Analysis of the four research paradigms
Research is a systematic way that is used for enquiry and investigation whereby data is collected and analysed on the basis of which the results are interpreted and the conclusions are drawn. The research paradigms refer to the research frameworks that are derived from the belief system about the knowledge of the information (Dash, 2005). In this context the research paradigms that will be analysed include; positivism, critical, pragmatic and interpretivism.
The first paradigm is Positivist paradigm, this paradigm was first proposed by Auguste Comte. Comte hypothesized that investigation; reflexion and purpose that are based on understanding should be the foundation for understanding human conduct (Lather, 2006). Positivist paradigm comprises a procedure of investigation that is used to explore interpretations and also answer queries. It is basically used to examine for cause and influence relationships in nature, it is the ideal research method that attempts to understand observations in terms of actualities and quantifiable units. The research that is found through this paradigm depend on on rational logic, invention of theory, testing of those hypotheses and offering processes descriptions and mathematical equations to derive conclusions (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The paradigm purposes at providing clarifications and making forecasts that are founded on assessable results. Positivist paradigm essentially refers to the researcher’s effort to explicate the phenomena that they are reviewing in the most efficient way possible. The results that are assimilated through this technique should be relevant in other circumstances by inductive implications (Lather, 2006). There are four assumptions that are connected with this paradigm and they include; determinism, empiricism, parsimony and generalizability. The research methods that are applied in this paradigm include; trials and tests because these are approaches that can be evaluated and used to sustain a theory (Hustler, 2005).
The second paradigm is interpretivist paradigm, this paradigm came about in the 20th century where Wilhelm Dilthey greatly influenced its tactic as he illustrated that the investigation of the topic matter in natural sciences is dissimilar as compared to social sciences because people as compared to innate entities can understand the surroundings and themselves (Torrance, 2005). The paradigm opposes positivist paradigm in that its essential objective is to recognize the subjective world of mortal knowledge. The method attempts to understand and deduce the subjects that are being studied by figuring out what they are thinking (Onwuegbuzie, 2000). The emphasis in this case is located on considering the subjects and their examination of the world around them. The paradigm suggests that realism is communally assembled and hence its description as a constructivist paradigm. In this paradigm unlike in positivist paradigm, theory does not come first before the research but rather follows it so that it is based on the data that is created by the investigation. Data in this paradigm is collected and examined in a manner that is dependable with grounded theory. This paradigm adopts four basics including; subjectivist epistemology, relativist ontology, a naturalist methodology and a balanced axiology (Elliott & Lukes, 2008). Unlike in positivist paradigm, interpretivist paradigm does not permit for simplification since it encourages the study of a small quantity of cases that do not relate to the entire populace. Interpretivist paradigm includes research approaches such as focus groups and study records which allow for many variables to be documented (Cousin, 2005).
The third paradigm is Critical paradigm, this paradigm originated from the critical theory that is attributed to Karl Marx, George Hegel and Paulo Freire whose focus was on eradicating prejudice in the society (Lather, 2006). Unlike in the other two discussed above positions its investigation in matters of social integrity and it pursues to address the dogmatic, societal and financial issues which central to social repression, struggle and power assemblies at any levels that they may transpire (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The paradigm is also commonly known as transformative paradigm because of its role in altering the policies so as to be able to challenge social domination and mend the social impartiality in the overall. This paradigm is comparable to interpretivist paradigm in that it recognises that exploration is not worth free, it illustrates that research is all about actively challenging clarifications and standards in-order to bring about variation. The paradigm just like in interpretivism uses study approaches such as interviews and debates that tolerate association and they can be cautiously organized in such a way that there is no discrimination (Creswell, 2003).
The last paradigm is Pragmatic paradigm, this paradigm is different from all the other paradigms in that it advocates for mixed methods as a practical technique of understanding human performance. The philosophers that came up with it argued that a mono-paradigm orientation was not good enough, a world view that provides approaches of study that are viewed to be most suitable for reviewing the phenomena at hand is what is needed (Saunders et al., 2012). The most important and distinctive feature of this paradigm is that it rejects the distinction between realism and antirealism which is the major debate between positivism and interpretivism paradigms. Pragmatic paradigm advocates for an interpersonal epistemology meaning that relationships within a study are determined by what the researcher sees is right and appropriate for that study (Elliott & Lukes, 2008). The paradigm advocates for the exploitation of the best methods available as long as the method used is effective.
References
Cousin, G. (2005). Case study research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(3),
421–427.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dash, N. K. (2005). Module: Selection of the research paradigm and methodology. Retrieved
on November 9, 2018, from http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/index.php.
Elliott, J. and Lukes, D. (2008). Epistemology as ethics in research and policy: The use of
case studies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(S1), 87-119.
Hustler, D. (2005) in Goldbart, J. and Hustler, D., ‘Ethnography’. In Somekh, B. and Lewin,
- (eds). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in
education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2000). Positivists, post-positivists, post-structuralists, and post-
modernists: Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research, Ponte Vedra, Florida.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students”
6th edition, Pearson Education Limited
