Dear Teena,
You wrote, “what I meant is that from a social science epistemological position, rather than a natural sciences-based epistemology, methodology is not seen as a rigid recipe.”
This is not an accurate representation of either the natural sciences or the social sciences.
Before stating that the epistemology of the natural sciences is rigid, you might want to read a bit in the philosophy of science and in the history of science.
The natural sciences use a wide array of methods. These methods are rigorous, but there is a difference between rigor and rigidity.
Methodology – the critical study of method – is in many respects similar in both the natural and social sciences. Both aspire to rigor, both seek to understand the appropriate application of research methods to research problems, and both seek to understand and expand the repertoire of viable research methods. There is a rich tradition of serious and lively debates across the sciences on these issues, both natural and social.
If you’d like to get a glimpse of how deep this kind of debate goes, have a look at LawrenceKrauss’s (2012) scientific biography of Richard Feynman – or, for that matter, you might want to read Feynman (2001, ) himself to get a sense of how scientists think about method.
Natural scientists debate these issues deeply among their own groups and subgroups. For example, a recent issue of The Scientist had an article by biology professor Neil Greenspan (2012) urging biomedical research to expand its repertoire of logically rigorous, deductive research approaches.
So, too, one of the best social scientists I know began in mathematical physics, and some of the research methods he has developed involving conjoint analysis bring valuable rigor to understanding products and services.
As for rigorous research, some of the most detailed and rigorous occurs in the social sciences and humanities. You won’t find a physicist or a mathematician more careful and rigorous than Henri de Lubac (1998, 2000, 2009).
The art of methodological awareness is to recognize what sorts of methods one must use to answer whatsorts of questions – and it involves knowing how and when to triangulate or to use mixed methods.
It is not helpful to suggest that the natural sciences are methodologically rigid. Rigidity and flexibility are qualities of mind and behavior – we see both in the social sciences as well as in the natural sciences. And we see both in the design field.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
--
References
Feynman, Richard P. 1997. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character). New York: W. W. Norton.
Feynman, Richard P. 2001. What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of aCurious Character. New York: W. W. Norton.
Greenspan, Neil. 2012. “Opinion: Think Like Turing.” The Scientist. October 22, 2012. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32942/title/Opinion--Think-Like-Turing/
Krauss, Lawrence M. 2012. Quantum Man. Richard Feynman’s Life in Science. New York: W. W. Norton.
Lubac, Henri de. 1998. Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture. Volume 1. Translated by Mark Sebanc. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
Lubac, Henri de. 2000. Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture. Volume 2. Translated by E. M. Macierowksi. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
Lubac, Henri de. 2009. Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture. Volume 3. Translated by E. M. Macierowksi. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|