Addressing Socio-technical Issues in Built Environment Research: A Philosophical Premise

Maren Mallo Daniel, J. J. Molwus, Joseph Tanko Nkup, Nenrot Gombwer Wuyokwe
{"title":"Addressing Socio-technical Issues in Built Environment Research: A Philosophical Premise","authors":"Maren Mallo Daniel, J. J. Molwus, Joseph Tanko Nkup, Nenrot Gombwer Wuyokwe","doi":"10.2478/udi-2020-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Researchers within the built environment disciplines have increasingly drawn on a plurality of social methods in order to enrich their research. Three decades down the line the place of philosophy in the choice of appropriate research methods is yet to be appreciated by some built environment researchers. Consequently, a lack of adventure in interpretive research, wrong choice of methods and underrepresentation of the qualitative approach are reported, which suggests the existence of a knowledge gap. This study is aimed at illustrating the philosophical premise for employing social research methods to address socio-technical issues in built environment research. In achieving this, reference was made to a fire incident in a student dormitory in Nigeria as a problem upon which contrasting–subjectivist and objectivist–philosophical positions were examined. The consideration of these philosophical positions and the choices that resulted from both spectrums were seen to have their strengths and weaknesses. To offset the weaknesses in each approach while also leveraging on the strengths that each approach offers, the paper illustrated how a compromise–pragmatist–position can be reached to allow for the choice of, and mixing of multi-methods to solve research problems that could not be adequately solved using any single method.","PeriodicalId":115598,"journal":{"name":"Urban Development Issues","volume":"223 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Development Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/udi-2020-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Researchers within the built environment disciplines have increasingly drawn on a plurality of social methods in order to enrich their research. Three decades down the line the place of philosophy in the choice of appropriate research methods is yet to be appreciated by some built environment researchers. Consequently, a lack of adventure in interpretive research, wrong choice of methods and underrepresentation of the qualitative approach are reported, which suggests the existence of a knowledge gap. This study is aimed at illustrating the philosophical premise for employing social research methods to address socio-technical issues in built environment research. In achieving this, reference was made to a fire incident in a student dormitory in Nigeria as a problem upon which contrasting–subjectivist and objectivist–philosophical positions were examined. The consideration of these philosophical positions and the choices that resulted from both spectrums were seen to have their strengths and weaknesses. To offset the weaknesses in each approach while also leveraging on the strengths that each approach offers, the paper illustrated how a compromise–pragmatist–position can be reached to allow for the choice of, and mixing of multi-methods to solve research problems that could not be adequately solved using any single method.
解决建筑环境研究中的社会技术问题:一个哲学前提
建筑环境学科的研究人员越来越多地利用多种社会方法来丰富他们的研究。三十年来,哲学在选择合适的研究方法方面的地位仍未得到一些建筑环境研究人员的重视。因此,在解释性研究中缺乏冒险,方法的错误选择和定性方法的代表性不足,这表明存在知识差距。本研究旨在说明采用社会研究方法来解决建筑环境研究中的社会技术问题的哲学前提。为了做到这一点,提到了尼日利亚学生宿舍的火灾事件,作为一个问题,对对比主观主义和客观主义哲学立场进行了审查。对这些哲学立场的考虑和两种光谱所产生的选择被认为有其优点和缺点。为了弥补每种方法的弱点,同时也利用每种方法提供的优势,本文说明了如何达成妥协-实用主义立场,以允许选择和混合多种方法来解决使用任何单一方法都无法充分解决的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信