Features

Seeing the market through the spectre

Published

3 years ago

2021/09/21

By Panduka Karunanayake

Leftist ideologues like to create an image of ‘the market’ as a terrible place, like how grown-ups frighten children with their ghost stories. The market is portrayed as a ruthless, heartless machine that thrives on unfairness and corruption, crushing the poor and fattening the rich. It must have become easier to create this image after the Soviet bloc fell in the 1990s and China emerged out of communism soon afterwards, because after that people quickly forgot that socialist and communist economies too have markets – even markets every bit as ruthless, heartless, unfair and corrupt as any capitalist market. Today, these ideologues can write as if the market and capitalism are synonyms. Everything ‘un-socialist’ can be easily ‘explained away’ by saying that it ‘promotes marketisation’.

No amount of argument or explanation would change these ideologues’ minds – after all, an ideologue is a person who pursues an ideology in an inflexible manner. But let me set out some related matters, for the benefit of the rest of us.

Emergence and evolution of the market

Markets have probably existed throughout human existence, because human beings are social animals that thrive on social interaction. There is an illuminating passage in Charles Darwin’s book The Voyage of the Beagle, where he described an encounter with the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego in South America, who were ‘primitive’ hunter-gatherers and nomads with no previous encounter with civilisation:

“Some of the Feugians plainly showed that they had a fair notion of barter. I gave one man a large nail (a most valuable present) without making any signs for a return; but he immediately picked out two fish, and handed them up on the point of his spear. If any present was designed for one canoe, and it fell near another, it was invariably given to the right owner.”

This passage shows that they were well-versed in the moral principles – such as free choice, trust, fairness and reciprocity – associated with exchange of goods and services that form the basis of the functioning market.

The market became prominent after the emergence of agriculture about 10,000 year ago. Agriculture enabled farmers to produce a food surplus, which then enabled the rest of the villagers to work on other crafts – promoting division of labour and specialisation. This created an overall increase in the quality of the villagers’ lives, because they now had a wider variety of produce to consume. Villagers now depended on each other more, for the produce they wished to consume. As the village increased in size and complexity, a place where producers and consumers could meet, to exchange goods and services, became a necessity. In the physical realm this was the marketplace, and in the conceptual realm it was the market. Initially, exchange occurred through the barter system without a medium of exchange, but the invention of money made it easier.

But until industrialisation, this market was small and sluggish. It produced very little, compared to today. Most of what a village produced was consumed within it, and only a tiny proportion of it left the village, to be consumed by outsiders – the market was still not much more than the marketplace.

Reason for smallness

The reason for this smallness was not entirely because there were no industrial factories. The villagers could have produced more if they wanted to, but they didn’t, because they saw that any extra produce created problems. There were difficulties with storing it, protecting it, preserving it or transporting it elswhere, and in any event the lords could easily expropriate it under the feudalistic modes of production. Items that were considered luxury items were an exception; they were carried to distant destinations by camel, caravan or boat.

But starting in the eighteenth century, industrialisation changed all that. Factories produced large quantities of produce (or ‘commodities’) cheaply, and the market expanded to distribute a much larger variety and quantity of goods much more widely. Specialisation became the norm and a necessity. The crucial factor that made all this possible was probably the improvement in transport. Look at your lunch plate today, and try to figure out from where and how far each of the food items on it – not to mention the plate itself or the energy for the fire that cooked your lunch – have come from.

Today, production and consumption are almost totally separated from each other (with a few exceptions, like farmers who sell their produce by the roadside in front of their homes, and ‘factory outlets’). It is the market that enables this to happen. The market, which is no longer simply the marketplace, gives us access to a bewildering variety of goods and services, thereby enabling us – even the poorest amongst us – to enjoy a greater choice and higher quality of life, compared to pre-industrial times. The healthcare and education that even the poorest amongst us enjoy would not reach them if not for the market.

As an example, let us take soap. Until industrialisation this was a luxury item that only the elite enjoyed. In Roman times, even the elite cleaned themselves mostly by simply immersing themselves in their baths and rubbing off dirt; indeed, using soap would have made the bath too disgusting to get into. Soap was available only to those in the very highest echelons of society. The masses were ‘dirty’ and their skin was infested with scabies, pediculosis and lice, and they commonly suffered diseases like impetigo and erysipelas – they lacked even the water necessary to wash themselves (especially hot water in cold climates). But today, soap is so ubiquitous that we take it for granted – it was industrialisation that enabled its cheap mass production and the market that enabled its wide distribution.

Value of simple things

The real value of something as simple as soap was driven home powerfully to me in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami, when people had lost everything and were accommodated in make-shift camps. What did they ask for, from the donors and volunteers who went to help them? First, they asked for food, water and certain medicines. A few days later, they began asking for soap, a change of clothing and sanitary pads: after three or four days, they were itching and suffering with fungal skin infections. That was an unfortunate re-enactment and reminder of the pre-industrial life of the masses. I remembered how a textbook of public health that I had read a few decades earlier had cleverly classified infectious diseases according to whether they were prevented by soap and water, clean drinking water, safe food, and so on. The post-tsunami experience showed me the sagacity of that – and the value of the ubiquitous soap, industrialisation and the market.

In his book The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler compared a modern-day market to an efficient telephone exchange or switchboard. A switchboard connects thousands of senders and recipients accurately and enables messages to be sent across to their intended destinations – like producers, consumers, and goods and services in the market. Like telephone messages, goods and services are produced, sent across and consumed according to need and availability: demand and supply.

Such a market cannot exist on its own. It needs inputs from important sectors in society, such as law and order (which upholds the right to private property, prevents or punishes theft, and arbitrates when there are contractual disagreements), education (which creates an educated and trained workforce, not only for manufacture but also for distribution), communication, energy, transport, ports, etc. Such external supports have existed not only in capitalist markets but also in pre-capitalist and socialist markets. These supports are provided because everybody realises that markets are useful to everyone, especially when the population expands and the demand for commodities increases.

So, to say that something should be abhorred because it promotes ‘marketisation’ is disingenuous.

Organising the market

Markets can be organised in various ways. It helps to think of these as lying on a spectrum ranging from capitalism to communism, which are the extreme forms at the two ends. In-between, there are lots of compromises, combinations or ‘middle ways’. For instance, the current Chineses model is sometimes called state capitalism – a good example of a middle way.

But the natural form of the market that emerged spontaneously was the free market: a market where no authority-imposed restrictions or controls, nor introduced any encouragements or inducements. The activities in the free market merely recognised the concepts of private property and voluntary exchange, and operated on demand and supply. That was all.

Opponents

Throughout this time, the free market has had many opponents who have tried to impose limits or controls to it. Division of labour and specialisation were resisted – by the cultural elite who tried to maintain the status quo in society, such as the caste system in ancient society and feudal-peasant relations in medieval times. During industrialisation when factories came up, that was resisted too – by guildsmen who felt that their business was threatened, and those like the Luddites who felt threatened by the new manufacturing technology. Karl Marx proposed that private property, including ‘the means of production’, should be taken over by the state and brought under its control.

Some of the concepts that they used against the growth of the free market were traditional values such as loyalty and caste-based duties (especially upheld by the cultural elite), simplicity in life and charity as well as opposition to ‘ursury’ and banks (especially the clergy), and equality. It is only now, after centuries of change, that words like ‘industry’ (which initially meant industriousness), ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘individualism’ have emerged as ‘good words’, to create an environment conducive to a free market. Charles Dickens’ novel Martin Chuzzlewit nicely captured the mood of the era when industrialisation was struggling to emerge through the feudal society, by portraying the struggle of a typical ‘upstart’ who had to go to America to make a fresh start.

According to Stephen Fry, even today, the typical British comedy mostly parodies the upstart’s ineptness (“celebrate failure”), whereas the typical American comedy glorifies the industrious entrepreneur or smart-aleck (“life is improvable”). When we read comments about the market, we must take care to ‘read’ this subtext too.

Inequality

Ironically, inequality had previously been tolerated and even celebrated, as long as the only inequality was between the elite and the masses – the masses were ‘equal’ in their poverty and the elite were rich by birthright. But after industrialisation, the moment the masses gradually became enriched and a middle class emerged, inequality became a big social issue. When a part of the masses remained poor and another part became better-off, socialism was born. Different segments of the masses quickly became each other’s enemies – thanks to socialism. It was an example of applying the brakes even before the vehicle had started to move in earnest. They were ennobled by socialism’s new words, like ‘fraternity’ and ‘equality’ – which basically meant, ‘Those who are not poor like you are not one of you, and have no right to be rich if you too cannot be rich’.

But while the leaders of socialism may have harboured such beliefs, their proletariat comrades had simpler minds. In his book The Road to Wigan Pier written after World War One, George Orwell, himself a socialist, reflecting on the tensions and contradictions in English society as it grappled with this new-found inequality and ‘class struggle’, wrote:

“To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about….[No] genuine working man grasps the deeper implications of Socialism. Often, in my opinion, he is a truer Socialist than the orthodox Marxist, because he does remember what the other so often forgets, that Socialism means justice and common decency….His vision of the Socialist future is a vision of present society with the worst abuses left out, and with interest centring round the same things as at present – family life, the pub, football, and local politics.”

Orwell’s main message was that any effort to ‘improve’ society, by whatever name, that had lost touch with the common man was bound to deteriorate into a fascism. The remainder of the twentieth century proved him right.

Today, Orwell’s England has come through quite nicely in spite of the disintegration of the British Empire soon afterwards, and shows none of the class struggle and poverty Orwell’s and Dickens’ books have recorded. So, should we champion an equality of the poor, or should we patiently work towards a gradually enriching society with a tolerable level of inequality?

Necessary controls

At the same time, it is also advisable to control some forms of exchange in the market. For instance, if a country considers that it is necessary to ensure food security through its own, local cultivation of important crops, it is wise to put in place some safeguards to protect local agriculture from the adverse effects of competition from imported foods, at least for important foods. Even advanced capitalist countries like USA and Japan do this (for wheat and rice, respectively).

Similarly, it would be prudent to protect certain crucial markets, such as the energy sector and ports. It is also important to ensure distribution of crucial goods & services (such as healthcare, basic education, basic housing, basic clothing, basic transport) for all members of society, with a view to protecting the poor who have limited purchasing power. This requires the institution of safety nets and price control. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation, nobody would argue against environmental protection, which naturally requires the imposition of certain restrictions on the free market. Finally, nobody would argue that sectors such as national defence and law & order should be floated in the free market. So markets do need judicious controls and regulation.

More than ‘free’

On the flip side, in some markets there are mechanisms created specifically to encourage a bigger flow of goods & services than what the natural, ‘free’ market would sustain. These include patent laws, laws restricting monopolies, bankruptcy laws, the financial and share market, and so on; some of them may be good, while others are not.

The market is then not merely a place of exchange; it is also a place to make massive profits, where the falling crumbs accumulate to produce huge volumes of ‘wealth’. There are those who would profit exactly from this, while such ‘wealth generation’ or ‘productivity’ brings no intrinsic value to society while needlessly destroying our environment and culture – this can then become the new status quo that these new elite wish to protect.

Conclusion

A free market would promote exchange of goods & services and increase the volume of exchange, and this in turn would increase employment, productivity, taxation and funds for welfare expenditure. Both restricting it and encouraging it, while sometimes necessary, must be done only cautiously. Naturally, therefore, both extremes – and their supportive ideologies – are not good. What we need to have is a ‘middle-way’ market that enables enough economic activity and protects the poor, while protecting the environment for future generations.

So, there is no need to fear the market. What we need to do is understand it, be able to predict its behaviour, and try to modify it so that it creates the benefits we need and avoids harm. The child must grow up, overcome the fear of ghosts and learn to deal with darkness. Disingenuous, sleight-of-hand arguments that promote the darkness are of no use, and their supportive ideologies can only lead to fascism – as the twentieth century amply taught us.

The writer teaches medicine in the University of Colombo (email:

panduka@clinmed.cmb.ac.lk). He acknowledges helpful comments from Professor Sirimal Abeyratne (Professor of Economics, University of Colombo) and Dr G. Usvatte-aratchi.

All News Advertisement

Features

Door close to shutting on trying out Soft Power initiatives

Published

23 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

23 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

23 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