Identifying a philosophical foundation is an important essential that occurs first or in the early stages of the research process. By philosophical foundation, we mean an individual’s particular orientation to how a person learns about human behavior, health, and personal abilities and experiences or other phenomena of importance in health and human services. In Chapter 3, we classify these orientations into two overarching philosophical categories through which knowledge is viewed and built, each of which gives rise to one of the primary research traditions. Thus, the researcher’s particular philosophical orientation toward learning about phenomena determines the specific research tradition that is selected: experimental-type, naturalistic inquiry, or an integration of the two.

In naturalistic inquiry, articulating a philosophical tradition is especially important because of the many distinct philosophical schools of thought that inform this research approach (see Chapter 3). In preparing a proposal to conduct a research study or in writing a report of the completed study, the researcher using naturalistic inquiry usually discusses his or her philosophical perspective to provide an understanding of the thinking context in which the research is conducted.

In contrast, experimental-type research is based on one unifying philosophical foundation—logical positivism. Positivism is a broad term that refers to the belief that there is one truth independent of the investigator and that this truth can be discovered by following strict procedures (see Chapter 3). It is not necessary for an experimental-type researcher to identify the philosophical root of his or her research when submitting a research proposal or a published report, because all experimental-type inquiry is based on a single philosophical base. For example, a researcher trained in survey techniques will naturally assume a positivist or empiricist approach to describe a particular phenomenon. Therefore, it is not necessary for this researcher to state formally the epistemological assumption embedded in the study.

A philosophical foundation provides the backdrop from which specific methodological decisions in research are made. This does not mean that you must first become a philosopher to participate in research. However, you do need to know that research methodologies reflect different assumptions about human behavior, experience, meaning, and knowledge and about how we learn about these phenomena. By selecting a particular research strategy, you will automatically adopt a particular worldview and philosophical foundation. We believe that, at the very least, you should be aware that you are adopting a specific set of assumptions about human behavior and how people come to understand it. Understanding this philosophical foundation is particularly critical because assumptions about knowledge and their use have major implications for how health and human service professionals understand and respond to the diversity of human characteristics.

How does one’s philosophical foundation shape research decisions? Consider the example of a provider who is hired to design and examine a pregnancy prevention program for Asian-American teenagers. From a logical positive tradition, one approach would be to select an existing and previously validated program, or what is referred to as an evidence-based program, and then implement and test it to ascertain its effectiveness in achieving pregnancy prevention for this particular group. In contrast, a naturalistic researcher would begin by discovering the cultural norms and values of Asian-American teenagers that might be important to informing a prevention program and then, based on this knowledge, construct an intervention tailored to that group. Each research approach has its advantages and limitations that you will learn about in this book.

You probably already have a particular philosophical foundation or preferred way of knowing without fully labeling or recognizing it as such. Sometimes personality, or how one naturally views the world, influences the particular research direction that is adopted. If you prefer to make and follow detailed plans, if you feel uncomfortable with the view that values and biases shape one’s worldview, or if you do not like “hanging out” in someone else’s world and trying to uncover his or her perspectives or experiences, you may have difficulty with naturalistic inquiry. In contrast, if you are uncomfortable working with and understanding numerical values or feel that numbers do not capture the complexity of the human experience, you may have difficulty with experimental-type inquiries. Many articles have been written about the personality types of individuals who pursue naturalistic inquiry versus those who pursue experimental-type research. However, there is nothing definitive about this literature. Certainly, all types of personalities are capable of learning the practices of multiple research paradigms. Also, as you will learn, it is possible for one researcher to work out of both research paradigms or to use an approach that integrates the two.