RESEARCH PARADIGMS

HARPREET SINGH
Research Paradigms
Research has been described as a systematic investigation (Burns, 1997) or inquiry whereby data
are collected, analysed and interpreted in some way in an effort to "understand, describe, predict
or control an educational or psychological phenomenon or to empower individuals in such
contexts" (Mertens, 2005). O'Leary (2004) puts forward the argument that what was relatively
simple to define thirty or forty years ago has become far more complex in recent times with the
number of research methods increasing dramatically, "particularly in the social/applied sciences"
(p.8). It has been suggested, however, that the "exact nature of the definition of research is
influenced by the researcher's theoretical framework" (Mertens, 2005, p.2) with theory being used
to establish relationships between or among constructs that describe or explain a phenomenon by
going beyond the local event and trying to connect it with similar events (Mertens, 2005, p.2).

The theoretical framework, as distinct from a theory, is sometimes referred to as the paradigm
(Mertens, 2005; Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) and influences the way knowledge is studied and
interpreted. It is the choice of paradigm that sets down the intent, motivation and expectations for
the research. Without nominating a paradigm as the first step, there is no basis for subsequent
choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or research design. Paradigms are not
discussed in all research texts and are given varied emphasis and sometimes conflicting definitions.
In some research texts, paradigms are discussed at the beginning of the text along-side research
design, while others may make only passing reference to paradigms at a much later stage or make
no reference to paradigms at all. This may lead the first time or early career researcher to wonder
where the notion of paradigm fits into the research course of action and to question its relevance.
The term 'paradigm' may be defined as "a loose collection of logically related assumptions,
concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research" (Bogdan & Biklen 1998, p.22) or the
philosophical intent or motivation for undertaking a study (Cohen & Manion 1994, p.38).
Alternatively, Mac Naughton, Rolfe and Siraj-Blatchford (2001) provide a definition of paradigm,
which includes three elements: a belief about the nature of knowledge, a methodology and
criteria for validity (p.32). Some authors prefer to discuss the interpretive framework in terms of
'knowledge claims' (Creswell, 2003); epistemology or ontology; or even research methodologies
(Neuman, 2000) rather than referring to paradigms. A number of theoretical paradigms are
discussed in the literature such as: positivist (and postpositivist), constructivist, interpretivist,
transformative, emancipatory, critical, pragmatism and deconstructivist. The use of different terms
in different texts and the varied claims regarding how many research paradigms there are,
sometimes leads to confusion for the first time or early career researcher.

During the past century, different paradigms have taken birth due to the remarkable growth in social
sciences research. There are mainly two paradigms to the verification of theoretical propositions, i.e.
positivism and anti-positivism (or naturalistic inquiry).
Positivism
The positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the philosophical ideas of the French
philosopher August Comte, who emphasized observation and reason as means of understanding human
behavior. According to him, true knowledge is based on experience of senses and can be obtained by
observation and experiment. Positivistic thinkers adopt his scientific method as a means of knowledge
generation. Hence, it has to be understood within the framework of the principles and assumptions of
science. These assumptions, as Conen et al (2000) noted, are determinism, empiricism, parsimony, and
generality.

‘Determinism’ means that events are caused by other circumstances; and hence, understanding such casual
links are necessary for prediction and control. ‘Empiricism’ means collection of verifiable empirical
evidences in support of theories or hypotheses. ‘Parsimony’ refers to the explanation of the phenomena in
the most economic way possible. ‘Generality’ is the process of generalizing the observation of the particular
phenomenon to the world at large.

With these assumptions of science, the ultimate goal of science is to integrate and systematize findings into
a meaningful pattern or theory which is regarded as tentative and not the ultimate truth. Theory is subject
to revision or modification as new evidence is found. Positivistic paradigm thus systematizes the knowledge
generation process with the help of quantification, which is essentially to enhance precision in the
description of parameters and the discernment of the relationship among them. The examples of positivist
paradigm and quantitative approach are provided in Table 1 at the end.

Although positivistic paradigm continued to influence educational research for a long time in the latter half
of the twentieth century, it was criticized due to its lack of regard for the subjective states of individuals. It
regards human behavior as passive, controlled and determined by external environment. Hence human
beings are dehumanized without their intention, individualism and freedom taken into account in viewing
and interpreting social reality. According to the critics of this paradigm, objectivity needs to be replaced by
subjectivity in the process of scientific inquiry. This gave rise to anti-positivism or naturalistic inquiry.

Anti-positivism
Anti-positivism emphasizes that social reality is viewed and interpreted by the individual herself according
to the ideological positions she possesses. Therefore, knowledge is personally experienced rather than
acquired from or imposed from outside. The anti-positivists believe that reality is multi-layered and complex
(Cohen et al, 2000) and a single phenomenon is having multiple interpretations. They emphasize that the
verification of a phenomenon is adopted when the level of understanding of a phenomenon is such that the
concern is to probe into the various unexplored dimensions of a phenomenon rather than establishing
specific relationship among the components, as it happens in the case of positivism.

Anti-positivism is marked by three schools of thought in the social science research. These
are phenomenology, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. All the three schools of thought
emphasise human interaction with phenomena in their daily lives, and suggest qualitative rather than
quantitative approach to social inquiry.

‘Phenomenology’ is a theoretical view point which believes that individual behaviour is determined by the
experience gained out of one’s direct interaction with the phenomena. It rules out any kind of objective
external reality. Husserl and Schutz are the main proponents of this school of thought. During interaction
with various phenomena, human beings interpret them and attach meanings to different actions and or
ideas and thereby construct new experiences. Therefore, the researcher has to develop empathic
understanding to know the process of interpretation by individuals so that she can reproduce in her mind
feelings, motives and thoughts that are behind the action of others.

‘Ethnomethodology’, an approach of phenomenological sociology, was developed by Harold Garfinkel and

his fellow ethnomethodologists. It deals with the world of everyday life. According to enthomethodologists,
theoretical concerns centres on the process by which common sense reality is constructed in everyday face-
to-face interaction. This approach studies the process by which people invoke certain ‘take-for-granted’
rules about behaviour which they interpret in an interactive situation and make it meaningful. They are
mainly interested in the interpretation people use to make sense of social settings.

The school of thought for ‘symbolic interactionism’ was pioneered by Dewey, Cooley and Mead among
others. It basic all y emphasizes the understanding and interpretation of interactions that take place
between human beings. The peculiarity of this approach is that human beings interpret and define each
other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions. Human interaction in the social world is
mediated by the use of symbols like language, which help human beings to give meaning to objects.
Symbolic interactionists, therefore, claim that by only concentrating attention on individuals’ capacity to
create symbolic all y meaningful objects in the world, human interaction and resulting patterns of social
organizations can be understood. As a result, not only human beings change themselves through
interaction, but also bring in change in societies.

The two paradigms presented here are concerned with two concepts of social reality. While positivism
stands for objectivity, measurability, predictability, controllability and constructs laws and rules of human
behaviour, non-positivism essenti all y emphasizes understanding and interpretation of phenomena and
making meaning out of this process. Alongside the presence of these two major paradigms, another trend,
which got developed during the post-sixties, gave rise to the third paradigm of research namely the
Paradigm of Critical Theory.

Critical theory
The main protagonist of this theory was Jurgen Habermas, who worked at the Frankfurt School in Germany
to develop an approach of investigation and action in the social sciences, which could describe the historical
forces that restrict human freedom and expose the ideological justification of those forces.

Critical theorists like Habermas were critical of the earlier paradigms as they were not tuned to question or
transform the existing situation. He developed theories which were built on a typology of interest.
Habermas (1970) postulated three types of interest which generate three types of knowledge:
  A technical interest concerned with the control of the physical environment, which generates
empirical and analytical knowledge.

 A practical interest concerned with understanding the meaning of situation, which generates
hermeneutic and historical knowledge.

 An emancipating interest concerned with the provision for growth and advancement, which
generates critical knowledge and is concerned with exposing conditions of constraints and
domination.

Critical theorists suggest two kinds of research methodologies, namely, ideology critique and action
research, for undertaking research work.

Critical theory has also been criticized by some of the contemporary scholars. Lakomski (1999) questions
the acceptability of the consensus theory of truth on which Habermas’ work is premised. Habermas’ work is
little more than speculation. Whist the claim to there being three forms of knowledge has the
epistemological attraction of simplicity, one has to question this very simplicity (Keat, 1981); there are a
multitude of interests and ways of understanding the world; and it is simply artificial to reduce these to
three interests (Cohen et al, 2000).

Research paradigms and research methods

Each of the paradigms discussed above has definite research methods which can be used in carrying out
scientific investigation.

Positivism which emphasizes objectivist approach to studying social phenomena gives importance to
research methods focusing on quantitative analysis, surveys, experiments and the like.

Similarly, anti-positivism which stresses on subjectivist approach to studying social phenomena attaches
importance to a range of research techniques focusing on qualitative analysis, e.g. personal interviews,
participant observations, account of individuals, personal constructs etc.

Similarly, critical theory suggests ideology critique and action research as research methods to explore the
existing phenomena.

The question arises: how does a researcher select a research paradigm and corresponding methodology?
The following questions may be raised by the researcher:

1. What is the nature or essence of the social phenomena being investigated?

2. Is social phenomenon objective in nature or created by the human mind?

3. What are the bases of knowledge corresponding to the social reality, and how knowledge can be
acquired and disseminated?
 4. What is the relationship of an individual with her environment? Is she conditioned by the
environment or is the environment created by her?

Based on the above questions, the researcher can identify whether the research questions pertain to
positivism, anti-positivism, and critical theory; and choose the appropriate methodology accordingly.

For a concrete understanding of research paradigms vis-à-vis selection of research methods, please see
Table1.

Table 1: Selection of research paradigms and research methods

Research Research Research methods Examples

paradigms approach
Positivism Quantitative Surveys: - Attitude of distance learners towards
longitudinal, online based education
cross-sectional, correlational; - Relationship between students’
experimental, and motivation and their academic
quasi-experimental and achievement.
ex-post facto research - Effect of intelligence on the academic
performances of primary school learners

Anti-positivism Qualitative Biographical; - A study of autobiography of a great

Phenomenological; statesman.
Ethnographical; - A study of dropout among the female
case study students
- A case study of an open distance
learning Institution in a country.

Critical theory Critical and Ideology critique; - A study of development of education

action-oriented action research during the British rule in India
- Absenteeism among standard five
students of a primary school

Although, each of the paradigms has corresponding approaches and research methods, still a researcher
may adopt research methods cutting across research paradigms as per the research questions she proposes
to answer.
Paradigm language

When reading research texts, confusion can be created when authors use different terms to discuss
paradigms. Table 1 has been developed using the language identified in a range of research texts and
grouped according to their alignment with the broad paradigm groups discussed above. While the major
paradigms will have an overall framework consistent with the definitions provided above, specific research
paradigms may have particular features, which differentiate them from other paradigms within the same
group. For example, while feminist and neo-Marxist research both fall within the transformative paradigm
they have unique features, which are specific to their particular approach.

Methodology and paradigms

In reviewing research texts for this article, the authors were surprised to discover that a large number of
texts provided no definition for the terms methodology or method, some texts use the terms
interchangeably and others use them as having different meanings. According to the Macquarie Dictionary
(3rd Ed) methodology is the science of methods, especially:

i. A branch of logic dealing with the logical principles underlying the organization of the various special
sciences, and the conduct of scientific inquiry.

ii. Education a branch of pedagogics concerned with the analysis and evaluation of subject matter and
methods of teaching.
Table 1: Paradigms: Language commonly associated with major research paradigms

Positivist/ Post Interpretivist/ Transformative Pragmatic

positivist Constructivist

Experimental Naturalistic Critical theory Consequences of

Quasi-experimental Phenomenological Neo-marxist actions
Correlational Hermeneutic Feminist Problem-centered
Reductionism Interpretivist Critical Race Theory Pluralistic
Theory verification Ethnographic Freirean Real-world practice
Causal comparative Multiple participant Participatory oriented
Determination meanings Emancipatory Mixed models
Normative Social and historical Advocacy
construction Grand Narrative
Theory generation Empowerment issue
Symbolic interaction oriented
Change-oriented
Interventionist
Queer theory
Race specific
Political

Adapted from Mertens (2005) and Creswell (2003)

This definition is consistent with much of the literature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Schram, 2006) despite it
being a generic definition as opposed to one which is discipline or research specific. Somekh and Lewin
(2005) define methodology as both "the collection of methods or rules by which a particular piece of
research is undertaken" and the "principles, theories and values that underpin a particular approach to
research" (p.346) while Walter (2006) argues that methodology is the frame of reference for the research
which is influenced by the "paradigm in which our theoretical perspective is placed or developed. The most
common definitions suggest that methodology is the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or
theoretical framework while the method refers to systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection
and analysis of data.

Matching paradigms and methods

Readers are advised by the literature that research, which applies the positivist or postpositivist paradigm,
tends to predominantly use quantitative approaches (methods) to data collection and analysis, though not
necessarily exclusively, while the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm generally operates using
predominantly qualitative methods (Silverman, 2000; Wiersma, 2000; Bogdan & Biklen 1998; Mertens,
1998; Burns, 1997; Cohen & Manion 1994; Glesne & Peshkin 1992). The pragmatic paradigm provides an
opportunity for "multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different
forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003). Likewise the
transformative paradigm allows for the application of both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Deconstructivist and in particular poststructuralist research "seeks to understand the dynamics of
relationships between the knowledge/meaning, power and identity" (Mac Naughton et al, 2001) applying
data collected and analysed using qualitative methods. Poststructuralists emphasise the local nature of
knowledge placing strict limits on the validity of the knowledge gathered and produced (Mac Naughton et
al, 2001). Table 2, indicates the ways in which research methods cross paradigm boundaries.

Table 2: Paradigms, methods and tools

Paradigm Methods (primarily) Data collection tools (examples)

Positivist/ Quantitative. "Although qualitative methods can be Experiments

Postpositivist used within this paradigm, quantitative methods Quasi-experiments
tend to be predominant . . ." (Mertens, 2005) Tests
Scales

Interpretivist/ Qualitative methods predominate although Interviews

Constructivist quantitative methods may also be utilised. Observations
Document reviews
Visual data analysis

Transformative Qualitative methods with quantitative and mixed Diverse range of tools - particular need
methods. Contextual and historical factors to avoid discrimination. Eg: sexism,
described, especially as they relate to racism, and homophobia.
oppression (Mertens, 2005, p. 9)

Pragmatic Qualitative and/or quantitative methods may be May include tools from both positivist
employed. Methods are matched to the specific and interpretivist paradigms. Eg
questions and purpose of the research. Interviews, observations and testing
and experiments.

This suggests that it is the paradigm and research question, which should determine which research data
collection and analysis methods (qualitative/quantitative or mixed methods) will be most appropriate for a
study. In this way researchers are not quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods researchers, rather a
researcher may apply the data collection and analysis methods most appropriate for a particular research
study. It may in fact be possible for any and all paradigms to employ mixed methods rather than being
restricted to any one method, which may potentially diminish and unnecessarily limit the depth and
richness of a research project.

Qualitative or quantitative? Methodology or method?

In the literature the terms qualitative and quantitative are often used in two distinct discourses, one
relating to what is more commonly understood to be the research paradigm and the second referring to
research methods. This is illustrated the following definition.
At one level quantitative and qualitative refers to distinctions about the nature of knowledge: how one
understands the world and the ultimate purpose of the research. On another level of discourse, the terms
refer to research methods - how data are collected and analysed - and the types of generalizations and
representations derived from the data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Confusion for the first time researcher or early career researcher is created by informal reference to
researchers as qualitative or quantitative researchers and research as qualitative or quantitative research.
This is further exacerbated by research texts, which utilize these terms within their titles, suggesting a
purity of method, which is potentially impossible in social research. O'Leary (2004) argues another way of
thinking about these terms by defining qualitative and quantitative as adjectives for types of data and their
corresponding modes of analysis, i.e. qualitative data - data represented through words, pictures, or icons
analyzed using thematic exploration; and quantitative data - data that is represented through numbers and
analyzed using statistics.

This definition suggests that the terms qualitative and quantitative refer to the data collection methods,
analysis and reporting modes instead of the theoretical approach to the research. While acknowledging
that some research texts refer to quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods as paradigms the authors will
use the terms quantitative and qualitative to refer to methods of data collection, analysis and reporting.

Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined?

As discussed earlier, the use of the term 'paradigm' in this article is reserved for the philosophical intent or
underlying theoretical framework and motivation of the researcher with regard to the research. While data
collection methods can be combined, a researcher usually aligns philosophically with one of the recognised
research paradigms, which proceed from different premises, leading to and seeking different outcomes
(Wiersma, 2000). According to Mertens, a "researcher's theoretical orientation has implications for every
decision made in the research process, including the choice of method".

Educational research traditionally followed the empirical "objective scientific model" (Burns, 1997) which
utilized quantitative methods of data collection, analysis and reporting modes. In the 1960s there was a
move towards a more constructivist approach which allowed for methods which were "qualitative,
naturalistic and subjective" in nature. It would appear that at the time there was considerable debate
regarding the introduction of this form of data collection. This philosophical debate "left educational
research divided between two competing methods: the scientific empirical tradition, and the naturalistic
phenomenological mode" (Burns, 1997).

More recently, research approaches have become more complex in design and more flexible in their
application of methods with mixed-methods being more acceptable and common. A mixed-methods
approach to research is one that involves gathering both numeric information (e.g., on instruments) as well
as text information (e.g., on interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and
qualitative information (Creswell, 2003).

According to Gorard (2004) combined or mixed-methods research has been identified as a "key element in
the improvement of social science, including education research" with research strengthened by the use of
a variety of methods. Gorard (2004) argues that mixed method research "requires a greater level of skill",
"can lead to less waste of potentially useful information"

, "creates researchers with an increased ability to make appropriate criticisms of all types of research" and
often has greater impact, because figures can be very persuasive to policy-makers whereas stories are more
easily remembered and repeated by them for illustrative purposes.

Many researchers including Creswell (2003), Thomas (2003) and Krathwohl, (1993) now view qualitative and
quantitative methods as complementary choosing the most appropriate method/s for the investigation.
While some paradigms may appear to lead a researcher to favour qualitative or quantitative approaches, in
effect no one paradigm actually prescribes or prohibits the use of either methodological approach.
However, this may not sit comfortably with researchers who are strongly aligned with a particular approach
to research. Almost inevitably in each paradigm, if the research is to be fully effective, both approaches
need to be applied. It is unduly impoverished research, which eschews the use of both qualitative and
quantitative research approaches. Paradigms, which overtly recommend mixed methods approaches allow
the question to determine the data collection and analysis methods applied, collecting both quantitative
and qualitative data and integrating the data at different stages of inquiry (Creswell, 2003).