Submission by: Sarthak Seth

Logic of Discovery or Psychology of research: Thomas S Kuhn

Kuhn and Popper has been debating that “what is science?”. While they had differences there
were agreements as well. The key points on agreement were that no matter how objective or
logical one claim science to be but one cannot forget that even for science there are certain set
of assumptions which is believed by that community of scientists. Both believed in the history
of science and both agreed on the fact that science progress only through revolution, as per
them that the set rules or assumptions does not help you to solve some problems (moments of
crisis). They emphasized that the beliefs need to be changed. Seeing the things in different
manner. The same phenomenon needs to be looked differently; paradigm shift and this is
where revolution happens. Being a historian of science, he places serious emphasis on the
historical context of scientific discoveries. Kuhn’s scientific revolution is opposed to what Kuhn
describes as ‘normal science’. They also emphasized on no matter how much you claim there is
an element of subjectivity even in science (neutral observation language).

Kuhn does believe that falsifiability does have a role to play in separating science from
pseudoscience, but he believes that it is only a part of the story. After all, falsification is only
relevant when talking about the revolutions in science that lead to the overthrow of
fundamental theories. Instead, Kuhn talks about a puzzle-solving process that is more typical
of scientists’ activities. In their ordinary research, scientists try to connect their own problems
to an accepted body of knowledge. Rather than put that accepted body of knowledge to the
test, scientists accept it as an established framework and strive to use it to solve puzzles. It is
only when there are repeated failures to solve these small puzzles that scientists begin looking
at the possibility of finding new foundations.

Key differences

1. Popper points to revolutionary science as the (sole) source of growth in a field 2.

Falsifiability is hallmark of science • E.g., astrology is not a science because it is not falsifiable

1. Kuhn says that mature science cannot exist without a paradigm (normal science) • Astrology
was regularly falsified, but astrology is not a science because it cannot organize itself to
systematically solve problems 2. Scientific revolutions begin even in the absence of any
evidence for them • Falsification is what follows from a new paradigm having replaced an old
paradigm: it itself is not necessary to inaugurate a new paradigm.

Science as Falsification: Karl R Popper

Popper claims that, for something to be considered science, it must be falsifiable. This does not
mean that it is made false, but that, if it is false, it can be shown through observation and
experiment to be false. On the other hand, there are theories that cannot be proven to be false
(“falsifiable”), and therefore, cannot be considered legitimate scientific theories, but rather
“pseudo-science.” Once a newly instituted theory passes the test of falsifiability and hence is
approved as scientific further tests can be done. If the theory turns out to be not falsifiable
again it is assumed that the theory could be true and is used for further testing. If the theory
can be falsified again it is proved to be false and the theory is going to be discarded. 

There is a distinction between scientific laws and theories, and according to Popper, the two,
since they are in two different realms of thought, can live and work together. There are three
worlds of knowledge: 1) the physical universe that consists of actual truth and reality that we
try to represent through chemistry, physics, etc. We exist in this world but do not always
perceive or represent it correctly (since we are limited by our perceptions, which brings us to…
2) the world of our subjective perceptions and consciousness. This is world is affected by our
personal experiences and thoughts, which can differ from objective reality. Finally, we have 3)
the products of our mind that exist in artifacts such as books, theories, models, etc. They are
objective in their existence but subjective in their creation.

The Extended Case Method: Michael Burawoy

He says that research methodology is a matter of choice and you can choose a certain theory;
and which makes it more subjective. He speaks of Positive Data collecting procedures that
assure distance from the subjects, whereas in the alternative strategy we thematize our
participation in the world we study. We keep ourselves steady by rooting ourselves in theory
that guides our dialogue with participants. This "dwelling in" theory is at the basis of what is
reflexive model of science. The reflexive science is always the intersubjectivity of scientist and
subject of study and it embraces engagement and not detachment.

Positive science is limited by “context effects” (interview, respondent, field, and situational
effects) while reflexive science is limited by “power effects” (domination, silencing,
objectification, and normalization). Reflexive science valorizes intervention, process,
structuration, and theory reconstruction.

His theory of the extended case method essentially involves a dialogue between researchers
and those they do research on that is respectful, sensitive, and reflexive. Instead of university
intellectuals imposing their understanding on people, they must be willing to extend their
experiences into the lives of those they research. But this is not enough, they must be willing
to spend time in homes, mines, and factories, for extended periods of time. It is from this
vantage point, from below, that processes of globalization can then be analyzed in a way that
is often more rigorous than the shallow reports. This grounded approach to research and
theorizing has become hugely influential in social sciences globally.

Methodology can only bring us reflective understanding of the means which

have demonstrated their value in practice by raising them to the level of explicit consciousness.
The article concludes by considering the implications of having two models of science rather
than one, both of which are necessarily flawed.

Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science: The case for a

constructive methodology: Raza Mir and Andrew Watson

Constructivist analysis, a strategic concept that has emerged to help us understand how
research findings about strategic groups can be used to control erroneous analysis. This
suggests that almost all research is based on a variety of assumptions.

How constructivism provides us with knowledge in an essentially structured or strategic nature.

They do not just observe organizational structures and report their findings. They also play a
role in the process of determining which structures are more or less likely to be taken. Some
important ideas or assumptions agreed upon by constructivists, namely: 1. Knowledge is a
theory that comes of several impulses. 2. The separation between the researcher and the
phenomenon under investigation is interrelated. 3. The separation between theory and practice
tends to be non-existent. 4. Constructivism is a methodology.

To provide an understanding in studying constructivism, several principles are put forward,

including: 1. Which is the best theory that is closest to the truth; 2. A theoretical truth explains
the strength of the truth of a prediction 3. The drive towards a truth that is proven by
phenomena; 4. Proof or denial can be proven by a public reality.

There are several research techniques that are suitable for constructivist observations,
including ethnography, institutional analysis, textual analysis, appreciative inquiry, and
historical analysis. Some of the above techniques focus more on constructivism as a
methodology. Thus, it can be concluded that quantitative methods can be used in constructivist
methodologies. Similarly, qualitative methods can be used in realist methodologies. Both are
focused on speculation or assumptions rather than on technique.

Constructivist methodologies work at the level of assumptions, not at the level of engineering.
brings to the surface the assumption made by researchers that other methodologies are silent
by no means limiting us in processing our thoughts. In other words, we can summarize the
results, leading to more focused application, and helping researchers and practitioners to avoid
the danger of overestimating the general. This shows that almost all research is based on
various assumptions that are not just nonsense. Thus, constructivists challenge the idea that
research is conducted with impartial, separate, value-neutral subjects, who seek to view
objectivity as clearly seen from various phenomena. On the contrary, they view researchers as
craftsmen, as something that is part of a network that creates knowledge and ultimately
becomes a practical guide in the application of science.
of the human construction itself. According to constructivism, knowledge cannot be simply
transferred from one person to another but must be interpreted by each person who studies it.