Page 1 of 70

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 12

Publication Date: December 25, 2024

DOI:10.14738/assrj.1112.17989.

Cibangu, S. (2024). Reconsideration of Research Methodologies: A Look at Major Trails and Concepts. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 11(12). 305-374.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Reconsideration of Research Methodologies: A Look at Major

Trails and Concepts

Sylvain Cibangu

Research Forum for the Unserved

Seattle, USA

Email: fscib@uw.edu

ABSTRACT

Reconsideration of research methodologies becomes a necessity as academic

disciplines and their publications have been proliferating relentlessly in recent

decades. While research methodologies determine the pay-off as well as validity of

academic research across scholarly fields, research practice tends not to verge on

assessing research methodologies. One reason might be that the concept research

methodologies and the like usually come in the form of how-to-do section or book,

leaving discussions to other sections/books of research. Another reason lies in the

fact that research methodologies are seen as mere wordiness or speculation. Yet,

research methodologies furnish the tools with which to best practice research. The

present paper tracked major trails, concepts, and recurrent misunderstandings of

both positivism and interpretivism. The paper did so to allow for sharper

methodological toolkits and keener research.

Keywords: Positivism, interpretivism, situational responsivity, objectivity, hermeneutic

circle, quantum physics, constructivism, Cartesianism, naturalism, science.

INTRODUCTION

Misunderstandings are not untypical of human existence. For example, people tend to think of

the sun as rising at one end of their city and setting at the other, or the moon as hovering above

a neighbor’s tree. Implementation of research methodologies is not exempt from flawed

understandings. Scholarly publications from across disciplines have been receiving

prominence more than ever before due to the rise and ease of communication and information

technologies. At the same time, one most pressing challenge to modern scholarly publications

regards the impact on the world and life therein. Reappraisal or reconsideration of research

methodologies has the potential to produce greater impact for the researched and the

researcher. One of the first steps toward implementing a proposed inquiry consists in the

design and/or choice of methodology conducive to that research. Failure to (re)furbish

research tools to yield desired impact leaves researchers with monotonous, unproductive

work.

Although research methodologies form an integral part of scholarly publication, they represent

one of the least discussed topics in research processes and circles. As Morin, Olsson, and Atikcan

(2021) bemoaned,

Indeed, methodology proper, the logic of how our philosophical wagers about

reality and our concrete research tools link up, is ... rarely discussed. Too often,

Page 2 of 70

306

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 12, December-2024

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

textbooks and graduate training programmes jump directly to methods, taking for

granted a particular methodology and philosophy of science. (pp. 217-218)

One prominent reason for the dearth of discussions on methodologies among researchers is

that researchers tend to center less around methodologies than collected findings and

investigated body of literature. Another crucial reason behind the paucity of discussions

delving into methodologies is an aversion to the concept theory because theory is taken to mean

withdrawal from reality and lack of impact on reality. Theory seen as withdrawal from reality

is best exemplified in so-called applied fields, and to a greater degree in technology or industry- related fields. As Hollnagel (2017) put it well,

The alternative to starting from a model [i.e., theory] would be to start from

practical problems and concentrate on the dominant phenomena that are revealed

in this way. Models should in all cases be minimized to avoid that choices become

driven by the model rather than by practical problems. (p. 48)

As noted above, predilection for practice vs theory is an attempt to enable a researcher’s closer

involvement with the environment/context proper to individuals and/or topic researched. The

idea amounts to that of practice vs theory war, commonly found to fuel disputes surrounding

research process and design. Practice, however deep-situated it might be within a given

context, is not as straightforward as believed, either. The good example is with evil or harm

done to a community or organization. In other words, a person with greater practice in an

organization can cause harm to that community just as much and even more so than anyone

with lesser practice in that organization. This fact confirms the necessity of an ongoing rethink

of the practice(s) implied/followed. As Hollnagel (2017) warned, “The argument [of preference

for practice] unfortunately missed the point that the environments were not given, hence not

beyond our control. On the contrary, both physical and social environments are actually

produced or created by us—by humans” (p. 49). The physical, technical, or applied context of

any field is nothing short of a human creation, not least manipulation or simulation.

Nonetheless, theory equips researchers with a firmer and clearer grasp of reality and the

inquiry thereof. Without theory, humans become robots, objects of given entities, structures,

systems, corporates, and ideologies. As Habermas (1968/1987) propounded,

The only knowledge that can truly orient action is knowledge that frees itself from

mere human interests and is based on ideas – in other words, knowledge that has

taken a theoretical attitude. . . Through theoria, that is through looking on, he [i.e.,

investigator, observer] abandoned himself to the sacred events [of real-world]. (p.

301)

Theory frees humans from the shackles of mere practical interests and needs. Deprived from

theory, scholarly publications become repressive, manipulative, and destructive. Researchers

from strands of all disciplines, engineering, social and behavioral, as well as the humanities,

employ theory to hone their interactions with and forays into reality. By far interesting here is

the fact that the English word theory is transliterated from the Greek noun θεωρία [theôria],

which denotes the meaning of a looking at, viewing, beholding, a sight, a spectacle, show,

contemplation, the being a spectator of games, etc. The Greek verb θεωρέω [theôreô] supplies

Page 3 of 70

307

Cibangu, S. (2024). Reconsideration of Research Methodologies: A Look at Major Trails and Concepts. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,

11(12). 305-374.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1112.17989

meanings such as to look at, view, behold, inspect or review soldiers, observe, contemplate,

consider, view the public games, etc. (Liddell & Scott, 1843/1996). The primary meaning

conveyed by the Greek origins of the word theory is much more practical, reality-engaging than

commonly thought.

Reflections on research and related (mis)understandings are paramount to ensure confidence

in or readability of that which is researched and suggested outcomes. For ease of discussion,

four concepts need preliminary clarification, namely: (1) origins of science in ancient Egypt, (2)

the term methodology, (3) research method, and (4) two major methodologies/paradigms.

Origins of Science in Ancient Egypt

The first concept needing preliminary clarification concerns the origins of science in ancient

Egypt. One trend of sizeable influence asserts science to be an emanation of Western

civilization, nearly tracing back to ancient Greek philosophers in the public place/debate. The

belief of this trend consists of “defining science as a post-Copernican, or post-Newtonian, or a

post-1800 enterprise” (Shank, 2000, p. 7). The belief means that science is identified as an

outcome more or less of ancient Greece or Western civilization that typically emerged at the

close of the 19th century, roughly around the Industrial Revolution. Notwithstanding,

expansive materials, indeed the earliest recorded documents, evidence science to originate in

ancient Egypt (Lichtheim, 2019). Evidently, the earliest recorded materials disprove the

popular description of science as being an offshoot of Western civilization. As Shank (2000)

maintained,

Such a narrow demarcation of ‘science’ is fundamentally absurd and ahistorical. It

is absurd, for it amounts to stating that since ancient science is not modern science,

it does not count as science... [Science] encompasses many species, of which some

are recent (molecular biology) and some extinct (medieval astrology) while yet

others have survived a long history (planetary theory). (p. 7)

Shank (2000) continued, saying,

For example, the 24-hour division of the day; the Babylonian sexagesimal divisions

and subdivisions of the hour and the degree; the Byzantine hospital; the Latin

university; and the Arabic astronomical observatory continue to function in modern

contexts that are foreign to their birthplaces. (pp. 7-8)

More pertinently, in defiance against widespread conceptions of academically performed

science, historian Vrettos (2001) concluded about the ancient school of Alexandria (i.e.,

Pharaonic Egypt in Antiquity) that

This [Alexandria] was a university, consisting of sleeping quarters, refectory, walks

along cloisters or colonnaded shelters with seats for rest and contemplation,

theaters for lectures on philosophy and science, readings of the classic poets and

historians, botanical gardens and animal parks for the study of flora and fauna. (p.

35)