Context of justification

A topic in research methodology

Sometimes in research a distinction is made between the ‘context of discovery’ and the ‘context of justification’.

So some discoveries are serendipitous – in the sense that they are made by accident perhaps in the course of exploring some quite different phenomenon or aspect of a phenomenon.

When a researcher seeks to contribute to public knowledge, the make a knowledge claim that has to be justified. Arguably, what is important in making such knowledge claims is the logical argument that supports the claim being made – why you believe this to be so (the context of justification) – not the actual circumstances in which you suddenly had the insight – that this is how things are/what is going on, i.e., the context of discovery.

Because traditional scientific papers are written in this often dehumanised, way, that misrepresents the processes of discovery, the Nobel laureate Peter Medawar (1963/1990) suggested that scientific papers was fraudulent accounts of research.

“Interestingly, Medawar did not feel that any of this actually mattered in terms of the findings. Rather, he was concerned that research papers may offer a very poor image of what the process of research is actually like. Medawar was drawing upon a recognised distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. In other words, it can be argued that it does not matter how ideas came to be formed, or what false moves were made in exploring them, as long as there is a sound argument for why we should be confident they are right once we have tested them.”

Taber, 2013: 173-174

Sources cited:

• Medawar, P. B. (1963/1990) Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener, 70 (12th September 1963). Reprinted in Medawar, P. B., The Threat and the Glory, New York: Harper Collins, 1990.
• Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.