Research Approaches (Positivsm, Normatism)

Research Approaches

Approach to Research depends on objective(s) of i) research ii) the nature of the problems, iii) method of

analysis and extant of data. But objectives pursued through research are divers. This falls within the purview of

theoretical research. Research may be driven by one of the following objectives or combination thereof: i)

Enunciation of pure theory which generally uses deductive logicism; ii) Verification and validation of received

theory, which needs empirical evidence to support the theory. The research is quasi in this case. It is based on

inductive logicism since empirical evidence needs to be marshaled and analyzed for evaluating theory; iii)

Empirical theorizes, which is based on general or specific evidence. It also uses inductive logicism as the base;

and iv) Policy formulation or/and evaluation of effect of policy. Policy objectives may partly, if not wholly, be

derived from the ideological or religious precepts and/or political objectives of the ruling class. Analysis impact

of policy takes policy as given and it uses empirical evidence to examine the impact/effect of policy on the

given phenomenon. Thus, it needs empirical evidence from the domain of policy implementation along with the

objective(s) of policy that is sought to be achieved. Success or failure of policy is judged by a comparison of the

state after implementation with the state that obtained before implementation. It uses inductive approach. Thus,

there is no single research approach in social sciences. In real life situation, investigators generally use of

different mix approaches. All these are used in social science jointly or separately.

Scientific Approach

All above approaches fall within the purview of scientific approach to research. Approach to scientific research

may broadly be classified into two distinct categories:

i) Positivism; and

ii) Normatism

The classification may, however, not be water-tight. Each of these approach may penetrate partially into the

domain of the other. It may make it difficult to find a scientific investigation, which follows exclusively

purely positive or purely normative approach, especially in social science research. Social science research, 1

like research in natural/physical sciences, follows scientific approach. But the subject matter of social

science research differs radically from physical sciences. Subject matter of physical sciences, except

medical and bio-sciences, deal with life-less innate matter. But social sciences deal with i) society, ii)

institutions/organizations that are man-centric, and iii) human behavior. Then, unlike physical matter,

human behavior is an indivisible integrated whole. The above facets necessitate that social science research

approach has to be different from the approach of physical sciences in details as well as orientation, though

its essence may still be scientific.

Above mentioned two fold broad categorization of approaches to scientific research may be further

subdivided into the following categories:

Types of Approaches

1. Deductive Positivism based on Pure and Abstract Logicism;

2. Deductive Positivism based on Logicism supported by some generic/commonsense evidence and

plausible premises and assumptions;

3. Inductive Positivism based on Logic and General but extensive empirical evidence;

4. Inductive Positivism based on logic and specific/ particular but extensive empirical evidence;

5. Normatism based on some objective standard/values and supported by empirical evidence and logic; and

6. Normatism based on ethical values and supported by evidence and logic.

This classification may be shown by the following graph:

2

Research Approach

PositivismNormatism

3

Ethical values Evidence

Norm/standard objective evidence

Subjectivity rather than objectivity

Deductive Positivism

Base

Abstract Logicism

Inductive Positivism

Base

Logic, Generic evidence

General Evidence

Specific Extensive evidence and logicObjectivity

For understand the basic nature and features of these approaches, explanation and understanding of

positivism and normatism is necessary

Positive Approach

Positivism is objective. It considers facts as they are without any imposition of values or standard external to the

reality of which facts are a part. It addresses the questions what the given phenomenon is, why it is the why it is

and how it cooperates.

First premises and assumptions care formulated either on the basis of experience or generic/commonsense for

furnishing satisfactory answers to the facets of reality covered by these questions, under the positive approach.

Understanding of reality facts under consideration;

Positive approach takes assumptions to be true, needing no testing and validation;

On the basis of premises and assumptions in combination with evidence (induction) it proceeds to discover the

cause(s) of a given outcome. Alternatively, it starts with the given causes to logically/empirically work out the

outcome/ effect of the operation(s) of these causes. The validity of theory is tested taking its assumptions and

premises to be true.

It is neutral between ends. It does not fall within its domain whether the given outcome ought to be different

from what it actually is.

It generally does not lead to policy formulation. Research is that each policy has a priori defined goal and the

goad operates as the guidepost for policy formulation, while the realization, partial or full, of this goal is the

yardstick to measure the degree of effectiveness and efficacy, or success and failure of policy. Such aspects fall

in the domain of normativism. But the effect of factors measures, made operational under policy, may be linked

to the possible outcome by positive approach. This aspect will take policy measures as cause and outcome of

implementation as consequence. This is the function of positive approach. It starts with the consideration of

reality. The laws/theories formulated by positive approach may be universal.

4

Normative Approach

Normative approach, as against positive approach, is value or norm driven. It exams reality not to discover what

its but to evaluate its departure from what is ought to be. The phrase ‘ought to be’ is value located as against the

sentence ‘what it is’ which is value free neutral between different norms or standards.

As against positive approach to research, normative approach takes the core part of theory, that is, relation

between cause and effect as a truism. It tests the validity and relevance of assumptions on which theory has

been erected. Theory is transited to be valid. If it does not apply to some case, it means some assumption(s) is

violated. Therefore, it examines the given phenomenon in relation to what it ought to be, though the, conditions

these are treated are reckoned to be remedied if not conform to norm. Therefore, it evaluates the divergence

between facts and accepted norm or standard.

Divergence maps the degree and direction of remedial measures to eliminate or at least reduce the divergence.

Remedial measures are often initiated under some policy with a given goal. Divergence from the desired state

suggest the extent of gap to be covered. Norms or standards furnish policy paradigms.

Standard/norm may not start with facts, though facts may furnish the subject for evaluation in relation to the

norm/standard or goal of policy.

Norms/standards may be drawn from i) Religion, ii) Ethics, iii) Philosophy, iv) Economic Thought, and v)

Social Thought. All these embody ideological predilections. It is subjective as norms/standards vary inter-

temporally, inter spatially and even inter personally. It may have no universal relevance.

5

Social Science Research and Positivism

The conventional methodology of physical and natural sciences is based on positive approach which uses the

assumption of ‘scientific objectivity’. There is one school of thought that propounds the view that social science

research should use the scientific methodology of physical, or natural sciences, which is based on positive

approach. The following arguments are advanced to support this postulation.

Similarly of Phenomena of Investigation

1) The phenomena studied in social sciences is in no way different basically from natural/physical

phenomena. The twin implications of this premise are that a) social science research methodology may

conveniently be patterned on the positive approach of physical and natural sciences. The above premise

has been propounded by thinkers even in the early stages of evolution of social and economic systems.

The premise was used to develop social laws, applicable to human behaviour and his

organizations/institutions on the pattern of Natural Laws; and b) Operations of social system like natural

or physical systems, are universal in character. Hence, social laws in general and those of political

economy in particular were postulated to be universally true, irrespective of the time-space domain of

the context.

Marshall (1892) posited a corrective to this view through his famous statement that ‘there are no laws in

economics comparable to the exact law of gravitation’, and that ‘economic laws are comparable to the

laws, of tides’ like natural laws, have been treated to be universal in nature and scope. For example,

Ambitions programs of industrialization for economic development and implemented on the objectively

observed fact that the developed countries are highly industrialized. Another example is furnished by the

macro economic models of development of developing countries which emanate from Klien-Tinbergen

schools of thought. If the above view is accepted then it may be inferred that basic objective of social 6

sciences is to evolve such comprehensive theories as are objective, rational and embody empirical

realism and relevance. Methodology was mainly a subject of debate among philosophers and linguists.

So the authors of most of the books on Research Methodology/Methods have used the term ‘Social

Science’ in the context of methodology in an extremely narrow sense. Most of them were either

philosophers, or linguists or at times sociologists by training and profession. Only a few economists like

A. Marshall, J.S. Mill, J.N. Keynes and Milton Friedaman have deliberated upon this issue.

2. Actual research in social sciences, especially in such disciplines as philosophy, economics,

psychology, and to some extent, sociology have mainly used positive approach in investigation. This

evident from the methods of analysis used in investigation. Advent of statistical and mathematical

methods of data analysis has bridged the gap, if any, between social and physical sciences. Both have

now the same methodological orientation.

Laws of social sciences in general, according to the sociologists, tend to be guided by what sociologists

think and do. But sociologists both by training and choice, mix-up positivism with normatism, the

objective being social reforms through changes in social structure as are considered desirable. For

example if caste system is a barrier to social development, it ought to be abolished. Thus, sociologists

err by considering social science to be co-terminus with sociology. In our view, social science is a much

broader term though a unified and integrated discipline of social science still remains to emerge. The

sociologists tend to the concentrate on philosophy but conveniently over look the theory and practice of

research in such disciplines as economics, psychology, and to a lesser extent, management. So the vision

is a bit colored and times even grey.

3. The dominant view of scientific research, emerging from the ‘concept of science’, is that physical /natural

sciences pursue the positivist approach to research. This view dominates the literature on scientific method.

Physical/Natural sciences study nature, that is, the world as it exists. Positivism, therefore, comes into these

sciences autonomously. 7

Positivism in such disciplines as philosophy, sociology and economics is, however, associated with the

following characteristics:

One school of thought considers traditional research methodology of social sciences to suffer from subjectivity

in general and ideological predilections of individual scholars in particular. This naturally denies social science

research an access to scientific objectivity which is associated with positivism. The problem and challenge of

scientific objectivity is still worsened because of the bias of social scientists governed as they are at least

unconsciously by political and social attitudes, preferences and values, even though no particular ideology may

directly be in their conscious mental focus. The problem is further compounded by the intrusion of the fact that

the investigator is also a part of the system he is investigating. It matters much whether one is a follower of

Smith, Marx Milton Friedman, Keynes or Malthus; whether one belongs to a conservative or a radical

communist party (Cf. Narayan, 1983, 51, Also see Bose, 1995, Hargopal and Vanmala, 1983).

4) Epistemology, theory of knowledge of empirical sciences, are bound to use inductive positivism in order to

develop a system of theories and analytical methods/tools and concepts that are relevant for the practices in

real life, and hence, appropriate for application on the basis of abstraction from mundane and non-essential

details so as to focus on pivotal variables/factors. The basic purpose of concepts and theories is therefore, to

explain the state of the system as it is and predict its future state;

5) Social scientists are eager to establish that social science research is objective and scientific in orientation

and it is, therefore, free from bias a rising from value judgement in general and ideology in particular. For

example, as early as 1932, Lord Robbins declared that ‘there is no penumbra of approvation around

equilibrium; equilibrium is just equilibrium’ and that ‘economists are entirely neutral between ends’.

As against this, J. N. Keynes left some scope for historical context and legal framework of the times to have an

impact upon the laws of economics and other social sciences. But he also postulated that theory takes legal

framework to furnish a set of causative factors and what flows from there legal provisions are outcomes. 8

Historical background provides only the material evidence to test or support particular theory and/or base for

the derivation of empirically relevant inferences. For example, Rostows theory of stages of growth uses

historical evidence to support its conceptual framework. Katona used the post second world war changes in

socio-economic structure to construct his behavioral theory of consumption. But both historical context and

legal framework are conditioned by time-space configuration, which is never independent of values/ideology,

institutional framework and problems faced at the given time-space horizon. Thus ideological precepts and

predilections protrude through historical evidence that had been conditioned by the farmer. Mrs. Joan Robinson

(1969) also postulates that ‘man does not live by bread alone’. According to her, man’s existence revolves

round three pivots of life: ‘Bread, Sex and Ideology’ and ‘ideology does embody value judgements’ (Cf. Bose,

p.4). It makes it almost impossible to separate ideological shade from reality. Then, reality itself is part factual

and part perceptual. But vision and perception are difficult to evolve without explicit or implicit intrusion of

values.

Scientific Methodology views a given phenomenon of study as an externally given and exogenously determined

reality. It is embodied in nature. Therefore, the phenomenon is not only the same in time-space domain on the

one hand, but it is also independent of observational errors on the other. This view denies the probability of

observational error to creep into the observer’s measurement or identification. But probability of observational

error is sedum zero. Scientific methodology considers each observable phenomenon to be universal in nature.

Universality makes it independent of a) time domain, b) space domain, and c) observers’ domain. It is,

therefore, free from observers’ bias. Natural/ physical phenomena exist as these are, irrespective of the

existence or non-existence of its observer. Thus, truth is entrapped in nature. But its observation resides in

observer.

The fact is that reality/truth or facts may be subject to a) observational, b) measurement, and c)

experimental/sampling errors.

9

Basic Thrust of Scientific Research

The scientific methodology performs two functions: 1) it discovers the truth. It, however, does not invent truth,

and 2) it facilitates the study, and hence, the understanding of natural/physical world as it exists, which leads to

the explanation and/or forecasting by the application of laws/theories. These laws or theories are developed on

the basis of observed regularities and patterns of operations and/or changes thereof. The data associated with the

operational patterns and regularities are assumed to be universal in character.

If, therefore, social science research to physical science research, social science theory has to be developed on

the basis of understanding. Then it has to be tested on the criteria of its ability to detect patterns and regularities

in social processes and socio-economic changes and explain and/forecast the future changes or consequences

thereof. The socio-economic phenomena/facts have to be discovered, explained and/or forecasted objectively, if

societal/economic studies have to be bracketed with those of natural sciences.

Received Theory Arguments

The theoretical thrusts for explaining configuration and interrelations of various factors involved in social

phenomena may be understood and explained better by looking at the positions taken by specific thinkers.

Therefore, we shall look at some representative view points. D.P. Mukerji (1958) supports the incorporation of

philosophy without leaving empiricism out of social science research. But philosophy is logic driven; its

combination with empiricism will load it with objectivity mixing of inductive positivism with the logical

objectivity of philosophy. Radhakamal Mukerji advocated the adoption of even a wider view of social science

research than D.P. Mukerjee. He highlighted the need for the synethesisation of physical sciences, philosophy

and social sciences into an integrated whole in order to have the fusion of the best empirical rational approach

of the West into the metaphysical and intuitive approach of the East. Thus, he supports the combined use of

scientific objectivity with factualism of empirical orientation and philosophical logicism. 10

As against this the dominant view among Western scholars is that the social sciences should follow the path

traversed by physical sciences in research. This approach focuses on objective rationality in combination with

mathematical abstraction and statistical empiricism to the exclusion of value judgments or norms derived from

ethics. J. K. Mehta not only propounded the theory of Wantlessness (See Mehta, 1956, Prakash, 1968) but he

also brought Indian Philosophy in the centre stage of modern economic theory (A Philosophical Interpretation

of Economic Theory). But he used deductive logicism. Thus, he not only advocated a fusion of Philosophy in

Social Science Research, he himself practiced it even at the cost of marginalization as an economist in the

profession dominated by Western Thought and Theory.

In juxtaposition to the above, stand most of the text books of research methodology/methods, which have been

authored by Western and Indian scholars, who follow the pattern set by western approach. Naturally, most of

the scholars implicitly, at least, have rejected the approach of Mehta and Mukerjee. For example, Shah (1962a,

1962b, 1968) not only rejected the view of contemporary social scientists, he also postulated that sociology is

one of the species of metaphysics and metaphysical investigation, which has no relevant use for the techniques

of empirical sciences. This is an anti-positivist position. But this position is invalidated by the research output of

numerous sociologists.

Positivist Approach

The text books of Research Methodology/Methods, authored by Indians like their Western counterparts, follow

a set positivist pattern and standard. In the first instance, these books miserably fail to conceptually distinguish

methodology from method. Hence, both these terms are used as synonyms. As much greater degree of confusion

prevails among Indian management experts, they not only do not distinguish between method and methodology

but also confuse methodology for a rudimentary statement about ‘data collection’. This is obvious fromt he fact

that the research papers published in most Indian journals just carry a rudimentary statement. Secondly, most of 11

the Indian authors almost exclusively focus on statistical/mathematical techniques/methods of data analysis and

confuse it to be synonymous with methodology. But the use of statistical and mathematical methods is put

forward as the base of their claim for social sciences to be positive empirical sciences. Thirdly, use of the term

social science is not stipulated to connote any one discipline, social sciences are an agglomeration of several

disciplines each of which deal with human behaviour, socio-economic organizations/institutions and society in

their own way. Use of the word social science postulates it to be one single and synthesizsed discipline

comprising some general theory, policy and practices pertaining to society and its constituent economy,

institutions and individuals as an integrated whole. However, when sociologists use the term social science,

they mean their own discipline of sociology, though they implicitly assume that whatever is true for sociology

should hold true for other disciplines. Alternatively, their implicit assumption is that the methods that constitute

methodology are subject/discipline neutral. Either it implies that the same methods are employable in research

in all disciplines which are used in research by sociologists; or that they use the methods which are being used

by others. The books by Sadhu and Singh (1980), Verma and Verma (1988), Wilkinson and Bhandarkar (1979),

Tandon (1979), Agnihotri (1980), Ghosh (1982), Mohan (1984), Das Gupta (1967), Gopal (1964), Rajan

(1968), and Raj (1980) are all an illustration of this approach and the confusion which this approach embodies.

The design, structure, logic, and hence, over all approach to research in all social science subjects are thus

assumed to be the same. This is a stereo type approach to scientific research in social sciences. For example,

psychologists generate lot of data through experiments. But other disciplines of social sciences, including

sociology, do not have access to laboratory experimentation. Similarly, excavations, archives and

historiography are the basic tools in historical research.

Steps in Research

An appropriate approach may, however, comprise all or most of the well defined steps which are listed below: i)

Statement and Explanation of the nature and importance of the problem of investigation; ii) Statement of

objective(s) of research; iii) Formulation and statement of the hypothesis(es) to be evaluated and tested; i) 12

Explanation of the sample design-size and method of data collection, v) Portrayal of the characteristics of

sample or database of the study, vi) Explanation of the method(s) or technique(s) to be used for analyzing data,

and, finally, vii) Presentation of results with their interpretation(s), implications and

suggestions/recommendations, if any ( Prakash, 2003, Cf. Bose, P.R., 1995). Above list of steps involved in

scientific approach to research is obviously neither comprehensive nor all the steps are mandatory in each case.

In our view, first step in the initiation of research is i) identification and choice of the problem of research; ii)

Then, the objectives of research have to be identified. It is in the light of the objectives that the explanation of

nature and importance of investigation with reference to the contribution that the research may be expected to

make to the current stock of knowledge has to be furnished and the theoretical or policy framework of analysis

has to be explained. Then, the stage of hypothesization is reached (Cf. Bose, P.K., 1999). The objectives of

research, theoretical framework, method(s) chosen for analyzing data and even data themselves provide the

basis of hypothesisation, that is, formulation of hypotheses. One may also borrow hypotheses from other

investigations if these have remained tentative.

The issues and problems that research methodology deals with pertain to theory and are deeply rooted in

philosophy on the one hand, and problems of empiricism that relate to i) descriptive portrayal of various

features of the object/subject of study; and ii) application of one or more of the standard methods such as 1)

historical/comparative, experimental method, 2) mathematical methods, specially with reference to abstraction

from details for modeling, 3) quantitative/statistical techniques, or/and 4) non-parametric statistical techniques

of analyzing non-cardinal/ qualitative data. Policy research is an additional item of the menu.

Conventional books present the above as ‘The Scientific Approach to Social Science Research’, implying as if

there is no other alternative approach to scientific research. In our opinion, meaningful or relevant research has

to be a fusion of i) theory, including its philosophical base; ii) methodology, iii) logic, iv) empirical base, and v)

analysis.

13

Research commences with a theoretical apparatus or policy paradigm and it will end with the return to theory or

policy after completing the detour through data, analytical logic and method. At the end, one may be in a

position to reflect upon i) the relevance of theory to empirical reality in the context of the problem of research,

and ii) insights regarding the understanding and explanation of the problem that the results provide. All these

have to be synthesized into an organic and integrated whole. Bose also points out several limitations of

traditional approach. Above approaches assume that ‘the logic of hypothesis testing is the primary basis of

scientific enquiry’ (p.3).

For hypothesis testing itself, one needs empirical evidence/data and technique/method of testing, besides theory

and logic. Thus, logic and theory alone does not suffice for hypothesis testing. Under purely deductive

positivism, the theory, specially its prediction/inference has to fulfill the criterion of consistence with i)

assumptions used in its development; ii) logic used for deducing conclusion(s). Besides, there has to be an

organic link between cause and consequence. But for the empirical validation or verification of theory for its

relevance for reality, theory has to be consistent with observed facts. It may, however, be noted that it is the

responsibility theory. Alternatively, investigators should modify the incrust of general theory to bring it into

conformity with facts. Frequently, data massaging may help in modifying facts to conform to the needs of

theory. For example, in order to eliminate the influence of inflation on income, monetary income may be

converted into real income in constant prices.

An obvious limitation is that this approach implicitly considers all individual units of social system to be

uniformly standardized, which could be encapsulated in such summary statistical measures as mean/median,

regression/ correlation/ contingency coefficients, overlooking all the diversity and divergence from the average

behavioural attributes. In other words, all entities are robots, assumed to function as per pre-program, leaving no

room for divergence dictated by time-space configuration, method and experiences. This was precisely the stand

of classical economic analysis which was challenged by German Historical School in late nineties. This may be

alright for macro/aggregate analysis, where individual traits get eliminated in the process of aggregating or 14

averaging, leaving the investigator to deal only with numbers and to abstract from human behaviour, and/or the

genesis and consequences of decision making at micro levels. But it may not suit the needs of micro studies.

This may also be fine for the beginners to initiate them into the complex knitty-gritty of social science research,

hoping that as they mature as researchers, they will learn to go deeper below the surface in order to extricate

real factors involved in the systems of socio-economic operations and micro decision making processes. The so

called scientific approach is, therefore, quite insufficient by itself. It may, however, be noted.

Bose (1995) also opines that the traditional scientific approach may suffice for the evaluation of data of natural

sciences, which have an access to controlled experimentation. But ‘social variables are often intrinsically more

difficult to isolate and test’ (p.3). In this context, diversity of streams of thought and strands of theory may be

educative. One view of social reality is based on fatalism, whereas another view considers it to be the outcome

of historical determinism. Between these two, lies individual participants in social processes each one of whom

may have a different perception, belief and behavioural propensity. ‘Social reality may emerge as ‘pre

conceived, predetermined and pre-constituted’ to each player in the game. Consequently, ‘a researcher’s prior

definitions, concepts and hypotheses may impose a meaning on social relations, which fail to pay proper

attention to participants’ meanings. We may add another complex element to the above. Researchers are also

constituent parts of social processes. It makes researchers the subject of research itself. This is not the case with

physical sciences. The point is not that hypothesis testing is entirely improper, but an exclusive concentration

on hypothesis testing as if it is both the beginning and end of research may be inappropriate as a description of

what most social science research does and what it ought to do.

Characteristics of Traditional Method

Those, who advocate the use of modern scientific approach to social science research to the exclusion of all

other approaches, perceive the so-called traditional method of research to be characterized by following

limitations: 15

1) Adhocism

The method is characterized by methodological adhocism in so far as it has no standard procedure to follow.

The procedure and sequential steps vary from researcher to researcher and even from one to another problem of

investigation. In this respect, it is similar to econometric modeling in general and mathematical modeling in

particular. There is nothing available in literature by way of standard procedures and steps involved therein,

which may be used as guidelines by those who are not adept in the ‘science and art of modeling’. This is what

explains the existence of numerous models of growth and other econometric models. What is common to all

econometric models is the procedure of estimation of parameters. But methodology neither begins nor does it

end with parametric extimation. Thus, method and its refinement and sophistication will depend upon i)

experience and expertise of the researcher; ii) his/her vision of the problem and its contextual framework; and

iii) status of knowledge at the given point in time (Cf. Rao, 1983, p.32).

2. Subjectivity

Adhocism itself leads to another limitation and it is that the traditional method is quite subjective as it is

dominantly dependent upon three qualities of the researcher that have been listed above.

3. Want of Objectivity

Intrusion of subjectivity into research often leads to the abandoning of objectivity. Besides, subjectivity may

also jeopardize rationality. The method is devoid of scientific objectivity dominated as it is by Normatism rather

than objective rationality.

The traditional research methodology is normative rather than positive. Naturally, this methodology is

dominated by a priori adopted norms/standards and values, which draw heavily from ethics, while ethics may

be deeply rooted in religion and/or morality.

16

One may, however, counter argue that man is not a perfectly rational being. He is a mixed bundle of

emotionality, rationality and ethical morality. Needless to say that his decisions, and hence, choices are

coloured by the shades of all these factors. Disregard of this aspect induced economists to assume men not only

to be rational but also to be selfish to erect the edifice of classical economics of highest degree of abstraction

based on positive deduction. This led philosophers like William Morris to dismiss economics as dismal science.

Social and other organizations, institutions, systems and their structures are all deeply guided and coloured by

all these factors and shades of their inter-mix. The institutions/organizations and conditions surrounding them

tend to i) change through time, and ii) differ through space. This led the German Historical School to challenge

the British classical Economic Thought of eighteenth century. It is well known that the business enterprises also

have their values, traditions and obligations that greatly affect their operational decisions. Consumption

decisions are also shaped and guided by tastes, preferences, hobbies and even fads and fashions. No one

operates in a vaccum. Besides, companies’ brand positioning in the market embodies all these aspects.

Therefore, social science research methodology has to take cognizance of these factors in order to maintain

relevance and remain rooted in realism for their time-space domain.

4. Blurring of Difference between Facts and Values

Another limitation, imputed to tradition research methodology, is that it does not distinguish facts from values.

It implies that the answers to three basic questions of research: i) what is the observed phenomenon? ii) how

does it operate or what is its operational mechanism/process? and iii) why is it the way it is, or what are the

causal relations among different facets of the observed phenomenon are dominated by normative responses,

loaded with value judgments. Value judgments shall focus on questions of the following type: what ought this

phenomenon be? How should it operate? What ought the observed relations be? Such responses push answers to

the positivist questions into background or even oblivion.

17

Research approach, however, need not necessarily be this. A mature and knowledgeable researcher will always

club the normative set of answers under the heading ‘Suggestions and Recommendations’ many of which arise

from the comprehensive view of an objective and scientific analysis. As against this, normatism dominated

approach may revolve around value judgments and opinions of the researcher.

5. Quality Vs Quantity

It is also alleged that the conventional methodology is dominated by predominant focus on quality, which

pushes quantitative aspects into oblivion/ background. This may be true in several cases, where researcher is

either ill equipped to deal with quantitative aspects of the observed phenomenon, or he/she does not possess the

knowledge of numerous methods that exclusively deal with non-cardinally measured variables/attributes.

Numerous statistical techniques are available for i) measuring qualitative facets/features numerically on an

ordinal scale; and ii) analyzing ordinally measured variables/attributes. It may also be noted that numerous

aspects, which were considered to be purely qualitative and entirely non-measurable upto the first half of the

twentieth century, have now become measurable. Many factors/variables/attributes were earlier side tracked in

the analytical apparatus because of the difficulties of measurement and quantitative analysis. Theory of

attributes and association and rank correlation were the first to emerge to fill up this gap. Now the cup has been

filled up quite a bit. Such subjects as political science, sociology and psychology deal largely with problems of

qualitative nature, whereas business management and economics/econometrics are required to deal both with

quantitative and qualitative factors. It is but natural that in some such cases quality rather than quantity shall be

the dominant feature and focus of research, while in other cases, quantitative aspects may be dominant. But this

does not imply the exclusion of rigour or compromise with the quality of research.

6) Imagination and Intuition

18

Imagination and intuition are regarded as the basic components of traditional methodology of research; these

are required to be used extensively in perceiving and conceiving the phenomenon of study at the individual

level of scholar. But this is considered to ‘be essentially disruptive of modern scientific methodology’ (Bose,

p.4, Rao, p.36). This is again a faulty view of traditional methodology. Any research investigation, irrespective

of the methodology used, that strives and seeks to generate new or original knowledge, is bound to draw heavily

from the imaginative and intuitive insights of the scholar. Research tends to flounder and go asunde if there is

no vision or perception to guide (Myrdal). If the popular belief that Newton’s observation of an apple falling

from tree became the basis of formulation of the law of Gravitation is true, then Newton must have exercised

his imagination and intuitive insights into his investigation for understanding the abserved phenomenon so as to

transport it into the formulation of his famous law. It does not imply that Newton was frequently visiting

Orchards to observe the apples fall from the trees. But it does mean that Newton used his intuition and

insightful understanding to formulate the law. It is besides the point that the estimation of the precise value of

gravitational force must have involved deeper investigation. But the first spark was kindled by an intuitive

understanding and insights. Similarly, Eiensteien’s Theory of Relativity would have not been formulated only

on the basis of controlled experiments without intuitive insights. Even if one uses conventional scientific

methodology, characterized by positivist’s rationality and objectivity, without drawing from experience,

existing stock of knowledge and insights, it will lead to mechanistic interpretation of results. We may sight

numerous examples when the traditional scientific methodology would have led us to come out with very

ludicrous conclusions. In a study of agricultural development of the state of MP and its constituent districts,

regression coefficient attached to irrigation was not only not-significant but it was negative also. Should we

have concluded that either irrigation does not contribute to productivity and output; or that it contribution in MP

is negative. The results prompted us to find out the cause(s) underlying this otiose result. As the proportion of

irrigated area under cultivation has increased from 24 to only 26 per cent during a period of 15 years covered by

the study, invariance of the regress or explained these results. When time series data were replaced by cross

section data, allowing high degree of variance among 44 districts, results fell in place. Similarly, in a study of

demand for professional education in Pondicherry, the Ph. D. scholar found that the regression coefficient 19

attached to caste variable (dummy) is not significant statistically. So he concluded that caste plays no role in

demand for professional education. Non-significance, in technical terms, could have arisen from multi-

colinearity. But fact is that reservation in admission eliminated academic handicap due to social factors, keeping

scheduled castes, tribes and other listed castes’ candidates academically less eligible for admission.

Scholarships mitigated economic handicaps of such candidates. Therefore, correct interpretation is that the

policy of reservation in admissions and lower eligibility criterion have neutralized expected adverse effect of

caste on demand for professional education. The researchers’ understanding and competence obviously do play

a decisive role in research irrespective of discipline and research approach.

Different Phases and Stages of Evaluation of Methodology

Like the evolution of the academic disciplines belonging to both natural and social sciences, the Methodology

of Research has also traversed an evolutionary path. The evolutionary time path of Research Methodology

embodies different phases and stages the traversing through which has brought it to the current status and phase

of its development. The knowledge in all three phases pertained both to natural and human/social phenomena.

August Comte postulated that knowledge in its entirety may be conceived to have grown in an evolutionary

manner. For concretizing his views, he developed a schemata which compressed the historical growth of

knowledge into three distinct phases of evolution. According to Comte knowledge may be classified in to these

stages and phases of the evolutionary process: i) Theological; ii) Metaphysical; and iii) Scientifical. Knowledge

in each phase differs from knowledge in any other phase since the foundation from which knowledge sprouted

differs from phase to phase. Besides, the methodology of generating knowledge changed from one to another

phase of its evolution.

Theology as the Base of Knowledge

In the first phase, theology constituted the base and provided both the premises of knowledge and its

generalization. The term ‘Theology’ has been derived from the Greek word ‘Theologia’. In a narrow sense, 20

theology stood for ‘philosophical treatment of Christian doctrine’ (2001, Online Etymology Dictionary). It the

broader sense, theology may connote ‘philosophical treatment of religions doctrines’. This will reduce the role

of the generators of knowledge largely interpretations to that of interpreters of religions doctrines. The refined

concept of theology defines it as ‘the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the

nature of religious truth (WordNet). Obviously, the influences mould the individual behaviour, social

organizations/institutions and values. A more inclusive concept states that ‘Theology moves back and forth

between two poles, the eternal truth of its foundations and the temporal situation in which the eternal truth must

be received’ (Tillich, 1951).

Interoperations needed the application of i) logic; and ii) speculative insights though the approach who

propounded has largely to be embodied in value judgments. Metaphysical phase of knowledge evolution

revolved around meta-physics, that is, part physical part material and part theological. Methodology in this

phase also could have not freed itself totally or even partially from normatism.

Scientific Base of Methodology

The pacifist Approach to knowledge generation dawned with the advent of scientificism.

Mythological Base of Knowledge

Theological knowledge focused on events and occurrences rather than the real process of knowledge

generation. Both the occurrence of such natural phenomena as floods, famines, and earthquakes and

human/social events like wars were conceived to be the Outcomes of Divine Will. God’s Will was ascribed to

be the Instrument of the Natural Occurrences and Social Events as well as the determinants of their outcomes. It

obviously obviated the need to investigate the genesis, and hence, the process of the materialization of the

phenomena and their underlying causal relations. This almost verged on deterministic fatalism. A more

favorable interpretation may be drawn from Gita. This is then similar to the philosophy of Gita which

prophesises God to be the Sole and Actual Karta, that is, performer, where man and nature are the instruments

of the realization of His Will. The outcomes are automatically pre-determined. This is what Theistic Knowledge 21

actually averred. As against this, the Animistic Knowledge sought to explain each aspect of human behaviour to

be a reflection of human volition. The Notion of Divine Will or Intention came to be replaced by Abstract

Concepts of Power and Cause in the metaphysical knowledge.

It is in the third stage that knowledge and the methodology of knowledge generation evolve themselves to

converge towards scentificism. With the Advent of Scientifism, Methodology, and hence, the Method of

Generating Knowledge started attracting explicit attention, evoking conscious efforts for its continuous

refinement and advancement along with the growth of knowledge. The scientific approach to generate

knowledge endeavours to discover the Laws of Co-Existence and Succession. Coexistence implies the existence

of the multitude of phenomena in proximity to each other. The proximate existence is postulated to imparts

mutuality of interrelations and sequenciality of succession. The scientific approach to knowledge creation

envisages the methodology to be endowed with Positivism which is independent of time-space domain, value

judgments, norms or standards. It does not matter whether value judgments are entrapped in ethics or morality,

religiosity or social conventions/ traditions. In this respect all sciences have to follow the similar approach to the

discovery of truth and generation of knowledge about this truth as the Manifestation of Relationship between

Cause and its Consequence. This unifies different sciences methodologically. Comte, Berkeley, Kant and J.S.

Mill subscribed to the Principle of Unity of Science in Methodology in so far as all the scientific disciplines

endeavour to discover causal relation underlying the phenomena under observation.

Methodological Autonomy

The principle of methodological unity of sciences was challenged by several thinkers. The Erklaren School

supported by such philosophers as Droysen, Dilthey and Rickert postulated that all the sciences are

methodologically autonomous. Methodological Autonomy implies that each discipline traverses a different path

in its research investigation which makes Research Methodology to differ from subject to subject. Popper

(1968) goes even a step further to postulate that each research investigation may embody a different

methodology. The Erklaren school designates Social Sciences as Human Sciences which are Contextual, and 22

hence, Historical in Orientation. This is just one step short of anarchic approach which may envisage that eact

investigation even within a discipline is autonomous. Historiosity will definitely convert social science research

and the knowledge emanating from it to be time-space domain specific, denying its laws universality.

Thus, the social sciences are supposed to be Idiographic. Nachne (1995) opines that whereas the natural

sciences attempt to explain the natural/physical phenomena, social sciences strive to understand the social or

human phenomena. Thinkers of this school perceive that social phenomena are characterized by VERSTHEN,

that is, mysterious and undefinable attribute or quality. Mystery makes Social Phenomena beyond explanation.

It therefore, eludes objective explanation. These thinkers opined that social phenomena have generally been

Verstehen. The attribute of verstehen is that it is not only mysterious but it is undefinable also. This makes

social phenomena beyond explanation(s). The meaning attached to the term Explanation probably embodies

‘ability to forecast the future’, whereas ‘understanding’ may imply that we may endeavour to know ledge of

what the phenomenon is and the cause that leads to the materialization of the given phenomenon’. The causes of

the first and second world wars, great depression of thirties or development or under-development of economies

and poverty of the people may be studied and understood. But this understanding does not bestow the social

scientist with the ability to forecast as to when another world wide depression shall occur or third world war

will take place. As against this, the occurrence of the solar or lunar eclipse may be predicted accurately.

Similarly, the outcome of the launching of a recoverable satellite on the basis of known technology may be

forecasted.

In other words, we may be able to describe what the phenomenon is and how does the phenomenon operate. But

we can not explain why the phenomenon is what it is; or why is it the way it is or why does it work the way it

operates. Like the rare work of art, the social phenomena may not be reproducible always as the phenomena do

not recur. Even if it recurs, it may not exactly be the same. Therefore, the social phenomena, unlike the physical

phenomena can not be predicted precisely. Non-predictability of social phenomenon may be taken to imply its

nonexplanability. Thus, the study of social phenomena may either be partly or fully metaphysical or historic. 23

Social laws may, therefore, be considered to be teleological laws rather than being in the category of scientific

causal laws. Explanations furnished by teleological laws revolve round the goals, targets and even intentions or

motivations and their outcomes. According to this school of thought, teleological laws have had a logical and

legitimate place in the Historic Human Sciences and all social sciences converge towards historicity. As against

the implications of Comte’s evolutionary schemata, these thinkers do not consider social sciences to have a

lower status than physical sciences in the hierarchical design of the methodological ladder.

Such advocates of the Principle of the Unity of Science as Braith Waite (1953) convincingly establish that the

Teleological Laws, in the ultimate analysis, end up as Causal Laws. Popper (1960), who initially belonged to

Erklaren School of thought, was also convincingly converted to support the Principle of Unity of Science. He

propounded the thesis that no uniform Causal Law could be conceived to explain all Scientific Activities,

Vision or Perception, Creativity, and hence, Innovation may differ between disciplines. Unity of Science should

not be searched in such One Single Uniform Law for all sciences. Naturally, this unity has to be searched in the

Diversity of Scientific Laws and Scientific Methodology, though the objectivity, logicism, rationality and

causality in approach and replicability and verifiability of results embodied in a law are the common traits of the

principle of unity of science. According to Taylor (1964), causality emerges as the sine qua non of scientificism.

Von Wright (1971) and Lakatos (1971) elaborately supported this thesis.

The matter of the fact is that science in its initial physical/natural science incarnation has itself evolved

theoretically and methodologically, while its range and coverage of disciplines has been increasing

continuously. It may be safely stated that PHYICS is the Queen of all Sciences. Naturally, the Kingdom of

Science has been expanding with the development of physics to encompass increasing number of disciplines

within sciences. Consequently, Methodological Advances of Physics tend to emerge as the guidepost not only

for natural sciences but also for social sciences. According to this view, Economics may be treated as the Queen

of Social Sciences, whose Kingdom has been expanding with its own development from political economy to

economics. Often other sciences use the status of physics as the Norm or Standard for comparison. For example, 24

in the last quarter of 19th century, Alfred Marshall opined that the ‘then status of development of Economics

was comparable to the status of Physics in early 16th century’.

But causality as the principle of unity of science has itself gone through several phases and stages of evolution.

It has had to traverse numerous vicissitudes in the evolutionary path of the Natural Sciences. Such philosophers

as Aristotle, Plato, Laplace and scientists like ‘Galileo and Newton’ perceived causality to be the Pivot of

Scientific Laws. Aristotle emphasized the importance of observation and the clear verification of individual

sector perception. This implies the replicability and testability of the observed phenomena to free it both from

observational and biased related errors. But Plato was probably the first thinker to elaborately build an structure

of systematic thought on knowledge generation from rational perspective.

They postulated causality to be encompassed both by Initial Conditions and Bounds or Limits within the

constraints. The scientific laws have to have bounds and initial conditions in order to be applied to explain the

natural events or occurrences on the basis of causality. An important implication of this approach is that the

Scientists have to observe the Repetitive Operations of Nature in order to i) Detect Uniformity/ Similarity of

Pattern; ii) Isolate mundane and peripheral from the Core Factors/Forces; and iii) Isolate and Identify the Cause

(s) from Consequence. Only then the causal link with the property of verifiability, which Popper so greatly

emphasizes, could be encompassed in the formulation of a scientific law. At this evolutionary stage, Nature has

not been conceived to offer the Opportunities of Experimentation. Besides, even in natural sciences, there are

quite a few laws that could have been formulated and tested/verified outside the laboratories. Galileo’s law that

time taken by two or more matter of different weights depends independent of weight on distance between the

surface of earth and height from which these fall. He demonstrated the validity of his law by pushing two stones

of unequal weight from the same height of a tower before a large gathering. Even the formulation of the law did

not require refined laboratory experimentation in its initial version. It implicitly embodied the law of

gravitation. But for determining the precise value of gravitational force of attraction, tools and instruments for

experimentation must have been required. Thus, the Physical Scientists could have not been different from the 25

Astronomers and Scocial Scientists who could also only be the Observers rather than the Experimenters with

planets and social phenomena.

But Causality as the hallmark of Scientific Laws was neither unanimously accepted nor all scientific laws are

causal. For example Hume (1739) and Pearson did not accept the Principle of Causation as the essence of

scientific laws. Hume perceived causality as ‘Nothing More than Constant Conjunction’. Pearson also opined

that ‘Nobody believes that science explains anything; we all look upon it as a shorthand description, as an

economy of thought’. Then, all the scientific laws may not furnish causal explanation. For example, Kepler’s

laws of planet any motion. Balmer’s formula for the wavelengths of the spectral lines of hydrogen, Galileo’s

law that time taken by an object to traverse the given height is proportional to distance rather than its weight do

not embody any explanation or causality despite these being accepted as scientific laws. Such examples may be

multiplied. The view that causality is the Essence of Scientific laws has meanwhile been adversely affected by

several factors. According to Nachane (1995). The emergence of Quantum Mechanics and Instrumentalism

adversely affected the acceptability of causality as the sole base of scientific laws. Copenhagen school of

thought interpreted quantum mechanics as Quantum Events which have to be treated as the outcome of human

intervention. This ruled out subjectivity free or value neutral causal relation. Instrumentalism postulates that

scientific theories, pertaining to unobservable entities, can not be taken as completely true; these may be treated

as useful instruments for dealing with observable events and objects. That is probably why Bertrand Russel

opined that ‘in a sufficiently advanced science, the word ‘cause’ will not occur in any statement of invariable

laws’. This points towards the multi-directional interrelation of mutual dependence in the ultimate stage. This

point of view has found sustenance in Walrasian System of General Equilibrium Analysis in Economics.

Like Fads and Fashions, academic opinions also tend to change in a cyclical fashion. Natural sciences have

witnessed a resurgence of causality due probably to three reasons (Nachane, 1995):

26

i) Einstein’s, Podolsky’s and Rosen’s (1935) experiments challenged the fundamental proposition of

Copenhagen quantum school that a body does not simultaneously possess an exact position and

exact momemtum;

ii) Thinkers like Buge (1973) and Levy-Leblond (1977) have also challenged the Copenhagen

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; and

iii) It has been accepted that the Principle of Casualty is also applicable to the Stochastic Systems. There

have been numerous contributors to the development of Stochastic Theory. Pierce (1883), Bernoulli

(1869), Keynes (1921), Caman (1950), Braith Waite (1953), Laplace (1812), A.A. Markov (1856-

1922), and A. Kolmogorov (1936) have richly contributed to the development of stochastic system.

Baye’s rule for the conditional probability of causes has been extensively used, whereas Markov Chain

Probability Models have found numerous areas of application. Plato used similar logic to prove the existence of

Atlantis, while other philosophers used it to prove the absurdity of Newton’s mechanics (Feller, 1968, p. 125).

The Theory dealing with the causality in stochastic systems has formally been developed by Hempel (1966),

Suppes (1970) and Salmon (1984).

Russel’s Human Knowledge: Its scope admits four out of five postulates that he propounds as the foundation of

scientific knowledge which are based on causal relations.

References

Nachane, D. M. (1995) On the Nature of Inference and Explanation in Economics. In Shah, Maya (Editor) Essays on Economic Policy Methodology and Human Resources, The M.S. University of Baroda Press, Vadodra. Hume, D. (1739) A Treatise of Human Nature, Reprinted by Collins Fontana, 1970. Quoted from D. Nachane. Pearson, Karl (1911) The Grammar of Science, Meridian Books, N. York, Third Edition, 1957.Blaug, M. (1976) Kuhn Versus Lakatosov Paradigms Vs Research Programmes in the History of Economics. In Latis, S. (editor) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge University Press.Braithwaite, R. (1953) Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press.Comte, A. (1842) Cours de Philosophie Positive, Paris (Qouted from Nachane). Friedman, M. (1953) Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press.Feller (1968) Hausman, D. M. (1992) Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology, Cambridge University, PressHicks, J. R. (1979) Causality in Economics, Basil Books, N. York.

27

Hempel, C. G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, Free Press, N. Y. Keynes, J. N. (1917) The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Reprinted by A Kelly, N. Y., 1955.Popper, Karl (1960) The Poverty of Historicism, London. Robbins, L. R. (1935) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Macmillan, London. Salmon, W. (1977) The Foundations of Scientific Inference, Un. of Pitts Burg Press. Russel (1914) Our Knowledge of the External World, London. Prakash, Shri (1972) Population in India, 1951-70, Twelfth All India Econometrics Conference, IIT, Kanpur. Nair, C. Radhakrishnan (1973) Private Demand for Education Analysis of Socio –Economic Factors-A Case Study of Saugor University, Manpower Journal, No. 2, Vol. IX. Prakash, Shri and Choudhury, Sumitra (199 ) Parnes, H. S. (Editor, 1964) Planning Education for Social and Economic Development, O.E.C.D.Parnes, H. S. (1964) Manpower Analysis in Educational Planning, In Parnes, 1964.T. Lawma (1991) Market Imperfection and Manpower Planning in North East India, Commonwealth. Tillich, Paul (1951) Systematic Theology.Bose, Pradip Kumar (1995) Research Methodology: A Trend Report, ICSSR, N. Delhi.Narayanan, D.L. (1983) Scientific Objectivity in Social Sciences. In Sharma, B. A. V. (Editor) Research Methods in Social Sciences, N. Delhi, Sterling. Vidayarthi, L.P. and Haldar, A. (Editors) Research Methodology in Social Science in India, N. Delhi, Today & Tomorrow Publishers. Raj, Hans (1980) Theory and Practicce of Social Research, N. Delhi, Sarjeet. Ranjanna, B.C. (1968) Fundamentals of Research, Hyderabad, ASRCBurgess (1996)Sadhu, A.N. and Singh A.Verma and VermaWilkinson and BhandarkarTanon (1979)Agnihotri (1980)Ghosh (1982)Mohan (1984)Das Gupta (1967)Gopal, Har (1964)Rajan (1968)Raj (1980)Kothari, C.R.Sekharan, UmaMehta, J.K. (1957) Studies in Advanced Economic Theory, S. Chand & Co., Delhi.Prakash, Shri (1966) A Note on The Theory of Want-Lessness, The Indian Journal of Economics.Rogers’s II, The New Thesaurus, American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mittin Co. Smith, (2002)Popper (1968)Mukherji, D.P. (1958)Mukherji, RadhakamalRoget’s II, (1995) The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Miffin Company. WordNet 2.1, 2005 Princeton UniversityAmerican Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, 2005

28