فصلنامه روش شناسی علوم انسانی
پیاپی 98 (بهار 1398)

The present paper aims to study the concept of method and theory in empirical research. Considering the context of research methodology, the paper identifies different meanings and approaches to these two concepts from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. First, the properties and dimensions of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in empirical research design are described. Then, the research process in each of these two approaches is considered after a comparative analysis between the two by considering the similarity and difference aspects. Accordingly, the nature of the theory as an integral part of the method in empirical research is analyzed based on these two perspectives, along with their integration. Finally, by using the concept of “typology of theories” and the concept of “hermeneutic cycle”, the present study tries to represent the relationship between method and theory in empirical research and explains the role of “theoretical framework” in these kinds of research designs

The idea of religious science, despite the attempts made in recent decades by its proponents and opponents, has not yet reached a clear point. This paper aims at revising one of the models of religious science, called the Ijtihadi-Experimental Model, which was first introduced in the early years of the 2000s and gradually expanded along with writing several books and articles. After briefly describing the status of this model among the other models of religious science and introducing the general foundations and methodology of this model, the paper has addressed its ambiguities and problems in ten items. These items are: falling in the trap of experientialism, dependence on Western paradigms, ambiguity in distinguishing between physical and meta-physical levels of science, non-objectivity, inadequacy of religious texts propositions for production of science, probability of falsification of religious propositions, preferring weaker knowledge on stronger knowledge, ambiguity in denomination of religious science, ambiguity in possibility of progress, and non-creativity

Despite the fact that Economics uses Mathematics more than other social sciences for explanation and prediction, the application of these methods in Economics has been faced with serious objections. In the present study, while studying the historical course and the theoretical foundations of the application of mathematics in Economics, the most important issues discussed from the viewpoints of advocates and opponents of the mathematical method are discussed and the results and consequences of this methodological approach are explained. The result of the research suggests that mathematics has helped Economics in areas such as modeling, internal consistency, empirical testing, economic policy, and facilitating scientific communication, but the limitations of classical mathematics include criticisms such as extreme simplicity, abstraction and the distance from reality, the weakening of the empirical nature of the Economy, and the elimination of the key elements of Economic analysis on Economics. However, the Economists' tendency to new branches of mathematics, such as game theory, chaos theory and fuzzy logic, has greatly reduced the limitation of elementary models and opened up a new approach to Economics studies

The literature review obtained from the continuous scientific researches is considered as a great capital for the scientific community, which can play a unique role in the production of knowledge, if exploited appropriately. In this regard, review research is a type of research aimed at independent and systematic study of the literature review for exploring, describing, integrating, explaining or criticizing patterns, relationships, and trends visible in the body of knowledge, which can not easily be addressed through the first-order research and resources. It is sometimes thought that review articles, in contrast to scientific-research articles and similar to scientific-promotional articles, have no particular innovation and merely retell the previous researches results. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the capacity of review research in generating knowledge, conceptualizing different types of these studies and ultimately, providing a comprehensive typology of review articles The results of this study, which have been carried out by Metha-synthesis method suggest that the broad scope of review research can be classified according to the three criteria consisting of scope, organization and study objectives, and  also at least 10 distinct types of review articles can be identified that each one has its own function in the production of knowledge.

This article is going to disscus about philosophical explanation of the stages and typology of research methodology in psychology. Our method in this article is to analyze the qualitative content of psychology texts and sources and critically examine them with a philosophical rational approach. This study is presented in four sections: reporting, analysis, classification and criticism. Some of which are: The steps of the research method can be divided into four categories: problem statement; research background; data collection; and analysis, interpretation and evaluation of information. According to the three approaches of quantitative, qualitative and mix method research, it can be said that quantity is one of the nine philosophical accidents such as number, form and time and is rooted in the positivist paradigm. Quality in qualitative research method is also one of the accidents dealing with the three categories of sensibility, susceptibility, and psychic qualities. The philosophical foundations of qualitative research methods are interpretive, communicative, reflective, and qualitative. Criticisms of interpretive and critical paradigms are also significant here. The qualitative and quantitative research method, although looking at different paradigms, but because focusing on the single issue, and being complementary of these two approaches the mix method researches are possible.

According to a popular version of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), the hypothesis that provides the best explanation for a group of phenomena is probably true. One of the key objections against this line of thought is Voltaire’s objection. According to this objection, we have no reason to believe that the criteria for selecting the best explanation provide the likeliest explanation. In this paper, we address Voltaire’s objection from probabilistic (Bayesian) point of view. To be exact, we scrutinize this question: based on probability axioms and their consequences, including Bayes’ theorem, is it justified to think of the best explanation as the likeliest one? Considering this question, first of all, we show that, although IBE is a prima facie case of Bayesianism, probabilistic approach is not fundamentally consistent with IBE. Secondly, it will be argued that the best explanation which is favored over its rivals by scientists is not always the likeliest one. Moreover, we show that Bayes’ theorem overlooks the evidence for which the explanatory hypotheses in IBE compete. Thus, probabilistic approach is unable to settle Voltaire’s objection.