SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Scientific conversations can be riddled with confusion when contributions to the discussion are based on notions about ways of knowing that remain implicit. Researchers often mix different methodological positions in their research designs because they lack an awareness of the distinctions between different ways of knowing and their associated methods. The authors engage and reflect on these differences, with particular attention to four areas: research question formulations, the character and role of concepts and theories, hypotheses versus puzzles, and case study research. They call on all researchers, both academics and practitioners, to be aware of the ways in which scientific terms serve, in research debates, as signifiers of different logics of inquiry. Awareness of these differences is important for the sake of productive scientific discussions and for the logical consistency of research, as both of the ways of knowing discussed here are legitimate scientific endeavors, albeit invoking different evaluative criteria.