International Master of arts Programmed

“Buddhist studies”

The Second Semester of First Year

Subject: Research Methodology in Buddhism

Lectured by:
Prof. Dr. Chamnong Adivadhanasit

Submitted by:
Ven.Kyaw min Candasiri
Registration No. 5101405020


Graduate School
Mahachulalongkorajavidayalaya
University
Bangkok, Thailand


2552 2009



What is research methodology?
Methodology can be defined as:
1. "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline"
2. "the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline"; or
3. "a particular procedure or set of procedures."

It should be noted that the word "methodology" is frequently used when "method" would be more accurate. (This is a classic example of word inflation.) For example, "Since students were not available to complete the survey about academic success, we changed our methodology and gathered data from instructors instead". In this instance the methodology (gathering data via surveys, and the assumption that this produces accurate results) did not change, but the method (asking teachers instead of students) did.
Methodology includes the following concepts as they relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry:
1. a collection of theories, concepts or ideas;
2. comparative study of different approaches; and
3. critique of the individual methods
Methodology refers to more than a simple set of methods; rather it refers to the rationale and the philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular study relative to the scientific method. This is why scholarly literature often includes a section on the methodology of the researchers. This section does more than outline the researchers’ methods (as in, “We conducted a survey of 50 people over a two-week period and subjected the results to statistical analysis”, etc.); it might explain what the researchers’ ontological or epistemological views are.
Another key (though arguably imprecise) usage for methodology does not refer to research or to the specific analysis techniques. This often refers to anything and everything that can be encapsulated for a discipline or a series of processes, activities and tasks. Examples of this are found in software development, project management and business process fields. This use of the term is typified by the outline who, what, where, when, and why. In the documentation of the processes that make up the discipline, that is being supported by "this" methodology, that is where we would find the "methods" or processes. The processes themselves are only part of the methodology along with the identification and usage of the standards, policies, rules, etc.
Methodology is the science of method. It is derived from the Greek méthodos or systematic course or way or road.

It deals with the principles of procedure in research and study and involves the attempt to find the best mode of inquiry that would most likely find the truth if any method can. Another way of describing it is a body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry. It is a set of working methods with tools and techniques differing from discipline to discipline.
When methodology is linked to research you have an approach and process that involves that application of logical principles to in an attempt to define a problem and find a solution.





2. What are the differences between Qualitative research and Quantitative research?
Qualitative research differs from Quantitative research in many ways. Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters and investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when. As a result, smaller but focused samples are used rather than the large random samples preferred in Qualitative research.
Another difference is that quantitative research is largely exploratory. That is to say it generates an hypothesis , while quantitative research aims to test hypotheses.
In Qualitative research, the role of the researcher is key and researchers consider their role in the research process and describe this role in their analyses. In addition, data analysis differs considerably between the two types of research. In Qualitative research, researchers have to carefully code data and discern themes in a consistent and reliable way.
Sampling in Qualitative research is usually not random but is purposive. Cases are chosen based on the way that they typify or do not typify certain characteristics or participate in a certain class.
In addition, Qualitative research deals with the validity of content – is the researcher actually measuring what he thinks he is? Quantitative data, on the other hand, are of the kind that may lead to measurement or other kinds of analysis involving applied mathematics. Qualitative data, however, cannot always be graphed or displayed as a mathematical term. Nonetheless, qualitative data may be useful in explaining quantitative results, or may be used to generate additional variables to include in an analysis.
Qualitative research is also useful in policy and evaluation research, where understanding why and how certain results were achieved is as important as knowing what those results were. Qualitative research can yield useful insights about the implementation of programs: Were expectations reasonable? Did processes operate as expected? Were participants able to carry out their responsibilities?
Qualitative research tends to categorize data into patterns as the primary means of organizing and reporting results. Qualitative researchers rely on several methods for gathering information: observation by participants, observation by non-participants, structured interview and unstructured interview .
Usually analysis of qualitative data is based on observer impression. That is, expert or layman observers examine the data, form an impression, and report their impression in a structured, sometimes, quantitative form. These impressions can be the final conclusion of the analysissome quantitative characteristics of the data to be further analyzed using some quantitative methods. An example of quantitative characteristics is the frequency in which a word appears in text.
In Qualitative research analysis of data can be done in several ways: theoretical analysis, inductive analysis, descriptive analysis and categorizing analysis.

Quantitative research
The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/or hypotheses pertaining to natural phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships.
Quantitative research is widely used in both the natural sciences and social sciences, from physics and biology to sociology and journalism. It is also used as a way to research different aspects of education. The term quantitative research is most often used in the social sciences in contrast to qualitative research.
Quantitative research is often an iterative process whereby evidence is evaluated, theories and hypothieses are refined, technical advances are made, and so on. Virtually all research in physics is quantitative whereas research in other scientific disciplines, such as taxonomy and anatomy, may involve a combination of quantitative and other analytic approaches and methods.
In the social sciences particularly, quantitative research is often contrasted with qualitative research which is the examination, analysis and interpretation of observations for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships, including classifications of types of phenomena and entities, in a manner that does not involve mathematical models. Approaches to quantitative psychology were first modelled on quantitative approaches in the physical sciences by Gustav Fechner in his work on psychophysics, which built on the work of Ernst Heinrich Weber. Although a distinction is commonly drawn between qualitative and quantitative aspects of scientific investigation, it has been argued that the two go hand in hand. For example, based on analysis of the history of science, Kuhn concludes that “large amounts of qualitative work have usually been prerequisite to fruitful quantification in the physical sciences”. Qualitative research is often used to gain a general sense of phenomena and to form theories that can be tested using further quantitative research. For instance, in the social sciences qualitative research methods are often used to gain better understanding of such things as intentionality (from the speech response of the researchee) and meaning (why did this person/group say something and what did it mean to them?).
Although quantitative investigation of the world has existed since people first began to record events or objects that had been counted, the modern idea of quantitative processes have their roots in Auguste Comte's positivist framework.. in favor of a position commonly reported. In opinion surveys, respondents are asked a set of structured questions and their responses are tabulated. In the field of climate science, researchers compile and compare statistics such as temperature or atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Empirical relationships and associations are also frequently studied by using some form of General linear model, non-linear model, or by using factor analysis. A fundamental principle in quantitative research is that correlation does not imply causation. This principle follows from the fact that it is always possible a spurious relationship exists for variables between which covariance is found in some degree. Associations may be examined between any combination of continuous and categorical variables using methods of statistics.


While both Qualitative and Quantitative research have particular approaches, neither should be considered more conclusive or true than the other. Rather, they are best seen as complimentary – each can play an important role in arriving at the truth and a solution to the problem being analyzed.

Qualitative and Quantitative Assumptions
To say that qualitative and quantitative data are similar only tells half the story. After all, the intense academic wrangling of the qualitative-quantitative debate must have some basis in reality. My sense is that there are some fundamental differences, but that they lie primarily at the level of assumptions about research (epistemological and ontological assumptions) rather than at the level of the data.
First, let's do away with the most common myths about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research. Many people believe the following:
Quantitative research is confirmatory and deductive in nature.
Qualitative research is exploratory and inductive in nature.
I think that while there's a shred of truth in each of these statements, they are not exactly correct. In general, a lot of quantitative research tends to be confirmatory and deductive. But there's lots of quantitative research that can be classified as exploratory as well. And while much qualitative research does tend to be exploratory, it can also be used to confirm very specific deductive hypotheses. The problem I have with these kinds of statements is that they don't acknowledge the richness of both traditions. They don't recognize that both qualitative and quantitative research can be used to address almost any kind of research question.
So, if the difference between qualitative and quantitative is not along the exploratory-confirmatory or inductive-deductive dimensions, then where is it?
My belief is that the heart of the quantitative-qualitative debate is philosophical, not methodological. Many qualitative researchers operate under different epistemological assumptions from quantitative researchers. For instance, many qualitative researchers believe that the best way to understand any phenomenon is to view it in its context. They see all quantification as limited in nature, looking only at one small portion of a reality that cannot be split or unitized without losing the importance of the whole phenomenon. For some qualitative researchers, the best way to understand what's going on is to become immersed in it. Move into the culture or organization you are studying and experience what it is like to be a part of it. Be flexible in your inquiry of people in context. Rather than approaching measurement with the idea of constructing a fixed instrument or set of questions, allow the questions to emerge and change as you become familiar with what you are studying. Many qualitative researchers also operate under different ontological assumptions about the world. They don't assume that there is a single unitary reality apart from our perceptions. Since each of us experiences from our own point of view, each of us experiences a different reality. Conducting research without taking this into account violates their fundamental view of the individual. Consequently, they may be opposed to methods that attempt to aggregate across individuals on the grounds that each individual is unique. They also argue that the researcher is a unique individual and that all research is essentially biased by each researcher's individual perceptions. There is no point in trying to establish "validity" in any external or objective sense. All that we can hope to do is interpret our view of the world as researchers.
Let me end this brief excursion into the qualitative-quantitative debate with a few personal observations. Any researcher steeped in the qualitative tradition would certainly take issue with my comments above about the similarities between quantitative and qualitative data. They would argue (with some correctness I fear) that it is not possible to separate your research assumptions from the data. Some would claim that my perspective on data is based on assumptions common to the quantitative tradition. Others would argue that it doesn't matter if you can code data thematically or quantitatively because they wouldn't do either -- both forms of analysis impose artificial structure on the phenomena and, consequently, introduce distortions and biases. I have to admit that I would see the point in much of this criticism. In fact, I tend to see the point on both sides of the qualitative-quantitative debate.
In the end, people who consider themselves primarily qualitative or primarily quantitative tend to be almost as diverse as those from the opposing camps. There are qualitative researchers who fit comfortably into the post-positivist tradition common to much contemporary quantitative research. And there are quantitative researchers (albeit, probably fewer) who use quantitative information as the basis for exploration, recognizing the inherent limitations and complex assumptions beneath all numbers. In either camp, you'll find intense and fundamental disagreement about both philosophical assumptions and the nature of data. And, increasingly, we find researchers who are interested in blending the two traditions, attempting to get the advantages of each. I don't think there's any resolution to the debate. And, I believe social research is richer for the wider variety of views and methods that the debate generates.












4.Summarize what has been studied in the classroom from the first hour to the last hour.
Prof. Dr. Chanmnong Adivadhanasit taught us about the Research Methods in Buddhism course at Mahachula University (2008/9) is a practical, hands-on course designed to give students an understanding of the theory of research methods and to put the theory into practice by producing a M.A. thesis proposal. It involved classroom discussions to give depth to the students’ understanding of the subject.
The word mythology is derived from Greek, meaning the telling of stories, the entire organization of myths in a given belief, and the study of myths. Students of anthropology, legends, and religion study myths in unusual ways, differentiating them from diverse other types of popular, often orally conveyed, literature.
Mythology indicates a general recognition of the power of these poetical tales. However, there is still a fair measure of disagreement as to what is the strength of myths. For Plato, the first known user of the term, mythologia meant no more than the telling of stories, which usually contained legendary figures. The main characters were not always gods, since the Greeks had an impressive number of heroes: Heracles, Jason, and Theseus, to name the most famous. Heracles may have undertaken his twelve labors because of goddess Hera's animosity, but his superhuman exploits fall short of true divinity. He remains the archetype of the indomitable man. Moreover, the theory those myths derived from rituals, which is the corollary of the idea that myths are about gods, is open to question even in West Asian tradition, the main source of the supposed evidence. Myths are there as popular tales reworked by poets to absorb elements of religious belief. The antithesis is Coyote, the trickster-god of North American Indian mythology, and his European cousin of medieval folklore, Reynard the Fox.
Experience of life among the Trobriand islanders of Melanesia led Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) to the view that myth was neither primarily symbolic nor aeriological. It was the acknowledgment of the link between past and present established by myth in daily life.
Any one or all functions may be performing by Myth, but in accumulation play a significant part in how a tradition makes its sense of time. However, a myth is normally a tale that takes place in a predictable, distant, undying past and tells of the beginning of humans, animals, and the mystic.
Studies of the myths of North and South American citizens, Australian aborigines, the peoples of South Africa, and others have revealed how widespread many mythological elements and motifs are. Though there is no exact general myth, many ideas and patterns persist in the myths of diverse civilizations and ages. Other myth of recurring annihilation and conception is balance by myths of cyclic death and rebirth.
Myths have explained by ancient Greeks as fables, and seemed for a realism covered in poetic images. A soon after symbolic explanation states that at one time myths were made-up by prudent men to indicate a truth, but that after a time myths were taken factually. During judgment with added mythologies, many Greek myths now taken as products of fictitious codification and in terms of their proper restructuring as classic poems.
The majority of modern scholars of mythology, though, have turned away from efforts to elucidate resemblances in content in all myths by vocating notice to the diverse backgrounds in which myths take place.
It considered by an anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski that all myths are justifications of recognized doings and establishments. In the same way, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown scrutinized how myths highlight and repeat the values, actions, and thoughts of people about their civilization.

The course can be organized under the following headings:
(1) Meaning and objective of research
(2) Types of Research
(3) Philosophy of Research
(4) The Construction of a Research Project
(5) The Design of Chapters of the Proposed Research Project
(6) Tools for Collecting Data and
(7) Problems for Research in Buddhism
The course started with an explanation of the meaning and objective of research. Prof. Chamnong Adivadhanasit explained that the word research stems from the Latin word meaning to know. It refers to a theory of knowledge involving revealing a truth. Good research - or the revealing of a truth - will often result in good impacts, he explained.
He also explained that Research Methodology refers to the principles or methods of procedure applied to research, which is a systematic, replicable process that identifies and defines problems and attempts to find answers.
We looked at how different problems and the nature of the problems called for different types of research to meet the challenges of a particular problem. These types of research included a discussion the on the meanings of Qualitative research and Quantitative research and the difference between the two.
In summary, Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters and investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when.
Unlike Quantitative research, quantitative research is largely exploratory. That is to say it generates an hypothesis, while quantitative research aims to test hypotheses.
In Qualitative research, the role of the researcher is key and researchers consider their role in the research process and describe this role in their analyses.
In addition, qualitative research deals with the validity of content – is the researcher actually measuring what he thinks he is? Quantitative data, on the other hand, are of the kind that may lead to measurement or other kinds of analysis involving applied mathematics. Qualitative data, however, cannot always be graphed or displayed as a mathematical term.
Qualitative research tends to categorize data into patterns as the primary means of organizing and reporting results. Qualitative researchers rely on several methods for gathering information: observation by participants, observation by non-participants, structured interview and unstructured interview .
Usually analysis of qualitative data is based on observer impression. That is, expert or layman observers examine the data, form an impression, and report their impression in a structured, sometimes, quantitative form. These impressions can be the final conclusion of the analysis. An example of quantitative characteristics is the frequency in which a word appears in text.
While both Qualitative and Quantitative research have particular approaches, neither should be considered more conclusive or true than the other. Rather, they are best seen as complimentary – each can play an important role in arriving at the truth and a solution to the problem being analyzed.
When delving into the philosophy of research we dealt with the problem of what to do if our research resulted in information that could trigger big problems such as war or some kind of destruction.
The answer was that it is ethical and proper for Buddhists to delay or even avoid releasing research findings if the result would be suffering for humans, animals or the environment.
This approach was interesting to me because it contrasts the ethical code promoted in North American journalist schools in which journalists are encouraged to reveal the truth no matter what the consequences because of the belief that the truth will eventually bring about the right outcome.
We discussed the characteristics of a good researcher. Some of the points we discussed are listed below.
(1) Truthful - does not hide or distort the information that he brings to light
(2) Impartial – able to overcome his prejudices and biases
(3) Sincere – is committed to revealing the truth
(4) Honest – does not lie about his findings to fit preconceived ideas
(5) Not a thief – does not steal the research of others
(6) Responsible – his research should not result in harm to people, animals or the environment
We also discussed good research characteristics. Some of the points we discussed are listed below:
· Good research is systematic and controlled. It is logical so procedures can be duplicated and understood by others
· It is verifiable and replicable, so others may test the findings by repeating.
· It is empirical - derived from experiment, experience, and observation rather than from theory or logic
· It needs at least two variables, one dependent and one independent
· It is reductive, so a small sample can be generalized to a larger population
· It should aim at being self correctable and open to change through public debate.
· Ideally, it will contain both qualitative data and quantitative data of an integrated approach
We also discussed the idea of a concept. It is a general expression
During discussion on the construction of a research project Prof. Adivadhanasit pointed out that because of the commitment required to carry out a research project, the idea should be of great interest to the researcher.


How do researchers find a program they can commit to?
(1) Read a lot of material
(2) Read the theses of others
(3) Read journals and newspapers
(4) Consult with advisors
Professor Adivadhanasit also pointed out the following:
· The research problem should be significant both at a social and philosophical level if possible
· The problem should be clear to the researcher and clearly stated
· The researcher should know where he can find information on the topic
· The researcher should be able to draw conclusions from the information he is analyzing
· The researcher should be able to stick to his topic (one mind, one love – not many)
In the section on the Construction of a Research Project, Prof. Adivadhanasit described the characteristics of good research.
(1) It must have an objective
(2) It must have a research process
(3) It must be based on scientific knowledge
(4) It requires data analysis
The Objectives of Research
There should not be more than three. One is OK
Objectives should be related
Objectives should be linked to the title
The objectives should be expressed in simple sentences
· In general, the object of research is to explore the unknown and the unexplored, although it is permissible to repeat a voyage under certain circumstances. It is like an expedition into the unknown to find new things.
· Another general objective is to explain unclear phenomena.
· Another is to prove and verify the facts
· Another is to find out the way to solve a problem
Good research title
It should be short
It should contain at least two concepts related to each other (independent and dependant variables)
It should convey the type of research methodology
Its key concepts should be defined clearly
It should cover the areas of content, space, time and people
Structure of the Presentation of a Thesis
• Background and significance of the study
• Objectives of the study
• Scope of the study
• Expected benefits
• Operational definitions
• Research methodology
• Review of literature
• Conceptual framework
• Bibliography
Discussion of Concept and Theory
A concept is a general expression of a particular phenomenon, e.g. capitalism, socialism, democracy etc.
There are two kinds of concept: (1) abstract (2) concrete
An abstract concept is completely independent of a specific time or place. It is not related to space or time. e.g. justice.
A concrete concept is specific to a particular time or place. The justice of a particular ruler or king. This is concrete. Temperature is an abstract concept but when we talk about the temperature of the sun it becomes concrete.
Another type of concept is a construct concept. It is something created by scholars and transmitted through generations, e.g. equal opportunity. A metaphysical concept is a well-known concept. At the beginning it might be a construct concept but over time, as it becomes better known, it becomes a metaphysical concept.
In science when a concept is studied it must be quantified, but it’s not easy to do. Inductive and deductive reasoning can be used.
Examples of theories. Evolution (Darwin) is a theory – a set of interrelated ideas or concepts or constructs – as is the theory of gravity (Newton).
When a hypothesis has been proved, it becomes a theory.
There are two levels of theories: theory at micro level, theory at macro level.
Anatar, no self, is a theory at the macro level, the universal level.
The title of research should be composed of concepts related to one another.
There are many tools for collecting data. These include the Internet, books, academic journals, popular magazines, interviews, and letters.

Problems for research in Buddhism. In some ways Buddhism is remarkably open to inquiry, much more so than many other religions. Buddhists have been cooperating with scientists to investigate the impact of meditation on the mind, and to explore the mind. There are usually no road-blocks placed in the way of those seeking to inquire into Buddhism. Problems include a lack of historical sources to confirm the accuracy of the Tipitika and few historical secondary sources that Buddhist researchers can turn to.



































Reference

۞ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
۞http://english.sublimesolutions.com/corporative/corporative_moreinfo.php?id=42&menu=1093
۞ http://www.howtowritetermpapers.com/mythology.htm
۞ http://interdome.blogspot.com/2009/03/so-yeah-there-was-this-thing-in-texas.html