Research Paradigm

Patton (2002) defines a paradigm as a worldview-a way of thinking about and making sense of the complexities of the real world. A paradigm refers to the progress of scientific practice based on people’s philosophies and assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge; in this context, about how research should be conducted (Collis and Hussey, 2003). A paradigm offers a framework comprising an accepted set of theories, methods and ways of defining data. It tells us what is important, legitimate, and reasonable (Patton, 2002). The term ‘paradigm’ has come into vogue among social scientists particularly through the work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn (1962) describes the progress of scientific discoveries in practice, rather than how they are subsequently reconstructed within textbooks and academic journals. According to Kuhn, science progresses in tiny steps, which refine and extend what is already known. However, occasionally experiments start to produce results that do not fit into existing theories and patterns (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002).

51

Morgan (1979) cited by Collis and Hussey (2003) suggests that the term paradigm can be used at three different levels. At the philosophical level, it is used to reflect basic beliefs about the world. At the social level, it is used to provide guidelines about how the researcher should conduct his or her endeavours. At the technical level, it is used to specify the methods and techniques, which ideally should be adopted when conducting research.

The period of revolution ends when a new paradigm surfaces as the ascendant one and a new period or normal sets in. A new paradigm is in reaction to the application of positivism to the social world stems from the view that the world and reality are not objective and exterior but that are socially constructed and given meaning by people (Husserl, 1946 quoted in Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). Reality is socially constructed rather than objectively determined. Hence, the task of the social scientist should not be to gather facts measure how often-certain patterns occur, but to appreciate the different constructions and meanings that people place upon their experience. One should therefore try to understand and explain why people have different experiences, rather than search for external causes and fundamental laws to explain their behaviour. Human actions arise from the sense that people make of different situations, rather than as a direct response from external stimuli (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991).

Although there is no difficulty with the word paradigm in general usage, there is some controversy about the use of the word among researchers (Remenyi et al., 1998). Kuhn (1962) uses the paradigm concept in no less than twenty-one different ways consistent with three broad senses of the term; (1) as complete view of reality, or a way of seeing; (2) as relating to the social organisation of science in terms of schools of thought connected with particular kinds of scientific achievements, and (3) as relating to the concrete use of different kinds of tools and texts for the process of scientific puzzle solving (Morgan, 1997). According to researchers Denzin and Lincoln (2000); Ponteroto (2005); Kuhn (1962); Hunt (1994), philosophical anchors of a paradigm are epistemology, ontology and methodology. The positions of the major paradigms with respect to these philosophical anchors define their world-view or how reality is perceived. However, Fitzgerald and Howcroft (1998) put these research paradigms into two broad categories: positivist and interpretivist. Two other philosophical foundations, Axiology and Rhetoric Structure (Ponterotto, 2005) are included.

The following paragraphs explain briefly the philosophical foundations of the paradigms namely epistemology, ontology and methodology. A thorough appreciation of these philosophical foundations is required to understand the positions of paradigmatic schemas especially the ontological and epistemological questions that are central to the understanding of the research problem.

52

3.3.1 Epistemology Philosophical Stance

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and so of science: the study of its nature, its validity and value, its methods and its scope (Alain Thietart et al., 2001). According to Hussey and Hussey (1997), epistemology is concerned with the study of knowledge and what we accept as being valid. This involves an examination of the relationship between the researcher and that, which is being researched. Epistemological assumptions underpin any approach to research (Remenyi et al., 1998). As the study of knowledge, Thomas (2004) states that epistemology, is concerned with the following questions: How can we know anything with certainty? How is knowledge to be distinguished from belief or opinion? What methods can yield reliable knowledge? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: What is the nature of the knowledge we can generate through our research? How can we generate scientific knowledge? What is the value and status of this knowledge? (Alain Thietart et al., 2001). Epistemology questioning is vital to serious research, as through its researchers can establish the validity and legitimacy of their work. A particularly central issue in this context is the question of whether the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences (Bryman, 2004). Recognizing that they have these presuppositions, allows researchers to control their research approach to increase the validity of the knowledge produced and to make this knowledge cumulative (Alain Thietart et al., 2001). Epistemology provides a set of criteria for evaluating knowledge claims and establishing whether such claims are warranted. According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994); Punch (2005), epistemology explains the nature of knowledge, what is accepted as knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the known.

3.3.2 Ontology Philosophical Stance

Ontology is the assumption we make about the nature of reality (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). According to Punch (2005), ontology is the concept explaining reality and why everything exists in the world, including the nature and form of reality. As the study of the nature being and existence, Maykut and Morehouse (1994) state, that ontology is concerned with the following questions: What is the nature of the world? What is real? What counts as evidence? With the ontological assumption, it has to be decided whether it is considered the world is objective and external to the researcher, or socially constructed and only understood by examining the perceptions of the human actors (Hussey and Hussey, 1997). The world is complex as different qualitative research has different views of the multiple realities. As such, any methodology that tries to understand the research domain and explain research phenomenon become complex. Research process reflects researcher’s action to respond to

53

the research assumptions. In this view, when explaining one particular theoretical aspect, it is not necessarily to decrease the understanding of the relevant concepts. However, it believed that new concepts gather and interact in complex ways to create theory and develop a new perspective of the research domain. Corbin and Strauss (2008) highlight that it is significant for the research to generate as many multiple perspectives as possible of complex research phenomenon.

3.3.3 Methodology Philosophical Stance

Collis and Hussey (2014) define methodology as an approach to the process of the research encompassing a body of methods. It describes an approach to a problem that can be put into practice in a research programme or process. Methodology, unlike method, defines the procedure by which an inquiry is conducted. It encompasses the methods and strategies employed to guide the design of a study. Methods refer to the various means by which data can be collected and/or analysed (Collis and Hussey, 2003) or “procedures, tools and techniques” of research (Schwandt, 2000:158). Regardless of which paradigm a researcher is employing, it is important that attention is paid to all the features, and ensure that there are no contradictions or deficiencies in the methodology (Collis and Hussey, 2003).

Axiology and Rhetoric Structure: Axiology refers to the role of researcher values in the scientific process (Ponterotto, 2005). These values help to determine what are recognised as facts and the interpretations which are drawn from them (Collis and Hussey, 2003). Rhetoric refers to the language, which is used to present the procedures and results of research to one’s audience (Ponterotto, 2005). Rhetoric structure depends on the researcher’s epistemological and axiological stance. According to Collis and Hussey (2014), Axiological assumption is concerned with the role of value as follows:

 Positivists believe that the process of research is value-free. Therefore, positivists consider that they are detached and independent from what they are researching and regard the phenomena under investigation as objects. Positivists are interested in the interrelationship of the objects they are studying and believe that these objects were present before they took an interest in them. In addition, they believe that the objects they are studying are unaffected by their research activities and will still be present after the study has been completed.

 In contrast, interprevitists consider that researchers have values, even if they have not been made explicit. These values help to determine what are recognised as facts and

54

the interpretations drawn from them. Most interprevitists believe that the researcher is involved with that which is being researched.