Paradigm Dialogue

This is the area where people often express disquiet about the need for philosophical discussions or their importance in getting results from research. Paradigms and underpinning philosophies might not be so useful in terms of the practicalities of the research, but they give direction and help the researcher to set conceptual boundaries during the research process. The author delves into the issue of which paradigm this

research stems from and the author’s views and how they affect the chosen methodology.

What is meant by a paradigm? Kuhn (1970, 146) defines it as the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by members of a given (scientific) community. According to Guba (1990, 17) it is ‘a basic set of beliefs that guide

action’. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe that there are three major questions that help us

to define a research paradigm:

 What is the nature of reality? the ontological question concerning the nature and form

of reality

 What is the nature of the relationship between the knower and the known? the

epistemological question concerning the philosophy of how we can know that reality

 How we can come to know it? the methodological question concerning the practice

of how we come to know that reality

There are three major research paradigms according to Pickard (2007, 5) namely positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism. Table 3.1 below shows the examination of the beliefs of each paradigm by using the above questions and how to contrast the fundamental differences between them.

The discussion about the paradigms leads to thinking in a broader context to see as to how the above questions of Lincoln and Guba (1985) relate with this study. An epistemological stance under interpretivism has significance to this study where the knowledge which comes out of the study is the result of interaction between the subject of WBL and the investigator. According to the Table 3.1, and the aim of the current study, it

can be placed under the ‘purpose’ of ‘understanding’ and ‘reconstruction’ which leads to ‘transfer of findings’. However, it is seen that the methodological stance is directly linking

Table 3.1 Characteristics of research paradigms

Positivism Postpositivism Interpretivism

Ontologi

-

ca

l st

anc

e ‘Realism’ ‘Critical realism’ ‘Relativist’

Belief in a tangible, social reality. This reality exists independently of those

‘creating’ the reality. A social

reality can exist just as a natural reality exists (water remains water whether someone is swimming in it or not).

Belief in a social reality but acceptance that knowing this reality will always be inhabited by

imperfections in detecting its nature. The imperfections are the result of human fallibility.

Belief in multiple constructed realities that cannot exist outside the social contexts that create them. Realities vary in nature and are time and context bound.

Epist emol ogica l st anc e Objectivist/dualist

Investigator and investigated are independent of each other

Modified dualist/objectivist Acceptance that independence is not possible but objectivity is seen as the goal and

demonstrated by external verification

Transactional/subjectivist The results of the

investigation are a product of interaction between the subject and the investigator. What can be known is a result of the interaction. Methodologi ca l st anc e Experimental/manipulative Hypothesis testing, variables identified before the

investigation. Empirical testing is conducted in order to

establish the ‘truth’ of the proposition. Predominantly quantitative Analysis by variables. Modified experimental/manipul ative

Hypothesis testing but more emphasis placed on context. Quantitative and qualitative Analysis by variables. Empathetic interaction Investigator interacts with the object of the investigation. Each construction of reality is investigated in its own right and is interpreted by the investigator. Qualitative, including hermeneutics and dialectic interchanges Analysis by case. P ur pose Prediction/control/explanation Framing of general laws.

Prediction/control/exp lanation Generalizations. Understanding/ reconstruction Transfer of findings. Source: Adapted from (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) by (Pickard, 2007)

a) Positivism – This research does not fall into this category under any of the

stances according to the aim of the study mainly because the researcher is not planning to test hypothesis, and the data is not predominantly quantitative because of case study approach which is qualitative. There is not any tangible, social reality to believe and the methods of data collection do not include any empirical testing. The empirical method is generally taken to mean the approach of using a collection of data to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science (Bridgman and Holton, 2008) which is not the case in this study. ‘Ontological stance’ is focused on the nature of reality where all three paradigms are concerned about beliefs in social realities whereas this study cannot be generalised into a social reality being a case study which is limited to a small set of WBL stakeholders. There is of course some sort of generalisation in the quantitative analysis with surveying data which cannot be taken as significant compared to dominant qualitative data.

‘Epistemological stance’ on the other hand under interpretivism has significance to this

study, as the knowledge emanating from the study is the result of interaction between the subject (WBL) and the investigator. However, in terms of positivism and postpositivism, the objectivist approach does not suit case study research.

b) Post positivism – In mixed method approach where both quantitative and

qualitative analyses are conducted by variables with more emphasis is placed on context, there is a possibility that this study falls under post positivism only exception being it does not test any hypothesis nor conduct any experiments. Also, according to Pickard (2007, 93), case studies are not intended to produce generalizations, they are intended to allow for transferability of findings based on contextual applicability.

c) Interpretivism – Given the high qualitative nature and analysis by case

characteristics, this study comfortably sits in this category. As shown in the table, the investigator was continuously interacting with the object of the investigation and each construction of reality is investigating in its own right and is interpreted by the investigator. The findings expand the understanding and help to reconstruct the delivery of WBL programmes in a better way through a set of recommendations.

According to the behavior and characteristics of research paradigms as shown above in the Table 3.1, selecting of case study research methodology and mixed methods approach give much more benefits to achieve the aim being set up. Especially the methodological stance which combines both post-positivism and interpretivism stances blends with case study research methodology and mixed methods approach comprehensively. The un-biasness can be ensured through triangulation considering the

similar characteristics of both post-positivism and interpretivism stances. Therefore, according to the current philosophy of research paradigms, case study research can be considered as most suited with a mixed methods approach.