57rationale and ensuing actions, namely, free and rational choice of a unit of inquiry
and framework, fieldwork (or equivalent), and analysis. A framework comprises a
conceptual component and a perspective, a plausible version of preexisting theory
or “paradigm,” which equips the researcher with an epistemic/logical coherence
throughout all the stages of an inquiry. In my view, this and comparable Western
research dynamics and their basic rationale are required conditions to which any
possible Asian HE research should pledge and that Asian HE researchers have no
other option but to comply with any of the time-honored “Western methodologies”
if they want to be recognized in and outside Asia.
The most sui generis problems for an Asian methodology are in the sphere of
moral philosophy and actions. Consider the act of choosing a theoretical framework
by researcher X. There are a set of tentative theories available to X. The predica-
ment here is that all theories known to X are, obviously, yet to be tested, hence,
nothing can assure X of their adequacy. We will see that an interesting paradox
occurs here. X now has to make a choice. Is X free to choose any ad random?
Probably not! If X is honest, X has to take an informed and rational decision to
choose the best theory or the fittest theory (Popper 1959 ). The issue here is that not
everybody will do what X does and this is ethically troubling. For example, consider
the case of researcher Y who just attained a government research fund to start a
research project in the coming academic year. It surely has obtained an ethical com-
mittee’s clearance. Yet, the moral problem is that almost the same research has
already been conducted and completed by Y’s senior colleague in the same research
center with a different funding source. What Y did is to replicate the extant plan with
minor changes for the proposal. The topic and framework are almost identical to the
completed one. Y is aware that the prior research resulted with minimal to moderate
relevance and impact. Clearly, Y did not choose the fittest theory; in fact, Y’s only
goal appears to be that of getting a competitive grant for prestige and promotion.
Consider a second case of imaginary researcher Z. Professor Z has been in the
same experimental research topic for more than 25 years that most people and col-
leagues regard as a very successful academic career. In his tenure, more than 100
papers have been published and more than a dozen reputed research grants obtained
from competitive sources. Z has been using one research model adapted from a
single theory. The effect size d has consistently been low. The ethical problem that
Z faces is that of dragging on a model that is known to Z himself, already, as inef-
fective. Karl Popper ( 1959 ) explained his Falsification theory by saying that scien-
tific knowledge advances by error elimination, the act of discarding wrong/weak
hypotheses or false theories that failed to solve the research problem. In my opinion,
Z’s case is not that uncommon in social sciences and humanities; theories that failed
to advance understanding or have lost descriptive power are repeatedly used by the
same researcher and same research center. Needless to say, any attempt to forcibly
reconcile the research dataset with a failed or weak hypothesis and framework goes
against academic integrity. I will later illustrate the foregoing claims with some real
cases in Asian higher education.
I argued elsewhere that an Asian research methodology would be impossible
were it to attempt bypassing Western research rigor, yet Asian methodology in and
4 Higher Education Knowledge Production in Postcolonial-Neoliberal Asia