On research paradigms: where to choose from?

On research paradigms: where to choose from?

When we talk about research, there are two main types: quantitative and qualitative.  Quantitative, what traditionally was seen as the "scientific method in action" was used from a positivistic approach. That is, evidence can be gathered and then tallied and analyzed in order to establish generalizations and thus, to find the "true" meaning of phenomena.  However, as Kant showed, the "things in themselves" (noumena) cannot be known.  Therefore, only the "things as they appear" (phenomena) can be studied and determined.

On the other hand, ontology, defined as "a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence" (Merriam Webster's Dictionary) predisposes us to see things (phenomena) in a particular way.  Can the phenomena (let's call it "reality") be perceived and studied?  Yes, because there are "true facts" that can be apprehended.  This, in simple words, is the positivistic approach.  Normally, this is developed as quantitative research, where a hypothesis is proposed, and then data is collected, measured, classified, and finally, conclusions and generalizations are established.   

On the other hand, in social sciences qualitative approaches developed, based on the naturalistic, interpretive, and critical methods.  Some general tenets of these approaches are mentioned by Cohen et al (2011):

• People act because of certain reasons (including their will)
• People construct their own social world in an active way
• People and their actions are unique, and cannot be generalized
• Social phenomena should be studied with a minimum of "distortion" (bias, intervention, manipulation) on the researcher's part
• Reality is complex, and thus, can be interpreted in multiple ways (p.17).

This, of course, is a simple explanation of complex theories and approaches.  My intention, however, is to show that different ways of studying reality exist, and thus, researchers must choose the best method, approach, instruments and other tools at their disposal in order to try to describe and explain social phenomena.  

In the case of education, normally we tend to qualitative approaches, where thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) are used, responding to more subjective views, and where as far as possible, reality is seen and explained from the participants (subjects') perspective.

For the time being, I am designing a research project where I intend to apply either the interpretive or critical methods.  This will mean using descriptions, surveys, observations, and questionnaires among other strategies and tools.  In addition, if a theoretical framework such as Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed is used, one of the objectives of my research will be going beyond mere description and interpretation of the participants' reality, but actually, trying to bring to the surface problems and conflicts, and finding a solution to them (using the participants' input) in order to create a transformational process of change in their reality.  

Reference: 

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education.  New York: Routledge.

******** 


For more information about paradigms, here are some articles that might shed some light:

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 2: Philosophical, paradigm, and interpretive frameworks (pp. 15-34).

Mack, L. (2010). The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research. Polyglossia,19.

Noella Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2016). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16.

In addition, there's a more detailed explanation on Freire's critical approach to education here:

Pedagogy of the oppressed: what it is and why it's still relevant