Rationalistic and Naturalistic Inquiry

The term inquiry, meaning, search for truth, appears not infrequently in

writings by philosophers but not so often in the work of social science researchers

(Teichman and Evans, 1999). Catane (2000:28) cited two types of inquiries in

educational and social science research; the rationalistic and naturalistic inquiries.

Rationalistic and naturalistic inquiries are based on the sociological paradigms of

organizations the epistemology of positivism and anti-positivism.

Positivism is a term with widely use in social science and philosophy. In general,

it can be defined as an approach which applies scientific method of natural science to

study human activity using objective enquiry and thereby presupposes the unity of the

sciences (Hollis, 1994: 41; Delanty, 2005: 10). Positivism entails the view that scientific

knowledge can be positively verifiable and foundation of knowledge is built on the

discovery of general laws (Delanty, 2005: 11). Moreover, Marsh and Smith (2001: 529)

argue that Positivism is obviously foundationalist, which is the idea believe that there is

a real world out there and it is independent from agents knowledge of it. Anti-positivism

on other hand, emphasizes that social reality is viewed and interpreted by the individual

herself according to the ideological positions she possesses. Therefore, knowledge is

personally experienced rather than acquired from or imposed from outside (Cohen,

Manion and Morrison, 2013). Antipositivism (also known as interpretivism or negativism)

is the belief within social science that the social realm may not be subject to the same

methods of investigation as the natural world; the social realm requires a different
epistemology in which academics work beyond empiricism and the scientific method

(Macionis and Gerber, 2010:32).

According to Catane (2000:29), Rationalistic inquiries are traditional, long-

dominant established tradition in a systematic inquiry. In a rationalistic inquiry, each

variable or facet of a problem is isolated and then used to explain a phenomenon or

draw a conclusion. The context (e.g. the student's family or work background, the

personal reasons why a particular student seldom attended the tutorials) in which the

variable is embedded is isolated or ignored (Owens, 1982). In a naturalistic enquiry, on

the other hand, hold that one cannot understand human behavior without understanding

the framework within which the individuals under study interpret their environment and

that this, in turn, can best be understood through understanding their thoughts, values,

perceptions, and their actions (Catane, 2000:29). Thus, the phenomena under

investigation must be studied as a whole and cannot be teased out of context. The aim

of the interview, then, is to provide a more comprehensive picture of each aspect of the

study (Owens, 1982).

In a research conducted by Kember, Lai, Murphy, Siaw, Wong and Yuen (1990)

suggests that in a rationalistic inquiry, each variable or facet of a problem is isolated and

then used to explain a phenomenon or draw a conclusion. The context (e.g. the

student's family or work background, the personal reasons why a particular student

seldom attended the tutorials) in which the variable is embedded is isolated or ignored.
In a naturalistic enquiry, on the other hand, the phenomena under investigation must be

studied as a whole and cannot be teased out of context.

As juxtaposed by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2013), Positivism emphasizes

objectivist approach to studying social phenomena gives importance to research

methods focusing on quantitative analysis, surveys, experiments and the like while anti-

positivism which stresses on subjectivist approach to studying social phenomena

attaches importance to a range of research techniques focusing on qualitative analysis,

e.g. personal interviews, participant observations, account of individuals, personal

constructs etc. The division between positivism and non-positivism is so deep that the

very term "positivism" has taken on a pejorative meaning for non-positivist (Burrell &

Morgan 1979).

REFERENCES:

Burrell, Gibson & Morgan, Gareth. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Heinemann, London:
Pearson Education Publishing.

Catane, Juliet A. (2000). Conducting Research: A Practical Application. Quezon City:

JMC Press.

Cohen, Louis, Manion, Lawrence and Keith Morrison. (2013). Research Methods in
Education. (7th ed.). New York: Routledge Publishing.

Delanty, Gerard. (2005). Concepts in the Social Sciences. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Hollis, Martin. (1994). The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Kember, David, Lai, Tammy, Murphy, David, Siaw, Irene, Wong, Julian and K.S. Yuen.
(1990). Naturalistic Evaluation of Distance Learning Courses. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Polytechnic.

Macionis, John J. and Linda M. Gerber. (2010). Sociology. (7th Canadian ed.). Toronto:
Pearson Education Canada.

Marsh, David and Martin J. Smith. (2001). There is More Than One Way to do Political
Science: On Diifferent Ways to Study Policy Networks Political Studies

Owens, Robert G. (1982). Methodological Rigor in Naturalistic Inquiry: Some Issues

and
Answers Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2.

Teichman, Jenny, and Katherine C. Evans (1999). Philosophy: A beginners guide.

London: Blackwell.