A Comparative Analysis: Heuristic Self-Search Inquiry as Self-Knowledge and Knowledge of Society

What is it about?

In research, the standard view of credibility seeks to illuminate what the researcher did with the data vis-à-vis collection, analysis, and interpretation. This works well in standard research where data can be checked through conventional validity measures (internal validity, external validity, reliability, replicability, and objectivity). It does not work well in heuristic self-search inquiry (HSSI) method where the data are in the researcher. In previous HSSI works, there is a level of uncertainty regarding the use of the method in knowledge exploration. It seems that there is still a need for the development of methodological understanding, particularly in terms of those who favor the use of multiple participants in HSSI, as opposed to those who do not. In this article, I compared four studies to clarify HSSI’s utility in knowledge production for future use.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

In traditional research, the purpose (i.e., generalization of findings) is radically different in kind than that pursued in HSSI (i.e., self-exploration or self-invention). Traditional research requires, with no exceptions, a minimum of two individuals (one researcher and one participant other than the researcher). This is why HSSI must be confined to existential reality (through the dialogic/dialectic process) as perceived by a single individual. I proposed that the experience of a single individual is relevant to society, but it can be illuminated as such only through an honest and integral depiction of self-experience

Perspectives