Origin of Research Based on Philosophy and Education

Paper- General Research Methodologies Name-Sudeshna Das Reg. No.-1234002 M.Phil, Media Studies

Introduction
There are numerous reasons why an understanding of philosophical issues is important. It is the very nature of philosophical questions that best demonstrates the value of understanding philosophy. Smiths 1998 study says that it is the uncomplicated style and innocent way of questioning, which produces confusion and instability in our assumptions and ideas about the world and makes the study of philosophy of special benefit.

Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

The indirectness and circular nature of philosophical questioning in itself is helpful, as it often encourages in-depth thinking, and generates further questions in relation to the topic under consideration. Clarifying assumptions related to personal values is also seen as useful when planning a research study. According to Proctor (1998), individuals rarely take time to do this in everyday life, but exploring basic personal beliefs could assist in understanding wider philosophical issues, notably the interrelationship between ontological (what is the nature of reality?), epistemological (what can be known?), and methodological (how can a researcher discover what she or he believes can be known?) levels of enquiry (Proctor 1998)

Three Reasons for Philosophy

Easterby-Smith et al (1997) identify three reasons why the exploration of philosophy may be significant with particular reference to research methodology: Firstly, it can help the researcher to refine and specify the research methods to be used in a study, that is, to clarify the overall research strategy to be used. This would include the type of evidence gathered and its origin, the way in which such evidence is interpreted, and how it helps to answer the research questions posed. Secondly, knowledge of research philosophy will enable and assist the researcher to evaluate different methodologies and methods and avoid inappropriate use and unnecessary work by identifying the limitations of particular approaches at an early stage. Thirdly, it may help the researcher to be creative and innovative in either selection or adaptation of methods that were previously outside his or her experience.
2

Positivism
According to Clarke (1998), research methods can be described, considered and classified at different levels, the most basic of which is the philosophical level. The methodological distinctions most commonly used focus on the differences between quantitative research, which is generally associated with the philosophical traditions of positivism, and qualitative research, most commonly allied with post-positivist philosophy (Polit et al 2001). Proctor (1998) considers that consistency between the aim of a research study, the research questions, the chosen methods, and the personal philosophy of the researcher is the essential underpinning and rationale for any research project. She indicates that before any decision on research method can be made an understanding of the two extremes of research philosophy, issues in research i.e. positivism and post-positivism, need to be explored and understood. The positivist position is derived from that of natural science and is characterized by the testing of hypothesis developed from existing theory (hence deductive or theory testing) through measurement of observable social realities. The importance of induction and verification, and the establishment of laws, are stressed by logical positivists. This position presumes the social world exists objectively and externally, that knowledge is valid only if it is based on observations of this external reality and that universal or general laws exist or that theoretical models can be developed that can be generalized, can explain cause and effect relationships, and which lend themselves to predicting outcomes. Positivism is based upon values of reason, truth and validity and there is a focus purely on facts, gathered through direct observation and experience and measured empirically using quantitative methods surveys and experiments - and statistical analysis.

Interpretivist / Constructivist / Anti-positivist / Post-positivism

Post-positivism or anti-positivism is based on the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the subject matters of natural and social sciences. In the social world it is argued that individuals and groups make sense of situations based upon their individual

experience, memories and expectations.

Meaning therefore is constructed and (over time)

constantly re-constructed through experience resulting in many differing interpretations. It is these multiple interpretations that create a social reality in which people act. Under this paradigm, therefore, it is seen as important to discover and understand these meanings and the contextual factors that influence, determine and affect the interpretations reached by different individuals. Intepretivists consider that there are multiple realities (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Since all knowledge is relative to the knower interpretivists aim to work alongside others as they make sense of, draw meaning from and create their realities in order to understand their points of view, and to interpret these experiences in the context of the researchers academic experience (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006), and hence is inductive or theory building.

Realism
Born from a frustration that positivism was over-deterministic (in that there is little room for choice due to the causal nature of universal laws) and that constructivism was so totally relativist (and hence highly contextual), realism takes aspects from both positivist and interpretivist positions. It holds that real structures exist independent of human consciousness, but that knowledge is socially created, with Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007) contending that our knowledge of reality is a result of social conditioning. According to Blaikie (1993), whilst realism is concerned with what kinds of things there are, and how these things behave, it accepts that reality may exist in spite of science or observation, and so there is validity in recognizing realities that are simply claimed to exist or act, whether proven or not. In common with intepretivist positions, realism recognizes that natural and social sciences are different, and that social reality is pre-interpreted, however realists, in line with the positivist position also hold that science must be empirically-based, rational and objective and so it argues that social objects may be studied scientifically as social objects, not simply through language and discourse.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches.
4

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach. In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. Conclusion This paper has provided a descriptive analysis of the philosophies of positivism and postpositivist thinking in relation to research methodology, and has identified the main elements of both approaches. Positivism adopts a clear quantitative approach to investigating phenomena as opposed to post-positivist approaches, which aim to describe and explore in depth phenomena from a qualitative perspective. As already stated, while quantitative and qualitative research methods are often seen as opposing and polarized views, they are frequently used in conjunction with one another. According to some scholars the distinction between the philosophies is overstated (Webb 1989) and triangulation of methods in current day research is common (Polit 2001).

References
Flowers, P. (2009, January) Research Philosophies Importance and Relevance. Retrieved From Leading Learning and Change Cranfield School of Management website:

http://www.networkedcranfield.com/cell/Assigment%20Submissions/research%20philos ophy%20-%20issue%201%20-%20final.pdf Crossan, F. Research philosophy: towards an understanding. Nurses Research, 11(1). Retrieved From http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/hrosenba/www/Research/methods/crossan_resphilo.pdf Clarke AM (1998) The qualitative-quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post-positivism and reconciliation. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 27, 6, 1242-1249. Easterby-Smith, M. et al (1997) Management Research: an Introduction. London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. Polit, D.F. et al (2001) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilisation. Philadelphia, Lippincott. Proctor, S. (1998) Linking philosophy and method in the research process: the case for realism. Nurse Researcher. 5, 4, 73-90. Smith, M.J. (1998) Social Science in Question. London, England: SAGE Publications. Hatch, M. J. and Cunliffe, A. L. (2006), Organization Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2003), The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (2nd ed.). (pp. 1-45) California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall Financial Times.