Wade Abbott
Week 5 ADMN 502A-01
Lecture Notes – October 5th, 2010
Wiki Feedback
-
Wiki last week was too succinct. Went with too much flair, not enough substance.
Scoping Review Feedback
-
For scoping reviews some of the grading rubric requirements fell out of the Agreements of
Research.
Groups did poorly in following APA.
Methodology was not well defined.
Scope was not rationalized.
Revisions will need to be done on the group discussion forums to make sure that it meets the
requirements for the grading rubric. The initial grades will not be the grades given.
The issue is between the groups and the professor, not between us and our clients.
The feedback will be posted on the discussion forums later today (It has already been posted)
Part I: Presentation o: Workshop on Outlines and Annotated Bibliographies.
Introduction:
-
The workshop will teach us how to put together our literature.
When draft outlines are submitted we will have a workshop similar to with the Agreement of
Research.
Organize your literature review not by article, but by the themes of the whole.
Can be organized by common themes and sub-questions and common practises and gaps in the
research.
Need to determine what lens or theme you will use for your literature review.
Paper activity
-
Note taking pause to do exercise
Writing Centre Tips for Fresher Writing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Put subject and web together
Avoid Empty subjects (avoid it, this etc.)
Don’t Hide your verb (have verbs up front, not at the end of the sentence.)
Don’t hide your point (clearly lay out the purpose of your paragraph and what you will prove)
Eliminate unnecessary words
Avoid redundant pairs and categories (past history etc)
7.
8.
9.
10.
Avoid casual language (Dude those verbs are like totally conjugated)
Avoid clichés
Avoid wordiness (we have formed an agreement  we agree)
Have a flow of logic (do your premises and arguments lead to the conclusion/recommendation)
Part II: Philosophical Assumptions Underpinning research
Introduction
-
Do the readings!
Use the Reading Note to help you understand terms and ideas from the readings
An understanding of the philosophy of research will help you to work in interdisciplinary teams that
are conducting research.
Example: Interdisciplinary project to determine the effectiveness of homelessness initiatives.
Project called for qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative looked at the narratives of
everyday life for the homelessness. Quantitative looked at differences in outcomes. The project ran
into problems because the two research paths were operating on different assumptions.
Relevance of research philosophy to applied research
-
Basic knowledge of research philosophy makes working in interdisciplinary teams easier.
-
Major interest among applied researchers & policy makers in combining qualitative & quantitative
methods.
-
Argued that qualitative & quantitative are complementary.
-
They can be but only if careful thought is given to the underlying research philosophy.
-
Homeless research example.
-
Key point: applied research projects require attention to research philosophy.
Lecture Overview
-
-
Aim of lecture
o Approach in this lecture
o Learning outcomes
Meta terminology
o Epistemology, paradigm and other common terms
Four key epistemologies
o Positivism & post positivism
o Hermeneutics
o Post-structuralism
Approach in this lecture
-
Do not give you a set list of terms and definitions.
Do not show how terms fit neatly together
INSTEAD
Help you negotiate the ways researchers use different terms to discuss similar concepts.
Learning Outcomes
-
After this lecture and the week’s readings you will be:
Familiar with the vocabulary used to discuss philosophical assumptions underpinning research.
Understand the key assumptions underpinning four major epistemologies (positivism, postpositivism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism).
Be able to identify which of the four major epistemologies a piece of applied research falls into.
Meta-Terminology:
Epistemology
-
-
-
-
Theories of knowledge, how we know what we know.
1. Epistemology Branch of philosophy that critically examines the nature, limits and validity of
knowledge, and the difference between knowledge and belief. -- World Encyclopaedia. Oxford
Reference Online.
2. Epistemology The theory of knowledge. Its central questions include the origin of knowledge;
the place of experience in generating knowledge, and the place of reason in doing so; the
relationship between knowledge and certainty, and between knowledge and the impossibility of
error; the possibility of universal scepticism; and the changing forms of knowledge that arise from
new conceptualizations of the world. -- The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University
Press.
3. Epistemology The philosophical theory of knowledge—of how we know what we know.
Epistemology is generally characterized by a division between two competing schools of thought:
rationalism and empiricism. -- A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press.
Key point: epistemology is about theories of knowledge but exact definition varies between
disciplines.
o There are some commonalities but each definition will vary.
Paradigms
-
-
1. “a basic set of beliefs that guides action” Concern as researchers is with “paradigms that guide
disciplined inquiry”
o Paradigms can be characterized by the way they answer three basic questions:
o Ontological: what is the nature of reality?
o Epistemological: what is the relationship between the inquirer and knowledge?
o Methodological: How should the inquirer go about finding out knowledge? (Guba)
2. “A paradigm is a major category of perspective, an orientation in thinking, a worldview.”
Two major paradigms:
-
o 1) scientific paradigm associated with scientific method
o 2) humanistic paradigm associated with hermeneutic method (Michrina & Richards)
Key point: paradigm is a belief or view that guides thinking and research. Often overlap in how
paradigm and epistemology is defined, ie Guba’s definition of paradigm is close to the Oxford
diction of philosophy definition of epistemology.
Other common terms
-
Theory Hutchinson & Eveline (Workplace bullying) & Weedon
Framework Hutchinson & Eveline (Workplace bullying)
Approach - (post-structuralist) approach. Hutchinson & Eveline (Workplace bullying) & (neoFoucauldian governmentality) approach. McCann
Methodology - Hutchinson & Eveline (Workplace bullying)& Hawkesworth
Underlying philosophy- Michrina & Richards
These terms usually have a fixed meaning within any single discipline.
But used somewhat interchangeably across week’s readings.
In part this reflects disciplinary differences.
Two take home points
-
-
The terms epistemology, paradigm, theory, framework, approach, methodology or underlying
philosophy can all be used to talk about the set of philosophical assumptions that underpin any
piece of research.
Key point in all the readings
o Research is informed by a set of underlying assumptions about:
 Nature of reality
 How we can know the world
 How we should conduct research about the world.
Four Major Epistemologies: An Introduction.
Positivism
-
Most common term is positivism/positivist.
Michrina & Richards use ‘scientific paradigm’ and they basically mean positivism.
Realist ontology – “there exists a world out there.”
o It exists whether or not we believe in it
Social world consists of regularities.
o Just as the natural world consists of regularities, so does the social world.
Aim of social research is to discover the world that exists ‘out there.’
Aim is to uncover social regularities (& predict social world)
Individuals in social world may be unaware of these social regularities.
o You cannot rely on opinions from those in the world because often people are ignorant of
the social norms and regularities (e.g. sexual harassment in Australian workplaces)
How do you free yourself from bias?
-
We can study the world objectively.
Researcher must, and can, rid self and research of bias.
Researcher adopts distance from object being studied.
o You want the object to be the same as it would have been if you were not even there.
Researcher uses scientific method.
Ensuring sound results:
-
-
Results are validated through a process of replication.
o You set out your methodology so that other people can replicate your results using the
same methods. If they cannot replicate the results the theory will be rejected.
Incorrect findings will be rejected if they cannot be replicated.
Example from Kitchen Stories (2003)
-
If doing a positivist study don’t steal your subject’s salt.
Post-Positivism
Very similar to positivism. Underline d bits are similar to positivism
-
-
-
Realist ontology – “there exists a world out there” BUT we can only access it through theorydirected research which shapes which facts we observe.
o The theory will determine what you see and what you don’t see.
Aim of research is to uncover social regularities BUT we cannot ever assume the regularities we
observe are universal or will continue into the future.
o This is a major difference between positivism and post-positivism
Ideally we would study the world objectively BUT our research is always directed towards looking at
a particular theory.
Researcher can and should rid themselves of some types of bias but it is not possible to rid selves of
all bias.
o Scientists often cling to existing views and theories even when there are persistent
anomalies, unresolved problems with the theories.
o Always possible to ‘save’ a theory from disconfirming instance by finding some design error
or saying it was a random finding.
 Example: Doctor in Perth determined that bacteria in the stomach caused ulcers,
challenging the traditional view that they were caused by stress. Faced major
challenges getting the theory accepted due to opposition from those who had a
vested interest in the previous theory. Existing views were only changed through
persistence and administering bacteria to himself…
Hermeneutics
-
-
-
Focus on interpreting the social world.
o Term originated from the interpretation of texts
Hermeneutics is similar to ‘constructivism’ discussed by Guba.
No single social world ‘out there.’
Cannot know an objective social reality.
Different social groups have different understanding of social world.
Aim of researcher to understand the shared understanding of reality that group members have.
Do not believe that individuals are unaware of what is happening in their social world.
o Believes that some people are aware of norms and regularities in the social world.
Individuals have a coherent sense of themselves.
o Want to understand what your understating is of the social reality.
Investigator does not attempt to distance him/herself from people being investigated
o In the end you want there to be a match between your description of the social world and
what people in the group say is happening.
Believed that researcher bias is unavoidable but awareness of bias is used in the research processes.
o There will be challenge moments to determine if there is a disconnect between your theory
and what is actually going on.
Validity is determined by the coherence of the description & match between group and researcher
descriptions.
In Hermeneutics there is a split between those who view social life as fairly static and those who
feel that it is more dynamic and constantly changing.
Example: It is clear that it is Hermeneutics when they make it clear that they are using an
interpretative method.
Post-Structuralism:
-
-
There may, or may not, exist a single social world ‘out there.’
However, we never have unmediated access to the world ‘out there.’
We always access the social world through pre-existing language, and meanings and that
fundamentally shapes our view of the social world.
Language and meaning are key objects of research interest.
Subjectivity (our sense of ourselves) and social and policy problems are constructed through
language.
Individuals are not necessarily aware of the way that their sense of self is constructed through
language.
o Policy-makers are also not aware that they are being restrained by certain language.
Individuals do not necessarily have a coherent set of ideas about themselves or the social world.
Language does not transparently reflect the social world.
Meaning does not exist prior to language.
Researchers are concerned with the role of power and struggle in establishing particular meanings
and maintaining their dominance.
Language and meaning change over time and across cultures.