The fundamental aim for undertaking a research is to discover something unknown and thus, to develop and extend human knowledge (Veal 1996). A determining decision that is to be made prior to conducting the actual research process is the analysis of the horizons offered by various research approaches and the clear selection of those among them that are most appropriate for achieving results that reflect to a greatest extent the objectives set.
Brookes et al. (1999) argue that when undertaking analysis the perspective should be not the single discipline but the ‘grouping’ of interrelated disciplines that have an appropriate focus for investigating the particular problem. Thus, it can be suggested that each academic discipline opens new dimensions of knowledge. This relates to the issue of mono-, multi-, and interdisciplinary research tools employed.
There are contexts in the field of the EU law application that cannot assume the employment of analytical tools typical for the environment of a single discipline alone. Such a mono-disciplinary approach would rather be relevant to the natural sciences. Quite often, several disciplines have to be pulled together into one research. It then carries the features of a multi-disciplinary study. This offers the opportunities for reaching a higher level of insight into the concerned topic area and thus, for multidimensional solutions with a broader application. Multidisciplinary studies are not without problems, either. They can produce findings that appear to be compartmentalised and remaining separate as they are interpreted individually and independently by each researcher participating in the work (Brookes et al., 1999). Thus, the results have a high level of imprecision and complexity related to the data analysis (Baum 1999). While multidisciplinary research quite often represents merely a sum of diametrical and different opinions coming from different disciplines that make the comparison difficult or superficial, it is pretended that interdisciplinary studies are able to generate better outcomes when conducted appropriately within the non-technical and non-natural sciences. The interdisciplinary studies simultaneously take into consideration different aspects of the subject investigated, reaching in this way a higher degree of research concentration and of results’ unification (Przeclawski 1993, Brookes et al., 1999). The opportunities offered by multi- and especially by interdisciplinary constructed studies are increasingly perceived to be highly appropriate, recommended, and challenging (Przeclawski 1993, Brookes et al. 1999, Hampton 1999).
Mono-, multi-, and interdisciplinarity are relevant not only to quantitative but also to qualitative studies (Hampton 1999). The use of qualitative techniques appears to be highly pertinent as a complementary research tool when adopting a grounding approach that has been referred to by some authors as an interpretive one and opposite to the traditional positivist approaches. Its application is recommended when previous research is limited and an initial investigation into such a new problem area is to be started (Veal 1996, Hampton 1999). An example for such an area where no sufficient previous research is available, is the analysis of the direct effect and the direct applicability of the EU law in the light of bad practices that are questioning the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms for the EU law (correct) application as well as for the successful protection of private persons’ rights under the EU law. It is about an area, in which no problematic clusters or groups of cases are identified yet, in order to be possible to analyse sub-issues from within a cluster or from within an outlined group of cases by means of the easy to be applied deductive research techniques of going from the whole to the particular or, otherwise said, of extracting the particular from the common.
Veal (1996) emphasises that the two techniques, qualitative and quantitative, complement each other, and the quantitative research becomes reasonable and possible on the basis of an initial qualitative work only. Hampton (1999) points out the great value of qualitative interpretations when a need has arisen for identification and explanation of new and complex situations. Thus, Hampton stresses the credibility of the rigorously analysed qualitative information and its particular importance for investigation and for a correct understanding of human world. The latter cannot be successfully achieved in all its aspects without the involvement of a good quality research (Hampton 1999).
 Additional considerations and interpretations on various research techniques, as those can be applied in EU matters and/or international management studies are available in Tchervenkova, Ginka (2000) Mobility Concepts & Tourism Travel, GRIN Verlag, pp. 11-19, ISBN (eBook): 978-3-638-44216-9, ISBN (Book): 978-3-638-71411-2, DOI: 10.3239/9783638442169.
- Quote paper
- Ginka Tchervenkova (Author), 2011, Methodological Justification, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/178246