Paradigm 3

8/10/2019 Paradigm 3

1/24

Educational research is essentially concerned with exploring and understanding social phenomenawhich are educational in nature, mainly pertaining to formalized and/or spontaneously occurringsocial, cultural, psychological processes which could be termed as education. In doing so, it deals witheducational questions that can be investigated in a satisfactory manner, and the methods which enablesuch satisfactory investigation and the utility of results emanating from such investigation (Dash,1993). Since theoretical questions in education emerge from different conceptions and interpretationsof social reality, different paradigms have been evolved to determine the criteria according to whichone would select and define problems for inquiry. Thomas Kuhn who is known for the term paradigm,characterizes a paradigm as: An integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problemsattached with corresponding methodological approaches and toolsFor further clarification see thisarticle by Frank Pajares of Emory University.

During the past century, different paradigms have taken birth due to the remarkable growth in socialsciences research. There are mainly two paradigms to the verification of theoretical propositions, i.e.positivism and anti-positivism (or naturalistic inquiry).

PositivismThe positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the philosophical ideas of the Frenchphilosopher August Comte, who emphasized observation and reason as means of understanding human

behaviour. According to him, true knowledge is based on experience of senses and can be obtained byobservation and experiment. Positivistic thinkers adopt his scientific method as a means of knowledgegeneration. Hence, it has to be understood within the framework of the principles and assumptions ofscience. These assumptions, as Conen et al (2000) noted, are determinism, empiricism, parsimony, andgenerality.

Determinism means that events are caused by other circumstances; and hence, understanding suchcasual links are necessary for prediction and control. Empiricism means collection of verifiableempirical evidences in support of theories or hypotheses. Parsimony refers to the explanation of thephenomena in the most economic way possible. Generality is the process of generalizing theobservation of the particular phenomenon to the world at large. With these assumptions of science, theultimate goal of science is to integrate and systematise findings into a meaningful pattern or theorywhich is regarded as tentative and not the ultimate truth. Theory is subject to revision or modificationas new evidence is found. Positivistic paradigm thus systematizes the knowledge generation process

with the help of quantification, which is essential y to enhance precision in the description ofparameters and the discernment of the relationship among them. The examples of positivist paradigmand quantitative approach are provided in Table 1 at the end.

Although positivistic paradigm continued to influence educational research for a long time in the laterhalf of the twentieth century, it was criticized due to its lack of regard for the subjective states ofindividuals. It regards human behaviour as passive, controlled and determined by externalenvironment. Hence human beings are dehumanized without their intention, individualism and freedomtaken 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 toanti-positivism or naturalistic inquiry.

Anti-positivism

Anti-positivism emphasizes that social reality is viewed and interpreted by the individual herselfaccording to the ideological positions she possesses. Therefore, knowledge is person all y experiencedrather 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 aphenomenon is such that the concern is to probe into the various unexplored dimensions of aphenomenon rather than establishing specific relationship among the components, as it happens in thecase of positivism.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.htmlhttp://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.htmlhttp://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.htmlhttp://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.htmlhttp://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.htmlhttp://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html


2/24

Anti-positivism is marked by three schools of thought in the social science research. Thesearephenomenology,ethnomethodologyand symbolicinteractionism. All the three schools of thoughtemphasise human interaction with phenomena in their daily lives, and suggest qualitative rather thanquantitative approach to social inquiry.

Phenomenology is a theoretical view point which believes that individual behaviour is determined bythe experience gained out of ones 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. Duringinteraction with various phenomena, human beings interpret them and attach meanings to differentactions and or ideas and thereby construct new experiences. Therefore, the researcher has to developempathic understanding to know the process of interpretation by individuals so that she can reproducein her mind feelings, motives and thoughts that are behind the action of others.

Ethnomethodology, an approach of phenomenological sociology, was developed by Harold Garfinkeland his fellow ethnomethodologists. It deals with the world of everyday life. According toenthomethodologists, theoretical concerns centres around the process by which common sense realityis constructed in everyday face-to-face interaction. This approach studies the process by which peopleinvoke certain take-for-granted rules about behaviour which they interpret in an interactive situationand make it meaningful. They are mainly interested in the interpretation people use to make sense ofsocial settings.

The school of thought for symbolic interactionism was pioneered by Dewey, Cooley and Mead amongothers. It basic all y emphasizes the understanding and interpretation of interactions that take placebetween human beings. The peculiarity of this approach is that human beings interpret anddefineeach others actions instead of merelyreactingto each others actions. Human interaction inthe social world is mediated by the use of symbols like language, which help human beings to givemeaning to objects. Symbolic interactionists, therefore, claim that by only concentrating attention onindividuals capacity to create symbolic all y meaningful objects in the world, human interaction andresulting patterns of social organizations can be understood. As a result, not only human beings changethemselves through interaction, but also bring in change in societies.

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

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

Critical theorists like Habermas were critical of the earlier paradigms as they were not tuned toquestion or transform the existing situation. He developed theories which were built on a typology ofinterest. 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 anddomination.

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


3/24

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 ofknowledge 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 simplyartificial to reduce these to three interests (Cohen et al, 2000).

Research paradigms and research methodsEach of the paradigms discussed above has definite research methods which can be used in carrying outscientific investigation.

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

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

Similarly, critical theory suggests ideology critique and action research as research methods to explorethe 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 topositivism, anti-positivism, and critical theory; and choose the appropriate methodology accordingly.

For a concrete understanding of research paradigms vis--vis selection of research methods, please seeTable1.

Table 1: Selection of research paradigms and research methods

Researchparadigms

Researchapproach

Research methods Examples

Positivism Quantitative Surveys:

longitudinal,

cross-sectional, correlational;

experimental, and

quasi-experimental and

ex-post facto research

- Attitude of distance learners towardsonline based education

- Relationship between studentsmotivation and their academicachievement.

- Effect of intelligence on the academicperformances of primary school learners

Anti-positivism Qualitative Biographical;Phenomenological;

Ethnographical;

case study

- A study of autobiography of a greatstatesman.

- A study of dropout among the femalestudents

- A case study of a open distance learningInstitution in a country.

Critical theory Critical andaction-oriented

Ideology critique;

action research

- A study of development of educationduring the British rule in India

- Absenteism among standard five


4/24

students of a primary school

Although, each of the paradigms has corresponding approaches and research methods, still aresearcher may adopt research methods cutting across research paradigms as per the researchquestions she proposes to answer.

ReferencesCohen, Louis; Lawrence, Manion and Morrison, Keith (2000). Research Methods in Education(5 th Ed.).London .

Dash, N.K. (1993). Research Paradigms in Education: Towards a Resolution.Journal of IndianEducation19(2), pp1-6.

Habermas, J. (1970). Knowledge and Human Interests(J. Shapiro.Trans.). London : Heinemann.

Keat, R. (1981). The Politics of Social Theory. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution.Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Lakomski, G. (1999). Critical theory. In J. P. Keeves and G. Lakomoki (Eds.). Issues in EducationalResearch. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 174-82.

http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/

Webster Dictionary defines paradigm as "an example or pattern: small, self-contained,

simplified examples that we use to illustrate procedures, processes, and theoretical

points." The most quoted definition of paradigm is Thomas Kuhn's (1962, 1970)

concept in The Nature of Science Revolution, i.e. paradigm as the underlying

assumptions and intellectual structure upon which research and development in a field

of inquiry is based. The other definitions in the research literature include:

1. Patton (1990): A paradigm is a world view, a general perspective, a way ofbreaking down the complexity of the real world.

2. Paradigm is an interpretative framework, which is guided by "a set of beliefsand feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied."

(Guba, 1990). Denzin and Lincoln (2001) listed three categories of those

beliefs:
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/


5/24

Ontology: what kind of being is the human being. Ontology deals with the

question of what is real.

Epistemology: what is the relationship between the inquirer and the known:

"epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge

and the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated" (Gall, Borg, &

Gall, 1996) Methodology: how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?

When challenging the assumptions underlying positivism, Lincoln and Guba (2000)

also identified two more categories that will distinguish different paradigms, i.e.

beliefs in causality and oxiology. The assumptions of causality asserts the position of

the nature and possibility of causal relationship; oxiology deals with the issues about

value. Specific assumptions about research include the role of value in research, how

to avoid value from influencing research, and how best to use research products

(Baptiste, 2000).

Dill and Romiszowski (1997) stated the functions of paradigms as follows:

Define how the world works, how knowledge is extracted from this world, and

how one is to think, write, and talk about this knowledge

Define the types of questions to be asked and the methodologies to be used in

answering

Decide what is published and what is not published

Structure the world of the academic worker

Provide its meaning and its significance

Two major philosophical doctrines in the social science inquiry are positivism and

postpositivism. The following is a contrast of the research approach that are entailed

from these two different philosophical paradigms.

Positivism Postpostivism

Philosophical

Inquiry

The physical andsocial reality is

independent of those

who observe it Observation of this

reality, if unbiased,

constitutes scientific

knowledge. Behavioral researchers

in education and

psychology exemplify

an approach to

scientific inquiry that

is grounded in

Social reality is constructed bythe individuals who participate

it. It is constructed differently by

different individuals. This view of social reality is

consistent with the constructivist

movement in cognitive

psychology, which posts that

individuals gradually build their

own understandings of the world

through experience and

maturation. The mind is not tabula rasa


6/24


7/24

of them: hypothesis

testing

View ofcausality

A mechanisticcausality among social

objects

Individuals' interpretation ofsituations cause them to take

certain actions

Lincoln and Guba (2000) made the following distinctions between positivist and

naturalist inquiries.

Positivist NaturalistReality is single, tangible, and

fragmentable.

Realities are multiple, constructed,

and holistic.

Dualism: the knower and the

known are independent.

The knower and the known are

interactive and inseparable.

Time and context free

generalization

Only time-and context-bound

working hypotheses are possible.

Real causes, temporally

precedent to or simultaneouswith their effects (causal

relationship)

All entities are in a state of mutual

simultaneous shaping, so that it isimpossible to distinguish causes

from effects.Inquiry is value free. Inquiry is value bounded.

References:


8/24


9/24

considerable literature to support the use of mixed methods. The authors review

current research literature and discuss some of the language, which can prove

confusing to the early career researcher and problematic for post-graduate

supervisors and teachers of research. The authors argue that discussions of research

methods in research texts and university courses should include mixed methods and

should address the perceived dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative

research methodology.

Introduction

Social scientists have come to abandon the spurious choice between qualitative and

quantitative data; they are concerned rather with that combination of both whichmakes use of the most valuable features of each. The problem becomes one of

determining at which points he [sic] should adopt the one, and at which the other,

approach (Merton & Kendall, 1946, pp.556-557).

Given that the qualitative/quantitative debate has been discussed for half a century

you could be forgiven for questioning the need for another article, which includes

this topic. However, many university courses and research texts continue to discuss

research in terms of 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' methods. When research is

described in such terms, confusion may be created for the undergraduate student,

first time or early career researcher. The research process is already a daunting

prospect to the inexperienced researcher and the ongoing debate and contradictory

information adds to the confusion. This is further exacerbated by laypeople that

continually ask researchers whether their research is qualitative or quantitative. By

writing this article, the authors aim to assist first time and early career researchers

make considered decisions about the type of study they may undertake, the process

involved in undertaking a research project and the debates in the literature

surrounding theoretical frameworks underpinning research. Associated definitions

and constructs will also be discussed.

This article begins with a discussion of research paradigms, providing definitions and

discussion of the role of paradigms in educational research. Paradigms receive varied

attention in research texts. The role of the paradigm can, therefore, appear somewhat


10/24

mysterious. It is, therefore, a priority of this article to 'demystify' the role of paradigms

in research. The article then moves to a discussion of methodology as it relates to the

research paradigm. In some research discussions methodology appears to be central

and may even be seen to replace what is in effect the pre-ordinate role of the

paradigm. In this article the authors discuss how the research paradigm and

methodology work together to form a research study. The qualitative, quantitative andmixed methods debate is then discussed as it pertains to the decisions that need to be

made by the researcher. A diagram is provided to show the 'research journey' although

the authors acknowledge that the research process is more cyclical than linear. More

than 40 widely available research texts were reviewed during the preparation of this

article, with particular attention given to the treatment of paradigms, methods and

methodology.

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, p.2).

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


11/24

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. Definitions of some of the more common paradigms referred to in

research texts follow.

Postpositivist (and positivist) paradigm

Positivism is sometimes referred to as 'scientific method' or 'science research', is

"based on the rationalistic, empiricist philosophy that originated with Aristotle,

Francis Bacon, John Locke, August Comte, and Emmanuel Kant" (Mertens, 2005, p.8)

and "reflects a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects

or outcomes" (Creswell, 2003, p.7). Positivism may be applied to the social world on

the assumption that "the social world can be studied in the same way as the natural

world, that there is a method for studying the social world that is value free, and that

explanations of a causal nature can be provided" (Mertens, 2005, p.8). Positivists aim

to test a theory or describe an experience "through observation and measurement in

order to predict and control forces that surround us" (O'Leary, 2004, p.5). Positivism

was replaced after World War II (Mertens, 2005) by postpositivism. Postpositivists

work from the assumption that any piece of research is influenced by a number of

well-developed theories apart from, and as well as, the one which is being tested


12/24

(Cook & Campbell, 1979, p.24). Also, since Thomas Khun, (1962) theories are held to

be provisional and new understandings may challenge the whole theoretical

framework. In contrast, O'Leary (2004), provides a definition of postpositivism which

aligns in some sense with the constructivist paradigm claiming that postpositivists

see the world as ambiguous, variable and multiple in its realities - "what might be the

truth for one person or cultural group may not be the "truth" for another" (p.6).

O'Leary (2004) suggests that postpositivism is intuitive and holistic, inductive and

exploratory with findings that are qualitative in nature (pp.6-7). This definition of

postpositivism seems to be in conflict with the more widely used definition provided

by Mertens (2005). Positivists and postpositivist research is most commonly aligned

with quantitative methods of data collection and analysis.

Interpretivist/constructivist paradigmThe interpretivist/constructivist paradigm grew out of the philosophy of Edmund

Husserl's phenomenology and Wilhelm Dilthey's and other German philosophers'

study of interpretive understanding called hermeneutics (Mertens, 2005, p.12 citing

Eichelberger, 1989). Interpretivist/constructivist approaches to research have the

intention of understanding "the world of human experience" (Cohen & Manion,

1994, p.36), suggesting that "reality is socially constructed" (Mertens, 2005, p.12).

The interpretivist/constructivist researcher tends to rely upon the "participants'

views of the situation being studied" (Creswell, 2003, p.8) and recognises the impact

on the research of their own background and experiences. Constructivists do not

generally begin with a theory (as with postpositivists) rather they "generate or

inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings" (Creswell, 2003, p.9)

throughout the research process. The constructivist researcher is most likely to rely

on qualitative data collection methods and analysis or a combination of both

qualitative and quantitative methods (mixed methods). Quantitative data may be

utilised in a way, which supports or expands upon qualitative data and effectively

deepens the description.

Transformative paradigm

According to Mertens (2005) the transformative paradigm arose during the 1980s

and 1990s partially due to dissatisfaction with the existing and dominant research

paradigms and practices but also because of a realisation that much sociological and

psychological theory which lay behind the dominant paradigms "had been developed


13/24

from the white, able-bodied male perspective and was based on the study of male

subjects" (Mertens, 2005 p.17). Transformative researchers felt that the

interpretivist/constructivist approach to research did not adequately address issues

of social justice and marginalised peoples (Creswell, 2003, p.9). Transformative

researchers "believe that inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political

agenda" (Creswell, 2003, p.9) and contain an action agenda for reform "that may

change the lives of the participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live,

and the researcher's life" (Creswell, 2003, pp.9-10). Transformative researchers may

utilise qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods in much the

same way as the interpretivist/constructivists. However, a mixed methods approach

provides the transformative researcher structure for the development of "more

complete and full portraits of our social world through the use of multiple

perspectives and lenses" (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p.275), allowing for an

understanding of "greater diversity of values, stances and positions" (Somekh &

Lewin, 2005, p.275).

Pragmatic paradigm

Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy or reality. Pragmatist

researchers focus on the 'what' and 'how' of the research problem (Creswell, 2003,

p.11). Early pragmatists "rejected the scientific notion that social inquiry was able to

access the 'truth' about the real world solely by virtue of a single scientific method"

(Mertens, 2005, p.26). While pragmatism is seen as the paradigm that provides the

underlying philosophical framework for mixed-methods research (Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2003; Somekh & Lewin, 2005) some mixed-methods researchers align

themselves philosophically with the transformative paradigm (Mertens, 2005). It

may be said, however, that mixed methods could be used with any paradigm. The

pragmatic paradigm places "the research problem" as central and applies all

approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003, p.11). With the research

question 'central', data collection and analysis methods are chosen as those most

likely to provide insights into the question with no philosophical loyalty to any

alternative paradigm.

Paradigm language


14/24

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

termsmethodologyormethod,some texts use the terms interchangeably and others

use them as having different meanings. According to the Macquarie Dictionary (3rd

Ed)methodologyis

the science of methods, especially:a.a branch of logic dealing with the logical

principles underlying the organisation of the various special sciences, and the

conduct of scientific inquiry.b.Educationa branch of pedagogics concerned with the

analysis and evaluation of subject matter and methods of teaching (p.718).

Table 1:Paradigms: Language commonly associated with major research paradigms

Positivist/ PostpositivistInterpretivist/

ConstructivistTransformative Pragmatic

Experimental

Quasi-experimental

Correlational

ReductionismTheory verification

Causal comparative

Determination

Normative

Naturalistic

Phenomenological

Hermeneutic

InterpretivistEthnographic

Multiple participant

meanings

Social and historical

construction

Theory generation

Critical theory

Neo-marxist

Feminist

Critical Race TheoryFreirean

Participatory

Emancipatory

Advocacy

Grand Narrative

Empowerment issue

Consequences of

actions

Problem-centred

PluralisticReal-world practice

oriented

Mixed models


15/24

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" (p.35). The most common definitions

suggest thatmethodologyis the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or

theoretical framework while themethodrefers 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, p.12). Likewise the

transformative paradigm allows for the application of both qualitative andquantitative 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, p.46) applying

data collected and analysed using qualitative methods. Poststructuralists emphasise

the local nature of knowledge placing strict limits on the validity of the knowledge


16/24

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/

Postpositivist

Quantitative. "Although qualitative methods

can be used within this paradigm,

quantitative methods tend to be

predominant . . ." (Mertens, 2005, p. 12)

Experiments

Quasi-experiments

Tests

Scales

Interpretivist/

Constructivist

Qualitative methods predominate although

quantitative methods may also be utilised.

Interviews

Observations

Document reviewsVisual data analysis

Transformative Qualitative methods with quantitative and

mixed methods. Contextual and historical

factors described, especially as they relate to

oppression(Mertens, 2005, p. 9)

Diverse range of tools - particular

need to avoid discrimination. Eg:

sexism, racism, and homophobia.

Pragmatic Qualitative and/or quantitative methods may

be employed. Methods are matched to the

specific questions and purpose of theresearch.

May include tools from both

positivist and interpretivist

paradigms. Eg 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 methodsrather 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?


17/24

In the literature the termsqualitativeandquantitativeare 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, p. 12).

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 utilise 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 (p.99).

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 (see Table 1) 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


18/24

research paradigms, which proceed from different premises, leading to and seeking

different outcomes (Wiersma, 2000). According to Mertens (2005, p.7) a

"researcher's theoretical orientation has implications for every decision made in the

research process, including the choice of method" (pp.3-4).

Educational research traditionally followed the empirical "objective scientific model"

(Burns, 1997, p.3) which utilised 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" (p.3) 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, p.3).

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, p.20).

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" (p.7) with research strengthened by the use of a variety of

methods. Gorard (2004) argues that mixed method research "requires a greater level

of skill" (p.7), "can lead to less waste of potentially useful information" (p.7), "creates

researchers with an increased ability to make appropriate criticisms of all types of

research" (p. 7) 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 (p.7).

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


19/24

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).

The research process

While this article does not suggest that research projects ever follow a neat linear

path, the steps and decisions made by the researcher may look something like Figure

1, which has been used to situate paradigms, methodology and data collection tools

within the research process. Although represented in a linear fashion in the diagram,

the process is more realistically cyclical with the researcher returning to earlier steps

while at the same time moving ahead to later steps. As the research progresses

changes may be made that could be subtle or significant.

Discussion

In this article the authors have exposed the various approaches undertaken by many

writing in the field through a review of research books. In this review it has been

found that many writers fail to adequately define research terminology and

sometimes use terminology in a way that is not compatible in its intent, omitting

significant concepts and leaving the reader with only part of the picture. Texts are

sometimes structured in a way that does not provide a clear path to information

terms and major concepts crucial to assist those undertaking the research process

especially for the first time. The research process for early career researchers can be

a complex task which may be compounded by text books (and university courses)

which fail to adequately substantiate the difficulties of the process, fail to explore

the role of the research paradigm and perpetuate a perceived and unhelpful

dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methodology despite the plethora

of research which is now combining the two. The role of the paradigm is paramount


20/24

to the choice of methodology and yet this is not addressed effectively in many of the

research texts reviewed. Wider acceptance and employment of mixed method

research can only enrich and strengthen educational research through the

application of qualitative and quantitative methods in complementary ways and

should therefore be clearly described and explored within research texts. Mixed

method is itself a statement of what could be, rather than a groundbreaking notion,

especially in the instance of educational research. Mixed method, like all research

approaches, needs to be viewed through a critical lens while at the same time

recognising as valid its contribution to the field of research. Research books are

designed to assist students and researchers in understanding the research process

but instead many are baffling readers and adding to confusion and misconceptions.


21/24


22/24

Figure 1:A research journey

Acknowledgement

Dr Noella Mackenzie would like to acknowledge the Writing Up Award, which she

received from the Research and Graduate Studies Unit, Charles Sturt University. This

award allowed Dr Mackenzie access to the time needed to write this article.

References

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklin S.K. (1998).Qualitative research for education: An introduction

to theory and methods.(3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Burns, R.B. (1997).Introduction to research methods.(3rd ed.) Australia: Longman.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994).Research methods in education.(4th ed.) London:

Routledge.

Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979).Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues

for field settings.Houghton Mifflin: Boston.

Creswell, J.W. (2003).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches.(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992).Becoming qualitative researchers.Thousand Oaks:Sage.

Gorard, G. (2004).Combining methods in educational and social research.Berkshire:

Open University Press.

Khun, T. (1962).The structure of scientific revolution.Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1993).Methods of educational and social science research: An

integrated approach.New York: Longman.

Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2005).A handbook for teacher research from design to

implementation.New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe S.A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001).Doing Early Childhood

Research: International perspectives on theory and practice.Australia: Allen &

Unwin.


23/24

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006).Research in Education.(6th ed.) Boston:

Pearson Education.

Mertens, D.M. (2005).Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches.(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Merton, R.K., & Kendall, P.L. (1946). The focused interview.The American Journal

of Sociology,51, 6, 541-557.

Neuman, (2000).Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative

approaches.(4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

O'Leary, Z. (2004).The essential guide to doing research.London: Sage.

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005).Research methods in the social sciences.ThousandOaks: Sage.

Schram, T. (2006).Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research.(2nd ed.)

New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Silverman, D. (2000).Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook.London,

Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005).Research methods in social sciences.London: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003).Handbook of mixed methods in social and

behavioural research.London: Cassell.

Thomas, R. M. (2003).Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in

theses and dissertations.Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc, A Sage

Publications Company.

Walter, M. (2006).Social Science methods: an Australian perspective.Oxford, New

York: Oxford University Press.

Wiersma, W. (2000).Research methods in education: An introduction.(7th ed.)

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Authors:Dr Noella Mackenzie, Murray School of Education, Charles Sturt University. Email:

[email protected]


24/24

Dr Sally Knipe, Murray School of Education, Charles Sturt University. Email: [email protected]

Please cite as:Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and

methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

[Contents Vol 16] [IIER Home]

2006 Issues In Educational Research. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

Created 14 Oct 2006. Last correction: 19 Jul 2009.

HTML: Clare McBeath[[email protected]]and Roger Atkinson[[email protected]]

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/2006conts.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier16/2006conts.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier16/2006conts.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.iier.org.au/iier.htmlhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier16/2006conts.html

Documents

Paradigm 3