Generally speaking, methodology, unlike method (which systematically details a given procedure or process), does not describe specific methods despite the attention given to the nature and kinds of processes to be followed in a given procedure or in attaining an objective. When proper to a study of methodology, such processes constitute a constructive generic framework; thus they may be broken down in sub-processes, combined, or their sequence changed.[3] As such, methodology may entail a description of generic process or, metaphorically, may be extended to explications of philosophically coherent concepts or theories as they relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry. By similar reasoning methodology refers to the rationale and/or the philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular study or a particular methodology (for example, the scientific method). In scholarly literature a section on the methodology of the researchers is typically de rigueur.
Research Methodology refers to a back philosophy of research. As an example of methodology in theoretical work, the development of paradigms[4] satisfies most or all of the criteria for methodology. A paradigm, like an algorithm, is a ‘constructive’ framework, meaning that the so-called construction is a logical, rather than a physical, array of connected or intercalated elements.
From the article constructive logic (known also as intuitionist logic) the author(s) offer a clear and concise formulation of the constructive approach as “practically useful because its restrictions produce proofs that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally, this means that if you have a constructive proof that an object exists, you can turn that constructive proof into an algorithm for generating an example of it [my emphasis].” Recent philosophy has witnessed significant strides in elaborating such paradigmatic metaphysical structures, including the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead and C. S. Herrman. Herrman in particular requires the metaphysical paradigm to be employed as a methodology suitable to templating empirical reality in the process of scientific investigation.
Research Methodology refers to a back philosophy of research. As an example of methodology in theoretical work, the development of paradigms[4] satisfies most or all of the criteria for methodology. A paradigm, like an algorithm, is a ‘constructive’ framework, meaning that the so-called construction is a logical, rather than a physical, array of connected or intercalated elements.
From the article constructive logic (known also as intuitionist logic) the author(s) offer a clear and concise formulation of the constructive approach as “practically useful because its restrictions produce proofs that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally, this means that if you have a constructive proof that an object exists, you can turn that constructive proof into an algorithm for generating an example of it [my emphasis].” Recent philosophy has witnessed significant strides in elaborating such paradigmatic metaphysical structures, including the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead and C. S. Herrman. Herrman in particular requires the metaphysical paradigm to be employed as a methodology suitable to templating empirical reality in the process of scientific investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment