Research Paradigms

Bryman and Bell (2015) state that paradigms are used to describe a group of beliefs that forms the general world view of the researcher. Paradigms influence what should be studied, how it should be studied and how the results should be interpreted. However, Collis and Hussey (2009) argue that, the term paradigm is often used loosely in academic research and has a different meaning to different people. Mertens (2003:139) summarises the definition of paradigm as a

‘worldview, complete with assumptions that are associated with that view’. However, more recently, Morgan (2007:49) defined paradigm as a ‘system of beliefs and practices’ that helps researchers choose both their research questions and methodology. Creswell (2009:6) argues that discipline, beliefs of advisors and past experiences are what shape the paradigm of an individual when conducting research.

98 5.4.1 Traditional Approaches

Many centuries ago, there was only one research because the ‘scientific achievement’ argued by Kuhn (1962) came from one source. Presently, we refer to that source as natural science in order to distinguish them from the social sciences. The emergence of the social science led to the development of another research paradigm.

Smith (1983) stated that until the 19^th century, most research focused on inanimate objects of the physical world such as physics. The approach used by most of these scientists was through observation and experiment. Their belief about the world and knowledge was based on a paradigm called positivism which had its roots in realism. However, with the coming of industrialization and capitalism, Collis and Hussey (2014) argued that researchers turned their attention to ‘social phenomena’. A phenomenon is defined as ‘an observed or apparent object, fact or occurrence’. From the outset, the new social scientist utilised the methods established by natural scientists but the compatibility of the traditional approach was challenged and criticised by many theorists which went on for many decades (Smith, 1983). The alternative to positivism can be referred to as interpretivism.

5.4.1.1 Positivism

Collins and Hussey (2014) argue that positivism is based on the belief that reality is independent of us and the aim is to discover theories based on empirical research through observation and experimentation. Similarly, Saunders et al. (2016) refer to positivism as the ‘philosophical stance of the natural scientist and entails working with an observable social reality to produce law-like generalizations’. Researchers conducting a research based on the positivist paradigm are still focusing on theories to explain and predict a social phenomenon. They still embrace logical reasoning so that their approach is based on precision, objectivity and rigour rather than on being subjective (Creswell 2014). Positivism is also defined as ‘a perspective which assumes that the properties of the social world can be studied using objective scientific methods’ (Huzynski and Buchanan, 2007:15). However, since it is assumed that social phenomena can be measured, positivism is associated with quantitative methods of analysis (Collins and Hussey, 2014). Many authors have criticised positivism since interpretivism was developed as a result of the inadequacies of positivism. Such criticisms of positivism as elaborated here are:

99

a. It is impossible to divide people from the social contexts in which they exist.

b. People cannot be understood without examining the perceptions they have of their own activities.

c. A highly structured research design imposes constraints on the results and may ignore other relevant findings.

d. Researchers are not objective, but part of what they observe. They bring their own interests and values to the research.

e. Capturing complex phenomena in a single measure is misleading. (Collis and Hussey, 2014:45)

5.4.1.2 Interpretivism

Saunders et al. (2016) argues that Interpretivism like critical realism was developed as a critique of positivism from a subjective perspective. It emphasizes that humans differ from physical phenomena because they create meaning. The central theme of Interpretivism is that the world is subjective and socially constructed (Remenyi et al., 2005). Collis and Hussey (2014) thus, argue that Interpretivism is based on the belief that social reality is not objective but highly subjective because reality is shaped by our perceptions. Interpretivism focuses on exploring the complexity of social phenomena with the aim of acquiring an interpretive understanding. Therefore, interpretivist adopt a range of methods that ‘seek to describe, translate and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, frequency of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world’ (Van Maanen, 1983:9).

Saunders et al. (2016) argue that the focus of an interpretivist study is to understand the meanings and interpretations of ‘social actors’; therefore, understanding their worldview is so complex to be widely generalised. Understanding what people think and how they communicate (verbally or non-verbally) and feel is important (Easterby-Smith et al., 2014).However, similar to positivism, Hammersley (2013) has some criticisms of interpretivism:

a. Descriptions are too vague and inconsistent in providing a sound basis for comparing the orientations of different people and their characteristics within different situations.

b. It does not provide a means of showing how one set of factors, rather than another, plays a key role in bringing about particular outcomes.

c. It encourages the study of a small number of cases, thereby failing to provide a platform

100 for broader conclusions.

d. It is preoccupied with a coherent and newsworthy narrative, rather than checking the validity of the interpretations produced.

e. It presents the standpoint of the researcher, rather than that of the true response provided by the individuals being studied.

5.4.1.3 Assumptions of positivism and Interpretivism

Collis and Hussey (2014) state that before any research project can be designed, the researcher must consider the philosophical assumptions that underpin Interpretivism and positivism in order to determine whether your research orientation at this stage is ‘broadly interpretivist or broadly positivist’. Prior to a researcher’s decision to choose a particular paradigm, considerations must be given to more modern approaches to research paradigm. Due to the criticisms, debates and inconsistencies of the traditional approach, it has led to a series of new formulations of paradigms based on the traditional approach. These modern approaches will be analysed before the chosen research paradigm of this study is presented. Table 5.2 shows a comparison between the philosophical assumptions of positivism and Interpretivism.

Philosophical Assumption Positivism Interpretivism Ontology Real, One true Reality, Granular

things.

Axiology The results are unbiased and

value-free; Researcher maintains

Methodology The researcher takes a deductive approach; Large samples and

Rhetorical The researcher uses the passive voice, accepted quantitative words and set definitions.

The researcher uses the personal voice, accepted qualitative terms and limited a priori definitions.

Table 5.2: Assumptions of the two paradigms (Adapted from Collis and Hussey 2014; Saunders et al. 2016)

101 5.4.2 Modern Approaches

Collis and Hussey (2009) mention that, there are other approaches within the two main paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Under the modern approaches the researcher will discuss Pragmatism, Post-Positivism, Transformative and Constructivism.

5.4.2.1 Pragmatism

Pragmatism originated in the late 19^th century USA mostly in the work of Charles Pierce, William James and John Dewey. It seeks to reconcile objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, different experiences and accurate and rigorous knowledge. It achieves this by considering ‘theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses and research findings not in an abstract form, but in terms of the roles they play as instrument of thought and action, and in terms of their practical consequences in specific context’ (Saunders et al. 2016). Collis and Hussey (2014) argue that rather than be restricted by a single paradigm, pragmatist advocate that researchers should be ‘free’ to mix methods from different paradigms choosing them based on their usefulness in answering the research question.

Creswell (2014) criticizes pragmatism through seven points by comparing them with his views of mixed method research. He states the following:

a. Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This certainly applies to mixed methods, as researchers use both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they conduct their research.

b. Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. Therefore, researchers are free to choose the methods, techniques and procedures that best suit their needs and purposes.

c. Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. Evidently, mixed methods researchers use different approaches in collecting and analysing data rather than using only one approach.

d. Truth is what works at the time. In reality, mixed method researchers use both qualitative and quantitative data in order to best provide the understanding of a research problem.

e. Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other context. Mixed methods studies may include a ‘postmodern turn, a theoretical lens that is

102 reflective of social justice and political aims’.

f. Pragmatists look to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ to research based on intended consequences.

Mixed methods researchers need to establish the purpose of their research and a rationale as to why quantitative and qualitative data needs to be mixed in the first place.

g. Pragmatists believe in an external work independent of the mind as well as what is lodged in the mind.

5.4.2.2 Post Positivism

Teddie and Tashakkori (2009) argue that post-positivism was developed as a result of dissatisfaction with positivism. Post-positivism is a term used to represent the thinking after positivism, thus, challenging the traditional notion of the absolute truth (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). Creswell (2014) state that positivist’s hold a deterministic philosophical stand in which

‘causes’ determine ‘outcomes’. Therefore, the problem studied by post-positivists reflects the need to identify and examine the causes that affect outcomes. Key assumptions of post-positivism can be highlighted as the following:

a. Knowledge is conjectural, thus, absolute truth can never be found. Therefore, evidence established in research is always fallible.

b. Research is the process of making claims and then refining and discarding some claims for more robust ones.

c. Data, evidence, and rational considerations shape knowledge.

d. Research seeks to develop relevant valid statements. The ones that can adequately explain the situation or describes the causal relationship being investigated.

e. Being objective is an essential aspect of competent inquiry; researchers must examine methods and conclusions for bias (Creswell, 2014).

5.4.2.3 Transformative

Transformative approach is another group of researchers that have a modern philosophical assumption. This approach started between the 1980s and 1990s by researchers who criticised the post-positivist assumptions of mandated structural laws and theories that did not fit marginalised individuals in the society or current issues such as oppression, discrimination and

103

social justice that needed to be addressed (Creswell 2014).

Mertens (2010) argues that a transformative worldview states that research inquiries need to be interconnected with politics and a political change agenda to confront social oppression at all levels at which it occurs. This approach assumes that the inquirer will proceed collaboratively so as not to marginalise the participant as a result of the inquiry. Transformative research provides a platform for these participants, thereby raising their consciousness or advancing an issue in order to improve their lives (Creswell 2014).

Mertens (2010) carefully summarizes the main features of the transformative paradigm as follows:

a. It places central emphasis on the study of lives and experiences of diverse groups that have been traditionally marginalised.

b. The approach focuses on the inequities of these diverse groups based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, diversity that result in asymmetric power relationships.

c. The approach links political and social actions to these inequities.

d. The approach uses a programmed theory of beliefs about how a programme works and why the issues of domination, oppression and power relationships exist.

5.4.2.4 Constructivism

Constructivism or social constructivism proposes that reality is constructed through social interaction whereby social actors create partially shared meanings and realities (Saunders et al.

2016). Creswell (2014) argues that ‘social constructivists’ individuals seek understanding of the world and environment they live and work in, thereby developing subjective meanings from their experiences. The meaning varies and is multiple which leads the researcher to look for the complexity of the views rather than narrow down the views into a few categories of ideas.

Easterby-Smith (2008) argues that one of the strength of this approach is that data collection is less artificial and it is flexible and good for theory generation. However, he further states that, the approach can be time consuming and may not have credulity with policy makers. Creswell (2014) states that the researcher’s aim is to make sense of the meanings others hold about the world and rather than start with a theory, inquiries generate or inductively develop theory.

104

In discussing constructivism, Crotty (1998) highlights some of the several assumptions:

a. Human beings construct meanings as they interact with the world they are interpreting.

Qualitative researchers usually use open-ended questions so that participants can share their views.

b. Humans engage with their world and make sense of it according to their historical and social perspectives. Therefore, qualitative researchers seek to understand the context or setting of the participant by visiting the context and gathering information personally.

c. The basic generation of meaning is always socially based on constant interaction with the human environment. The process of qualitative research is mostly inductive as the inquirer generates meaning from the data collected in the field.