INTRODUCTION
A journey into the world of knowledge could
be made through many routes; so that right from the beginning of the earth, men
had employed one or more of those routes in their quest for knowledge.
“Research is only one of several ways of knowing,”
(http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/henrichsenl/ResearchMethods/RM_1_02.html).
Knowledge gives wisdom. The quest for wisdom has generally been tagged as
philosophy. The branch of philosophy that
deals with how knowledge is gained is
called epistemology, (Ibid.)
Epistemologists are
chiefly concerned on how Universe of Discourse (UoD), i.e, realities is made
sense of. “Sense-making from a constructivist point of view is a
process of attributing meaning to constructions according to the actor's local
reality and simultaneously influencing the local reality,” (http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/html/totland/ch032.htm).
Epistemologists basically recognize these
four different sources of knowledge:
Intuitive Knowledge: This
takes forms such as belief, faith, intuition, etc. It is based on feelings
rather than hard, cold "facts." In order words, intuitive knowledge
is not sensory perceptible. Knowledge from dreams, visions and hunches fit into
this category.
Empirical
Knowledge: Unlike the intuitive, empirical knowledge is sensory perceptible. It is
based on demonstrable, objective facts which are determined through observation
and/or experimentation. Scientific method of study is one the means to this
category of knowledge.
Authoritative
Knowledge: This type of knowledge is derived from a source that is considered
authoritative such as people, books, a supreme being, etc. Its
strength depends on the strength of these sources. For instance, the broad
leaved national dailies would not hesitate to float statements made by our
distinguished Political Scientist, Dr. Aiyede, concerning politics in Nigeria
on their front banners, given that the source is highly authoritative: a
University Don and a Political Scientist.
Logical Knowledge:
This is
arrived at by reasoning from "point A" (which is generally accepted)
to "point B" (the new knowledge) (See http://linguistics.byu.edu
op. cit.). It is a knowledge by deduction; moving from general to particular.
For instance:
Old universities are good.
UI is an old university.
Therefore, UI is good.
PLACING
THE CONCEPTS IN THE CONTEXT
The
Concept of Epistemology
As stated supra,
epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with how knowledge is
gained. Etymologically, epistemology is rooted in two Greek words, ‘episteme’
and ‘logos.’ The former means ‘knowledge’ while the latter means ‘study’; so
that epistemology could loosely be defined as the study of knowledge.
According to Carson et al (2001), epistemology can be defined as the
relationship between the researcher and the reality or how this reality is
captured or known. “It is the different forms of knowledge of (a) reality,
(U.O.C 2013).
Epistemology
is comprehensively seen as the "the nature of human knowledge and
understanding that can possibly be acquired through different types of inquiry
and alternative methods of investigation,” (See Hirschheim et al., (1995).
In
the attempt to demystify the concept of epistemology,
Epistemology raises many questions including:
1. how reality can be known, 2. the relationship between the knower and what is
known, 3. the characteristics, the principles, the assumptions that guide the
process of knowing and the achievement of findings, and 4. the possibility of that
process being shared and repeated by others in order to assess the quality of
the research and the reliability of those findings
He
differentiated the concept of epistemology from what he called epistemological
reflections. He argued that epistemological reflection is what enables us to elucidate the
different paradigms which give different answers to the questions raised by
epistemology, (Ibid.).
Suffice it to say here is that this
epistemological reflection constitutes the interest of this paper which
discusses the contending epistemological perspectives, nay, paradigms in social
science research.
The
Concept of Ontology
The concept of
ontology is also a branch of philosophy, but that which is
“concerned with articulating the nature and structure of the world,” (Wand and Weber (1993:220) in http://www.idi.ntnu.no,
op. cit.).
It
maintains a strong semantic affinity with the concept of epistemology so that
one could safely call them twin brothers. Ontology is interested in the nature
of both essential and existential realities while epistemology is interested in
the means of understanding them. The understanding of realities manifests itself
as knowledge; the interest of epistemology.
Ontology is the ways of constructing reality,
“how things really are” and “how things really work,” (Denzin and Lincoln,
(1998; 201) in U.O.C (2013).
The
Concept of Methodology
Methodology in research method embraces the
procedures and methods involved in data gathering, presentation, processing and
analysis, (Olutuah 2000). According to Bamiro et al (2000), the following
information should be included in the methodology. In other words, the scope of
methodology include:
A brief statement describing the general
research methods to be followed;
Provision of support materials required to
facilitate the development of the research and achievement of its objectives;
Dissemination and/or extension activities
that are intended to present, to the policy-making community, preliminary or
final results of the project. These
include meetings, seminars, workshops and conferences, media events, etc, that
take place during, immediately upon the conclusion, or sometime after the
project; and
Intended publications to be prepared as part
of the project. These could include working papers, journal articles,
conference papers and books. Mechanism to be used for distribution should also
be listed when possible. Issues relating to fieldwork and staff training should
also be discussed.
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (U.O.C)
(2013) believes that methodology is a tool to knowing a reality. They argued
that a typical methodological question is what tools do we use to know a
reality? ( U.O.C, op. cit.).
Methodology therefore could be seen as an
instrument used to harness knowledge out of a reality. It also could be seen as
an interface between epistemology and ontology. That is, a situation where
epistemology pursues ontological knowledge using methodology.
The
Concept of Paradigm
Paradigm is “a philosophical and theoretical
framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and
generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are
formulated” (Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2007). It is also “the set of common
beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be
understood and addressed” (See Kuhn, 1962 in U.O.C 2013). The epistemological
perspectives in the social science research are coterminous if not the same thing
with philosophical and theoretical paradigms on the nature of knowledge and the
means of inquiry into it.
The
Concept of Weltanschauung or worldview
Weltanschauung can be described as
(Merriam-Webster, 1997) "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the
world especially from a specific standpoint." There are two different worldviews:
An objectivistic and a constructivistic world views.
From an objectivistic point of view, the
Universe of Discourse is comprised of distinct objects with properties
independent of the inquiring observer (Hirschheim et al., 1995:58 quoted in http://www.idi.ntnu.no. op. cit). It is generally possible
for humans to investigate the world without influencing it (Guba and Lincoln,
1994:110, in Ibid.). Hence, sense-making from an objectivist point of view is
considered as rational analysis of data in a mental problem space and
construction of deductive arguments of cause-and-effect (Boland and Tenkasi,
1995:353 in Ibid.).
Concerning constructivist worldview, Schwandt
(1994:125) argues that what constitutes a constructivistic worldview is shaped
by the use and users of the term, and there is no widely agreed upon view of the
paradigm, (Ibid.). By this, constructivist worldview is basically subjective
and particularistic.
Contending
Epistemological Perspectives in Social Science Research Method
There are two basic contending
epistemological paradigms in social science research method; viz. Positivism
and Interpretivism (Edirisingha
2012).
Positivism
This epistemological paradigm projects an
objective worldview in the pursuit of knowledge. “Positivist researchers remain
detached from the participants of the research by creating a distance, which is
important in remaining emotionally neutral to make clear distinctions between
reason and feeling,” (Carson et al., 2001). They also maintain a clear
distinction between science and personal experience and fact and value judgment.
It is also important in positivist research to seek objectivity and use
consistently rational and logical approaches to research (Ibid.). Statistical
and mathematical techniques are central to positivist research, which adheres
to specifically structured research techniques to uncover single and objective
reality (Ibid.). The goal of positivist researchers is to make time and context
free generalizations, (Edirisingha
2012).
Positivist epistemological approach is inductive
and theory-testing; having the natural sciences as a model and its researchers
as scientists (Raddon n.d).
Positivists claim that it is important to
clearly distinguish between fact and value judgment. As positivist researchers
seek objectivity, (they) use consistently rational and logical approaches to
research (Carson et al. 2001; Hudson and Ozanne 1988).
In the words of Rene Descartes quoted in
U.O.C (2013), “those who are seeking the strict way of truth should not trouble
themselves about any object concerning which they cannot have a certainty equal
to arithmetic or geometrical demonstration.”
Positivism favours empiricism. Its rigid
belief in empirical facts is epitomized by the employment of scientific method
as the only valid method of research. To a positivist researcher, knowledge is
valid only when it is gotten from an objective observation or empirical
experimentation.
According
to Raddon (n.d) positivist epistemological paradigm boasts of the following
advantages:
Economical
collection of a large amount of data;
Clear
theoretical focus for the research from the outset;
Greater
opportunity for the researcher to retain control of the research process;
Easily
comparable data;
However,
they have these challenging problems below to confront with:
Inflexibility
as direction often cannot be changed once data collection has started; weakness
at understanding social processes and; often, it does not discover the meanings
people attach to social phenomena; (Ibid.).
Interpretivism
The interpretivist position on epistemology
is that realities are multiple and relative; and are dependent on other systems
for meaning, (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). The knowledge acquired in this
discipline is socially constructed
rather than objectively determined (Carson et al., 2001).
Similarly, http://www.idi.ntnu.no,
(op. cit.) quoting (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:110) and (Dahlbom, 1992:101), argues
that:
Firstly, realities are local and specific
in the sense that they vary between groups of individuals.
Secondly, reality is actively constructed,
i.e., not merely discovered. Hence, the distinction between ontology and
epistemology is blurred, as what constitutes reality depends on a particular
actor and his values.
Thirdly, reality is socially constructed,
i.e., the constructions are not personal or technical.
Interpretivists avoid rigid structural
frameworks such as in positivist research and adopt a more personal and
flexible research structures (Carson et al., 2001) which are receptive
to capturing meanings in human interaction (Black, 2006) and make sense of
what is perceived as reality (Carson et al., 2001).
The interpretivists’ worldview is
constructivist and subjective. They believe that sense-making of the Universe
of Discourse is a venture of multiple variables.
The interpretivist researcher enters the
field with some sort of prior insight of the research context but assumes that
this is insufficient in developing a fixed research design due to complex,
multiple and unpredictable nature of what is perceived as reality (Hudson and
Ozanne, 1988). The researcher remains open to new knowledge throughout the
study and lets it develop with the help of informants. The use of such an
emergent and collaborative approach is consistent with the interpretivist
belief that humans have the ability to adapt, and that no one can gain prior
knowledge of time and context bound social realities (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).
They largely employ logic, intuition and
sense perception in their quest for knowledge of the realities.
Interpretivism has the following advantages
over the contending paradigm of positivism:
Facilitates
understanding of how and why;
Enables
the researcher to be alive to changes which occur;
Good
at understanding social processes;
Allows
for complexity and contextual factors;
The
positivist paradigm however did not hesitate to remind interpretivism of these
problems below which constitute a blow to the paradigmatic sanctity of
interpretivism. The positivists argue that in interpretivism, data collection
can be time consuming; data analysis is challenging and can be complex; researcher has to live
with the uncertainty that clear patterns may not emerge and; generally
perceived as less credible by ‘non- researchers (See Raddon n.d).
The
Epistemological and Methodological Dichotomy of Positivism and Interpretivism
Positivism
|
Interpretivism
|
|
Epistemology
|
||
Possible to obtain hard, secure and
objective knowledge
|
Understood through ‘perceived’ knowledge
|
|
Grounds
of knowledge/ relationship between reality and research
|
Research focuses on generalization and
abstraction
|
Research focuses on specific and concrete
|
Thought governed by hypotheses and stated
theories
|
Seeking to understand specific context
|
|
Methodology
|
||
Concentrates on description and explanation
|
Concentrates on understanding and
interpretation
|
|
Detached, external observer
|
Researcher want to experience what they are
studying
|
|
Clear distinction between reason and
feeling
|
Allow feeling and reason to govern actions
|
|
Aim to discover external realities other
than creating the object of study
|
Partially creates what is studied, the
meaning of phenomena
|
|
Strive to use rational, consistent, verbal,
logical approach
|
Use of pre-understanding is important
|
|
Seek to maintain clear distinction between
facts and value judgments
|
Distinction between facts and value
judgment less clear
|
|
Distinction between science and personal
experience
|
Accept influence from both science and
personal experience
|
|
Techniques
used by researchers
|
Formalized statistical and mathematical
methods predominant
|
Primarily non-quantitative
|
Source:
Carson et al (2001) Pg. 6
Positivism
and Interpretivism: The Synergy
The duo paradigms of positivism and
interpretivism have their limitations. These limitations deny ‘knowledge’ the
comprehensive grasp of the nature of realities or the universe of discourse.
This brings to the front burner the need for synergy.
One of the apostles of the science of
politics, David Easton, who promotes a water-tight separation of values and
facts declared that ethical valuation and empirical explanation… should be kept
analytically, distinct,” (Easton n.d).
“But, the chastity or neutrality of facts
have been queried on several grounds,” (Ayoade 1985). This is because, “values
are prior to any investigation,” (Kim 1961 in Ayoade 1985). A mere choice of
subjects to study is value-judgement, (Barbrook 1979).
Given the reasons above, attempts to separate
positivism from interpretivism would be tantamount to an exercise in futility.
Nwolise (2013) accused science of arrogance
as it claims that whatever it can not understand, capture, measure, control, or
predict, does not exist. He wrote thus:
The
unending confrontation between science and non material or spiritual things is
well known…. Science and its baby – technology – are concerned with physical
things, that is matter. Matter is a physical material of the universe defined
as “anything that occupies space and has mass” (Ukwueze 2011). Science being
concerned with matter, has its iron rule that whatever cannot be seen, touched,
measured or weighed does not exist. But is this the whole TRUTH? Is this
universal reality? Is this social reality, especially for those of us in the
Social Sciences.
Is
Science not being too cowardly, pompous, despotic, or arrogant in insisting
that whatever it can not understand,
capture, measure, control, or predict, does not exist?
Prof. Osisioma Nwolise was able to marshal
evidences that really proved that there are realms beyond the empirical world.
Capturing the all the empirical and metaphysical knowledge in the world is only
realizable with the union of positivist and interpretivist epistemological
persuasions.
Conclusions
There are two basic epistemological
traditions/perspectives in the Social Science research method – Positivism and
Interpretivism. These epistemological paradigms disagree on several areas
including on the nature of reality, knowledge and the best method of gaining
knowledge about realities. The former proposes an objectivist worldview while
the latter favours subjectivism.
Be that as it may, it has been established
that attempts at the compartmentalization of the duo paradigms would amount to
an exercise in futility; hence, the position that both of the epistemological
persuasions should become partners in progress in the quest for sense-making on
the universe of discourse.
Reference as Ozeh, C. (2014),Contending Epistemological Perspectives in Social Science Research Method. An MSc. Seminar, Department of Political Science,University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
REFERENCES
Ayoade, J.A.A. (1985), Political
Behaviour. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social
Studies;
Vol. 27, No. 1
Barbrook, A. (1979), Partern
of Political Behaviour. Bath: Pitman Press
Berger,
P. L., and Luckman, T. (1967), “The Social
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in
Sociology
of Knowledge”, New York: Irvington Publishers.
Carson,
D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative
Marketing
Research.
London: Sage.
Easton, D. ( n.d), The
Current Meaning of Behaviouralism in Contemporary Political Analysis.
J.C. Charlesworth, ed.
Edirisingha, P. (2012), Interpretivism and Postivism (Ontological and
Epistemological Perspectives) http://prabash78.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/interpretivism-and-postivism-ontological-and-epistemological-perspectives
Hirschman,
E. C. (1985), Primitive
Aspects of Consumption in Modern American Society.
Journal
of Consumer Research, 12, 237-249.
Hudson,
L., and Ozanne, J. (1988), Alternative
Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer
Research. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(4), 508–521.
Merriam-Webster dICTIONARY, 1997
Nwolise, O.B.C. (2013), Is
Physical Security Alone Enough for the Survival, Progress and
Happiness
of Man? An Inaugural
Lecture 2012/2013, Ibadan, University Ibadan Press
Olutuah, A.A. (2000), Housing
Low Income Civil Servants in an Emergent State Capital: The
Case
Study of Ado-Ekiti,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Architecture, Federal University of
Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Raddon, A. (n.d.), Early
Stage Research Training: Epistemology & Ontology in Social Science
Research. https://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/socsci/documents/research-training-presentations/EpistFeb10.pdf
U.O.C (2013), Research Paradigms:Ontology's, Epistemologies &
Methods. http://www.slideshare.net/eLearnCenter/research-methods-uoc-2013; retrieved 2014-12-2
Ontological and Epistemological Foundations
of Qualitative
Research. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1299/3163;
retrieved 2014-12-3
WEBSITE
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/html/totland/ch032.htm
READ ALSO:
History of Aguleri - the Origin
READ ALSO:
History of Aguleri - the Origin
This is nice post and helpful. If anybody learn online earning tricks and courses so please visit my websites Alhuda
ReplyDelete