Unit 1: Philosophical Foundations of Research

Introduction

Philosophy is separate field of study from the science. However, at the time when modern science was emerging in the 16th and 17th centuries, there was not even a clear boundary between philosophy and science. Today, there is a sub-field in philosophy that is particularly interested in science, known as the philosophy of science.

As science tries to develop a knowledge base of its particular fields, it cannot critically examine itself. Thus, it becomes the philosophy’s job to situate the science within a broader context of a developmental trajectory. In summary, philosophical accounts of science help us better understand what science is about and our relations with the various disciplines within the sciences. Two areas in philosophy are particularly relevant for the philosophical investigation of the sciences – epistemology and metaphysics.

Epistemological Foundations

Epistemology is concerned with the sources of our knowledge and how we come to know about the world and reality. There have been two major epistemological positions about the sources of human knowledge. These positions are known as rationalism and empiricism, and they defend opposing views. Both of these positions have a role in methods of scientific practice.

Rationalism

Rationalism defends the idea that knowledge that is obtained through the senses lack certainty, because senses often deceive us. Thus, our knowledge based on sense experiences can only give us probabilistic knowledge, which could or could not be true in future experiences. However, the knowledge we gain through rational thinking and reason gives us certain knowledge. Thus, rationalists believe reason is the only reliable source of knowledge over the sense experience. In rationalism reasoning is the only way to reach an underlying, certain reality. And, we are given innate ideas by birth, and through reason we can reach certain knowledge based on these ideas.

Empiricism

Empiricism argues that the only source of all human knowledge is the sense experience (observations and experiments). All our knowledge is induced from our sense experiences and sense experience is the only source of our knowledge. There are two kinds of experiences. The first one is the experience of the sensations (lived through sense organs), which is the external experience. The other type is the experience of the reflections , which is the internal experience. The internal experience (reflection) happens as we reflect on the data (or the ideas) we gained from our sense experiences.

Ontological Foundations

Einstein once pointed out that most of us live our lives believing that what we perceive is exactly the same with what really exists in the external world. However, for the philosophers concerned with the nature of reality it is much more complex. Their investigations focus on whether or not the external world and its reality can be objectively knowable by the human beings. After all, human perception is confined to the human sensory abilities. There are two opposing positions about the reality – realism and idealism.

Substance of Existence

When it comes to the substance of existence , realism defends the position that the substance of all the existing things is matter, that is, all things are made of matter. Hence, this variation of realism is known as materialism. On the other hand, idealism defends the position that the substance of all existing things is the mind; thus, believes in an immaterial existence.

Nature of Reality

When it comes to the nature of reality, realist position takes the natural world as the only reality, and refrains from claims about the existence of a superior, ideal immaterial world of ideas.

Methods of Science

We pursue science because science is beneficial. Scientific method is the means by which science achieves theories and develops a knowledge base. Thus, scientific method allows us an opportunity to construct empirically grounded knowledge, at least in the natural sciences. Scientific method, thus, is based on empirical observations and experiments, and measurement based on such experiences is an important part of the process.

The idea of systematic method of science was developed in the 17th century, by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). It is systematic in the sense that it is based on certain rules that could be followed by any practitioner who is interested in replicating a study. Bacon argued that science should be based on carefully conducted observations and measurements of a phenomenon. The method proposed by Bacon is based on inductive reasoning, thus known as inductivism. Inductivism prescribes a purely empiricist orientation to science, because it believes in construction of theories based only on sense experience, thus also known as methodological empiricism. Inductivism is contrasted with deductivism, which is based on deductive reasoning.

Inductivism

In inductivism, the starting point is observations of singular facts, events, or happenings, then expressing them as singular observation statements. An important condition is that the observations must be theory-free in order to prevent contamination of pure facts with a previously accepted theory. These singular facts are then generalized  to cover all cases. This process is called inductive generalization . The aim is to induce the theory from observations of singular occurrences. The logical implications of the theory are then tested against further empirical data gained through further observations and experiments. If these implications pass the test, then the theory is verified/confirmed. However, for a theory to be qualified for verification, the researchers must meet certain conditions: 1) large numbers of observations must be made, 2) observations must be made under different conditions, and 3) not a single observation statement must contradict the generalization.

Inductivism carries the problems associated with empiricism, such as the problem of sensation, the problem of induction and the problem of theory-ladennes.

Deductivism

Deductions was developed based on the work of Hempel and Popper, which is called hypothetical-deductions (HD in short). The HD method developed as a response to the problems of inductivism. In this model, theories did not have to be induced from observations, they could be produced imaginatively as long as they are testable against empirical data. Theories were formulated as universal laws, covering all possible cases. From these laws, scientists would try to deduce hypothesis that are testable against the empirical data. Thus, it was a top-down model.

Paradigm Theory

The traditional accounts of scientific method (the methodological accounts – inductivism and HD) give us an orderly process of science that follows strictly defined procedures. However, Kuhn shows us that science is a dynamic process that includes countless interrelated, circular activities. In Kuhn’s account, these activities are not formulaic, rather they reflect both social and communitarian activities as well as the individual scientist’s creative engagement.

According to Kuhn, paradigm comes prior to any set of activities or procedures and provides the practitioners with the current state of knowledge and practices of a field. A paradigm provides the scientists with the basic concepts, problems, and exemplary cases, as well as the basic assumptions regarding the nature of the world and how such a world can be known and studied, all of which in turn guides the entire process from observations to hypothesis testing. However, Kuhn does not reject the fact that there are several key features to science, such as: 1) empirical observations, 2) generation and testing of hypothesis, 3) construction and testing of theories, 4) aiming to explain, predict, and possibly control phenomena in order to improve the living conditions.

Kuhn approaches science historically, dividing its development into distinctive phases: 1) Pre-science, 2) Normal science, and 3) Revolutionary science. Each phase has its own distinctive practices.

However, overtime, the unsolvable problems start growing and anomalies start to accumulate. Even the most brilliant masterminds can’t solve these problems under the current paradigm. When this happens, the field enters into a phase of crisis (C). Only then, the community starts questioning the basic assumptions of their current theory. And, searches began for new ideas, for new ways of approaching problems; and competing schools of thought starts emerging, each offering their own distinctive views on how to deal with these problems. When this happens, the field enters the phase of revolutionary science (R).

Again, over time, an individual or a group comes up with superior ideas and their ideas begin dominating, thereby paradigm shift (PS) takes place as the previously accepted theory is replaced by a new theory.

Kuhn’s Legacy

Although Kuhn developed his paradigm theory of science based on his work in the natural sciences, his influence reaches far beyond the philosophy of natural science. His fame has been unprecedented particularly in social sciences, there are many important reasons for this. First of all, Kuhn established the idea that science is another social activity practiced by a community of practitioners just like other social activities. It had its own practical purposes and it has no greater claim to establishing an objective reality existing independently of the human beings (this was the philosophical claim in the beginning of the modern science). In Kuhn’s account, science was simply a practical activity with its practical benefits. Kuhn showed that science is simply another communitarian practice with its own distinctive social structure.

The Primacy of Language

In Kuhn’s account, we find the primacy of language, in definition of a field and its demarcation from other fields of study during pre-science phase; in definition of concepts and problems; in formulations of observations, in discussions and reports of the findings during normal science phase; in discussions over the basics of a discipline and the accumulated anomalies during revolutionary phase all of which involves language. We can say language is central to Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. In fact, language comes before any interpretation in the history of science that Kuhn himself provides.

Scientific training in any area presumes competence to a language, to its concepts. Because, the scientific language has to feed from the ordinary language. Thus, in Kuhn’s account we find how a common language of everyday life provides a common background for the scientific practice. From there, we come to see that there are no theory-free observations or reports of pure, objective, unchanging facts, because these things are defined by the concepts and meaning structures of a language in the first place.

Implications for Epistemology and Ontology

We are able to establish a common world, and language is central to this phenomenon. Similarly, scientists establish a common meaning that is shared by other members of their community. Thus, neither our observations, nor our concept or reports; neither our theories are an objective picture of an objectively standing, unchanging reality that exists independent of us or our minds. Our ability to know the reality, and have a common reality is tied with our social and cultural practices, language being a central one. Thus, science is not a distance look at an objectively existing reality. Thus, the traditional accounts of epistemology, both empiricism and rationalism, had deep shortcomings, as they attempted to approach our knowledge as if it was simply gained through individualized experiences or reasoning. These accounts did not consider the socially defined nature of experiences and reasoning, and the central role of language in the process.

Social Sciences

Modern science began in the 17th century with then novel idea that we could understand the nature empirically, through our experiences in it, through observations and experiments. Thus, empiricism was at the root of the scientific tradition. Thus, empirical science rejected not only religious dogma as the source of knowledge about the world, but also rejected the metaphysics. Empiricism ultimately yields to positivism, which reached its peak in the early 20th century in the form of logical positivism. Positivism insisted that only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and such knowledge can be achieved through positive affirmations of theories through scientific method. According to positivism, in order to establish universal laws, observations must be expressed in quantified forms. Social sciences have been heavily based on positivism, and its quantitative approach to the study of social phenomena.

Quantitative Positivist Paradigm

Positivism is a philosophical position, which states that societies or human behaviors function based on underlying laws just like the laws of nature identified by natural scientists. So, according to positivism, discovering these laws is the job of social scientists. However, things started to change by the mid-20th century, when the accepted basic assumptions began to create a crisis, especially with regard to the nature of knowledge and the nature of reality. For one thing, the idea of direct perception of mind independent reality was debunked by the second part of the 20th century. For example, cognitive psychologist Piaget showed human cognition was active in construction of one’s understanding and knowledge of the external world. Piaget showed that individuals were actively interacting with their environments though senses, starting in the early days after birth. Moreover, research on human perception also showed active engagement of the nervous system in conceptualization of external reality. The arguments pointed to a direction that our world is not a world of free-standing, objective reality; neither is reality being projected into our minds; rather our minds were active in construction of our realities.

Qualitative Interpretive Paradigm

In general, interpretive paradigm is associated with the philosophical reconceptualization regarding nature of reality and theory of knowledge, and qualitative methods developed out of dissatisfaction with the ability of quantitative methods to reflect the nature of social reality.

Natural scientists studied the objects of the natural world, which are physical/material things made of atoms, electrons, particles etc. and their interactions are shaped by physical forces, energies etc. So, to speak of the order of their relations in terms of cause-effect is sensible. On the other hand, social scientists study the social worlds which consist of social objects, such as relations, activities and practices, traditions, laws, organizations, institutions and so on, all of which are products of social processes. Thus, the order and structure of the social objects are products of human social processes that are communitarian/social and are based on shared meaning . Further, language practices are central to the construction of meaning, to social activities, and to the shared life forms. As a result, the order of the social worlds is an accomplishment of human beings, of the social actors.

The interpretive position denies the possibility of an observer-independent objective reality. Reality is viewed as thoroughly constructed, by the collective activities and interactions of the members, and interpreted by the social scientist for an audience. Thus, social scientists are simply aiming at reconstruction, or construction of a picture that makes the realities studied accessible for outsiders. Interpretive position is also known as constructivism or social constructivism , because of its focus on reflecting the constructed nature of social reality and human knowledge of the constructed reality.

In summary, the position of interpretive qualitative approach is:

Ontologically : All reality is not given (objective) but constructed. Natural reality is constructed by the scientists, social reality is constructed by the social actors (members) and knowledge of it is constructed by the social scientists who study those realities.

Epistemologically: Coming to know the world is a communitarian practice in scientific practice as well as in ordinary lives. Language is central to acquiring and constructing knowledge along with sense experience and reasoning.

Methodologically: Scientific study of natural reality through measurement, quantified and statistical expressions can be suitable in natural sciences, but for the social sciences they are not appropriate.

İnternational Relations Form a Qualitative/Interpretive Paradigm

Qualitative interpretive perspective, we come to realize that the structure of current relations and the relative power dynamics are not objectively so, rather they are outcomes of social, cultural and historical dynamics. That is, the current reality reflects just the current situation, things could have been ended in different dynamics. The structure of current dynamics reflects current shared understanding among parties regarding their respective statuses and roles, which of course itself is a result of historical events. The functions of international organizations, business connections, political agreements, all are seen as constructed thus can be reconstructed.