by Michele Battle-Fisher
When it comes to the issue of the research as predictability through hypothesis testing, a scholar must choose wisely where to stand. If ontology is the essence of being, then the arguments of truth versus a more imperfect, flawed truth would be fruitless. The very construction of the epistemology of what is even knowable may one day fall laughably as a “duh” moment. But now the task of finding allegiance in numbers and staking claim to truth appears to be the vogue of scientific inquiry today. From the tangent of post-modernists that propose that truth is based on context to the propositions of knowing as unforgiving concreteness of the positivist, the very dialectic of process production still seeks verification of some linking of theory to a chosen reality.
Ok, if you are forcing me, Duck, Duck, Goose!
Complexity, you are it!
It has been argued that observation is theory-laden. Even the so-called “post-colonial” assumption that there must be a return to the subject. This yet involves some relativity of truth that generalizes a norm that somehow by employing post-colonialist lens, that “voice” will be returned to its rightful owner. And that voice is embedded in complexity. But where do I stand today?