Reclaiming Research Rigour With Tantrayukti

Abstract

Well-defined research methods determined the robustness of our ancient knowledge systems. In this, Tantrayukti played a pivotal role. It was a powerful methodological device and the means to interpret science. Theoreticians and practitioners of yore from various branches of study such as Statecraft, Economics, Medicine, Philosophy and Grammar, were deeply influenced by it. This is revealed in the specific methodological devices from Tantrayukti borrowed by Charaka, Sushruta, Kautilya, Panini and others to create and structure their treatises. Their celebrated expositions withstood the test of time, which lends credence to the rigour of Tantrayukti tools. Can current research – especially qualitative studies – be made further meaningful in content and presentation by borrowing these methodological tools?

The paper reveals how present, qualitative research endeavours in social studies often stumble from poorly conceived research plans and inarticulate presentation of study outcomes. For this, I draw from my experience of having participated in research projects and reviewing academic papers. Qualitative research of today can benefit in two ways by borrowing certain methodological tools of Tantrayukti. Firstly, during field immersions, where core research problems can be rigorously addressed, and research ethics can be improved. Secondly, in presenting study outcomes more cogently. This is not to say that modern research methods lack guidelines to make study endeavours worthwhile. Rather, the paper seeks to nudge researchers to explore how they can strengthen their work through Tantrayukti’s intrinsic principles, whilst adhering to current methodological requirements.

At the outset, this paper introduces readers to the importance of qualitative methods and how it facilitates data gathering. Thereafter, the discussion shifts to an overview of principles governing Tantrayukti. Following this, the paper will focus on the central theme, i.e., specific hurdles firstly in qualitative field-data collection and data analysis and secondly, the skewed manner by which such studies are often published to reach a larger audience. In this regard, relevant Tantrayukti devices that alleviate these very problems will be highlighted.

Qualitative Methods– The Most Preferred in Field Research

Study objectives typically determine the methods employed by a researcher. However, for primary field immersions in the Social Sciences, whether subscribing to an ethnographic, phenomenological, narrative approach, or a combination of these – qualitative methods are known to be the most viable. Thus, in the present day, qualitative studies form a sizeable proportion in social science research.

Social Sciences is dominated by the study of people, their systems of interacting with each other and creating outcomes for one another. To this end, study methods that are conducive for researchers to easily intermingle with respondents is adopted. Field immersions through the qualitative approach use modified forms of ethnographic inquiry such as open-ended interviews with respondents, group discussions, silent observations, fly-on-the-wall observations, and shadowing to name a few [16]. Qualitative methods thus lend themselves to study of people and systems in their natural setting. It also enables data gathering to be contextually proximate to people or the phenomenon being examined. Therefore, it is assumed to be valid or closer to truth than other methods [8].

Some of the popular social themes in behavioural sciences such as a study of interrelations between different groups of people in a community; learning about current practices by which people assert, conceal, or navigate their identities; or the impact of pedagogy and education curriculum on children’s psyche in the digital age can be better examined with qualitative methods of data gathering. Besides, these social phenomena are not one-time events. It is vital to consider factors that precede and succeed them. For such information, longitudinal studies help researchers examine people’s interactions and identities before, during and after a policy initiative or reform [4].

Qualitative methods are preferred for all the above-mentioned inquiries because they deal with dense information, apart from facilitating clarity in data points [11]. Moreover,it provides opportunities to closely interact with respondents over an extended period of time [16]. Prolonged interaction leads to gaining trust and better appreciation of shared experiences by study participants. It also triggers rich, contextual description, which is essential for socio-ethno research. Thus, qualitative methods aim at delving into unquantifiable social phenomena. It engages in gathering data about people and perceptions, which help with deconstructions of phenomena. As can be inferred from this, researchers using such methods are empowered to steer its epistemological claims. 

If one were to juxtapose ancient research tools such as Tantrayukti with modern qualitative methods, the spirit of scientific and rational inquiry even in our past was no less. Its approach was perhaps inclined towards ontological studies. Yet scholars such as Chanakya, Charakha and Sushruta explain their epistemological approach with the aid of Tantrayukti devices. The subsequent section considers some of these devices, which are relatable to qualitative study design and their outcomes that are disseminated in the public domain.

Tantrayukti – In Pursuit of Truth

Tantrayukti is a set of methodological tools, developed in the fertile, intellectual climate of Vidyasthanas and Darsanas. There was already a comprehensive understanding in ancient Bharata, of how a scholar should seek truth and how that should be disseminated, in keeping with the spirit of scientific inquiry. Assigned rules and structure were present to examine a scholarly work, both as a whole and in its parts for the purpose of tying it back to the main premise. In this sense, it is not too different from the goal of modern research methods. However, fundamentals of exploring ontological claims through interpretive, logical inquiry and empirical research existed even before a formal structure such as Tantrayukti was developed. They existed in Brahmasutras, Nyaayasastra, Mimamsa and particularly in Advaita and Dvaita’s dialectical approaches [6].

Although there is no text dedicated exclusively to Tantrayukti, its devices are prominently enumerated and extensively applied in many ancient works, particularly the Charakhasamhita, Sushrutasamhita, Ashtasangraha, Ashtangahrudaya and the Arthasastra. Etymologically, Tantrayukti can be traced to the word ‘Tanoti’ or ‘to enable growth’ and ‘Artha’ that is associated with ‘wealth’. Tantra refers to that which enables developing wealth and, in that spirit, relates to wealth of knowledge. ‘Yukti’ is that which joins or connects. In the context of knowledge development, Tantrayukti is that by which concepts are mutually resolved by avoiding self-contradictions [7]. These methodological devices in the Indic tradition served well for text construction and cogent intellectual output.

The rules of Tantrayukti lay down a sequence to explore phenomena. A fundamental principle is that it should be driven by a quest to discover the Truth [12]. Even to realise that a phenomenon is research worthy, Acharyas demonstrated the importance of studying the works of experts in a domain. This would lead to either obtaining answers, or identifying unanswered questions. It would also lead to identifying where one agrees or contests with the position of a previous thesis/ scholar.

Statements that clearly explained the central tenet of one’s thesis and causality of a phenomenon was common to all scholarly epistemes of the time. The Yuktis used for this demanded that scholars understood conditions where a certain cause would not lead to an expected outcome, i.e., they had to be aware of exceptions to a rule [9]. Scholars were also expected to clarify various conditions that were conducive for a phenomenon to be observed. A coherent presentation of varied concepts was required of authors in their treatises. It was a way for the audience to infer an author’s understanding of these concepts.

Hermeneutics is critical for Social Sciences, it being an interpretive science. As a logical framework, this was also important in Tantrayukti. In fact, it was the backbone for comprehending, realising, and interpreting the truth about ontologies in the Vedas and Brahmasutras. Even the founding Acharyas of intellectual paradigms dealt with it extensively. However, before it developed as Tantrayukti rules, its precursors were the tools for valid knowledge found in Pramana. These had been previously expounded upon by the Nyayasastra[5].

Ironically, the interpretive nature of modern qualitative studies also makes it vulnerable. Any inference drawn from study findings is dependent on skills and theoretical allegiance of researchers. Data is impacted intentionally or otherwise by researchers, who become research instruments themselves [14]. Consequently, there are numerous challenges to ethics as well as accuracy, right from designing the study, gathering and analysing data to presenting outcomes in qualitative, primary studies as is showcased further in the next section.

Qualitative Methods – Problems in Practice

As highlighted previously, primary studies are constrained due to the direction undertaken by researchers and their specific skills (or absence). In one of the funded research programmes that I participated in, the focus was to explore digital identities of economically challenged population segments. The partnering research centres in Bengaluru had working knowledge of Kannada and had worked in specific areas of Karnataka’s rural-urban space in the past with people of a certain community. Consequently, both Bengaluru and the same community were chosen as one of the main locations of study. However, to pre-empt rebuttals on randomness of choice in location, secondary literature was used for rationalising. Efforts were made to work backwards and ensure that choices fitted logically. Data was thus filtered to corroborate hypotheses, or preconceived constructs of the study team.

Internal validity of such studies is questioned if we consider the Tantrayukti devices of Apavarga and Vikalpa [3]. According to Apavarga (rule of exception) it is the responsibility of a scholar to diligently study different conditions/contexts to point out exceptions where the phenomenon will not occur. The related device called Vikalpa (rule of multiple options), points to phenomenon being examined through multitudes of data points /aspects to show its ambivalent nature, i.e., a phenomenon can be manifested under multiple conditions. When convenient data sets are selected and presented (like the aforementioned study), exceptions are ignored. Moreover, the distinct ways by which digital identities were managed by other communities facing similar economic challenges (multiple options), remained unexplored.

The qualitative study had more than hundred and fifty primary interviews. Yet from reading the first few interview transcripts (wherein few respondents mentioned problems in sharing personal information with strangers), the multi-member research team was geared towards preliminary conclusions. They sought further corroboration than refutation in subsequent interviews for privacy issues. Other factors that determined sharing of information, were largely ignored.

Besides, some researchers had worked on theoretical paradigms of Privacy in their previous academic engagements. Consequently, a predetermined causal hypothesis around Privacy was built with the present study serving as mere validation. Skewed data gathering occurred with cherry-picking of interviews where Privacy had influenced information sharing related to identity. This problem can be related to the need for Samshaya. It is a Tantrayukti tool to deliberate all possible queries / doubts related to a phenomenon and then clarify them one after another. It is like detoxification by a medicine that starts removing all underlying ailments [13]. In this case, there was no scope for considering any other valid reason from the cherry-picked observations, since the central Hetu or cause was entirely attributed to Privacy through preconstructed paradigms. When scholars fail to record data, often what gets left out is as important as what is collected [15].

Interviews are often manipulated in qualitative studies, with the purpose of making it fit a pre-conceived Hetavartha or the central theme of study. In another project that I participated in, efforts to this end were made by field staff members, who wanted to primarily posit religious tensions and thereby majority clashing against minority communities. To this end, value-laden questions about whether respondents ever felt threatened by members of the majority community and how they sought protection against the majority community, were posed. It was not surprising that some of these field researchers had already applied in foreign universities with research proposals in Identity Politics and Multiculturism.

The desire to establish pre-constructed theoretical paradigms even led to field-study staff asking hypothetical questions to study participants. For e.g., when respondents did not answer in the affirmative to the question of threat from the majority community, researchers followed it up with whether they would feel threatened in the future. Hypothetical questions such as these can serve well in opinion surveys. However, it compromises data when the objective is to gather direct experiences from people, rather than views on counterfactual events. It is even more damaging to the very ethos of social science inquiry when such opinions and feelings of people are transmitted as direct experiences from actual events.

In our indigenous research tradition, Hetu is inductively (specific to general) or deductively (general to specific) arrived at. This method enables natural and genuine formation of a Hetu, such that the cause for a phenomenon is established through logical discovery [1]. The exercise of making findings fit a pre-determined Hetu defeats the very purpose of a legitimate study that seeks to explore Truth. In fact, in the Vedaantic tradition, a very high significance is attached to unravelling Satya. A Saastra gains credibility when it can establish proper association between what it cognises or perceives (findings/observations in our context) through Pratyaksha and also what it refers as reliable sources of Aagama (ie. literature, secondary sources) and finally resolves them with logical and correct inference or Anumana (i.e., analysis). Hence, rigorous epistemology that is geared towards resolving multiple levels of information for establishing a theory, is central to our knowledge system.

Another strategy undertaken in the study that I was involved in was generation of deviant data to stay with pre-determined theoretical paradigms. It is usually observed that data from a sample with similar demographics and other attributes, may not display much deviation in data (interview responses) gathered. Deviation in responses occurs every now and then, but from the free will and perception of the respondent alone. Researchers are not expected to control them. However, value-laden questions (apart from hypothetical ones as mentioned earlier) were used to generate such deviations.

There appears to have been a glaring inability to logically reconcile contradictions between field responses from across various study locations. The Tantrayukti device of Samucchaya could have been used here to our advantage. Samucchaya is used to combine ideas or concepts together and state them such that the homogeneity of these ideas is refined enough to the audience. Usage of this yukti requires that the researcher/s have themselves understood the similarity of a phenomenon and have also considered several aspects of investigation to combine these similarities [9]. It ensures infallibility of a scholarly work.

For this device to have been used in the field study, two things should have been undertaken. Firstly, more data sets should have been included, which would mean a larger sample size. This would have enabled researchers to see whether other data sets (or responses) matched coherently with the ones previously obtained. If yes, then grouping similarities through Samucchaya would have been seamless. Secondly, to honestly look at all the recorded data and not focus on cherry-picked ones, to discern homogeneity, or even divergence.

During the phase of data analysis, cherry-picked data points were given primacy once again. The reasons were determined by stakeholders and their claims. Both the funders and collaborating foreign institutions used data to give pre-decided recommendations about majority-minority polarisation in Indian society. To this end, secondary literature that buttressed their claim was referenced copiously. Ironically, there was no dearth in the usage of a Tantrayukti device – Anumata.

Anumata is used to showcase agreement with previous work and support it with one’s own views [9]. To this end, previous works that are in corroboration are quoted. Since there already has been a general tendency of academia (and funders) to focus on stories of competitive victimhood, this was easily achieved in the study report. However, Anumata alone cannot drive any scholarly work. It also requires to be balanced with Apadesha, which includes referencing valid, previous scholarly works and rigorously scrutinising them before placing one’s argument [9].

Unfortunately, the study report was weak in this regard. Not enough literature was gathered from theoretical paradigms, ideologies and schools of thought that countered the pre-determined constructs held by research team members given their academic antecedents. On the other hand, it was easy enough to quote from and concur with a sizeable archive of previous publications showcasing conflict-ridden, polarized societies plagued by contentious social issues including majority-vs-minority[17].

As a final takeaway, any robust study is expected to provide meaningful guidelines and recommendations. It could even be a framework of most expected outcomes for the future, given the existence of particular social, economic, cultural, political, and other determining factors in the present. Perhaps this has been one of the quintessential struggles for Social Sciences itself given its association with Positivism. Yet, to even venture into partially predictive spaces, studies must be undertaken in-depth with suitable, empirical methods.

The present field study, however, had already delimited itself within the Western, pedantic boundaries set by its researchers [2]. There was a need to push some form of a predictive model, which led to generating macro-level recommendations from micro-level inferences. For instance, three popular market areas in Bengaluru and two market centres in semi-urban Karnataka were studied through a sample of two hundred and fifty respondents. Interviews revealed that women vegetable vendors faced multi-layered marginilization, but they also had individually undertaken certain explicit measures to gain agency. It was presented in the study report by way of implying that it was a pan-Indian phenomenon. That these conditions of inequality and struggles exist across urban markets.

Generalization or extrapolation in qualitative analysis is a fundamental problem, which gets further underscored by the innate inductive nature of study methods. Often case studies are the norm for such research. Case studies are valuable when they are selected for the purpose of isolating individual differences, similarities or patterns from one programme experience to the other [10]. Participant observation, in-depth interviewing, detailed description are invaluable for such settings. The problem sets in when insights from individual experiences are appropriated to explain non-individual outcomes and projected as overarching truisms. The challenge is in realising that what is true of the part; need not be of the whole.

It is in reconciling the part to the whole, without resorting to lazy extrapolations that the expertise of qualitative researchers ought to be. This is where two of Tantrayukti’s devices could have been used in conjunction with each other. The first is Ekanta (universal rule), which encourages scholars to work on the predictive capabilities of their works as a given. A scholar is expected to have studied a phenomenon minutely to state with utmost clarity the conditions under which it will manifest unfailingly and without exception with the help of Ekanta [1]. While purely Ekanta would not have been completely viable to apply, given the geographical spread of Bharata and our limited sample size, there still were certain insights that could not have been discarded.

For this, the second yukti called Oohya (rule of context conscious interpretation) could have been tried.Oohya is used when absolute interpretation of phenomena is not possible[13]. Yet, a course of action or decision is possible, which requires wisdom, previous knowledge, and experience of the decision-maker. In the case of our field-study findings on women vegetable-vendors of Bengaluru, which included struggles faced by them and corresponding coping strategies – it could not have been applied to all women vendors, much less all sidewalk sellers in India. However, inferences on vulnerabilities of some sections of sidewalk sellers and their struggle for empowerment could have been considered as emerging patterns for further exploration or comparison with different samples across the country. The contextual interpretation could also have been along the lines of shifting power dynamics in urban markets of India, along with suggestive rather than extrapolative accounts.

These are some of the ways by which present-day qualitative research can borrow from our indigenous research tools. The discussion has been in terms of methods to observe phenomenon and present outcomes in the form of structured thesis through the application of a few Tantrayukti tools. However, a large area still remains to be explored – particularly the works on Epistemology in our knowledge systems and how those frameworks can be gainfully applied today to analyse field data findings [5].

Conclusion

As is evident from the discussion above, borrowing ancient principles helps present-day research endeavours in many ways. Not only does it enhance rigour in methods, but it also helps instil ethics and intellectual honesty in scholarship. Besides, the focus of studies in Social Sciences would be naturally inclined towards pursuit of truth, rather than to feed narratives of divisiveness. The discussion then would no longer be in the realm of possibilities if field immersions and qualitative studies were to work towards synergizing modern methods with ancient techniques.

One may well be justified in saying that neither study nor scholar can claim to wholly unravel the Truth. After all, qualitative methods provide tools to merely scrape the surface of complex hidden layers. Nonetheless, it is in identifying and honestly acknowledging the limits of present-day research that further studies can be strengthened. Research will then not assume agenda-driven populist hues but transform into robust scientific inquiry. As scholars, academics and thought leaders, we owe this in our individual and collective pursuits.

References

1. Avhad, A.D., Walinjkar, M., Vyas, H.A. & Dwivedi, R.R. (2016, July). Application of Tantrayukti (Means of Interpreting Science) in Research Methodology. Journal of Research in Traditional Medicine. Vol. 2 # 3 pp 81 – 86
2. Balagangadhara, S.N. (2012) Reconceptualizing India Studies. Oxford University Press.
3. Bhojraj, K.G. (2022, July) Application of Tantrayukti in Research Methodology & Statistics. Aayushi International Interdisciplinary Research Journal. Vol. 9 pp 31-36
4. Cameron, W.B. (1963). Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking. Random House. New York.
5. Chatterjee, S.C. & Datta, D.M. (1968). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy.Calcutta University, Calcutta
6. Dasgupta, S. (2000). A History of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
7. Dhoke, S.P., Dwivedi, R.R., Vyas, M.K. & Sah, M.K. (2015, June). Application of Tantrayukti For The Better Understanding of Ayurveda Classics – A Literary Review. Global Journal of Research on Medicinal Plants And Indigenous Medicine. Vol. 4 #6. pp125-134
8. Greenhalgh, T. & Taylor, R. (1997, September 20). Education and Debate: How to Read A Paper: Papers That Go Beyond Numbers (Qualitative Research). British Medical Journal. 315. pp740-743
9. Jayaraman, M.  “The Doctrine of Tantrayukti” (paper presented in seminar organised by Department of Sanskrit Studies, University of Hyderabad on ‘Sanskrit in Modern Context’, February 11th – 13th, 2008).
10. Jayaratne, T.E and Stewart, A.J. (1991). “Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies”. In M.M. Fonon and J.A. Cook (ed), Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship As Lived Research. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis
11. Jick, T.D. (1979, December). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly. Volume 24
12. Komatineni, S. & Prasad, J.S.R.A. (2012, December 1). The Role Of Tantrayuktis In Indian Research Methodology. The Journal of Sanskrit Academy. Volume 22 pp 155-165
13. Lele, W.K. (1981). The Doctrine of Tantrayukti-s. Chaukhamba Surs.arati Prakashan, Varanasi.
14. Lewis, J. (2009). Redefining Qualitative Methods: Believability in the Fifth Movement. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 8(2). pp1-14
15. Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks.
16. Patton, M.Q. (1987). How To Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Centre for Study of Evaluation, University of California. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks.
17. Pluckrose, H. & Lindsay, J.A. (2020). Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender and Identity – And Why This Harms Everybody. Pitchstone Publishing. North Carolina.

Conference on Pedagogy And Educational Heritage

Watch video presentation of the above paper here:

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.