Philosophical Alignments in Social Science Inquiry: A Scoping Review

Author:

Tende F. B.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Management, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Abstract

This review seeks to understand the implications of empiricism, interpretivism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, pluralism, and solipsism in social science inquiry within social reality, using scoping review method. An in-depth review of the literature was conducted to understand the various philosophical alignments or paradigms applied in social sciences research. The study is aimed at understanding and applying these paradigms with the view of having a deep comprehension of the turbulences plaguing society and proffering solutions to them. From the review, it was discovered that the various philosophical alignments in social science inquiry provide the scientist or researcher with a worldview of the different perspectives and multiple levels of analysis of the social world. Thus, creating a systematic lens from which individuals (at several levels), groups, and organizations are examined to know the; “when”, “how”, and “why” they behave the way and manner that they do. It was concluded that an adequate understanding of these paradigms would better shape the methodology to be adopted in conducting research studies within the social and/or behavioural sciences. This will help determine its objectivity, rigor, or the extent to which scientific methodology is applied within social science researches. Lastly, a combination of these paradigms creates a mixed-method, which demonstrates knowledge validity and objectivity in investigator triangulation (which involves; observation, questionnaire administration, and interview), data triangulation (which encompasses collecting data at different times from different people in different places as a cross-check for validity and to check the interpretation and conclusion arrived at), methodological triangulation (which includes within-method triangulation and between method triangulation: the former entails the application of various techniques within the same method, while the latter applies a combination of research methods), generalization, verification, explanation, and deductions. This will allow for data gathering and/or fact-finding, in search of new knowledge, and subsuming new valid knowledge, enhance research results and findings efficacy.

Publisher

A and V Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3