Research Paradigms: An Overview
Masters Program in Renewable Energy
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Institute of Engineering
August 7, 2009
PRAMOD BAHADUR SHRESTHA
PROFESSOR (RETIRED), DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING, INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING, NEPAL
Presentation Outline
What is Research?
What is Paradigm? Definition,
Concept, the Paradigm Shift
Main Components of a Paradigm:
Ontology, Epistemology &
Methodology
Research Paradigms: Three Main
Paradigms
Paradigm Positions on Selected
Practical Research Issues
Presentation Outline
Logic of Inquiry: Research
Strategies
Quantitative/Qualitative Research:
Salient Features; Mixed Methods?
Research Process
“Every discipline depends on Research Activities
to expand its knowledge base.”
What is
There are many ways of knowing and therefore many ways of approaching
research.
research?
•“ A studious inquiry or examination,
especially a critical investigation or
experimentation having for its aim the
discovery of new facts and their correct
interpretation, the revision of accepted
conclusions, theories, or laws in the light
of new discovered facts or the
practical application of such
conclusions, theories or laws.”
• “Diligent and systematic inquiry or
investigation into a subject in order to
discover facts or principles.”
Typologies of Research Designs used in Social
Science Research
Research Design = Architectural Blueprint. A plan for assembling,
organizing, and integrating information (data), and its results
in a specific end product (research findings)
McGrath (1970) Five Models
4. Controlled Experiment
5. Study
6. Survey
7. Investigation
8. Action Research
Selltiz (1962) Three Broad Categories
11. Formative or Exploratory
12. Descriptive
13. Causal Hypotheses Testing
Isaac’s Nine Categories (1978)
2. Historical
3. Descriptive
4. Developmental
5. Co-rrelational
6. Case or Field Study
7. Casual-Comparative
8. True Experimental
9. Quasi-Experimental
10. Action
What is a paradigm?
A broad framework of perception, understanding,
belief within which theories and practices operate.
… a network of coherent ideas about the nature of
the world and the functions of researchers which,
adhered to by a group of researchers, conditions
their thinking and underpins their research actions
[Bassey, 1990: para 8.1]
A basis for comprehension, for interpreting social
reality [Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000: 9]
What is a paradigm? (Continued)
It pre-structures perceptions, conceptualisation &
understanding
Shifts in scientific theory require new paradigms
[Science is] …a series of peaceful interludes
punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions …
in which one conceptual world view is replaced by
another. [Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000: 396]
Researchers from different disciplines
[traditions?] may have different paradigms
There are competing paradigms in research
What is a PARADIGM ?
a mental model
a way of seeing
a filter for one's perceptions
a frame of reference
a framework of thought or beliefs through
which one's world or reality is interpreted
an example used to define a phenomenon
a commonly held belief among a group of
people, such as scientists of a given discipline
Paradigm Shif t
In 1962, Thomas Kuhn wrote The Structure of
Scientific Revolution, and fathered, defined and
popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" (p.10).
Kuhn argues that scientific advancement is not
evolutionary, but rather is a "series of peaceful
interludes punctuated by intellectually violent
revolutions", and in those revolutions "one conceptual
world view is replaced by another".
Think of a Paradigm Shift as a change from one way
of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a
transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does
not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change.
Main Components
of a Paradigm:
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodology
Main Components of Paradigm
Ontology – ‘concerned with being’-
How do you look at reality?
‘Epistemology – ‘The branch of
philosophy concerned with the origin,
nature, methods & limits of
knowledge.’
On tolo gy
Ontology is the starting point of all
research, after which one’s
epistemological and methodological
positions logically follow. A dictionary
definition of the term may describe it
as the image of social reality upon
which a theory is based
Ontol ogy
Norman Blaikie offers a fuller definition,
suggesting that ontological claims are
‘claims and assumptions that are made
about the nature of social reality, claims
about what exists, what it looks like, what
units make it up and how these units
interact with each other.
In short, ontological assumptions are
concerned with what we believe constitutes
social reality’ (Blaikie, 2000, p. 8)
Epi stemol ogy
Epistemology, one of the core branches of
philosophy, is concerned with the theory of
knowledge, especially in regard to its
methods, validation and ‘the possible ways
of gaining knowledge of social reality,
whatever it is understood to be.
Episte mol ogy
Derived from the Greek words episteme
(knowledge) and logos (reason), epistemology
focuses on the knowledge-gathering process and
is concerned with developing new models or
theories that are better than competing models
and theories.
Knowledge, and the ways of discovering it, is not
static, but forever changing. When reflecting on
theories, and concepts in general, researchers
need to reflect on the assumptions on which they
are based and where they originate from in the
first place.
Ways of Knowi ng about th e
Worl d: Inqui ry St rategi es
Authority (parents, state, boss, etc)
Religion (faith, belief, standard, morals, etc)
Tradition (we have always done that way, folkways,
cultural patterns, we know how to behave in
certain situation)
Intuition
Creativity
Science and scientific research
Resear ch Met ho ds and
Met hodo log y
Methodology refers to general principles
which underline how we investigate the
social world and how we demonstrate that
the knowledge generated is valid.
Research methods refers to the more
practical issues of choosing an appropriate
research design – perhaps an experiment or
a survey – to answer a research question,
and then designing instruments to generate
data.
Logic o f In quiry :
Re search St rate gie s
Deductive and Inductive Thinking
Deductive Thinking = "top-down" approach. Narrow in nature and is
concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
Deductive Thinking
Inductive Thinking = "bottom up"
approach. Open ended and
Inductive Thinking exploratory.
The Research Wheel
Survey = Deductive, variables are
selected for investigation from a
theory or conceptual model before the
study. Results are generally presented
quantitatively.
Case study = Inductive, impossible
to identify all the important variables
ahead of time. Results are presented
qualitatively, using words and
pictures rather than numbers
Positivism, Critical Theory et. al,
Interpretivism/Constructivism: A
Comparison Among Paradigms
Positiv ism
Quantitative purists (Positivists):
Believe that social observations should be treated as
entities in much the same way that physical scientists
treat physical phenomena.
Contend that the observer is separate from the entities
that are subject to observation.
Maintain that social inquiry should be objective.
That time- and context-free generalizations (Nagel,
1986) are desirable and possible, and
Real causes of social scientific outcomes can be
determined reliably and validly.
Interpre ti vi sm/ Constr ucti vi sm
Qualitative purists (also called constructivists
and interpretivists) reject positivism.
Argue for the superiority of constructivism,
idealism, relativism, humanism,
hermeneutics, and, sometimes,
postmodernism.
Contend that multiple-constructed realities
abound,
That time- and context-free generalizations
In terp re tivis m/ Constr uctivis m
(Cont ’d)
That research is value-bound,
That it is impossible to differentiate fully
causes and effects,
That logic flows from specific to general (e.g.,
explanations are generated inductively from
the data), and
That knower and known cannot be separated
because the subjective knower is the only
source of reality.
Quantitative Versus Qualitative
Research:
Salient Features; Mixed Methods?
Quantitative Qualitative
research research
Its purpose is to explain Its purpose is to
social life understand social life
Is nomothetic – interested Is ideographic –
in establishing law-like describes reality as it is
statements, causes,
consequences, etc
Aims at theory testing Aims at theory building
Employs an objective Employs a subjective
approach approach
Quantitative Qualitative
research research
Is etiological – interested Is historical – interested
in explanations over in real cases
space and time
Is a closed approach – is Is open and flexible in all
strictly planned aspects
Research process is Research process is
predetermined influenced by the
respondent
Uses a rigid and static Uses a dynamic approach
approach
Quantitative research Qualitative research
Employs an inflexible Employs a flexible
process process
Is particularistic, Is holistic – studies
studies elements, whole units
variables
Employs random Employs theoretical
sampling sampling
Quantitative research Qualitative research
Places priority on Places priority on
studying differences
studying similarities
Employs a reductive Employs an
data analysis explicative data
analysis
Employs high levels
of measurement Employs low levels
of measurement
Employs a deductive
Employs an
approach
inductive approach
Feature Quantitative Qualitative
Methodology Methodology
Nature of reality Objective; simple; Subjective;
single; tangible problematic;
sense holistic; a social
impressions construct
Causes and Nomological Non-deterministic;
effects thinking; cause – mutual shaping; no
effect linkages cause – effect
linkages
The role of values Value neutral; Normativism;
value-free inquiry value-bound
inquiry
Feature Quantitative Methodology Qualitative Methodology
Natural and social Deductive; model of Inductive; rejection of the
sciences natural sciences; natural sciences model;
nomothetic; bases on ideographic; no strict
strict rules rules; interpretations
Methods Quantitative, Qualitative, with less
mathematical; extensive emphasis on statistics;
use of statistics verbal and qualitative
analysis
Researcher’s role Rather passive; is the Active; ‘knower’ and
‘knower’; is separate from ‘known’ are interactive
subject – the known: and inseparable
dualism
Generalizations Inductive generalizations; Analytical or conceptual
nomothetic statements generalizations; time-
and-context specific
Criteria: Quantitative Research --- Criteria: Qualitative Research
Internal validity Credibility
External validity Transferability
Reliability Dependability
Objectivity Confirmability
The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate
The debate is between the general assumptions
involved in undertaking a research project
(qualitative, quantitative or mixed). At the level of
the assumptions that are made, the differences can
be profound and irreconcilable (which is why
there's so much fighting that goes on). There are
some fundamental differences, but that they lie
primarily at the level of assumptions about
research (epistemological and ontological
assumptions).
The quantitative-qualitative debate is
philosophical. Many qualitative researchers
operate under different epistemological (source of
knowledge) and ontological (how we look at reality)
assumptions from quantitative researchers.
Some questions???
§ So, if the difference between
qualitative and quantitative is not
along the exploratory-confirmatory
or inductive-deductive dimensions,
then where is it?
§ Is it true that now-a-days, we find
researchers who are interested in
blending the two traditions,
attempting to get the advantages of
each?
Three Main Types of Research
Questions
1. Descriptive
When a study is designed primarily to
describe what is going on or what exists.
Public opinion polls that seek only to describe
the proportion of people who hold various
opinions are primarily descriptive in nature.
For instance, if we want to know what percent
of the population would vote for a Democratic
or a Republican in the next presidential
election, we are simply interested in
describing something.
Relational
When a study is designed to look at
the relationships between two or more
variables. A public opinion poll that
compares what proportion of males
and females say they would vote for a
Democratic or a Republican candidate
in the next presidential election is
essentially studying the relationship
between gender and voting
preference.
§ Causal
When a study is designed to determine
whether one or more variables (e.g., a
program or treatment variable) causes or
affects one or more outcome variables. If
we did a public opinion poll to try to
determine whether a recent political
advertising campaign changed voter
preferences, we would essentially be
studying whether the campaign (cause)
changed the proportion of voters who
would vote Democratic or Republican
(effect).
Introduction to Validity
Validity = The best available approximation to the truth of a
given proposition, inference, or conclusion.
External
validity
Introduction to Validity: Four types of
validity
Four Types of Vali di ty
The four validity types are: Internal
validity, External Validity, Construct
Validity and Conclusion Validity. They
build on one another, with two of them
(conclusion and internal) referring to
the land of observation on the bottom
of the figure, one of them (construct)
emphasizing the linkages between the
bottom and the top, and the last (
external) being primarily concerned
about the range of our theory on the
top.
Internal Validity deals with the question of
how one’s findings match reality. Do the
findings capture what is really there? Are
investigators observing or measuring what
they think they are measuring?
One of the assumptions underlying
qualitative research is that reality is holistic,
multi-dimensional, and ever-changing; it is
not a single, fixed, objective phenomenon
waiting to be discovered, observed, and
measured. Then how do we assess the
validity of what is being observed or
measured?
External validity is related to generalizing.
That's the major thing you need to keep in
mind. Recall that validity refers to the
approximate truth of propositions,
inferences, or conclusions. So, external
validity refers to the approximate truth of
conclusions the involve generalizations.
Put in more simple terms, external validity
is the degree to which the conclusions in
your study would hold for other persons in
other places and at other times.
Threats to externa l
val idiarety
There three major threats to external validity because
there are three ways you could be wrong -- people, places or
times. Your critics could come along, for example, and argue
that the results of your study are due to the unusual type of
people who were in the study. Or, they could argue that it
might only work because of the unusual place you did the
study in (perhaps you did your educational study in a college
town with lots of high-achieving educationally-oriented kids).
Or, they might suggest that you did your study in a peculiar
time. For instance, if you did your smoking cessation study
the week after the Surgeon General issues the well-publicized
results of the latest smoking and cancer studies, you might
get different results than if you had done it the week before.
Perhaps the best approach to criticisms of generalizations is
simply to show them that they're wrong -- do your study in a
variety of places, with different people and at different times.
That is, your external validity (ability to generalize) will be
stronger the more you replicate your study.
Criteria: Quantitative Research --- Criteria: Qualitative Research
Internal validity Credibility
External validity Transferability
Reliability Dependability
Objectivity Confirmability
Dealing with the issue of
validity and reliability
All researchers is concerned with
producing valid and reliable
knowledge in an ethical manner.
Basic question: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN
THE RESEARCHER TRUST THE FINDINGS
OF A SURVEY STUDY???
The first thing we have to ask is: "validity of
what?" When we think about validity in
research, most of us think about research
components. We might say that a measure
is a valid one, or that a valid sample was
drawn, or that the design had strong
validity. But all of those statements are
technically incorrect. Measures, samples
and designs don't 'have' validity -- only
propositions can be said to be valid.
Technically, we should say that a measure
leads to valid conclusions or that a sample
enables valid inferences, and so on. It is a
proposition, inference or conclusion that
can 'have' validity.
Internal Validity = It deals with the question of how
one’s findings match reality. Do the findings
capture what is really there? Are investigators
observing or measuring what they think they are
measuring?
External Validity = Ability to generalize. The extent
to which the findings of one study can be applied
to other situations.
Construct Validity = How well you have translated a
concept or construct into a functioning and
operating reality (the operationalization).
Reliability = The extent to which there is
consistency in one’s findings. This is enhanced by
the investigator explaining the assumptions and
the theory underlying the study, by triangulating
data, and by leaving a audit trail, that is, by
describing in detail how the study was conducted
and how the findings were derived from the data.
Co nclu si on
“I keep six honest
serving men, (they
taught me all I knew),
their names are what,
and why, and when,
and how, and where
and who.”
--Rudyard Kipling
Co nclu si on
“The formulation of the problem
is often more essential than its
solution”
Albert Einstein
Su ggest ed Re adings
Norman W. H. Blaikie, Approaches to Social Inquiry,
Polity Press, UK,1993.
Norman W. H. Blaikie, Designing Social Research
Polity Press, UK, 2000.
Norman K, Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln,
Handbook of Qualitative Research, SAGE
Publications, USA,1993.
