Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a general scientific methodology on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy.

Systemic thinking and conceptual generalisation.

A general scientific methodology based on tenets from Mario Bunge’s philosophy of social science.

Using quantitative methods to conduct a research to test Asplunds motivation theory and North’s action theory.

How to conduct a research based on a systemic perspective.

An advantage of linking a systemic perspective to organisational psychology studies is that it may result in new ways of looking at old problems and bring new perspectives to the methods used. One explanation may be the fact that while researchers within various organisational psychology subject fields are largely specialists, the systemic perspective is oriented towards general scientific methodology.

The authors have not seen anybody who have tried to apply systemic thinking as a general methodology for research.

The purpose of this paper is the conceptual expansion of the science-theoretical foundations of information science, i.e. to develop new thought schemes for information science.

The design of the paper is as follows: first, the paper will discuss the foundation of the systemic paradigm (SP). Then the authors will consider the history of information science related to the philosophy of science. In the remaining part of the paper, the authors will investigate information science and its relation to the philosophy of science, focusing on SP.

In conclusion, the authors will summarise the seven criteria for the application of SP in information science.

Paradigms in information science have rarely reflected upon the use of a SP in information science.

The practical use of the seven criteria in information science Criterion 1: make your premises, suppositions, prerequisites and motives explicit. Criterion 2: make your moral/ethical results and consequences explicit. Criterion 3: research should be evaluated in relation to the transcendence of knowledge. Criterion 4: emphasise methodical pluralism, i.e. empirical generalisations and conceptual generalisations. Criterion 5: emphasise proximity and in-depth studies. Criterion 6: look for patterns and patterns which combine. Criterion 7: look for the power behind the patterns.

The opinion is that scientists to a great extent should seek knowledge on the basis of a belief, a specific way of thinking, and by means of specific methods. To make the authors belief explicit makes the way of thinking visible. What the authors achieve, and possibly the only thing the authors can achieve, is to reaffirm the conscious belief. This does not make reality more real, but it could put the authors in a better position to see through the authors way of thinking when faced with scientific problems. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The seven criteria entail that Kuhn’s argumentative chain (where he tries to find out why theory A is preferred to theory B on a rational pretext) does not concur with SP. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The purpose of this paper is to make a small contribution to reflections on general methodology, not specific methods, in social science.

Systemic methodology.

First, schematic typology of six conceptual models. Second, typology for determining levels of abstraction for different models and degrees of generalisation. Third, typology for generalisation on the basis of a case study. Fourth, strategy for developing conceptual models.

Research falls into two main categories: conceptual generalisation and empirical generalisation. Conceptual generalisation is an investigation whereby the researcher uses other researchers’ empirical findings in conjunction with his or her own process of conceptualisation in order to generalise and identify a pattern. This contrasts with empirical generalisation, where the researcher investigates a phenomenon or problem that is apparent in the empirical data, and only thereafter generalises in the light of his or her own findings.

A low level of understanding of conceptual generalisation among masters and PhD students. With this paper the authors try to change this perception among students.

Developing a systemic methodology in order for students and university teachers to understand conceptual generalisations.