You are on page 1of 2

Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan

School of Business and Management


Doctor in Business Management

MARIANNE C. SELECIOS MAY 20, 2017


DBM 100.1: RESEARCH METHODS MA. FLORECILLA C. CINCHES,
PHD

READING RESPONSE 1
PHILOSOPHY OF RESEARCH
Source: https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php

The reading started with the concept that : The research process usually starts with a broad area

of interest, the initial problem that the researcher wishes to study. From this I can infer that a clear

personal motivation such as a topic that draws ones interest or curiosity is key to making a good research

or study. Further, a research starts with a problem. A problem in this perspective is something that needs to

be resolved or explained or addressed. Hence, from the above initial statement, I have the initial

understanding that the initial approach to research is having the motivation to find a solution or an

explanation.

From the above-initial realization the researcher has to narrow the question down to one that can

reasonably be studied in a research project. It has always been said that in life one cannot solve all

problems nor can one find all the answers. This is also true to research, thus the author advises to narrow

down the concept by having focus questions. By narrowing down the topic and zoning in on focus

questions, the broad problem or concern is being peeled off with the less important and unrealistic chaffed

off in order to arrive at the core issue that is specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound.

Page 1 of 2
Looking at the hour-glass model, what follows is making observations and analyses, and drawing

conclusion/s and like a full circle going back to the beginning of revisiting the focus questions with the goal

that at this time at the end of the research, the researcher has come up with research. I do believe that

aside from its shape, the hourglass model also tells us of factors such as time, measures, and of

vulnerabilities and element of fragility that comes with research and leads me to the conclusion that

research comes with it am immense responsibility to truth, to integrity and to creating influence and impact.

The paper also discusses about two schools of Induction and Deduction. Deductive reasoning works

from the more general to the more specific. It starts with a theory then narrowed that down into more

specific hypotheses collect observations then eventually a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

Inductive reasoning works the other way. It begins with specific observations and measures, then

formulate some tentative hypotheses and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

According to the author, in research one can do either or both ways. I agree with this. In the quest for truth

or in finding answers to questions, we normally use various if not any means to arrive at our destinations.

Relating this to scientific research, the choice or choices of method would depend on what will work best

according to the objectives and according to the circumstances surrounding the research activities.

Lastly, I would want to reflect on the discussion on Positivism and Post-positivism. Positivism relies on

readily observable data or empirical data in the pursuit of truth. Personally, I am more of the post-positivism

believer. I am convinced that our senses are not everything. Though objectivity is key to finding solutions,

experiences unique to individuals can also be a basis in arriving at answers. At times they could be more

valuable than that which the eyes can see and the pen can record. With this, Research is faced with a

challenge.

Page 2 of 2