자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

n our chapter for the first edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research, we focused on the contention among various research paradigms for legitimacy and intellectual and p;uadigmatic hegemony (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The postmodern paradigms that we discussed (postmodernist critical theory and constructivism) 1 were in contention with the received positivist and postpositivist paradigms for legitimacy, and with one another for intellectual legitimacy. In the half dozen years that have elapsed since that chapter was published, substantial change has occurred in the landscape of social scientific inquiry. On the matter of legitimacy, we observe that readers familiar with the literature on methods and paradigms reflect a high interest in ontologies and epistemologies that differ sharply from those undergirding conventional social science. Second, even those est::~blished professionals trained in quantitative social science (including the two of us) want to learn more about qualitative approaches, because new young professionals being mentored in graduate schools are asking serious questions about and looking for guidance in qualitatively oriented studies and dissertations. Third, the number of qualitative texts, research papers, workshops, and training materials has exploded. Indeed, it would be difficult to miss the distinct turn of the social sciences tow::~rd more interpretive, postmodern, and criticalist practices and theorizing (Bloland, 1989, 1995). This nonpositivist orientation has created a context (surround) in which virtually no study can go unchallenged by proponents of contending paradigms. Further, it

Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.

How has Japan become a major economic power, a world leader in the automotive and electronics industries? What is the secret of their success? The consensus has been that, though the Japanese are not particularly innovative, they are exceptionally skilful at imitation, at improving products that already exist. But now two leading Japanese business experts, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hiro Takeuchi, turn this conventional wisdom on its head: Japanese firms are successful, they contend, precisely because they are innovative, because they create new knowledge and use it to produce successful products and technologies. Examining case studies drawn from such firms as Honda, Canon, Matsushita, NEC, 3M, GE, and the U.S. Marines, this book reveals how Japanese companies translate tacit to explicit knowledge and use it to produce new processes, products, and services.

The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation

Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba, "Postpositivism and the Naturalist Paradigm," pp. 14-46 in Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.*

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/201/4359/899.2.full.pdf

Phenomenology of perception.

1. The report bases its assessment of both orthodox and alternative therapies on scientific method. However, science is a product of Western thinking, and is based on the assumptions Western society makes about the world and our place in it. Thus while within its world view science is a powerful tool for inquiry, it is by no means ‘free from overriding social values and political bias’. Many philosophers (Bateson, 1972;’ Skolimowski, 19862) and lay people alike view the Western world view and the society which is its product as in serious disarray: while it has brought about enormous material benefits, it is also the root of ecological devastation, human and social alienation, and spiritual impoverishment. Thus it is quite inappropriate to base an assessment of alternatives solely on scientific method, and we need to reach out to find ways to assess critically therapies which arise from other world views in their own terms. Modern philosophy of science suggests that it is not helpful to think in terms of absolute truths or laws of nature, but rather of truths within a world view, or paradigm (Kuhn, 19623). Orthodox medicine claims to rest firmly within the materialist scientific paradigm. But the alternatives to the scientific paradigm cannot be reduced to ‘superstition, magic, and the supernatural’: traditional acupuncture, for example, is rooted in a sophisticated and coherent world view quite different from orthodox medicine. It would be much more helpful if orthodox medicine would carefully and critically articulate its own world view, and challenge and encourage alternative therapies to articulate theirs. From such a dialogue we would learn a lot. 2. The report is naive in its view that science is a fully rational process. Students of the history of scientific discovery (Kuhn, 1976;3 Feyerabend, 19754) as well as those who have carefully looked at current practice (HarrC, 1981;’ Mitroff, 19746), have pointed out that science proceeds through passion and bias, as well as through the application of systematic observation and experiment. This is particularly true at times of paradigm shift, when the scientific world view changes dramatically (for example as at the time of Pasteur’s discoveries). Such a change in world view can only be a non-rational process, based on human sensitivities other than our rational judgement. The idea that

Peter Reason

Papers

Methods of Assessment