INTRODUCTION:

The social world is characterized by different belief systems, values, classifications, attitudes, and perceptions. In understanding today's world of social science, it is of great importance to understand the methods of inquiry into the social systems. A social inquiry is a scientific and systematic method of investigating experiences, beliefs, and values that affect a certain group of people in particular.

The social inquiry is aimed at understudying the reasons behind certain social occurrences and actions. It deals with predicting occurrences of future phenomena in society. In essence, research within the social sciences is deeply rooted in the philosophical alignments that serve as a guard while conducting research. These philosophical alignments are established in objectivism and subjectivism paradigms, which capture the four basic philosophical assumptions of research namely; ontology, epistemology, axiology (human nature), and methodology (Creswell, 2014). Nevertheless, accessing these paradigms that constitute methods of social inquiry is key to understanding what it takes to conduct any form of inquiry within the social framework.

In the light of the above, Musthafa (2014) opined that social inquiry represents a systematic investigation to seek clear explanations to society's attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions, and stratifications. Indeed, it is a systematized technique of seeking and proffering solutions to any phenomenon that may have transpired within the social space. However, social scientist tends to investigate individuals and social structures, using universally acceptable techniques of social inquiry largely with the central focus of obtaining information and knowledge that could be applied in an attempt to predict the outcome of any other future phenomena within the social framework (Eketu, 2018; Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017).

In the light of this, a chosen research paradigm seems to indicate contextual factors about the researcher, making room for meaning-making, and using data collected about a particular phenomenon (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). In the same vein, research paradigms are crucial for predicting the beliefs about what, when, and how any social phenomenon ought to be investigated, and the resultant effect or interpretation is given to it. Conducting any form of study within the social space requires a deep knowledge of numerous and divergent paradigms, in which most seem to have a peculiar or unique characteristic, hence, the need to establish this distinct feature. Paradigm refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that is widely held by standards at a given time. Paradigms are shaped both by the cultural background and context of the historical moment of such social reality, which describes human behaviour. Therefore, it is important to realize that people operate in different paradigms. The disagreement between two people simply explains the difference in individual paradigms. A paradigm can be upgraded with new information on how the principles of the universe work. Hence, the choice of methodology or paradigm employed by research in investigating societal phenomena depends on the aspect of the society being studied. These paradigms have their distinct epistemological viewpoint. In other words, a particular paradigm could be suitable for certain research in one area and less effective in others. It is on this background that this scoping review is conducted.

Philosophical Alignments in Social Science Inquiry:

The meaning and perspectives of empiricism, interpretivism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, pluralism, and solipsism are required to undertake any research in social or behavioural sciences.

Empiricism denotes that, sense experience (or sensory perception) is the origin of knowledge, as it serves as the foundation of ideas (or posterior knowledge). It typifies an epistemological guideline that seems to perceive sensory evidence as an exclusive basis of all forms of theoretical or real-world understanding of the subject. Sir Francis Bacon the father of empiricism, is credited with establishing and popularizing the "scientific method" of inquiry into natural phenomena. Sir Francis argued that scientific or empirical methods should be applied to the inquiry into the social world. Classifying the needed experience may comprise all contents of awareness or it may be controlled by reasoning. It holds information, and skills acquired through specialized knowledge of the universe of discourse and is dependent on experience which brings about the denial of a priori facts, information, and skills acquired through specialized knowledge of the world. Thus, it does not support rationalism, which holds that the basic source of facts, information, and skills acquired through specialized education in social science is reason rather than experience.

Empiricism:

Empiricism entails experience through the senses which, when documented, establishes a fact. The belief (empiricism) argues that the social world which is a function of society's attitude, belief, values, perception, and classification can best be studied through sense experience (human experience). To this end, society can be studied through experiences gathered as a result of learning. This paradigm views humans as social animals who are susceptible to learning from experience. Morick (1980), opined that learning takes place in different forms, one of which is experience. Sense experience gathered from society can be scientifically applied to solve similar social problems. The argument of the empiricists is the application of scientific methods and processes in the investigation of the social world. Contrary to this, it is pertinent to note that, empiricism is in sharp contrast with the rationalist philosophical standpoint with a strict emphasis on the role of instinctive designs. Empiricism is of importance in having deep insight or good judgment of the universe of discourse and in proving or disproving beliefs, but it cannot be used for everything, most especially in providing answers to intangible questions like that of the mind. Also, as stated by Morick (1980), he noted that some scientists and philosophers seem to oppose the line of thinking of empiricism based on the facts that observation can only provide information about a realm of appearances which may be of less importance and indeed less real than a more abstract realm that we may be able to grasp through a form of thinking that does not depend on experience. Additionally, as stated by Morick (1980) empiricism is not suitable in the production of deductive models explanation, thus it confines its followers to empirical procedures. This no doubt confines its adherents to making less useful generalizations and models. Another problem of empiricism is that it does not provide a rational difference between what is discernible and what is not.

Interpretivism:

Interpretivism which is also discussed as (antipositivism) is an epistemological paradigm that suggests that studies in social science cannot be investigated with scientific approaches in isolation, it argues that social science inquiry should adopt several epistemological paradigms. The concept of the interpretivism paradigm is originally rooted in the fact that methods used to understand the knowledge related to human and social science cannot be the same as their usage in physical sciences because humans interpret their world and act based on such interpretation. Interpretivism opines that a single phenomenon may have multiple interpretations. According to Holstein and Gubrium (1994), multiple interpretations is developed among human relationship. Thus, interpretivism researchers ought to understand the diverse ways of seeing and experiencing the world through different contexts and cultures, rather than bias judgment in studying the events and people with their interpretations. The Interpretivism paradigm assists researchers to understand deeply the objects, humans, or events, in a social context. The acceptance of interpretivism to having deep insight or good judgment of the universe of discourse depends on the argument that one cannot have deep insight or good judgment of remarkable developments, events, and trends without interpretation (Chowdhury, 2014). The interpretivist school of thought expressed that to have facts, information, and skills acquired through specialized education of social remarkable developments, events, and trends, scientists must associate with the remarkable developments, events, and trends been studied. Thus, the understanding of these different phenomena should be based on having deep insight or good judgment of the people been studied. Interpretivism also allows the scientists to understand the universe of discourse that is full of complexity and dynamism in a holistic way; this enables the scientists to have a close relationship with participants, so much so that they feel what they feel, and provide an interpretation of their reality appropriately. This helps to generate real and sufficient descriptions of social remarkable developments, events, and trends in the context of real-life experiences that bring to light the ascribe meaning of participants of that remarkable development, events, and trends. Although, the inadequacies of positivism as stated by Al-Habil (2011) led to the sprouting of the interpretivism view as an option in social sciences investigation. However, representing methodological firmness in interpretivism is sometimes difficult; this is because of the availability of various approaches in their possession. Also, Grey (2013) expresses that interpretivists deny the scientific approach of studying social remarkable developments, events, and trends and uphold that the reality of social remarkable developments, events, and trends has nothing to do with objective ontology; which sometimes is false. The interpretive paradigm is concerned with understanding the world as it is from the subjective experiences of individuals.

Phenomenology:

Phenomenology x-rays the structure and systematic reflection of acts of consciousness. It tends to oppose objective research as it relies on the conscious experience of participants instead of traditional data. It allows for scientific inquiry using approaches perceived to be less restrictive as compared to other sciences. This is demonstrated through an assumptions grouping process known as phenomenological epoche. The reason for embarking on phenomenological inquiry is to look very closely at some remarkable developments, events, and trends to understudy and explore the complex world of life experiences from the actors' perspective. This helps the scientists to understand some remarkable developments, events, and trends at a deeper level of consciousness and at the same time explore their nature, bringing a transformation at a personal level (Qutoshi, 2018). In this way, scientists can reflect critically and become more thoughtful and attentive in having deep insight or good judgment of the social remarkable developments, events, and trends. However, phenomenology research could be difficult for scientists that do not have a background in philosophy since it is mainly domiciled in philosophy. Thus, phenomenology can be sometimes not easy to understand (Mohajan, 2018), especially if the scientists had a limited background in philosophy. Also, the intrinsic subjectivity nature of phenomenology as a means of research, questions the ability of the scientists to be unbiased and fair. More so, the phenomenology method of research focused mainly on the discovery and not on justification (Qutoshi, 2018). Descriptions of remarkable developments, events, and trends are made on how scientists experience things. Phenomenologist assumes that in studying the society, persons should be explored (Qutoshi, 2018).

Hermeneutics:

Hermeneutics denotes "interpretation", particularly the interpretation of the biblical, theoretical or philosophical, and literary texts (Agrey, 2014). Hermeneutics is not just about the interpretation of the text but also focuses on having deep insight or good judgment of these texts. Chang (2010) opined that hermeneutics is the path of having deep insight or good judgment of and of making oneself understood. Paterson and Higgs, (2005) noted that, to attain a common acceptable having deep insight or good judgment of as prescribed in hermeneutic philosophy, the social group must have the same linguistic and interpretative properties” though, “hermeneutic theory also suggests that the meaning in a language is probably open to endless interpretation and reinterpretation as a result of interpretative vagueness arising from conventions, though the circumstances of usage may differ from the actual authorial purpose and to the evolution of words" this bias that stems for hermeneutics methodology because of his emphasis on tradition, deep-rooted conventions is often a limitation in its application in testing social remarkable developments, events, and trends. Hermeneutics emphasized that social behaviour should be seen as a kind of text- analog which should be interpreted instead as an object of science having deep insight or good judgment (Paterson and Higgs, 2005). Texts such as texts in newspapers, governmental reports, and so on are the bases of data in hermeneutics. Thus, in trying to understand social life, scientists should focus on explaining and having deep insight or good judgment of literary texts rather than an objective study of physical objects. It, therefore, centers on language as a means for knowing about the universe of discourse. However, as stated by Higgs et al. (2012) hermeneutics focused on tradition and prejudice which limits its application to current social remarkable developments, events, and trends. The hermeneutics paradigm holds that researchers should focus on the interpretation of society's actions rather than baseless and biased generalizations. The tradition of interpretation (hermeneutics paradigm) rejects the idea that human affairs are governed by natural laws. The paradigm argues that there are no natural occurrences. That is, there is a driving force behind every human action. It only requires a proper interpretation and understanding of the message being portrayed (Chang, 2010).

Pluralism:

Pluralism characterizes a multiplicity of opinions, interpretations, or viewpoints rather than a single idea. Pluralism means "doctrine of multiplicity or "diverse ways of knowing things". The pluralist approach has a lot of implications in social sciences inquiry because all viewpoints, ideas, and contributions concerning some remarkable developments, events, and trends should be accommodated and reviewed in other to arrive at an acceptable truth when undertaking an inquiry. Pluralism is the appropriate paradigm for the study of social science that seems to be continually struggling in the attempt to provide clear guidelines for having deep insight or good judgment of complex and changing social remarkable developments, events, and trends. Employing pluralism helps to bring about transparency in the analysis process which is of immense importance to business managers for real-world applications. More so, Frost et al. (2010) opined that pluralism promotes a better having deep insight or good judgment of the scientists ' biography, experience, and application of different techniques, potentially enabling more transparent research. This is because the limitations of a technique might be covered by the strength of another. Also, Shaw and Frost (2015) expressed that pluralism helps scientists to see what different approaches can offer in the inquiry of social remarkable developments, events, and trends. However, despite the immense benefit it has, pluralism is seen as controversial. These controversies are frequently ensnared within wider, ongoing debates regarding the issue of quality in qualitative research. Pluralism is a social philosophy paradigm that seeks to allow different viewpoints to coexist within a larger structure. Pluralists view society as comprising of several individual belief systems, which make up a society. As such, several paradigms can be employed in the research and investigation to find the explanation to society's attitude and actions while also maintaining their identities and characteristics as separate paradigms. The pluralism paradigm encourages the use of other paradigms in research analysis so long as the condition is right. Multiple viewpoints and groups strengthen the overall system, enriching its culture with a wider spectrum of ideas and building a deeper and more principled consensus in the political system. Pluralism is a fundamental principle of democracy, in which members of different groups with different viewpoints can voice their opinions and ideas (Frost, 2011). The pluralists' view that social phenomena can be explained and investigated using several or a combination of two or more paradigms and methodologies. It recognizes the fact that society's attitude believes and value originates from different individual perception and backgrounds. It also recognizes the differences in human behaviour. Hence, in social science inquiry, pluralists advocate that the application of any methodology should be appropriately based on the situation being studied. Furthermore, pluralism employs the use of systematic and scientific methods as well as quantitative and qualitative data analysis in social science inquiry (Eketu, 2018). As a result, pluralism, therefore, becomes the most appropriate approach for the investigation of social world inquiry.

Solipsism:

Solipsism is theoretical and views the self as the only thing that exists, and every other thing does not exist. Waribugo and Eketu (2016) opined that it is the dogma of individualistic standpoints, where its universal theoretical or philosophical position and paradigm can be taken as one can know only about oneself. To solipsism, anything outside a person's mind does not exist and it is unsure, everything must make sense to him from his point of view and nothing else. Solipsism believes that nobody knows anything for sure unless that thing is experienced personally by one's self. Solipsism can be categorized to include ontological solipsism which is the position that the only entity that exists is the individual consciousness and its contents; epistemological solipsism expresses that an individual’s immediate experience is primary to having deep insight or good judgment of a social remarkable developments, events, and trends. Metaphysical solipsism expresses that an individual cannot go beyond his or her experience in having deep insight or good judgment of the universe of discourse. The main focus of solipsism is that you have to be one to know one. Thus, for one to understand some given social remarkable developments, events, and trends, one needs to be like that social remarkable developments, events, and trends. Furthermore, solipsism holds the view that the individual mind is the primary source of facts, information, and skills acquired through specialized education and nothing exists in the world unless one is aware of it. The major problem of solipsism is that it does not recognize the effect of the environment on the behaviour of the universe of discourse. Thus, Waribugo and Eketu (2016) expressed that the problem of solipsism is inherent in its supposition of total isolation from external reality wherein the inquirer is incurably consigned to a world of his/her creation, thereby not recognizing commonalities in standards of measurement, values, and morality. The paradigm believes that whatever has not been perceived, does not exist. Solipsism is an extreme form of subjective idealism that denies that the human mind has any valid ground for believing in the external world.

Conclusion and Practical Implications:

The various philosophical alignments in social science inquiry provide the scientist or researcher with a weltanschauung of the different perspectives and multiple levels of analysis of the social world. Thus, creating a systematic lens through which individuals (at several levels), groups, and organizations are examined to know the; “when”, “how”, and “why” they behave the way and manner they do. And to seek to understand the social world and proffer viable solutions to social challenges and disturbances that alter daily life. Although these paradigms have their limitations, the limitations do not completely make them skewed or of no relevance within the social framework. Therefore, it is pertinent to have an adequate understanding of these paradigms to better shape the methodology to be employed in conducting research studies within the social and/or behavioural sciences. This is to determine its objectivity, rigor, or the extent to which scientific methodology is applied within social science research. Lastly, a combination of these paradigms creates a mixed-method, which demonstrates knowledge validity and objectivity in investigator triangulation (which involves; observation, questionnaire administration, and interview), data triangulation (which encompasses collecting data at different times from different people in different places as a cross-check for validity and to check the interpretation and conclusion arrived at), methodological triangulation (which includes within-method triangulation and between method triangulation: the former entails the application of various techniques within the same method, while the latter applies a combination of research methods), generalization, verification, explanation, and deductions. This will allow for data gathering and/or fact-finding, in search of new knowledge, and subsuming new valid knowledge, enhance research results and findings efficacy.

REFERENCES:

1. Agrey, L. G. (2014). Opportunities and possibilities: Philosophical hermeneutics and the educational researcher, Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(4), 396-402.

2. Al-Habil, WI. (2011). Positivist and phenornenological research in American Public Administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(14), 946-953.

3. Chang, J. (2010). Hermeneutic Inquiry: A research approach for postmodern therapists, Journal of systematic Therapies, 29(1), 19-32.

4. Chowdhury, M. F. (2014). Interpretivism in aiding our understanding of the contemporary social world, Open Journal of Philosophy, 4: 432-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2014.43047

5. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

6. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1-32.

7. Eketu, C. A. (2018). Perspectives on human nature and implications for research in the behavioural sciences, International Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences, 4(1), 42-46.

8. Frost, N., Nolas, S.M., Brooks-Gordon, B., Esin, C. 1-lolt, A., Mehdizadeh, L. (2010). Pluralism in qualitative research: The impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 10(4), 44 1-460.

9. Frost, N.A. (2011). Qualitative research in psychology, combining core approaches. Open University Press.

10. Grey, C. (2013). Avery short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organisations. Sage.

11. Higgs, J., Paterson, M. and Kinsella, E. A. (2012). Hermeneutics inquiry: Interpretation and understanding research practice. Contemporary Psychotherapy, 4(1), 1-12.

12. Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F., (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. Sage Publications.

13. Kivunja, C. and Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.

14. Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social Sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23-48

15. Morick, H. (1980). Challenges to empiricism. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis.

16. Musthafa, M.N. (2014). Pluralism as multi-method scholarship in qualitative social science research: a panacea for methodological tribalism. Journal of Research and Method in Education, 4(5), 5-14.

17. Paterson, M., and Higgs, J. (2005). Using hermeneutics as a qualitative research approach in professional practice. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 339-357.

18. Qutoshi, S.B. (2018). Phenomenology: A philosophy and method of inquiry. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 215-222.

19. Shaw, R. L. and Frost, N. A. (2015). Pluralism and mixed methods: Breaking out of the silo mentality, The Psychologist, 28(8), 638-641.

20. Waribugo, S. and Eketu, C.A (2016). Solipsism in social inquiry: Revisiting a redundant paradigm. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research Social and Management Sciences, 2(4), 18-25.

Received on 28.01.2021 Modified on 15.02.2021

Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(3):346-350.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00052