TUT1
What are the different research approaches and how do they differ?
What are the benefits and challenges of every approach?
What is meant with ontologies and how can these be connected to the approaches?
o Methods deployed depending on implied ontologies which are ways of
understanding what the world is made of
o In particular, we aim to show that it is legitimate for individual social
scientists to subscribe to different ontologies, depending on the nature of the
things they study, and that the use of methods will vary in accordance with the
chosen ontology.
o There are ontological backgrounds to each methodology
o Different researchers believe in different research objectives (social factors
will not be considered by positivists)
What are possible consequences and implications when you make a choice for a
research approach?
o Research question will differ
o Policy recos will change
o Results might be partial
Chapt 1 Moses
- methods are different from methodologies
- main methodologies here are naturalism and constructivism
- three musketeers of metaphysics: ontology (what is the world made of), epistemology
(what is knowledge), methodology (how do we know/acquire knowledge)
- In this book, method refers to research techniques, or the operational procedures of a
discipline. Methodology denotes an investigation of the concepts, theories and basic
principles of reasoning on a subject. The methodology of the social sciences, then, is to be
understood simply as philosophy of science applied to the social sciences.
- use of methods will vary depending on chosen ontology
- Naturalism: This view assumes that there is a Real World (big R, big W) out there,
independent of our experience of it, and that we can gain access to that World by thinking,
observing and recording our experiences carefully. This process helps scientists to reveal
patterns that exist in nature but are often obscured by the complexities of life. Thus we call
this methodology naturalism, as it seeks to discover and explain patterns that are assumed
to exist in nature + rely heavily on knowledge generated by sensual perception like
observation and direct experience Because there exists a Real World out there,
independent of our experience of it; because we can know that World by careful thinking and
observation in an objective and falsifiable manner; because such thinking and observations
can uncover general patterns and laws that interact in a singular and cumulative project; then
the scientific project is an enormous and singular one. This is an elegant and attractive vision,
but one that would require a great deal more synthesis and agreement among scientists than
exists today, or ever has existed.
There exist regularities or patterns in nature that are independent of the observer (i.e.,
a Real World).
, • These patterns can be experienced (observed), and these observations can be
described objectively.
• Observational or experiential statements (based on these regularities) can be tested
empirically according to a falsification principle and a correspondence theory of truth.
• It is possible to distinguish between value-laden and factual statements (and facts
are, in principle, theoretically independent).
• The scientific project should be aimed at the general (nomothetic) at the expense of
the particular (idiographic).
• Human knowledge is both singular and cumulative
- Constructivism: patterns of interest not firmly rooted in nature but product of our own
making – what we see is subjective and depends upon mix of social and contextual
influences - human agency creates things that have a different ontological status than the
objects studied by natural scientists (social facts like money, human rights) – recognising the
ontological diversity, constructivists draw on more diverse sources and on different types of
evidence
• The world we study is not singular and independent of the observer: the world
includes social facts.
• Observations and experience depend on the perspective of the investigator; they
are not neutral and not necessarily consistent across investigators.
• Observational statements contain bias and can be understood in different ways. •
Even factual statements are value-laden.
• Knowledge gained by idiographic study is embraced in its own right (not as a
necessary part in a larger nomothetic project).
• There is value in understanding, and there can be more than one way to
understand.
- While naturalists try to uncover singular truths that corresponds to one true reality,
constructivists embrace the particular and use their knowledge to expand our moral
sympathies and political understandings. For the constructivist, truth lies in the eyes of the
observer, and in the constellation of power and force that supports that truth. As even our
descriptions of events are not free from the biases that surround us, constructivists hold
little hope of securing an absolute truth: the best we can do is to be honest and open about
the way in which our contexts (and those of our subject matter) frame the way in which we
come to understand
Offermans & Glasbergen, 2017
Positivism (naturalism):
Pros – The policy relevance of positivist research mainly lies in better understanding and
explaining relations between causes and effects. Not only in terms of how certification
benefits farmers (through what kind of variables), but also regarding the extent to which it
does so - Policy recommendations following from positivist research generally refer to
concrete actions at the micro- or meso-level that can be taken up by development
practitioners.
Cons - Although positivists can choose from a wide range of methods, the use of large-N
surveys can be said to be the positivist’s preferable research method. Methodological
problems relate to the intended production of cause–effect knowledge. To specify the impact
What are the different research approaches and how do they differ?
What are the benefits and challenges of every approach?
What is meant with ontologies and how can these be connected to the approaches?
o Methods deployed depending on implied ontologies which are ways of
understanding what the world is made of
o In particular, we aim to show that it is legitimate for individual social
scientists to subscribe to different ontologies, depending on the nature of the
things they study, and that the use of methods will vary in accordance with the
chosen ontology.
o There are ontological backgrounds to each methodology
o Different researchers believe in different research objectives (social factors
will not be considered by positivists)
What are possible consequences and implications when you make a choice for a
research approach?
o Research question will differ
o Policy recos will change
o Results might be partial
Chapt 1 Moses
- methods are different from methodologies
- main methodologies here are naturalism and constructivism
- three musketeers of metaphysics: ontology (what is the world made of), epistemology
(what is knowledge), methodology (how do we know/acquire knowledge)
- In this book, method refers to research techniques, or the operational procedures of a
discipline. Methodology denotes an investigation of the concepts, theories and basic
principles of reasoning on a subject. The methodology of the social sciences, then, is to be
understood simply as philosophy of science applied to the social sciences.
- use of methods will vary depending on chosen ontology
- Naturalism: This view assumes that there is a Real World (big R, big W) out there,
independent of our experience of it, and that we can gain access to that World by thinking,
observing and recording our experiences carefully. This process helps scientists to reveal
patterns that exist in nature but are often obscured by the complexities of life. Thus we call
this methodology naturalism, as it seeks to discover and explain patterns that are assumed
to exist in nature + rely heavily on knowledge generated by sensual perception like
observation and direct experience Because there exists a Real World out there,
independent of our experience of it; because we can know that World by careful thinking and
observation in an objective and falsifiable manner; because such thinking and observations
can uncover general patterns and laws that interact in a singular and cumulative project; then
the scientific project is an enormous and singular one. This is an elegant and attractive vision,
but one that would require a great deal more synthesis and agreement among scientists than
exists today, or ever has existed.
There exist regularities or patterns in nature that are independent of the observer (i.e.,
a Real World).
, • These patterns can be experienced (observed), and these observations can be
described objectively.
• Observational or experiential statements (based on these regularities) can be tested
empirically according to a falsification principle and a correspondence theory of truth.
• It is possible to distinguish between value-laden and factual statements (and facts
are, in principle, theoretically independent).
• The scientific project should be aimed at the general (nomothetic) at the expense of
the particular (idiographic).
• Human knowledge is both singular and cumulative
- Constructivism: patterns of interest not firmly rooted in nature but product of our own
making – what we see is subjective and depends upon mix of social and contextual
influences - human agency creates things that have a different ontological status than the
objects studied by natural scientists (social facts like money, human rights) – recognising the
ontological diversity, constructivists draw on more diverse sources and on different types of
evidence
• The world we study is not singular and independent of the observer: the world
includes social facts.
• Observations and experience depend on the perspective of the investigator; they
are not neutral and not necessarily consistent across investigators.
• Observational statements contain bias and can be understood in different ways. •
Even factual statements are value-laden.
• Knowledge gained by idiographic study is embraced in its own right (not as a
necessary part in a larger nomothetic project).
• There is value in understanding, and there can be more than one way to
understand.
- While naturalists try to uncover singular truths that corresponds to one true reality,
constructivists embrace the particular and use their knowledge to expand our moral
sympathies and political understandings. For the constructivist, truth lies in the eyes of the
observer, and in the constellation of power and force that supports that truth. As even our
descriptions of events are not free from the biases that surround us, constructivists hold
little hope of securing an absolute truth: the best we can do is to be honest and open about
the way in which our contexts (and those of our subject matter) frame the way in which we
come to understand
Offermans & Glasbergen, 2017
Positivism (naturalism):
Pros – The policy relevance of positivist research mainly lies in better understanding and
explaining relations between causes and effects. Not only in terms of how certification
benefits farmers (through what kind of variables), but also regarding the extent to which it
does so - Policy recommendations following from positivist research generally refer to
concrete actions at the micro- or meso-level that can be taken up by development
practitioners.
Cons - Although positivists can choose from a wide range of methods, the use of large-N
surveys can be said to be the positivist’s preferable research method. Methodological
problems relate to the intended production of cause–effect knowledge. To specify the impact
