Research Styles

Methods in THEE's Primary Domains can be operated in 4 different ways or styles which are in a hierarchic order. See further architectural details here.

Recognizable labels can be assigned to particular types of inquirers or forms of inquiry in relation to these styles. All labels and suggestions are provisional at this point.

Empirical Method

Data Collectors need simply to α-assert the value of the empirical approach. By contrast, Investigators who control the data and its analysis must β-organise any empirical research project. Once data has been collected, its significance is γ-contested by Statisticians to determine confidence levels, probabilities that findings are by chance. Finally, empirical findings are δ-anchored by the work of Meta-analysts who bring together available studies for deeper statistical and qualitative study.

Analytic Method

Researchers typically α-assertwhat their findings mean via qualified conclusions and speculations. However, a more experienced investigator, perhaps the Project Leader expects to β-organise the analytic effort in light of the literature and a variety of possibilities. This ensures a coherent and reflective "Discussion" section in publications. Whatever the analysis, there will be Critics who γ-contest the conclusions reached. Finally, every field of study provides for Reviewers to δ-anchor the analyses by studying multiple recent papers and creating an overview in the light of earlier studies.

Explanatory Method

Hypothesizors simply α-assert a particular explanation, perhaps as part of an analysis refuting a colleague's conclusions. Experimenters go the next step and β-organise the testing of the hypothesis either to verify or falsify it. Whatever the findings, there will be Theorists who γ-contest the conclusions by drawing on alternative theories. Finally, explanatory research is ultimately δ-anchored by Integrators who check out multiple alternatives and ensure that the confirmed explanation fits within the existing theoretical paradigm.

Dialectic Method

Polarizers simply α-assert the existence of a conflict within the inquiring field. However, it requires a Debater to β-organise the inquiry by clarifying the nature of the conflict and the arguments supporting each position. Adherents to one side or the other γ-contest polarization, typically wishing to nullify the opposition. Insofar as both sides have adherents, the research is δ-anchored by a Synthesizer who explicitly validates both sides and shows how they are embraced within a single larger conception.

Holistic Method

Modellers α-assert holistic research because whatever they see is a pattern of objects in relation to other objects i.e. a model. Designers take models provided or developed and β-organise them to fit particular situations so as to enable specific change or goal-driven activity. Given participants contribute to model development and design, Outsiders with no stake or benefit are the ones who γ-contest validity. Finally, Usersδ-anchorthe model by adopting and applying it on a regular basis.

Formal Method

Formal research starts by a Questioner α-asserting an abstract question or statement deemed worthwhile addressing. Logicians are then required to β-organise the inquiry, setting the proof out in clear steps that permit checking that no rules are broken. The proof should be verifiable, so Verifiers can and must γ-contest the arguments and assumptions. Having passed that test, formal outputs are δ-anchored by .................. and become part of the disciplinary canon.

Contemplative Method

The contemplative method is required when anomalies and issues in the current paradigm are intractable. Only an Iconoclast will α-assert that knowledge is in a parlous state. However, it requires a Genius to be able to look at the world in a new way and β-organise an inquiry. Sceptics quickly arise to γ-contest the new conception. If it passes their tests, then Colleagues emerge to re-state, confirm and further develop the value of the insight.
Example from Physics:Closed The US collegium led by J.R. Oppenheimer agreed that if they could not contest the Hidden Variables paper of David Bohm, which turned out to be the case, then they would avoid any comment or involvement with the paper.

Originally posted: 21-May-2023.