References
1 Descartes R. (1985). The Philosophical Writings of Rene Descartes I. Cambridge University Press.
2 Devaux M and Lamanna M. (2009). The rise and early history of the term ontology (1606–1730). Quaestio 9(173–208), 197–198.
3 Griswold CL. (2001). Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings. Penn State Press, p. 237.
4 Haack S. (1993). Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Wiley‐Blackwell.
5 Harvard Men’s Health Watch. (2018). The pain of measuring pain: Doctors and patients use the 10‐point pain scale to gauge the severity of pain, but there may be a better way.’ Available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/the‐pain‐of‐measuring‐pain (accessed 25 September 2020).
6 Heidegger M. (1971). On the Way to Language. Harper & Row: New Yor, (original: 1959).
7 Patel S. (2015). The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language. Available at: http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the‐research‐paradigm‐methodology‐epistemology‐and‐ontology‐explained‐in‐simple‐language (accessed 25 September 2020).
8 Sturm T. (2011). Historical epistemology or history of epistemology? The case of the relation between perception and judgment. Erkenntnis 75(3), 303–324.
CHAPTER 2 Experimental Quantitative Approaches: Laboratory Experiments
Introduction
I guess that most of us can remember laboratory experiments from our school days – unless, as some do, you have blanked this out! Laboratory experiments are:
In the quantitative domain – we measure and count, we use numbers.
They are usually hypothetico‐deductive – we have a clear purpose and set of expectations in mind before we begin.
They are in the interventional domain – we introduce an experimental variable which was not there at the start.
They are prospective – we have a start point where we make our initial measurements, we have our interventions, and we have an end point when we make our final measurements.
They are best suited to answering questions like: ‘If I add/change this, will that happen?’
(None of my science teachers at school or university explained anything of the methodological science behind what we were doing – and that was a great pity. Over the years I have had to explain to undergraduate and postgraduate students the principles which underpin the ‘sciences’ of research – because most of them did not understand it either! Well, now, you do!)
The ‘Logic’ of the Experimental Approach
How often do we, and others, ask the question, ‘I wonder what happens if I … remove this thing here/do this instead of that/etc.’ Famous last words. How many of us, when we see a sign saying WET PAINT, instead of avoiding the painted surface, touch it to see if it is really wet?! (Some of us never really shed those childhood rebellious behaviours!) So we or they touch the paint, and end up with sticky fingers! ‘Yup. I guess it IS wet paint!’ is the conclusion!
This may sound like a banal example, but it illustrates the first level of experimentation. We begin with a hypothesis – ‘the paint is not wet’ – and we test our hypothesis – by touching the wood (or better still, by encouraging someone else to touch it) – using the tried and tested approach of ‘touch it and see’. This act of experimentation then either confirms our hypothesis – ‘Yes, the paint is wet! Now where do I clean my hands?!’ – or it refutes (denies) our hypothesis – ‘No, the paint is not wet. Phew!’
So, the process is simple:
We have a question – ‘Is that paint wet?’
We state our hypothesis – ‘My hunch is that the paint is not wet’ – this implies the nul hypothesis – ‘My hunch is that the paint is wet’.
We carry out our experimentation – we touch the paint.
We note the result – the paint is wet!
We conclude that this has refuted our hypothesis – it has confirmed the nul hypothesis – the paint is wet.
We disseminate our findings – ‘Look out – that paint really is wet!’
Easy! Now go on and think of a few examples on your own – if you send your ideas to me, I shall include the ones I like best and acknowledge you in the next edition of this book!
As an experiment, the hypothesis would have been ‘Touching the paint will not dirty my hand – the paint is dry’. And the nul hypothesis (the opposite of the hypothesis) would have been …? Yes, that's right, ‘Touching the paint will dirty my hand – the paint is not dry’. And the intervention would have been – touching the paint. The outcomes would have been:
1 my hand will remain clean – the paint was dry; or
2 my hand will be messy – the paint was not dry.
Now, some of you might argue that this is not a true experiment – the act of touching the paint was not a true intervention, it was an ‘interrogation’ or ‘questioning’ or ‘testing’ of the paint. I'm not going to argue – you could take it either way, but I hope it shows the point I am trying to make – experimentation is a part of our daily lives! We are born researchers and experimenters.
One more thing to note is that not all experimental approaches are truly hypothetico‐deductive, some are hypothetico‐inductive – we don't have a clue about what might happen when we press the button to set off the atom bomb, but we want to find out …
A Basic Experiment
In a basic experiment, we set up a situation where we introduce one thing – a substance or a variable – to another thing (substance/variable) and observe the effects – the outcomes of doing this.
In a laboratory we can control the situation, the experiment, and the environment within which the experiment is done. So, if Substance A is zinc, and Substance B is hydrochloric acid, we should observe a fizzing as the acid meets the zinc and the gas hydrogen will be given off, leaving a residual substance (hydrogen chloride) behind. We can do the experiment with different concentrations of the acid, at different temperatures, at different atmospheric pressures, and at different levels of humidity – and measure the results in each condition. That is, we can take external variables into account to measure the extent to which they interfere with, or contaminate, our results. We can repeat the experiment as often as we want to check our results. And, most importantly, by keeping our equipment squeaky‐clean, we can make sure that there are no substances on/in the equipment that can interfere with the experiment – ‘Cleanliness is next to Godliness!’ And to avoid the ‘Fleming effect’ we can conduct our work in sealed laboratories so that no dirt can blow in through a window and give