A Critique of Philosophical Methods and Empirical methodologies By Drake Omonode

 

INTRODUCTION

This study concerns itself with a critical study and appraisal (A Critique) of Chapter Five and Seven of “A Guide to Philosophical Research in Education” edited by A. Owan Enoh and Kola Babarinde. This study is carried out from the hindsight of one in the philosophical camp. Thus the use of “us” and “we” and other akin aphorisms.

CHAPTER FIVE

In this chapter, central issues pertaining to the nature of Philosophy of Education, its features, component and variance from empirical research/study. Differences and Complementary relationship in Empirical and Philosophical Research Methods.

The place of Research in Philosophy of Education

Based on the established definitions and features of research there is a need to situate it in the field of philosophy of education. The first definition of Research is an endeavor to study or obtain knowledge through a systematic approach.

Philosophical Research: An academic/intellectual initiation process (Rigorous reading and Thinking)

From the definition given, it can be conceived that research can be book based or library-based. Philosophy initiates us into the existing heritage of knowledge, either to clarify, or with the intent to enrich it by adding to it. This, however is done theoretically. No field work is done except through rigorous reading and thinking.

Philosophical Research as a tool for intellectual discovery and problem solving:

The definition of research ab-initio, also connotes the ingredient of curiosity. Thus, research is intellectually driven. Curiosity is the intellectual trigger for researches including philosophical research. It is noteworthy that curiosity has indeed driven many of the world’s discoveries. A clear example is the geocentric and heliocentric theories. In philosophy of education, curiosity on how to restore the Greek society back to a crisis free and just society, led Plato to develop the philosophy of education of the philosopher-king as we have it in his Republic. In case of Rousseau, his commitment to the actualization of a human society where people would be free to be their selves rather than conform to the expectation of an amorphous social totality led to his idea of education according to nature. This went further by creating the social ripples that culminated in the French revolution, thereby permanently enthroning republicanism as the mode of governance in France till date.

Critical analysis of the Features of Research and Philosophical Research

From the foregoing, from two of the definition analyzed, it is uncontroversial to state that research (as well as philosophical research) is a systematic approach and/or Design. This means that research is not subjective, haphazard or a product of personal opinion. Rather it is an activity born out of an intellectual commitment to the pursuit of the truth/knowledge. In the same vein, philosophy of education is based on objective systematic study, either to develop knowledge or to create knowledge.

Knowledge Clarification

It is also the case that research has the goal of knowledge clarification. Definitions, clarifications and conceptualization are very central to a philosophical research study. Every field has knowledge words peculiar to it. In physics, words and concepts such as energy, time and speed may be predominant but in philosophy of education, words such as education, values, morals, teaching and learning seem to be central in virtually all its research frameworks. This clarification process in research is very important so as to shed light on areas of darkness, ignorance, confusion and presumptions (so that they are better understood by the researcher and his audience).

Logic

Closely related to the systematic feature of Research is its logical bent in conception and execution. Logic is an area of study in philosophy and it is as well a vital built-in component of philosophy of education. Hirst and Peters opine that:

In attempting to make the rules behind our usage of words, and thus get clearer about our concept, it is important to distinguish logically necessary conditions from other sorts of conditions that may be present. To understand this difference is, in fact to understand the difference between doing philosophy and doing science

There is therefore a Logic of education, that is, the demand for logical reasoning that enables a researcher to be able to differentiate between necessary and extraneous factors in a discourse and treat them as appropriate. As earlier submitted, this is a vital in-built component, for we cannot say that a research is systematic and at the same time illogical.

Ontology and Epistemological praxis in research and philosophy of education

The latter submissions by Fawole et al are also philosophically notable. The scholars submitted that all “researches have ontological and epistemological positions, whether acknowledge or not” Ontology and epistemology are areas of study in philosophy and education. Since education is for man, researches about human nature, ability or behavior in the process of education have implicit or explicit ontological relevance. As long as education remains a knowledge-focused trade, researches in education which are concerned about acquisition, facilitation or utilization of knowledge will also be categorized as epistemological. Very importantly, Fawole et al submit that research is not value-free. The value component is the ethical behavior of educated people. According to Akinpelu:

He is in no sense an educated man if he has all other qualities and dispositions but lacks good character. Good character is of the utmost importance: a man without it, however otherwise distinguished, is only a carved wooden doll, as the Yoruba people say

He said further: “…………..the evidence of being educated can only be seen in the way one behaves in social relations, not in amount of abstract and sophisticated knowledge that one possesses”. Claims would be logically impossible in the context of educational researches because education is in itself a value word.

Philosophical Study as A Mother Penguin

the original methods of science as far back as 17th century largely deductive reasoning this deductive reasoning bed on a small complex of courses and principles. these show that knowledge and the investigation of it was largely philosophy. in clarification of this point, it is noteworthy and remind one of philosophy deductive reasoning. having said this, it is as well noteworthy to state that sciences as we have it today has been used in recent times to categorize disciplines and issues regarding sciences in separation from, or even in opposition to Philosophy.

In our times it is evident to see philosophical innings (principles and attributes) in virtually all areas of research. like the mother penguin, philosophy has nurtured other disciplines and this maternal role in sublime dignity: her own identity may be threatened if she gets subsumed under the foreboding tyranny of science and social sciences methodologies, which are contents of philosophy and her methodology and at least implicitly relevant in their research pursuit.

Doing philosophy/Doing research in Philosophy of Education

it is established firstly that philosophers of education are engaged in philosophy in the context of educational theory, with provision for applicability of the theory to practice. the following seem to be some of the activities that philosophers of education engage in or questions they attempt to answer.

Philosophy is a thinking activity. However, one may ask how is this attribute distinct the field from others. Are all homo sapiens not endowed with the ability to think? Although the theory of thinking may settle in philosophy but the activity of it is however a no-man's island. Thinking is a major attribute of the activities that Educational philosophers are engaged in.

Another attribute that can be given to philosophy (in addition to thinking) is reason (or reasoning). that is, to think with ideas and accept or reject them. However, reasoning is neither exclusive to philosophical activity either. According to Babrinde, reasoning is man's channel of access to knowledge. while thinking is an ongoing mental process in humans, reasoning is a more demanding mental activity in practically all areas of human endeavour, including philosophical activity.

We engage in intellectual discourse, that is, select an idea/issue for critical examination and take a position on logical grounds. this is more demanding than reasoning and largely constitutes what we do in philosophy/philosophy of education courses.

From the forgoing, it conceivable that philosophic research are researches that partake in the nature of philosophy and shares its attributes. Having analyzed all research to be ontological, epistemological and ethical based, it is therefore uncontroversial to state that all research works are philosophical. Thus, everyone in research are to an extent all philosophers or they engage on philosophical patterns. However, even if it is agreed that all researchers are philosophical in this general sense, researches are distinct in spectra, design, function/purpose, and therefore methodology. In terms of spectrum, research can be pure basic research or strategic basic research or applied research. In philosophy of education, theoretical discourse is complemented by showing how applicable it is to the practice of education. While no educational system can stand without a philosophy of education, no philosophy of education can stand without showing how the ideas it proffers would be applicable in practice.

Akinpelu stresses the need for upcoming philosophers to continuously seek professionalism individually. he suggests that the academic field doesn't rubber stamp ideas or philosophical trajectories on anyone, rather the young philosophers should learn by doing. However, it was stated expressly that the plunge into philosophy is not so desirable compared to doing research in the field of education. "do we also take the the plunge" to carry out research in philosophy of education as a contribution to scholarship?

Having seen that the philosophy attributes stated above are shared by others (other disciplines), it is therefore conceivable that philosophy can be metaphorically described as a mother penguin who having giving herself to nurture her young (other disciplines and their methods) may later have nothing to call her own. it is therefore important that students of philosphy (including those in education) begin to fashion, design and articulate methodologies special to to her (the field of philosophy/philosophy pof education), esles she (philosophy) may die-off.

Major fields in Educational Philsophy

Within the componential fields/disciplines of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, themes such as: past and contemporary ideas in education, theories of human nature, knowledge and education etc. have been recurrent for study and research by graduate students.

These are broad fields and it may sometimes be difficult for a student to settle in an area. it is tempting for a supervisor to push an idea to student but this will be like helping the chick break its shell, or helping the pupa to wriggle out of its cocoon. however, once the hurdle is crossed, work can commence in earnest.

 

Methods of Study and Methods of Research in Philosophy of Education

Methods of doing philosophy/philosophy of education are well known. these are speculation, prescription and analysis.

Principles of Philosophical Study

Our first principle is curiosity: in sum, philosophical curiosity allows us to wonder about the entire creation before making a choice of our preferred area of focus (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics). As Akinpelu would say that philosophy is "a child of wonder" and "a product of failure". this is the big difference between educational philosophy and philosphy and other disciplines. intellectual curiosity (in philosophy of education) needs to be focused on finding possible solutions to an educational problem or finding solutions to social/national problems through education. Plato (in his Republic), Herbert and John Dewey are good examples of those that done this excellently well.

The second principle is rationality. in Philosophical research, rationality can mean consistent reasoning ability and its application conceives a research project. A Research is rational is cogent when it originates from an intellectual commitment to solve an educational problem. The Ideas presented in the research must be coherent and logically connected

The third principle is that of objectivity. in Philosophical studies, this means a consistent research for truth. Philosophical Objectivity searches for enduring truths but not by application of scientific or mathematical standards of Truth.

Chapter Seven

In this chapter, central issues pertaining to the nature of Philosophy of Education, its Differences and Complementary relationship with Empirical Research Methods.

Criticisms against the Philosophical Tradition/Methodology

In Nigeria today, there is an increasing threat to the methods Philsop0geers of Education have continued to use in research. This threat has its roots in philosophical thinking in the past in the divide between rationalism and empiricism. As philosophy of education is only but an aspect of the broad field of philosophy, it inherited this dichotomy. And those who think that education is a practical activity only concerned with the development of individuals find little place for philosophical research in Education. Such research, if it is to be so called, must be subjected to the traditional methods of empirical investigation, the methods which make use of tools of data collection in questionnaire, interviews, observations as well as the rigorous computation of results to establish facts which are verifiable and capable of generalization.

 

This threat has become more potent with the passing-on of the few greats within the philosophy of education family who protected their own unique way. Today, the tyranny and the dominance of empirically minded researchers in University Departments of Education are almost putting out the last flames of an academic tradition that has its methods in the furthest research of intellectual history, and which deserves not only independence but as well respect.

No attempt is being made in this discourse to launch an offensive against the empirical methods in educational research. It is at best an attempt to show that both methods are autonomous but complementary in several ways, and why such autonomy should be preserved. But before this can be achieved, it is sacrosanct that we get accustomed to the claims of empiricists.

David Hume (1711 – 1766), the classical challenger for empiricism against rationalism, held that it is only experience which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect and enable us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. This makes concepts which are central in philosophical investigations find little place in the empiricists scheme.

For instance, he stated as follows “when we talk of self and substance, we must have an idea annexed to these terms, otherwise they are altogether unintelligible. Every idea is derived from presiding impressions and we have no impression of self or substance as something simple and individual.

It (philosophy) comes before it (science) in the sense of taking for examination the main concepts and assumptions with which scientists begin their work. Science is logically dependent on philosophy. If philosophy succeeded in showing, ….. that any reference to a non sensible existence was meaningless, the physics that talks about electrons and protons would either have to go out of business or revise its meanings radically….. philosophy does not merely put a bit of filigree on the mansion of science: it provides the foundation stones

There lies, therefore, the significance of philosophy and its methods as the take-off points in the epistemological process in which science and its methods act as a follow ups. All the details of empirical methods serve one useful purpose: to refine more precisely the speculations and generalizations placed before it be the philosopher and his methods. Bringing issues from the abstracts which philosophers have them, scientists through their methods make them concrete and establish facts which can be put to use. It is only unfortunate that men generally rewards the stewards more than the cook or even the dietician.

Useful as the facts of empirical methods are, however, they have to be put into perspective, especially as they are always in such great numbers and diversities. At this point, empirical methods often become quite deficient. What the facts mean, especially in relation to one another in their totality, it is a problem outside the scope, technicality, and capacity of the empirical method. As it has been said, “an explanation must tell us more; it cannot be as such be deduced from statement of facts to be explained; hence, the researcher must introduce something not explained in the facts themselves”. Always at the commanding heights of the epistemological process, the philosopher and his method who initiated the entire chain from its initial speculations that gave direction to the discovery and investigation of facts by the scientist and his empirical methods must be again called to duty. Positioned outside the intricacies of the scientists’ details, he integrates their findings, provides meaning for them and often times speculates about possibilities which lie ahead, using established facts of the empirical researcher as ingredients.

 

Requiring the philosopher to adopt both method is therefore to encourage superficiality. He must restrict his activity to his area of greatest advantage. To this end, Brand Blanshard said “Many of the concepts the scientists uses and many pf his working assumptions he prefers to take for granted. He can examine them if he wishes, and some scientists do. Most do not, because if they waited till they were clear on these difficult basic ideas, they might never get to what most interests them at all. But it would be absurd to leave these basic ideas unexamined altogether. This somewhere of thankless preliminary work is the task of the philosopher”. And after the intricacies of the empirical method with its vast array of facts comes again the thankless philosophical method to integrate and provide a bearing upon which further empirical work can be based. As John Dewey has said, every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity in imagination”

Dianne common has observed that “Quantitative research methodologies are premised on a language that is precise in the sense that its concepts can be operationalized and hence measured in mathematical statistical terms” to a large extent, it is the absence of such precision in philosophy of education research like other qualitative methods that are taken to account for lack of proper research methods different from dominant quantitative model. As she goes ahead to state: The world of deeper structures however is captured by language that defies precise operationalism and therefore measurement” such deeper structures can only be captured by any degree through reflection, the asking of appropriate questions and engaging in deep thought. And these are the primary considerations of philosophical method. According to Ary, Jacobs and Razaviehopine that “in spite of the use of and the accumulation of large quantity of reliable knowledge, education and other social sciences have not attained the scientific status typical of natural sciences…… Frequently, there is lack of agreement amongst researchers in the social sciences as to what the established facts are or what explanations are satisfactory for the assumed facts”. Taking the complexity of subject matter subject matter as illustration, they maintain that: “There are so many variables, acting independently and in interaction, that must be considered in any attempt to understand complex human behavior. Each individual is unique in the way he develops, in his mental equipment, in his social and emotional behavior, and in his total personality”.

In other words, we can never be precise in the results of empirical research in education and the social sciences as we are with the physical and natural sciences. However, due to the fact that philosophers do not investigate a particular man, or group of individuals, it tends to be more advantageous. Secondly, in philosophical research, conditions are not isolated or said to be controlled, rather a full grasp of the totality of meaning (of an issue or thought) is attempted. To get deeper meanings it tends to juxtapose this with other totalities (meanings of other look-alike concepts). Lastly, due to its non-interaction with the agents of the observation process, taking into perspectives only issues and ideas conjectured, the problems of interaction of observer and subject so common in empirical studies do not arise.

Philosophy research doesn’t aim at precision, and replication is not seen as necessary. All that is important is breadth and depth of understating through the questions we ask, the analysis of issues we make and the strength of our reasoning. Philosophical research indeed attempts to overcome some drawbacks of empirical research.

Another major variance but complementary area for empirical and philosophical research methods are the issues of Research Questions, Hypothesis and Literature Review

In empirical research, research questions seem to be contained in a particular section which is followed by Hypothesis. However, in philosophical research, research questioning goes on throughout the research. The Questions stated and captioned as research questions in philosophical research most times serve the functions of testable hypothesis (as used in empirical studies)

Literature review in philosophical research seem to be rampant throughout the research work, unlike the empirical studies which contains it in just one chapter. This has attracted very vitriolic antagonisms from the science inclined educational research. Literature review also plays the guidance role in empirical research but in philosophical research, it serves as a basis for proofs of the researchers claims. The researcher is charged with the responsibility of guiding his research individually.