News

ARTICLE 73: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Contextualising your Research

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Let’s say you plan on conducting research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social interaction between people.

Do you think your findings will be the same if you were to do the research in a large city compared to a jungle village in central Africa?

Do you think your findings will be the same for any one population for different seasons?

Do you think your findings will be the same ten years from now as they are now?

I will discuss contextualising your research in this article.

Research is always done in a context.

The context can be expressed as the scope or limits of the research. Teaching and learning, for example, are managed and administered on local, regional and national level so that we can also do research on one or more of these levels.

Context can also be a geographical area, for example a suburb, a city, a country or perhaps even the whole world. Choosing a context for your research can be compared to weightlifting. If you put too little weight on the bar, your performance will be insignificant. If you try to lift too much you might fail and can even injure yourself.

Therefore, keep in mind that, the wider the context for your research, the more likely will your research topic not be viable.

Natural scientists often claim that their findings are valid regardless of time or context. This would mean that the knowledge, principles, tenets, laws, etc. that they develop are not dependent on context. It does not mean that context does not exist but rather that their findings apply to all, or at least most, contexts.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of a context that has an impact on almost all fields of study. Phenomena and events are in many ways different in terms of social, economic, financial, legislative, political, environmental and many other conditions than when the virus was not present.   

Depending on the level of your research, you can narrow down the limits even further by deciding on and describing the appropriate structures, stakeholders and social groups involved in the topic being researched as well as related services that will be included in the research. You can go even further by deciding if the research will be done on a micro (going into much detail) or macro (addressing only some broader issues) level.

Once you have decided on the scope and limits of your research, it will be easier to also decide who and what you will include in your data collection efforts. Unless you already know your participants well, for example if they all come from the organisation in which you work, you will need to collect and record relevant information from appropriate groups. The target group for your research will probably be stakeholders in the project.

This information must be properly structured and updated to ensure that you do not get some unpleasant surprises when you start collecting data on your research topic. It can, for example, happen that you have in mind interviewing miners at a particular mine only to find that the mine ceased operating since you last had contact with the people working there.

You also need to contextualise your research in terms of time. It serves no purpose conducting research on historical events and trends if it is something for which there is no further need. Your conclusions might not apply to the current situation if the situation or people’s needs changed. You need to base your research on current developments and how it impacts on the members of the target group, unless your research is historical.

The COVID-19 pandemic is also a good example of a situation that exists during a particular period. The world did not have the pandemic before 2020 and everybody is hoping that it will disappear at some stage. Research can also now already be done about what to expect after the current pandemic.

Research always needs to be followed up. This means that your research findings need to be communicated to other stakeholders if it is to be of any value to the community. Remember that the community in which the research is done forms an integral and important part of the context of your research, so that you need to explain your research findings to the members of the target group or whoever else were participants in your research.

Research findings can be consistent or inconsistent in terms of context and time. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economies of different countries or different business sectors might not be the same, in the event of which findings will be inconsistent in terms of the context. If your findings apply to the entire world, they will be consistent in terms of the context. If the pandemic dissipates, or is replaced by an even more severe virus, findings that apply now might not apply any longer, say three months from now. Your findings will then be inconsistent over time. If the virus stays with us and becomes the so-called “new reality” then your findings will be consistent over time.

Summary

Research always applies to a specific context.

The impact of context is often more dynamic and inconsistent on qualitative research than on quantitative research.

The more narrowly the limits for your research are defined, the less generalisable will your findings probably be and the other way around.

The scope for your research represents the context in terms of the purpose of your research.

The limits of your research refer to the boundaries, or target for your research.

The data that you collect must be valid.

You need to specify the period on which you will conduct research.

You must point out in your thesis or dissertation if your findings are timeless or valid for only a certain period.

Your research findings will be worthless if you do not share your findings with stakeholders.

Research findings can be consistent or inconsistent in terms of context and time.

Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 70: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Structuralism

No Comments

Written by Dr. J.P. Nel

Imagine, conducting research on human behaviour while focusing on the context rather than the target group.

Do you think that our environment determines our behaviour?

And if so, to what extent and how?

For example, will it be possible to eliminate ills such as conflict, corruption, crime, and many more by changing the infrastructure of a city or country?

And what would be the impact if we were to change the language policy of a country?

I discuss the impact of structure on human behaviour in this article.

Structuralism focuses on the systems (structures) within society and the power relations within and among the parts (subsystems). In formalised structures, one can easily see the hierarchy of positions and levels of power. In this respect structuralism displays three main characteristics:

1.         It focuses on the structures in which humans interact rather than on human interaction as such.

2.         It analyses the relationships between the different elements of a conceptual system.

3.         It investigates human thinking, culture, behaviour and feelings within the boundaries of the structure in which people find themselves.

According to structuralism, underlying “structures” or “essences” determine the meaning of an event or phenomenon. For example, unchanging structures of grammar underpin all language (linguistics); economic structures or organisation determine social beliefs and behaviour (economics); hidden structures of the unconscious mind control behaviour (psychology; psychoanalysis).

Structuralists beliefs that no part in a particular system has any significance in and of itself – its identity is defined in terms of its relationship with all the parts of the system.

Research making use of the structuralist paradigm strives to identify the relationships that determine human interaction. The aim of such research should be the discovery of the factors that cause the people being investigated to act, think and feel the way they do. The physical actions are not important for research purposes but rather the relationships that support the actions. 

If you wish to use structuralism as a paradigm for your research, you will need to deconstruct the channels of power in your research target in order to be able to analyse and describe the relationships and interplay between the parts of the system. In most qualitative research it should not be necessary to emphasise any of the parts, but rather to show how the parts relate to each other. This means that you should follow a holistic approach by determining how the entire system functions rather than just certain parts. 

In qualitative research, structures have the characteristic of dealing with transformation of power positions or the maintenance and reproduction thereof in society. As a structure can only sustain itself by perpetuating a continuous sameness of its parts, structures actively strive to preserve their position, thus extending the oppression and power of the system. In other words, positions of power in society give people control over others (e.g. adults over children, managers over workers).

Education offers a good example of where structure impacts on the relationships between people interacting in the same social setting. Education is criticised for its social reproduction function where traditional power relations are maintained and nourished. Any form of discrimination is an example of this. The aim of the structuralist endeavour is to expose these power relations through critique of the system.

It is rather common practice for those in power to be unwilling to relinquish their power to others. The result of such resistance can often be damaging to the entire community by eroding the service role that the power structures should provide. This can lead to corruption, poor leadership, injustice towards certain groups in the community and a decline in economic prosperity with all the ills that come from that.

Structuralism is a form of critical research, including some elements of neoliberalism, post-colonialism, feminism, radicalism and romanticism. In this respect it especially supports post-structuralism. However, post-structuralism developed in reaction against structuralism because of the latter’s view that structures can be discovered, and its insistence on rigid power relations between the parts of the structure (post-structuralism questions the role of structure in human interaction).

Because of the fact that structuralism draws conclusions from relationships without also taking physical activities into consideration, it can lead to overgeneralisation – differences between different events or phenomena are not recognised because they are present in the actions and not the intangible factors.

Structuralism does not take history into consideration, which can be important in terms of the ontology of a research topic. The origin of a phenomenon is often important for its understanding.

Although structuralism is often used as a critical paradigm, researchers also tend to use it as a technicist paradigm, which can lead to social systems being interpreted as scientific phenomena stripped of the influence that affective factors have on social behaviour.

Summary

Structuralism focuses on structures as systems within society and the power relationships within and among the parts.

The identities of substructures are defined in terms of their relationships with all the other parts of the system.

Research making use of structuralism deals with the transformation, maintenance and reproduction of power positions in society, and to identify the relationships that determine human interaction.

Human relationships are regarded more important than human behaviour.

Structuralism is associated with neoliberalism, post-colonialism, post-structuralism, radicalism and romanticism.

Structuralism is opposed to post-structuralism.

Points of criticism against structuralism as a paradigm for research include that:

  1. Research can be too technicist.
  2. It can lead to overgeneralisation.
  3. It does not take history into consideration.
Continue Reading

News

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

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

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

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

A relatively near destination is also relatively far.

Relatively healthy food is also relatively unhealthy.

Relatively happy is also relatively unhappy.

Relatively strong is also relatively weak.

How can this be the philosophical foundation for scientific research?

Let’s discuss the paradigm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Intangible concepts are relevant as data for research.

Relativist arguments always apply to a certain context.

Relativism can be cultural, moral, alethic or epistemic.

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

There can be more than one truth about an issue.

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

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

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

Continue Reading

News

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

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

What is more important for research – knowledge or experience?

What is more important for truth – reason or observation?

Do all events consist of a cause and an effect?

Can knowledge be gained without making use of our senses?

Are sense experiences always infallible and accurate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought.

Therefore, knowledge is gained independently of sense experience.

Sense experience is regarded as confusing and uncertain.

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

Cause and effect hold for all events.

The world is regarded as deterministic.

Reason surpasses all other forms of knowing.

Rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true.

Knowledge can be more valuable than experience for research.

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

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

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

Continue Reading

News

No Comments

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

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

What is more important for research – knowledge or experience?

What is more important for truth – reason or observation?

Do all events consist of a cause and an effect?

Can knowledge be gained without making use of our senses?

Are sense experiences always infallible and accurate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

Truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought.

Therefore, knowledge is gained independently of sense experience.

Sense experience is regarded as confusing and uncertain.

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

Cause and effect hold for all events.

The world is regarded as deterministic.

Reason surpasses all other forms of knowing.

Rational knowledge is timeless, objective and true.

Knowledge can be more valuable than experience for research.

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

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

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

Continue Reading

News

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

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

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

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

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

Will such a drive not lead to resistance?

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

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

I discuss radicalism in this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Radicalism is a social arrangement aimed at emancipation and change.

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

Organisational structured are hierarchical and stratified.

Individual self-centredness is managed.

Radicalism studies real events.

A bottom-up perspective is followed.

Continuous fieldwork is done.

Deep and rich insight are sought.

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

Groups are mostly researched.

A network of role players is covered.

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

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

Criticism against radicalism includes:

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

News

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

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Introduction

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

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

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

Post-structuralism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Post-structuralism:

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

Knowledge is gained through experience and the analysis of structures.

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

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

It is opposed to modernism.

Criticism against post structuralism includes:

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

News

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

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Here we have a soft teddy bear with teeth.

How do you reconcile values and passion with politics?

And the teddy bear can also be quite cynical.

It believes that all knowledge is flawed.

And that reality can never be fully understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Post-positivism focuses on values, passion and politics.

Realty is regarded as multiple, subjective and mentally constructed.

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

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

All knowledge is flawed.

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

Objectivity is a volatile entity.

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

Post-positivism is also opposed to positivism.

Criticism against post-positivism includes:

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

News

ARTICLE 59: Research Methodology for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Post-colonialism

No Comments

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:

  1. That it is too dependent on literature study.
  2. It is mostly written by die “wrongdoers”.
  3. It is often obsessed with national identity.
  4. And that colonization was a failure.
Continue Reading

News

ARTICLE 56: Research Methods for Ph. D. and Master’s Degree Studies: Neoliberalism

No Comments

Written by Dr. Hannes Nel

Many writers wrote about an innocent and beautiful farm girl who sought fame and fortune in the city.

Only to become the victim of unscrupulous criminals who misused her innocence.

Neoliberalism is such a teenage girl.

In this article, I will tell you how vulnerable neoliberalism is to the corrupt people of our world.

Neoliberalism is a description of the dominant mode of conducting political and economic organisation in a global world, which obviously would also be the field in which research is conducted. It also has an impact on other elements of the human environment, for example education, jurisdiction, and science.

Whereas classical liberalism signalled a negative view of the state, neoliberalism conceives of a positive role for a state that creates the optimal conditions for capitalist expansion, control and exploitation. The state has a definite function and responsibility towards the community, including the protection of private property rights, guaranteeing the quality and integrity of money, military defence and police protection of the community, the proper functioning of the economy and markets, and the protection of the environment. Governments that support neoliberalism would typically follow policies that encourage privatisation, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and the reduction in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. A neoliberalist economic approach would promote entrepreneurship, creativity, participative leadership and democracy.

Neoliberalism is associated with a form of state that seeks reduction in public spending; it is obsessed with efficiency and effectiveness and elevates the market as the primary instrument for determining the distribution of social goods. An important basis of liberal thought is that all individuals are equal in terms of being legal citizens of a country. 

In terms of the academic focus, knowledge is regarded and promoted as an investment for the future and as a global commodity. Traditional, legacy approaches to education and training are challenged by focusing more on the skills needs of industry, rather than philosophy and theory.

In neoliberalist research, the relationships between researchers and communities have changed from “research on” to “research with” communities. This means that research based on a neoliberalist paradigm would include the researcher as part of the community while conducting research in liberalisation, i.e. an emic approach.

Action research became more prominent than in the past because of the emic approach and the focus on politics and the economy. In this respect the purpose of the research is not just to contribute to the available knowledge in a field, or to develop emancipatory theory, but rather to forge a more direct link between thought and action that underlies the pure-applied distinction that has traditionally characterised management and social research.

Private institutions are important role players in the preparation of students for future careers. Research, consequently, focuses more on the needs of industry, governments and markets rather than on knowledge for the sake of academic status. Action research is conducted with the primary intention of solving a specific immediate and concrete problem in a local setting.

Even though neoliberalism clashes with liberalism in some respects, it also supports liberal values such as equality and freedom in relation to imperialism, gender, race and austerity. Neoliberalism is associated with critical theory, post-colonialism, feminism, radicalism, romanticism, and critical race theory with the result that researchers making use of a neoliberalist paradigm would probably make use of a qualitative research approach.

The technicist paradigms, notably scientism, positivism and modernism can be said to be in opposition to neoliberalism. Some academics claim that the lack of scientific consistency should be blamed for the failure of neoliberalist government and economic policies, while others feel that it is rather unethical and irresponsible government and business practices that resulted in increased unemployment, higher inflation, social unrest, environmental disasters, etc. in many countries.

Summary

Neoliberalism focuses on political and other elements of the human environment.

Knowledge and skills development are regarded as an investment.

The state and private institutions play an important role in the economy and therefore also in research.

Neoliberalism support extensive economic liberalisation.

A qualitative research approach is preferred.

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

Neoliberalism is well suited for action research.

Neoliberalism can be associated with critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, radicalism, romanticism and post-colonialism.

Neoliberalism is opposed to scientism, positivism and modernism.

Criticism against neoliberalism is that it lacks scientific consistency and that unethical and irresponsible government and business practices can damage the value of the paradigm for research and practice.

Continue Reading