A briefing by chatgpt on how the choice of research philosophy affects research method design: a note for Housing Studies students

A briefing by chatgpt (accessed via poe.com) on how the choice of research philosophy affects research method design: a note for Housing Studies students

My question 1: "As a lecturer on Research Methods for a Housing Studies Degree programme, I find it not easy how the choice of research philosophy could affect the specific priority and characteristics of a research method design linked to it. So, could you tell me how the choice of positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism and critical realism could affect the inquiry priority and characteristics of the following research method design: (i) interview research, (ii) questionnaire survey, (iii) observational research, and (iv) focus group, with regard to the domain of Housing Studies?"

The reply from chatgpt: "The choice of research philosophy significantly influences the design and implementation of research methods in Housing Studies. Here’s how each philosophy—positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, and critical realism—affects the priority and characteristics of interview research, questionnaire surveys, observational research, and focus groups.

1. Positivism

Characteristics:

Emphasizes objective measurement and quantifiable data.

Often employs structured methods to minimize researcher bias.

Method Impact:

Interview Research: Structured interviews with closed questions to gather quantifiable data.

Questionnaire Survey: Use of standardized questionnaires with fixed response options, facilitating statistical analysis.

Observational Research: Focus on quantifying behaviors and outcomes, using checklists or coding schemes.

Focus Group: Structured discussions with specific themes, aiming to produce generalizable insights.

2. Interpretivism

Characteristics:

Focuses on understanding subjective experiences and meanings.

Values qualitative data and the social context of research.

Method Impact:

Interview Research: Semi-structured or unstructured interviews to explore participants’ perspectives in depth.

Questionnaire Survey: Open-ended questions allowing for richer, qualitative responses.

Observational Research: Contextual observations that include the interpretation of behaviors and settings.

Focus Group: Flexible discussions that allow participants to express their views freely, fostering in-depth dialogue.

3. Pragmatism

Characteristics:

Values practical outcomes and the use of multiple methods (mixed methods).

Focuses on research questions and what works best to address them.

Method Impact:

Interview Research: Combination of structured and unstructured formats, depending on the research question.

Questionnaire Survey: Mixed-format surveys that include both closed and open-ended questions.

Observational Research: Use of both qualitative and quantitative observations to inform broader insights.

Focus Group: Collaborative discussions that may integrate quantitative findings and qualitative insights for comprehensive understanding.

4. Critical Realism

Characteristics:

Acknowledges the existence of an objective reality while recognizing the influence of social constructs.

Emphasizes the need to explore underlying mechanisms and structures.

Method Impact:

Interview Research: In-depth interviews aimed at uncovering underlying causes and structures influencing housing experiences.

Questionnaire Survey: Surveys designed to identify relationships between variables and explore deeper socio-economic contexts.

Observational Research: Observations that focus on both overt behaviors and the contextual factors influencing those behaviors.

Focus Group: Discussions that address power dynamics and structural issues in housing, encouraging critical reflection among participants.

Conclusion

The choice of research philosophy shapes not only the methods employed but also the overall approach to understanding issues within Housing Studies. By aligning the research design with the chosen philosophy, researchers can better address their specific research questions and contribute valuable insights to the field."

My question 2: "Are there any issues that a researcher needs to pay attention to if a dissertation project employs more than one research philosophy, e.g. interpretivism for interview research and then positivism for questionnaire survey? Would it be theoretically confusing to do so, e.g. for a housing studies dissertation project?"

The reply from chatgpt: "Using multiple research philosophies within a single dissertation project can offer a richer understanding of complex issues, but it does come with several challenges and considerations. Here are some key issues a researcher should pay attention to:

1. Theoretical Cohesion

Conflicting Paradigms: Combining interpretivism and positivism can lead to theoretical confusion, as these paradigms have fundamentally different assumptions about reality, knowledge, and methods. Interpretivism focuses on subjective experiences, while positivism seeks objective facts.

Clear Justification: The researcher must articulate a clear rationale for using multiple philosophies. Explain how each approach contributes to the overall research aims and how they complement each other.

2. Methodological Integration

Design Consistency: Ensure that the research design allows for the integration of findings from different methods. The researcher should consider how qualitative insights from interviews can inform or contextualize quantitative data from questionnaires.

Data Compatibility: Be aware of how to combine or compare qualitative and quantitative data. This may require clear strategies for integrating results and drawing conclusions.

3. Research Questions and Objectives

Alignment of Questions: The research questions should align with both philosophical approaches. Ensure that questions suited to interpretivism can coexist with those aligned with positivism, maintaining clarity in objectives.

Focus on Outcomes: Consider how the different methodologies will contribute to answering distinct aspects of the research problem and ensure that they do not contradict each other.

4. Interpretation of Findings

Contextual Differences: Be cautious about how findings from one philosophical approach are interpreted in light of the other. For instance, quantitative results may suggest trends that qualitative data can explain in terms of context and meaning.

Framework for Analysis: Develop a framework for analyzing and discussing findings that respects the different philosophical underpinnings of each method.

5. Participant Perspectives

Participant Experience: Consider how participants might perceive the different methods. For instance, qualitative interviews might elicit deep personal insights that do not translate well into quantitative measures.

Ethical Considerations: Respect the integrity of participants’ experiences, especially when moving between qualitative and quantitative methods. Ensure that participants understand how their contributions will be used.

6. Methodological Rigour

Quality Standards: Maintain high standards of rigor for both qualitative and quantitative methods. Ensure that each method is appropriately executed and analyzed according to its own standards.

Triangulation: Use triangulation to validate findings across different methods. This can strengthen the overall study by demonstrating how multiple perspectives enhance understanding.

Conclusion

While employing more than one research philosophy can add depth and richness to a housing studies dissertation, it requires careful management to avoid confusion. By clearly articulating the rationale, ensuring methodological consistency, and thoughtfully integrating findings, a researcher can successfully navigate the complexities of a mixed-methods approach. This strategy can ultimately lead to more nuanced insights into housing issues."

Reference: a collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.