When compelled to do a module on Qualitative Research a new world opened up as the rigour of a scientific approach in testing hypothesis using a sample of the population was lacking. One starts to use the ' first person' approach and enquiry goes in a rather unregulated manner as one is discovers more and more as one reaches for answers to question that arise as one gets deeper into the problem. Extremely ‘heavy words’ like ‘epistemology, ontology and triangulation’ are common in qualitative research. I could not understand these terms initially till I started looking at their use in the context of research. The module taught me new perspectives . When we do social sciences and population studies one can’t hide under statistics and experiments alone. Qualitative research throws an entirely new angle to enquiry.
Recently I was scanning a medical education journal when I came across ‘Positivism’ and ‘Post-positivism’. Intrigued by yet a couple of new terms and expressions I read more on the subject and became more confused as I learned ‘Positivism’ as akin to ‘enlightenment’. It expresses the meaning of knowledge being not ambiguous but very accurate and certain. It is now clear that by using a scientific approach to explain ideas and theories one could observe patterns of characteristics and determine relationships to established laws that we use in both science and sociology. We know that scientific understanding through theories cannot explain all phenomenon. Newtonian physics is one example. While science attempts to verify concepts using established approaches ( we term it ‘methodology'); positivism also has adopts methodology that is recognized as in scientific experimental models. It is an inconvenient truth that ‘positivism’, like scientific methodology, lends itself to verification, hence concurring with empirical views that scientific discovery potrays.
A blurring of my understanding of the subject further compelled me to ask myself if a ‘positivist’ approach can be 'scientific' in the true sense! The excellent programs on 'National Geography' on TV made me wonder about the following scenario. Does the predator wanting to hunt pick it's victim at random when a herd of cattle pass by. The typical act is 'watch, and then pounce. The defence posed by the herd often breaks down as each animal runs off when danger is imminent and overwhelming, leaving the weakest behind. This common phenomenon, seen as the ‘law of the jungle’ does not afford good explanation as to why 'animals were not born vegetarian! How does this translate to a positivistic approach in research?
I began this discussion in the beginning by stating a ‘heavy‘word-epistemology', which refers to the theory of knowledge, its origin and nature. It is said that the epistemology of positivism is objectivism. Unlike what is done in scientific methodology, in this context one can still evaluate the subject of investigation but without any manipulation of the facts of the case as we would have adopted in scientific methodology. As I related the action of the predator in the wild above, where the weak falls victim, the entire subject as to why this chain of events happens and how the scene impacts on life can be deduced, a fact that positivism explains.
Qualitative analysis hence has a distinct methodology that provides answers to the problem or observation. The approach to data collection is ‘rich’ yet purposeful and it is possible to use various methods to get such rich data; that which cannot be obtained with experimental methods.
Qualitative analysis hence has a distinct methodology that provides answers to the problem or observation. The approach to data collection is ‘rich’ yet purposeful and it is possible to use various methods to get such rich data; that which cannot be obtained with experimental methods.
Oddly in the positivist approach, values and beliefs are not factored into the equation (so that one is not biased). What one is interested in is the generation of new knowledge that can be added on to what is already known. While I ponder over the work of the originator of ‘positivism’, Auguste Comte, I confuse myself in the philosophical approach to life and the dichotomous paths taken by sociologist and scientists. The Quantum Theory threw in a spanner in my rational thinking as it claims to deal with ‘the tinniest thing-subatomic particles ‘. Planck who introduced the Quantum Theory revolutionized physics and paved the way to the understanding of cosmology and answers to naïve questions like ‘ is the moon still there when one is not looking!
Do I see borderless learning where clear concepts of the Theory of Relativity ( explained by a simple formula e=mc2) was supposed to be a break though in physics but not very long after , gets entangled in controversy with the thinking of cosmologist and quantum physicists.
Do I see borderless learning where clear concepts of the Theory of Relativity ( explained by a simple formula e=mc2) was supposed to be a break though in physics but not very long after , gets entangled in controversy with the thinking of cosmologist and quantum physicists.
Friedrich Hegel introduced the dialectic triad of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Basically the approach is logical as when an idea strikes (thesis), we discover more and talk about it, collect data and information and in the process evoke conflicting views and statement (anti-thesis) till we come to a stage of resolution (synthesis). What I am saying is the perplexing expression of facts, ideas and theories that are generated, appear not to make it easy to understand phenomena. We have been taught to fall back on rational ideas and use fundamental knowledge but as our experiences expand conventional education appears not enough to give meaning to theories and phenomena.
An Eastern Philosopher-Thinker correctly stated that ‘no statement about the world is ultimately valid’.
To sum up we need to continue to contend with theories and ideas and utilize various rational means of understanding to explain the happenings of the world. Without quickly resigning to ‘special creation and theology’ we should continue to create a certain degree of dissonance and conflict within our mind so that evolutionary and revolutionary thoughts continue to race though our mind. There is yet no perfect model in this world!
To sum up we need to continue to contend with theories and ideas and utilize various rational means of understanding to explain the happenings of the world. Without quickly resigning to ‘special creation and theology’ we should continue to create a certain degree of dissonance and conflict within our mind so that evolutionary and revolutionary thoughts continue to race though our mind. There is yet no perfect model in this world!
N.Sivalingam
17 Mar 2012
