We will walk through a straight forward path to understand what, how and why about research. The contradictory elements of the philosophy termed as objectivism and subjectivism were being subject of a great extent of arguments since the early 90s and finally they came up to a sort of a compromising avenue.
For new researcher we resort to lesser argumentative ground by adopting 'option(s)' that suit their research goal. In fact, many of the scholars proposed combination of the philosophy by adopting tringulation approach. The following excerpt justifies the statement, "... do not worry about epistemology and ontology but about the particular problems they confront from their theories and investigations…If all that matters is that scientists go about their business…using methods appropriate to the problems they have to deal with, then philosophical worries about ontology and epistemology are an irrelevance…There is certainly no reason to feel bound by stipulations about a unified method or a unified ontology for science, for on these arguments no such creature exists (94)."
As Holden and Lynch (2004) concurred, "Central to the questions of "How to research?" and "What to research?" is the researcher's perspective on "Why research?" This perspective is based on the researcher's assumptions concerning the inter-related concepts of ontology, epistemology, and human nature. The science of research necessitates that philosophy is regarded as a crucial parameter to "Why research?" If researchers do not perceive that there is a reality, the utilisation of a nomothetic methodology contradicts their research project's philosophical underpinning. This type of inconsistency is fallacious to research standards, thereby undermining the very nature of the research discipline."
From the article can we still say that the color of mountain purple?
Meet again in the next article.
Amran Awang, PhD.
