The main distinctions we tend to make in research are about:
positivist vs interpretivist
quantitative vs qualitative
hypothetico‐deductive vs hypothetico‐inductive.
And if you bear those distinctions in mind, you'll get by!
Final Word
Research can exist outside of our knowledge of ontology and epistemology. Don't fret too much over these complex ideas. As you might end up debating whether it is positivist or relativist to decide how to count the number of angels you can get on a pinhead …
TABLE 1.1 Ontology, epistemology. Theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods.
Source: Adapted from Patel (2015).
| Research Paradigm | Ontology | Epistemology | Theoretical Perspective | Methodology | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positivist | There is a single reality | Reality can be measured using the best scientific methods | Positivism | Quantitative methods – experimental and observational hypothetico‐deductive | Sampling, measuring Numbers and statistics |
| Interpretivist | No single reality. Reality depends on the researcher's location in time and society | Everything is subject to interpretation. We need to discover how people experience their worlds | Interpretivism | Qualitative methods: phenomenology ethnography grounded theory Etc. Hypothetico‐inductive | Participant observation Interviews Focus groups Etc. |
| Pragmatism | Reality is constantly being re‐negotiated and interpreted | You can choose the best method for solving the problem | Pragmatism | Mixed methods | Any methods which will answer the question |
For further reading, if you have the mental stamina to be confused further, you might look at: Devaux and Lamanna (2009), Griswold (2001), Heidegger (1971), Sturm (2011), Descartes (1985), and Haack (1993).
References
1 Descartes R. (1985). The Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes I. Cambridge University Press.
2 Devaux M and Lamanna M. (2009). The rise and early history of the term ontology (1606–1730). Quaestio 9(173–208), 197–198.
3 Griswold CL. (2001). Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings. Penn State Press, p. 237.
4 Haack S. (1993). Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Wiley‐Blackwell.
5 Harvard Men’s Health Watch. (2018). The pain of measuring pain: Doctors and patients use the 10‐point pain scale to gauge the severity of pain, but there may be a better way.’ Available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/the‐pain‐of‐measuring‐pain (accessed 25 September 2020).
6 Heidegger M. (1971). On the Way to Language. Harper & Row: New Yor, (original: 1959).
7 Patel S. (2015). The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language. Available at: http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the‐research‐paradigm‐methodology‐epistemology‐and‐ontology‐explained‐in‐simple‐language (accessed 25 September 2020).
8 Sturm T. (2011). Historical epistemology or history of epistemology? The case of the relation between perception and judgment. Erkenntnis 75(3), 303–324.
CHAPTER 2 Experimental Quantitative Approaches: Laboratory Experiments
Introduction
I guess that most of us can remember laboratory experiments from our school days – unless, as some do, you have blanked this out! Laboratory experiments are:
In the quantitative domain – we measure and count, we use numbers.
They are usually hypothetico‐deductive – we have a clear purpose and set of expectations in mind before we begin.
They are in the interventional domain – we introduce an experimental variable which was not there at the start.
They are prospective – we have a start point where we make our initial measurements, we have our interventions, and we have an end point when we make our final measurements.
They are best suited to answering questions like: ‘If I add/change this, will that happen?’
(None of my science teachers at school or university explained anything of the methodological science behind what we were doing – and that was a great pity. Over the years I have had to explain to undergraduate and postgraduate students the principles which underpin the ‘sciences’ of research – because most of them did not understand it either! Well, now, you do!)
The ‘Logic’ of the Experimental Approach
How often do we, and others, ask the question, ‘I wonder what happens if I … remove this thing here/do this instead of that/etc.’ Famous last words. How many of us, when we see a sign saying WET PAINT, instead of avoiding the painted surface, touch it to see if it is really wet?! (Some of us never really shed those childhood rebellious behaviours!) So we or they touch the paint, and end up with sticky fingers! ‘Yup. I guess it IS wet paint!’ is the conclusion!
This may sound like a banal example, but it illustrates the first level of experimentation. We begin with a hypothesis – ‘the paint is not wet’ – and we test our hypothesis – by touching the wood (or better still, by encouraging someone else to touch it) – using the tried and tested approach of ‘touch it and see’. This act of experimentation then either confirms our hypothesis – ‘Yes, the paint is wet! Now where do I clean my hands?!’ – or it refutes (denies) our hypothesis – ‘No, the paint is not wet. Phew!’
So, the process is simple:
We
