This reading illustrated various systems of inquiry with advantages and disadvantages. To understand the systems, some methodologists have clarified the systems of inquiry and created several model frameworks.Robinson categories research systems into two groups, science and myth, in other words quantitative and qualitative. Jorff and Morse, and Morgan and Smith create the continuum framework model. The author warned that the two groups’ framework might lead to misunderstanding, as it is too rough. According to author, the continuum framework is still based on the two groups’ framework. The author then proposed three groups framework, postpositivism, naturalism and emancipatory.
In my opinion, it is important to understand the systems of inquiry to manage my own research, as I agree that the system which researchers use effect research. To advance the quality of my research, it may be very helpful to know what kind of research I am doing and what is the weakness of that system of research, then I might be able to avoid disambiguation. To achieve this goal, a clear framework is required to understand the position of my inquiry system. I think a two groups’ framework to include continuum is clear and easy to understand rather than the three groups’ frame work which author recommends. The two of three groups; naturalism and emancipatory have similarities and have some overlaps, therefore it is hard to distinguish. Although I agree that two groups is too simple and some research systems do not fit, the clearness of the framework is manageable. I would like to judge my research system by simple two groups’ framework inclusive of a continuum framework that uses several different continuums. For example from the view of quantitative and qualitative, Ontology and Epistemology, and any other work.
Groat, Linda and David Wang. Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, INC, 2002: PP21-43.
No comments:
Post a Comment