Philosophical Base

1. What is epistemology and ontology?
2. How do I explain reality?
3. How do I prove to others that my reality is representing truth?
4. What are the tensions between theories, realities and applications?

KEY POINTS

The above questions are big questions that most qualitative researchers (and even quantitative) face when considering their research design. As such, these data need to be analyzed in such a way that other people are convinced by what they found and apply them in their own context(s) or situations. In qualitative terms, the word trustworthiness is synonymous to validity and reliability.

Research Methodologists are still debating which is better in their realm of scholarships, and while practitioners are beleaguered and faced the tension between theory, application and reality. FOr example, around 1960s, the 'scientific method' was mostly used in research, and qualitative research was given little emphasis. The number of scholars across disciplines argues about the practicality of the qualitative method, and they posit that while quantitative research is useful for studying material, physical and natural science, they are not appropriate for social science. In terms of qualitative research, it is more suited for social inquiry.

Therefore, the fundamental of qualitative research must be supported by its philosophy or school of thoughts as compared to quantitative research.

So how do you explain the Philosophy of Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research and quantitative approaches are based on the different epistemological and ontological assumptions;

1. Epistemology: The theory of knowledge, the assumptions, the beliefs that we have about the nature of knowledge. It answers the question "How do we know What we Know? What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known knowledge?"
2. Ontology: It is concerned with the philosophy of existence, the assumptions, the beliefs system about the being and the existence. It answers the questions " What is real (or truth) out there? ", or "Do I know what I know?", or "To what extent am I knowing what is not known?"
3. Paradigms: Is how scholars present reality through the body of knowledge that is often communicated with models, frameworks and considering the factor of epistemology and ontology. Paradigms are often shared by the scientific community because it constituted the collective belief systems and worldview with regard to the inquiry.
4. Methodology: How we create knowledge about reality and relying on theoretical conscious approach towards the data output. Methodology will help support the epistemology.

The Interpretivist school of thought was developed from the criticism of positivism in social science. This interpretivist came from different fields and disciplines. If one chooses to base on the interpretive paradigm, there are assumptions and beliefs to hold on:

a. Relativist Ontology: It assumes that reality is constructed intersubjectively through meanings and understandings developed socially and experientially. What is regarded as true and valid is negotiated and there are multiple, valid claims to reality. (Like the six blind men describing the elephant through what and where they touched)

b. Transactional or Subjectivist Epistemology: It assumes that one cannot be separated from what he/she know. This is opposing the view of positivists where they mentioned that the researcher must purely be impartial (or separated) from the research in order to look at the research. In practice, it is impossible for the researcher to separate his/her presence from interacting (or transacting information) with the environment or participants of the study. In other words, who the researchers are, and how they perceive the world is deeply connected with how they understand themselves, others and the world. Thus, truth is discovered through the interactions and dialogue between the researcher and the researched participants, in a particularly described context.

c. Methodology: Uses the interviewing, the observation and analyses of existing text. Meanings emerge from the research process to describe and explain the phenomenon of research.

d. Ethical Validity: There must be an emphasis on ethical validity, where researchers need to ask if they have done genuine and noble work in creating knowledge to be contributed to the body of knowledge.

e. Substantive Validity: Evaluating the content and substance of the research, or if the evidence is closely and correctly supporting the knowledge. This includes the evaluation of self-bias and wrong conclusions. Critical reflections are needed.

Updated 14.9.2019

References

Bryman, A. (2004). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge. First published in 1988.

Ellen, RF. (1984). Introduction. In RF Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic Research: A guide to general conduct (research methods in social anthropology) (pp. 1-12). London: Academic Press.

Morgan, DL. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1(1), 48-76.

Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Berger, PL & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.

Blumer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cicourel, AV. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Enthnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Stragegies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.

Lyotard, J. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Theory and History of Literature. Volume 10. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Malinowski, B. (1967). A Diary in the Strict sense of the Term. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Schutz, A. (1962). Collect Papers, Volume 1, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. See in particular: "Commonsense and scientific interpretations of human action" pp. 3-47; "Concept and theory formation in the social sciences" pp. 48-66; "On multiple realities" pp. 207-259.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (GEM Anscome transl). Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.