Research philosophy Research philosophy lay down the background of how researchers understand the world, the choice of research philosophy reflect our knowledge, experiences, preconceptions, and research capability. Thus our knowledge, experiences and etc., which underpin the philosophy choice, will determine our research paradigm, strategy, design and method. (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 128-129). When Bryman describes ontology view, he introduces the objectivism and constructivism as two antithetical dimensions. (p22) However, Saunders 2009 p.119 advocates that positivism can be understood through both ontology and epistemology views.
Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.  We have to keep in mind that science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad and individual people must make moral judgments.
The concept of Positivism is directly associated with the idea of objectivism. In this kind of philosophical approach, scientists give their viewpoint to evaluate social world with the help of objectivity in place of subjectivity (Cooper and Schindler 2006). According to this paradigm, researchers are interested to collect general information and data from a large social sample instead of focusing details of research. According to this position, researcher’s own beliefs have no value to influence the research study. The positivism philosophical approach is mainly related with the observations and experiments to collect numeric data (Easter-by-Smith et al 2006).
The social world has to be verified in a purely empirical manner by understanding of empiricism and realist ontology. Both have a view that the world exists independently of researchers’ knowledge of it and that social phenomena have causal powers on which we can make causal statements. Both Marxist and positivist stress the need for a rigorous scientific method, for scientific analysis of the social phenomenon and natural world. However these two perspectives have some traits which make one unique from another and these are discussions as below, Marxist perspective is more subjective that is to say; describes a problem from the point of view of those experiencing the problem whereas positivist perspective is more objective that is to say; it is interpreted by the researcher about the problem. Marxist perspective focuses less on empirical study and abstains from a historical explanation of social phenomena but focuses on an epistemological position which is sceptical of the naive perceptions that which lead to a proper understanding of the social world without using theoretical framework whereas positivism focuses on ontological realism and objectivity in understanding the world with value free empirical
They help the scientifically literate person to observe how scientific claims are supported by data and reasoning to justify the claim. Epistemic knowledge enables us to know the role of enquiry in producing knowledge, the goal of the enquiry and the methodology of the enquiry. Without a solid foundation of epistemic knowledge, the level of confidence in scientific knowledge is severely hampered by the measurements related errors. Such knowledge empowers us to use physical systems and abstract models appropriately with due emphasis on their limitations. It also encourages group efforts and critical investigation of the natural world through scientific argumentation and reasoning.
Political analysts attempt to provide an understanding of the workings of the modern state had necessitated the employment of certain philosophies, thoughts and theories in order to simplify and clarify their assumptions about the political system and how it works. Some of these analytical tools or methods include – the Systems theory, Group theory, Political Development theory, Power theory, Frustration Aggression theory and the Elites theory among others. Given these plethora of theories in the social sciences and bearing in mind that, no meaningful research can be undertaken in the absence of a sound theoretical base, this study adopts the Systems theory in order to explain the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the United
Adorno and Horkheimer are not saying that myth is “natural” force of enlightenment nor they claiming that enlightenment is the thought that fundamental change is impossible. Such resistance to change characterize both ancient myths of fate and modern dedication to the facts. CRITICAL SOCIAL
Following data analysis, the researcher could restate their research question, thereafter present findings and conclusions. A sound methodology requires not only a summary of the findings, but acknowledgement of any weaknesses in the study. According to Yin (2003b) to achieve construct validity, the case study researcher will make use of multiple sources, internal validity; use logic models and do explanation building and for external validity, the use of theory. He adds that reliability will depend on the ability to develop a database. The reliability can be tested by finding out such things about the said
Since International law has been the foothold of the International Arena, many problems apropos of its essentiality have risen. The applicability of it regarding the different issues on the relationship between states is now being challenged. Consequently, the nature of a state assesses the cooperation on international relations because each of them has something that they want and it is what we call self-interest. This essay aims to discuss how international law faces the current problems and how it affects the relations between the states by scrutinizing the context and issues behind it. It will also fare about the aforementioned argument as something we should know and recognize.