Related Experiment Videos
Naturalistic inquiry and reliabilism: a compatible epistemological grounding
Steven I Miller1, Marcel Fredericks
1Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Counseling Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, USA.
Qualitative Health Research
|September 7, 2002
Summary
Naturalistic inquiry requires rigorous epistemology, as ideology and methods are conflated. Process reliabilism offers a promising epistemological theory consistent with minimal realism.
Area of Science:
- Philosophy of Science
- Epistemology
- Naturalistic Inquiry
Background:
- The field of naturalistic inquiry faces challenges due to the conflation of ideological and methodological claims.
- This conflation obscures the fundamental need for a robust epistemological foundation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To advocate for a return to rigorous epistemological considerations within naturalistic inquiry.
- To explore process reliabilism as a viable epistemological framework compatible with naturalistic perspectives.
- To examine the ontological commitments that arise from naturalistic epistemological theories.
Main Methods:
- Conceptual analysis of epistemological and methodological claims in naturalistic inquiry.
- Critical examination of the epistemological theory of process reliabilism.
- Assessment of the compatibility between process reliabilism and minimal realism.
Main Results:
- Conflation of ideology and methodology hinders naturalistic inquiry's progress.
- Process reliabilism presents a potentially strong epistemological theory for naturalistic research.
- Process reliabilism aligns with the ontological stance of minimal realism.
Conclusions:
- Naturalistic inquiry must re-establish a rigorous epistemological grounding.
- Process reliabilism warrants critical investigation as a suitable epistemological approach.
- Adopting process reliabilism supports minimal realist ontological commitments in naturalistic research.