and positivism.
For example, like positivism constructivism also uses observation to gather information.
Different from positivism, which argues that knowledge is generated in a scientific method, constructivism generates knowledge in an interpretive manner.
There are other differences between constructivism and positivism.
Constructivism prefers an emic approach while positivism is equally comfortable with an emic and an etic approach.
Constructivism prefers qualitative research while positivism prefers quantitative research.
Although some academics claim that constructivism can be positively associated with behaviorism, the link is rather weak and unconvincing.
Very well, behaviorism also uses observation to collect data, but behaviorism does not make use of reflection while constructivism does.
Then again, radical behaviorism makes use of reflection.
Constructivism rejects scientism and empiricism, also because of the lack of reflection.
Constructivism is widely criticized for its lack of value in education and its lack of balance when used as a philosophy in research.
In education, it can lead to group thinking when one or a few prominent educators propagate a process or concept as “the only truth”.
Constructivists sometimes place too much emphasis on sensory experience at the expense of reflection.
This means that constructivists sometimes focus strongly on the ontology, that is “what is” and neglect the epistemology, that is the “why” and the “how” of a phenomenon.
Because of this, knowledge is sometimes not sufficiently proven to be valid and accurate.
Some academics integrate constructivism with other paradigms.
Others regard such integration as robbing constructivism of its identity.
The third group of academics feels that integrating constructivism with other paradigms enhances the philosophical strength of the research process.
Summary
Constructivism requires intelligent cognitive reasoning.
People construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experience and reflection.
The aim of constructivism is to understand situations and phenomena.
Research often involves creating change or reform.
Ethics and human interests are important in constructivism.
Constructivism makes use of many data collection methods.
Constructivism is associated with pragmatism, relativism, liberalism, interpretivism, symbolic interactionism and positivism.
Constructivism rejects scientism and empiricism.
Constructivism is criticized for:
- Not having much value in education.
- Lack of balance.
- Too much emphasis on sensory experiences.
- New knowledge not always been proven as valid and accurate.
ARTICLE 25: Research Methods for Ph. D. Studies: Case Studies
Written by Dr Hannes Nel
Introduction
There is an increasing number of COVID-19 cases across the world without a defined chain of transmission.
It is easy to miss infected people who might have come into contact with the virus.
New cases increasingly crop up in unsuspected places.
There is still much uncertainty regarding how and where the virus is spreading.
Rumours abound, and scaremongering is becoming as serious a problem as the virus itself.
This is a perfect example of a problem that can be researched through case study research.
Case study research
Case study research can follow almost any research paradigm.
The exceptions can be technicist paradigms, especially scientism, rationalism, positivism and modernism.
Then again, I believe one can even use case studies to do research in natural science.
Case study means doing systematic research on contemporary phenomena or events.
Like action research, it is linked to a specific time, site and context.
Multiple sources of evidence can be used.
A case study strives towards a holistic and comprehensive understanding of how participants relate to and interact with each other in a specific situation.
Case study research looks for meaning in a situation or event.
It can be used across a variety of disciplines to answer epistemological questions.
Research questions can be answered by an individual, two people or a whole group.
Although answers are given by members of a target group, the focus is on a system of action rather than just the sample for the research.
Case study research can be selective, focusing on one or two issues that are fundamental to understanding the system being examined.
Case study research investigates behavior, but not just the behavior of the target group for the research.
It strives to identify the behavior of an entire system.
For example, the researcher might do research on how people react to those who might have come into contact with the COVID-19 virus by interviewing such people.
Or they can determine how people respond to such “almost infected” people by observing how family and friends react when they return home from where they could have come into contact with the virus.
The researcher will probably try to identify a pattern of behavior that can be regarded as generally applicable.
You will need to come to a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the situation before a behavioral pattern can be identified and described.
A strong point of the case study method is that almost any data collection method can be used.
For example, participant observation, interviews, audio-visual material, document surveys and even the collection of physical artifacts.
You should determine in advance what evidence to gather and what analysis techniques to use with the data that you collect.
Data collection will probably be mostly qualitative in nature, but it can also include quantitative data.
A second strong point of the case study method is that it deals directly with the individual case in its actual context.
Case studies get as close to the subject of interest as they possibly can.
This is achieved because direct observation in natural settings can be used.
Also, because you can have access to subjective factors, such as thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.
Surely you will ask people how they feel, how they experience the situation, etc. when you interview them.
The case itself is the focus of your research, not the variables.
You need to focus strongly on the purpose of your research.
The general purpose of case study research is to generate knowledge.
It can also be used for theoretical elaboration or analytical generalization.
Criticism of case study research is that it often depends on a single case.
That makes it difficult to have your findings apply generally.
Summary
Case study research is perfectly suited to finding solutions for social problems.
The current COVID-19 situation is a good example, where social scientists would investigate the psychological effect of the threat on people while natural scientists try to find a way in which to combat the virus.
Case study research can use most philosophical stances or paradigms.
Epistemological questions are mostly investigated.
A good measure of generalization is sought for human behavior at a particular time and context.
You, as the researcher, will need to come to a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the situation before a behavioral pattern can be identified and described.
Case studies investigate a target group through direct observation in a natural setting.
The purpose of the research is critically important.
Case study research can be used to generate knowledge, for theoretical elaboration and analytical generalization.
ARTICLE 24: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Action Research
Written by Dr. Hannes Nel
Introduction
Studying for a Ph. D. or a master’s degree can be expensive.
Also, some universities are better positioned than others to offer research in certain fields of science.
You might need a laboratory that only one or a few universities have.
Or perhaps you might need a special computer or other scientific tools and equipment that not all universities have.
In such an instance you will be doing the right thing to do whatever it takes to be accepted for Ph. D. or master’s degree studies by the university of your choice.
However, whatever the topic of your research, the most important deciding factor, if your dissertation or thesis will be a quality product, is you – the student.
Some know action research by other names, for example, action learning, action science, collaborative inquiry, community-based study, contextual action research, co-operative inquiry, emancipatory research, participatory research, etc.
Action research is “learning by doing”.
This means that a group of people or just one researcher will identify an immediate problem, do something to resolve it, evaluate their efforts and try again if unsuccessful.
Action research aims to solve the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation.
It, simultaneously, adds value to social science, especially on the doctoral level.
The community that is the target for action research often also actively participate in the research.
This means that the people affected by a social problem work with the researcher to study a problem.
They help to collect data, make suggestions and recommendations and use the results of the research to influence social change.
This would be an emic approach to research.
Just to clarify – In terms of the relationship between the researcher and his or her target for research, we can follow either an emic or an etic approach.
An emic approach to research is where the researcher and the target for the research cooperate in finding a solution to a problem.
An etic approach to research would be where the researcher does research as an observer divorced from the target group.
Action research is a developmental research process.
This means that people not only solve problems by falling back on their current knowledge but also learn and develop new knowledge that they can apply in the future to solve the same or similar problems.
The solutions to problems in one community can often also be used to solve the same or similar problems in other communities.
Action research is typically cyclical in terms of data collection and analysis and starts with identifying a problem, collecting data, analyzing the data, taking action to resolve the problem and evaluating the outcome of the research.
Typically, the participants in the research “own” the problem and they become partners in carrying out the research.
A process of reflective critique is followed, meaning that members of the target group together with the researcher would consider, discuss and decide on a solution to the problem being researched.
It also implies dialectical critique, meaning that the research problem is solved through open critique.
As a researcher, you will probably be concerned that people might not accept your interpretations, ideas and judgements.
This is normal. People often resist change because it creates uncertainty and sometimes even fear.
Sometimes fear has little to do with the potential changes in the immediate environment, but rather with the research process itself.
There is also the risk that change might threaten people’s status and even their relevance to the community.
You will need to address these fears if you are to gain and keep the support of the community with your research.
Such fear is not all bad, though. It is what drives you to do professional research.
The nature of action research raises several possible ethical dilemmas.
Your bias towards the data being collected might damage the quality of your research as well as your relationship with the target group for your research.
Other factors, such as the needs and fears of the target group might contaminate the authenticity and validity of the data that you and the members of the target group collect.
The target group might have a different agenda than you for participating in the research.
Your own diligence and drive, or rather lack of diligence and drive, can hamper the level of your involvement in the research.
You might become too emotionally involved with the target group for the research and the problem being investigated.
The effect on the participants when you withdraw from the community on completion of the research might leave them in a position where they cannot manage the situation on their own.
You will need to consider this and ensure that the community is not damaged by your research.
Examples of paradigms that fit in well with action research are:
Ethnomethodology.
Neoliberalism.
Summary
The process of action research can be summarized as in the slide given here.
Action research considers theory to inform practice, that is the real situation in a particular context and at a particular point in time.
Theory together with reality is analyzed to transform the status quo, which is to solve a social problem.
Solving a social problem is achieved by following an emic approach and reflective and dialectical critique.
The researcher should consider the possible risk that research can do more harm than good if there is not mutual respect and trust between him or her and the community whose problem is being addressed.