See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333036861

Understanding philosophical underpinnings of research with respect to

various paradigms: Perspective of a research scholar

Conference Paper · April 2019

CITATION READS

1 9,150

1 author:

Diwakar Singh
Ambedkar University Delhi
5 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inter- professional Health Care View project

Disaster management Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diwakar Singh on 12 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

Understanding philosophical underpinnings of research with respect to various

paradigms: Perspective of a research scholar

Abstract
Being a research scholar myself, I have faced great confusion understanding the philosophical underpinning of
research. The available abundant resource only multiplied my owes. It is mainly due to the fact that finding one
general definition of a term is very difficult. A term is defined differently in different disciplines and also
differently in different context in the same discipline. This makes the life of early researchers even more difficult.
The lack of knowledge and confusion about epistemology, ontology, methodology, and methods keeps the
budding researchers always finding one source or the other to understand these concepts clearly. Generally,
research scholars are quite ignorant about the importance these terms have in the research process and how the
lack of proper understanding is going to affect the kind of research they are undertaking. Having struggled to
understand the journey of research, made me explore a number of resources. The problem in understanding the
complexity was not the lack of resources but on the contrary their availability in abundance. Also, the knowledge
is available in a fragmented form and more than solving the doubts they create even more confusion. A great deal
of effort is made to synthesize the fragmented knowledge at one place and present the paper in easy to understand
even to a novice researcher. An attempt is made to make research scholars understand the philosophical
underpinnings of research with respect to various paradigms in a very lucid manner. This is going to make their
philosophical journey quite smooth. They can have a better understanding of these processes from the beginning
of their research process. However, due to ever-increasing paradigms, some of the most important ones are only
discussed. The journey of a research scholar is most challenging and also most rewarding. Sound Understanding
of philosophical underpinnings of research paves the path for smooth and successful completion of quality
research and gives joy achieved once in a lifetime.

Keywords: Research Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Methods

1. Introduction
“Google is not a synonym for ‘research’.”
- Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol ("Quotation," n.d.)
These words from the famous author Dan Brown are an indication of our over-reliance on google for everything
on the one hand and protecting the sanctity of the ‘research' process on the other. Research is the most coveted
journey undertaken by a few courageous souls in order to solve some unresolved mysteries, solve the problems
facing the society, add meaningful knowledge to the existing literature etc.... Researchers spent most of their time
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
analysing and synthesising various phenomenon by gathering data and drawing a conclusion. As it is carried out
in a very systematic way, it demands discipline, patience and hard work form the researcher. The very fact that
the research process is very rigorous and time-consuming, very few people dare to venture in this field. However,
the research journey can be made smooth if the researcher is aware of the philosophical underpinnings of the
research process from the beginning itself.

Research Paradigms as a concept is proved difficult even for seasoned research scholars to understand. As a
research scholar when we start our research journey, we need to have some basic understanding of the philosophy
of the research. In this paper, I have tried to give a holistic picture of the entire research process. Whether it is
true that it is not very exhaustive in nature, an attempt is made here to make budding researchers confident about
their journey by proving the relevant information in easy to understand manner. They will have a firm
understanding of the philosophical underpinning of their research with respect to various paradigms and their
underlying assumptions on ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods. Having a fair Understanding of
these paradigms could not be complete without the help of Indian Philosophy, thus a brief explanation of these
terms as they are explained and defined in our scriptures are also provided. There is always some confusion
among scholars about which paradigm is appropriate for their study- Qualitative or Quantitative or mixed method
approach. With the help of some useful works done in this field, I have tried to make their differentiation easy to
understand too. We are living in a technologically much-advanced world where we are surrounded by an
abundance of statistical data available at a click of a mouse. If we type a single word in google scholar, thousands
of articles crop up immediately. The challenge is how a researcher can derive relevant information from this data
and use it in a meaningful way. A great deal of effort is made to synthesize the fragmented knowledge at one
place so that the researchers will have a fair understanding of philosophical underpinnings of various paradigms
from the beginning of their research journey.

2. What is Paradigm in Research?

The word Paradigm was first used by Thomas Kuhn (1962) to represent a Philosophical way of thinking (Kivunja
& Kuyini, 2017). A Paradigm can be understood as a set of beliefs that represents a worldview (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). It can also be defined as a mental model or a framework of thought or belief through which one interprets
the reality. A paradigm speaks about researchers philosophical orientation which decides ontology, epistemology,
methodology & methods to be used. It reflects researchers abstract beliefs that guide his interpretation of reality.
It also helps the researcher to grasp the clear picture of the world. A researcher is undertaking his research journey
under the framework of some paradigms, whether he is aware of it or not (Tuli, 2010). If we as a researcher are
clear about which paradigm to use, choosing about methodology, methods and research design become pretty
much easier to decide (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). This is a conceptual tool using which the researcher gets
clarity about the methodological aspect of the research problem to decide which methods of data collection and
data analysis are to be used (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). According to Tuli (2010), Paradigm decides how a
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

researcher should view a phenomenon and which research methodology to use to study those phenomena.
According to Atieno (2009), a paradigm can be understood either as an approach or a design, So, there are some
paradigms which are favourable for quantitative approach while there are others which is favourable for
qualitative approach and yet there are some other paradigms which are favourable for both approaches known as
mixed method approach (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Some of these paradigms are discussed in detail in the
coming paragraphs.

3. Ontology
The word ontology is derived from the Greek words ‘ontos’ which means being and ‘logos’ which means study,
therefore, it is the study of being. Ontology is the beginning of any research after which epistemology,
methodology, and methods follow. Ontological assumptions concern with what is the form as well as the nature
of reality and being, and what is there that can be known about that reality (Ponterotto, 2005; Guba & Lincoln,
1994)? So, for a Positivist, the world exists independent of our knowledge of it i.e.- it exists out there (Gray,
2013) waiting to be discovered. For an interpretivist, there are multiple realities that are constructed socially and
there are various ways to access them. Researchers need to clarify their stand about their perception of reality and
how things really function (Scotland, 2012). It is true that ontology is one the most abstract and difficult term to
understand, its importance in research journey cannot be negated. A researchers knowledge, intentions, goals,
philosophical assumptions are interlinked with the research they undertake (Mack, 2010). Given below are the
important types of ontology: Realism and Relativism.

3.1 Realism
It is a philosophical view that can be defined as - whatever we perceive is real, truly out there. It’s not an illusion,
or “all in our minds” (“Realism,” n.d.). We use our common sense to collect information about the things in our
surroundings that are truly out there. According to Bryman (2012), Realism is similar to positivism in the way
that both believes that natural and social science should apply the same methods of data collection and its analysis.
It holds the view that whatever science tells about the world is correct and the object of research like organisations,
culture, ethics etc. exists independent of the knowledge of realist researcher. Thus they can also be analyzed
systematically like natural phenomenon (Gray, 2013). Empirical Realism or Naïve Realism believes that the
world is knowable as it exists and believes in its objective reality. They believe that using proper methods they
can understand reality (Bryman, 2012). Critical Realism believes that some sense data can represent the external
reality accurately whereas some sense data (Like illusion) cannot (“Critical Realism,” n.d.). According to Guba,
Lincoln, & others (1994), Critical realism believes in “real reality which is imperfectly and probabilistically
apprehendable.”
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
3.2 Relativism
The problem with the term ‘Relativism’ is that it is defined in a variety of senses (Boghossian, 2006). As my idea
is to make the researcher understand his/ her ontology before embarking their research journey, the definitions
which are useful in understanding are provided here. Ontologically Speaking, relativism is in complete
disagreement with realism. It is of the opinion that reality is subjective and it varies from person to person
(Scotland, 2012), so there is as many reality as a person. According to [ crotty1998foundations ], as different
people live in different worlds, they use different means to gain knowledge and understand the realities. From a
moral theory point of view relativism is a kind of thinking that adopts situation based evaluations rather than
using absolute principles, thus an action that is ethical in one situation may be unethical in other situation
(Zikmund, Babin, Carr, & Griffin, 2013).

4. Epistemology
What is your height? How can you answer this question? You can only answer if you have used a scale to measure
your height and remember the result. This act of measuring your height is an example of elementary research.
How far is Sun from Earth? How do know the answer to this question if at all you know? Did you use a scale this
time as well to measure the distance? No, because measuring the distance is beyond your imagination. So, how
you will answer this question? You will find the answer from other sources like browsing the internet, referring
a book etc. that you believe is the reliable source of information. The act of finding the answer this way is an
example of secondary research (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). The branch of study that deals with different
methods of knowing are called epistemology. It is the most important branch of philosophy that deals with
questions such as: how we come to know something? Is knowledge acquired or do one need to experience it
personally? What is the relationship between the researcher and those who are researched (Kivunja & Kuyini,
2017)? Epistemological assumptions are concerned as to how knowledge can be created, acquired and transferred
(Scotland, 2012). It is responsible for knowledge gathering and concerned about developing new knowledge in
the form of new models or theories (Grix, 2002).

4.1 Empiricism Vs. Rationalism

Once the researcher has decided about the type of reality, the next step is how to know and understand that reality.
Western philosophy believes on two main sources of knowledge to understand the reality:- (a) Perception or
Sense experience and (b) Reason or Inference (Chaubey & Vimla, 2009). Perception or Sense experience can be
defined as the knowledge gained through experience and senses organs (Bryman, 2012) and is popularly known
as Empiricism. Matilal (1986) talks about observations as the basis of knowledge as a strong form of empiricism
and sensory experiences as the weak form of empiricism. According to Chaubey & Vimla (2009), some of the
famous proponents of Empiricism are- John Locke, David Hume, J.S. Mill, Berkeley etc. On the other hand, the
knowledge gained through reason or inference about the reality which is not directly perceived is denoted by the
term Rationalism for example if there is smoke, we can infer the presence of fire even though we may not have
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

seen the fire by our own eyes (Chaubey & Vimla, 2009). Some proponents of Rationalism are- Rene Descartes,
Leibnitz, Spinoza and Wolff.

4.2 Epistemology in Indian Philosophy

The origin of philosophy in India is very ancient. What is popularly known as epistemology in western philosophy
is known as Pramana Shastra in Indian philosophy (Matilal, 1986). He defines Pramanas as, “The means leading
to a knowledge -episode (Prama) as it’s end.” There are Nine major schools of thought that existed in Indian
Philosophy. Out of nine schools, six believed in the authority of the Vedas, so they are called the orthodox (astika)
systems and three did not believe in the authority of the Vedas and are called heterodox (nastika) systems.
Carvaka, Jain and Buddhism are heterodox systems whereas Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimansa, Yoga, Vedanta and
Vaisheshika are orthodox systems (Sharma, 2001). Indian philosophy is having divided views on epistemology
i.e. Pramanas. Given below in Fig.1, the brief description about epistemology according to Different Schools of
Thought in Indian Philosophy.

4.3 Epistemology according to Different Schools of Thought in Indian Philosophy

Epistemology in Indian Philosophy

(Sources of Knowledge- Pramanas)

Vedant & Nyaya

Samkhya & Yoga Carvaka
Mimansa &Vaisheshika

Pratyaksa or Pratyaksa or Pratyaksa or Pratyaksa or

Perception Perception Perception Perception

anuMana or anuMana or anuMana or

Inference Inference Inference

upMana or upMana or upMana or

Analogy Analogy Analogy
(Comparision) (Comparision) (Comparision)

Apta vacana or Apta vacana or

Verbal Authority Verbal Authority
of Revelation of Revelation

Anuplabdhi or
Non-perception

Arthapatti or
Inference from
circumstances

Fig 1- Epistemology according to different schools of thought in Indian Philosophy [Based on (Bhawuk, 2011)]
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
Empiricism and rationalism fail to explain about certain transcendental realities like God, Soul, Rebirth, Hell and
Heaven etc. knowledge about these realities can only be made known to us through the super-sensuous
experiences of sages, prophets, saints etc., or through the records of such experiences (Chaubey & Vimla, 2009).
Indian philosophy is epistemologically very rich. Different schools of thoughts are having different opinions
about the types of knowledge, the source of knowledge, the validity of knowledge. In fig 1, we can see that
Carvaka is the only school in Indian Philosophy that believes in Empiricism i.e. perception or Pratyaksa as the
only source of knowledge, on the other hand, Vedanta and Mimamsa schools of thoughts believe in as many as
six sources of knowledge (Bhawuk, 2011). upMana is similar to analogy or drawing comparison, Apta vacana is
the verbal testimony or revelation especially from scriptures, Anuplabdhi or Abhav is also known as negative
proof i.e. no smoke means no fire, Arthapatti is drawing inferences from circumstances (Bhawuk, 2011).

5. Methodology
Generally, a number of texts used the terms Methodology and Methods interchangeably, however, there is a clear
distinction exists between the two. A methodology is the strategy or plan of action which decides the kinds of
methods used (Crotty, 1998). A researchers methodological approach reflects the underlying ontological and
epistemological assumptions and decides the kind of methods to be used in a study (Grix, 2002). After deciding
ontological and epistemological position about reality, methodology tells us about the procedures of knowledge
generation. Further, it can be said that a methodology is a kind of blueprint to carry out research in a particular
paradigm. It guides researchers to choose suitable research methods (Wahyuni, 2012). It acts as an interface
between our philosophical assumptions at one end and methods at the other. Unless we decide our methodologies,
we cannot go further in our research journey. There is a number of methodologies with their own merits and
demerits that are used in different situations. There is no universal methodology that can be used to solve all
research problems (Tuli, 2010). The choice of methodology depends on the type of paradigm undertaken by the
researcher.

6. Methods
While methodology tells us about the overall research approach under a paradigm, Methods helps us with the
instruments used for the collection and analysis of data (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). According to Crotty (1998),
Methods are the techniques and procedures used for collection and analysis of data. The methods should be free
from philosophical assumptions and are to be selected based on a research problem under study and kind of
sources from which data needs to be collected (Grix, 2002).

7. Interrelationship Between The Building Blocks Of Research

Suggesting a building block of an interrelationship between the different components of the research process is
to only make the researcher understand the holistic picture of the entire research process (Grix, 2002). The entire
research journey is a maze. It is not only affected by the biases and perceptions of a researcher, but it is also
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

affected by a lack of knowledge about the various paradigms of research. The interrelationship talks about the
ontology as the beginning of research. According to Tuli (2010), the selection of a methodology depends on the
paradigm selected i.e. a paradigm guides the research activity by specifically deciding the nature of reality and
how to know about that reality. Despite the fact that there is a natural tendency by a novice researcher to start the
research process with a data gathering tool, the choice of tools will be influenced by the research methodology
selected (Gray, 2013). Once the methodology is confirmed, selecting appropriate methods becomes much easier.
As a researcher, we must be aware of what follows what and what follows' what. Fig 2 gives a sense of clarity.

Source: (Grix, 2002) Page 180

Figure 2: Interrelationship Between The Building Blocks Of Research

8. Types of Paradigms
There are a number of paradigms which are competing against each other. Even giving a brief introduction about
each of them will be a herculean task for me. However, I have selected the three most important types of
paradigms that will give the essence of the entire research process. The paradigms discussed here are as follows:
Positivism, Interpretivism and Pragmatism.
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
8.1 Positivism
Positivism paradigm is also known as ‘scientific method', proposed by August Comte (1798-1857) become
popular when he sought to apply the scientific paradigm which beliefs in the scientific method of investigation
and was used in the natural world (Scotland, 2012). Positivist believe that different researchers will generate a
similar result using the same statistical tools and following the same research process while investigating large
samples paving a path for context-independent universal generalization (Wahyuni, 2012). Thus it advocates the
use of quantitative research methods (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Ontology of Positivist Paradigm is naïve realism,
epistemology is objectivism, methodology experimental.

Ontology of Positivist is realism (commonly called naïve realism) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) which means objects
exist independent of the knower (Scotland, 2012). Positivist believes that there exists only one true reality which
is apprehendable, identifiable and measurable (Ponterotto, 2005).

Epistemology of positivist is that of objectivism. The focus of positivist is dualism and objectivism (Ponterotto,
2005). Here the researcher and subjects are independent of each other and the conscience of the researcher is not
important as the meaning lies with the subjects (Crotty, 1998). They interact with the world impartially
(objectivism) and discover the absolute knowledge about objective reality. Here, the researcher studies the
subjects without influencing them.

Experimental methodology means to study the cause and effect. The researcher will manipulate one variable in
order to find out whether this change is bringing any effect on other variable or not. This methodology is only
applicable if the researcher is able to control the variables under study.
Some characteristics of the Positivist Paradigm (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017)
(a) A theory is universal and thus generalization can be done.
(b) Context-independent.
(c) Truth and knowledge is ‘out there to be discovered’
(d) Cause and effect are distinguishable.
(e) The result of the research can be quantified.
(f) A scientific method of investigation.
(g) Formulation and testing of hypothesis.
(h) Theory can be used to predict and control outcomes.

8.2 Interpretivism
It is on the opposite side of positivism and can be viewed as its alternative (Ponterotto, 2005). It has its beginning
out of criticism of using natural sciences as a model for conducting social researches. This assumes relativist
ontology, subjectivist epistemology, a naturalist methodology and balanced axiology (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

The ontological stand of interpretivism is relativism i.e. reality is subjective (Scotland, 2012). The central theme
of using interpretivism is to understand the subjective world of human experience (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). As
people differ in varieties of ways and different people have a different opinion on the same subject, they can have
different perspectives for a social reality (Wahyuni, 2012). The role of the researcher is to become a part of the
subjects being studied so as to understand the contextual meaning that the subjects are making. A complete effort
is made to understand the viewpoint of subjects being observed rather than the viewpoint of the researcher. It is
also referred to as constructivism paradigm because the reality is socially constructed (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).

The epistemology of interpretivism is transactional and subjectivist where researcher and subjects under
investigation are assumed to be linked interactively and findings are created as the investigation progresses (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994). Knowledge derived culturally and over a period of time. Interpretive paradigm does not
question ideologies and accepts them as they are (Scotland, 2012).

Interpretive methodology tries to understand the phenomenon from an individual perspective, keeping in mind
the historical and cultural context the individual is placed (Scotland, 2012). The interpretivist researcher relies on
qualitative data methods or a combination of qualitative and quantitative (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) for analysis
of data. The different methodology used in interpretivism is case studies, phenomenology, hermeneutics,
ethnography (Scotland, 2012) etc.
Some important characteristics of the interpretive paradigm are (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017):
(a) Social world cannot be understood from the individual’s point of view of.
(b) There exist multiple realities which are socially constructed.
(c) There exists an emic relationship between the researcher and the subjects under study.
(d) The importance of context is vital for knowledge gathering.
(e) Knowledge created can be value-laden and values need to be explicitly mentioned.
(f) Focus on the individual rather than universal laws.
(g) Cause and effect are interdependent.
(h) Contextual factors play a very important role in the pursuit of any knowledge.

8.3 Pragmatism
Pragmatism was born out of paradigm war between two diametrically opposite worldview as proposed by
Positivist on the one hand and Interpretivist on the other (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). Some philosophers felt that
in order to understand the reality of the world, neither the scientific methods as proposed by positivism paradigm
nor socially constructed reality proposed by interpretivism paradigm is sufficient (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). They
feel that instead of focusing on mono-paradigmatic approach, it is better to focus on a worldview that supports
the methods of research to understand the research problem under study (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). So, they
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
advocated a pluralistic and practical approach to understand the phenomenon at hand. It does not belong to
anyone philosophical school or the nature of reality. Pragmatism as a paradigm is viewed behind the philosophical
framework of MMR (Mixed Method Research)(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The focus is more on a research
problem under study, types of questions asked rather than methods used (Creswell, 1998). In order to make the
research meaningful and legitimate, research conducted within this framework is free to use the methodology of
qualitative as well as quantitative paradigms (Gray, 2013). According to Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner
(2007), Pragmatism being the primary philosophy of MMR, takes into account “multiple viewpoints,
perspectives, positions and standpoints” of the problem under study. This paradigm accepts a mixture of ontology
and epistemology (Wahyuni, 2012). Thus, the Ontology of pragmatism is a non-singular reality, means each
individual have their own interpretation of reality. Epistemology is neither objective nor subjective, it is relational,
means the relationship is determined by the researcher who is conducting the research. The methodology used is
mixed-method i.e. depending on the nature of the study, a suitable combination of quantitative and qualitative
methods can be used (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).

Some important characteristics of Pragmatism Paradigm are (Creswell, 1998); (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017):-
(a) Non-commitment towards any one paradigm.
(b) The researcher is free to choose the methods of research that can best solve his problem at hand.
(c) Pragmatist believes that the research environment is not independent of social, political, historical and
other contexts.
(d) Following the course of action best suited for phenomenon investigated.
(e) Freedom to adapt to a worldview and design research methodology according to the purpose of the study.

9. Philosophical underpinnings of various paradigms: Objective Subjective Continuum

Given below is the gist of whatever discussed so far. I felt it necessary to provide a one page summary of
paradigms with their underlying assumptions. At the left-hand side of Fig 3 is a positivist paradigm with an
objectivist view and on the right side is interpretivism paradigm with a subjectivist view. Babbie (2015) explains
paradigms as a frame of reference and differentiates it with theory. While theories seek to explain, "a paradigm
provide ways of looking." He further tells that a paradigm provides a logical framework for theories to be created.
According to Chalmers (2013), a paradigm also includes standard rules to be applied in various situations. Figure
3 below suggests us that if we are a positivist, then under positivist paradigms there are certain rules and
regulations that a researcher needs to follow. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2002), tells about ‘fitness for purpose’
as the guiding principle while doing research i.e. using different paradigms for different research requirements.
Figure 3 will give a bird's eye view to the researcher in understanding their research activity in a well-informed
manner.
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

Objective - Subjective Continuum

Paradigms

Positivism Pragmatism Interpretivism

Ontology

Naive Realism Non-Singular Relativism

Epistemology

Objectivism Realism Subjectivism

Methodology
Quantitative Mixed Method
• Experimental, Correlational, Causal • Narrative Inquiry, case Study,
Comparative Phemonology, Ethnography
• Randomized Contol Trial • Action Research, Naturalist , Experimental
• Quasi-experimental • Quasi-experimental, Causal Comparative
Qualitative
• Narrative Inquiry, Case Study,
Phemonology
• Ethnography, Action Research, Naturalist
• Hermeneutics, Grounded Theory

Methods
Data Collection Tools Data Collection Tools Data Collection Tools
• Questionnaire • Interview, Observation • Interview,Document Review
• Survey, Experiments, Tests • Experiments, Scales • Observation, Visual Data Analysis

Fig 3: Philosophical underpinnings of various Paradigms

Based on data from Guba et al. (1994), Mackenzie & Knipe (2006), Wahyuni (2012), Kivunja & Kuyini (2017).
 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT
10. Research strategy: Quantitative and Qualitative Research
The term quantitative and qualitative are used in two different discourses:- one refers to the research paradigms
and the other as research methods (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The first discourse can be understood from the
facts presented in Fig-3 The philosophical underpinnings of paradigms. It can be seen that the Quantitative and
Qualitative belongs to different paradigms thereby having a different ontology (realities), epistemology (nature
of knowledge) and how the problem can be investigated. The second discourse tells that these terms are used to
refer to research methods – how the data can be collected and analyzed (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). It is the
second discourse that is advocated by Bryman (2012) as he defines Quantitative research as a strategy that
focuses on quantification of data in terms of their collection and analysis whereas the focus of qualitative research
is on words rather than quantification of data. According to Yilmaz (2013), Quantitative research can be defined
as a phenomenon based on numerical data that are analyzed statistically.

Quantitative and Qualitative research have their philosophical underpinnings in positivism and Interpretivism
paradigms respectively (Newman & Benz, 1998). He also emphasizes that regardless of theoretical differences
in the quantitative approach, "there is a common reality on which people can agree.” Similarly, a qualitative
researcher reflects “some sort of individual phenomenological perspective.”

The credibility of both quantitative and qualitative methods has established over a period of time but they also
have advantages and disadvantages too. While it is true that some research problems can be solved using
quantitative or qualitative approaches independently, but there are instances where meaningful research needs a
combination of these both. Fig 3 also highlights the mixed method research as followed by pragmatism paradigm,
which uses both quantitative as well as qualitative approaches in its research design.

There are four essential elements of the research process that must be addressed for any kind of research discussed
(Crotty, 1998) and (Yilmaz, 2013):-
(a) The worldview of the paradigm followed. (Paradigm)
(b) Type of study (Ontology and Epistemology)
(c) Type of research strategies to be used. (Methodology)
(d) Research methods for collection and analysis of data. (Methods)
Table-1 below presents the distinction between the quantitative and qualitative approach of Inquiry.
It is again a very good one-page reference to understand quantitative and qualitative approach in a much quicker
way. The table consists of all the relevant information required for the building blocks of the research process.
Table-1 Comparison between Quantitative and Qualitative modes of Inquiry
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

Source:- Adapted from Yilmaz (2013)

 ANVESH-2019 DOCTORAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE IN MANAGEMENT

11. Conclusion

Form the study presented above, it is clear that different paradigms have a different set of underlying assumptions.
Understanding these assumptions will help the researcher to choose the tools of the trade wisely. The paradigms
discussed above also confirmed this fact. Terms such as ontology, epistemology, paradigms are very abstract and
very difficult to comprehend. A comprehensive review of literature such as research books, papers, and articles
related to Indian philosophy was carried out to understand these terms easily. My focus was to synthesize the
abundant and fragmented knowledge at one place so that a holistic picture of the entire research process can be
presented in a comprehensible manner. The philosophical term like epistemology was explained with the help of
examples from Indian philosophy to clear the doubt forever. I have selected the paradigms in such a way that the
researcher can understand the complete objective and objective continuum with pragmatism in the middle. As a
researcher, having clarity and a firm grip over the understanding of philosophical underpinnings will result in a
more informed result. At the last, I have briefly introduced the Quantitative and qualitative research approach so
that the researcher can have a fair understanding of the entire research process to jumpstart their research journey.

References

Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research
paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13(1), 13–38.

Babbie, E. R. (2015). The practice of social research. Nelson Education.

Bhawuk, D. (2011). Spirituality and Indian Psychology: Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. Springer Science \&
Business Media.

Boghossian, P. (2006). What is relativism? Truth and Realism, 13–37.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing.

Chaubey & Vimla, D. S. (2009). S.Y.B.A. Paper- III-Indian and Western Philosophy. Institute of Distance &
Open Learning.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five tradition.

Critical Realism. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2018, from

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Critical_realism

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

Gray, D. E. (2013). Doing research in the real world. Sage.

Grix, J. (2002). Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research. Politics, 22(3), 175.

Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S. & others. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

Kivunja, C. & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts.
International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.

Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research.

Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in
Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.

Matilal, B. K. (1986). Perception: An essay on classical Indian theories of knowledge.

Sharma, R.P (2001).Teach Yourself Philosophy. Bharati Bhavan

Newman, I. & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive
continuum. SIU Press.

Quotation . (n.d.). Retrieved 18–12, 2018, from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/lost-symbol

Realism. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2018, from https://philosophyterms.com/realism/

Remler, D. K. & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and
causation. Sage Publications.

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology
to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English
Language Teaching, 5(9), 9.

Tuli, F. (2010). The basis of distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in social science:
Reflection on ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal of Education
and Sciences, 6(1).

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical,
and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325. doi:10.1111/ejed.12014

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C. & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Cengage Learning.

View publication stats