Content uploaded by Adil Abdul Rehman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adil Abdul Rehman on May 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Educational Investigations
Available online @ www.ijeionline.com
2016 (October), Vol.3, No.8: 51-59
ISSN: 2410-3446
51
An Introduction to Research Paradigms
Adil Abdul Rehman1* and Khalid Alharthi2
1. English Language Institute, King Abdualziz University, Jeddah, Jeddah, 21589, B. O Box 80200,
Saudi Arabia.
2. English Language Institute, King Abdualziz University, Jeddah, Jeddah, 21589, B. O Box 80200,
Saudi Arabia.
*Corresponding Email: aabdulrehman@kau.edu.sa
Abstract – The aim of this article is to provide a brief outline of different research paradigms.
It explores the philosophical underpinnings of three major paradigms: positivism,
interpretivism, and critical theory. The article starts with a brief description of the four
components of a research paradigm: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods.
This is followed by a detailed discussion of the three paradigms and what characterizes the
four components in each of the three paradigms. The article concludes by stating that
researchers can investigate different phenomena under any of the three paradigms and they
should not eschew the possibility of subscribing to different paradigms because of any
concerns that they have to be mutually exclusive. Instead, the decision of choosing a
philosophical outlook to investigate a phenomenon should be guided by the necessities and
requirements of a research study rather than the obdurate insistence of adhering to one
particular philosophical outlook to the exclusion of others.
Keywords: research paradigm, ontology, epistemology, methodology, positivism,
interpretivism, critical theory
1. INTRODUCTION
As researchers, we have to be able to understand and articulate beliefs about the nature of
reality, what can be known about it and how we go about attaining this knowledge. These are
elements of research paradigms. A paradigm is a basic belief system and theoretical framework
with assumptions about 1) ontology, 2) epistemology, 3) methodology and 4) methods. In other
words, it is our way of understanding the reality of the world and studying it. We will look
closely at the four components of a research paradigm.
1.1. Ontology
Ontology and epistemology are to research what ‘footings’ are to a house: they form the
foundations of the whole edifice. (Grix, 2004, p. 59)
Ontology refers to “the nature of our beliefs about reality” (Richards, 2003, p. 33).
Researchers have assumptions (sometimes implicit) about reality, how it exists and what can
be known about it. It is the ontological question that leads a researcher to inquire what kind of
Rehman & Alharthi
52
reality exists: “A singular, verifiable reality and truth [or] …. socially constructed multiple
realities” (Patton, 2002, p. 134).
1.2. Epistemology
Epistemology refers to “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and the
process by which knowledge is acquired and validated” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 13). It is
concerned with “the nature and forms [of knowledge], how it can be acquired and how
communicated to other human beings” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 7). It is the
epistemological question that leads a researcher to debate “the possibility and desirability of
objectivity, subjectivity, causality, validity, generalisability” (Patton, 2002, p. 134). Adhering
to an ontological belief system (explicitly or implicitly) guides one to certain epistemological
assumptions. Therefore, if a singular verifiable truth is assumed, “then the posture of the
knower must be one of objective detachment or value freedom in order to be able to discover
‘how things really are’ and ‘how things really work’” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108).
Conversely, belief in socially constructed multiple realities leads researchers to reject the
notion that people should be studied like objects of natural sciences; they get involved with the
subjects and try and understand phenomena in their contexts.
1.3. Methodology
Methodology is “an articulated, theoretically informed approach to the production of data”
(Ellen, 1984, p. 9). It refers to the study and critical analysis of data production techniques. It
is the “strategy, plan of action, process or design” that informs one’s choice of research
methods (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). It “is concerned with the discussion of how a particular piece of
research should be undertaken” (Grix, 2004, p. 32). It guides the researcher in deciding what
type of data is required for a study and which data collection tools will be most appropriate for
the purpose of his/her study. It is the methodological question that leads the researcher to ask
how the world should be studied.
1.4. Methods
Methods are specific means of collecting and analysing data, such as questionnaires and open
ended interviews. What methods to use for a research project will depend on the design of that
project and the researcher’s theoretical mindset. However, it must be noted that use of particular
methods does not entail ontological and epistemological assumptions.
2. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
We will now look at three different approaches to educational research: 1) Positivism 2)
Interpretivism 3) Critical theory. This is essential because as consumers of research, we have
to be able to look deeper into claims made by researchers who adhere to different research
paradigms. According to Patton (2002), “When researchers operate from different frameworks,
Rehman & Alharthi
53
their results will not be readily interpretable by or meaningful to each other” (p.134). Being
aware of a researcher’s ontological and epistemological beliefs (which are not always made
explicit but have to be deduced) will help us better understand the import and relevance of the
study. Furthermore, someone who is ideologically rooted in one research paradigm and
ignorant of the theoretical underpinnings and terminology of other research paradigms is not
in a good position to appraise research conducted under a different tradition.
2.1. Positivism
The term positivism refers to a branch of philosophy that rose to prominence during the early
nineteenth century because of the works of the French philosopher Auguste Comte (Richards,
2003, p. 37). Positivism assumes that reality exists independently of humans. It is not mediated
by our senses and it is governed by immutable laws. The ontological position of positivists is
that of realism. Positivists strive to understand the social world like the natural world. In nature,
there is a cause-effect relationship between phenomena, and once established, they can be
predicted with certainty in the future. For positivists, the same applies to the social world.
Because reality is context free, different researchers working in different times and places will
converge to the same conclusions about a given phenomenon. The epistemological position of
positivists is that of objectivism. Researchers come in as objective observers to study
phenomena that exist independently of them and they do not affect or disturb what is being
observed. They will use language and symbols to describe phenomena in their real form, as
they exist, without any interference whatsoever. As Hutchinson (1988) states, “Positivists view
the world as being ‘out there’, and available for study in a more or less static form” (cited in
Gall et al., 2003, p. 14). Positivists believe that there are laws governing social phenomena,
and by applying scientific methods, it is possible to formulate these laws and present them
through factual statements.
Many scholars have criticized the positivist approach (see Richards, 2003, p. 37). While
objective and scientific methods are appropriate for studying natural objects, they are not as
successful when they are applied on social phenomena. The complexity of laws governing
individuals, their idiosyncrasies, their relationship with each other, with institutions and with
society are in stark contrast with the order and regularity one finds in the natural world. The
positivist assumption that applying scientific methods to social phenomena will lead to
discovery of laws that govern them has been deemed “naïve” by Richards (2003, p.37) who
cites different researchers who go so far as to say that “Positivism is dead. By now, it has gone
off and is beginning to smell” and “It has become little more than a term of abuse” (Richards,
2003, p.37).
Criticism of the positivist paradigm lead to the emergence of post-positivism, which
“straddles both the positivist and interpretivist paradigms” (Grix, 2004, p. 86). Post-positivism
is an attempt to address the weaknesses of the positivist paradigm. The ontological position of
post-positivism is that of critical realism. It assumes a reality that exists independent of the
observer, but which can only be apprehended imperfectly because of the complexity of social
phenomena; it also recognizes the possibility of the researcher’s own beliefs and values
affecting what is being observed.
Rehman & Alharthi
54
Positivist methodology relies heavily on experimentation. Hypotheses are put forward in
propositional or question form about the causal relation between phenomena. Empirical
evidence is gathered; the mass of empirical evidence is then analysed and formulated in the
form of a theory that explains the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
The approach to analyzing data is deductive; first, a hypothesis is proposed, then it is either
confirmed or rejected depending on the results of statistical analysis. The purpose is to measure,
control, predict, construct laws and ascribe causality (Cohen et al., 2007). If it could be proved
that A caused B, then a theory will be formulated for wider applicability which will illustrate
the causal relation between A and B: ‘A causes B’ or ‘A leads to B’ etc. To be able to do this,
the researcher has to make sure that it was indeed A that caused B, not anything else. This calls
for manipulation because in the social world, there are always different factors that could lead
to a certain effect. For the theory to be robust, it has to be able to withstand efforts to refute it
empirically. To make sure no other variables caused the effect, positivist researchers try to
control extraneous variables, with two or more groups being subjected to the same conditions
with the only difference being the independent variable. Establishing causal relation between
phenomena without any interference from extraneous variables means that the experiment has
internal validity. However, that still leaves open to discussion the question of external validity.
The more rigorous the attempts of a researcher to control extraneous variables, the more effect
it has on generalisability. If the amount of control has created an environment that is nearly
impossible to find in a real world situation, the results of the experiment could be meaningless.
Positivist research often generates numerical data. Gall et al. (2003) sum this up cogently
when they say:
The use of quantification to represent and analyze features of social reality is consistent with
positivist epistemology. Because this epistemology assumes that features of social reality
have a constancy across time and settings, a particular feature can be isolated and it can be
conceptualized as a variable, that is, as an entity that can take on different values. These
values can be expressed as numerical scales. (pp. 19-20)
The quantitative data that positivist researchers use to answer research questions and
formulate theories can be collected through true experiments or less rigorous quasi-
experiments, standardized tests and large or small scale surveys using closed ended
questionnaires. The numeric data that are generated through these methods are subjected to
descriptive or inferential statistical analysis.
According to the positivist approach, research is deemed to be of good quality if it has a)
internal validity b) external validity c) reliability d) objectivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). If the
researcher proves that it is the independent variable (and not other variables) that had an effect
on the dependent variable, the study is considered to have internal validity. If the results thus
arrived at are generalizable, it has external validity. If different researchers conduct the study
in different times, places and contexts and arrive at the same results, it has reliability. If
researchers study phenomena without contaminating their apprehension, they are considered
to be objective.
The positivist paradigm has been widely criticized by interpretivists and critical theorists
(See Gage, 2007; Richards, 2003). One of the most commonly repeated criticisms is that
Rehman & Alharthi
55
scientific methods, though appropriate for studying natural phenomena, fall short when they
are used to study individuals and social phenomena (Gage, 2007; Gall et al., 2003; Grix, 2004;
Richards, 2003). Although this criticism is not without merit, one must remember that
sometimes, those leveling this criticism at positivism might have different worldviews. As
Hughes and Sharrock (1997) point out, “The critics of positivist social science… like all critics
have a tendency to present a picture of the opposition, in this case positivism, as if it were not
only stupid but without any subtlety and variety” (p.24). Anti-positivists, for all their criticisms,
“have never been able to formulate an alternative conception that answers the most important
questions” (House, 1991, p. 3). Despite the barrage of criticism from anti-positivists, there has
been no decline in positivistic research in education and some positivist researchers have
“awakened from their torpor in responding to criticism and began to reply, point by point”
(Gage, 2007, p. 6). Grix (2004) outlines the reasons for this most cogently:
The attractiveness of an approach seeking the precision, exactitude and power of prediction
promised by the natural sciences is understandable. The human sciences can be messy,
people unpredictable and factors leading to events hard to unravel. Positivism attempts to
overcome this messiness by seeking rules and laws with which to render the social world
understandable. (pp. 81-82)
2.2. Interpretivism
Interpretivism is a “response to the over-dominance of positivism” (Grix, 2004, p. 82).
Interpretivism rejects the notion that a single, verifiable reality exists independent of our senses.
Interpretive ontology is anti-foundationalist. It refuses “to adopt any permanent, unvarying (or
foundational) standards by which truth can be universally known” (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p.
204). Instead, interpretivists believe in socially constructed multiple realities. Truth and reality
are created, not discovered. It is not possible to know reality as it is because it is always
mediated by our senses. Interpretive epistemology is subjective. External reality cannot be
directly accessible to observers without being contaminated by their worldviews, concepts,
backgrounds etc. As Flick states, “Perception is seen not as a passive-receptive process of
representation but as an active constructive process of production” (2004, p.89). Individuals
interact with other individuals and society and ascribe meaning and names to different social
phenomena.
According to Grix (2004), “researchers are inextricably part of the social reality being
researched, i.e. they are not ‘detached’ from the subject they are studying” (p.83). In the case
of different well-argued interpretations about one phenomena, one interpretation is not chosen
or preferred over others as the “correct” one but the existence of multiple knowledges is
accepted with the acknowledgement that different researchers bring different perspectives to
the same issue. The goal of interpretive research is not to discover universal, context and value
free knowledge and truth but to try to understand the interpretations of individuals about the
social phenomena they interact with. This concept of knowledge is an inevitable corollary of
interpretive ontology. If one believes in multiple socially constructed realities, it follows that
these realities are approached from different angles by different people. As Blaikie (2000)
states:
Rehman & Alharthi
56
Social researchers can only collect data from some point of view, by making ‘observations’
through spectacles with lenses that are shaped and colored by the researcher’s language,
culture, discipline-based knowledge, past experiences (professional and lay), and
experiences that follow from these… Therefore, there will always be a gap of some kind
between the data that are collected and the reality that they are supposed to represent. (p.
120)
Interpretive methodology requires that social phenomena be understood “through the eyes of
the participants rather than the researcher” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 21). The goal of interpretive
methodology is to understand social phenomena in their context. Interpretivists collect mostly
qualitative data from participants over an extended period of time, as in ethnography and case
studies. The approach to analyzing data thus generated is inductive, i.e. the researcher tries to
discover patterns in the data which are collapsed under broad themes to understand a
phenomenon and generate theory. This is the polar opposite of the deductive approach, in
which researchers start off by identifying patterns and themes before starting the data collection
process; once data is collected, researchers would search through the data for words, statements
and events which are instances of the pre-identified patterns and themes. Interpretivists use the
inductive approach instead of the deductive approach because “they tend to see theory as
deriving from data collection and not as the driving force of research” (Grix, 2004, p. 108).
Data is mostly verbal instead of statistical and it is usually audio/video recorded to “preserve
the events in a fairly authentic manner for subsequent data analysis” (Gall et al., 2003, p. 21).
Interpretive researchers employ methods that generate qualitative data, and although
numerical data could be involved, they are not relied upon. Examples of data collection
methods that yield qualitative data include: open ended interviews with varying degrees of
structure (standardized open-ended interviews, semi-standardized open ended interviews, and
informal conversational interview), observations, filed notes, personal notes, documents etc.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) have proposed a set of criteria to judge the trustworthiness of
interpretive research. Research is considered to be of good quality if it has credibility (internal
validity), transferability (external validity), dependability (reliability) and confirmability
(objectivity) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.114). If researchers are honest and conscientious in
their efforts for approximation to truth, the results hold resonance for people in other contexts
and the steps and methods of the study are described in detail, then study has elements of the
quality criteria proposed by Guba and Lincoln.
The interpretive paradigm has been criticized for, among other things, being “soft”,
incapable of yielding theories that could be generalized to larger populations and the
involvement of the researcher with participants which leads to lack of objectivity (Grix, 2004).
Richards (2003) disagrees and states that qualitative inquiry is not “soft… it demands rigour,
precision, systematicity, and careful attention to detail” (p.6). Although positivist research has
its merits, there are social phenomena that could be best investigated under the interpretive
paradigm. Surveys, closed ended questionnaires and lists of numbers alone are sometimes not
the best option because “they are not designed to explore the complexities and conundrums of
the immensely complicated social world that we inhabit” (Richards, 2003, p. 6).
Rehman & Alharthi
57
2.3. Critical Theory
Critical theory originates from the works of a group of twentieth century authors who were
affiliated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt, hence the name
‘the Frankfurt School’. They include Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer,
Erich Fromm and later Jürgen Habermas. The ontological position of critical theorists is that
of historical realism. It is assumed that a reality exists, but it has been shaped by cultural,
political, ethnic, gender and religious factors which interact with each other to create a social
system. Epistemologically, critical theory is subjective in that it is assumed that no object can
be researched without being affected by the researcher. Critical educational researchers try to
be self-conscious of their own epistemological presuppositions and communicate them clearly
when entering into an investigation so “no one is confused concerning the epistemological and
political baggage they bring with them to the research site” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005, pp.
305-306).
Knowledge endorsed by those in power (politically or educationally) is to be viewed
critically. The rules that legitimatize some bodies of knowledge and delegitimize others should
be questioned. In the words of Kincheloe (2008), we should ask ourselves: “How did I get
stuck with this body of knowledge and these lenses through which to see the world?” (p.21).
The aim of critical educational research is not merely to explain or understand society
but to change it (Patton, 2002). It is critical of both interpretive and positivist approaches to
research because they are regarded to be “enmeshed in dominant ideology… neither has an
interest in changing the world, and neither has an emancipatory goal” (Scott & Usher, 2000, p.
35). Instead of generating knowledge of the social world as it exists and perpetuate knowledge
status quo (Kincheloe, 2008), critical researchers endeavor to bring to light the beliefs and
actions that limit human freedom with the ultimate aim of transforming the situation. The task
of critical educational researchers is to confront those in positions of power and expose the
oppressive structures that subjugate people and create inequality. According to Guba and
Lincoln (1994), “The inquirer is cast in the role of instigator and facilitator” (p.113).
Critical methodology is dialogic and dialectical (Guba & Lincoln, 1994); it requires the
investigator to engage the subjects in dialogue with the aim of bringing about a change in their
outlook on social systems that keep them deprived of intellectual and social needs. To prevent
the possibility of the participants being marginalized, researchers use a collaborative approach
and engage the subjects in formulating questions, data collection and analysis etc. The
transformation of social systems that are built on injustice and discrimination could be achieved
by the methodologies employed by critical educational researchers: critical ethnography,
critical discourse analysis, action research, ideology critique, etc. Critical ethnography is
aimed at probing and criticizing taken for granted assumptions about race, culture, gender,
economy, politics etc. to change awareness. In critical discourse analysis, analysts set out to
study how the powerful use language to maintain their authority. According to Gall et al.
(2003), “An individual’s awareness is both expanded and constrained by the language that is
available to the individual for encoding his experience” (p.497). Therefore, it is possible to
control awareness by controlling language. Action research refers to ways of investigating an
immediate problem by identifying a problem, planning an intervention, implementing the plan,
Rehman & Alharthi
58
observing the changes and reflecting on the changes observed (Richards, 2003). Ideology
critique exposes values and practices that aim to keep people subjugated.
In critical research, mostly qualitative data is generated, although quantitative data could
also be used. Examples of qualitative data collection methods are mentioned under the
interpretive paradigm.
Critical research is deemed to be of good quality if it takes into account the political,
cultural, ethnic and gender antecedents of the situation. Another criterion for quality critical
research is the degree to which the subjects’ misapprehensions about the dominant ideology
and status quo are exposed and the degree to which it facilitates “action designed to redress the
unequal and oppressive structures that have now been exposed” (Richards, 2003, p. 40).
3. CONCLUSION
Nathaniel Gage (1989) went so far as to call the discussions and disagreements between
adherents of different educational research approaches ‘the paradigm wars’. Guba and Lincoln
(1994) considered this description overdrawn because it painted the matter as more
confrontational than it actually was. Personally, we do not agree with the view that the three
paradigms should be treated as three religions: that adherence to one paradigm makes one a
heretic according to the lenses of the adherents of other paradigms. This fanatical view would
also preclude the possibility of mixing any elements of different paradigms because they are
‘incompatible’. One should choose methods and methodology which one finds most suitable
for investigating the phenomena one sets out to investigate. We do not believe that one should
distort one’s own outlook to force oneself to abide by the creed of a philosophical or
methodological tradition just to avert the threat or accusation of ‘intellectual
excommunication’.
REFERENCES
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellen, R. F. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Flick, U. (2004). Constructivism. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A
companion to qualitative research (pp. 88–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gage, N. (2007). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A historical sketch of research on
teaching since 1989. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research and Evidence-
based Practice (pp. 151–166). London, England: Sage.
Rehman & Alharthi
59
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 163–194).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, E. R. (1991). Realism in research. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–9.
Hughes, J. A., & Sharrock, W. W. W. (1997). The philosophy of social research. London,
England: Longman.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy. London, England: Springer.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed., pp. 303–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scott, D., & Usher, R. (2010). Researching Education (2nd ed.). London, England: Continuum.
