Research paradigms : understanding complex debates

The Free School
Understanding research paradigms:
simplifying complex debates.
free@thefreeschool.education
www.thefreeschool.education

Objective
This presentation defines the term ‘research paradigm’ with reference to
research conducted mostly within human and social sciences disciplines.
It also discusses the dominant research paradigms as theorized by leading
scholarly publications in these disciplines.
This presentation discusses the alternative systems that may aid the researcher to
choose the most appropriate research paradigm.
Introductory discussion provides historical context that explains the reasons why
the notion of the ‘research paradigm’ remains a confusing topic within the
research methods literature. This ambiguity is a core factor that causes this
principle to misunderstood by many early-career researchers.

Assumed knowledge
This presentation is targeted towards graduate research students who plan to conduct
advanced research such as a doctoral dissertation. This presentation assumes that the
reader has completed an introductory research methods theory course and is familiar with
basic research methods terminologies such as ‘research methodology’, ‘data collection’ and
‘data analysis’.
Those not familiar with these core principles may read chapter one of Jericho (2015b),
“Qualitative research methods for healthcare professionals”. This open-access text is listed
in the bibliography section of this presentation. Its content and structure aligns with this
presentation. This slideshow aims to extend the introductory content of this digital text,
which includes an introduction to the research paradigm in Chapter Four.

Scholarly context
The are multiple reasons why the notion of the ‘research paradigm’ is misunderstood.
● Not all research methods books define this term.
● Research methods books present different classification and subclassification systems
for research paradigms (Crotty, 1998, p. 1).
● There are multiple synonyms for the term ‘research paradigm’. Some scholars use
these terminologies in publications to refer to a research methods topic that has no
association with research paradigms (Crotty, 1998, p. 1).
● Some research paradigms such as Materialism and Marxism overlap.
● Not all supervisors and examiners expect graduate research students to theorize their
selection of a research paradigm in their dissertation.
● Not all research methods coursework curricula discuss principles of the ‘research
paradigm’ via classroom instruction or in the course notes.
● Most industry research reports do not discuss their use of a research paradigm.
● Some publications are out-of-date because a so-called ‘paradigm shift’ has occurred.

A simple, orthodox definition
There is no one scholarly authority that defines the term ‘research
paradigm’. This brief definition by the University of Southampton (2017,
NP) offers a succinct, adequate introduction to this term.
“A paradigm is simply a belief system (or theory) that guides the way we
do things [i.e. conduct research], or more formally establishes a set of
[research] practices. This can range from thought patterns to action.”

A simple, orthodox definition (continued)
The University of Southampton (2017) argues that the following four research
paradigms are among the most popular:
Positivism : Experimental testing that uses quantitative analysis is an example.
Post positivism : A view that we need context and that context-free experimental design is
insufficient.
Critical theory : Ideas in relation to an ideology. Knowledge is not value-free and bias
should be articulated.
Constructivism : Each individual constructs his/her own reality. There are multiple
interpretations of truth. This is sometimes referred to as ‘interpretivism’.
You should read widely to obtain insight into the complexities of these paradigms.

An extended, orthodox definition
“The design of a study begins with the selection of a topic and a
[research] paradigm. Paradigms in the human and social sciences
help us understand phenomena: They advance assumptions about the
social world, how science should be conducted and what constitutes
legitimate problems, solutions and criteria of “proof”
(Creswell, 2013, p. 1).”

The research paradigm - selecting the right lense
Some scholars find it easier to understand the notion of the research
paradigm by visualizing one camera lense that you may select from the many
competing alternatives on the market.
The following four slides are adapted from Jericho (2015b, p. 71).

The selection of your research paradigm is comparable to way that a professional
photographer needs to choose a camera lense and a filter to obtain the best results,
depending on the unique circumstances of their project. To demonstrate this analogy,
we shall compare two separate projects managed by Suzanne and Ahmed, who are
freelance professional photographers. These photographers have identical qualifications
and experience. Their peers and customers consistently rate their work as excellent.
Robin and Sarah appoint Suzanne and Ahmed as their wedding photographers, as they
wish to compare two different perspectives of their special day as captured by two
professionals who have their own ‘signature-style’.

On the wedding day, Suzanne decided that a 17mm lense with no filter would
give the best focus to capture this event. She is delighted that it is a sunny day.
She believes wedding photos should feature an aura of sunshine to capture the
‘magic’ of the day. Robin and Sarah are both delighted with the results. Robin
thinks Suzanne captured the best images. Robin likes the way that Suzanne’s
photos brings natural sunshine to the forefront of her work. She feels this
radiates warmth around the people.

Ahmed thought that a 19 mm lense with a heavy light filter was best suited to
the sunny conditions on the day. In his professional opinion, the extreme glare
of the sun needed to be neutralised in order to keep the focus on the wedding
couple and their guests. Sarah prefers Ahmed’s work. She does not want the
sunshine to detract from images of the people because she believes that they are
the most important feature. Therefore, people should be
brought to the forefront of a photographer’s work.

Lense-perspective analogy: conclusion
The lense analogy shows how a research paradigm may be regarded as
alternative ways to look at the same story. Two people may examine the same
facts concerning a specific situation and draw different conclusions depending
on what issues they choose to bring to the forefront of their analysis.

In some instances, a scholar may use any of the following words to refer to the principles
that concern one or more research paradigms.
● Approach
● Worldview
● Theoretical perspective (e.g. Crotty, 1998, p. 7)
● Theoretical framework ● Standpoint
“Sociobiology, idealism, and materialism are not theories. They are paradigms or theoretical
perspectives. They contain a few basic rules for finding theories of events. Sociobiology stresses
the primacy of evolutionary, biological features of humans as the basis for human behavior.
Idealism stresses the importance of internal states — attitudes, preferences, ideas, beliefs,
values—as the basis for human behavior. And materialism stresses structural and infrastructural
forces—like the economy, the technology of production, demography, and environmental
conditions—as causes of human behavior.” (Bernard, 2006, p. 79)

A word of caution - these terminologies may have another meaning within the
research methods literature. It is beyond the scope of this short presentation to
explore the various meanings that these terminologies may convey within this
literature. I suggest that you focus initially on the definitions of research
paradigm provided by Southampton University (2017) and Creswell (2013) and
make your own decision about whether you think these terminologies refer to a
research paradigm in a specific piece of literature. You may consult with your
colleagues and cross-reference the literature to draw your own conclusions.

Popular research paradigms
The following list includes some of the most popular research paradigms that are
discussed in research methods books and are used by scholarly researchers. These
paradigms are listed in alphabetical order, A to Z.
Anti-science
Constructivism
Critical Theory
Positivism
Post-positivism
Postmodernism
Post-structuralism
Pragmatism
Queer Theory
Feminism
Marxism
Postcolonialism
The following six slides offer an introductory definition of each research paradigm.
You should read widely and synthesize your own definition from the corpus of literature.
Some paradigms such as post-structuralism are complex topics to master.

Anti-science: Those who adopt this research paradigm may be skeptical or hostile
towards science (Martin & Wiebe, 2012). This viewpoint may be popular among some
religious scholars such as mystics. Certain scholars argue that all phenomena has divine
origins and explanations. Therefore, the causes and meaning of some, most or all of these
phenomena may be beyond a person’s earthly understanding.
Constructivism:
The individual constructs their own reality. There are multiple interpretations of truth. This
is sometimes referred to as ‘interpretivism’ (University of Southampton, 2017, NP).
Dominant social attitudes towards bodies are popular examples of constructivism. In
certain wealthy societies, obesity is regarded as a medical problem as it reduces life
expectancy. Some impoverished societies view obesity as desirable. Large deposits of fat
may be evidence of a person’s wealth and may offer a store of energy during a famine.

Critical Theory:
Critical theory views the ideas of individuals and collectives (e.g. societies) in relation to
an ideology. Knowledge is not value-free and bias should be acknowledged by the
self-conscious researcher (University of Southampton, 2017). For example, some scholars
may reject knowledge about culture and society gathered from religious scholars who
practice a different faith to that of the researcher.
Feminist: Feminist research aims to give women a voice in the public domain by
quoting issues raised by women and bringing issues that concern girls/women to the
forefront of discussion. This analysis shows empathy for the various ways in which a
patriarchal society or institution may marginalize or oppress members of the female
gender. Research that challenges the reasons why women are sometimes excluded from
serving in military combat is an example of feminist research (e.g. Jericho, 2015a).

Marxism: Marxist research brings issues that concern social class to the forefront of
analysis. Marxist research tends to challenge the limitations of the capitalist mode of
production and examines the ways in which this social structure can cause a small
percentage of elites to control a society’s political economy and wealth. In a similar vein to
feminism and postcolonialism it is considered to be a form of emancipatory research.
Postcolonialism: Postcolonialism brings issues that concern empires and long-term
military occupations to the forefront of analysis. Postcolonial research examines the ways
in which Empires may oppress the inhabitants of the colonies that they administer. These
inhabitants are frequently indigenous communities whose weapons are inferior to the
occupying power, i.e., the occupying Motherland. Studies that examine British and
French Colonies - past and present, frequently use Postcolonial analysis.
(Purdue University, 2017).

Positivism: Positivist research uses quantitative data collection and quantitative data
analysis methods to gather and interpret data. In contrast to qualitative research,
quantitative research research is seen as objective. For example, if Canada’s economy grew
by 5% in 2015 and France’s economy grew by 1% in 2015, there would be universal
acceptance that Canada’s economy performed better than France’s economy in 2015 if this
indicator is the sole measure for ranking both nation’s economic performance. Qualitative
research is regarded as subjective as it uses evaluative criteria that is not universal.
Post-positivism: Post-positivist research uses qualitative and quantitative data analysis
methods to draw inferences from evidence. Some scholars argue that pure qualitative and
pure quantitative research is rare and flawed. All research explores social issues, which are
subjective. Furthermore, only objective data analysis methods can accurately rank the
nature and degree of competing social problems. (Crotty, 1998, Chapter 1)

Postmodernism: Postmodern research rejects modernist viewpoints of the world, which
centers on the influence of elite institutions and was popular prior to the 1960s.
Postmodern research rejects metanarratives, which tend to simplify interpretations of
world affairs. Postmodern research is self-reflective - it makes reference to the influence of
competing institutions of power and competing standpoints on the subject.
Post-structuralism: Post-structuralist research focuses on the ways in which dominant
social structures shape the experiences of individuals, group and communities within a
given polity. In a similar vein to postmodernism, post-structuralists focus on the influence
of plurality - they argue that multiple social, cultural, political and economic forces may
determine the fate of global affairs at the local, regional, national and global level. There is
no universal truth, especially in language, because social relations are fluid.
Purdue University (2017)

Pragmatism: “Pragmatists believe that reality is constantly renegotiated, debated,
interpreted, and therefore the best method to use is the one that solves the problem”
(Southampton University, 2017, NP). An idealist or an ideologist may argue that the
government should never pay welfare to those caught defrauding the government because it
violates their religious beliefs. A pragmatist on the other hand may argue that this position
is not just or feasible because it might cause some people to starve to death.
Queer Theory: Queer Theory partially overlaps with Feminist research. Both paradigms
bring gender to the forefront of analysis. Queer Theory is a form of emancipatory research
that centers on the ways in which sexual minorities may experience different realities to
sexual majorities, such as negative discrimination. Sexual minorities may include a diverse
demographic such as bisexual, asexual, homosexual, intersex and transgendered persons.
(Purdue University, 2017)

Paradigm shift
A paradigm shift occurs when there are changes to the popularity and
legitimacy of a dominant paradigm insofar as it relates to a particular issue.
This may occur when researchers discover new knowledge. In more extreme
cases, new knowledge may cause some scholars to abandon their belief that
a particular research paradigm can offer a legitimate lense through
which scholars may analyse data for any global issue or for any narrowly
defined case study (Martin et al., 2014, p. 11).

Feminism as an example of a paradigm shift
Feminist theory is an example of a research paradigm that retains much support
among many scholars and professional practitioners, although the character of this
support has altered in recent decades. This change is partially because of the
creation of new theory in the field of Gender Studies. During the 1990s, esteemed
gender theorists pioneered a new field of study known by names such as ‘Men’s
Studies’ and ‘Masculinities Theory’. Raewyn Connell (1993) and Michael Kimmell
(1994) are the dominant theorists in this area. This body of work is now mature.

Feminism as an example of a paradigm shift (continued)
Scholars who research Men’s Studies have consistently shown that patriarchy and
other male dominant gender hierarchies also suppress large numbers of the male
population, who likewise suffer from violence and discrimination that some elite
men and other men inflict on women and subordinated masculinities (Martin et al.,
2014, pp. 263–264). This development has caused many feminist scholars to
reassess simplistic arguments that were dominant in the feminist literature prior to
the 1990s. This includes the outdated claim that patriarchy is a social system that
elevates all men by subordinating all women to the male population.

Core principles in the research literature
Before I delve further into the research paradigms literature, it is useful to explore the
basic fundamentals of academic research. These basic principles are largely uncontested.
Most leading research methods scholars such as Creswell (2007) and Denzin (2012)
concur that there are three types of research projects:
1. Research that is exclusively qualitative
2. Research that is exclusively quantitative
3. Mixed research: partially qualitative and partially quantitative.
It is imperative that you develop a good knowledge of what these three types of research
designs encompass before you select your research paradigm. Your choice of one of
these three designs will influence the selection of your research paradigm/s.

I argue that there are three basic classifications that group the numerous research
paradigms which exist, as shown in the diagram below. Positivism belongs in a
classification of its own. This paradigm is rarely used by social researchers. Positivist
research is purely quantitative by definition and is associated with scientific inquiry
(Quinlan, 2011, p. 13). In contrast to positivism, there exists a multiplicity of qualitative
research paradigms that humanist researchers may choose from. Post-positivist research is a
unique category. There is a corpus of literature that discusses the peculiar dynamics that
occur when a researcher: (a) triangulates inferences drawn from a qualitative data set with
inferences drawn from a quantitative data set (e.g. Creswell, 2013) and (b) assigns numeric
and qualitative data analysis codes to a single data set (e.g. Jick, 1979).
Classification 1: Classification 2: Classification 3:
Positivism Post-positivism: All forms of qualitative research;
Example; Anti-science, constructivism, critical theory,
Sociobiology Feminism, Marxism, Materialism, Postcolonialism,
Postmodernism, Post-structuralism, Pragmatism,
Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.

Different scholars have theorized alternative sub-classifications for each research
paradigm. In the table below, I propose a sub-classification system that centres on whether
a researcher engages in social research or alternative forms. This sub-classification may aid
those who engage in social research.
Positivism: Post-positivism: Qualitative paradigms:
(a) Emancipatory social (a) Emancipatory social (a) Emancipatory social
research research research:
(b) Theories of knowledge (b) Theories of knowledge
(c) Other subcategories (c) Other subcategories Feminism, Marxism,
Postcolonialism, Queer Theory,
Materialism, Critical Race Theory,
etc.
(b) Theories of knowledge:
Anti-science, Constructivism,
Critical Theory, Postmodernism,
Post-structuralism.
(c) Other subcategories
An example of a paradigm
classification system diagram

Some paradigms are classifiable at a third level. For example;
Marxism Feminism
Post-Marxism Eco-feminism
Neo-classical Marxism Radical Feminism
Classical Marxism Liberal Feminism
Marxist-Feminism* Feminist-Marxism*
*This is an example of combined paradigm that brings gender and
social-class to the forefront of analysis equally. “This research
embarks on Qualitative Marxist-Feminist emancipatory research”.

Simple paradigm classification system diagram (continued)
The diagram on the second-last slide is imperfect. This observation and the limitations
inherent in this diagram apply to alternative classification and subclassification systems put
forward by other scholars such as Crotty (1998) and Creswell (2013).
● Some paradigms may display attributes that belong to multiple subcategories. For
example, much Postmodern research aims to emancipate those who are oppressed by
dominant social structures such as patriarchy (c.f. Feminism).
● This diagram centres on research conducted by those in the Arts, Humanities and Social
Sciences. It offers less guidance for those who engage in scientific inquiry or
interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary scientific research.
Despite these challenges, it is normally acceptable for a researcher to make a claim such as
“This project embarks on Qualitative emancipatory feminist research”. To correctly
place your research into a paradigm sub-category such as this example shows a degree of
sophistication if your selection is appropriate. Because there are so many competing
sub-classification systems, it is normally acceptable to adopt a classification system that is
widely accepted by scholars in your field. For example, Crotty’s classification system (1998,
Chapter 1) is widely accepted among qualitative social researchers.

Armed with this essential background information,
we are now ready to examine the alternative
guidelines that leading research methods theorists
argue that scholars should adopt in order to select
the most appropriate ‘research paradigms’.

Ontology and epistemology
Theorists such as Creswell (2013, p. 5), Crotty (1998, p. 2) and Quinlan (2011, pp. 13-14) draw on
Philosophical theory to construct a framework that enables researchers to select the most suitable
research paradigm. Creswell and Quinlan argue that the researcher should consider ontological and
epistemological frameworks. Crotty does not discuss ontology and argues that epistemological
frameworks need to be considered. Quinlan (p. 13) argues that social constructivism is a research
paradigm, whereas Crotty (p. 5) argues that social constructivism is an epistemology that in turn
drives the selection of an appropriate research paradigm. Noting these discrepancies in the literature
aims to reassure you and not confuse you. You may need to read widely in order to select the most
appropriate research paradigm that matches your unique research question and objectives.

Creswell (2013, p. 5)
Creswell argues that five elements influence the selection of the
research paradigm.
These five elements are summarized in the diagram shown on
the following slide.

Adapted from Creswell (2013, p. 5) Table 1.1
Element 1: Ontological assumption
What is the nature of reality?
Element 2: Epistemological assumption
What is the nature of the researcher to the research subject matter?
Element 3: Axiological assumption
What is the role of values?
Element 4: Rhetorical assumption
What is the language of research?
Element 5: Methodological assumption
What is the process of research?

Michael Crotty (1998)
Crotty (1998, Chapter 1) argues that there are four elements to the research design and
research process.
These four elements are shown in the diagram on the next slide.
Crotty (1998) argues that the epistemological framework underpins the selection of your
research paradigm.
Your selection of the research paradigm (and your epistemological framework) drives
your methodological design. This in turn drives your data analysis and data collection
methods.

Michael Crotty (1998)
Adapted from Crotty (1998, p. 4), Figure 1
Epistemological framework
Theoretical Perspective (Research Paradigm)
Methodological Design
Data collection and data analysis methods

Conclusion
There is no one piece of advice that I can offer that will guide you through the vast
diversity that exists in the research methods literature, especially with reference to
the ways in which the various paradigms are defined, classified and paired with
research ontologies and research epistemologies. The best way forward will vary
depending on the unique context of your research proposal. Examples of appropriate
courses of action may include:
● Consulting your supervisor/s and peers in your sub-field.
● Replicating choices published in quality, peer-reviewed research that has similar
objectives to your project and has been conducted in the same sub-field.
● Using research paradigms that are most commonly included in theoretical
textbooks that discuss research methods that are relevant to your project.
As a general rule, the adoption of a research paradigm that is rarely used in your
sub-field is more likely to be challenged by your peers (Healey, 2012, p. 99).

Research projects are classifiable as one of three discrete types. This
summary is an orthodox interpretation of research methods literature (e.g.
Krauss, 2005). It is essential that you have mastery of this core tenet of research methods
theory before you attempt to navigate the complex research paradigm literature.
Positivist
Quantitative
analysis:
Objective.
Post-positivist
Mixed data analysis:
e.g. quantitative
feminist research
Qualitative
Text/image/
object/speech
analysis:
Subjective

References
Bernard, H. (2006), Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, New York,
USA: Altimara Press. http://www.dphu.org/uploads/attachements/books/books_476_0.pdf
Accessed 31 January 2017.
Connell, R. (1993), The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history, Theory & Society, 22(5), 597-623.
http://dh101.humanities.ucla.edu/DH101Fall12Lab5/archive/files/40065a2430dbba95dcfd06290c8b5aa6.pdf
Creswell, J. (2007), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, California,
USA: Sage. Available online open-access via https://scholar.google.ca/ Accessed 31 Jan 2017.
Creswell, J. (2013), Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, London, England: Sage.
http://www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Creswell-Cap-10.pdf Accessed 31 Jan 2017.
Crotty, M. (1998), Foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, Sydney,
Australia: Allen & Unwin. Available online open-access via https://scholar.google.ca/
Denzin, N. (2012), “Triangulation 2”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), pp. 80-88.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.832.6263&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Healy, K. (2001), “Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal”, International Social
Work 44(1), pp. 93-105.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.2218&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Jericho, J. (2015a), Hegemonic masculinity in the Australian Defence Force: The exclusion of women from
combat service as state policy, 1973-2013, Doctor of Social Sciences thesis, Sydney, Australia: University of
Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/13726 Accessed 31 January 2017.
Jericho, J. (2015b), Qualitative research for healthcare professionals, The Free School: Sydney, Australia.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/654734_7c39f9861f61427b880c52d26261d579.pdf Accessed 31 January 2017.
Jick, T. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 602–611.
http://www.pm.lth.se/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Jick_1979__Mixing_qualitative_and_quantitat
ive_methods_-_Triangulation_in_action.pdf
Kimmell, M. (1994), “Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender
identity”, in Brod, H. and Kaufman, M. (Eds), Theorizing masculinities, California, USA: Thousand Oakes, pp.
119–141.
Krauss, S. (2005), “Research paradigms and meaning: a primer”, The Qualitative Report, 10(4), pp. 758–770,
http://cadcommunity.pbworks.com/f/research%20paradigms.pdf Accessed 31 January 2015.

Martin, G. et al. (2014), Sociology (5th edition), Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
Martin, L. & Wiebe, D. (2012), Religious studies as a scientific discipline: The persistence of a
delusion,https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/125392/2_Religio_20-2012-1_4.p
df?sequence=1 Accessed 31 January 2017.
Purdue University (2017), Purdue online writing lab,
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/08/ Accessed 31 January 2017.
Quinlan, C. (2011), Business research methods, Hampshire, England: Cengage.
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/1408007797_291453.pdf Accessed 31 Jan 2017.
Rowling, L. (2003), “School mental health promotion research: Pushing the boundaries of research paradigms”,
Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(2), pp. 1–3.
http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/research/publications/resources/rowling.pdf
University of Southampton (2017), What is your paradigm?,
http://www.erm.ecs.soton.ac.uk/theme2/what_is_your_paradigm.html
To cite this presentation:
Jericho, J. (2017), Understanding research paradigms: simplifying complex debates,
Sydney, Australia: The Free School.

Check out the other PowerPoint / YouTube presentations in this series:
http://www.thefreeschool.education/dissertation-writing.html

Meet some research methods scholars!
Our door is open 24 hours a day.
Please knock on our Forum door to connect with other scholars.
www.chat.thefreeschool.education
This presentation was authored by
Jay Jericho D.Soc.Sc Syd

Research paradigms : understanding complex debates

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Research paradigms : understanding complex debates (20)

More from The Free School (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Research paradigms : understanding complex debates