PLURALISM OF METHODOLOGIES IN THE COURSE “PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE” AS A FACTOR IN THE FORMATION OF RESEARCH COMPETENCE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Abstract
The article provides a theoretical analysis of the role of methodological pluralism in contemporary science and substantiates its significance for the development of research competence of PhD students within the system of third-level higher education training in the specialty of Public Administration and Management. The relevance of the study is determined by the growing complexity of scientific knowledge, the interdisciplinary nature of modern research, and the need to develop researchers’ ability to navigate a variety of theoretical approaches and methodological strategies.
It is shown that in contemporary philosophy of science methodological pluralism is considered an important characteristic of the development of scientific knowledge, reflecting the coexistence of different research programmes, theoretical models, and explanatory concepts. Recognition of the plurality of methodological approaches contributes to a deeper analysis of complex social phenomena and opens opportunities for integrating various research strategies and conceptual frameworks.
Particular attention is paid to the significance of methodological pluralism in social and administrative research, where the objects of analysis are characterized by multidimensionality, dynamism, and interaction of different social institutions. In this context, the expediency of combining different methodological approaches and research methods is substantiated, which makes it possible to ensure a more comprehensive analysis of public administration processes.
It is argued that the course “Philosophy of Science” plays an important role in developing the methodological culture of future researchers and constitutes an essential component of PhD training in higher education. The use of methodological pluralism principles in teaching this course contributes to the development of critical thinking, the ability for methodological reflection, and the conscious selection of research strategies. The study concludes that integrating the ideas of methodological pluralism into the content and teaching methodology of the Philosophy of Science course contributes to the development of research competence of PhD students, the formation of their methodological culture, and the improvement of the quality of scientific research in the field of public administration.
References
2. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. New Left Books. [in English].
3. Flores-Camacho, F., & Gallegos-Cázares, L. (2024). Representational pluralism in science education. Science & Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00559-3 [in English].
4. Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Waters, C. K. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press. [in English].
5. Knox, K. (2004). A researcher’s dilemma: Philosophical and methodological pluralism. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2 (2), 119–128. [in English].
6. Kuhn, T. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (50th anniversary ed.). University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 [in English].
7. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009 [in English].
8. Ludwig, D., & Ruphy, S. (2026). Scientific pluralism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-pluralism/ [in English].
9. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8 [in English].
10. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709 [in English].
11. Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [in English].
12. Ponce, O., Gómez-Galán, J., & Pagán-Maldonado, N. (2018). Philosophy of science and educational research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.01220 [in English].
13. Veigl, S. (2020). Scientific pluralism in practice. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0022.004 [in English].
14. Veit, W. (2019). Model pluralism. Philosophy of Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/704045 [in English].
15. Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences. Research Policy, 32(6), 1015–1029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00112-9 [in English].
16. Yasiuk, O., & Dehtiar, O. (2025). Metodolohiia doslidzhennia publichnoho upravlinnia sferoiu oborony v Ukraini [Research methodology of public defense administration in Ukraine] Society and National Interests, 3(11), 1060–1068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52058/3041-1572-2025-3(11)-1060-1068 [in Ukrainian].
ISSN 
ISSN 
