Plotting the Research Methods

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Analytic method engages in analyses which depend on defined concepts, existing knowledge and accepted styles of argument i.e. no special conviction is required and this places the method in the lower half of the Y-Axis. There are no hard and fast rules about how to argue, but the analysis will have its own natural flow that takes the researcher along. While the enquiry may lead to conviction, the researcher's approach should be dispassionate and disinterested. As a result, the method is placed very low on the Y-Axis.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

The Analytic method is brought into play when the consensus is in trouble e.g. findings have disparate implications leading to uncertainty, confusion, doubt or scepticism. So the method lies within the lower half of the X-Axis. The method can call on personally chosen concepts and evidence and arguments must be allowed to run counter to current views. While attention must be given to the current understanding and popular paradigms, a readiness to break with them is intrinsically required. So the method is placed very low on the X-Axis

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Contemplative method is about engaging the imagination to produce an inspired insight. This means that the normal reassurance from being grounded is absent. What has to replace it is courage and confidence that the spontaneous flow of images and symbols will not mislead. The level of conviction applied may be so high that others perceive continuing engagement with the issue as delusional. Contemplation can persist for months or years without tangible results or social support. So we place this method very high on researcher conviction.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

The Contemplative method is open to generating any finding at all. While aspects of the current consensus may be relevant, that knowledge is used in whatever way suits the flow of insight and intuition. Widely accepted assumptions or knowledge may be rejected as misleading or wrong. Commonly the method is used to deal with anomalies, puzzles and mysteries that do not fit the current paradigm, in which case there is no consensus. So there is a very loworientation to consensus.

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Holistic method requires the integration of many interacting factors and forces to produce a dynamic model. This leaves open many issues that relate to what should be included, what ordering is appropriate, how levels should be structured and so on. In the end, the researcher must make choices based on feeling sufficiently confident or convinced. Others may well disagree and there is no simple resolution. Validity depends on persuasive predictions, but these often depend on accepting and using the model. So we must place this method very high on researcher conviction.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

The Holistic method compensates for the requirement of conviction by appealing to consensus. The holistic model will not be adopted unless the inquirer can build a relevant consensus around model construction. A participative approach is used to permit input from actors, support group communication and enable effective action within complex situations. There is also a need to demonstrate useful correct predictions. So this method requires a very highorientation to consensus.

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Formal method depends on deduction and uses formal logic and mathematical axioms to reach conclusions that seem very certain. So high conviction is not required and the method should be placed in the lower half of the Y-Axis. However there are typically issues as to whether formal methods will succeed or be applicable in practice. So defence of the research and persistence with it requires a degree of researcher conviction and the method is placed closer to the middle of the Y Axis.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

While the Formal method works with widely acceptable axioms, assumptions and deductive rules, consensus in regard to the particular issue under investigation has little impact on an inquiry. This places it in the lower half of the X-Axis. However, suitable topics are well-defined and well-understood, which is a matter of consensus. So whether results substantiate or over-turn expectations, some attention must be given to the consensus view. This method is therefore placed closer to the middle of the X-Axis than Analytic-L'2.

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Dialectic method exposes value conflicts and contradictory claims with the assertion that both opposing perspectives or assumptions are valid in some fashion. Such emphatic assertion depends on researcher conviction, which places the method in the upper half of the Y-axis. However, the synthesis may be doubted, and either of the perspectives might require better formulation. So the degree of inner commitment is less than that required for Contemplative or Holistic methods, and it is therefore placed closer to the middle of the Y-axis.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

The Dialectic method entails a readiness either to ignore the consensus or to confront it as potentially wrong, or to discern two distinct conflicting strands within the consensus. This calls for perception of a bigger picture and it depends on persuasive argumentation. This places the method in the lower half of the X-axis. However, some orientation to consensus is required in order to set out the case and get a hearing, certainly more than is required for the Formal or Contemplative methods, which locates it closer to the middle of the X-axis.

Y-Axis: Researcher Conviction

The Empirical method is focused on organising facts. In practice, there is so much data that may be collected that it is possible to be overwhelmed. Because many extraneous factors can affect what is counted or measured and how facts are extracted and organised, some guidance is necessary. The guiding light that focuses the method has to be found in explicit researcher convictions, which must therefore be on the high side i.e. in the upper half of the Y-axis. However, being grounded in sensory experience, the method is not as open to ideas and beliefs as Contemplative or Holistic methods, and so it lies closer to the middle of the Y-axis.

X-Axis: Orientation to Consensus

The Empirical method is based on the idea that facts speak for themselves. It therefore both assumes and depends on a pre-existing consensus. Researchers fully expect and need others to do similar inquiries with the same method and to produce the same findings. So the orientation to consensus is on the high side i.e. in the upper half of the X-axis. However, consensus is not used to collect data and it is known that inter-observer and inter-study differences may occur. So a concern for consensus is less than that required for the Holistic method, and it is therefore placed closer to the middle of the X-axis.