Introduction

The word paradigm originated from the Greek word “paradeigma” which means pattern. This word
was first used in the research by “Kuhn” in 1962 to describe a conceptual framework that is accepted
by a community of researchers or scientists and that provides them with an in-depth guideline to
conduct the research. Since that time a debate between scientists regarding the best paradigm to
conduct the research has always been there. Until 1980s scientists believed that quantitative research
paradigm is the only paradigm or research approach that should be used in both pure science and
social science research.

A research paradigm is an approach or a research model to conducting a research that has been
verified by the research community for long and that has been in practice for hundreds of years.
Most of the research paradigms emerge from one of the two of the approaches to research that are
positivist approach and interpretivism approach. Every research uses one of the research paradigms
to use as a guideline for developing research methodology and to take on the research venture in a
manner that is most valid and appropriate. Though basically there are two paradigms but there are
several other paradigms emerged from these two especially in the social science research.

Approach means how you deal with the phenomenon to analyze and anatomize it, it can be
deductive or inductive. If we categorize them based on their expansion and macro level to micro
level, they would be: like inductive or deductive, qualitative or quantitative

Though basically there are two paradigms but there are several other paradigms emerged from these
two especially in the social science research. One of the paradigms that emerged in the recent years
is the mixed-method research. In pure sciences, quantitative research methodology is clearly the
most favored approach to conducting the research. In social sciences, there has been debate for over
half a decade about the best methodology to use and this resulted in the emergence of mixed-method
paradigm or mixed-method methodology.

1. Paradigm Research

A research paradigm is an approach or a research model to conducting a research that has been
verified by the research community for long and that has been in practice for hundreds of years.
Most of the research paradigms emerge from one of the two of the approaches to research that are
positivist approach and interpretivism approach.

Paradigm consists of some specific components: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and

Methods.  It is important how you consider the reality, as an independent phenomenon that should be
discovered by the researcher?  Or as a mental issue that is interpreted and constructed by different
people and as a result, it can’t be considered as an independent issue.

A research paradigm is “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about
how problems should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn, 1962) According to Guba (1990),
research paradigms can be characterised through their:

ontology – What is reality?

epistemology – How do you know something?
methodology – How do you go about finding it out?
2. Positivism

As defined by “Mertens (2005) and Creswell (2003)” Positivism is defined as scientific methods

which are based on empiricism and rationalism and is based on the cause and effect relationship. The
positivist paradigm follows a determination that every phenomenon or occurrence has a cause that
can define the effect or the consequence. Positivists believe that there are pre-tested theories that can
determine this cause and effect and these theories can be generalized to various settings.

This is the view that social science procedures should mirror, as near as possible, those of the natural
sciences. The researcher should be objective and detached from the objects of research. It is possible
to capture ‘reality’ through the use of research instruments such as experiments and questionnaires.
The aims of positivist research are to offer explanations leading to control and predictability.
Positivism has been a very predominant way of knowing the social world; what Guba and Lincoln
(2005) refer to as the ‘received view’. This can be seen by the ways in which many still perceive
positivist approaches to be simply a commonsensical way of conducting research. While there are
many varieties of positivism (see Crotty 1998), quantitative approaches that use statistics and
experiments are seen as classic examples.
Post-positivism: This is a response to the criticisms that have been made about positivism. As its
name suggests, post-positivism maintains the same set of basic beliefs as positivism. However, post-
positivists argue that we can only know social reality imperfectly and probabilistically. While
objectivity remains an ideal, there is an increased use of qualitative techniques in order to ‘check’
the validity of findings. ‘Postpositivism holds that only partially objective accounts of the world can
be produced, for all methods for examining such accounts are flawed’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2005:
27).

Most of the scientific or quantitative research use positivism as a conceptual framework for research.
Quantitative research always follows positivist approach because positivists believe in the empirical
hypothesis testing. In pure sciences, positivism is preferred because of its empirical nature to study
facts. In quantitative research, the research follows a probabilistic model that is determined by
previous research. Positivists believe that the findings of one study can be generalized to another
study of a similar kind regardless of it is conducted in a different environment and situations. This is
true of scientific variables like volume, speed, density, strength, and weight. For example, if a
scientific study proves the hypothesis that if a certain finish is applied to a fine cotton tulle fabric it
will lose some of its natural strength, these results can be generalized to another similar fabric that
gets the same after-finish.

When talking about social and behavioral sciences quantitative researchers believe that any human
behavior can be studied and predicted quantitatively and they believe that behavior can be explained
using a scientific approach to research. While using positivist paradigm in social sciences the
researcher controls all the other factors that can ruin his/her research by having their impact. To
achieve a controlled environment the researcher has to conduct the research in a laboratory setting
like a scientific experiment, though the human behavior is difficult to study in a controlled
environment, this makes it difficult for the social science researcher to use a positivist paradigm in
the study of human behavior. For example, if a researcher hypothesizes that adolescents who drop
out of high schools are also involved in criminal activities, he/she has to study those students who
dropped out in a natural setting rather than in a lab. As human behavior cannot be studied in lab
settings it’s difficult to generalize human behavior to a wide and varied group of people regardless of
if they have several similarities.

The most common methodologies used in positivist paradigm includes the following.
 Experimental
Quasi-experimental
Correlational
Theory verification
Causal-comparative
Determination
Normative
3. Interpretivism

Interpretivist approaches to social research see interpretations of the social world as culturally
derived and historically situated. Interpretivism is often linked to the work of Weber, who suggested
that the social sciences are concerned with verstehen (understanding). This is compared to erklaren
(explaining), which forms the basis of seeking causal explanations and is the hallmark of the natural
sciences. The distinction between verstehen and erklaren underlies that (often exaggerated) between
qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Interpretivism has many variants. These include
hermeneutics, phenomenology and symbolic interactionism.

Most of the qualitative research in social sciences use interpretivism approach to research.
Interpretivists believe that human behavior is multilayered and it cannot be determined by pre-
defined probabilistic models. It depends on the situations and is determined by environmental factors
other than the genes. A human behavior is quite unlike a scientific variable which is easy to control.
Human behaviors are affected by several factors and are mostly subjective in nature. Therefore
interpretivistic believe in studying human behavior in the daily life rather than in the controlled
environment.

Distinction between Positivism and Interpretivism

positivism and interpretivism we can say that positivism is governed by objectivity, measurability,
predictability, probability, controllability and control laws that can predict human behavior. On the
other hand, anti-positivism or interpretivism is governed by subjectivity and studying human
behavior in a real-life setting. Though, both of these paradigms are opposite of each other they
represent the reality in two different manners, both of them have their own value and significance in
the growth and development of knowledge.
 4. Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a school of thought that believes the function of thought is tool for prediction, action,
and problem solving and not to describe, represent, or mirror reality.

Pragmatism: interplay between knowledge and action to cause change. Appropriate for research
approaches because it allows room for innovations and interventions. Pragmatic research involves
using the method which appears most suitable for the type of research to be conducted. Practicality
against philosophy, eg simple random sampling against snowballing. Freedom to use any of the
methods, techniques usually used for quantitative or qualitative research.

Typese Pragmatism
1. Functional pragmatism: Knowledge for action, Knowledge should be useful for action and
change. Knowledge: Commercial sex workers do not wish to be known, What actions do I take
when researching on this group
2. Referential pragmatism: Knowledge about action, describing the world in action-oriented
ways. Prior Information about the outcome/results of actions
3. Methodological pragmatism: Knowledge through action. We learn about the world through
action. Knowledge is based on actions, experiences and reflections on actions.
approach Pragmatism Research
 Formulate a clear research question.
 Research design and Data management.
 Research team formulation
 community sensitisation programme.
 Consenting
5. Critical/standpoint

Critical: As you might expect, critical social paradigms critique both positivism and
interpretivism as ways of understanding the social world. ‘Critical inquiry . . . [is not] a research
that seeks merely to understand . . . [it is] a research that challenges . . . that [takes up a view] of
conflict and oppression . . . that seeks to bring about change’ (Crotty 1998: 112). Included in this
category would be feminism, neo-Marxism, anti-racist and participatory approaches.

6. Social/ Constructivists
Social/ Constructivists believe that there is no single reality or truth, and therefore reality needs
to be interpreted, and therefore they are more likely to use qualitative methods to get those
multiple realities.

Postmodern: While the other paradigms offer grand theories for understanding the social world,
‘advocates of postmodernism have argued that the era of big narratives and theories is over:
locally, temporally and situationally limited narratives are now required’ (Flick 1998: 2). Post-
modernist approaches seek to overcome the boundaries that are placed between art and social
science. Post-modern approaches do not offer a view of rational progression to a better world.
All we might expect is that social life will be in some ways different. As with the other
paradigms, there are a variety of positions within the broad label of post-modernism. These
would include post-structuralism.

A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an

object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how
they view or deal with the object or event.[6] In that respect, a social construct as an idea would
be widely accepted as natural by the society. A major focus of social constructionism is to
uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the construction of their
perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are developed,
institutionalized, known, and made into tradition by humans.

Social constructionism can be seen as a source of the postmodern movement, and has been
influential in the field of cultural studies. Some have gone so far as to attribute the rise of cultural
studies (the cultural turn) to social constructionism. Within the social constructionist strand of
postmodernism, the concept of socially constructed reality stresses the ongoing mass-building of
worldviews by individuals in dialectical interaction with society at a time. The numerous realities
so formed comprise, according to this view, the imagined worlds of human social existence and
activity, gradually crystallized by habit into institutions propped up by language conventions,
given ongoing legitimacy by mythology, religion and philosophy, maintained by therapies and
socialization, and subjectively internalized by upbringing and education to become part of the
identity of social citizens.