Student Learning Outcomes
At the completion of this unit of instruction students will be able to:
1. Identify differences in the research methods used by scientists and philosophers (the way in which they view reality)
2. Understand differences in the ways in which scientists and philosophers examine data (basing findings on statistical analysis versus establishing meaning of the data through reasoning)
3. Know the names of the four main branches of philosophy (Metaphysics, Axiology, Epistemology, Poetry)
4. Know the two main ways of locating philosophic research problems (personal experience and outside sources such as reading, film, lectures, etc.)
5. Understand why in philosophic studies it is important to define the problem (clarification and replication)
6. Know the key principles of the five principal research tools used by the philosophic researcher (inductive, deductive, descriptive, speculative, and critical and poetic reasoning)
Philosophic research is not pursued as often as other types of analytical, descriptive or experimental research. Why? Because of great interest especially in experimental research as well as the lack of clarity and understanding about philosophic research techniques.
Differences between Scientists and Philosophers
Purposes of Philosophic Research
The scientist gathers objective data, analyzes this data using statistics, and draws conclusions based on these findings. In contrast, philosophers attempt to examine the meaning of the data they collect in the context of life.
Example: We could conduct research on the experience of graduate students in PEHLS by creating questionnaires, gathering data and submitting this data to extensive statistical analysis. Alternatively we could examine the same topic by asking such questions as "What should be the experience of graduate students in PEHLS?", "Should the value of the experience be based on the contribution the student makes to the department or the contribution the department provides the student?", "Which of these experience should be most important and why?" As you can imagine many more questions could be posed.
According to Kretchmar, philosophy’s mission is to examine reality through reflective techniques. This different approach enables the philosopher to see aspects of things, actions, and behaviors that are not visible to the scientist.
Four Branches of Reflective Inquiry
1. Metaphysics: analysis of the nature of reality (e.g. What is competition? What is sport?)
2. Axiology: analysis of human values (e.g. Why have rules in games? Why respect opponents?)
3. Epistemology: analysis of the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge (e.g. How do we know that sportsmanship is worth encouraging? How can we justify limiting people’s opportunities to smoke or access to cigarettes?)
4. Poetry: branch of philosophy that challenges traditional philosophical reflective techniques and suggests alternative ways of interpreting human experience and values
Locating a Research Problem
While almost anything could become the topic of philosophic study, it is important to consider what is worth studying and what is perhaps somewhat trivial. The two main sources for ideas are our personal experiences and topics derived (stimulated) from readings or other outside sources.
Defining the Problem
Once a problem has been identified it must be clearly defined. Philosophers "begin most analyses with definitions, descriptions, clarifications, and disclaimers." The goal is to clearly define the research question (problem). Similar to scientists who attempt to ensure that their research is replicable, philosophers want others to be able to check their conclusions.
Analyzing a Research Problem
Some philosophers believe that it is possible to think, reason, and speculate with a high degree of objectivity - to the extent that conclusions are quite precise. Others believe that thinking is inevitably subjective and that any conclusions will be questionable and unreliable. The various research tools used by the philosopher include: inductive, deductive, descriptive, speculative, and critical and poetic reasoning.
Inductive Reasoning
As we learned earlier, inductive reasoning is thinking that moves from specific observations to general conclusions. It typically involves a very logical analysis and the creation of data that can be reflected upon by others. A weakness of inductive reasoning is that it depends on the completeness of the initial observations.
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the specific and is often used as a companion way of thinking to induction. We could for example examine some of the commonalties of smoking cessation programs and begin to deduce what are the key components. Alternatively, we could examine what commonalties exist between individuals who report success at quitting smoking and attempt to explain generalities. As noted in the text, both deduction and induction apply logical reasoning which as we know can sometimes be faulty thereby resulting in erroneous conclusions.
Descriptive Reasoning
As you have read in the text, descriptive reasoning involves very careful examination of a problem. Kretchmar shows clearly that an analysis of competition can be far more complex than typically considered and produce insightful reflections about the nature of competition. As he notes, when this research is done well we might anticipate that others would produce similar findings. It appears that one major challenge is recognizing and overcoming our own biases in the way that we see things.
Speculative Reasoning
Extending on descriptive reasoning, speculative reasoning involves speculation about the nature of things. While impossible to prove, this speculation offers new insights and ways to view the world. It could for example be claimed that health educators promote certain behaviors because of their personal fears of immortality!
Critical and Poetic Reasoning
This type of reasoning is based on doubt and skepticism about the power of reason. In other words it is doubtful of general conclusions and attempts to show inconsistencies and illogical reasoning. The term deconstruction describes the method by which these philosophers attempt to debunk claims of other philosophers. One wonders whether using this approach the philosopher might debunk the propriety of using public funds to support drug rehabilitation rather than using the same funds to support public activities of interest to all. You may remember erroneous ways of knowing we discussed earlier in the course. The skepticism emphasized in this approach helps to counter false claims regardless of the source.
Concluding Thoughts
Although you may not be considering a philosophic study in your MS program, you will inevitably engage in the thinking processes integral to the philosophic method. Reasoning, questioning, and being skeptical are values that improve one’s ability to both conduct and interpret all types of research.
(Revised 2/3/99)