University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Volume 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333238659 Philosophical Foundations of Social Science Research versus technical convenience: Examining methodological weaknesses in students’ research Article · January 2016 CITATIONS READS 0 980 2 authors: Angela Akorsu Francis Enu-Kwesi University of Cape Coast University of Cape Coast 20 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: PhD study View project It is part of my Master's Thesis View project All content following this page was uploaded by Angela Akorsu on 21 May 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 ISSN: 2343 – 6522 All rights reserved. No part of the article in this Journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher or Editor-in-Chief. 1 University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Page Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 EDITORIAL BOARD Professor A.M. Abane, Department of Geography & Regional Planning, University of Cape Coast, Editor-in-Chief Professor P.E. Bondzie-Simpson, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Coast, Associate Editor Professor Agnes A. Apusigah, University for Development Studies, Tamale, Associate Editor Professor (Mrs.) Rosemond A. Boohene, School of Business, University of Cape Coast (also serving as Financial/ Business Advisor) Professor A.A. Alema, Department of Library and Archival Studies, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra Professor P.W.K. Yankson, Department of Geography & Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra. Professor J.S. Okafor, Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria Professor S.B. Kendie, Institute for Development Studies, University of Cape Coast Mr. Clement Entsua Mensah, Librarian, University of Cape Coast Professor L. Owusu-Ansah, Department of English, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast Professor E. Mansah Prah, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Cape Coast Professor J.A. Kwarteng, School of Agriculture, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast Professor J.A. Amedehe, Department of Educational Foundations, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast Professor R.N. Osei, Department of Classics & Philosophy, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast 2 University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Page Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 CONTENT Page Philosophical foundations of social science research versus technical convenience: 4-31 Examining methodological weaknesses in students‟ researches Angela Dziedzom Akorsu, Francis Enu-Kwesi Community Perception of Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Elmina in 32-54 the Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem (KEEA) District of Ghana Henrietta Abane, Michael Sakyi-Darko Change and continuity: Use of indigenous knowledge in selected farming and fishing 55-84 communities in Central Region, Ghana Kobina Esia-Donkoh, Kofi Awusabo Asare Rethinking individual agency and accountability in local governance: Evidence from 85-109 Ntonoaboma in the Eastern Region of Ghana Patrick Osei-Kufour Accountable governance in Ghana: Rhetoric or a reality? 110-140 Stephen B. Kendie, David W. Essaw Peace Education as a Recipe for Terrorism in West Africa 141-160 Rasheed Adenrele Adetoro 3 University of Cape Coast Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Page Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 Philosophical foundations of social science research versus technical convenience: Examining methodological weaknesses in students’ researches Angela Dziedzom Akorsu Institute for Development Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Francis Enu-Kwesi Institute for Development Studies, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Social science research is replete with studies that use or combine quantitative and qualitative research strategies. Yet, quantitative and qualitative research strategies are driven by different epistemological and ontological rhetoric and also give rise to differences in the kind of intellectual knowledge that can be produced. Using a qualitative approach we focused on 48 available theses and dissertations, and undertook a content analysis of the justifications that are often presented by graduate students for using particular methods. In the process, we provided several examples which illustrate methodological weaknesses in students‟ researches. The conclusion is that these weaknesses are systemic and are due to a combination of different factors, from the students to the lecturers, supervisors and assessors. The implications are that all those involved in the processes must live up to their responsibilities in order to ensure that there is validity and acceptability of the end product. Key words: Epistemology, ontology, quantitative, qualitative, mixed, methodology, social, sciences 4 Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 Introduction The quantitative-qualitative debates have moved from one of contradiction to one of compatibility. Some writers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Noblitt & Hare, 1988; Rosenberg, 1988) have questioned the wisdom of integrating both approaches due to their different purposes. According to these authors, the quantitative paradigm in social science research is underlain by the study of social variables that lead to the prediction of social phenomena. The researcher‟s responsibility is thus to quantify these social variables and phenomena in order to be able to predict future events or outcomes. Qualitative paradigm, on the other hand, beckons greater understanding rather than prediction of social phenomena. Hence, the doubters of integration argue that the two paradigms differ so much that any integration or reconciliation is likely to undermine the epistemological foundations of each (Rosenberg, 1988). Others, however, while appreciating the philosophical debates, take pragmatic positions (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Steckler, 1989; Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird & McCormick, 1992) and suggest that nothing should stop any social scientists from subscribing to the philosophy of one paradigm while employing the methods of the other paradigm. The integrationist proponents argue that the complexity of social interventions such as those that occur in water, sanitation, health, poverty and education programmes require the usage of multiple or mixed methodologies in order to produce effective evaluation of these interventions. Beneath the arguments and counter arguments for the adoption of single methodology approaches, it is worth taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and the fact that single methodology approaches often fail to explore all the components of social phenomena. This failure can and sometimes renders well-intentioned social interventions less effective than desired. Jones (1997) admits that the crucial justification for a mixed methodology design is that both qualitative and quantitative methodologies have strengths and weaknesses. It is thus incumbent upon the researcher to blend both methods so that the final research outcome can 5 Volume 2, Number 1, January 2016 highlight the important contributions of each one, where qualitative data can support and give meaning to quantitative findings. The objective of mixed methods is not necessarily to reconcile qualitative and quantitative approaches, but rather to note that they are not antithetical and that the practical exigencies of the problem or issue being addressed may require the application of both methodologies (Pinto, 2010). What can be gleaned from Pinto‟s view is that as social scientists we aim to understand the complexity of human behaviour and as researchers, our task is to describe and explain this complexity. However, when there are limitations in our individual methodological repertoires, it is beneficial to acknowledge that and adopt other methods or mix methods through triangulation (Neuman, 2011). In doing so, the dimensions and scope of the problem at hand can be broadened and elucidated to generate a holistic perspective of human behaviour and experience, which in turn can lead to effective solutions for social problems. Similar views have been expressed by other researchers. Bowen (2005) explains how her dissertation committee encouraged her to adopt the best of both approaches in order to be able to reflect the interactions and experiences of individuals and communities in respect of her chosen research problem. According to Bowen, both approaches have distinct and complementary strengths. In her contribution to the debate, Hastings (2010) refers to methodological triangulation or the use of multiple methods to study a single problem. In this respect, qualitative and quantitative methods may be employed simultaneously or sequentially. According to Hastings, this can occur either as within-methods triangulation where multiple quantitative or qualitative approaches are employed, or as between-methods triangulation where both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used. Post positivists argue that triangulation enables