In research, as in any practice, one’s decisions and actions are guided by one’s view and understanding of the world. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) note that this set of beliefs that guides actions is called a ‘paradigm’, which cannot be instituted as ultimate truth because it is a human construction. A good understanding of paradigms requires identification of three main concepts: ontology, epistemology and methodology. They provide an understanding of the differences noted in the process of research and inquiry within each paradigm and contribute to the body of knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Terre Blanche, Durrheim & Painter, 2006; Bunniss & Kelly, 2010). The concept of ‘ontology’ refers to the philosophy or nature of reality and the nature of human beings in the world. The concept of ‘epistemology’ relates
53
to the philosophy of knowledge, looking at how people come to know the world and reality, while the concept of ‘methodology’ refers to the methods used to gain knowledge about the world or reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Krauss, 2005; Bunniss & Kelly, 2010).
Paradigms are generally embedded in research and may be hidden. When one embarks on a research project, there is a need to clarify for oneself and the audience the understanding of knowledge and the reality that is being pursued, as this will guide decisions about how to attain that knowledge as well as the type of knowledge being pursued (Krauss, 2005; Creswell, 2014). While some researchers affirm the existence of one universal reality and truth independent of the knower, others view the world as having multiple realities or view reality as being constructed by the knower. This serves as basis for the major paradigms that have been documented and include positivism, post-positivism, and constructivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Bergman et al., 2012).
The positivist paradigm is documented to be the traditional scientific approach to research. Its fundamental assumption is that there is one fixed truth, a reality that can be objectively observed, and that realities as well as knowledge are independent of the person, asserting that the world is not simply a formation of the human mind. This paradigm makes use of objectives and strict and quantitative methods that keep values and biases in check, ensuring that the researcher remains independent from those that participate in the research and those that are being researched. It focuses on control and the ability to predict the phenomena to find the observable truth, aiming at producing generalizable data, hence the adoption of a quantitative approach to research (Polit & Hungler, 1997; Bunniss & Kelly, 2010). Positivism is useful for providing answers to certain questions that need prediction, control and generalization, and has been largely used in social studies and education. This paradigm lacks the ability to study the multifaceted, unstable, non-linear and changing real world (Bunniss & Kelly, 2010). In social sciences, as noted by Mack (2010), nothing can be simple and to the point, because people have multiple perspectives and interpretations, an idea that is refuted by the positivist paradigm that proclaims one stable generalizable truth.
With the realization that there are shortcomings in the positivist paradigm, post-positivism was developed by authors like Comte, Phillips and Burbules as noted by Creswell (2014). The notion of absolute reality and truth was challenged and they affirmed that studies about human behaviour and actions cannot claim absolute reality, hence the emphasis on observing and studying people (Creswell, 2014). Post-positivism agrees that there is one truth, but that
54
truth cannot be truly observed but rather approximated in an attempt to get closer to the truth, ascertaining that the evidence obtained from research is never infallible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Bergman et al., 2012). The post-positivist paradigm follows the process of making claims and testing them, trying to develop statements that can help in explaining situations or describe the causal relationships in the areas being researched. Objectivity is still an important aspect of the process and this is what forms the basis of the mainly quantitative and some qualitative methods used in the post-positivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Mack, 2010; Creswell, 2014). The idea that the researcher should remain detached from the participants and that there is one truth was not accepted when the issues were debated; human beings are social beings and do not necessarily have the same perception of the experience when exposed to the same event. With this realization, a new paradigm in social research came to fore.
Constructivism, also referred to as a naturalistic paradigm, as noted by Polit and Hungler (1997), or interpretivist paradigm, as indicated by Mack (2010), posits that people develop subjective meanings of their experiences in the world they live in. These meanings differ and therefore the researcher searches for complexity in meaning and multiple truths that exist within a context and are constructed by and between people (Bergman, et al., 2012; Creswell, 2014). The constructivist paradigm, as Mack (2010) notes, was influenced by hermeneutics and phenomenological approaches that focus on interpretation and the need to contemplate human beings’ subjective interpretation, hence the belief in multiple constructed realities or truths. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) indicate that in this paradigm knowledge is merged around consensus and with research that adopts this paradigm, the participants are actively involved, their voice is respected, and agreements about truth may result from negotiations among the members of the community. The interaction between the researcher and participants is important within this paradigm, with the assumption that the smaller the distance between the inquirer and the participants, the most likely it is to maximize knowledge (Polit & Hungler, 1997). Instead of making statements with a theory like post-positivism, a constructivist researcher inductively develops meanings from the data (Creswell, 2014). The constructivist paradigm uses qualitative approaches that emphasize processes and meanings, looking at socially constructed reality and enhancing close relationship between the researcher and participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003).
55