• Every science has its own

ontology, epistemology
and consequently its own
methodologies

• The research philosophy

you adopt contains
important assumptions
about the way in which
you view the world.

• These assumptions will

underpin your research
strategy and the methods
you choose as part of that
strategy.
Positivism
• Positivism was the dominant epistemological paradigm in social
science from the 1930s through to the 1960s, its core argument
being that the social world exists externally to the researcher, and
that its properties can be measured directly through observation.
In essence, positivism argues that:
• Reality consists of what is available to the senses – that is, what
can be seen, smelt, touched, etc.
• Inquiry should be based upon scientific observation (as opposed
to philosophical speculation), and therefore on empirical inquiry.
• The natural and human sciences share common logical and
methodological principles, dealing with facts and not with values.
 Positivism & Post-Positivism
• Positivism holds that the goal of
knowledge is simply to describe the
phenomena that are experienced.
The purpose of science is simply to
stick to what can be observed and
measured. Knowledge of anything
beyond that, is impossible.
• The positivist believed in
empiricism— the idea that
experiment, observation and
measurement was the core of the
scientific endeavor
• Post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of
the central tenets of positivism.
• A post-positivist might begin by
recognizing that the way scientists think
and work and the way you think in your
everyday life are not distinctly different.
Scientific reasoning and common sense
reasoning are essentially the same process.
There is no essential difference between the
two, only a difference in degree. Scientists,
for example, follow specific procedures to
assure that observations are verifiable,
accurate, and consistent. In everyday
reasoning, you don't always proceed so
carefully.
 Positivism Post-Positivism
Fixed entity; Knowable; Variable; May not be ‘knowable’; infinitely
The
predictable; singular in truth & complex and open to interpretation;
World
reality ambiguous; multiple in its realities

Nature of Intuitive ;hunches, metaphorical

Empirical; reductionist
research understandings; holistic-to explore systems

The Has to be a qualified Expert; participatory and collaborative; subjective;

Researcher always objective admit to biases & learn to manage

Defined sets of procedures with

exacting detail; deductive;
The Methods Inductive ; dependable; auditable
hypotheses driven; reliable;
reproducible

Quantitative; statistically Idiographic; transferable; valuable;

The Findings
significant; generalizable qualitatiuve
Working with literature

Research may be done alone – but it is never done

in isolation. The production of new knowledge is
fundamentally dependent on past knowledge.
Knowledge builds, and it is virtually impossible for
researchers to add to a body of literature, if they are
not conversant with it
 Searching the literature
• Explaining to the reader what the problem is that you’re tackling.
• Explaining which approaches have been tried before.
• Explaining why they failed (otherwise it would be solved and no
longer a problem).
• Explaining what your approach will be.
• Explaining the background to your approach (previous work, etc.).
A key aspect of this process is that
it needs to be comprehensive and
systematic
 Searching the literature: what, , what for and how
• for a novice- tools - books and the internet
• Expert researcher knows about books, the internet, journals,
conference proceedings, ephemera, bibliographic databases, and
more
• Knowing about these things gives you several advantages.
• One advantage is that you know how to get a
quick, trustworthy overview of a field.
• Another is that you know where to look for the
most accurate, comprehensive and sophisticated
descriptions of previous approaches.
 Searching the literature: why, where, what for and how
• A general book
• Online encyclopaedias or online introductions
• Move beyond- Review Articles
• The introduction section of a recent journal article on the topic.
• The key articles will probably have been published in journals
• Seminal articles
• Landmark articles
• Example articles
• Straw man papers
• Foundation articles- how will you find them?
Relevance Be carefull about two things :
✔ How recent is the item? 1. What kind of info to look for (relevance & value)
✔ Is the item likely to have been 2. Keep records
superseded?
✔ Are the research questions or
objectives close to yours
✔ Does the item support or contradict
your arguments? For either it will
probably be worth reading!
Value
✔ Does the item appear to be biased?
For example, does it use an illogical
argument, emotionally toned words
or appear to choose only those cases
that support the point being made?
Even if it is, it may still be relevant
to your critical review!
WHERE
 You should be able to answer these questions
• What is the problem that you are • What are you going to try that’s
tackling? different?
• Why is it an academically significant • Where did you get that idea from?
question worth doing a project on? • What evidence is there to suggest that
• What are the main things that have this might work better?
been tried before? (And what has been • If it doesn’t work, will that finding be
tried that not many people know a useful, significant absence, or will
about?) you just look like an idiot?
• Who tried them?
• Why didn’t those approaches work?
 Critical Thinking

• Clear thinking, scientific thinking, organized thinking, the

critical attitude, critical judgment

• Skills in applying, analyzing, and evaluating information

• The term implies a diligent, open-minded search for

understanding, rather than for discovery of a necessary
conclusion (Kurfiss, 1988).
As for the methods of acquiring
knowledge, there are two basic
approaches:
1. Inductive Reasoning
2. Deductive Reasoning
 How do you reach a hypothesis
– Hypothesis is a Logical conjecture (hunch or educated guess) about the nature
of relationships between two or more variables expressed in the form of a
testable statement.

– The hypothesis is generated via a number of means, but is usually the result of a
process of inductive reasoning where observations lead to the formation of a
theory and deductive reasoning where theory is used to arrive at a hypothesis
that is testable, falsifiable and realistic.

– THEORY- Is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and

propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations
among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena.
(Kerlinger, 1986)
 Deductive reasoning
• Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific.
Deductive reasoning starts with a general principle and deduces that it
applies to a specific case Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down"
approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of
interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we
can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to
address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the
hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not) of our original
theories.

Theories are speculative

answers to perceived problems
 Deductive reasoning General
• All humans are mortal. statement
• I am a human.
• Therefore, I am mortal Inference-

conclusion
Problems with Deduction :
1. falsification of hypotheses leads to total rejection of a theory,
requiring a completely new start.
2. The truth of the conclusions depends very much on the truth of the
premise on which it is based.
 Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning works the
other way, moving from
specific observations to broader
generalizations and theories.

Informally, we sometimes
call this a "bottom up" approach.
In inductive reasoning, we begin
with specific observations and
measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some
tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing
some general conclusions or theories.
 Inductive Reasoning

Bacon saw it as reading ‘the book of nature’ – a kind of

uncovering (or discovering) facts-of-nature through
stripping away preconceptions.
 Inductive reasoning
Repeated
• All the giraffes that I have seen have observations
very long necks.
• Therefore I conclude that all giraffes conclusion
have long necks
Problems with induction:
1. How many observations must be made before we can reasonably
draw a conclusion that is reliable enough to generalize from
2. under which conditions should the observations be made so that
true conclusions can be reached?
• Induction -was the earliest and, even now, the commonest
popular form of scientific activity. We use it every day in our
normal lives as we learn from our surroundings and
experiences. We come to conclusions from what we have
experienced and then generalize from them, that is, set them up
as a rule or belief.

• Deduction, as with many philosophical ideas, was first

discussed as a way of reasoning by the Ancient Greeks, in
particular, Plato. Enquiry is guided by the theory which
precedes it. Theories are speculative answers to perceived
problems, and are tested by observation and experiment.
 CIRCULAR REASONING

• These two methods should

be seen as a cycle, with
inductive reasoning
generating a theory,
with deduction and
experimentation validating
or falsifying the theory. This,
in turn, leads to inductive
enhancements of the theory
and more testing.
• ……?….. Reasoning
• Every day, I get in my car to leave for work, at eight o’clock.
Every day, the journey takes 45 minutes, and I arrive at work on
time. If I leave for work at eight o’clock today, I will be on
time.
• ……?… Reasoning
• Today, I left for work at eight o’clock, and was on time.
Therefore, every day that I leave the house at eight o’clock, I
will arrive at work on time.
A hypothesis is simply an educated—and testable—
guess about the answer to your research question.

TYPES OF HYPOTHESES:
1. Null & Alternate
2. One tailed(directional) &
two tailed(non-directional)
 Hypothesis
Sometimes a study is designed to be
• A hypothesis is often described as an exploratory.
attempt by the researcher to explain the
phenomenon of interest. • A single study may have one or many
• A key feature of all hypotheses is that hypotheses.
each must make a prediction.
• These predictions are then tested by
gathering and analyzing data, and the
hypotheses can either be supported
• or refuted (falsified) on the basis of the
data.
• Not all studies have hypotheses.
The precursor to a hypothesis
is a problem, usually framed
as a question.
• The stocks of cod in the north Atlantic are declining
• Problem question -‘Why are the numbers of Cod in the North
Atlantic declining?’
• Scientists must generate a realistic and testable hypothesis around
which they can build the experiment.
• This might be a question, a statement or an ‘If/Or’ statement. Some
examples could be:
• Is over-fishing causing a decline in the stocks of Cod in the North
Atlantic?
 Two Hypotheses
• Suppose , your prediction is that variable A and variable B will be related. Then the
only other possible outcome would be that variable A and variable B are not related

• Alternative Hypothesis : (HA or H1)

• Usually, the hypothesis that supports(your prediction) is called the alternative
hypothesis

• Null Hypothesis (HO or H0 )

• The hypothesis that describes the remaining possible outcomes is termed the null
hypothesis ….
 Two Hypotheses
• Imagine that you are investigating the effects of a new employee-
training program and that you believe one of the outcomes will be that
there will be less employee absenteeism. What will be your two
hypotheses? :

HA or H1 =?
HO or H0 =?
 Two Hypotheses
HO or H0
• As a result of the XYZ company employee-training program, there
will either be no significant difference in employee absenteeism or
there will be a significant increase

HA or H1
• As a result of the XYZ company employee-training program, there
will be a significant decrease in employee absenteeism.
 One-tailed Hypotheses

If your prediction specifies a

direction, the null hypothesis is
the… no-difference prediction
& the prediction of the opposite
direction. This is called a
one-tailed hypothesis.

The term "one-tailed" refers to the tail of the

distribution on the outcome variable.
 Two-tailed Hypothesis.

• When your prediction does not specify a direction, you have a two-
tailed hypothesis.
• For instance, let's assume you are studying a new drug treatment for
depression. The drug has gone through some initial animal trials, but
has not yet been tested on humans. You believe (based on theory
and the previous research) that the drug will have an effect, but you
are not confident enough to hypothesize a direction and say the drug
will reduce depression
• In this case, you might state the two hypotheses like this:
 Two-tailed hypothesis
The null hypothesis for this study is:

HO: As a result of 300mg./day of the

ABC drug, there will be no significant
difference in depression.

which is tested against the alternative

hypothesis:
Notice that the term "two-tailed" refers
to the tails of the distribution for your
HA: As a result of 300mg./day of the outcome variable.
ABC drug, there will be a significant
difference in depression.
 Important thing to remember
• The important thing to remember about stating hypotheses is that you
formulate your prediction (directional or not), and then you formulate a
second hypothesis that is mutually exclusive of the first and incorporates all
possible alternative outcomes for that case.

• When your study analysis is completed, the idea is that you will have to
choose between the two hypotheses.

• If your prediction was correct, then you would (usually) reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative. If your original prediction was not
supported in the data, then you will accept the null hypothesis and reject the
alternative.
 Points to remember!
• A hypothesis must be testable, taking into account current knowledge
and techniques, and be realistic.
• A hypothesis must be verifiable by statistical and analytical means, to
allow a verification or falsification.
• In fact, a hypothesis is never proved, and it is better practice to use the
terms ‘supported’ or ‘verified
• Do not become fixated on proving a research hypothesis –you will
lose impartiality and credibility
• A research hypothesis, which stands the test of time, eventually
becomes a theory, such as Einstein’s General Relativity.