CHAPTER 4 Preparing for Research: Metatheoretical Considerations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lor International & comparative librarianship, chapter 4, rev. 2017-01-11 CHAPTER 4 Preparing for research: metatheoretical considerations “Go and be somethingological directly.” – Mrs Gradgrind to her children, in Charles Dickens's Hard Times (Dickens [1854] 1996, 56) Paradigm issues are crucial; no inquirer, we maintain, ought to go about the business of inquiry without being clear about just what paradigm informs and guides his or her approach. (Guba and Lincoln 1994, 116) There is no denying that what follows is a Cook’s tour of complicated philosophies that demand more detailed attention in their own right… (Schwandt 2000, 190) OUTLINE 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Method, methodology and metatheory 4.3 Metatheory, methodology and methods: the Iceberg Model 4.4 Metatheoretical dimensions 4.5 Major research paradigms 4.6 The sociological dimension 4.7 The teleological dimension 4.8 The ontological dimension 4.9 The epistemological dimension 4.10 The ethical dimension 4.11 Decisions relating to metatheoretical assumptions 4.12 Towards methodology This is a draft chapter from: Lor, Peter Johan (in prep.) International and comparative librarianship: concepts and methods for global studies. This version of Chapter 4, which replaces an earlier Chapter 3, is dated 2017-01-11. It is not yet final but it is made available for information and comment. It may be used for educational and research purposes subject to author attribution. © Peter Johan Lor, 2017. Text: 24580 Bibl: 5154 Total: 29734 1 Lor International & comparative librarianship, chapter 4, rev. 2017-01-11 4.1 Introduction Following on the historical and conceptual basis laid in Part I, Part II deals with method, broadly understood as including considerations of metatheory, methodology and methods. While Part II has grown out of reflection on method in comparative librarianship, most of what is covered here also applies to both research and practice in international librarianship. In Part II a tripartite division is followed, a chapter being devoted to each of metatheory, methodology and methods. Extensive use is made here of literature from other comparative fields, especially comparative education, which was a major early influence on comparative librarianship. This chapter1 starts by distinguishing between metatheory, methodology and method, before discussing metatheory in more detail. 4.2 Method, methodology and metatheory Students of Ancient Greek will know that the preposition μετά (meta), which is embedded in each of these three terms, can express many relationships. Meta can mean, inter alia, ‘in the midst of’, ‘among’, ‘after’, and ‘in pursuit of’.2 Combined with ὁδός (hodós, “way, motion, journey”) it gives ‘method’,3 denoting a process or a way of doing something. With –ology’’ added to express the notion of science or discipline, it gives ‘methodology’, denoting the study of method. In ‘metatheory’ the prefix meta means ‘after’, ‘beyond’, or ‘transcending’, hence in English, theory about or above theory.4 In this book these three terms are used with distinct meanings and are conceived of in a hierarchical relationship. Methods and methodology Methods, in the plural, is used here to refer to procedures and techniques of research, the contents of the research ‘toolkit’, such as sampling, interviewing, surveying, observations, data analysis and their associated instruments, such as questionnaires, interview schedules and observation protocols. Typically, a large proportion of research method texts in LIS is devoted to methods, and in research reports the methods used will normally be described and a motivation will be provided for their selection. Collectively, methods and methodology may be referred to by the singular, method – which will be avoided here. Methodology, originally ‘the study of method’, is now widely used to refer to a set of methods, a description of the methods used in a study, an elaborate method, or simply as a grand word for a method. In this book I use ‘methodology’ in a more specialized sense to refer to high-level decisions on research approaches, strategy and research design. These decisions are fundamental to the selection of the specific methods to be employed. Metatheory Of the three terms, metatheory is the least known and it is infrequently mentioned in research articles and reports. It refers to assumptions which underpin researchers’ decisions on methodology and methods for specific projects, assumptions of which they may or may not be 1 In this chapter I make extensive use of an article published in Journal of documentation (Lor 2014). 2 Wiktionary, “μετά”, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%AC#Ancient_Greek, accessed 2016-11-23. 3 Wiktionary, “method”, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/method, accessed 2016-11-23. 4 Wiktionary, “meta-“, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meta-#English, accessed 2016-11-23. 2 Lor International & comparative librarianship, chapter 4, rev. 2017-01-11 aware. Such assumptions do not apply only to research, but are also worth bringing to the surface in the context of international activities and relations in LIS. International initiatives that are undertaken without reflection on the assumptions held by the partners, risk unanticipated difficulties. This applies to such activities as library development aid, the education and training of librarians from other countries, and the introduction of new systems and technologies. Dervin defined metatheory as ...presuppositions which provide general perspectives or ways of looking, based on assumptions about the nature of reality and human beings (ontology), the nature of knowing (epistemology), the purposes of theory and research (teleology); values and ethics (axiology); and the nature of power (ideology) (Dervin 2003, 136). A complementary view of metatheory was provided by Hjørland: ...metatheories are broader and less specific than theories. They are more or less conscious or unconscious assumptions behind theoretical, empirical and practical work. Metatheoretical assumptions are connected to philosophical views, and are often part of interdisciplinary trends, which again can be connected to the Zeitgeist (Hjørland 1998, 607). Various terms are used for these high-level theoretical points of departure for research. Here I use ‘metatheory’ as a collective noun, and ‘paradigm’ for the specific metatheoretical perspectives or worldviews, for example, positivist or constructivist paradigms. For our purposes a paradigm is a more or less coherent set of metatheoretical assumptions – a worldview – held by like-minded scholars across a number of disciplines. 4.3 Metatheory, methodology and methods: the Iceberg Model There is general agreement that there is an order of precedence, or a hierarchical relationship, between methods, methodology and metatheory. As a general principle, researchers should first clarify their metatheoretical assumptions and then consider methodological decisions, before selecting and developing methods. In distinguishing between metatheory, methodology and method, Dervin (2003, 136–37) placed metatheory before methodology and method, where methodology serves as a bridge between the other two. Similarly, Pickard (2007, xv-xv11) proposed the following “research hierarchy”: Research paradigm (positivist, interpretivist) → Research methodology (qualitative or quantitative) → Research method (survey, case study, Delphi study, etc.) → Research technique (questionnaire, experiment, interview) → Research instrument (human, pencil & paper, etc.). A somewhat similar scheme is found in Mouton (1996, 36–37), who identified “three levels of the methodological dimension”: research techniques, research methods and methodological paradigms, the latter being related to epistemological and ontological assumptions, whereas the methodological paradigms comprise quantitative, qualitative and participatory action paradigms. 3 Lor International & comparative librarianship, chapter 4, rev. 2017-01-11 Here I follow Dervin’s tripartite division, relating it to Pickard’s and Mouton’s categories as set out in Table 4.1: TABLE 4.1: Research hierarchy according to Dervin, Pickard and Mouton Dervin (1999) Pickard (2007) Mouton (1996) Metatheory Research paradigm Epistemological and ontological assumptions Methodology Research methodology Methodological paradigm Research method (or Research method strategy) Method Research technique Research technique Research instrument A floating iceberg can serve as a metaphor for the relative visibility and significance of metatheory, methodology and methods. Because the specific gravity of ice is less than that of water, approximately 90% of an iceberg is below the water. In Figure 4.1 metatheory, methodology and methods are depicted at different levels of a floating iceberg. FIGURE 4.1: The “Iceberg Model” of research assumptions and decisions Metatheory corresponds to the submerged part of the iceberg, and comprises the less visible dimensions of social science research, which are discussed in this chapter. They are pictured as below the surface since key assumptions concerning where we are coming from as researchers (the sociological dimension of research), what we want to achieve through our research (the teleological dimension), what is an appropriate object for study (the ontological dimension), and how we can come to knowledge of it (the epistemological dimension), are often left 4 Lor International & comparative librarianship, chapter 4, rev. 2017-01-11 unexamined and unchallenged, and they are not often