Monster Frankenstein as a Model of Society in and the Pursuit for the Better
Methodology are ways, strategies and heuristics that we use to understand reality. The methodological process help us collect data, understand the data that we have collected, in coming up with an explanation or hypothesis, and the ways we seek to validate our findings.
Realism is a set of assumptions about ontology that we bring to empirical investigation. It includes understanding how the world works. In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Philosophic realism in general is defined by Phillips (1987:205) as 'the view that entities exist independently of being perceived, or independently of our theories about them.'
Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.
Realism was ignored or disparaged during much of the twentieth century, both by positivists and by constructivists and other antipositivists. However, it has emerged as a serious position in current philosophical discussion (Boyd, 2010; Devitt, 2005; Niiniluoto, 2002; Putnam, 1987, 1990, 1999; Salmon, 2005). In the philosophy of science, including the philosophy of the social sciences, realism has been an important, and arguably the dominant, approach for over 30 years (Baert, 1998, pp. 189–190; Hammersley, 1998, p. 3; Suppe, 1977, p. 618); realism has been prominent in other areas of philosophy as well (Miller, 2010).
Realism is of mainly two kinds. Direct realism and critical realism. Direct realism takes the objective reality, as is whereas critical realism asserts that there are real underlying causes, structures, and processes that constitute a ‘reality’. Understanding of these processes helps us make observations about the world and society. It helps us form more informed theories and hypotheses that can be used to arrive at explanations.
In the social sciences, the most prominent manifestation of realism is the “critical realist” tradition usually associated with the work of Roy Bhaskar (1978, 1989, 2011; Archer, Bhaskar, Collier, Lawson, & Norrie, 1998; Manicas, 2006; Sayer, 1992, 2000)
Academics believe that research methodology does not belong to one philosophy alone. Mixed method studies have given a new understanding of realism to the current field of research. Realism in most mixed-method studies generally includes realist ontology (there is a real-world that exists independently of our perceptions, theories, and constructions) with a constructivist epistemology. But as mentioned earlier, methodological pragmatists believe that research methodology is not linked with simply one philosophical position but are employed on the basis of their practical utility.
This is true in many circumstances, but one can also not reduce the importance of philosophical stances. It is the philosophy that informs methods and the approach of the researcher toward the subject and processes of their study.
Philosophical realism, a currently prominent approach in the philosophy of science, is gaining increased attention as an alternative to both positivism/empiricism and constructivism as a stance for research and evaluation in the social sciences (Campbell, 1988; House, 1991; Mark, Henry, & Julnes, 2000; Maxwell, 1990, 1992, 2004a, 2008; Pawson, 2006; Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Sayer, 1992, 2000).
Contemporary versions of realism have presented sophisticated approaches to some of the contentious philosophical issues involved in the “paradigm wars” over qualitative and quantitative research. (Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research by Joseph A. Maxwell George Mason University Kavita Mittapalli, Ph.D. Independent Researcher and Program Evaluator, MN Associates, Inc. (Fairfax, VA)
Although there are now a considerable number of substantive mixed-method studies that have employed a realist perspective, realism has received relatively little notice in discussions of mixed methodology (exceptions include Greene, 2007; Greene & Hall, this volume; Lipscomb, 2008; and McEvoy & Richards, 2006)
Realism is not just an effective stance in mixed-method research, it is also a way to open up collaboration between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. It is one such philosophy that is compatible with both qualitative and quantitative method and gives a strong philosophical grounding to them. But it should also be mentioned that certain implications of realism, more specifically critical realism, does challenge a few aspects of both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Albeit, both quantitative and qualitative researchers have sometimes tried to reject realism by either calling it ‘commonsense truism’ or mere positivism respectively. However, Realists have been among the strongest critics of the “regularity” view of causation that was typical of positivism and is still dominant in quantitative research (Maxwell, 2004a).
On the other hand, many realists have also been very critical of quantitative analysis. But, the contribution of realism to mixed-method research is undeniably important and has been recognized by many prominent researchers. There are many aspects of mixed-method research for which realism provides a valuable perspective. For example, it is useful to view research designs as real entities--not simply as models for research, but also as the actual conceptualizations and practices employed in a specific study. The latter approach helps a reader of a research publication to understand the real design of a study, its “logic-in-use,” which may differ substantially from its “reconstructed logic” (Kaplan, 1964, p. 8) presented in publications (Maxwell & Loomis, 2003; Maxwell, 2005).
There are many ways in which realism has already helped research but it has even more potential to do so in the near future. In their paper, Realism As a Stance of Mixed Method, Maxwell and Mathapalli state the four ways in which realism can impact both qualitative and quantitative research. They include- causal explanation, mind and reality, validity, and diversity.
They elaborate on it by explaining how the realist alternative to the dominant regularity model of causality can give context to the phenomenon that is being studied without reducing it to mere variables and by understanding the processes of that phenomenon. This will help researchers to understand individual events and occurrences rather than just general patterns. This not just gives importance to variance-based research but assists quantitative researchers to work with process-based methods in a complimentary fashion.
Realism also emphasizes on studying causal processes when it comes to social phenomena. It allows space for explanations to be tailored with the responses of individuals or social groups. It ensures that causality is unique and not general. It also keeps in check the conclusions of research studies that might arise due to the context and purpose of study. Realism also ensures that the study being conducted is aware of diversity while making hypotheses. If we look at the realist approach, it also incorporates many features of the emancipatory paradigm that help the cause of social justice.
It is important to notice that realism not only creates spaces for the collaboration of quantitative and qualitative research methods, but it also brings out the best in both the methods individually as well.
However, while we do see the impact of critical realism on research methodology, we should also make ourselves aware of the problematics of that it may pose. Stephen Kemp, in his paper, Critical Realism and Limits of Philosophy, discusses the shortcomings of using critical realism. He concludes that scientific research would be more accurate if conducted without philosophical legislation. The limitations of critical realism include the condition that philosophical arguments may ‘run ahead’ of substantial investigation.
In conclusion, one must note, that even the philosophical stances of realism are continuously undergrowth and elaboration. It should never be assumed that realism is ‘the correct or right’ philosophical stance in any research methodology but it should be seen to be an ‘important’ stance that gives and adds more perspective to the research at hand. It brings a valuable standpoint that can be beneficial to both quantitative and qualitative research methods but most importantly to mixed methods.
