Some reflections on the methodology of multidisciplinary empirical research conducted within the paradigms: “Education 4.0”, “Industry 4.0” and “Society 5.0”

The article is an attempt to characterize the methodology of multidisciplinary empirical research, designed and implemented within technical, exact, natural, social, and humanistic sciences. Three paradigms have been characterized: Education 4.0, Industry 4.0, and Society 5.0. The author’s attention was drawn to the need for a clear formulation of detailed concepts as well as their content and context. The types of possible empirical research and the methods and techniques used in them were presented, attention was also drawn to the importance of the model used in the research. It was considered necessary to disseminate methodological knowledge for the reliable execution of empirical research, allowing for its repeatability, verification, and evaluation.

REFERENCES:

• Ajdukiewicz, K. 1983. Zagadnienia i kierunki filozofii. Teoria poznania. Metafizyka. Warszawa: Czytelnik.
• Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J. and Pérez-García, R. 2012. Im­proving consistency in AHP decision-making processes. Applied Math­ematics and Computation. 219, pp. 2432–2441.
• Clements, K. 2008, January. Discussant for small island states – issues on se­curity. Growth and development. Seminar at Forum at the Ninth Annual GDN Conference. Brisbane.
• Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd Thousand Oaks: Sage
• Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. eds. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications of London.
• Dietz, J.L.G. 2006. Enterprise ontology – theory and methodology. Berlin Hei­delberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Easterly, W. 2006. The white man’s burden: why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Auckland: Penguin.
• Easton, D. 1966. Alternative strategies in theoretical research. In: Easton, D. ed. Varieties of political theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, pp. 1–13.
• Eyben, R. 2005. Donors’ learning difficulties: results, relationships and re­sponsibilities. Institute of Development Studies IDS Bulletin. 36 (3), pp. 98–107.
• Fanelli, J.M. 2007. Final report: Workshop on methodology for comparative analysis. Buenos Aires/New Delhi: CEDES/GDN.
• Ganzarai, J., Errasti N. 2016. Three Stage Maturity Model in SME’s towards Industry 4.0. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management. 9 (5), pp. 1119–1128.
• Gattullo, M., Scurati, G.W., Fiorentino, M., Uva, A.E., Ferrise, F. and Bor­degoni, M. 2019. Towards augmented reality manuals for industry 4.0: A methodology. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 56, pp. 276–286.
• Graff, H. J. 2015. Undisciplining knowledge: interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• https://www.weforum.org/projects/learning-4-0 – 2021.08.20.
• Helmer, O. 1996. Social technology. New York: Basic Books.
• Johnson, S. 2019. Quality 4.0: A trend within a trend. Quality. 58 (2), pp. 21–23.
• Juszczyk, S. 2013. Badania jakościowe w naukach społecznych. Szkice meto­dologiczne. Katowice: UŚ.
• Karlsson, S.I. 2007. Allocating responsibilities in multi-level governance for sustainable development. International Journal of Social Economics. 34 (1–2), pp. 103–126.
• Keidanren: http://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/profile/pro001.html (12.11.2020).
• Klein, J.T. 1996. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities and interdis­ciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
• Kuhn, Th.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lewowicki, T. 2000. W poszukiwaniu modelu edukacji międzykulturowej. In: Lewowicki, T., Ogrodzka-Mazur, E. and Szczurek-Boruta, A. eds. Edu­kacja międzykulturowa w Polsce i na świecie. Katowice: UŚ, pp. 21–35.
• Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R. and Ramos, L.F.P. 2017. Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 – a systematic literature overview and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research. 55 (12), pp. 3609–3629.
• Molteberg, E., and Bergstrom, C. 2000. Our common discourse: diversity and paradigms in development studies. Noragric, Centre for International En­vironment and Development Studies. Agricultural University of Norway.
• Oracle, An Enterprise Architect’s Guide to Big Data: https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/entarch/articles/oea-big-data-guide-1522052.pdf (2020.10.02).
• Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. 2006. Essentials of nursing research: Methods, ap­praisal and utilization. 6th Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Prades, L., Romero, F., Estruch, A., García-Dominguez, A. and Serrano, J. 2013. Defining a Methodology to Design and Implement Business Process Models in BPMN According to the Standard ANSI/ISA-95 in a Manufac­turing Enterprise. Procedia Engineering. 63, pp. 115–122.
• 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan; http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/sci­ence-technology/lawandplan/title01/deta-iI01/1375311.htm – 12.11.2020. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html (12.11.2020).
• Repko, A. 2013. Introduction to interdisciplinary studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Tonelli, F., Demartini, M., Loleo, A. and Testa, C. 2016. A novel methodology for manufacturing firms value modelling and mapping to improve opera­tional performance in the industry 4.0 era. Procedia CIRP. 57, pp. 122– –127.
• Uiterkamp, S. and Vlek, A.J.M. 2007. Practice and outcomes of multidisci­plinary research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues. 63 (1), pp. 175–197.
• Vance D.E., Talley M., Azuero A., Pearce P.F. and Christian, B.J. 2013. Con­ducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers. Nursing Research and Re­views. 3, pp. 67–75.
• UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 spread this idea all over the world: https://en.unesco.org/news/japan-pushing-ahead-society-50-overcome-chronic-social-challenges (15.11.2020).