Discussing the Strength and Weaknesses of three Research Paradigms and their

Application in Education

This paper aims to discuss three research paradigms, their strength and weakness, and their
application to education. As per definition, a research paradigm is defined as a set of beliefs or
framework that guides researchers in their approach to understanding reality and investigation
(Creswell, 2014). Thus, the research paradigms provide the foundational approaches through
which researchers conduct scientific enquiry with each paradigm shaping the research questions,
methods and analysis involved in the research process. The paradigms to be discussed in this
paper are positivism, interpretivism and critical theory. These paradigms provide different
perspectives in their approach to research.

First, the positivist paradigm presses much emphasis on objectivity, quantification and the use of
empirical methods to generate knowledge (Creswell, 2014). Thus, the paradigm relies on
observable and measurable facts to understand phenomena and it often employs experimental or
statistical methods to ensure accurate testing (Creswell, 2014). According to Bryman (2016), one
of the strength of this paradigm is in its scientific approach. Through the use of the scientific
approach, the positivist research enables reliable, replicable results which makes it an ideal for
generalizing the findings across populations. In this case, this approach is very relevant in fields
that require precision and quantifiable data such as psychology and education settings. However,
the approach also has several limitations. Guba & Lincoln (1994) argues that its approach to
focus on quantifiable data restricts its ability to capture the complexity of human behavior. This
is so because it excludes some other factors such as emotions, personal experience and cultural
factors which also provide important insights (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As a result, the
limitations show that the positivist approach does not provide a holistic understanding.

A good education topic that fits well with the positivist approach is “How online learning affects
academic performance.” This topic is in line with positivism because it involves measuring
academic performance like grades or test scores both before and after students use online
learning platforms. The compared data from the different groups is thus used by researchers to
decide how effective online learning is. In that case, the approach works for positivism as it
focuses on measurable outcomes in a controlled setting which makes it easy to apply the findings
to a general education practice.
In contrast to the positivist paradigm, the interpretivism also known as constructivist paradigm
focuses on the understanding of subject human experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). In this
paradigm, interpretivist researchers seek to understand how individuals construct meaning from
the social realities by typically using qualitative data collection methods such as interviews,
focus groups discussions, and observations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). One of the strength of this
paradigm is in its emphasis on context which makes researchers to capture the depth and
complexity of human experience (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018). Thus, it is used to explore
phenomena that cannot be quantified which makes it important in education settings where
personal perspectives and individual experienced greatly impact learning processes (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2018). Nevertheless, this paradigm too presents some weaknesses. One of
the vivid weakness is its focus on subjective experiences. On this, Lincoln & Guba (1985) argues
that due its reliance on qualitative data, the interpretivist paradigm lack replicability which
makes the findings difficult to generalize. Not only that, there is also researcher bias which can
influence data interpretation which possess challenges to the maintenance of objective.

One example of a topic for the interpretivist approach is “Examining students’ motivations in
project-based learning”. This research would look at students’ feelings and thoughts about this
hands-on learning style. To gather information, researchers might use interviews or group
discussions to learn about what drives students and how they approach learning in this setting.
The interpretivist approach is a good fit here because motivation is personal and varies from one
person to another, so understanding it fully means looking at individual experiences, beliefs, and
social backgrounds.

The third approach which is the critical theory is concerned with social justice and aims to make
changes to fight issues like power imbalance, inequality and unfair treatment (Freire, 2000).
Using this approach in education, Freire (2000) argues that the critical theorists study how
society affects students’ experiences especially those from disadvantaged groups. In terms of
weakness, a main strength of critical theory is its goal to create social change and address
inequalities (Kincheloe, 2008). In looking at power structures, critical theorists thus work to push
for positive changes and help improve unfair conditions in education (Kincheloe, 2008).
However, critical theory is usually criticized for being subjective (Carspecken, 1996). Since this
approach aims to support specific beliefs, researchers’ own views may affect how they interpret
data which could lead to bias. Also, because it doesn’t focus much on strict data collection, it can
be harder for others to repeat these findings, which may limit its acceptance in research areas that
rely on strong data (Carspecken, 1996).

On this paradigm, one topic that is applicable the look into the “Differences in how students from
various racial and ethnic backgrounds are disciplined”. This topic focuses on how students from
minority groups face harsher punishments such as suspensions or expulsions which is more often
than other students. In this case, this paradigm is helpful in studying the school rules, any hidden
biases in the teacher-student interactions and the general social factors that results to such
differences. Thus, the paradigm in this case makes sense because it helps the researcher to find
and question the actual social issues and systems that create the unequal treatments in the school
discipline.

In conclusion, this paper aims to discuss three research paradigms, their strength and weakness,
and their application to education. As shown in the discussions, each paradigm has its own
strengths and weaknesses and they are all used in different ways.
References

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and

practical guide. Psychology Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th Ed.).
Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches (4th Ed.). SAGE Publications.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th Ed.).
SAGE.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). SAGE
Publications.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Springer.