Methods Of Research
And Interventions
Radboud university - Research methodology –
J.Vennix – June 2019 - Dieneke Folmer
,Table of content
Chapter 1 The origins of science ............................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 2 The Scientific Method ............................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 3 A Dominant Paradigm ........................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 4 Quantitative Research: Background ................................................................................... 11
Chapter 5 Research objective, research question and conceptual model ......................................... 20
Chapter 6 Operationalization ............................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 7 Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 8 Data preparation and Scale construction ........................................................................... 33
Chapter 9 Analysis of Quantitative data .............................................................................................. 35
Chapter 10 Qualitative research: methodological background .......................................................... 39
Chapter 11 Qualitative research Data collection and analysis............................................................ 44
Chapter 12 Dynamic theories and models ........................................................................................... 48
Chapter 13 practice oriented research and the role of problem structuring ..................................... 53
Chapter 14 Logic of inquiry and research design ................................................................................. 57
1
,Chapter 1 The origins of science
Until the 19th century they were only two categories of science; natural philosophy and natural
history. Management science is also known as operational research.
Learning and knowing are two interrelated concept. Everybody is capable of learning. Unfortunately
humans are not clear thinkers. An example of debating fallacies;
• Argumentum ad hominem (verbally attacking a person during a discussion)
• Selective perception (you only see the things you want to see)
• Confirmation bias ( is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in
a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses)
Information processing is never neutral.
As a scientist and philosopher you need to have a few characteristics to be successful:
• Curiosity
• Scepticism
• Perseverance
• Thinking
• Creativity
We call the ancient Greeks the first scientist. They were the first to ask the why and create
therefore new knowledge. They were looking for rational explanations on why a phenomena
existed. A few examples of the first scientist of a field;
• Medicine -> Hippocrates
• Biology -> Aristotle
• Math -> Euclid & Archimedes
• Geography -> Eratosthenes
• History -> Herodotus
Greeks made mathematics an axiomatic deductive branch of science. Greek began a lot of studies in
which other scientist even a few centuries later build on.
Plato was an a-priori thinker. This means that true knowledge can only be acquired through
reasoning.
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato. What is observed needs rational abstraction to produce knowledge.
He also laid the foundation for what we call logic.
The Greek attempted to create a fit between theory and observation. Behind that was always logical
reasoning. But why do we consider the Greeks as the first scientists? They discussed the things they
thought or found with each other. Also it was more common in the culture to discuss stuff.
Plato made a distinction between opinion and knowledge. Opinion are about your senses and
knowledge comes from reasoning.
Science had to do with how things are and why, therefore the two foundations of science are
observation and logic.
Epistemology: How we know the world (The science of knowing)
Methodology: how we can have insight
Ontology: How we see the word
2
, Chapter 2 The Scientific Method
There is a distinction in two different types of knowledge; what is the case (descriptive) and why is
that the case (explanatory). There are three general strategies with which knowledge can be
generated: deduction, induction and abduction.
Deduction
Deductive Logic
A deductive strategy works from the universal (general) towards the individual (specific)(start with
the theory, than test it). This means that you are doing research based on a theory and you are going
to research if this is also true for a specific group or object. The most famous example of a deductive
argument is syllogism. It is a form of a argument which consists of two premises (P) and one
conclusion (C);
• All humans are mortal (P1)
• X is a human (P2)
• X is mortal (C1)
The strength of a syllogism is that if the premises are true, the conclusion also must be true. The
weakness of a syllogism is however that the conclusion of a syllogism argument is in fact included in
the premises. Because if you think about it you can reason it from the premises yourself. Formal logic
is a branch of philosophy so it is not concerned whether the premises are true, they focus primarily if
a question is valid or not. The truth of the conclusion relies heavily on the truth of the premises.
You must conclude for yourself whether a syllogism is valid or not. You need to think about the
correspondence with the reality. If it is stated that a dog has five legs and X is a dog then the
conclusion is that X has five legs. This may be a valid argument, the conclusion is not true because
dogs do not have 5 legs.
Deductive ; If P then Q (P → Q)
We can have 4 different situations;
1) P is true, this is called a modus ponens (mode that affirms) if P hold than Q must also hold.
- When it rains the street is wet
- It rains
- Conclusion; the street is get wet
2) P does not hold, this is called denying the antecedent. If P doesn’t hold than Q must also not
hold. But If it has not been raining, it does not follow that the streets are not wet, because they could
be wet because of another factor like somebody washed his car.
- If you are ski instructor, you have a job
- You are not a ski instructor
- Conclusion: you have no job
This is not the case, because you could be a doctor.
3) Q holds, This is called affirming the consequent. Q doesn’t hold. So the streets are wet. In 2 and 3
P is considered a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient one. After all it doesn’t have to rain for
the streets to get wet, and if the streets are wet there are other potential causes for it than rain.
Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent is called “Non sequitur” Latin for does not
follow
3
And Interventions
Radboud university - Research methodology –
J.Vennix – June 2019 - Dieneke Folmer
,Table of content
Chapter 1 The origins of science ............................................................................................................ 2
Chapter 2 The Scientific Method ............................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 3 A Dominant Paradigm ........................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 4 Quantitative Research: Background ................................................................................... 11
Chapter 5 Research objective, research question and conceptual model ......................................... 20
Chapter 6 Operationalization ............................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 7 Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 8 Data preparation and Scale construction ........................................................................... 33
Chapter 9 Analysis of Quantitative data .............................................................................................. 35
Chapter 10 Qualitative research: methodological background .......................................................... 39
Chapter 11 Qualitative research Data collection and analysis............................................................ 44
Chapter 12 Dynamic theories and models ........................................................................................... 48
Chapter 13 practice oriented research and the role of problem structuring ..................................... 53
Chapter 14 Logic of inquiry and research design ................................................................................. 57
1
,Chapter 1 The origins of science
Until the 19th century they were only two categories of science; natural philosophy and natural
history. Management science is also known as operational research.
Learning and knowing are two interrelated concept. Everybody is capable of learning. Unfortunately
humans are not clear thinkers. An example of debating fallacies;
• Argumentum ad hominem (verbally attacking a person during a discussion)
• Selective perception (you only see the things you want to see)
• Confirmation bias ( is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in
a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses)
Information processing is never neutral.
As a scientist and philosopher you need to have a few characteristics to be successful:
• Curiosity
• Scepticism
• Perseverance
• Thinking
• Creativity
We call the ancient Greeks the first scientist. They were the first to ask the why and create
therefore new knowledge. They were looking for rational explanations on why a phenomena
existed. A few examples of the first scientist of a field;
• Medicine -> Hippocrates
• Biology -> Aristotle
• Math -> Euclid & Archimedes
• Geography -> Eratosthenes
• History -> Herodotus
Greeks made mathematics an axiomatic deductive branch of science. Greek began a lot of studies in
which other scientist even a few centuries later build on.
Plato was an a-priori thinker. This means that true knowledge can only be acquired through
reasoning.
Aristotle was the pupil of Plato. What is observed needs rational abstraction to produce knowledge.
He also laid the foundation for what we call logic.
The Greek attempted to create a fit between theory and observation. Behind that was always logical
reasoning. But why do we consider the Greeks as the first scientists? They discussed the things they
thought or found with each other. Also it was more common in the culture to discuss stuff.
Plato made a distinction between opinion and knowledge. Opinion are about your senses and
knowledge comes from reasoning.
Science had to do with how things are and why, therefore the two foundations of science are
observation and logic.
Epistemology: How we know the world (The science of knowing)
Methodology: how we can have insight
Ontology: How we see the word
2
, Chapter 2 The Scientific Method
There is a distinction in two different types of knowledge; what is the case (descriptive) and why is
that the case (explanatory). There are three general strategies with which knowledge can be
generated: deduction, induction and abduction.
Deduction
Deductive Logic
A deductive strategy works from the universal (general) towards the individual (specific)(start with
the theory, than test it). This means that you are doing research based on a theory and you are going
to research if this is also true for a specific group or object. The most famous example of a deductive
argument is syllogism. It is a form of a argument which consists of two premises (P) and one
conclusion (C);
• All humans are mortal (P1)
• X is a human (P2)
• X is mortal (C1)
The strength of a syllogism is that if the premises are true, the conclusion also must be true. The
weakness of a syllogism is however that the conclusion of a syllogism argument is in fact included in
the premises. Because if you think about it you can reason it from the premises yourself. Formal logic
is a branch of philosophy so it is not concerned whether the premises are true, they focus primarily if
a question is valid or not. The truth of the conclusion relies heavily on the truth of the premises.
You must conclude for yourself whether a syllogism is valid or not. You need to think about the
correspondence with the reality. If it is stated that a dog has five legs and X is a dog then the
conclusion is that X has five legs. This may be a valid argument, the conclusion is not true because
dogs do not have 5 legs.
Deductive ; If P then Q (P → Q)
We can have 4 different situations;
1) P is true, this is called a modus ponens (mode that affirms) if P hold than Q must also hold.
- When it rains the street is wet
- It rains
- Conclusion; the street is get wet
2) P does not hold, this is called denying the antecedent. If P doesn’t hold than Q must also not
hold. But If it has not been raining, it does not follow that the streets are not wet, because they could
be wet because of another factor like somebody washed his car.
- If you are ski instructor, you have a job
- You are not a ski instructor
- Conclusion: you have no job
This is not the case, because you could be a doctor.
3) Q holds, This is called affirming the consequent. Q doesn’t hold. So the streets are wet. In 2 and 3
P is considered a necessary condition, rather than a sufficient one. After all it doesn’t have to rain for
the streets to get wet, and if the streets are wet there are other potential causes for it than rain.
Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent is called “Non sequitur” Latin for does not
follow
3
