Influences amongst Research Methods
Styles via Pairing
In the course of events, every professional researcher ends up gravitating to a particular research method and developing skills and expertise in it. With success and collegial respect, commitment to the method then follows. Favoured methods vary in accord with issues and disciplines.
A researcher may have secondary commitments to another method. However, I cannot discern a comprehensive set of scientific styles relevant to research that flows from pairing according to Axes zones. This is sharply different to where pairing appears the norm and beautifully reveals distinct leadership styles.
More on Pairing
The usual pairing of methods, one from each diagonal allowing for similarity on either the X-axis or Y-axis, as shown in the diagram at right, does not appear to apply as strongly to as, for example, to Decision methods, and Interacting for Benefit.
Given that the appears to enable every possible pairing, i.e. regardless of axis position (based on material not yet posted), the initial conjectured generalization about combinations of Types shown in the diagram is falsified.
Further investigation of this issue will occur once most of the Principal Typologies have been discovered.
Systems of influence have already been identified in clarifying the significance of location of the along diagonals and within quadrants. However, when a single research method is the focus, influences from most or all of the other various methods can be discerned. These influences are briefly examined below with suggested labels.
Influences on the Explanatory Method (L'3)
The with its requirement of falsifiability was regarded by Popper as the ultimate criterion of science. Popper confronted the positivists' preference for a theory that is likely to be true because of its empirical verification, with a preference for a theory that both explains verified facts and is easily falsifiable. Many leading scientists endorse this position. However, it cannot be effectively applied without inputs from the other .
Popper famously regarded the issue of where hypotheses came from as outside science. Ad hoc hypotheses can be created expediently or intuitively, and almost no thinking is required for a null hypothesis. Far more significant are those original and sometimes shocking hypotheses that emerge from application of the .
Tests of hypotheses involve interpretations because the underlying assumptions do not admit of either concepts untarnished by reality or facts untarnished by human cognitions. To reduce interpretative error (e.g. related to sampling, or multiple measurements), it is necessary to apply statistical models developed via.
The explanatory method tests a specific but not any hypothesis can be specified, only those that possess a theoretical justification. Either it is a constituent of an existing theory deemed acceptable via , or it has implications for an alternative theory that is analytically coherent.
The can inject a challenge to the explanatory method by identifying a hypothesis that is the opposite of a verified hypothesis that is given credence because it is not yet falsified.
The is unavoidably influential because it provides a grounding for all research. Its contribution here is to demand that all data be of good quality and indicate valid concepts. Prior to hypothesis-testing, scientists may perform separate empirical studies to provide evidence that measurements of the indicators to be used in the test are reliable and valid.
The reveals the many factors that make up any system under study. By contrast hypothesis-testing typically examines just two or (at most) a few factors. Excluded factors must be controlled for and modelling contributes to the choice of essential controls.
See "Influences from" the Explanatory Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Analytic Method (L'2)
The is absolutely fundamental to all research, because it is not possible to conduct research whose content is meaningful without frameworks of ideas that serve as the context that provides meaning.
Analytic research can provide richer deeper frameworks that ensure conceptual clarity. Established concepts do not need to get inputs from other methods because their violation would mean that the research makes no sense.
However, reasoned analyses are subject to influence from other methods which can challenge their meaning and validity. Some analyses draw more on theorizing methods, while others draw more on experimental methods.
In regard to theorizing:
The is activated to include new paradigms or innovative theories into an analysis that seem otherwise unsatisfactory.
The may be drawn upon to provide criteria for precision or to introduce relevant theorems that assist in drawing conclusions.
Example:
The addresses a polarization within existing knowledge that often confuses the scientific community and therefore directly confronts analytic inquiries.
Example:
In regard to experimenting:
The famously displaced philosophical reasoning as a road to truth with the scientific studies of Bacon (1561–1626) and Galileo (1564–1642). Reasoning and assertion of evidence were not rejected, but they needed to be buttressed by the application of empirical experimental methods in order to be acceptable.
Recognition of the hypothetico-deductive principle of the is attributed a little later to Huygens (1629–1695). Theories that have been created analytically can be tested. Non-confirmatory test results require attention and may force adjustments to the analysis. It is impossible to invalidate an analytic framework experimentally because of the ease of making such adjustments.More
The , if it is allowed to contribute, does so by generating a concern for completeness in the analytic framework. The analytic method in science appreciates completeness and complexity but may compromise for practical reasons (e.g. to make investigation manageable) or social reasons (e.g. to conform to disciplinary conventions).
See "Influences from" the Analytic Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Empirical Method (L'1)
The provides a foundation for knowledge, but it is nevertheless influenced by the other methods or draws upon them for greater certainty and understanding.
The may be used to provide mathematical modeling or statistical assessments of the empirical data.
The provides the theoretical framework that determines the credibility of empirical findings. Unequivocal observations that are theoretically unexpected or incomprehensible commonly suffer the ignominy of being dismissed and discredited.
The method provides a more complete view and therefore potentially draws researcher attention to other factors for which more data needs to be collected.
The exposes a confusing polarization within existing knowledge, and this may call for empirical checking to be sure that it exists as claimed and that it is not conditional or artefactual.
The offers alternative explanations for the regularities that have been identified in the data. These alternatives may then point to the value of additional or different data collection.
The can lead to a new way of thinking that generates surprising predictions, which in turn demand empirical verification. The classic example is Einstein's prediction that light rays from distant stars would be bent by the sun. This led to scientists travelling to observe eclipses and collect data.
See "Influences from" the Empirical Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Formal Method (L'6)
The mostly operates in an exclusive fashion. The primary influences on it appear to be:
, which is the only method that can provide inspiration to address seriously intractable mathematical problems like Fermat's Last Theorem (now solved), or Riemann's Hypothesis (not solved).
, which is the only method that can provide a framework of rules that confirms assumptions and deductions are acceptable. Most mathematicians will accept the current framework rather than seeking to work on it.
Additional influences may be provided by:
The , which can stimulate logical thought by asserting that the opposite of any assumption or axiom may be regarded as intrinsically valid.
The , which may stimulate studies that enhance opportunities for practical application. Example: the development of fuzzy logic
The , which may offer the opportunity for testing the validity of propositions or for falsifying theorems e.g. via computer simulation.
The , whose focus on "wholes" fosters a pressure for integration of any formal propositions within a system of propositions which in turn should be part of a greater system until the whole is unified in a dynamic fashion.
See "Influences from" the Formal Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Holistic Method (L'5)
The provides a complete unified dynamic map that can be used for change. In doing this research, other methods get drawn in as follows:
may be drawn upon to provide mathematical modeling of system factors and their interactions: typically in operational research (sometimes called "management science").
may be used in order to formulate a model of the system under investigation in an acceptable and reasonable form.
may be used to test the system-model i.e. does the reality being modeled function as the system predicts? If reality presents itself differently, then the system-map is falsified and the model must be adjusted.
may be used to measure specific factors or forces in the model, which may help develop or validate the model.
may be used to identify and clarify dualities that are always present when personal functioning is part of the system being modeled.
is often required to recognize and properly define the functioning system, because obvious or claimed boundaries may not be correct in practice. Example:
See "Influences from" the Holistic Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Dialectic Method (L'4)
The identifies and penetrates a polarization within existing knowledge that splits and often confuses the scientific community. In doing this research, other methods may get drawn in as follows:
The may enable formalization of the dialectic under consideration.
The may be valuable for formulating the dialectic under investigation in an acceptable and reasonable form. It may be possible to show the dialectic is spurious or that it can be resolved by a rather simple reformulation.
The is commonly drawn upon because it can provide evidence for more than one interpretation of findings.
The may be used to confirm the existence of the two poles. However, the same facts can often support opposing positions.
The typically leads to the emergence of dualities and these need to be expected and addressed using dialectic methods.
The is required to resolve the dialectic if simple analytic reasoning or empirical checking is insufficient.
See "Influences from" the Dialectic Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Influences on the Contemplative Method (L'7)
The engages the imagination to address anomalies, paradoxes or unknowns within the current paradigm. In doing this research, other methods get drawn in as follows:
The may allow for formalization of the insight obtained by contemplation. This mathematization has played an essential role in modern physics as concepts and theories have become ever less intuitive.
The needs to be used in order to formulate the insight in an acceptable and reasonable form—or to reveal that the supposed insight is beset with inner contradictions or a logical fallacy.
The is usually the source of anomalies that do not fit into existing theory, and so provoke activation of the contemplative method.
The may be required to confirm that the anomaly which demands contemplation is actually present and incapable of being explained by existing theories.
The with its focus on wholeness and completeness creates a pressure for unification either within the focus of study or in relation to that focus within its field of inquiry.
The creates an apparent lack of unity through identifying severe theoretical conflicts. This incoherence or inconsistency is often the starting point for use of the contemplative method.
See "Influences from" the Contemplative Method
(for details of each influence, see the relevant "Influences on" section):
Conclusion
The presence of interactions between methods does not necessarily demand the active rigorous use of many methods by a single researcher. Often disparate researchers share a particular focus and debate and study occurs in the discipline rather widely. In the above accounts, the interaction between methods and between researchers is simply revealed as appropriate and usually necessary.
- Back to the review options.
Originally posted: 28-Aug-2015. Last amended 21-Feb-2022.