Research Styles

Methods in THEE's Primary Domains can be operated in 4 different ways or styles which are in a hierarchic order. See further architectural details here.

Recognizable labels can be assigned to particular types of inquirers or forms of inquiry in relation to these styles. All labels and suggestions are provisional at this point.

This follows on from a briefer analysis in the Architecture Room.

Empirical Method (L'1)

Four hierarchical styles of empirical research method.

Data Collectors need simply to α-assert the value of the empirical approach. By contrast, Investigators who control the data and its analysis must β-organise any empirical research project. Once data has been collected, its significance is γ-contested by Statisticians to determine confidence levels and probabilities that findings are due to chance. Finally, empirical findings are δ-anchored by the work of Meta-analysts who bring together available studies for deeper statistical and qualitative study.

Analytic Method (L'2)

Four hierarchical styles of analytic research method.

Researchers typically α-assert what their findings mean via qualified conclusions and speculations. However, a more experienced investigator acts as an Analyst and β-organises the analytic effort in light of the literature and a variety of possibilities. This ensures a coherent and reflective "Discussion" section in publications. Whatever the analysis, there will be Critics who γ-contest the conclusions reached. Finally, every field of study provides for Integrators to δ-anchor the analyses by producing reviews based on multiple recent papers and integrating them with findings in earlier studies.

Explanatory Method (L'3)

Four hierarchical styles of explanatory research method.

Hypothesizors simply α-assert a particular explanation, perhaps as part of an analysis refuting a colleague's conclusions. Experimenters go the next step and β-organise the testing of the hypothesis either to verify or falsify it. Whatever the findings, there will be Competitors who γ-contest the conclusions by drawing on alternative theories. Finally, explanatory research is ultimately δ-anchored by Theorists who check out multiple alternatives and ensure that any confirmed explanation fits within an acceptable theoretical paradigm.

Dialectic Method (L'4)

Four hierarchical styles of dialectic research method.

Polarizers simply α-assert the existence of a conflict within the inquiring field. However, it requires a Debater to β-organise the inquiry by clarifying the nature of the conflict and the arguments supporting each position. Adherents to one side or the other γ-contest polarization, typically wishing to nullify the opposition. Insofar as both sides have adherents, the research is δ-anchored by a Synthesizer who explicitly validates both sides and shows how they are embraced within a single larger conception.

Holistic Method (L'5)

Four hierarchical styles of holistic research method.

Structuralists α-assert holistic research because whatever they see is a pattern of objects in relation to other objects i.e. a model. Modellers take models provided or developed and β-organise them to fit particular situations so as to enable specific change or goal-driven activity. Participants contribute to model development and design, but as Users have no stake in the model while seeking to apply it. So they are the ones who γ-contest validity. Finally, Designers δ-anchor the model by adopting and applying it on a regular basis.

Formal Method (L'6)

Four hierarchical styles of formal research method.

Formal research starts by a Questioner α-asserting an abstract question or statement deemed worthwhile addressing. Logicians are then required to β-organise the inquiry, setting the proof out in clear steps that permit checking that no rules are broken. The proof should be verifiable, so Verifiers can and must γ-contest the arguments and assumptions. Having passed that test, formal outputs are δ-anchored by Canonizers and become part of the disciplinary canon.

Contemplative Method (L'7)

Four hierarchical styles of contemplative research method.

The contemplative method is required when anomalies and issues in the current paradigm are intractable. Experienced scientists act as Commentators and α-assert that knowledge is in a parlous state. However, it requires a Genius to be able to look at the world in a new way and β-organise an inquiry. Sceptics quickly arise to γ-contest the new conception. If it passes their tests, then a Doyen emerges to δ-anchor the insight by re-stating, confirm and further developing its value.
Example from Physics:Closed The US collegium led by J.R. Oppenheimer agreed that if they could not contest the Hidden Variables paper of David Bohm—and they could not—then they would avoid any comment or involvement with the paper.

  • Now proceed to naming the Levels of informed knowing.

Originally posted: 21-May-2023.