The Knowledge paradigm debate

3.1 Background to the knowledge paradigm debate

Grbich (2007:3) identifies epistemologies as “dealing with questions about ‘truth’:

what do we accept as truth? And how has this been constructed?” More definitively, epistemology is about our ‘worldview’, i.e. the way that we look at the social world (Matthews and Ross, 2010). A research paradigm or ‘knowledge’ paradigm is a broader conceptualisation of a ‘world view’ incorporating the assumptions typically associated with that view (Tedlie and Tashakkori, 2009).

Traditionally, the knowledge paradigm of the researcher predominantly falls into either a quantitative/positivist or qualitative/interpretive view (Creswell, 2003). In brief, a positivist view determines that reality is something that can be observed and measured thus entailing a numerically based quantitative research design. The constructivist view - as the name suggests - is one that perceives the nature of reality to be socially constructed, and that people experience reality differently, including the researcher themselves, and thus many realities can exist based on an individual’s personal perception and recollection of their experience (Creswell, 2003; Krauss, 2005). Creswell (2003) posits that these two worldviews actually represent polar ends of a continuum between research that employs mainly scientific methods of induction that are argued to be objective in nature at one end, with interpretive methods that tend to be qualitative, subjective and deductive at the other.

By its very nature, a mixed methods research design implies that the researcher has an understanding and appreciation of both the positivist paradigm associated with mostly quantitative methods as well as the constructivist/interpretive paradigm associated mostly with qualitative methods. Thus in order to present clarification and rationale for the use of a mixed methods research design, part one explores the two traditionally polarised views of ‘positivism’, where reality is observable and measurable, and ‘constructivism’ where reality may be experienced differently depending on ‘social and contextual influences and/or presuppositions’ (Moses and Knutsen, 2010:10). Section one is consequently split into three sub-sections that discuss the evolution and

100

core principles of a positivist paradigm; the core principle of a constructivist paradigm and the subsequent emergence of a mixed methods approach to research.

3.2 Positivism/Post-Positivism

A brief historical sketch of positivism here helps the researcher to establish the polarity of the positivist research paradigm in contrast with the constructivist approach. Hjørland (2005) presents a detailed historical sketch of the development of positivism as a scientific method during the 17th and 18th Century attributing to an attempt to reconcile the doctrine of empiricism (that postulates knowledge can only be acquired through experience, observation and sense data) with rationalism that rejects the importance of observations and experience.

Creswell (2003) adopts the term Post-positivism which he explains is a necessary adaption of the positivist paradigm in recognition that we cannot be “positive” about our claims of knowledge and thus as Karl Popper theorised, we should not be concerned with the ability to prove a good theory, rather a good theory is one that follows the principle of falsification. For example, the statement “all ravens are

black” is a scientific statement because it is falsifiable. Statements that are not falsifiable, for example, questions concerning religion, are considered meaningless under the positivist approach as they cannot be scientifically proven or falsified. Phillips and Burbules (2000) extend this concept with the example of a proposition that claims a musician such as Sir Paul McCartney is more creative than a classical pianist such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; as there are no scientific constructs for measuring this or falsifying the statement, to argue such is meaningless under the positivism tradition.

Hjørland (2005) reflects upon the growing criticism of positivism during the 20th Century with the emergence of opposing traditions that emphasise cultural influence, interests and a theory-laden nature of knowledge. Despite this heavy and sustained criticism of the positivist tradition Hjørland (2005) argues that the positivist way of thinking is still considered influential on the basis that no alternatives have yet been able to establish a strong position in the practical guidance of research processes.

101

In summary, the positivist approach to research assumes that knowledge is objective, can be observed and measured, and tested empirically to the falsification principle; the researcher himself thereby is not considered to have impact on the data (Matthews and Ross, 2010; Moses and Knutsen, 2007; Creswell, 2003).

Despite criticism that spans several centuries, positivism remains a tradition of continued merit and influence. In practical terms, positivism is a reductionist approach in that the intent is to reduce the ideas into a small discrete set of ideas for hypothesis testing (Creswell, 2003). Positivism is mostly associated with quantitative research methods to research using deductive logic, experimental research design and typically numerical methods such as numerical scales, surveys, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis (Tedlie and Tashakkori, 2009).

3.3 Constructivism/ Social Constructivism/ Interpretivism

According to Creswell (2003), the ideas of social constructivism originate from Berger and Luckmann’s works The Social Construction of Reality (1967) and Lincoln and Guba’s Naturalistic Inquiry (1985). Moses and Knutsen (2007) acknowledge that constructivism is also known by a variety of names, most commonly ‘interpretivism’. In contrast to the positivist approach, the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm views reality as socially constructed, and a product of our own making that is not always observable. Moses and Knutsen (2007:10) explain: “each of us see different things,

and what we see is determined by a complicated mix of social and contextual influences and/or presuppositions”. Thus the main focus is upon subjectivity, how people interpret the social world and social phenomena and the data gathered is used to generate theory (Matthews and Ross, 2010). In practical terms, constructivism is mostly associated with qualitative research methods using inductive logic and ethnographic research design often to explore phenomena and thematic strategies of categorising and contextualising data (Tedlie and Tashakkori, 2009).

Blaikie (1993) describes the meaning of a constructivist/interpretive view in terms of conducting research:

102

‘for interpretivism, the social world is the world perceived and experienced by its members from the inside. Hence the task of the social scientist is to discover and describe this insider view, not to impose an outsider view on it’ (Blaikie, 1993)

This view provides a stark contrast from a positivist view where the laws of natural science require that phenomena is observable, measureable and therefore knowable. Constructivism views human action as variable and intimate and thus the way phenomena is experienced (in this case the implementation of Lean by English hospitals), is thereby subject to social and contextual influences and/or presuppositions.

3.4 Taking a middle road: The ‘Third Methodological Movement’

An interesting aspect of Hjørland’s 2005 article that informed section 1.1 with regards to the evolution of positivism is the suggestion that positivism is often misunderstood. That the majority of positivist researchers do not identify with many of the widely held assumptions about what positivist research entails. This reflection is recounted in Weber (2004) where the author (writing as Editor of MIS Quarterly), reproduces a table that is commonly used to summarise the differences between the two research paradigms for the purpose of teaching (see Table 3.1). Weber (2004) addresses each of the constructs in turn explaining why the differences are far less pronounced than the table suggests, arguing that there are in fact many similarities between the two paradigms. In conclusion, Weber (2004) writes: ‘Different research methods and

different data-analysis methods have different strengths and weaknesses. They provide us with different types of knowledge about the phenomena that are our focus.’

103

Table 3.1: Contrasting Positivism with Constructivism (Source: Weber, 2004)

Meta-theoretical assumptions about:

Positivism Constructivism

Ontology Person (researcher) and reality are separate

Person (researcher) and reality are inseparable

Epistemology Objective reality exists beyond the human mind

Knowledge of the world is

intentionally constituted through a person’s lived experience

Research Object Research object has inherent qualities that exist

independently of the researcher

Research object is interpreted in light of meaning structure of person’s (researcher’s) lived experience Method Statistics, document analysis Hermeneutics, phenomenology, etc. Theory of Truth Correspondence theory of truth:

one-to-one mapping between research statements and reality

Truth as intentional fulfilment: interpretations of research object match lived experience of object Validity Certainty: data truly measure

reality

Defensible knowledge claims Reliability Replicability: research results

can be reproduced

Interpretive awareness: researchers recognise and address implications of their subjectivity

3.4.1 All research is interpretive!

Gummesson (2003) argues that all research is interpretive from the beginning to the end and everything in between. Gummesson suggests that polarising quantitative and qualitative research is a ‘red herring’, providing distraction from the important choices regarding the research methodology and techniques that support validity.

“How do we get access to reality and how do we get results that are good fits to reality? Both depend on how we generate, analyse and interpret our data, be it number or words. Statistical tables need interpretation just as badly as data from in-depth interviews and focus groups” (Gummesson, 2003:486)

The practical implication of a mixed methods approach is that the researcher should be conversant with both positivist and constructivist traditions and be able to use research methods that require quantitative and statistical skills as well as qualitative methods of data collection and analysis.

104