| Popis: |
In resolving issues such as research problems, my opinion is that one should try hard to ensure the robustness of the solution and its reasonable lifespan. My respect for the processes that underpin research projects emanates from this position. Whilst I do not necessarily agree with him completely, it is against the same background that I understand Mouly (as cited in Cohen and Manion, 1980) when he writes: ‘Research is best conceived as the process of arriving at dependable solutions to problems through the planned and systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data’ (p. 29). Meanwhile, Schumacher and McMillan (1993) consider research as ‘a systematic process of collecting and logically analysing information (data) for some purpose’ (p. 8). The centrality of the need for systematisation in both cases cannot be overemphasised. However, the questions that arose for me were: what does it mean to be systematic? Is it planned or does it emerge? These questions sounded simplistic at first. However, it soon dawned on me that these questions are the core concerns of methods and methodologies. How one responds to them is largely dependent on one’s set of beliefs and values, or simply put, on one’s paradigm or an interpretative framework (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). |
