Module 13 · 3 lessons

Philosophy and ways of knowing

Free — no account needed to read

Different methods exist because people disagree about what knowledge is.

Why it matters

Learn methodology without this and you apply methods mechanically — and you cannot understand why a respected researcher in another tradition thinks your approach answers nothing.

What it teaches

• Knowledge, belief, truth and justification
• Empiricism, rationalism, and the limits of each
• Positivism, interpretivism, critical realism, pragmatism
• Ontology: what you think exists
• Falsifiability, paradigms and scientific change
• Different perspectives on the same question

When you reach for it

• Somebody dismisses your whole approach rather than your execution
• You cannot say why you chose a tradition rather than a technique
• Two literatures on the same topic seem not to be talking to each other

The common misreading

That this is abstract and optional. It is the reason your methods chapter can justify itself rather than only describe itself.

What this module will not tell you

This module will not tell you which philosophical position is right. These are live disagreements among serious people, and a section that settled them in ten minutes would be lying to you.

Think first

A researcher says your interview study "is not really evidence". Another says your survey "measures nothing that matters". Are they disagreeing about your work, or about something older?

Write down how you would know if something were true. Then ask whether that standard works for "the earth orbits the sun", "she was a good teacher", and "this policy was unfair".

The lessons

• Knowledge, belief and justification — Research produces justification, not certainty. State your grounds and hold the conclusion proportionately. (8 min)
• Positivism, interpretivism, critical realism, pragmatism — Paradigms decide what counts as evidence. Know which one your design assumes, and say so. (9 min)
• Falsifiability, paradigms, and how fields change — A claim earns its standing by what it rules out. Ask what would count against yours. (8 min)

Practise it: Surface the assumptions under your design

Make explicit what your study is already assuming about what exists and what counts as evidence.

1. Write what you think your subject IS — a measurable regularity, a constructed meaning, an underlying mechanism, or something else.
2. Write what you would accept as evidence about it, and what you would not.
3. Name the paradigm those two answers imply.
4. Write the standard a reader should judge your work by, given that.
5. Write one criticism from a different paradigm, and how you would answer it without conceding a standard you never adopted.

What a considered answer tends to contain (not a mark scheme): A considered answer can state a standard it should be held to, and can answer a cross-paradigm criticism without either dismissing it or capitulating.

Use it on real work: Write the assumptions into your methodology

Add the paragraph a methods chapter needs and most omit.

1. Write two or three sentences stating what you assume about your subject and what counts as evidence.
2. Put them at the top of your methodology section, before the procedure.
3. Name the standard you should be judged by.
4. Record the one criticism you expect from another tradition, and your answer.

Reflect

Which of your assumptions had you been treating as simply how research is done?