Research design refers to the overall plan and strategy for conducting a research study. It outlines the specific methods and procedures that will be used to collect and analyze data, as well as the rationale behind these choices. Research design is an essential component of the research process, as it ensures that the study is conducted in a systematic and rigorous manner, and that the findings are reliable and valid.
There are several key characteristics of research design that are essential for any study to be considered well-designed and rigorous. These include:
Clarity of research question: The research question should be clear and well-defined, and should provide a clear direction for the study. The research question should be specific enough to guide the selection of appropriate research methods and procedures, and should be relevant to the research field.
1. Appropriateness of research methods: The research methods used should be appropriate for the research question and objectives, and should be selected based on the strengths and weaknesses of each method. The methods chosen should be capable of producing reliable and valid data that can be used to answer the research question.
2. Sampling design: The sampling design should be appropriate for the research question and objectives, and should be representative of the population being studied. The sample size should be large enough to ensure statistical power, and should be selected using appropriate sampling techniques.
3. Data collection procedures: The data collection procedures should be appropriate for the research question and objectives, and should be designed to minimize bias and maximize accuracy. The procedures should be standardized to ensure consistency across participants and data collectors.
4. Data analysis procedures: The data analysis procedures should be appropriate for the research question and objectives, and should be designed to answer the research question. The procedures should be rigorous and transparent, and should be able to withstand scrutiny from other researchers.
5. Ethical considerations: The research design should take into account ethical considerations, including informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality. The study should be designed to minimize any potential harm or discomfort to participants, and should adhere to relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.
There are several different types of research design, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Some of the most common types of research design include:
1. Experimental design: This type of research design involves manipulating one or more variables to determine their effect on an outcome. Experimental designs are often used to test causal hypotheses, and are characterized by random assignment of participants to conditions.
2. Quasi-experimental design: This type of research design is similar to experimental design, but does not involve random assignment of participants to conditions. Quasi-experimental designs are often used when random assignment is not possible, such as when studying naturally occurring groups.
3. Correlational design: This type of research design involves measuring the degree of association between two or more variables. Correlational designs are often used to examine relationships between variables that cannot be manipulated.
4. Survey design: This type of research design involves collecting data through questionnaires or interviews. Survey designs are often used to collect large amounts of data from a representative sample of the population.
5. Case study design: This type of research design involves studying a single individual or group in depth. Case studies are often used to gain insight into complex phenomena, and are characterized by detailed data collection and analysis.
Overall, research design is a critical component of the research process, and should be carefully considered and planned in order to ensure that the study is conducted in a rigorous and systematic manner. By choosing appropriate research methods and procedures, and designing the study to minimize bias and maximize accuracy, researchers can produce reliable and valid findings that contribute to our understanding of the world.
One of the common mistakes fledgling researchers commit is collapsing the terms “research method” and “research methodology” together. In other words, some scholars confused research method with research methodology. Of course, the two are not the same, and understanding their difference is of paramount importance in research as it does not only show that we, as researchers, have a strong grasp of the basics in research but it also helps us come up with a proper research design.
On the one hand, a research method is the logic of how a scholar arrives at a valid and reliable knowledge. In other words, a research method is the strategy employed in the collection of data or evidence for analysis to uncover new information or arrive at a better understanding of a particular topic. So, a research method is the tool used in carrying out the research. For example, a researcher may employ a qualitative research method in determining the lived experiences of Libyan nurses assigned during wartime.
Research methodology, on the other hand, is the justification for using a particular research method. In other words, a research methodology is the “plan” that explains why, as in the example above, a qualitative research method is employed in determining the lived experiences of Libyan nurses assigned during wartime.
The research methodology, therefore, is the theoretical positioning of the research, while research method is the “doing” of the research itself. The former, therefore, is viewed as the body of knowledge which attempts to explain or understand how a research is done, while the latter refers to the specific process or steps that the researcher may follow in undertaking the study.
Let us use the simple analogy of “constructing a building” to explain the difference between these two terms. Research methodology is the “construction plan” itself, while research method is the “actual” construction of the building, which includes the tools and other materials needed for the construction of the building. This explains why in the actual thesis or thesis proposal, a chapter on data gathering process is commonly titled “Research Methodology” as it contains the entire plan in collecting and analyzing data, while the body of this chapter contains the specificity of the research method, such as using interviews or surveys in data gathering.
In this article, we will discuss the meaning, characteristics, and types of research methods.
Meaning of Research Method:
Research method is the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research. It is a set of procedures used to collect and analyze data in order to generate new knowledge or to answer specific research questions. The research method involves the following steps:
1. Defining the research problem: This is the first step in the research method. It involves identifying a problem that needs to be investigated or a question that needs to be answered.
2. Formulating the research question: This step involves developing a research question or hypothesis that will guide the research.
3. Designing the research study: This step involves deciding on the research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques.
4. Collecting data: This step involves gathering data using the selected data collection methods.
5. Analyzing data: This step involves using statistical analysis or other techniques to analyze the data.
6. Drawing conclusions: This step involves interpreting the data and drawing conclusions based on the findings.
Characteristics of Research Method:
1. Systematic: Research method involves a systematic approach to data collection and analysis. The researcher follows a set of procedures that are designed to ensure that the data collected is valid and reliable.
2. Objective: Research method is an objective process. The researcher attempts to collect data that is unbiased and free from personal opinion or bias.
3. Empirical: Research method is an empirical process. It is based on observations and data that can be measured and analyzed.
4. Replicable: Research method is a replicable process. Other researchers should be able to replicate the study using the same procedures and methods.
5. Quantifiable: Research method involves the collection of data that can be quantified and analyzed using statistical methods.
6. Logical: Research method involves the use of logical reasoning and analysis to draw conclusions based on the data collected.
Types of Research Method:
There are two main types of research methods: qualitative research and quantitative research.
Qualitative research: Qualitative research is a research method that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and case studies. The goal of qualitative research is to understand the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals.
Qualitative research is typically used in fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and education. Qualitative research involves the following characteristics:
1. Focuses on the subjective experiences of individuals.
2. Collects non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and case studies.
3. Uses qualitative analysis techniques to analyze the data.
4. Does not use statistical analysis.
5. Seeks to understand complex phenomena in a holistic way.
Quantitative research: Quantitative research is a research method that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data. The goal of quantitative research is to test hypotheses and to draw conclusions based on statistical analysis.
Quantitative research is typically used in fields such as medicine, economics, and psychology. Quantitative research involves the following characteristics:
1. Focuses on numerical data.
2. Collects data using standardized procedures.
3. Uses statistical analysis techniques to analyze the data.
4. Seeks to generalize findings to a larger population.
5. Tests hypotheses using statistical methods.
In conclusion, research method is a crucial tool for generating new knowledge and answering research questions in a systematic and scientific manner. It involves a series of steps, including defining the research problem, formulating the research question, designing the research study, collecting data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. Research method is characterized by its systematic, objective, empirical, replicable, quantifiable, and logical approach to data collection and analysis. These characteristics ensure that the research is valid, reliable, and free from personal bias or opinion. There are two main types of research methods: qualitative research and quantitative research. Qualitative research focuses on understanding the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals through the collection and analysis of non-numerical data. Quantitative research, on the other hand, focuses on testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on statistical analysis of numerical data. Ultimately, the use of research method allows researchers to gather and analyze data in a rigorous and structured manner, leading to the production of new knowledge that can be used to inform decisions and policies in various fields.
Qualitative research is an approach to research that focuses on understanding the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups. It is a method of inquiry that is used in many different fields, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research is concerned with exploring and interpreting the meanings that people attach to their experiences and behaviors.
The main aim of qualitative research is to gain a deep understanding of the social or cultural phenomenon under investigation, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the unique perspectives of those involved. This often involves collecting data through a variety of methods, including interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and document analysis.
One of the key features of qualitative research is its emphasis on the researcher’s role in the research process. Qualitative researchers acknowledge that their own biases and perspectives can influence the data they collect and the analysis they conduct. As such, they strive to be reflexive and transparent about their own positionality, and to engage in ongoing critical reflection throughout the research process.
Another important feature of qualitative research is its flexibility. Qualitative researchers are open to adjusting their research questions, methods, and analysis as they gather new information and insights. This allows them to be responsive to the unique features of the research context, and to develop a rich and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
Qualitative research often involves collecting data through in-depth interviews with participants. These interviews are typically semi-structured, meaning that the researcher has a set of broad questions to guide the conversation, but is also able to follow up on interesting or unexpected responses. The goal of these interviews is to gather detailed information about the participant’s experiences, perspectives, and behaviors, and to do so in a way that allows them to share their views in their own words.
Another common method used in qualitative research is participant observation. This involves the researcher immersing themselves in the social or cultural context being studied, and observing the behavior and interactions of the people involved. This approach allows the researcher to gain an insider’s perspective on the phenomenon under investigation, and to observe how people interact with each other and their environment in real time.
Focus groups are another method often used in qualitative research. Focus groups involve bringing together a small group of participants to discuss a specific topic or issue. The researcher typically acts as a facilitator, guiding the conversation and encouraging participants to share their thoughts and opinions. This approach can be useful for exploring group dynamics and social norms, and for identifying common themes and perspectives across a group of people.
Document analysis is another method commonly used in qualitative research. This involves analyzing documents such as texts, images, or videos to gain insights into the social or cultural phenomenon under investigation. This approach can be particularly useful for studying historical or archival materials, or for analyzing media representations of a particular issue.
Once data has been collected, qualitative researchers engage in a process of analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. This often involves a process of coding, where the researcher systematically identifies and categorizes different types of data based on their meaning or significance. These codes are then grouped together into broader themes or categories, which are used to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to generate rich and detailed descriptions of social and cultural phenomena. By focusing on the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups, qualitative research can provide insights into the complexity and nuance of human behavior and social interactions.
However, one of the criticisms of qualitative research is that it can be difficult to generalize findings to larger populations. Because qualitative research typically involves small samples and in-depth analysis of specific contexts, it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions about the social or cultural phenomenon being studied.
In conclusion, qualitative research is an important approach to research that allows for a deep and nuanced understanding of social and cultural phenomena. By focusing on the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups, qualitative research can reveal insights that would be missed by other methods.
One of the key strengths of qualitative research is its flexibility. Qualitative researchers are open to adjusting their research questions, methods, and analysis as they gather new information and insights, allowing them to be responsive to the unique features of the research context.
Another strength of qualitative research is its emphasis on the researcher’s role in the research process. Qualitative researchers acknowledge that their own biases and perspectives can influence the data they collect and the analysis they conduct, and strive to be reflexive and transparent about their positionality.
Despite its many strengths, qualitative research does have some limitations. It can be difficult to generalize findings to larger populations, and the in-depth analysis of specific contexts may not be applicable to other settings.
Overall, qualitative research is a valuable approach to research that provides a rich and detailed understanding of social and cultural phenomena. When used in conjunction with other methods, it can provide a more complete picture of the complex and multifaceted nature of human behavior and interactions.
Types of Qualitative Research Methodor Design
Some of the common types of qualitative research methods or designs are the following:
1) historical research design,
2) archival research design,
3) oral history research design,
4) ethnolinguistic research design,
5) case study,
6) process documentation research design,
7) ethnographic research design, and
8) naturalistic research design.
Let me briefly discuss the meaning, nature and dynamics of these types of qualitative research designs.
Historical Research Design
Recent trends in historical research in education include seeing education as broader than schooling, viewing school systems in the context of social and economic development, and studying the history of elite intentions and actions. Historical research methods in education make possible the making of broader generalizations about the past, of judgments about its relation to the present, and of predictions about the future.
Examples of historical studies in education include the examination of length of schooling among different social groups by calculating the school-entry and school-leaving ages of different students in sample years, patterns of school attendance, years of schooling, and school expenditures, the different experiences of different social groups, and the impact of schooling on later life in different historical periods.
There is also a need for historical research on popular attitudes, quality of educational experience in the past, and intellectual and institutional history of education.
Archival Research Design
Primary sources of information concerning Philippine history are found in different archives in the Philippines and abroad. Archival research enables a historian to uncover ever new reinterpretations of historical reality.
Oral History Research Design
This is a form of historical activity, a first-hand reminiscence of historical events through the intervention of the historian. It records, for posterity, intimate primary knowledge and experience of individuals prominent in various fields, or those in positions of authority about certain topics, institutions, or about their own lives. This type of research method involves tape recording interview, transcribing them into typescripts, and checking for accuracy by the interviewer and the interviewee.
Ethnolinguistic Research Design
This is a research method which use language in the study of human groups. It deals with description of an ethnic group using linguistic tool. It is a tool for studying changes in meanings, beliefs, values, and codes, that is, the collective conscious and unconscious mind of a human group. According to some scholars, ethnolinguistic research method suggests studies to infer something about the culture and the life of the early ethnic group based on the memoirs of the early ethnographers and the grammar, observations, doctrines, and accounts of apostolic work by the early missionaries.
Case Study Research Design
A case study is a thick description of the interpretation, explanation, understanding, and prediction of an individual, group, or phenomenon obtained through in-depth investigation of the focus of interest.
Types of Case Study
Ethnographic case study which involves single in-depth study, usually through participant observation and interview.
Action research case study which focuses on bringing about change in the case under study.
Evaluative case study which involves the evaluation of programs.
Educational case study which is designed to enhance understanding of education actions.
Process Documentation Research
This is a useful tool for evolving a program based on a new intervention strategy. An example of this research method is the intervention strategy employed by the National Irrigation Agency (government agency in-charge of developing and assisting national and communal irrigation systems in the Philippines) whereby farmers got involved in the planning, design, and construction of their communal irrigation system. This resulted in the development or strengthening of the skills and structures of farmers’ association for system operations and maintenance.
Ethnographic Research Design
This research method is grounded on anthropology. Data are gathered through unstructured interviews, participant observation, and field notes. Other sources of data include the use of documents, records, photography, maps, genealogies, and social network diagrams. Research questions in ethnographic research method are descriptive in nature. This includes questions on values, beliefs, and practices of a cultural group.
Ethnographic research method involves describing and interpreting events that occur within the life of a group, with special attention to social structures and behaviors of individuals with respect to group membership. They are particularly appropriate for empirical research on a school, classroom, family, social organizations, or ethnic communities.
Naturalistic Research Design
Naturalistic inquiry is a more general term for ethnography, sociological field methods, case study methods, participant observation, ecological psychology, and psychodynamic social psychology. It involves extensive study of a case (for example, a group, institutions, communities, programs, and social systems) over an extended period of time. Points of interest here include not only the case itself, but also the ecology, context, or milieu in which it exists. And the researcher exposes herself directly with the case and is solely responsible for gathering and interpreting data.
Unlike experimental studies, naturalistic inquiry does not introduce any intervention, but instead studies the natural occurrence of events where they are found. Furthermore, the meaning of the constructs or ideas to be studied is not arbitrarily fixed or operationalized in advance of data collection. Instead, the researcher attempts to elicit the multiple meanings about those ideas that are upheld by each person. Similarly, hypotheses are neither derived from theory nor stated in advance. Rather, explanations about the relationships among variables come from the data rather than from preexisting theories.
Data collection in naturalistic inquiry typically centers on in-depth, open-ended interviews, direct observations, examination of documents, and community studies. Quantitative data are not avoided. During data collection, copious notes are kept, including verbatim accounts of what was observed and the responses of the interviewees. Interpretation and analysis of data are done as soon as data collection began.
It is important to note that the report of the naturalistic inquiry does not rely on statistics, graphs, or abstract models, but on the language familiar to the reader and the images that evoke readers’ association. What are important here are the precise use of language, rich description, and clear presentation of ideas to produce vicarious experiences for readers who could not be there themselves.
Criteria in doing Naturalistic Research
Scholars listed eight criteria that should be observed in naturalistic research, namely:
1) duration,
2) scope,
3) ethics,
4) logic,
5) verification,
6) stance of the researcher,
7) writing, and
8) contribution to knowledge
The researcher should be in direct contact with the case sufficiently enough to become thoroughly familiar with all its aspects and context (duration). The case study should be studies extensively (scope). The researcher should maintain the confidentiality and protection of the site and the informants (ethics). There should be an internal logical fit between the data in the data record and the ideas or analysis that purports to come from them (verification). The researcher should maintain dispassionate distance from the case, or at least clearly identify their prejudices (stance of the researcher). The report should have been written effectively and provide a pleasing piece of writing (writing). Lastly, it should contribute to knowledge regarding psychological and social ideas that the information yields (contribution to knowledge).
Limitations of Naturalistic Inquiry
Scholars listed some limitations of the naturalistic inquiry. For one, naturalistic inquiry is labor intensive because it requires prolonged exposure to the case. The researcher’s biases or prejudices may also influence the outcome of the study. Furthermore, a researcher with a low level of energy or intellectual ability might miss subtle but significant patterns of behaviors or events. And lastly, establishing causality and generalizing results are not possible with this research.
The research plan, which is also called “research proposal” before acceptance by competent authority, is a scholarly paper. As is well-known, it must conform to accepted conventions of academic and scientific procedure. It is expected to show evidence of intelligent grasp of the problem being proposed for solution, and fields related to it. It must also present appropriate and valid method and procedure for the solution of the problem.
Allowing for certain variations due to preferences of scholars, disciplines, and institutions, a research plan generally contains the following:
1) The title of the personal study,
2) Statement of the problem,
3) Review of related literature, and
4) Scope and limitation of the study,
5) Importance or significance of the study,
6) Definition of terms, and theoretical framework,
7) Methods and procedure,
8) Bibliography.
The Title
The title of the research plan should be brief but descriptive and comprehensive. The title should also be an adequate index to the key contents of the following: 1) the statement of the problem, 2) the method(s) used, and 3) the expected or hypothetical conclusion(s).
Although it is the first to appear on the research plan, it can remain tentative until the problem and methodology have been clearly formulated. (See also W. C. Campbell & S. V. Ballou, Form and Style: Theses, Reports, Term Papers, 4th ed., Boston, USA: Houghton Miffin, 1974, p. 15).
The Statement of the Problem
The statement of the problem is the part of the research plan, which contains two parts, namely: 1) a careful exposition of an area involving significant problems, and how such problems affect knowledge in the given discipline, and 2) a clear and concise statement of the problem. The first is an essay that demonstrates the researcher’s intelligent and broad grasp of the key problem currently confronting her discipline. The second is a clear statement of the question(s) to be answered or hypothesis to be tested.
The statement of the problem in experimental research is usually in the form of a hypothesis or a series of related hypotheses which call for proof or disproof. Other types of research require that the problem be stated categorically in the form of a question or series of related questions. In case a question needs further specification by means of sub-questions, care is to be taken that the sub-questions are all comprehended by the primary question. Multiple questions and questions which add new problems not expressed or implied in the primary question must be avoided. (See Campbell & Ballou, p. 18).
It must be remembered that the statement of the problem is not the same with the statement of the purpose of the study. The first is the question to be answered, while the second is the reason for answering the question.
A good statement of the problem must be consistent with the title and the methods and procedure to be used in the research.
Review of Related Literature
It is assumed that before the researcher starts making the research plan, she has read many important works related to the proposed study. The aims of the review of related literature are:
1) to show that the researcher is familiar with key ideas in his field of study;
2) to show that the knowledge in the field is incomplete, unreliable, or both; and
3) to show that the findings of the proposed study will: a) add to, b) supplement,
and/or c) correct present knowledge.
The tone and tenor of the review of related literature are both expository and evaluative or critical.
The materials subject to review under this heading are both published and unpublished materials containing anything that have some pertinence to the proposed subject of study. These include books, periodicals, documents, theses, dissertations, and all papers that are conventionally regarded among scholars as disciplinary literature. This explains why it is redundant to say “literature and studies” because the term “literature” includes all studies, which are on record and reported.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The scope of the study refers to the
1) specific source(s) of information, and
2) time involved in the study.
Since the scope of the study directly affect the validity of the conclusion derived from it, it may be assumed that a study that has no specifically defined scope and limitation of sources and time cannot lead to a definite and valid generalization and/or conclusion.
The limitation of the study refers to shortcoming or source of weakness of the study. The honest researcher must admit the weakness or limitation of any aspect of her investigation or her tools of investigation, and source of information. This fundamental rule is required by intellectual honesty. For example, using translation as reference due to one’s lack of proficiency in the original language of the source is a limitation of the investigator. Limitations that are so great as to cause doubt concerning the validity or conclusion of the study invalidate a research plan.
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study is generally of two kinds, namely, 1) the significance of the expected findings of the study to the specific discipline to which the study belongs, and 2) the benefit that human world may derive from the findings. Evidence of significance on the first level is generally sufficient. Significance of the second level if not discreetly put tends to be pretentious and violates the modesty generally expected of scholars. It is, therefore, generally best to convince the reader that the answer(s) one is trying to discover are important mainly to one’s line of study, and leave the “earth-shaking” value of the study understated or implied.
Research on the graduate school level is expected to show evidence of 1) mastery of scientific and rational methods of arriving at conclusions, and 2) actual contribution of new knowledge to the pool of human knowledge. Unless the study meets this requirement, the study is not significant, and this could imply that the student fails even in the first.
Definition of Terms and Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the study is stated here. This is the place to present 1) the assumption of the study, that is, proposition regarded are true and therefore not requiring proof in the proposed research, and 2) the definition of key terms.
It is usual that scholars or researchers work within the framework of a discipline, which have generally accepted principles or law which need simply to be assumed as true, and within whose framework the researcher performs his reflected thinking. This means placing the proposed study in the context of a specific school of thought in the researcher’s field of study. It may also require statement of ideas already proved satisfactory by other or previous researchers.
When the theoretical framework in the form of assumptions has been completed, key terms, especially those that are used in a particular or unusual sense, are defined. Operational definitions are preferred. Sources of definitions are properly indicated. Definitions not indicated as having been borrowed from sources are assumed to belong to the author of the research plan.
Operational definitions reduce abstract terms (for example, education) to concrete or quantifiable or measurable terms. The term “development”, for example, is defined operationally as “getting people to know, desire, and be capable of doing better things”. Operational definitions are always in a framework of a study.
Methods and Procedure
Methods refer to the set of procedures or steps to be undertaken for discovering knowledge with reference to the time setting of the truth to be known, that is, the past, present, and the future.
Truth of the past is historical. That of the present is described or pictured. And that of the future can be experimented, that is, create a situation whereby an unknown truth can be observed under controlled conditions. Therefore, there are three methods in general use in the scholarly world.
One method may be used, or where necessary, a combination of all three. But the use of these in combination must be done with great care so that it is always clear when each of the methods is being used, especially in the writing of the research report.
In certain disciplines, such as Literature and Philosophy, textual studies are usual. Studies of text are historical because the ordinary aim of this type of study is to arrive at the original intent of the author insofar as this is possible. This involved an attempt to situate words in their historical or biological context, with reference to their import at the time and place the document was written.
In the research plan, it is sufficient to indicate which method is proposed to be used.
Procedures are sub-items under methods. They are steps in logical or chronological sequence which are seen as an organized system of steps toward the discovery of truth, which involve 1) analyzing, 2) classifying, 3) comparing, 4) narrating, and 5) making conclusions regarding what causes produced what effects. One should not confuse method with the steps in a method.
After the procedures have been presented, a proposed outline of the expected report (for example, thesis, dissertation, and term paper) is presented. This outline shows clearly the proposed titles and subsections under each title. Parts or chapters are presented in their expected final sequence which indicate how the successive parts lead to the findings and conclusion.
Bibliography
This is a systematic listing of all available references in libraries, archives, collections, and in other sources. Exhaustiveness is ideal. Although last in the research plan, it is the first to be done in the order of procedure and time. This is because before anyone can formulate a title or problem for the research plan, one has to know whether there are available sources, or whether there already exist and completed studies covering the same area and problem. The way to discover the sources is to look for them wherever they may be an make a listing of these sources.
Final Note: Sometimes, a research plan or proposal may be presented for evaluation in order to secure funding. When this is the case, two things must be added to the foregoing parts: 1) a timetable indicating the schedule of research activities and the time each step in the research is expected to be completed, and 2) a statement of expenses properly itemized to indicate which amount is for which activity, and for which logistics (that is, tools, equipment, instruments, postage, and the like) and related expenses, such as salaries and publication expenses. It is important to note that the budget is not only itemized but also justified.
Quantitative research is a type of research method that is used to collect and analyze numerical data. The data is collected through structured and standardized research instruments, such as surveys, questionnaires, and experiments. This type of research involves statistical analysis to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about a population.
The following are some of the key characteristics of quantitative research:
1. Use of measurable data:
Quantitative research relies on measurable data, which can be analyzed using statistical methods. This data is typically collected using standardized research instruments, such as questionnaires or surveys. The data can be analyzed using statistical techniques, such as regression analysis, correlation analysis, or factor analysis, to test hypotheses and draw conclusions.
2. Use of statistical analysis:
Quantitative research uses statistical analysis to analyze the data. This analysis helps researchers to test hypotheses and determine whether the results are statistically significant. Statistical analysis also allows researchers to draw inferences about a population from a sample of data.
3. Use of a large sample size:
Quantitative research often uses a large sample size to ensure that the results are representative of the population being studied. The sample size should be large enough to minimize the effects of sampling error and to ensure that the results are reliable and generalizable.
4. Use of standardized research instruments:
Quantitative research uses standardized research instruments, such as surveys or questionnaires, to collect data. These instruments are designed to ensure that the data collected is valid and reliable. Standardization ensures that the data is collected in a consistent and systematic manner.
5. Use of objective measurements:
Quantitative research relies on objective measurements of variables. This means that the variables being measured are defined in a way that can be objectively quantified. Objective measurements help to ensure that the results are valid and reliable.
6. Focus on causality:
Quantitative research often focuses on determining causality between variables. Researchers are interested in determining whether changes in one variable cause changes in another variable. This is typically done through experimental research designs, where the researcher manipulates one variable and measures the effect on another variable.
7. Use of deductive reasoning:
Quantitative research uses deductive reasoning to test hypotheses. Deductive reasoning involves starting with a theory or hypothesis and then testing it through empirical observation. This allows researchers to make predictions about the relationship between variables and to test those predictions through statistical analysis.
8. Emphasis on objectivity:
Quantitative research emphasizes objectivity in the research process. This means that the researcher should remain neutral and impartial throughout the research process. Researchers must avoid introducing their own biases or values into the research process to ensure that the results are objective and reliable.
In conclusion, quantitative research is a powerful research method that is used to collect and analyze numerical data. This type of research relies on measurable data, statistical analysis, a large sample size, standardized research instruments, objective measurements, a focus on causality, deductive reasoning, and an emphasis on objectivity. By carefully designing and conducting quantitative research studies, researchers can gain valuable insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of human behavior.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
In this lecture notes, I will briefly explain the nature and dynamics of the “Self” according to Immanuel Kant. But it must be noted at the outset that Kant’s concept of the self is very difficult to systematize because in the first place, Kant himself did not fully develop this concept. This is partly because Kant’s concept of the self serves only as the foundation of his moral theory. In fact, for Kant, the human person as a rational moral agent is the sole basis in determining the truth of the categorical imperative.
Indeed, behind the formal ethical façade of Kant’s categorical imperative is the attempt of the human person to achieve moral perfection. Hence, we can surmise that the ultimate goal of Kant’s moral teachings is for the human person to become morally perfect. And for this reason, it can be argued that anybody who wants to study Kantian ethics should first and foremost understand Kant’s concept of the self as the anthropological basis of his moral teachings.
So, how does Kant view the self?
According to Kant, the human person has a two-fold nature, namely:
1) homo noumenon and
2) homo phaenomenon
On the one hand, the term noumenon, which is derived from Kant’s epistemology, refers to the essence of things. For Kant, the noumenon is the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich). According to Kant, the noumenon cannot be known because, as the essence of things, it is beyond experience. For example, as Kant would have us believe, we cannot know the “tableness” of the table, or that which makes a table really “a table”. Later on, Hegel argues that there is no such thing as “thing-in-itself” or the “tableness” of the table. For Hegel, what reason knows is all there is to know.
On the other hand, the term phaenomenon, according to Kant, refers to the thing as it appears to the observer. In other words, the phaenomenon is the empirical part of a thing. It is indeed that part of a thing that can be experienced by humans. The hardness, texture, color, and shape of a table are all that we can know about the table. For Kant, they are the phaenomenal aspects of the table.
For Kant, therefore, everything that exists has two natures, namely:
1) the non-empirical part (noumenon or essence) and
2) the empirical part (phaenomenon).
Applied to humans, the homo noumenon for Kant is the godlike self of the human person which comprises the psychological state and intellect, while the homo phaenomenon is the merely human self or, simply, the physical self.
Now, it is important to note that when it comes to Kantian ethics, the phaenomenal self is dropped from the equation. This is because the homo phaenomenon is the animal or instinctual aspect of the human person. Therefore, it cannot be put under moral obligation. Just think, for example, of how ridiculous it is to sue a cat for stealing your food. So, when it comes to Kantian ethics, we only talk about the homo noumenon or the “godlike self”. However, the phaenomenal self is equally important if we talk about the “self” in itself because one cannot be a complete self without it. In fact, according to Kant, we humans have both an inner self and an outer self which allow us to become conscious. This is because the inner self comprises our psychological state and rational intellect, while our outer self comprises our senses and other instinctual functions. Again, it is just that when it comes to ethics, Kant focuses only on the noumenal self for the same reason already given.
If the homo phaenomenon cannot be put under moral obligation, Kant says that the homo noumenon or the noumenal self (or godlike self) can be put under moral obligation simply because it is the self that is endowed with “freedom”. The homo noumenon or the noumenal self, therefore, is a free agent. And it is this very idea of freedom that the noumenal self is said to have an “absolute inner worth”, a value which is beyond any price and which demands respect.
As a free agent, Kant says that the the noumenal self has two aspects, namely, 1) free choice (freie Willkür) and 2) will (Wille).
On the one hand, “free choice” is understood as the capacity of the self to act without being determined to do so by any external material forces. On the other hand, “will” is the capacity of the self to set forth unconditionally binding moral laws.
So, with free choice, the human person (and it must be noted that in Kantian philosophy, when we say the “human person” we mean the “noumenal self) can do whatever she wants to do. However, even if the human person can do whatever she wants to do, she may not always do whatever she wishes because of the self-imposed moral law promulgated by the will. For instance, because of free choice, the human person is free “to lie”, but because the will promulgated the moral law “not to lie”, then the human person or the self has to always tell the truth.
This now brings us to the idea that being true to one’s self is, for Kant, respecting one’s self. And for Kant, it is our duty to respect our own self because doing so is respecting humanity at the same time. This implies that if we violate our duty to respect our very own selves, then we fail somehow to give humanity the same respect it demands.
A concrete example of respecting one’ self is not to harm it by, say, not drinking too much alcohol or committing suicide. Needless to say, drinking too much alcohol will harm the body, which in the long run will ruin the entire person. In the case of suicide, if one kills herself, she is not only undermining her own “absolute inner worth” as a person but also the “absolute inner worth” of the entire human race.
Now, Kant believes that the noumenal self is the idealized person who is destined to be perfect since she has in herself the godlike nature as belonging to the world of understanding.
Logically then, we can infer that for Kant, the noumenal self is the human person’s real self. It is indeed the person’s true self. Since we have this godlike self, Kant believes that it is our duty to attain perfection by actualizing this godlike noumenal self. And according to Kant, we can attain perfection or we can actualize our godlike self by developing ourselves into moral persons, which can be done by obeying the command of the categorical imperative.
But how does the human person actualize her true self if she cannot know her noumenal self? The phaenomenal self can provide us the key.
Since the human person cannot know her noumenal self, then she must take into account the fact that part of her “self” belongs to the phaenomenal world, that she has a phenomenal self, a physical body so to speak. As already mentioned, this is the self that can be experienced by the senses. We can touch it, see it, smell it. We can even taste it if we like.
In this way, the human person can have an idea of her noumenal self. In simple terms, the body, which is the seat of reason or intellect, allows the self to think, analyze, understand, and interpret reality. The phenomenal self, therefore, serves as the springboard for the actualization of the noumenal self.
Lastly, because the phaenomenal self always appeals to “desires”, which, according to Kant, is the source of errors, it has to be guided by a moral principle based on reason. Thus, the human person as a rational being must also consider her “self” as belonging to the intelligible world if she hopes to attain perfection. This is where the categorical imperative comes in. As Tucker (1972, p. 35) argues, the noumenal self tries to actualize its godlike nature as the real self by obeying the dictate of reason through the categorical imperative.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.
David Hume’s concept of the self does not only differ from but runs counter to Descartes’s and the other philosophers of the self, such as Plato and Aristotle. This is because, for Hume, there is no such thing as a “self”.
Let me briefly explain why for Hume the concept of the self is an illusion.
First, we need to clarify the term “soul” that Plato and Aristotle used and “mind” that Descartes used.
For Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and other philosophers who engaged this issue, the term soul or mind refers to a thing or substance which is supposed to be invariably the same through time. So, these philosophers understood the soul as a substance. And as we may already know, a substance is understood in traditional metaphysics as anything, material or immaterial, whose existence is independent on anything else.
So, for these thinkers, the soul or mind is the seat for all our mental states, such as thinking, analyzing, imagining, and the like. This means that the “I”, that is, “the self” is the same all throughout one’s lifetime. One may change physically or emotionally, but the “I” or “self” remains the same.
Now, for Hume, if we possess this substance, then we must have an “impression” of it. However, for Hume, we do not, and cannot, have an impression of such idea. For Hume, therefore, the term soul, mind, or self is one of those meaningless words that we utter.
So, for Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and the rest of the philosophers of the self were arguing only about “words” simply because neither of them knows exactly what a soul, mind, or self is. They don’t experience it concretely in the first place, according to Hume.
But how did Hume arrive at the idea that there is no such thing as the idea of the “self”?
Let us now turn to Hume’s theory of ideas.
First, we have to remember that Hume neither affirms nor denies the idea of the self. It’s just that for Hume, talking about it simply doesn’t make sense.
The reason behind Hume’s claim that there is no such thing as the idea of the self can be gleaned from his theory of ideas. So, on Hume’s theory of ideas.
As John Locke argues, ideas come from sensation and reflection. Hume calls it impression. Hence, it must be noted that when Hume used the term “impression”, he means “idea”. When we say “impression” in Hume, this includes both sensation and reflection in Locke. And for Hume, we can have an idea, that is, an impression, of something if we experience it concretely. For this reason, Hume argues that ideas that do not represent something in reality is an abstract idea and, therefore, meaningless. The idea of a “unicorn” is an example of an abstract idea because in the first place, there is no unicorn in reality.
For Hume, there is a multiplicity of ideas; yet all these ideas are linked together that form a coherent whole. According to Hume, this is made possible by the “laws of association”.
According to Hume, there are three laws of association, namely:
1) resemblance,
2) contiguity in time or place, and
3) cause and effect
Hume says that in the law of resemblance, the idea of one object tends to call to mind ideas of resembling objects. For instance, the idea of “honey” resembles the ideas of “sweet” and “liquid”.
In the law of contiguity in time and place, Hume says that when we think, for instance, of “Osama Bin Laden”, we tend to think of “terrorism” or “suicide bombing”.
In the law of cause and effect, Hume says that when we think of, for instance, the idea of a “fresh egg falling to the ground”, it calls to mind the idea of a “splattered mess”.
Please note that Hume puts more emphasis on the third law of cause and effect. As a matter of fact, the law of cause and effect is one of the most important concepts in Hume’s theory of ideas. This explains why after talking about the law of cause and effect, Hume proceeds to the discussion on “perception” and “reasoning”.
On Perception and Reasoning
According to Hume, human understanding is furnished with the faculty of perception and the faculty of reason.
On the one hand, the object of perception are impressions or ideas. And, on the other hand, the object of reason are propositions.
According to Hume, propositions are either
1) a priori statements about relations of ideas or
2) empirical statements about matters of fact and real existence.
For Hume, relations of ideas can be known intuitively or demonstratively. For example, the proposition “All triangles have three angles” is an example of a proposition that can be known intuitively. The proposition “The sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees” is an example of a proposition that can be known demonstratively.
It is important to note that in relations of ideas, the truth can be established without empirical evidence. In fact, in both examples above, we don’t need to resort to experience before we can truly say that all triangles have three angles or, indeed, the sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees. Through mental processes alone, we can truly say that indeed the propositions above are absolutely true.
Matters of fact, for Hume, are propositions whose truth can be discovered through experience alone. Take, for example, the proposition “Sugar is sweet”. Obviously, one cannot really say that indeed sugar is sweet if one has not tasted it. Hence, we can never come to know that sugar is sweet without resorting to experience.
It must be noted that it is “matters of fact” that concerns Hume. In fact, Hume’s theory of knowledge centers on the idea of “matters of fact”.
Hume asks: “What is the nature of the empirical evidence which assures us of any real existence of matters of fact?”
According to Hume, we are assured of some facts by the present testimony of our senses or by the records of our memory. In other words, for Hume, we know that facts exist in reality simply because we experience them. This explains why Hume was an empiricist.
But the question is by what means do we get beyond such facts? In other words, how can we be sure that such facts exist in reality? This is the central question in Hume’s theory of knowledge, which he developed in his famous work Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
So, again, by what means do we get beyond such facts?
According to Hume, it is by means of the relation of cause and effect that we are enabled to make, more or less reasonable, predictions and conjectures that go beyond the data of perception and memory.
But how do we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect?
The answer, for Hume, is not reasoning a priori (as the rationalists would have us believe) but entirely from experience. Again, for Hume, our knowledge of cause and effect relation remains limited to experience. Of course, the mind steps beyond experience and engage in reasoning. But for Hume, this kind of reasoning is not supported by any argument or process of understanding through relations of ideas or through reasoning a priori. This kind of reasoning, for Hume, is supported by habit or custom.
Now, it must be noted that for the rationalists, cause and effect relation falls under a priori reasoning. In other words, for the rationalists, there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. For example, if it is raining at the moment, then reason tells us that the road must be wet. However, for Hume, in reality there is no necessary connection between two events, between cause and effect. The idea of a necessary connection is produced in the mind not through reason a priori, but through habit or custom. Hence, Hume did not reject the idea of “connection” wholesale. He only rejects the idea of connection employed in metaphysical reasoning, that is, the a priori reasoning in rationalism.
Again, for Hume, there is (necessary) connection only through experience (in common life and practice) which is based on habit. Hence, the only evidence assuring us of any real existence and matters of fact is experience, that is, 1) the present testimony of our senses, 2) the records of our memory, and 3) the causal (experiential) reasoning based on the empirically observed regularities of past experience.
Now, let’s go back to Hume’s concept of the self and apply what we have learned from his theory of ideas.
For Hume, if we look inside ourselves, we cannot find an impression (that is, an idea) of a “self” as a substance. In other words, we cannot experience the self concretely. Hence, for Hume, we have no reason to suppose that we are “selves” or “mind”, or “souls”. As Hume famously says, we are just a bunch of impressions.
This means that like the idea of an ultimate or necessary cause (as we discussed above) the idea of “self” is natural and inevitable. We are inclined to think about the self because we exist, because we are accustomed to it. However, for Hume, like the idea of an ultimate or necessary cause, the idea of a “self” is a mere fiction. Again, the idea of the self is anything but a bundle of impressions or, in other words, the idea of the self is just a supposition.
Indeed, for Hume, the idea of the self is simply an idea and there is no guarantee that it exists in reality. Again, it is natural to talk about it because we exist, because we are accustomed to it, but to suppose that there is within us an unchanging substance called the “self” is an illusion, at least for Hume.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.
René Descartes’s concept of the self revolves around the idea of mind-body dualism. For Descartes, a human person is composed of two parts, namely, a material body and a non-material mind.
It must be noted that Descartes’s idea of the “mind” is not different from the idea of the “soul” understood in antiquity, for instance, Plato’s concept of the soul.
For Descartes, the mind, or the soul, is superior to the body for it is in the mind that “mental states” occur. This is because for Descartes, the mental states, such as thinking, imagining, and analyzing, rather than the physical states of the body, such as pain, hunger, and thirst, are fundamental to our life as persons. In other words, for Descartes, it is the mind that makes us humans. Thus, for Descartes, the “mind” is the “real self”.
But how does Descartes view the soul as the true self of humans and how does it differ from the body?
On the one hand, Descartes’s understanding of the body as a material entity consists in extension (resextenza). In fact, according to Descartes, all things in the material world can be understood and explained in terms of size, shape, and motion. Hence, to be a “body” for Descartes is
1) to have size and shape,
2) to endure, and
3) to be movable and changeable.
The main reason why Descartes puts premium on “extension” as the essence of bodies or material things is that the conception of the things’ extension, such as size or shape, is clear and distinct. In other words, one cannot doubt the size and shape of a thing. For example, if one is holding a pen, one cannot doubt that it is tubelike and a bit small. But if we talk about the other purported features of a thing, such as color and taste, Descartes says that they are obscure and confused. Hence, these attributes do not constitute a thing. For example, the color red is not what makes a rose truly a rose. A rose flower can be white or yellow. It doesn’t have to be red for it to be called a rose. Later on, Jonh Locke calls these qualities “secondary qualities”, which for him do not necessarily constitute a thing.
On the other hand, as explained in his second meditation, Descartes argues that the mind or soul is an immaterial, nonextended substance that thinks (res cogitans). By “thinking” Descartes means being conscious of one’s self and the object of its thinking. Thus, for Descartes, the mind as the true self of humans is a thinking thing. And it is interesting to note that, according to Descartes, knowledge of oneself as a subject of conscious states and acts is the most certain knowledge anyone can have.
But how does Descartes view a thinking thing?
For Descartes, a thinking thing is a being that doubts, understands, asserts, denies, wills, imagines, and the like.
In Meditation II of his seminal work titled Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes demonstrates how certainty can be attained.
As already mentioned, Descartes is convinced that he can be certain that he exists because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind that does the doubting. Thus, Descartes famously say: “I think, therefore, I am”. According to Descartes, this statement is indubitable because even if a powerful demon were to deceive him into thinking that he does not exist, he needs to exist in order for the demon to deceive him. Therefore, whenever Descartes thinks, he exists.
From here, Descartes proceeds to addressing the question “What is this ‘I’ that does the thinking?”.
Descartes, however, concedes that though what he perceives with his senses may be false, he cannot deny that he is perceiving. Thus, for Descartes, the human mind is capable of both thought and perception. In other words, for Descartes, sensation or perception belongs to the mind. As a matter of fact, sensation is one of the functions of the mind (the other is thinking). Descartes uses the analogy of the wax to prove his point.
As we can see, a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax. For some thinkers, such as the empiricists, it is the senses that distinguishes a solid wax from a melted wax. For Descartes, however, the ability to distinguish a solid wax from a melted wax is not the function of the senses but of thought. In other words, it is “thought” or the “reasoning mind” that makes the judgment that a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax.
For Descartes, therefore, because the senses can be deceived, physical objects, including bodies, are properly perceived only by the intellect. Indeed, for Descartes, the mind is the only thing that one can be certain of.
Finally, Descartes believes that the mind and body are both substances (please note that in traditional metaphysics, the term substance refers to anything that can exist on its own independent of anything else). Therefore, for Descartes, mind and body are completely distinct and that they are independent from each other.
Although they are completely distinct from each other, Descartes argues that the mind and body are in some sense unified. For Descartes, this union is what makes possible the interaction between mind and body.
So, despite the real distinction between mind and body, Descartes argues that these substances nevertheless interact with each other. According to Descartes, the mind causes certain changes in the body and the body in the mind.
Part of the reason why Descartes aims to establish the distinction between mind and body is to establish the fact that the soul is immortal. As we can see, the distinction between mind and body opens up the possibility of establishing the immortality of the soul since it involves the idea that the “decay of the body does not imply the destruction of the soul”.
But how does Descartes prove the crucial claim that the mind and body are capable of existing apart from each other?
Here, Descartes invokes what he calls 1) clear and distinct conception of the mind as a thing that is complete and does not require any extended qualities in order to exist, and 2) the corresponding clear and distinct conception of the body not requiring any mental properties in order to exist.
As we can see, Descartes’s real distinction argument turns on the reliability of so-called clear and distinct perception. However, Descartes did not give a concrete example of a mind existing apart from the body, and a body existing apart from the mind.
Also, when asked about the specificity of this interaction, Descartes was unable to answer and instead appeal to God. In Descartes’ understanding, God sets up or institutes those particular causal relations between mind and body that are, in general, the most conducive to the well-being of the composite of mind and body.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
Aristotle was undoubtedly the most brilliant student of Plato. Yet, Aristotle diverged from most of Plato’s fundamental philosophies, especially on the concept of the self.
As we may already know, Plato is sure that the true self is the soul, not the body. And to be specific, the true self for Plato is the rational soul which is separable from the body. Aristotle’s concept of the self is quite the opposite.
Aristotle’s concept of the self is more complicated as he talked about so many things in this topic. However, there is one main theme in Aristotle’s narrative of the soul that guides us in understanding his concept of the self, that is, the human person is a “rational animal”. In other words, for Aristotle, the human person is simply an animal that thinks.
How did Aristotle come up with the idea that the human person is just an animal that thinks? His idea of the soul provides the key.
Aristotle defines the soul as the principle of life. And as the principle of life, it causes the body to live. This explains why for Aristotle all living beings have souls. Because for Aristotle all living beings have souls, then it follows that plants and animals (in addition to humans) have souls too. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes three levels of soul, namely, vegetative soul, sensitive soul, and rational soul.
According to Aristotle, the vegetative soul is found in plants, while the sensitive and rational souls are found in animals and humans respectively.
According to Aristotle, plants have souls because they possess the three basic requirements for something to be called a “living being”, that is, the capacity to grow, reproduce, and feed itself.
Sensitive souls also grow, reproduce, and feed themselves; but unlike vegetative souls, sensitive souls are capable of sensation.
Finally, rational souls grow, reproduce, feed themselves, and feel; but unlike the sensitive souls, rational souls are capable of thinking. According to Aristotle, this highest level of soul is present only in humans.
Since humans possess all the characteristics of animals, that is, the capacity to grow, reproduce, feed itself, and feel, in addition to being rational, Aristotle concludes that the human person is just an animal that thinks. As Aristotle’s famous dictum on the human person goes, “Man is a rational animal.”
Again, this explains why for Aristotle the human person is just an animal that thinks.
Now, for Aristotle, the human person is not a soul distinct from the body as Plato would have us believe. Aristotle argues that the self or the human person is a composite of body and soul and that the two are inseparable. Aristotle’s concept of the self, therefore, was constructed in terms of hylomorphism.
Aristotle views the soul as the “form” of the human body. And as “form” of the body, the soul is the very structure of the human body which allows humans to perform activities of life, such as thinking, willing, imagining, desiring, and perceiving.
While Aristotle believes that the human person is essentially body and soul, he was led to interpret the “true self” of humans as the soul that animates the body. However, Aristotle believes that the body is as important as the soul as it serves as “matter” to the soul.
Although Aristotle contends that the soul is the form of the body, he did not argue for the primacy of the former over the latter. Again, Aristotle’s concept of the self is hylomorphic, that is, the self or the human person is composed of body and soul. The two are inseparable. Thus, we cannot talk about the self with a soul only or a self with a body only. For Aristotle, the self is essentially body and soul. Indeed, for Aristotle, the self is a unified creature.
