define and discuss the scientific metatheory from a modernist perspective.

 Towards a Scientific Metatheory

Discussion post:

read pp. 73-94 of the article attached and define and discuss the scientific metatheory from a modernist perspective.

Respond to Student 1:

Metatheory appears to have some significant overlap with the term “paradigm,” which was given its modern understanding in science by Thomas Kuhn (1996). In the terms used here, Kuhn considered a paradigm to be the metatheory, the theory, the methodology, and the ethos, all combined, of a discipline or specialty. So paradigm would have a broader meaning than metatheory. At the same time, metatheory is absolutely core to any paradigm, and is defining of a paradigm in many senses. Walis (2010) explains that traditional modernity emphasizes differentiation, simple-location, classification, and representation. While, in contrast, postmodernism is more about process, movement, interpretation, and change. The difference, Walis (2010) goes on to explain is that “science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence” (Science Council, 2010); which includes: objective observation, evidence, experiment, induction, repetition, critical analysis and verification testing. Modernist approaches to science tend to seek an absolute truth about the nature of reality. This totalizing view discounts alternative views, approaches, and ways of knowing. Thus, modernist science serves as a point of view – a metatheory that both enables and restricts how a user of that view approaches the world and investigations of the world.

The take away from this article is as Walis (2010) offers, modernist science tried very hard by differentiating scientific inquiry form political, artistic, and religious inquiry. As a result of those reductionist assumptions, fantastic advances were made. Walis (2010) concludes, that we should not attempt to rid ourselves of modernist science. Rather, we should seek to change it – to enrich it. One way to do that is to integrate modernist science with postmodern insights into the value of religion, art, human interaction, creativity, and values. Finally, a question related to the article would be which is the better method for metatheory, the modernist or postmodernism perspective?

References

Allana, S., & Clark, A. (2018). Applying meta-theory to qualitative and mixed-methods research:

A discussion of critical realism and heart failure disease management interventions

research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 160940691879004.

doi: 10.1177/1609406918790042.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Lave, C.A., & March, J.G. (1975). An introduction to models in the social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.

Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos I, Musgrave A. (eds.). Cambridge

university Press : New York.

Lor, P. (2011). Preparing for research: Metatheoretical considerations. International &

Comparative Librarianship- Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 4–15.

Wallis, S. E. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6(3), 73-120.

Respond to Student 2:

Modernist perspectives to science will in general look for an infinite principle about the idea of the real world. This view limits elective perspectives, methods,, and actions of insights. Accordingly, modernist science fills in as a a meta-theory that both empowers and limits how an individual of that view moves toward the world and experiences of the world.

Modernist approaches do not take part in meta-theoretical exchanges; they simply continue ahead with research, underestimating the meta-theory accessible and disregarding meta-theoretical other options. Modernist methods expands on several suppositions: an empirical pragmatist philosophy, comparability of clarification and prediction, an enormous scope organization of induction and deduction, and comprehensiveness of closed frameworks and the origination of causality as cause–effect affiliations.

In reading the article there seems to be a distinct connection between modern and post modern concepts. They both endeavor to find the comprehension, critical thinking, and both value the advantages of employing theory. What is absent between the two renditions of science is an attention on how they may collaborate with one another. This is a fundamental methodology, which perceives the advantages of both and looks to bring them together to make a progressively complete and viable comprehension. My question to this discussion is, Is epistemology the underlying factor in bridging the gaps?

References:

Sousa, F. J. (2010). Meta-theories in research: positivism, postmodernism, and critical realism. Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing: Organizational Culture, Business-to-Business Relationships, and Interfirm Networks, 455-503.

Wallis, S. (2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review: A Transdiciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis, 6(3).

Subject:  PHD Writing

Answer preview……………………

apa 787 words