Download - HSRC Press

Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.zasubject could be studied in both a nomothetic and an ideographic manner. It isimportant to note that both these strategies are equally valid — there is nosuggestion whatsoever that one may be more scientific than the other. As amatter of fact, Windelband goes so far as to suggest that one ought to conceiveof the two approaches as being mutually dependent.Thus, ideally, it is possible to distinguish between two types of researchstrategies. On the one hand, one would find those broad strategies by means ofwhich it would be possible to search for generally valid laws of science whichform the basis of actions or behaviours. On the other hand, attention is paid tothe single unique event or phenomenon and its structural coherence. The factthat Windelband emphasized the interdependence between the nomothetic(literally: law stating) and the ideographic (literally: uniquely descriptive),should serve as sufficient reason to be cautious about trying to impose a rigiddichotomy here. If one were to probe more deeply into the basis of thisdistinction, it becomes clear that it can be reduced to a one-sided emphasis onthe similarities between phenomena (nomothetic) or to a one-sided emphasis ofthe differences between phenomena (ideographic). When using the nomotheticapproach, it is customary to emphasize the commonalities or similaritiesbetween phenomena, while an ideographic approach would, in turn, be used toemphasize that which is unique or distinctive in a situation or an event. For thisreason it ought to be regarded as more appropriate to regard nomothetic andideographic as the extremes of a single continuum. All research involves thedescription of both similarities and differences. Depending upon whether thesimilarities in differences are emphasized or whether the differences insimilarities are emphasized, one would be able to refer to nomothetic orideographic strategies.In our discussion of causality in the previous section, we indicated that, strictlyspeaking, it is incorrect to identify causality with the laws of nature. It ispossible to explain human behaviour without claiming to postulate universallaws of human nature. For this reason, we propose a different distinction fromthat between nomothetic and ideographic research (the term nomotheticinevitably implies an identification of causality with the laws of nature);namely, a distinction between research which is of greater contextual interest,on the one hand, and research that is more representative or of greater generalinterest, on the other.On the one hand, phenomena or events are studied because of their intrinsicinterest. On the other hand, events or phenomena are studied for the interestwhich they may have as representative examples of a larger population ofsimilar events or phenomena. In the first case, the phenomenon is studied interms of its immediate context. In the second case, the phenomenon is studiedbecause it is regarded as representative of a larger population or universe ofsimilar phenomena. In subsequent sections we shall refer to the49