i. Define epistemology.

(20% weightage)

Epistemology is a study about knowledge and what constitutes as acceptable knowledge. There
are many kinds of knowledge in this world. With abundance of knowledge to choose from, how
do we know what kinds of knowledge is good for education? How to determine which
knowledge should be included in our education system? Which one should be excluded?
Therefore, the task to identify the epistemology of knowledge is very crucial because by doing it;
we can identify the essence of the knowledge as well as the basic feature of the knowledge.

According to Stroll and Martinich in Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Epistemology, the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term
is derived from the Greek epistm (knowledge) and logos (reason), and accordingly
the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology has a long
history, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing to the present. Along with
metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy, and
nearly every great philosopher has contributed to it.

The study of knowledge is concern with four aspects (Steup, 2010). First, the conditions of
knowledge, what is considered as necessary and sufficient? Second, what is the origin or
sources of the knowledge? Third is the structure of the knowledge; and fourth, the limit of the
knowledge. Epistemologists prefer to focus on propositional knowledge and usually seeking the
complete analysis of the concept of knowledge (Truncellito, 2016).Therefore, there are three
conditions to knowledge, that is truth, belief and justification, known as justified true belief
(Steup, 2016).

There are three types of knowledge according to philosophers: personal knowledge, procedural
knowledge and propositional knowledge. Personal knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance is
the knowledge that we are familiar with something, know about something or we have
experience about something. Procedural knowledge is the knowledge how to do something
means we have the skills to do things. Propositional knowledge is the knowledge about the
facts, and this is the primary concern of epistemology. Traditionally, three conditions must be
satisfied in order to possess knowledge. This is called tripartite theory of knowledge which is
belief, truth and justification. We say we know something because we belief we have knowledge
about it. Belief is a key point here. Sometimes, our beliefs can be wrong. When we try to acquire

1
or gain some knowledge about something, then we are trying to get things right so that we get
the true beliefs. According to Plato, knowledge is a justified true belief. Epistemology needs the
belief to be justified so that it is not happen because of mere luck. A belief must originate from
reliable resources to produce true belief.

Epistemology knowledge relate to reality. Without epistemology, we cannot justify why we

believe in something, why we think or act in certain way. Lecturers would not know how to
educate the students because what is considered the truth and what is the error in the
knowledge could not be identified. Knowledge can be passed from a person to another. If we
want to do so, we need structure of the knowledge and facts that can be relied on.

When there are cases that are not sufficient to the knowledge, it is known as Gettier cases.
Gettier cases help us to challenge our understanding of propositional knowledge.This is where
the belief is not derived from sufficient evidence or the originity is in questioned. Gettier cases
simply mean that there are cases where it is justified true belief but it is still not considered as
knowledge. It can be just mere luck. Gettier cases can be understood through two generic
features which are fallibility and luck. Fallibility relates to human cognitive capacity realities.
There are no certainties that whatever beliefs we gain through our senses are all true. There
could be for example, people's fallibility where people can form their own false belief. It is
therefore, the need for the belief to be justified in a right way. This does not mean that we need
to abandon knowledge because it is fallible, but rather to realize that knowledge can be revised
since it is empirical and what we say we might know now might not considered true in the future.
For example, scientists claim that the world is flat before but now it is accepted that the world is
spherical instead of flat.

Another important issue about knowledge is the source we get our knowledge from.
Epistemology's goal is to determine what is the criteria of the knowledge, what we can know
about the knowledge itself. Depending on its source, propositional knowledge can be empirical
and non empirical. Empirical knowledge based on observation, objective facts or
experimentation without using scientific method, whereas non empirical is faith driven, based on
people's own belief system and not based on data. The first gained through experience
(empiricism) and the second gained through reason (rationalism). Empiricists belief we learn
knowledge through perception that we gained through experience using our sensory while
rationalism belief we learn knowledge through logical truths and requires only through the use of
reasoning (Truncellito, 2016).

2
This means that if someone says that he has knowledge about something, he must be able to
justify the claim that he has the knowledge, the claim must be true and he must believe in it. In
order a belief to be justified, it must have evidence.

Knowledge can be gained through formal education and experience. A person must go through
the theoretical and the practical part in a particular field to be acknowledged as an expertise.
There was a current issue regarding a 21 year old girl in Kuala Terengganu who becomes a
fake dentist by teaching herself through YouTube. She was fined RM25,000 (Wan Zulkifli,
2016). This is an example of how knowledge that do not obtain through a right way can become
a crime and dangerous to the public. Knowledge requires to be factual and to be obtaining in a
proper way.

Study of knowledge is important because it will help to evaluate and determine what is indeed
constitutes as knowledge. Epistemology is not just a study of knowledge but it relates what
constitute the knowledge and the source of origin of knowledge. Since it is an important aspect
in philosophical study, epistemology will continue to become an area that will be discussed.

3
ii. Discuss the philosophy of positivism and post positivism approaches in social
science research. (15% weightage)

The term positivism was popularized by August Comte (1798-1857) which theory has gone
through several evolution stages but the several main still aspects remain (Houghton, 2011).
There were challenges to this theory with new perspectives and this later influence the emerge
of post positivist of social scientists (Tripathi, 2008)

Traditionally, positivists hold the stand that the goal of knowledge was to describe things that
can be observed and measure while things that cannot be observed empirically like in social
research study where study involve thoughts, beliefs, feelings and trends are considered
impossible (Trochim, 2006). Objects or phenomena being studied exist independently from the
researchers. Positivists belief that there is a cause and effect law that governs the world and we
need to understand the law so that we can predict and control it. The assumption of positivism is
that the world contains regularities that can be detectable, measured and directly observed.
Studies in metaphysics and theologies for example are not considered as scientific research.

Positivist believed that this approach can also be applied to social science research as much as
it can in natural science research. Positivist usually uses deductive approach by testing theories
and hypothesis, and the research is objective and empirical. The danger is that this approach
neglect subjective interpretations in social science research since they treat the perceptions of
the social world as absolute and can be studied objectively. Social science research use
quantitative approaches and statistics to report observable data. This is to demonstrate the
findings scientifically.

In the twentieth century, the movement becomes known as logical positivism or logical
empiricism. Positivists today become more acknowledging that social research is subject to
partial objectivity and probability (Houghton, 2011). This is because researchers in social
research need to interpret social action. Thus, the term of post-positivism is argued as not
representing a school of thought but rather representing the philosophers and the social
scientists that have been critical towards Comte's view of positivism (Tripathi, 2008) and logical
positivism.

Positivism also promotes that researchers remain independence from the study, meaning
researchers have no direct involvement with their subjects of study. It is important for the

4
researchers to remain neutral emotionally and make clear distinction between feeling and
reason (Carson et al, 2001). While post positivism sees researchers values can influence the
study. Researchers need to put aside their biases so that they do the study objectively. The
approach of the study must be taken using standards of control to reduce researcher's bias.
Post positivism is a reformation of positivism. It does not reject positivism but rather upgrade
and transcend positivism since social sciences need a more integrated and deliberative
methodological approach (Adam, 2014). O'Leary (2004) define post-positivists as "see the world
as ambiguous, variable and multiple in its realities"

Because of the wider acceptability in data than positivism, post positivism approach is used in
social phenomenon study where reported experiences in study involving sociological and
psychological instruments (Dwivedi et al, 2009). Post positivism takes account that scientific
reasoning and common reasoning involve the same process, though it might have a different
degree (Trochim, 2006).

Post positivists recognized that theory is revisable and the study is subject to error and can be
fallible. Since it is fallible, post positivist take precautions using multiple measurements in
observation. In other words, where social phenomenon is involves; positivists may want to
uncover the truth while post-positivist strive to get to know the reality.

Both positivists and post positivists are objectivists. Post positivist is considered modernized
objectivists. It is considered "a term that better represents today's practicing quantitative
researchers is post positivism" (Phillips & Burbules, 2000). Though complete objectivity in
social science research is hard to achieve, this is to regulate knowledge and to study social
science research using quantitative framework that can test the theory and answer the research
objectives systematically using statistical method.

5
iii. Discuss the approach of interpretism in social science research. (15% weightage)

Interpretism methods differ greatly than positivism method. If positivists prefer to start their
research with hypotheses, interpretivists prefer to start their research with open ended research
questions. Interpretivists tend to look to a greater detail on how people live their lives where
positivists tend to look at the general overview. Interpretism approach is getting popular in social
science research because it is an approach employs to study the world through the people who
involved in the phenomenon studied. It emphasizes the nature of the characteristics, social and
the culture of the people (Elster, 2007). Interpretivists explore the people within their life context
in the world that they live in.

If positivists consider the researcher and the object or the phenomena being studied as two
separate entities, interpretivists believe that these two cannot be separated. While positivists
prefer quantitative method, interpretism is more inclined towards qualitative method of
humanistic. Interpretivists belief that different people experience different things, have different
views and have respond to the world in their own ways. Interpretivists argue that in order to
understand human behavior, empathetic approach or known as verstehen needs to be
applied. Verstehen is a term raised by Max Weber in 1978, a german word which means to
understand and to perceive. To understand a persons action is to understand the meaning
behind it. In order to understand the meaning, the researchers need to look into the system
from where it belongs (Chowdury, 2014). Verstehen is a complex process where interpretivists
aim to interpret the meaning of a persons behavior rather than to generalize. The researchers
need to understand peoples behavior through their experiences and perceptions by observing
and listening to them (Weber, 2004). If positivists prefer a logical, rational and consistent
approach, interpretivists prioritize pre-understanding of the subjects and try to interpret the
meaning of the phenomena.

Interpretivist researchers looking into specific ways why things occur the way they are, whether
there are causal relationship presence and study the uniqueness of a particular situation in
depth. Interpretivists adopt a more flexible approach of research structures so that they are able
to study their subjects more personal and make it more receptive to their subjects. According to
Goldkuhl (2012);

6
 The core idea of interpretivism is to work with these subjective meanings already there
in the social world; i.e. to acknowledge their existence, to reconstruct them, to
understand them, to avoid distorting them, to use them as building blocks in theorizing.

Interpretivists generally using qualitative methods in collecting data for example interviews and
observation in their study, but sometimes questionnaires can also be used. Compared to
quantitative study, the questionnaires used in interpretism study are usually more flexible
allowing the respondents to answer more subjectively.

Interpretive study usually requires high involvement of the researchers with their participants,
which can lead to time consuming, involve more cost, subject to criticism in ethical issues, hard
to generalize and replicate.

Though interpretivitists are often being criticized in terms of generalizability, validity and
realibility (Perry, 1998), it does not mean their work are arbitrary or distortive (Chowdury, 2014).
This is because interpretivists aim and strive to understand their subjects correctly. If positivists
rely on replicability as a reliability measure, interpretivists rely on researchers awareness that
they need to recognize and address the implications of the subjectivity of their study (Weber,
2004). Weber (2004) further stated how interpretivists should be caution in their research in his
article titled The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View:

Interpretive researchers might purposefully try to withhold their preconceptions when

seeking to understand some phenomena, remain open throughout the research process
to alternative explanations of phenomena they observe, focus first on description and
then on explanation, and constantly check the plausibility of alternative interpretations of
the phenomena they observe

Since the measure used in interpretism is the researchers interpretation, the researchers
need to be constantly aware of any incongruences exist during the study so that it can be
properly addressed and the interpretation can be properly refined.

Interpretism approach is useful in social science research because it helps to understand the
human nature; give meaning to peoples action and behaviour by trying to understand from their
world or the system that they live in. Through its interpretive practices, it facilitates the
researcher to be flexible if changes occur, since sometimes it cannot be avoided in studying
human nature. This allows the researcher to capture complexity factors and give interpretation

7
from the subjects' point of view. This of course, will allow more opportunity and flexibility in
studying social science phenomenon in greater depth.

8
iv. Discuss the concept of pragmatism approach as a new guiding paradigm in social science
research that justify the use of mixed-methods. (50% weightage).

Pragmatism approach is considered as a new paradigm in social science research. Paradigm is

considered by many authors as a worldview theoretical framework that set down the objectives,
purpose and expectations of a study (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). There are three paradigms in
social science research that is interpretism, positivism and pragmatism. If interpretism is a study
that constructed meaning into people's behavior, positivism more towards determining cause
and effect, pragmatism is more to understand what the condition, what actions taken is and
what are the consequences. In this article, we will discuss the pragmatist view and how it is
possible to use both methods, qualitative and quantitative methods together in single study.

Philosophical debates involve researchers sometimes confuse between epistemology and

methodological justifications. This is because according Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) the
logic of justification in epistemology does not dictate what specific data collection and data
analytical methods researchers must use.

Some researchers argue that interpretism and positivism are distinct approaches that should be
kept apart. The dispute of the two methodologies become apparent with both sides of
researchers view their paradigms as ideal for research (Howe, 1988). While some other
researchers take a stance that both can be blended and use in a single study. This is to gain the
advantages of both approaches and help to keep their limitations minimal. This becomes the
pragmatism's primary philosophy of mixed research. . As stated by Cameron (2011):
Pragmatism in its simplest sense is a practical approach to a problem and has strong
associations with mixed methods research.

Mixed method research has a long history, and just become popular in recent years. It is an
approach to study knowledge through theory and practice and to take into accounts the different
perspectives and views from both qualitative and quantitative methods. Mixed method "has
been established as the third methodological movement over the past twenty years,
complementing the existing traditions of quantitative and qualitative movements (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003).

This pragmatist view giving researchers nowadays have more options since sometimes, the
idea to choose one position over the other may appear unrealistic. This is because the reality is

9
dynamic and changing. Pragmatism argues the most important thing in a research is the
research question and tries to apply approaches that are possible to understand their research
problems. Pragmatic researchers recognise that there are many different ways of interpreting
the world and undertaking research, that no single point of view can ever give the entire picture
and that there may be multiple realities (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). This includes the
possibility to combine and mix both approaches. They are not committed to a single method of
the study. Mixed methods research should, instead, use a method and philosophy that attempt
to fit together the insights provided by qualitative and quantitative research into a workable
solution (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Pragmatic researchers tend to use different techniques in a single study at the same time or one
after another. Creswell et.al, (2003) define mixed methods as:
"Study involves the collection or analysis of both quantitative and/or qualitative data in a single
study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and
involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research."
This shows that the researchers for example, can start with qualitative methods first using
interviews and observation to help them construct the valid and reliable questionnaires and then
report them using statistical analysis. Researchers may also employ qualitative methods for
example structured interviews and then report it using quantitative method by the use of coding
for similar answers. By doing this, multiple methods can be used to study a research problem. A
variety of data can also be collected and it is also possible to use several different researchers
in a study.

The result of the data can also be verified when use both methods. For example, by observation
alone, the researchers will interpret the data gathered using the researchers view of
understanding regarding the subjects world, but this might be limited to a small size sample.
The researchers can then use questionnaires to study the same phenomenon involving a larger
sample in order to generalize the population view. This way, researchers have both kinds of
data that might help in forming a more holistic view of the phenomenon and using both methods
can help to validate each methods finding.

Therefore, the conduct of mixed method study is employed when the researchers need to have
both quantitative and qualitative data in a study. By combining them, researchers have a better
understanding in research problem compared only if one method is used. This will help the
researchers gain benefits using the strength of both methods and limit their weaknesses.

10
Though this mixed method may sound harmony in a way, creatively applied and help to solve
many issues, researchers need to understand the fundamental principles of both methods
before deciding to do it. Researchers also need to determine the rationality and reasons for the
mix method approach will be employed. Researchers also need to demonstrate their expertise
in using both methods, demonstrate awareness of multicultural and/or ethical issues that might
involved.

If a researcher decides to employ different methods in a study, the different methods must be
kept as separately as possible. This is to maintain each paradigms strength. This is a
pragmatist stance where refers to the interface or bridge between philosophy and methods
(Cameron, 2011). There are also debates against pragmatism as pragmatism is said to unable
to provide philosophical foundation. However, pragmatism also results in problem solving,
action-oriented inquiry process based on commitment to democratic values and progress
(Green and Hall, 2010).

Pragmatism provides new direction in understanding social science research, given the
researchers a choice to avoid methodological orthodoxy. Pragmatist researchers not only
interested to study "what is" but also "what might be". It offers new way to understand and study
about the people and the world. However, in choosing mixed method approach, researchers
need to explicitly state their philosophical foundations and their paradigmatic stance to defend
rigorously why they decide to use mixed method in their study. They should be able to
demonstrate their knowledge and competency in both methods as well as their proficiency in
integrating both approaches in a single study.

11
REFERENCES

Adam, F. (2014) Methodological and Epistemic Framework: From Positivism to Post-positivism.

Measuring National Innovation Performance, The Innovation Union Scoreboard Revisited.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 5-7

Cameron, R. Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework The Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011 (pp 96-108). Retrieved from
www.ejbrm.com

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209240).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Chowdhury, M.F. (2014). Interpretivism in Aiding Our Understanding of the Contemporary

Social World. Open Journal of Philosophy, 4,432-438. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2014.43047

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., and Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research.
London: Sage.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., Schneberger, S. L., & Wade, M. (2009). Handbook of
Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. Retrieved from doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-659-4

Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806421

12
epistemology. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 21, 2016 from
Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/epistemology

epistemology. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.
Retrieved September 21, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/epistemology

Greene, J. & Hall, J. (2010) Dialectics and pragmatism: being of consequence, in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and
Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 119-143.

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research,

European Journal of Information Systems, (21), 2, 135-146. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54

Johnson, R.B and Onwuegbuzie, A.J (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
Whose Time Has Come. American Educational Research Association, Vol. 33, No. 7. 14-
26

Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.
Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205. Retrieved from
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

O'Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.

Perry, C. (1998). A Structured Approach to Presenting Theses. Australasian Marketing Journal,

6, 63-85. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3582(98)70240-X

Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students.
6th edition, Pearson Education Limited

13
Steup, M. (2016). Epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/epistemology.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C.(1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Applied Social Research Methods, 46, 1st edition, Sage Publications, Inc.

Tripathi, D. (2008, January 21). The Relevance of Positivism in Social Science, Sussex Paper.
Retrieved from https://deepaktripathilibrary.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/the-relevance-of-
positivism-in-social-science

Trochim, W.M. K. (2006, October 20). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition.
Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb

Trueman, C. N (2016, May 22). Positivism. Retrieved from www.historylearningsite.co.uk.

Truncellito, D.A. (2016). Epistemology, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

from http://www.iep.utm.edu.

Vasilachis de Gialdino, I.(2011). Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative

Research [85 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 10(2), Art. 30, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0902307.

Wallace, E.R., & Gach, J. (2008) History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology: With an
Epilogue on Psychiatry and the Mind-Body Relation. p.14

Wan Zulkifli, W.Y. (2016). Pasang pendakap gigi tanpa kelayakan gadis didenda RM25,000.
Utusan Online. Retrieved from http://www.utusan.com.my/berita/jenayah/pasang-
pendakap-gigi-tanpa-kelayakan-gadis-didenda-rm25-000-
1.379276#sthash.SzckAWeM.dpuf

Weber, R. (2004) The Rhetoric of Positivism vs. Interpretivism: A Personal View, MIS Quarterly,
Vol 28 (1), p iii-xii

14