Features

Did the Air Vice Marshall miss his flight?

Published

4 years ago

2021/03/28

This article responds to Air Vice Marshall (retired) Sosa’s article titled, ‘How did the pearl of the Orient miss the bus?’ which appeared in the Sunday Island of Feb. 28, 2021. This response is made not as a means to ridicule or denigrate his efforts, which appear to have been penned from a patriotic sentiment in asking aloud introspectively, where as a nation, did we go wrong? In arriving at conclusions however, he appears to have been so thoroughly misled into believing certain twisted and deliberately distorted versions of history.

With such flawed understanding he goes on to make historically inaccurate claims. Every second line almost amounts to gross fabrications that I have decided to correct, thus rectifying these utterances, not by unsubstantiated and sweeping statements through authoritative documented evidence.

The Vice Marshall does injustice primarily to himself in accepting certain propositions without bothering about their veracity. In damning national personalities of our country who have in the past, in stark variance to the politicos of today, rendered yeoman service he belittles the value of the precious. This perspective emanating from an ignoramus may be tolerated, but not from one such as the writer.

The Temperance Movement in Ceylon is a suitable point from which to begin, for it was from that body that rose the public personalities of D.B. Jayatilaka and D.S. Senanayake. This movement was founded in defiance to the Toddy Act of 1912, which aimed at mushrooming bars and liquor vending outlets throughout Ceylon. The Buddhist and Hindu communities were largely outraged, and saw in it the dangers that could befall the populace. The colonial government however, viewed this opportunity as one which would assist in filling their coffers.

The opposition to the Act, mainly came through Temperance leaders such as the Senanayake brothers ( D.S, F.R, and D.C) and D. B Jayatilaka and others inclusive of W.A .De Silva and the Hewavitharana brothers. This resulted in the boycotting of the taverns by the native populace. Hulugalle wrote in his D.S. Senanayake biography, “The Temperance movement gathered strength and the zest and the driving force which the younger Senanayake brought to it in his home surroundings at Botale. The Whole of Hapitigama Korale with its centre at Mirigama, had not a single tavern…

Thus, when some time later in 1915, a riot broke out between Muslims and Sinhalese, and martial law was used to quell the situation, it seemed incredible that almost all of the leaders of the temperance movement were arrested and incarcerated on little or no evidence as being connected or proximate to the riot. These respected leaders were unduly humiliated and subjected to degrading cruelties. The statements given by each of them is worth reading, and in particular the meticulous record kept by Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan in his book Riots and Martial Law in Ceylon 1915. In the interests of brevity I shall confine myself to parts of statements given by D.S. Senanayake, F.R. Senanayake and D.B. Jayatilaka

D.S. Senanayake, introducing himself as a proprietary planter and plumbago mine owner, living in Cinnamon Gardens, went on to say, “The Town Guard and the Inspector of Police, then made careful search of the premises, but found no incriminating documents or firearms… A fortnight after this search, in the early morning of the 21^st, I was awakened by a Town Guard who informed me I was under arrest, and would not permit me to answer a call of nature.”

“After they had searched me, I was taken inside the jail and locked in a bare cell. For want of a chair or bench I had to stand inside this for some hours… Mr. Allnutt who, after informing me that I was at liberty to make a statement proceeded to question me, obviously for the purpose of getting some statement likely to incriminate myself and others. Since I was aware of nothing to incriminate any respectable person, I was not in a position to help him.”

“Our midday meals were pushed inside the room. The very sight of the dirty food and the vessels in which it was served disgusted me, and naturally I was unable to take that food.…… on the 5^th August, after 46 days of incarceration under as unpleasant circumstances as one could imagine, I was let out.”

The following accounts of his brother F.R. and of friend and colleague D.B. Jayatilaka are also noteworthy. F.R. introducing self as a graduate of Cambridge University, a Barrister at law, and an elected member of the Colombo Municipal Council said thus. “In the ward in which we were placed there are 150 cells, usually occupied by 150 convicts, but owing to the extraordinary circumstances the jail authorities, seeing the accommodation insufficient, found themselves compelled to shelter during the night over a thousand persons in this building. The temporary sanitary arrangements made for such a multitude, and the overcrowding, naturally made life almost unbearable.”

D.B. Jayathilaka also highlighted that “the fresh air was befouled by the unbearable smells emanating from the lavatories. They were filthy and foul.” He also referred to the manner in which he and his friend D.S. Senanayake whiled away the hours. “I whiled away the time by reciting from memory endless verses which I had learnt from the Pirivena. So did D.S. Senanayake, who sang carters’ songs, miners’ songs and folk songs.”

There was a silver lining in their cloud, for the Senanayake’s, and Jayatilake were subsequently released as heroes of the masses. Unfortunately however, a bright star among them was court martialled and shot dead by firing squad. This was of course the youthful Henry Pedris. Although no appeal existed at the time, a subsequent investigation revealed his innocence. So at this point, I must once again take exception to the Vice Marshall and his sweeping statement that Ceylon’s independence was gained on a platter and with no angry bullet. I doubt the brave young Pedris would have viewed the bullet that shed his innocent youthful blood as a friendly one!

Furthermore he goes on to conjecture rather unfairly and uncharitably that D.S. Senanayake was instrumental in elbowing his lifelong friend Jayatilake out of his seat as vice chairman of the Board of Ministers, only so that he could occupy it. If he had only read (which I know from his conjecture he has not) of the extents the Senanayake brothers went to, for Jayatilaka, including mortgaging the matrimonial home to build ‘Mahanil’ the building on the Y.M.B.A land in furtherance of Jayatilaka’s vision to which they too subscribed, he would understand D.B. and the Senanayake’s were bonded deeply in spirit.

One person who clearly knew and was a close friend of Jayatilaka, as much as of D.S and also of personalities like D.R. Wijewardena, Sir John Kotelawala and even S.W.R.D was the diplomat and the journalist par excellence Herbert Hulugalle. In his writings of them and the times, one actually gets a true glimpse of firsthand accounts and not conjecture inflamed by fantastic conspiracy theories. In Hulugalle’s ‘Selective Journalism’ he explains who Jayatilaka was, and also what he later became, due to age and human frailty and for no other earthly fault.

No one can be fairer to Jayatilaka, as Hulugalle is for this is what he says, “He seemed to reflect in his life all that is best in our culture, in the Buddhist tradition and in oriental philosophy, and possessed in full measure those gifts and graces which characterize a civilized person such as tolerance, fair play and compassion.” But he notes “Although Jayatilaka never lost the mastery of the State Council, when he reached his seventies, he had lost a great deal of his fire. He was easy-going and lenient. He had lost the sureness of his touch, and signed papers which he had not read”

In 1939, Jayatilaka was the vice chairman of the board of Ministers in the Council. He had also become the president of Ceylon’s largest political forum; the Ceylon National Congress. He was at this time 72 years in age. The Ceylon National Congress itself had attracted to its fold many young legal luminaries that in later years were to become prominent in Ceylon’s destiny. J.R. Jayewardene, Edwin Wijeyeratne and R.G. Senanayake were amongst them. S.W.R. D. though not directly a member had affiliated his organization the Sinhala Maha Sabha, to it.

That same year Jayatilaka’s unblemished reputation suffered a serious setback in what became known as the Bracegirdle affair, this situation was ongoing from as far back as 1937. M.A.L. Bracegirdle was an Australian Marxist who found his way to Ceylon and engaged in what the colonial government saw as hostile activity. While the Governor had liaised with the chief of police, a Mr. Banks to deport him from Ceylon, the LSSP had sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, to avoid the very same. The legal position was that the Governor had no right to act in such a manner, unless authorized by the relevant minister who happened to be D.B. Jayatilaka. The police chief in evidence stated that everything was done under the minister’s concurrence, but the minister denied any knowledge.

In the fracas that ensued, the Governor had appointed a commission under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate and produce to him a report. The findings of the report entirely exonerated the police chief which had the indirect effect of casting Jayatilaka in unfavourable light. Since the testimonies of the police chief and his immediate boss Minister Jayatilaka were at variance, Jayatilaka went on record, stating many times, including to the Congress that he would rather resign from State Council, than have to work with Banks again. Since the Commission’s report was entirely weighted in favour of Banks, it was then impossible for the Governor to remove him from that position even if he wanted to.

A few skeptics had voiced that perhaps Jayatilaka ought to step down but the board of Ministers led by Senanayake strongly backed Jayatilaka even to the extent of passing a motion of confidence in Jayatilaka and then making scathing attacks on the Commission’s report mainly alleging bias and finally passing a motion of censure upon its findings in the State Council. This is hardly the manner in which a person waiting to elbow out another would act! The Vice Marshall may if he chooses, go through the State Council deliberations and decide for himself.

Jayatilaka’s statements however, to the Congress had not been forgotten, nor allowed to die a natural death. It seemed to the young men of Congress that consequent to the Commission’s report and contrary to what he had said before, Jayatilaka would compromise his dignity and continue to work with Banks. At this Juncture, the youngsters had begun taking control of congress and youthful J.R. Jayewardene was elevated to the position of secretary. Jayewardene demanded his resignation.

I quote from K.M.De Silva’s J.R. Jayewardene of Sri Lanka 1906- 1956 (the first fifty years ) . “When the Congress Committee met on 23^rd January they did so in the verandah of Jayatilaka’s house – The Congress had no home of its own, and its committee meetings were held in the residence of the incumbent president, and the principle business of the day was to discuss a resolution moved by E. A. P Wijeyeratne that D.B.Jayatilaka should vindicate his honour by resigning.” (Not from the Congress but the State Council). J.R. fully in support of this view explained, “It was to help Sir Baron to resign, to take a step which he had determined upon doing, which he had promised to do, that a few of us suggested to him. (pages 47-48 of J.R.Jayewardena, the unpublished memoirs contain the full speech)

Further illumination of the events that finally did lead to his resignation a few years later may be found in D.S. A political biography by K.M. De Silva, at chapter 15. “D.S was 17 years younger than D.B. Jayatilaka…….. A second point which is ignored by political observers is that both D.B. Jayatilaka and D.S entered the national legislature for the first time in the same year, 1924.”

” Among D.B. Jayathilaka’s contributions to public life in the country was his role in the establishment of the Sinhala Etymological Dictionary… The work he did in establishing the dictionary naturally attracted attention and in the case of some observers, much praise. He had his critics as well and one of them D C W Abeysekera took legal action against him on the charge that he had accepted payment as editor while being a member of the Legislative Council. Abeysekera claimed Rs23,000 as damages and urged that this should include vacation of his (Jayatilaka’s) seat in the Legislative Council.

In a prolonged legal dispute Abeysekera won the day. It required an Act of Indemnity by the Privy Council in London to save Jayatilaka. When he finally did retire in 1941 he was 73 whereupon he was entrusted with the first Ceylonese diplomatic mission overseas. It was a highly presumptuous and a thoroughly puerile view to take that in 1941, Senanayake saw independence being round the corner and feared that if 73-year old Jayatilaka was around he may have to become Ceylon’s first prime minister instead of him. As it turned out, and if the Vice Marshall could add and subtract as well as he conjectures and imagines, Independence came seven years hence and had Jayathilake lived for that long he would have been an octogenarian. The 40’s decade was neither as medically or scientifically advanced as today, and when Jayatilaka passed away in 1944 at the age of 76 he had more than passed the natural life expectancy of the average Ceylonese. It is not directly relevant but interesting to note that when Senanayake died in March 1952 he was only 68.

Senanayake, was the young pup of the independence movement. He was taken very seriously by the masses upon his wrongful incarceration and relied upon more, after the death of his much respected older brother F.R. He was in the thick of the independence struggle along with all the national leaders, but due to age being on his side, he was the only one still there to see its final result ; an independent Ceylon. He is referred to as the Father of the Nation, because at the time of Independence he was the main negotiator and undisputed leader among them. The unique position he was in was not of his design but a design of nature.

When considering some of the other national heroes of the independence movement chronologically we notice the following. Henry Pedris was murdered by the British in 1915. F.R.Senanayake on his way back from Buddha Gaya passed away in India of appendicitis in 1926. Ponambalam Ramanathan died on pilgrimage in 1930. Sir James Pieris too in 1930, W.A. De Silva passed away in 1942, and Sir D.B. Jayatilaka in 1944.

All these personalities mentioned in the previous paragraph contributed much to the well-being of their nation through selfless sacrifice. Some of them particularly D.B. Jayatilaka, D.S.Senanayake and Sir John Kotalawala bequeathed personal wealth and property to the State. The edifices of Thurban House, D.S.Senanayake school in Colombo 7 and the Kotalawala Defence University, all attest to the memory of men that put the nation before themselves.

All News Advertisement

Features

Door close to shutting on trying out Soft Power initiatives

Published

8 hours ago

2025/03/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with President Xi Jinping.IMAGE SOURCE : PTI/FILE

With the hopes of establishing a ceasefire in the Gaza now almost diminished and with Russia saying ‘No’ to an ‘immediate and full ceasefire’ in the Ukraine, the world now faces the spectre of stepped-up international disorder and lawlessness. It ought to be clear that, as matters stand, the exercising of Soft Power in international politics would prove exceptionally difficult.

In some respects the world is back to the power realities of the beginning of the 20th century that paved the way for the breaking out of the cataclysmic First World War. To state it briefly, uncurbed power aspirations accompanied by paranoid distrust and fear among the most powerful of states at the time precipitated the ‘great war’ that led to the perishing of countless lives.

Some of the principal states in the arena of world politics at the time were the Central Powers, comprising in the main, Germany, Austria- Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, while France, Russia and Great Britain constituted the Allies, or the principal states in the opposing camp. The US entered the war during the latter stages of the conflict on the side of the Allied powers that were essentially opposed to Germany’s perceived power expansion designs.

Briefly, aggravating mistrust and fear between the above camps led to the war’s outbreak. Some historians describe the war as a ‘tragedy of miscalculations’. The fear of the opposing camp was so great among these adversaries that they allowed themselves to be driven by emotion rather than reason. By misjudging each other’s motives and actions they triggered the war. Dialogue and Soft Power were to no avail.

While it is not this columnist’s contention that another World War is at hand, the inference is inescapable, given current developments in international politics, that the world could be perilously close to a situation where political leaders would be allowing themselves to be driven by emotion rather than reason.

For instance, the tremendous loss of civilian lives in the Gaza in particular and the Middle East in general is not preventing the US under President Donald Trump from fanatically backing the Netanyahu regime in the furtherance of its power ambitions. The relevant leaders on both sides of the Middle East divide could be described as having taken leave of their consciences, considering their indifference to the continuing bloodletting in the region.

The same goes for the Putin regime’s actions in the Ukraine. The continuing bloodshed on both sides of the divide in the latter theatre is apparently a matter of indifference to the leaders concerned. Once again, power and territorial ambitions are silencing consciences. Accordingly, in both situations under discussion unchecked emotion could sooner or later lead to large scale hostilities that could cut across regions.

The haplessness of the world in the face of the current disorder is compounded by the fact that the UN’s authority is going largely unrecognized by the relevant aggressor states. A question to be posed is whether the present international situation is parallel to that which presented itself in the run-up to World War Two, when the League of Nations proved totally incapable of reining-in the international hostilities that triggered the outbreak of war. If so, there is an urgent need for peace-loving sections the world over, including civilian publics, to urgently come together to address the grave risks confronting the world. The most pressing requirement is to give Soft Power or value-based politics a strong chance. Put simply, dialogue needs to be prized above discord.

Besides, it is important for those powers that could think and act with a measure of impartiality to come together to prevent the world from being further imperiled. Fortunately, India and China have decided to give cordial relations a try and this is a very promising development from the viewpoint of regional and global peace.

For example, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in recent interviews with the international media has been quite elaborate on the need to ‘mend fences’ with China and introduce amity and harmony into Sino-Indian ties. Modi is on record that dialogue should be favoured over discord in China-India ties and that stronger inter-state cooperation is in the interests of the two neighbours and those of the international community.

It is interesting to note in this connection that Prime Minister Modi looked at China-India relations from a broad historical perspective as well. He said, among other things: ‘It has always been about learning from each other and understanding one another. At one time, Buddhism had a profound influence in China and that philosophy originated in India.’

This is the language of Soft Power or value-based politics that focuses on things that bring countries together rather than those which separate them. At the current juncture when discord is the state of the world, the language of Soft Power, or a focusing on values and ideals that cement ties among states, is what matters most.

Needless to say, we are today confronted with a dangerously polarized West. The US is on what could be called a hazardous foreign policy trajectory and Europe and Canada are closing ranks against it. There could be an increasing tendency among European states to emulate Germany and increase their defense spending, given that there is no possibility currently of bringing even a measure of peace to Ukraine, considering Russia’s recent decision to reject the US peace initiative. Accordingly, the West in particular would need to brace for times of stepped-up tension and discord.

India and China are two countries that the international community just could not ignore. Their heft in a multiplicity of fields is such that their persistent voices would be responded to positively by the rest of the world. A proactive engagement by these major Asian states in promoting global stability could induce the US and Russia, for instance, to quicken closures to the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts. Hopefully, China and India would be guided, going forward, by the greater good of the world community.

As for the rest of the global South, it too should explore the possibility of coming together once again for the sake of international amity and understanding. If the South is reading ‘the writing on the wall’ correctly it would perceive that it cannot neglect the obligation to join with major democracies, such as India, and dynamically champion the cause of world peace. Soft Power needs to be revived and kept going.

Features

Gamini Dissanayake’s Cricketing Vision: The Foundation that Built Champions and the work that must continue

Published

8 hours ago

2025/03/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

Gamini

By Navin Dissanayake

Cricket has long been Sri Lanka’s greatest unifier. It is the sport that makes the world see us as more than just a small island—it makes them respect us, remember us, and recognise our strength.

But Sri Lanka’s rise in world cricket did not happen by accident. It was built on foundations laid decades ago, by leaders who saw the potential in our game long before we had the trophies to prove it.

One of those leaders was my father, Gamini Dissanayake.

On March 20th, we mark his birth anniversary, and as I reflect on his life, I realise that his greatest contribution to cricket was not just securing Sri Lanka’s Test status—it was creating the systems, infrastructure, and vision that allowed us to win the 1996 World Cup and stand tall on the international stage.

And now, as the Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Cricket Foundation, it is my responsibility to ensure that his vision is not just remembered, but carried forward.

Gamini Dissanayake: The Architect of Sri Lanka’s Cricketing Future

Many people know that my father fought for Sri Lanka’s Test status in 1981, but few realise that he also built the physical and structural foundations of our cricketing success.

✔ Sri Lanka Cricket Headquarters at SSC – When Sri Lanka gained Test status, we did not even have an administrative home for the sport. My father took the lead in establishing the Sri Lanka Cricket Board headquarters at the Sinhalese Sports Club (SSC) premises, ensuring that Sri Lanka’s cricket administration had a proper base from which to operate.

✔ Asgiriya Stadium Transformation – He believed that cricket should not be limited to Colombo. Under his leadership, the Asgiriya Stadium in Kandy was upgraded to international standards, becoming one of the most picturesque Test venues in the world and bringing world-class cricket to a new part of the country.

✔ Creating the Pathway for Future Champions – Infrastructure is not just about buildings; it’s about creating opportunities. He personally ensured that cricketing talent from all over Sri Lanka was recognised, leading to a more inclusive national team that truly represented the country.

His belief was simple—Sri Lanka should never be just another cricket-playing nation. We should be a force to be reckoned with.

The 1996 World Cup: A Dream That Started with His Vision

The greatest vindication of his efforts came fifteen years after he won Sri Lanka’s Test status—on March 17, 1996, when we defeated Australia to win the Cricket World Cup.

The players, the strategy, the talent, and the execution belonged to Arjuna Ranatunga and his team. But the foundation for that victory was laid long before.

✔ The experience of playing Test cricket for 15 years before 1996 gave us the mental toughness to win.

✔ The confidence to take on the world’s best was born from the fight for Test recognition.

✔ The belief that Sri Lanka could win on the global stage was a lesson my father instilled in everyone who worked with him.

Without that long-term vision, Sri Lanka may have still been waiting for its moment of cricketing glory.

That is what great leadership does—it creates opportunities that allow future generations to succeed.

My Role in Continuing His Legacy Through the Sri Lanka Cricket Foundation

Today, Sri Lankan cricket stands at another crossroads.

We are a country that has lifted the World Cup, produced some of the greatest cricketers in the world, and built a reputation for playing brave, fearless cricket.

But we are also a cricketing nation struggling with inconsistency, administrative challenges, and lost opportunities.

That is why, as Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Cricket Foundation, I feel an immense responsibility—not just to honour my father’s work, but to continue it in ways that will shape the next era of Sri Lankan cricket.

Here’s what we are focusing on at the Sri Lanka Cricket Foundation:

✔ Developing Young Talent Nationwide – My father believed that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. Through the Cricket Foundation, we are working to strengthen school cricket programmes, identify hidden talent across rural areas, and support the next generation of Sri Lankan cricketers.

✔ Improving Cricketing Infrastructure – While our international stadiums are recognised worldwide, our grassroots cricket facilities need urgent investment. We are working to equip schools and clubs with better training facilities so that young players can develop under proper conditions.

✔ Restoring Professionalism & Transparency in Administration – Cricket should always be led by those who genuinely care for the game, not by those looking for personal gain. Through the Cricket Foundation, we are promoting stronger governance, better planning, and a long-term approach to cricket development.

✔ Bringing Back the Sri Lankan Cricket Identity – We were once known as the most unpredictable, fearless, and entertaining cricket team in the world. That identity must be rebuilt from the grassroots up.

The game gave us our proudest moments as a nation—it must never be allowed to decline.

Looking Ahead: A Legacy That Still Guides Us

Thirty years after his passing, my father’s vision still lives on in Sri Lanka’s cricketing institutions, in our stadiums, in our players, and in our history.

But his work is not finished.

As we honour him on his birth anniversary, my hope is not just to celebrate his achievements, but to continue his mission.

He fought to put Sri Lanka on the map of world cricket.

Now, it is our turn to fight to keep it there.

Because Sri Lanka’s place in world cricket was never handed to us on a platter—it was earned. And we must always be ready to earn it again.

Features

Research: Understanding basics and getting started – Part II

Published

8 hours ago

2025/03/20

Sahan Weerasooriya

(Part I of this article appeared yesterday)

Identification of a Research Problem

A well-defined research problem is the foundation of any meaningful research. It serves as the driving force that shapes the research process, distinguishing it from a general essay, where a research problem is not necessarily required. In an essay, one may present an argument or analysis without systematically addressing an unresolved question. However, in research, identifying a research problem is essential because it establishes the purpose and direction of the study.

A research problem arises in situations where a) The answer is entirely unknown, b) There are multiple, often conflicting answers.) Existing answers are inadequate or unsatisfactory.

A strong research problem should ideally be theoretical and analytical rather than merely descriptive. This means that the issue under investigation should contribute to a broader body of knowledge and be applicable beyond a single case. A well-formulated research problem allows for systematic inquiry, critical engagement with existing literature, and the development of new insights that can be tested, debated, and applied in different contexts.

Effective research problems often emerge from gaps in existing knowledge, inconsistencies in theoretical perspectives, or unresolved debates within a particular field. Researchers must critically assess prior studies, identify limitations, and frame their research problem in a way that advances scholarly understanding.

How to begin a research?

Research begins with the identification of a problem. A well-defined problem is the foundation upon which the entire study is built. Without a clear and focused problem, the research lacks direction. Once the problem is identified, the next step is to define it in specific terms, ensuring that the scope is manageable and relevant.

The process of research starts with recognising a gap in existing knowledge or a real-world issue that requires exploration. This problem could arise from theoretical questions, societal needs, or unresolved practical challenges. Once identified, the problem must be clearly defined to guide the research process and ensure that the results are meaningful and applicable.

Once the research problem is clearly defined, the next step is to form hypotheses. Hypotheses are educated guesses or assumptions based on initial observations of the problem. They provide a tentative explanation or prediction that can be tested through research. Hypotheses guide the direction of the study, suggesting what the researcher expects to find or how the problem might be addressed.

Hypotheses are used to gather data. Researchers design methods, such as experiments, surveys, interviews, or observations, to collect information that either supports or challenges the hypotheses. The type of data collected will depend on the nature of the problem and the hypotheses being tested.

The validity of hypotheses is tested through experimentation, further observations, and surveys. Researchers analyze the data to determine whether the hypotheses are supported or refuted. If the data aligns with the hypothesis, it can be considered as supporting evidence. Conversely, if the data contradicts the hypothesis, it must be refuted, prompting a reevaluation of the research approach or the formulation of new hypotheses.

Observations and Surveys: Two Key Components of the Research Process

Observation is a systematic and focused approach to perceiving and understanding something. It is the initial step in the research process that involves actively perceiving a phenomenon, recording what is seen, and seeking to derive meaning from the observed data.Observation often serves as the foundation for testing a theory or hypothesis. By observing the world, researchers gather real-world data that either supports or challenges established theories or hypotheses.The insights derived from observation provide the initial data necessary for deeper analysis. They allow researchers to identify variables and relationships that will be examined in subsequent steps of the research.While observation is critical, it is not sufficient on its own for acquiring deeper knowledge. It offers descriptive data but requires further investigation and interpretation to draw conclusions about underlying causes or implications.

A survey is a methodical process for collecting and analysing data through direct examination of facts, measurements, and other variables. Surveys are typically structured to gather quantitative data, offering a broad understanding of the subject under study.Surveys often involve the measurement of specific variables, whether through numerical data or other measurable factors, to understand their magnitude or distribution.Surveys involve systematically recording factors and variables that could influence or explain the research phenomenon. These records often serve as a comprehensive database for analysis.The data collected through surveys is often categorized into relevant groups, which helps in identifying trends, correlations, and potential insights that can further inform the research process.In sum, both observation and survey are integral to the research process.

Collection and Examination of Data

The collection of data is a fundamental and initial step in any research. Data is raw, unprocessed information—experience without interpretation. It is akin to a signal that provides useful information but without context or meaning.

One of the fundamental principles of data collection is the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity ensures that data is gathered free from personal bias or interpretation, maintaining neutrality and factual accuracyIncontrast, subjectivity, personal perspectives, prejudices and experiences, can distort data and lead to inaccurate conclusions. This distinction underscores the principle that facts are sacred; opinions are free—facts should remain unaltered by personal bias, while opinions are inherently subjective and open to interpretation.

Once collected, data must be systematically categorised to facilitate analysis and interpretation. Traditionally, it has been classified as primary or secondary, but this distinction is increasingly seen as outdated, as the boundaries between these categories have blurred. Contemporary research prioritises a more nuanced approach that considers data sources, context, and potential biases.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to data collection in research. The choice of methods depends on the field of study and the specific research questions. Broadly speaking, research methods are categorized into qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and ethnography, aim to explore underlying themes, perceptions, and experiences. The data collected is often non-numerical and lends itself to in-depth analysis within natural contexts. In contrast, quantitative methods involve the collection of numerical data through surveys, experiments, or statistical analysis. These methods are typically used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and generate statistical insights.

Beyond these methods, advancements in data science and emerging technologies have revolutionised data collection and analysis. From big data analytics to AI-driven tools, modern research methods are expanding how data is gathered, categorized, and interpreted.

Critical examination of data is an essential element in research, as it ensures the validity and reliability of findings. A commonly used method for examining data is through analysis and synthesis. Analysis involves a detailed and systematic examination of data by breaking it down into parts, features, and qualitieswhile synthesis allows them to integrate and combine information from different sources to form a comprehensive understanding. This requires thoughtful consideration and reasoning to uncover patterns, relationships, and underlying structures.

Main steps in the research process

Identification of Research Problem: The first step in any research process is to clearly define the problem you want to explore. This involves understanding the issue at hand, reviewing existing literature to see what has been researched before, and pinpointing gaps in knowledge. A well-defined research problem sets the stage for the entire project and guides the subsequent steps.

Hypothesis Formation: Once the problem is identified, the next step is to form a hypothesis or a tentative statement that predicts the outcome of the research. A hypothesis should be based on existing theory or observations. It acts as the foundation for guiding the research design.

Making Observations: This step involves gathering preliminary information through direct observation, literature review, or secondary data collection. Observations help refine the research questions further and build an understanding of the context. It’s essential to document the information you observe systematically to identify patterns or insights.

Conducting Surveys: Surveys, interviews, or experiments are commonly used tools to gather primary data. Depending on the nature of the research, surveys help collect data from participants to support or challenge the hypothesis. It’s crucial to design surveys carefully, ensuring they are valid, reliable, and ethical, while aligning with the research objectives.

Building Concepts: After gathering data, the next step is to analyze and organise the information. This may involve creating new concepts or refining existing ones, categorising the data, and identifying relationships between variables. Building concepts helps transform raw data into meaningful insights that are necessary for drawing conclusions.

Arriving at Judgments: At this stage, researchers evaluate the data and test the hypothesis. They assess whether the findings align with the initial hypothesis or if new interpretations are needed. This is the point where critical thinking and analysis come into play to determine the significance and implications of the findings.

Making Conclusions: The final step in the research process is drawing conclusions based on the evidence gathered throughout the study. This includes interpreting the results, explaining how they address the research problem, and offering recommendations for future research or practical applications. It’s also important to acknowledge limitations and suggest ways in which the research can be expanded.

Unpacking Scientific
Research Method

Since the 1970s, the Linguistic Turn in Western philosophy has critically re-examined the assumptions underlying the traditional scientific research approach. This intellectual shift, influenced by thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Martin Heidegger, challenged the idea that knowledge could be purely objective and independent of language. Their work laid the groundwork for later scholars who argued that language, interpretation, and human experience fundamentally shape our understanding of truth and reality.

The Linguistic Turn prompted a reconsideration of several foundational premises of the scientific method, particularly its claims to neutrality and universality. Below are key aspects of this intellectual movement and its impact on the philosophy of knowledge and science:

The Truth or Truths:

Traditional scientific thought holds a singular, objective truth that is discoverable through empirical research. However, philosophers of the Linguistic Turn, influenced by Nietzsche’s critique of objective truth, argued that truth is not absolute but is contingent on language, culture, and perspective. Truths, therefore, are plural and are shaped by the subjective frameworks we use to understand the world.

Knowledge – Truth Nexus:

In Modern Science, knowledge is seen as a pathway to uncovering truths about the world, grounded in objective observation. The Linguistic Turn, however, proposed that knowledge itself is not neutral or purely empirical, but deeply intertwined with the language we use to interpret our

experiences. It suggests that knowledge is always mediated by linguistic and cultural structures, making it subject to interpretation rather than a direct reflection of objective reality.

Objectivity of Data:

The scientific method relies on the assumption that data can be collected and interpreted in an objective, unbiased manner. Yet, thinkers like Heidegger and Dilthey contended that all human understanding, including the analysis of data, is inherently influenced by subjective preconceptions and historical contexts.

Subjectivity – Objectivity Dichotomy:

The traditional Scientific Approach draws a sharp line between subjectivity (personal bias, emotions, etc.) and objectivity (rational, detached analysis). The Linguistic Turn critiques this dichotomy; subjectivity cannot be entirely separated from objectivity. Knowledge and truth are seen as always influenced by the individual’s perspective, background, and language, making the separation of the two a false ideal.

Uni-lineal Progress:

The Scientific Approach is often grounded in the assumption of linear progress, where each discovery necessarily leads to a subsequent advancement in understanding. However, drawing on the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard challenged this assumption, arguing that progress is not always linear. He contended that historical and cultural contingencies significantly influence the trajectory of intellectual and scientific development. Thus, the concept of linear progress is an oversimplification of a far more complex and multifaceted reality.

Grand (Meta) Narration: The Scientific Research Approach often embraces grand narratives—overarching theories or models that aim to explain all phenomena in a single, unified framework (e.g., theories of evolution, theories of relativity). The Linguistic Turn, however, challenges the validity of such grand narratives, arguing that they tend to exclude alternative perspectives and experiences. The focus, instead, shifts toward smaller, local narratives that acknowledge complexity and difference, emphasizing the plurality of viewpoints rather than one dominant, overarching explanation.

The intellectual revolution sparked by the Linguistic Turn has significantly reshaped how we approach knowledge, truth, and research, urging a more nuanced and critical engagement with the scientific paradigm. By emphasizing the role of language, interpretation, and historical context, it calls into question the objectivity and universality that were once the cornerstones of scientific inquiry.

(Gamini Keerawella taught Historical Method, and Historiography at the University of Peradeniya, where he served as Head of the Department and Senior Professor of History. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at the same university)

by Gamini Keerawella