A research paradigm is “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn, 1962)
According to Guba (1990), research paradigms can be characterised through their:
The diagram below explains the above terms and the relationship between them:
Your ontology and epistemology create a holistic view of how knowledge is viewed and how we can see ourselves in relation to this knowledge, and the methodological strategies we use to un/discover it. Awareness of philosophical assumptions will increase quality of research and can contribute to the creativity of the researcher. Furthermore, you will be asked about it in your viva and are expected to narrate it when you write up your research findings.
The table below (which I created) gives a more detailed overview of each paradigm (and contains subjectivism and critical too), and your own research paradigm could very well sit in between one of the paradigms. You could use a top down or a bottom up approach (Rebecca explains here) to decide where your research sits. In a bottom up approach, you decide on your research question, then you decide which methods, methodology, theoretical perspective you will approach your research from. In reality, I believe its probably neither strictly a top down or bottom up approach, you probably go back and forth till you find the right fit. I believe each research project would have a different research paradigm and hence a different theoretical perspective.
Table adapted from various sources, including Crotty (1998). Crotty left ontology out of his framework, and also didn’t include Pragmatism and Critical. But the assumptions underlying every piece of research are both ontological and epistemological.
According to Eddie, and quoting directly, most social science sits into the following:
“1. Experimental (Positivist), with a more realist ontology (i.e. reality is out there), with an empiricist epistemology (i.e. and I’ll gather sense data to find it);
2. Postmodernist constructivism, with a less realist ontology (i.e. reality is just a load of competing claims), and a constructivist epistemology (i.e. and I’ll analyse those competing accounts to explore it)
Applied, then to social psychology, it is important to understand the tension, throughout its history, between:
1. A more traditional experimental (quantitative) approach, which sees social reality as a set of facts to be known for all time by measuring people in the laboratory;
2. A more critical, discursive (qualitative) approach, which sees social reality as mutually constructed between people in the real world.”
However, I must add that pragmatism (and hence mixed methods research) is also being increasingly used in social sciences.
It will have a huge impact.
Texts I found useful:
Crotty, M., 1998. Foundations of social research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. p.256.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R., 2012. Management Research. [online] SAGE Publications. Available at: <https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Management_Research.html?id=ahbhMb-R7MQC&pgis=1> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].
Scotland, J., 2012. Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), pp.9–16.
Blog posts that were useful:
Assumptions of researchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gONyWHpSSWc
2000-2016 CMS Fadak. ||| Version : 4.2-b1 ||| This page was produced in : 0.006 Seconds