Zonal Differences

Degrees of Researcher Conviction: Y-Axis

Given the personal and social significance of researcher conviction, it is useful to divide up the Y-axis into zones to reveal how the progression of intensity manifests in both communication style and use of relevant convictions. This analysis also reveals similarities in otherwise very different methods.

In the Analytic — Explanatory-falsification zone, the research methods are based on explicating personal judgements in an unprejudicial, non-directive way. The concern here is to avoid convictions entirely or, if present, to put them to one side so as to remain impartial. Researchers here benefit by cultivating a dispassionate and disinterested orientation to their studies and welcoming disconfirmation.
Details:

Zones in the Personal and Task Axes that explain key distinguishing features of the decision methods.

For the Explanatory-falsification method, explication is used to foster revisions of the current consensus position in the direction of truth. So explication is about altering the views of colleagues.
For the Analytic method, explication is used to develop conclusions transparently so that others can check the reasoning. So explication is about clarifying a process for colleagues.

In the Formal — Explanatory-hypothesizing/verification zone, the research methods are based on stimulating personal judgements in a deliberate and useful way. Conviction here is supportive in that the researcher's biases or preferences are evident and instrumental in fashioning the inquiry.
Details:

For the Explanatory-hypothesizing/verification method, the stimulation focuses colleagues on a viable alternative explanation, winning supporters and activating opponents. So stimulation is differentiating and potentially disruptive.
For the Formal method, the stimulation is about demanding greater certainty around a topic with the view that other researchers should accept the assumptions and the developed logical framework. So stimulation is integrative and potentially unifying.

In the Dialectic — Empirical zone, the research methods are based on asseverative personal judgements that have social relevance. Asseveration is an emphatic assertion, so conviction here is directive in developing the study.
Details:

For the Empirical method, pertinent facts are asseverated. Because they are offered as objective and viewed as unarguable ('a fact is a fact'), all in the relevant community are expected to take them into account. Conviction is used to direct attention and shape agreement. So asseveration aims to activate consensus.
For the Dialectic method, polarising values or viewpoints are asseverated so as to expose conflicts or paradoxes. Conviction is used is to direct attention to persistent extreme disagreements within some broader consensus. Even if the ultimate goal is resolution or reconciliation, asseveration aims to highlight conflict.

In the Contemplative — Holistic zone, the research methods are based on illuminative personal insights. If the theorizing is well-formed, those in the wider community may also experience an illumination. Conviction emerges here as essential to the research process. It is compulsive, almost irresistible, and the researcher is likely to appear intense and passionate.
Details:

For the Holistic method, illumination is based on having a comprehensive and coherent model with many interacting parts. It is desirable that all involved see the model's necessity and contribute to its representativeness. Anyone who recognizes the correctness of the model feels a compulsion to use it. So illumination is oriented outwards.
For the Contemplative method, illumination flows from sustaining faith and employing imaginative, even meditative, states to penetrate a puzzling issue. A revelation that relieves wonder and mystery compels acceptance. Whether others understand or accept the process and outcome is almost irrelevant (even if highly desired). So illumination is oriented inwards.

Degrees of Orientation to Consensus: X-Axis

The personal and collegial significance of consensus as a determinant of quality and certainty in inquiry cannot be overstated—even if the rationality of this social process may be doubted. Dividing up the X-axis into zones reveals distinctly different attitudes to consensus and, correspondingly, different qualities of the findings. As with the Y-axis, this dimensional analysis also reveals similarities in otherwise very different methods.

In the Analytic — Contemplative zone, the research methods require no more than a possibility that the findings are meaningful. The findings are developed and presented independent of any consensus, which is viewed as peripheral to the inquiring process. Findings must be able to withstand pertinent criticisms and challenges, especially if there is little consensus on the issue or the existing consensus is being overturned.
Details:

For the Analytic method, findings remain possible if colleagues cannot find any error in the reasoning or evidence used. So possibility is checkable and consensual.
For the Contemplative method, findings are possible if they elucidate previously intractable puzzles or anomalies. Because this is a matter of judgement by peers with their own biases and limited understanding, possibility is contestable and divisive.

In the Formal — Dialectic zone, the research methods require findings to be persuasive. The consensus is relevant insofar as it is the source of issues requiring study and resolution, but not in terms of any pressure for alignment.
Details:

For the Formal method, the research is attempting to get certainty and precision. However, for conclusions to be accepted, the underlying assumptions and deductions must be understood and supported. So persuasiveness is about properly understanding current knowledge.
For the Dialectic method, research highlights conflict and activates debate by evoking and establishing polar-opposite positions within the current state of knowledge. So persuasiveness is about forcing a re-appraisal of current knowledge.

In the Explanatory-hypothesizing/verification — Empirical zone, the research methods require plausibility of findings, and the methods are dependent on consensus as a vehicle and as a supportive research tool.
Details:

For the Explanatory-hypothesizing/verification method, findings are plausible because they are intuitively-appealing and expedient. Often the research and findings are fashionable. So plausibility is social-experiential.
For the Empirical method, findings are plausible because data is data and facts are self-evident and intrinsically consensual—or they would not be facts. So plausibility is concrete-impersonal.

In the Explanatory-falsification — Holistic zone, the research methods generate probable findings that are directly controlled by the existing consensus and are expected to generate an impact.
Details:

For the Explanatory-falsification method, findings are probable insofar as alternatives are meaningful, and the tested hypothesis has a genuine chance to be rejected. No conjecture can be proven correct, but probability can be measured. Here probability is content-focused.
For the Holistic method, findings are probable because a complete model is being presented as a framework that can be immediately applied to situations to enable navigation, intervention or change. Other research methods can be applied to investigate aspects of the model. Probability is therefore context-focused.

If any of these allocations are puzzling, re-visit the TET-plot; and for more detail, review the Research Principles and Research Methods

Next, consider the social control of methods and hence findings.
The horizontal and vertical bands reveal pairings of methods naturally chosen by researchers. Note that these pairings always combine methods that lie on different diagonals: so diagonal qualities need examining first. Then continue to further investigation of combinations here.

Originally drafted: 31-Mar-2015. Last amended 21-Apr-2022.