Research Theory, Design, & Methods

/in /by

Discussion: Philosophy of Science

How does the lens from which you view the world shape your approach to research inquiry? Why is it important as a scholar-practitioner engaged in research to acknowledge your worldview?

Reflect on how your assumptions about the acquisition of truth and the nature of the world influence your approach to the research process.

Identify an area of interest for a possible research topic. As you read about the different philosophical orientations in this week’s readings, consider if one of these orientations most closely aligns with your worldview and a particular approach to research.

 

Post a brief description of your topic of research interest. Next, state the philosophical orientation that reflects your worldview and explain the epistemological and ontological assumptions of this orientation. Then, explain how these assumptions lend themselves to one or more research approaches.

Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

 

  • Describe topic of personal research interest – Racism
  • Explain epistemological and ontological assumptions of philosophical orientations
  • Explain relationship between epistemological and ontological assumptions and research approaches
  • Apply APA Style to writing

Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

  • Chapter 1, “Human Inquiry and Science”

 

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H.  (Eds.). (2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Chapter 1, “Introduction to Research”
  • Chapter 2, “Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Theory in Research”

Research Interest topic “Racism”

Introduction to Research Gary J. Burkholder

Introduction and Overview In the 19th century, research became an integral part of the university ethos. In the United States specifically, the role of the university assumed a pragmatic function as “American reformers further transformed higher education by stressing the relationship between the university and society through the concept of service and direct links with industry and agriculture” (Altbach, 2011, p. 17). In the United States, this more pragmatic approach was reflected in the requirement that education be more directly connected with the needs of society, such as by ensuring that graduates are well situated to join the workforce. Even today, there is an apparent worldwide shift in focus to employment and employability training, which has opened new paths to professional doctorate degrees oriented toward scholar-practitioners who value the application of theory and research to practical problems. Science plays a significant role in generating new knowledge that can be used by scholar-practitioners to address practical problems. Aristotle was one of the first who formalized an approach to knowledge generation involving a process of inquiry and analysis; general principles can be formulated from what is observed (induction) and, from these general principles, hypotheses for testing can be derived (deduction). The results of tests of hypotheses can then be used to inform validity of theory. The cycle of induction and deduction is what is responsible for the creation of new knowledge (Gauch, 2003). In the 18th and 19th centuries, rationalism, defined as the belief that knowledge can be created through internal reflection and logic, was superseded by empiricism, the belief that what is known is that which is discoverable by the senses and ultimately measurable. It is empiricism that dominates contemporary scientific research. The scientific method has led to the discoveries that have revolutionized technology and the ways we use it, our understanding of the nature of the universe, and the eradication of diseases. These discoveries are based on what can be directly seen in the microscope and the telescope and what can be measured and strictly controlled. Those discoveries came from the natural sciences, such as chemistry and biology, colloquially referenced as the hard sciences. In the social or soft sciences, applying typical scientific standards is more challenging. For example, people behave in expected and unexpected ways that may change in different contexts and times. Thus, it is difficult to isolate one factor that is suspected to cause a certain kind of behavior and measure its impact. This variation in behavior creates a challenge for explanation and prediction. Scientists try to isolate behavior and devise research studies to understand the effects of that behavior; the results are then interpreted and reviewed by the wider community of scientists and the public. Despite measures to isolate variables and validate survey instruments and assessments, thus bringing a measure of objectivity to the process of discovery, interpreting human behavior is ultimately subjective. Such interpretation raises questions about what we can truly know and understand about behavior. Therefore, it is not surprising that people have varying levels of confidence in the social scientific enterprise as well as its evidence-based explanations. Funk and Rainie (2015) compared the beliefs of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science with those from a random sample of the American public and found some encouraging results: Unsurprisingly, 79% of the adults reported that science has made life easier for most people, and 71% felt that investments in science have paid off in the long run. However, other findings provide a more nuanced examination of attitudes toward science. For example, 88% of scientists believed that it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, whereas only 37% of the adults surveyed believed they are safe. The same, but smaller, differences were found with evolution: Overall, 98% of scientists versus 65% of adults believed that humans have evolved over time. With vaccines, 86% of scientists versus 68% of adults believed that vaccination of children should be required. With climate change, 87% of scientists versus 50% of the public believed it was due to human activity. Compare this with the finding that the public believes that only 57% of scientists agree that climate change has been caused by humans. The differences reflected here are startling and suggest a public misperception about the scientific enterprise. Additionally, Pew Center researchers found that perceptions of science and its contribution to society have decreased among scientists and the American public, both down by about 11 points (Funk & Rainie, 2015). It is crucial for new social science researchers to be well grounded in the science that underlies their specific disciplines as well as to understand the strengths and limitations of scientific research. Due to the changing social and political contexts in which social scientists operate, it is important to understand the foundations and language of research as well as its methods. With this understanding, you can be prepared to engage in ethically and socially responsible research and enter confidently and knowledgably into the dialogues that characterize scholarship in the disciplines and in debates engaged in by the larger public. The purpose of this first chapter is to provide an overview of essential terminology of research for scholar-practitioners. The chapter begins with an introduction to research approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) as well as distinctions among research approach, design, and methodology. Each of these will be carefully defined to ensure that there is no confusion during the reading of this book. Finally, the chapter ends with an overview of a description of the key phases of research, the components of which are described in various chapters throughout the book. Introduction to Foundational Principles of Research Science is a social endeavor in which scientists and practitioners representing multiple disciplines conduct research that supports and refutes theories (Bourdieu, 1991; Kuhn, 2012). The range of scientific disciplines represent varying perspectives on reality and differences in interpretation of which problems are important. Thus, it is not surprising to learn that each discipline has language and practices specific to its own unique perspectives. Methods that guide research in education, for example, may be different from those that guide research in public health; experimental designs may be a more important standard in some disciplines than others. Thus, not all scientists necessarily adopt the same terminology or ways of conducting research. Scientific Method When people think of the scientific method, it usually brings back memories of the high school or college chemistry lab. The researcher measures some chemical, introduces it to the test tube, carefully controls all environmental variables, performs the experiment, and interprets the results. In the social sciences, the research settings are often not laboratories, but rather real-world settings involving individuals and groups. Several researchers have challenged the conventional definition of scientific method (e.g., Bauer, 1992; Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2008) precisely because specific methods, methodologies, and designs have evolved within the scientific disciplines. Each discipline trains and orients researchers to how questions are asked, theory is approached, and data are collected and analyzed that may be specific to that discipline (Bauer, 1992). For example, Windschitl et al. (2008) proposed an alternative to the traditional scientific method, model-based inquiry, in which scientific inquiry is expanded to incorporate the social sciences methods that include testing questions using discipline-specific ways of collecting and analyzing data and expanding the role of science to be evolutionary rather than assuming that any theory or model is the end goal. So what is it that makes the scientific method (or model-based inquiry) “scientific”? Whenever we describe the scientific process in social science research, the following are the principles we have in mind. The scientific method requires systematic observation. Scientists depend on careful, objective, and reliable observation to ensure data are as free from error as possible. This is true whether the data are numeric data, as might be collected in a survey, or textual data, as might be collected in interviews. The scientific method involves theory development and subsequent testing of emerging theories. The goal of science is to generate theory that can then be tested from hypotheses derived from the theory (deduction) or to examine repeated occurrences of events from which a testable theory can be derived (induction). Abduction is a process of finding the simplest