All
 
|
 
 


It Is a Working Hypothesis: Searching for Truth in a Post-Truth World
 
PIIS013216250007107-0-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250007107-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Patricia М. Shields 
Occupation: Prof.
Affiliation: Texas State University
Address: United States, Texas
Nandhini Rangarajan
Occupation: Assoc. Prof.
Affiliation: Texas State University
Address: United States, Texas
Mattia Casula
Affiliation: Ca' Foscari University
Address: Italy, Venice
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 10
Pages39-47
Abstract

Public administration research methodology should be flexible and comprehensive enough to include many methodologies and approaches to inquiry. In this paper we show how certain kinds of qualitative and mixed method studies often lack of a clear theoretical structure and as a result are poorly aligned across the stages of the research process. This paper introduces Working Hypotheses as a useful micro-conceptual framework with the capacity to address the alignment issue. It is particularly applicable to deductive case studies, which use qualitative or mixed methods. We show how positivism, postmodern and pragmatist philosophies shape quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research. We also examine how types of reasoning (inductive, deductive and abductive) underlie approaches to research. The working hypothesis conceptual framework is introduced, placed in a philosophical context, defined, and applied to public administration and policy. 

Keywordsresearch methodology, qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, case study, working hypothesis, induction, deduction, abduction, positivism, pragmatism
Received12.10.2019
Publication date13.10.2019
Number of characters24084
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1615

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Alexander T.M. (1987) John Dewey's Theory of Art. Experience and Nature: The Horizons of Feeling. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987: 185, 186.
2. Babbie E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research. Boston, MASS: Cengage Learning.
3. Bartle J., Shields P. (2013) Applying Pragmatism to Public Budgeting and Financial Management. Conference paper.
4. Becker P.H. (1993) Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 3. No. 2: 254‑260.
5. Biddle C., Schafft K.A. (2015) Axiology and Anomaly in the Practice of Mixed Methods Work: Pragmatism, Valuation, and the Transformative Paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 9. No. 4: 320‑334.
6. Brendel D.H. (2009) Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science / Humanism Divide (Basic Bioethics). Boston: MIT Press.
7. Carroll C., Patterson M., Wood S., Booth A., Rick J., Balain S. (2007) A Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity. Implementation science. Vol. 2. No. 1: 40.
8. Dewey J. (1896) The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological review. Vol. 3. No. 4: 357.
9. Dewey J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Milton, Blach & Co.
10. Dewey J. (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
11. Feilzer Y. (2010) Doing Mixed Methods Research Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm. Journal of mixed methods research. Vol. 4. No. 1: 6‑16.
12. Fox C.J., Miller H.T. (1994) Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
13. Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick (U.S.A.), London (U.K.): Aldine Transaction.
14. Graziano A.M., Raulin M.L. (2013) Research Methods: A Process of Inquiry. 8th edition. Harper Collins College Publishers.
15. Guba E.G. (1987) What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation practice. Vol. 8. No. 1: 23‑43.
16. Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (1981) Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
17. Heyvaert M., Hannes K., Maes B., Onghena P. (2013) Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 9. DOI: 10.1177/1558689813479449
18. Horthersall D. (2018) History of Psychology. Boston, Mass: McGraw Hill Education.
19. Howe K.R. (1988) Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard. Educational researcher. Vol. 17. No. 8: 10‑16.
20. Howe K.R. (2012) Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal Explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 6. No. 2: 89–96.
21. Hyde K.F. (2000) Recognising Deductive Processes in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal. Vol. 3. No. 2: 82‑90.
22. James P.D. (1999) A Certain Justice. NY: Ballantine books.
23. Jobes P.C., Aldea A., Cernat C., Icolisan I.M., Iordache G., Lazeru S., Udangiu E. (1996) Shopping as a Social Problem: A Grounded Theoretical Analysis of Experiences among Romanian Shoppers. Journal of Applied Sociology: 124‑146.
24. Johnson A.J. Onwuegbuzie L. (2004) Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher. Vol. 33. No. 7: 14‑26.
25. Johnson A.J., Onwuegbuzie L., Turner А. (2007) Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 2. No. 1: 112‑133.
26. Kaplan A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
27. Kolb A., Kolb D. (2012) Experiential Learning Theory. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_227.
28. Levers M.-J.D. (2013) Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. Merry-Jo D. Levers 17, 2013 afge open 2013 decemner 1‑6
29. Milakovich M.E., Gordon G.J. (2013) Public Administration in America. Cenage Learning.
30. Morgan D.L. (2007) Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Vol. 1. No. 1: 48‑76.
31. Morse J. (1995) The Significance of Saturation. Qualitatitive Health Research. Vol. 5. No. 2: 147‑149.
32. O'Connor M.K., Netting F.E., Thomas M.L. (2008) Grounded theory: Managing the Challenge for Those Facing Institutional Review Board Oversight. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol. 14. No. 1: 28‑45.
33. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L. (2005) On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: the Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Vol. 8. No. 5: 375‑387.
34. Patten M.L., Newhart M. (2000) Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials. New York: Routledge.
35. Raadschelders J.C. N. (2011) The Future of the Study of Public Administration: Embedding Research Object and Methodology in Epistemology and Ontology. Public Administration Review. No. 71: 916‑924.
36. Salem P., Shields P. (2011) Out of the Woods: Facilitating Pragmatic Inquiry and Dialogue. Administration & Society. No. 43:124‑132.
37. Shields P. (1999) The Community of Inquiry: Insights for Public Administration Jane Addams, John Dewey and Charles S. Peirce.
38. Shields P., Rangarajan N. (2013) A Playbook for Research Methods: Integration Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
39. Shields P., Tajalli N. (2006) Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in Successful Student Scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education. Vol. 12. No. 3: 313‑334.
40. Shields P., Whetsell T. (2014) Doing Practical Research and Publishing in Military Studies. In: Soeters J., Shields P., Rietjens S. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies. Boston: Routledge.
41. Shields P., Whetsell Т. (2017). Public Administration Methodology: A Pragmatic Perspective. In: Raadschelders J., Stillman R. (eds.) Foundations of Public Administration. New York: Melvin & Leigh: 75‑92.
42. Smith J.K. (1983) Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue. Educational researcher. Vol. 12. No. 3: 6‑13.
43. Smith J.K. (1983a) Quantitative Versus Interpretive: The Problem of Conducting Social Inquiry. In: E. House (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 27‑52.
44. Smith J.K., Heshusius L. (1986) Closing Down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate among Educational Inquirers. Educational researcher. Vol. 15. No. 1: 4‑12.
45. Timmermans S., Tavory I. (2012) Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory. Vol. 30. No. 3: 167-186.
46. Twining P., Heller R.S., Nussbaum M., Tsai C.C. (2017) Some Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Qualitative Studies. Computers and Education. Vol. 107: A1–A9.
47. Whetsell T.A., Shields P.M. (2015) The Dynamics of Positivism in the Study of Public Administration: A Brief Intellectual History and Reappraisal. Administration & Society. Vol. 47. No. 4: 416‑44.
48. Willis J.W., Jost M., Nilakanta R. (2007) Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. London: Sage.
49. Worster W.T. (2013) The Inductive and Deductive Methods in Customary International Law Analysis: Traditional and Modern Approaches. Georgetown Journal of International Law. No. 45: 445.
50. Yin R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
51. Yin R.K. (1981) The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy. Knowledge. Vol. 3. No. 1: 97‑114.
52. Yin R.K. (1992) The Case Study Method as a Tool for Doing Evaluation. Current Sociology. Vol. 40. No. 1: 121‑137.
53. Yin R.K. (2011) Applications of Case Study Research. Sage Publications.
54. Yin R.K. (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up