Philosophical Foundations
Key terms
Epistemology
Holistic
Integrated design
Interactionists
Logical positivism
Multimethod research
Ontology
Phenomenologists
Pluralism
Pragmatism
Although you do not have to be a philosopher to engage in the research process, it is important to understand the philosophical foundations and assumptions about human experience and knowledge on which experimental-type, naturalistic research and, more recently, mixed methods traditions are based. By being aware of these assumptions, you will be more skilled in directing the research process and in selecting specific methods to use and combine. Also, an understanding of these philosophical foundations will help you recognize that “knowledge” is shaped by the way you frame a research problem and the strategies that are used to obtain, analyze, and interpret information.
The questions, “What is reality?” (ontology) and “How do we come to know it?” (epistemology) have been posed by philosophers and scholars from many academic and professional disciplines throughout history. As we have suggested, in Western cultures, until recently, there have been two primary but often competing views of reality and how to obtain knowledge. These two perspectives reflect the basic differences between naturalistic inquiry and experimental-type research. Logical positivism is the foundation for deductive, predictive designs that we refer to as “experimental-type research.” In contrast, a number of holistic and humanistic philosophical perspectives use inductive and abductive reasoning, which form the foundation for the research tradition that we refer to as “naturalistic inquiry.” The third view, which transcends the seeming incompatibility of these philosophical positions and provides a sound rationale for using mixed methods, is pragmatism.
Philosophical foundations of experimental-type research
Experimental-type researchers share a common frame of reference or epistemology that has been called rationalistic, positivist, reductionist, or logical positivism. Although theoretical differences exist between these terms, we use the term “logical positivism” to name the overall perspective on which deductive research design is based.
Descartes, a 17th-century philosopher, is often considered the father of Western philosophy. He proposed dualism, an idea that divided the mind and the body into distinct entities. Building on Cartesian thinking, David Hume, an 18th-century philosopher, was most influential in developing this traditional theory of science,1 which posited a separation between individual thoughts and what is real in the universe outside ourselves. That is, traditional theorists of science define “knowledge” as part of a reality that is separate and independent from individuals and that is verifiable through the scientific method. These theorists believe the world apart from our ideas and a single truth are real, objectively knowable, and can be discovered through observation and measurement that, if properly conducted, is considered unbiased. This epistemological view is based on the fundamental assumption that it is possible to know and understand phenomena that reside outside ourselves, separate from the realm of our subjective ideas. Only through observation and sense data, defined as information obtained through our senses, can we come to know truth and reality.
Philosophers in subsequent centuries further developed, modified, and clarified Hume’s basic notion of empiricism to yield what today is known as logical positivism. Essentially, logical positivists believe that there is a single reality that can be discovered by reducing it into its parts, a concept known as reductionism. The relationship among these parts and the logical, structural principles that guide them can also be discovered and known through the systematic collection and analysis of sense data, finally leading to the ability to predict phenomena from what is already known. Bertrand Russell, a 20th-century mathematician and philosopher, was instrumental in promoting the synthesis of mathematical logic with sense data.2
Statisticians, such as Quetelet, Fischer, and Pearson, developed theories to reveal “fact” (elements of knowledge that is considered to be real) logically and objectively through mathematical analysis. The logical positive school of thought therefore provided the foundation for what most laypersons have come to know as “experimental research.” In this approach, a theory or set of principles is held as true. Specific areas of inquiry are isolated within that theoretical perspective, and clearly defined hypotheses (expected outcomes of an inquiry that investigate only those phenomena) are posed and tested under carefully controlled conditions. Sense data are then collected and mathematically analyzed to support or refute hypotheses. Through incremental deductive reasoning, which involves theory verification and testing, “reality” can become predictable.
Another major tenet of logical positivism is that objective inquiry and analysis are possible; that is, the investigator, through the use of accepted and standard research techniques, can eliminate bias and achieve results through objective, quantitative measurement.3–6
Philosophical foundations of naturalistic inquiry
Another school of theorists has argued an alternative position: individuals create their own subjective realities, and thus the knower and knowledge are interrelated and interdependent.7–9 In general, these theorists believe that ideas and individual interpretations are the lenses through which each individual knows the universe and that we come to understand and define the world through these ideas and our unique interpretation of symbols. Furthermore, within these traditions, there is a range of beliefs about the stability of ideas, symbols, and the role of language in communicating or even creating ideas and experiences. These epistemological viewpoints are based on the fundamental assumption that it is not possible to separate the outside world from an individual’s ideas, language, symbol, and perceptions of that world. Knowledge is based on how the individual perceives experiences and how he or she understands his or her world. A number of research strategies share this basic holistic, epistemological view, although each is rooted in a different philosophical tradition.
Although research based on the understanding that there are pluralistic perspectives has gained acceptance more recently than logical positivist approaches, the philosophical perspectives are not new. Ancient Greek philosophers struggled with the separation of idea and object, and philosophers throughout history continue this debate.10 The essential characteristics of what we refer to as pluralistic philosophies are as follows:
In addition to these common characteristics, pluralistic philosophies encompass a number of principles that guide the selection of particular designs in this category. For example, phenomenologists believe that human meaning can be understood only through experience.8 Thus, a phenomenological understanding is limited to knowing experience without interpreting that experience. In contrast, interpretive and social “semiotic” interactionists assume that human meaning evolves from the context of social interaction.8,11,12 Human phenomena can therefore be understood through interpreting the meanings in social discourse, exchange, and symbols. Deconstructionists focus on the primacy and fleeting stability of language, and thus research based on that philosophical thought examines how language both forms and undermines what we know.13 These philosophies therefore suggest a pluralistic, holistic view of knowledge; multiple realities can be identified and understood to a greater or lesser extent only within the natural context in which human experience and behavior occur. To the extent possible, coming to know these realities requires a research design that investigates phenomena in their natural contexts and seeks to discover complexity and meaning. Furthermore, those who “own” or have the experience are considered the “knowers,” and they transmit their knowledge through doing and telling.11
Implications of philosophical differences for design
The previous discussion provided the basic elements of different philosophical positions concerning how we think about and develop an understanding or knowledge about human life. Although you do not have to take a position on the ongoing debate between different philosophical positions, it is important to recognize that by adapting a particular methodology, you are implicitly adhering to a particular way of viewing the world and knowledge development. You may also find yourself gravitating to a particular research approach because you feel more comfortable with it or because it may resonate with how you see the world. How you explicitly or implicitly define and generate knowledge and how you define the relationship between the knower (researcher) and the known (research outcomes or phenomena of the study) will direct your entire research effort, from framing your research question or query to reporting your findings. Let us consider some examples of these important philosophical concepts and their implications for research design.
Suppose that three researchers want to know what happens to participants in group therapy who have joined the group to improve their self-confidence. The researcher who suggests that knowing can be objective may choose a strategy in which he or she defines “self-confidence” as a score on a preexisting, standardized scale and then measures participants’ scores at specified intervals to ascertain changes. Changes in the scores suggest what changes the group has experienced.
A second investigator, who believes that the world can be known only subjectively, may choose a research strategy in which the group is observed and the members are interviewed to obtain their perspective on their own progress within the group.
A third investigator, who believes that language shapes individual perception of reality, will focus on analysis of language communication and its multiple uses, contexts, and meanings within the group setting.
A fourth researcher, who believes in the value of many ways of knowing, may integrate the previous three strategies. This researcher tries to understand change from the communication patterns as well as individual perspectives of the participants and from the perspective of existing theory as measured by a standardized self-confidence scale.
Research traditions
Thus far, we have focused on two primary philosophical traditions that underpin two broad categories of inquiry. We categorize these research approaches as experimental-type and naturalistic inquiry. Within each of these categories are many systematic research strategies. We suggest, however, that for the most part, research strategies fall within two primary research traditions.
The first tradition shares the philosophical foundation of experimental-type research. In this tradition, a prescribed sequence of linear processes (as discussed in detail in subsequent chapters) is designed and implemented.4,6 Throughout this text, we refer to this tradition as “experimental-type research.”
In contrast, strategies that share the principles of a holistic pluralistic perspective or naturalistic inquiry follow a nonlinear, iterative, and flexible14 sequence of processes. Throughout this text, we include these strategies in the tradition of “naturalistic inquiry.”
Each design tradition has its own language, its own thinking and action processes, and specific design issues and concerns. We use the concept of the two traditions throughout this text as a basis from which to discuss and compare design essentials and research processes within the same philosophical perspective and across philosophical traditions. We visit mixed methods later as the integration of these two research traditions. However, because experimental-type and naturalistic inquiry form the basis for what strategies are used in mixed methods, we suggest that one must become conversant in each of the primary traditions to understand and efficaciously use mixed methods.
Experimental-Type Research
Let us begin with the philosophical foundation of the experimental-type tradition. First, remember that logical positivists believe that there is a single reality and that one can come to know it through a deductive process. This process involves theorizing to explain the part of reality about which the investigator is concerned, reducing theory to observable parts, examining the parts through measurement, and determining the degree to which the analysis verifies or falsifies part or all of the theory. Second, a central principle of logical positivism is that it is possible and desirable to understand the world through systematic objectivity and by eliminating bias in our observations. Given these two critical elements of logical positivism, let us examine how each research essential, as it occurs in a linear sequence, supports the tenets of logical positivist inquiry.
After identifying a philosophical foundation, the researcher begins by articulating a topic of inquiry. Think back to our example in Chapter 1 in which disparities to Web-based health information was the topic of interest. We name this step “framing the problem,” which identifies and delimits the part of the “real world” that an investigator will examine. After a research problem is identified, supporting knowledge is obtained by conducting a review of scholarly literature and resources. This research essential discerns how the problem has already been theoretically approached and explained. It examines the extent to which the theory has been objectively and rigorously investigated. The scholarly review of literature and other sources of knowledge therefore provide the researcher with knowledge for developing a theoretical foundation for the inquiry. With this information, the investigator is now ready to propose a specific research question. This question is derived from and builds on previous inquiry, isolates the theoretical material to be scrutinized, and incrementally advances knowledge about the subject under study. The ultimate goal is to predict a part of reality from knowing about other parts. To answer the research question objectively, the investigator selects a research design that answers the research question and controls factors that introduce bias into a study. The design clearly and succinctly specifies all action processes for collecting and analyzing information so that the study may be replicated by other investigators. To ensure that the goals of objectivity and the elimination of bias are met, these actions must be followed exactly as designed. Through data analysis, the investigator examines the extent to which the findings have objectively confirmed or raised doubts about the “truth value” of the theoretical tenets and their capacity to explain and ultimately predict the slice of reality under investigation.
Many designs are anchored in the philosophical foundation of logical positivism. Box 3-1 lists the four major categories of design that form the experimental-type tradition, each of which is discussed in detail in Part III of this text.
