Method Affinities and Antagonisms

Quadrant Relationships

Methods within the same quadrant, by virtue of their axes locations, necessarily share similar features and so show affinities. By the same token, methods in diagonally opposing quadrants use antagonistic assumptions.

Methods in quadrants on the left (i.e. a lesser orientation to consensus) are similar insofar as they involve theorizing, which is largely a private thinking process.

Theorizers can engage in penetration and abstraction without entering a lab or specialized facility, and usually expect others to do the experiments.

Methods in quadrants on the right (i.e. a greater orientation to consensus) are similar insofar as they appeal to experimenting, whose every detail is necessarily a public matter (at least in principle).

Experimenters can engage in description and interpretation without theorizing. However, some linkage to theory is normally expected by the community.

Ordering Methods

The lower left quadrant contains Formal and Analytic methods. This is the quadrant of abstraction, and it is populated by researchers who are theorizers and see their primary activity as reasoning. The output consists of logical or theoretical accounts.

ClosedDetails

Researchers in a variety of disciplines use these reasoning methods. Ultra-rationalists and mathematicians are most identified with the Formal method-L'6. Philosophy is the discipline most fully identified with the Analytic method-L'2. But most researchers end their scientific reports with a general discussion using Analytic-L2 principles.

The reason is that the Analytic method while less precise, takes much more into account and boosts integration of findings in the wider body of knowledge.

The upper right quadrant contains Empirical-L'1 and Holistic-L'5 methods. This is the quadrant of description and it is populated by researchers who emphasize observation. The output consists of observation-based propositions.

ClosedDetails

The natural sciences, especially biology, are strongly identified with the Empirical-L'1 method, using experiments to collect data under controlled conditions. Much social science attempts to be empirical, but experiments cannot be set up so easily if at all. Empirical researchers either prefer simple models with as few factors as possible, or they vacuum up vast amounts of data. Much empirical research, like surveys, may be rigorous without being scientific in the sense that generalizations are not the goal.

The Holistic-L'5 method emerged as researchers become engaged with social systems. They were concerned to boost completeness in accounts of events, objects or situations. Experiments involve triggering system change by altering a factor in line with the system model, and making further observations to check predictions.

Questioning Methods

The lower right quadrant contains the Explanatory-L'3 method. Here, direct perception of reality is viewed as impossible, and measurements can only be indicators of that reality. So this is the quadrant of interpretation, and it is populated by researchers who focus on controls as the way to compensate for random variation, obviate experimental error, and reduce the intrusion of bias.

ClosedDetails

The upper left quadrant contains the Dialectic-L'4 and Contemplative-L'7 methods. Researchers here typically look beneath the surface of accepted concepts and apparent consensus, and see through disputes and controversies. So this is the quadrant of penetration. These researchers are theorizers but their thinking is broader and involves reflection and use of illogical paths: they can be better described as synthesizers.

ClosedDetails

Society is immensely complicated and permeated by the use of power. This led to the emergence of critical sociological studies and critical policy analysis, which use Dialectics-L'4 as a way to analyse and understand societal processes and structures.

The resolution of dialectic paradoxes and dilemmas often requires the use of Contemplation-L'7, which boosts the immersion so necessary for penetrating into the unknown in a creative way.

Quadrant Criteria

Proponents of the differing methods use differing evaluative terms and criteria. Terms like true, reliable, proven, valid &c are used in specialized ways within particular paradigms, and such uses will not be explained or challenged here. The goal in this Topic is simply to illuminate similarities and differences amongst quadrants.

In the LR Interpretation quadrant, assessments are fairly simple: the hypothesis in L'3 is either falsified or not. If the hypothesis is falsified, then it is necessarily false, but if it is verified, then it is not necessarily true.

In the LL Abstraction quadrant, the outputs from Formal-L'6 and Analytic-L'2 methods cannot be labeled true (or false) because too much is simply postulated or taken for granted. The methods demand rule-based reasoning and avoidance of fallacies. So results may be judged as either right (correct) if rules are followed, or wrong (mistaken) if rules are broken.

In the UR Description quadrant, results are less definitive. They may be more or less accurate or, if the output is very poor, then unreliable. So holistic-L'7 models may fit to a greater or lesser degree. In the case of empirical-L'1 findings, the degree of accuracy may be indicated using statistics like standard error or confidence limits.

In the UL Penetration quadrant, a successful researcher produces a principle or insight or dialectic that is profound. If the research output lacks impact or credibility, then the output is regarded as trivial, meaningless or insignificant, in a word: irrelevant.

Having completed the TET analysis:

Originally drafted: 17-Apr-2015. Last amended 21-Feb-2022