Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Aug 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
154x Filetype PDF File size 0.21 MB Source: liduaeka.weebly.com
Common Paradigms
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Qualitative and quantitative approaches are rooted in philosophical traditions
with different epistemological and ontological assumptions.
Epistemology - is the theory of knowledge and the assumptions and beliefs
that we have about the nature of knowledge. How do we know the world? What is the
relationship between the inquirer and the known?
Ontology - concerns the philosphy of existence and the assumptions and beliefs that we
hold about the nature of being and existence.
Paradigms - models or frameworks that are derived from a worldview or belief system
about the nature of knowledge and existence. Paradigms are shared by a scientific
community and guide how a community of researchers act with regard to inquiry.
Methodology - how we gain knowledge about the world or "an articulated, theoretically
informed approach to the production of data" (Ellen, 1984, p. 9).
Five Common Paradigms
Most qualitative research emerges from the 'interpretivist' paradigm. While we describe
the epistemological, ontological and methodological underpinnings of a variety of
paradigms, one need not identify with a paradigm when doing qualitative research.
Bryman (2004) articulates the tension between interpretivist and positivist approaches in
a political debate about the nature, importance and capacity of different research
methods.
Up until the 1960s, the 'scientific method' was the predominant approach to social
inquiry, with little attention given to qualitative approaches such as participant
observation.
In response to this, a number of scholars across disciplines began to argue against the
centrality of the scientific method. They argued that quantitiative approaches might be
appropriate for studying the physical and natural world, they were not appropriate when
the object of study was people. Qualitative approaches were better suited to social
inquiry.
To understand the tension between paradigms one must understand that this tension -
the either or approach that emerged in the context of a debate about the capacity
and importance of qualitative methods.
Byrman and others, most recently Morgan (2007), argue for a more pragmatic approach;
one that is disentrangled from the entrapments of this paradigm debate, one that
recognizes the ties or themes that connect quantitative and qualitative research, and one
that sees the benefits of blending quantitative and qualitative methods.
Resources:
Bryman, A. (2004). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge. First
published in 1988.
Ellen, RF. (1984). Introduction. In RF Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic Research: A guide to
general conduct (research methods in social anthropology) (pp. 1-12). London:
Academic Press.
Morgan, DL. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research. 1(1), 48-76.
The Interpretivist Paradigm
Assumptions and Beliefs of the Interpretivist Paradigm
Interpretivist views have different origins in different disciplines. Schultz, Cicourel and
Garfinkel (phenomenology/sociology), the "Chicago School of Sociology"
(sociology), and Boas and Malinowski (anthropology) are often connected with the
origin the interpretivist paradigm. The interpretivist paradigm developed as a critique
of positivism in the social sciences. In general, interpretivists share the following
beliefs about the nature of knowing and reality.
relativist ontology - assumes that reality as we know it is constructed inter-
subjectively through the meanings and understandings developed socially and
experientially.
transactional or subjectivist epistemology - assumes that we cannot separate
ourselves from what we know. The investigator and the object of investigation
are linked such that who we are and how we understand the world is a central
part of how we understand ourselves, others and the world.
By positing a reality that cannot be separate from our knowlege of it (no separation of
subject and object), the interpretivist paradigm posits that researchers' values are
inherent in all phases of the research process. Truth is negotiated through dialogue.
Findings or knowledge claims are created as an investigation proceeds. That is,
findings emerge through dialogue in which conflicting interpretations are
negotiated among members of a community.
Pragmatic and moral concerns are important considerations when evaluating
interpretive science. Fostering a dialogue between researchers and respondents
is critical. It is through this dialectical process that a more informed and
sophisticated understanding of the social world can be created.
All interpretations are based in a particular moment. That is, they are located in
a particular context or situation and time. They are open to re-interpretation and
negotiation through conversation.
Methodology
Interpretive approaches rely heavily on naturalistic methods (interviewing and
observation and analysis of existing texts).
These methods ensure an adequate dialog between the researchers and those
with whom they interact in order to collaboratively construct a meaningful
reality.
Generally, meanings are emergent from the research process.
Typically, qualitative methods are used.
View of Criteria for 'Good' Research
Interpretivist positions are founded on the theoretical belief that reality is socially
constructed and fluid. Thus, what we know is always negotiated within cultures, social
settings, and relationship with other people.
From this perspective, validity or truth cannot be grounded in an objective reality.
What is taken to be valid or true is negotiated and there can be multiple, valid claims to
knowledge.
Angen (2000) offers some criteria for evaluting research from an interpretivist
perspective:
careful consideration and articulation of the research question
carrying out inquiry in a respectful manner
awareness and articulation of the choices and interpretations the researcher
makes during the inquiry process and evidence of taking responsibility for those
choices
a written account that develops persuasive arguments
evaluation of how widely results are disseminated
validity becomes a moral question for Angen and must be located in
the 'discourse of the research community'
ethical validity - recognition that the choices we make through the research
process have political and ethical consideration.
o Researchers need to ask if research is helpful to the target population
o seek out alternative explanations than those the researcher constructs
o ask if we've really learned something from our work
substantive validity - evaluating the substance or content of an interpretive work
o need to see evidence of the interpretive choices the researcher made
o an assessment of the biases inherent in the work over the lifespan of a
research project
o self-reflect to understand our own transformation in the research process
Resources:
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and
opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Enthnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The Positivist Paradigm
The origin of positivist views are usually credited to Descarte. Others have traced these
beliefs back to Galileo. Both share the following beliefs about the nature of knowing
and reality.
Assumptions and beliefs of the Positivist Paradigm:
realist ontology - assumes that there are real world objects apart from the
human knower. In other words, there is an objective reality.
representational epistemology - assumes people can know this reality and use
symbols to accurately describe and explain this objective reality.
By positing a reality separate from our knowlege of it (separation of subject and object),
the positivist paradigm provides an objective reality against which researchers can
compare their claims and ascertain truth.
Prediction and control - assumes that there are general patterns of cause and
effect that can be used as a basis for predicting and controlling natural
phenomenon. The goal is to discover these patterns.
Empirical verification - assumes that we can rely on our perceptions of the world
to provide us with accurate data.
Research has been assumed to be value-free; if strict methodological protocol is
followed, research will be free of subjective bias and objectivity will be
achieved.
Methodology
Positivist approaches rely heavily on experimental and manipulative methods.
These ensure that there is a distance between the subjective biases of the
researcher and the objective reality he or she studies.
This generally involves hypothesis generation and testing.
Typically, quantitative methods are used.
View of Criteria for 'Good' Research
The positivist position is grounded in the theoretical belief that there is an objective
reality that can be known to the researcher, if he or she uses the correct methods and
applies those methods in a correct manner.
Research (typically quantitative and experimental methods) is evaluted based on three
criteria:
Validity - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure gives the
correct answer (allowing the researcher to measure or evaluate an objective
reality)
Reliability - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure give the
same answer whenever it is carried out
Generalizability - extent to which the findings of a study can be applied
externally or more broadly outside of the study context
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
