Paradigm As A Research Paradigm

Positivism and interpretivism are two approaches of interpreting social reality, that each employ different methods of research and data collection to better help understand the study of human lived experiences. The positivist-interpretivist debate revolves around the ways in which human behavior should be conceptualized and studied (Pruss 1996: 4). Positivism is the most widely practiced research approach in social science, which regards the nature of social reality independent of consciousness. Positivists believe social reality can be studied independently from the researcher and that social life can be represented using numbers that according to positivists reveal features of social reality. On the other hand, interpretivists favor partipcant observation, interviews and social interaction where the researcher immerses into the informant’s reality to gain knowledge of their everyday human lived experiences.

This is a critical review of Fekede Tuli’s paper titled “The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social Science: Reflection on Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Perspectives”. This work looks at Fekede’s publication with the view of showing how the power of persuasion has been employed by the author. As Neuman (2003), argues, ‘there is no single, absolutely correct methodology to social science research” but rather the methodologies represent different ways of looking at the world – ways to observe, measure and understand social reality’. The choice of a methodology by extension relies upon the nature of reality, the purpose of doing research, and the type of knowledge that can be produced as a result of one’s decision to conduct a study onto a particular issue. Fekede Tuli advances that the selection of research methodologies depends on fitness for purpose. Fitness for purpose here referring to effectiveness and ability of a methodology to produce satisfactory research findings from the proposed

Interpretive methods of research start from the position that our knowledge of reality, including the domain of human action, is a social construction by human actors and that this applies equally to researchers. Thus there is no objective reality which can be discovered by researchers and replicated by others, in contrast to the assumptions of positivist science. (p. 5)

There are two types of collecting data for research, which are qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative research is used to gain a thorough explanation about a phenomena, and ‘is normally recognisable via the use of methods that include, at least, in-depth interview and group-moderation techniques’ (Bailey 2013)

Research paradigms (interpretive, positive and post-positive) are processes to follow when gathering information about a subject area, to then answer the hypothesis (Punch, 2009; Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011), this study used the interpretive paradigm due to the social constructivism of people’s perceptions within the subject area and the outcome of the qualitative research methods and literature, triangulated to produce the following findings discussed later in the study (Merriam, 2009; Roberts-Holmes,2014).

In particular, qualitative researchers tend to focus more on the social-constructed reality and the contextual influence, interaction and constraints between the researcher(s) and the participants. They are interested in finding answers to questions that focus on the “social construction of experience and how meaning is created” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 15). However, quantitative researchers “emphasize measurement and analysis, and focus on product rather than process” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 15). Quantitative researchers perceive reality as observable and external so that they are interested in conducting research which is based on measurement or calculation. Therefore, it is the ontological and epistemological beliefs that usually drive the methodological preferences, but what helps the researchers make their final decisions about research methods is the guiding research question(s). Sechrest and Sidani (1995) point out the commonality that both methodologies “describe their data, construct explanatory arguments form their data, and speculate about why the outcomes they observed happened as they did (p. 78)”. Both research methodologies need to address issues of either validity or credibility, make the data unbiased and the research design as rigorous as possible.

This essay will argue that whilst the BBC media coverage of my chosen article has good attributes, there is a lack of extensiveness and some of the information that is presented to the reader is misleading. Throughout this essay I will analyse the original research study and compare the findings to previous research. Secondly, an analysis of the media’s article will be conducted, before comparing it the research study. Lastly, I will conclude that the BBC’s representation of the study is imprecise and biased as they excluded limitations and misrepresented the method and findings, thus impacting the readers ability to acquire precise and impartial information.

Second, I do not agree with Haworth (1991) that we can use constructivism paradigm to replace positivism paradigm. Admittedly, Haworth (1991) provided some sound argument that quantitative research has flaws. For example, quantitative researchers hold the views of reductionism and operationism and heavily rely on measurement and statistical analysis, which may provide false knowledge to social work practice. It is true that majority social science researchers have been treating quantitative research is superior (Peile, 1988). However, we would go from one extreme to another extreme if we think qualitative research is the new paradigm that should replace the quantitative research. Moreover, the qualitative research has limitations too. Qualitative studies have generalizability concerns. Although their findings may be transferable to another setting, sample size usually are collected from a few cases or individuals so findings cannot be generalized to a larger population. Also, if a researcher pursues large sample size, the whole research process would be extremely time-consuming.

Micheal Shermer similarly outlined the emphasis Neo-Darwinism placed on constant reiteration of the importance of Darwin 's “idea”, defined as a singular, revolutionary entity within the history of science that was first exclusively formed in 1837 and confirmed by others1 in the vein of Thomas S. Kuhn2 (as opposed to the very gradual process of disciplinary development in evolutionary science described in nuance by Ruse, albeit with the same revolutionary interpretation present3). Coyne likewise provides a good summary of the enduring Neo-Darwinian position at present on Origins as “the book that started it all” in creating a more materialistic view of biology and the wider universe4. This idea of a paradigm-shift has been reiterated implicitly over time amongst others such as Shermer5.

The social science paradigm also known as Post positivism consists of testing hypothesis and research questions that are developed through reasoning. This is done through measurements and observation. Social scientists aspire to science and they seek to study human behaviour, interaction and thought in an organized way; which we can then measure, generalize and replicate. Like any research, post-positivism needs to be backed up by evidence. When a social science research sets out a research project, it is their goal to find evidence that can either agree or disagree with the hypothesis or theories. Post positivism, compared to positivism allows more interaction with the participants of the research project and seeks to highlight the relationship between universal properties between the variables. The best way to understand post positivism is by comparing it to positivism and the interpretive paradigm. Compared to positivism, post positivism is more tolerant for value-based information, however is not focused on qualitative information like the interpretive paradigm, instead the research is mainly focused on quantitative data.

Paradigms represent beliefs about the nature of reality and the ways in which we create knowledge (Esterberg, Kristin G., 2002). These paradigms are not provable and therefore, one cannot prove that one paradigm is better than another (Esterberg, Kristin G., 2002). The choices a researcher make about paradigms also shape the research strategies they think they should use, and the relationship one sees between theory and data (Esterberg, Kristin G., 2002).

The beginning of knowledge comes from metaphysics, theological and positivism. And these put much on a critical stance in the discourse of method. Little (2011), explains that method is a prescriptive body of doctrines to guide inquiry. The ideal of understanding social world underlies in whether to embrace and use principles and guiding procedures of the natural world where positivism dominates in the epistemological consideration. This method has a considerable influence onto social scientist, in promoting the status of survey research and the quantitative analysis (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007).

I designed this study using a positivistic case study research methodology. A positivistic case study is distinguished from an interpretive case study by the development of a theory prior to data collection. The prior development of theory guides the design, collection, and analysis of data.

Positivism is a rigorous and formal way to collect and analyze data that was developed around the 1960’s by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who is also credited with formalizing it. Studies are clear and straight forward and researchers believe that there is only one method that all sciences should rely on. Positivism believes

A research paradigm is a set of beliefs about the knowledge on which the research is undertaken. A positivist paradigm is a belief that there is a reality, which can be measured and hence uses quantitative methods for measurement. The methodology could be an experimental or survey research. The steps followed in a positivist approach – Framing hypothesis, quantifying the variables, testing of hypothesis and drawing inferences.