why are research paradigms important

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Educ
• v.30(1); 2020 Mar

A Medical Science Educator’s Guide to Selecting a Research Paradigm: Building a Basis for Better Research

Megan e.l. brown.

Health Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, John Hughlings Jackson Building, University Road, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD UK

Angelique N. Dueñas

A research paradigm, or set of common beliefs about research, should be a key facet of any research project. However, despite its importance, there is a paucity of general understanding in the medical sciences education community regarding what a research paradigm consists of and how to best construct one. With the move within medical sciences education towards greater methodological rigor, it is now more important than ever for all educators to understand simply how to better approach their research via paradigms. In this monograph, a simplified approach to selecting an appropriate research paradigm is outlined. Suggestions are based on broad literature, medical education sources, and the author’s own experiences in solidifying and communicating their research paradigms. By assisting in detailing the philosophical underpinnings of individuals research approaches, this guide aims to help all researchers improve the rigor of their projects and improve upon overall understanding in research communication.

Introduction

There has been a recent movement within medical education towards greater methodological rigor [ 1 , 2 ]. Many scholars argue that in order to achieve “academic legitimacy” [ 3 ] strong theoretical frameworks [ 4 , 5 ] engaging in discussion concerning the nature of knowledge within a piece of work are required [ 6 ]. Put simply, clear research principles assist others in understanding your research.

The nature of knowledge within a piece of work is detailed and explored within a research project’s paradigm . A research paradigm may be defined as “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed” [ 7 ]. A paradigm is an assumption about how things work, sometimes illustrated as a “worldview” involving “shared understandings of reality” [ 8 , 9 ]. Detailing one’s research paradigm is essential, as paradigms “guide how problems are solved” [ 10 ], and directly influence an author’s choice of methods. All researchers make assumptions about the state of the world before undertaking research. Regardless of whether that research is quantitative or qualitative, these assumptions are important as they impact upon the interpretation of a study’s results. Mitroff and Bonoma summarize this position and put forth “the power of an experiment is only as strong as the clarity of the basic assumptions which underlie it. Such assumptions not only underlie laboratory experimentation but social… research as well” [ 11 ]. Paradigms also assist in setting ground rules for the application of theory when observing phenomena. Such ground rules “set the scene” for research, providing information as to how best evaluate new concepts [ 7 ].

Medicine and, as a consequence, health professions education, has traditionally been conducted from a positivist or post-positivist paradigm, detailed later in this paper, both of which maintain a universal truth exists, as, “in medicine, the emphasis on… body parts, conditions and treatments assumes that these are universally constant replicable facts” [ 12 ]. Given the dominance of this belief, there has been a relative dearth of literature within medical sciences education explicitly detailing paradigmatic assumptions. This is changing, with an increasingly widespread recognition of the important role assumptions play in result interpretation and in setting ground rules, both in research and in classrooms [ 13 , 14 ]. As such, explicitly acknowledging one’s paradigm is becoming an expected element of medical science education research.

In order to detail your work’s paradigm, it is important to consider what a paradigm consists of. The paradigm of a piece of work is constructed of several “building blocks,” detailed in Fig.  1 . The first set of these building blocks (axiology, ontology, epistemology, methodology) are composed of philosophical assumptions that “direct thinking and action” such as selecting one’s methods [ 16 ].

The building blocks forming a piece of work’s research paradigm and how they interrelate. Image is an adapted version of Grix’s paradigmatic building blocks [ 15 ]. Image adapted by authors to include axiology as an important block not originally detailed

Axiology, the first “brick” in the construction of a project’s paradigm involves the study of value and ethics [ 17 ]. Once an area of value to study has been identified, and research ethics considered, ontology, which questions “the nature of reality” [ 3 ] must be contemplated. Once you possess a firm philosophical understanding of your study area’s reality, the nature of knowledge within that reality needs determining—this is known as the epistemology of a piece of work.

Frank discussion of a work’s ontology and epistemology allows an appropriate methodological approach to be selected and reduces the ambiguity surrounding result interpretation [ 18 ]. Without such regulation “even carefully collected results can be misleading” as the “underlying context of assumptions” is unclear [ 19 ]. This monograph will detail a series of considerations, forming a how-to guide, for selecting an appropriate paradigm for your medical sciences education research.

Select your Research Paradigm Before You Begin Researching

Given that paradigms inform the design of, and fundamentally underpin, both quantitative and qualitative research, it is important to select your paradigm before you begin researching. Teherani et al. emphasize the need for this nicely: “alignment between the belief system underpinning the research approach, the research question, and the research approach itself is a prerequisite for rigorous… research” [ 20 ]. Such alignment can only be assured prospectively.

One frequently cited argument for not considering the research paradigm of a piece of work is the time-consuming nature of this process. Admittedly, selecting a research paradigm does (and should if done well) take time. Ensure you factor this consideration into your plans when drafting a timeline for your research project. It is difficult to provide guidance on how much time one should spend selecting a research paradigm as, depending upon the project in question and research team, this may vary. We recommend threading consideration of your research paradigm into the “design” phase of your research. Using the present work will also contribute to reducing the time-consuming aspect of this work; for many novices, approaching the language and process of paradigms can prove daunting and take time. However, this work is designed to ease that process.

Try Thinking About Research Paradigms Using the Metaphor of a Glass Box

Research paradigms can seem overwhelming—indeed, even experienced academics may struggle to distinguish between the various building blocks constituting a paradigm. Thinking of one’s research paradigm using the metaphor of a glass box, as described by Varpio [ 21 ], may assist in better visualizing and understanding the constituent elements of a paradigm. Using this metaphor, your paradigm is the glass box in which you stand, framing how you see the outside world. One’s beliefs regarding the ontology and epistemology of knowledge color the glass box in different ways, lending different lights to the same situation for different individuals. Given this, you may research a topic using a different approach to your colleague within the same area.

Think About your Reason for Carrying Out the Research

This may seem like an obvious consideration, but it is an area that is often not consciously reflected upon within medical science education research. What is your motivation to study this topic? Have you been practically, academically, or politically motivated? In other words, is it something you have noticed in your day to day work that requires further study; are you simply passionate to know more; or is there a political “hot topic” you or others are interested in researching?

Building upon your initial thoughts regarding your motivation, try to reflect more deeply regarding what you are really trying to achieve. Chilisa compares different paradigmatic reasons for doing research, as can be seen in Table ​ Table1 1 [ 23 ]. Thinking of your own reason for doing research and comparing this with Chilisa’s reasons should begin to cast light on which paradigm may be an appropriate choice for your research.

Adapted from Chilisa’s comparison of paradigmatic reasons for doing research [ 22 ]

Consider your Axiological Approach

The next step in the consideration of an appropriate paradigm for your research is reflecting upon your axiological approach. Traditionally, Guba and Lincoln describe a paradigm as involving three building blocks: ontology, epistemology, and methodology [ 24 ]. However, there has been a move towards including axiology as a fourth defining characteristic of a paradigm [ 25 ]. Axiology involves ethical considerations and “asks what ought to be” within a field of research [ 26 ]. It is an important starting point for any proposed research, as it considers what would be of value to research and how to go about conducting ethical research within that area [ 27 ]. Given this, we modified Grix’s paradigmatic building blocks [ 15 ] to include axiology as a key early consideration in paradigm selection (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 ).

Considering your axiological approach is best done in a designated reflective space with all members of your research team during the planning phase of a research proposal. Building on considering your purpose in doing research, you must consider the personal values informing your proposal. Ask yourself the following:

• Why is this research worth my time and attention?
• What motivates me? Am I driven by imperatives (e.g. funding, social justice)?
• Or, do I believe education to be inherently valuable, providing justification for any research that informs educational practice? [ 28 ]

Once the values underpinning your inquiry are clear and it is evident your research is justified, potential ethical issues should also be considered. For example, if your axiological reflection reveals you are being driven by an external motivator, it may be appropriate to disclose this within your research design. Most journals mandate inclusion of detail regarding any funding underpinning your research and any conflicts of interest (which could include sources of personal funding). Kirkman et al. include a detailed “competing interests” statement in their systematic review evaluating the outcomes of recent patient safety interventions for junior doctors and medical students [ 29 ]. Particularly relevant are two author’s affiliations with the General Medical Council (GMC), the UK’s regulatory body for physicians, and consultancy work several authors had undertaken previously on the topic of patient safety for a variety of institutions. These institutional affiliations could color the author’s perspectives and interpretations in tacit ways, in line with institutional values. As such, considering any such competing interests or associations within your team’s axiological reflection is the key.

Reflect upon your Ontological Assumptions

We all hold ontological assumptions, even if we do not explicitly consider or detail them. Reflecting upon them allows you to choose a paradigm in keeping with your beliefs regarding the nature of reality [ 3 ]. Reality refers to the social world in which you wish to conduct your research [ 22 ].

Different paradigms adopt different approaches to defining the nature of reality. There are many paradigms research may operate within, with some scholars even attempting to define new, albeit contested, paradigms within the social sciences in recent years [ 30 ]. Given this, detailing the ontology of every available paradigm is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we will focus upon the four paradigms most commonly used within general medical education [ 3 ]: positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory.

To assess your ontological assumptions, ask yourself this: do you believe there is “one verifiable reality,” or that “multiple socially constructed realities” exist? [ 21 , 31 ] The former stance is sometimes referred to as a “realist” ontological position, with the latter stance known as “anti-realism” or “relativism” [ 32 ]. Broadly speaking, the four paradigms most commonly used within medical education fall into either of these two categories, but there are differences in how they frame their position, detailed in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Ontological assumptions of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory [ 30 , 33 – 39 ]

Reflect upon your Epistemological Assumptions

Once you are aware of your assumptions regarding the nature of reality, reflecting upon your epistemological assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge is necessary. When considering your research epistemology, it may be useful to reflect upon “what counts as knowledge within the world” [ 40 ]. Epistemology seeks to answer two questions—one, what is knowledge , and two, how is knowledge acquired ? [ 41 ].

Again, the epistemological approaches of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and critical theory differ. These are outlined within Table ​ Table3 3 .

Epistemological assumptions of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory [ 27 , 34 ]

Become Familiar with Different Types of Paradigm to Evaluate Where You and Your Work Fit

Above, we have focused on positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and critical theory as four common paradigms in medical education [ 37 ]. These are only a subset of paradigms that might align with an individual’s medical education research aims [ 42 ]. We recommend researchers to familiarize themselves with as many different types of paradigms as possible, to best understand where you as a researcher, but also your team and project fit.

Given the complexity of paradigms, rather than delving too deeply into the nuances of philosophy associated with paradigms, seeking simple infographics and metaphors can make exploration more manageable. We have already introduced some simple tables and the glass house metaphor [ 21 ], but you may find it helpful to seek other visualizations, such as the

“research onion” [ 43 , 44 ]. In brief, the “research onion” depicts paradigmatic considerations as layers, in lieu of building blocks or glass walls.

Another helpful way to explore paradigms is to be mindful of such in your own reviews of literature. Are authors explicitly discussing their paradigms? If so, do you agree? If not, how would you categorize their paradigm based on their study details? Zaidi and Larsen provide an excellent commentary where they categorize papers based on research paradigms, using their own interpretations [ 45 ]. Such an activity may prove useful to those wishing to improve their understanding of paradigms, in a practical fashion.

Use your Chosen Paradigm to Select an Appropriate Methodology

How you can go about “acquiring” knowledge, so that it aligns naturally with your paradigm, might be considered next. For example, if an individual is a strict positivist, believing that there are single truths, and that such truths can be measured, you would expect them to utilize stricter forms of experimental research, with explicit hypothesis testing. Different methodologies align best with different paradigms [ 46 ].

Consideration of research teams’ methodologies can also be helpful in understanding your paradigm, prior to moving forward with research projects. Following the example above, if your research team most often utilizes experimental design in your projects, what might this say about your regard for what knowledge and information you place value in?

Examine your Methodology in Order to Select an Appropriate Data Gathering Technique

Too often, methodology and methods are used interchangeably by novice researchers, when they should be regarded as distinct concepts [ 47 ]. Methodology is the strategy or overall plan to acquire knowledge, and methods are the actual techniques used to gather and analyze data [ 33 ].

For example, a research team interested in examining interprofessionalism in a healthcare setting may identify most with a constructivist paradigm, believing reality is subjectively constructed by individuals. Such a team might consider ethnography to be an appropriate methodology. But the actual research methods they undertake might be a variety of observations with field notes, audio or video recordings, or qualitative interviews [ 48 ]. These methods align with the methodology, although eventual selection of methods may also be highly associated with the practicality of such techniques, in addition to paradigm considerations.

The above sections have provided an overview of the “building blocks” of a research project’s paradigm. For ease of reference, these building blocks are summarized for the four main paradigms used within medical science education, in Fig. ​ Fig.2 2 [ 30 , 36 , 49 , 50 ].

The building blocks of a research project’s paradigm within the four main medical science education paradigms summarized. Each shape in the figure refers to one of the four main medical science paradigms. Each color refers to an element of a piece of research’s paradigm. Please see the key to this figure to aid with interpretation

Clearly Detail Your Paradigm and its Building Blocks When You Write about your Research

A paradigm does no good if it only exists in the mind of the researcher and is not clearly communicated. Clearly detail your paradigm, for your own understanding as a researcher. It is often helpful to describe your paradigm by answering the questions outlined in the building blocks, as shown in Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 .

But also keep in mind to make any details of your paradigm accessible and understandable for your target audience when disseminating your research. Depending on the scope and goals of your research, description of your paradigm could range from a paragraph or two in a research report designed for publication, to a multipage subchapter of a larger report or thesis assignment. In either case, writing about the paradigm is key for the audience to understand the context of your research, although the level of detail in which you communicate your paradigm may vary.

Locating accessible literature to draw upon when writing about your paradigm can prove difficult. The field is littered with philosophical jargon that can act as a barrier to entry into the world of paradigms, as earlier addressed in time consideration of paradigm selection. We hope this guide will assist you in beginning to understand some of the foundational terms within this field. If you are interested and have time, there is a wealth of literature within the field of “Philosophy of Science” that explicitly discusses the nature of knowledge and varying paradigmatic stances. Some seminal texts include The Foundations of Social Research [ 36 ], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [ 7 ], Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a Hybrid world [ 51 ], and The Paradigm Dialog [ 52 ].

Several introductory textbooks and articles offer integrated summaries of these seminal texts including, but not limited to Kivunja and Kuyini’s “Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts” [ 53 ]; Avramidis and Smith’s “An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research” [ 54 ]; Denzin and Lincoln’s The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research [ 55 ]; and Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction [ 56 ].

Move from Philosophy to Practicality

For those involved in the day-to-day aspects of healthcare teaching, many times one of the first questions that comes to mind around the philosophical underpinnings of research is: how can this be practically applied to my work? Beyond improving rigor and understanding, as thoroughly discussed, there are two key ways to approach the practical side of research: from the before and the after.

Considering the practical problems and questions you face as a medical sciences educator, then considering how different paradigms could be used to approach problems in different ways, is a practical “before” way to consider paradigms. To elucidate the ways in which real-world problems can be approached from a paradigm-informed perspective, we’ve included some examples in Fig. ​ Fig.3. 3 . For somevarious real-world examples, at different educational levels, we have provided some different examples of research approaches, that would naturally align with different paradigms.

Examples of real-world educational scenarios at a macro-, mid-, and microlevel and how consideration of different paradigms could be aligned to varying research aims and processes

From the “after” research perspective, praxeology is the last -ology you may wish to reflect upon. Concerned with the more practical recommendations that often arise from research, praxeology is concerned with not just understanding human actions, but interpreting them in meaningful ways [ 45 ]. If your research has contributed to “knowledge,” what does this mean for your day-to-day role as a medical sciences educator? In this way, practicality can be also important after the research process. Using the mid-level example from Fig.  2 , if you completed research from a constructivist approach, you may have discovered that self-guided methods in virtual histology labs was not leading to a conducive learning environment. This may lead to your decision to create video guides to accompany virtual histology resources, so students have instructor-led examples to initially guide their learning.

In addition to the above ways of practically approaching paradigms, researchers may also wish to contemplate the practical paradigm of pragmatism. Pragmatism focuses on research outcomes and, as such, does not place value on considering either epistemology or ontology. Instead, pragmatism strives to focus on what works best for understanding and solving problems [ 57 ]. Pragmatists rely on the methods that work best in practice to answer specific research questions, focusing most heavily on the practicalities of the chosen approach, not just paradigmatic alignment [ 58 ]. However, it is the view of some that pragmatism should be viewed as more of an approach, rather than a “true” paradigm. Consequently, the present work has not explored pragmatism in detail as it has other common paradigms [ 30 ].

Collaborate with or Consult Experienced Researchers Where Possible

While paradigms might seem complex and novel for many in the medical education community, they are a key facet of research, and certainly not new to other disciplines, such as sociology and general education [ 59 – 61 ]. Given this, collaboration can prove fruitful and may be the final key to success. When possible, collaborating with experienced researchers, particularly those who focus upon methodology, can be very beneficial. Experienced scholars can provide guidance regarding the philosophical questions associated with paradigms, while keeping in mind which methodology and methods may be best utilized by the research team. Where collaboration is not feasible, you may wish to contact a methodologist or experienced researcher to enquire as to whether they provide consultation services to review your research approach.

Although immensely helpful for those wishing to develop their research skills, collaboration with regard to paradigm choice can generate tension, especially if researchers disagree concerning which paradigm would be best suited for their research. We recommend that, prior to agreeing upon any collaborative projects, potential collaborators meet to develop a “shared agenda.” Shared agendas include a set of common objectives, a list of available resources, research questions of interest, and discussion as to each researcher’s personal paradigm. Compromise may be required on the behalf of one, or several, researchers, who may need to research within a paradigm unfamiliar to their personal stance, but best befitting the shared agenda of the collaborative team. For example, if you consider yourself to be a strict pragmatist, as introduced above, you might find extensive discussions about ontology and reality to be an unproductive use of research time. However, if working with a team of interpretivists, this may be viewed as a key part of their research efforts and study design. Through recognizing personal stances and being able to clearly express them in a dedicated reflexive space, collaboration may be eased, and even enhanced.

Lastly, when writing for publication, we recommend transparency as to each team member’s paradigmatic stance and inclusion of detail regarding how reflexivity was used to navigate any tensions. This monograph may be used as an example of collaborative writing. The authors approached this topic neutrally but have different personal paradigms. One author (MB) is a constructivist, and the other (AD) is a pragmatist. In the conception and construction of this work, the authors began with reflexive discussions on their paradigmatic assumptions, including personal views regarding the philosophy of science discussed in this paper. It was determined the shared agenda of this work was to remain as neutral as possible, while acknowledging potential assumptions each author holds. We hope this allows for a more transparent presentation of this monograph.

Conclusions

While initially complex, identification of a research paradigm is an essential aspect of any rigorous research project. Further, beyond individual projects, association of knowledge with specific paradigms may lead to a better overall understanding of research within medical education, furthering the advancement of the entire field.

Through this article, we have attempted to outline some initial tips for researchers looking to improve on projects via identification of a research paradigm. With consideration of these tips, and more open discussions within research teams, your research can take on new purpose and be understood with greater depth.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

The Four Types of Research Paradigms: A Comprehensive Guide

5-minute read

• 22nd January 2023

In this guide, you’ll learn all about the four research paradigms and how to choose the right one for your research.

Introduction to Research Paradigms

A paradigm is a system of beliefs, ideas, values, or habits that form the basis for a way of thinking about the world. Therefore, a research paradigm is an approach, model, or framework from which to conduct research. The research paradigm helps you to form a research philosophy, which in turn informs your research methodology.

Your research methodology is essentially the “how” of your research – how you design your study to not only accomplish your research’s aims and objectives but also to ensure your results are reliable and valid. Choosing the correct research paradigm is crucial because it provides a logical structure for conducting your research and improves the quality of your work, assuming it’s followed correctly.

Three Pillars: Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

Before we jump into the four types of research paradigms, we need to consider the three pillars of a research paradigm.

Ontology addresses the question, “What is reality?” It’s the study of being. This pillar is about finding out what you seek to research. What do you aim to examine?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It asks, “How is knowledge gathered and from what sources?”

Methodology involves the system in which you choose to investigate, measure, and analyze your research’s aims and objectives. It answers the “how” questions.

Let’s now take a look at the different research paradigms.

1.   Positivist Research Paradigm

The positivist research paradigm assumes that there is one objective reality, and people can know this reality and accurately describe and explain it. Positivists rely on their observations through their senses to gain knowledge of their surroundings.

In this singular objective reality, researchers can compare their claims and ascertain the truth. This means researchers are limited to data collection and interpretations from an objective viewpoint. As a result, positivists usually use quantitative methodologies in their research (e.g., statistics, social surveys, and structured questionnaires).

This research paradigm is mostly used in natural sciences, physical sciences, or whenever large sample sizes are being used.

2.   Interpretivist Research Paradigm

Interpretivists believe that different people in society experience and understand reality in different ways – while there may be only “one” reality, everyone interprets it according to their own view. They also believe that all research is influenced and shaped by researchers’ worldviews and theories.

As a result, interpretivists use qualitative methods and techniques to conduct their research. This includes interviews, focus groups, observations of a phenomenon, or collecting documentation on a phenomenon (e.g., newspaper articles, reports, or information from websites).

3.   Critical Theory Research Paradigm

The critical theory paradigm asserts that social science can never be 100% objective or value-free. This paradigm is focused on enacting social change through scientific investigation. Critical theorists question knowledge and procedures and acknowledge how power is used (or abused) in the phenomena or systems they’re investigating.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Researchers using this paradigm are more often than not aiming to create a more just, egalitarian society in which individual and collective freedoms are secure. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used with this paradigm.

4.   Constructivist Research Paradigm

Constructivism asserts that reality is a construct of our minds ; therefore, reality is subjective. Constructivists believe that all knowledge comes from our experiences and reflections on those experiences and oppose the idea that there is a single methodology to generate knowledge.

This paradigm is mostly associated with qualitative research approaches due to its focus on experiences and subjectivity. The researcher focuses on participants’ experiences as well as their own.

Choosing the Right Research Paradigm for Your Study

Once you have a comprehensive understanding of each paradigm, you’re faced with a big question: which paradigm should you choose? The answer to this will set the course of your research and determine its success, findings, and results.

To start, you need to identify your research problem, research objectives , and hypothesis . This will help you to establish what you want to accomplish or understand from your research and the path you need to take to achieve this.

You can begin this process by asking yourself some questions:

• What is the nature of your research problem (i.e., quantitative or qualitative)?
• How can you acquire the knowledge you need and communicate it to others? For example, is this knowledge already available in other forms (e.g., documents) and do you need to gain it by gathering or observing other people’s experiences or by experiencing it personally?
• What is the nature of the reality that you want to study? Is it objective or subjective?

Depending on the problem and objective, other questions may arise during this process that lead you to a suitable paradigm. Ultimately, you must be able to state, explain, and justify the research paradigm you select for your research and be prepared to include this in your dissertation’s methodology and design section.

Using Two Paradigms

If the nature of your research problem and objectives involves both quantitative and qualitative aspects, then you might consider using two paradigms or a mixed methods approach . In this, one paradigm is used to frame the qualitative aspects of the study and another for the quantitative aspects. This is acceptable, although you will be tasked with explaining your rationale for using both of these paradigms in your research.

Choosing the right research paradigm for your research can seem like an insurmountable task. It requires you to:

●  Have a comprehensive understanding of the paradigms,

●  Identify your research problem, objectives, and hypothesis, and

●  Be able to state, explain, and justify the paradigm you select in your methodology and design section.

Although conducting your research and putting your dissertation together is no easy task, proofreading it can be! Our experts are here to make your writing shine. Your first 500 words are free !

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Research Philosophy & Paradigms

Positivism, Interpretivism & Pragmatism, Explained Simply

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

Research philosophy is one of those things that students tend to either gloss over or become utterly confused by when undertaking formal academic research for the first time. And understandably so – it’s all rather fluffy and conceptual. However, understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your research is genuinely important as it directly impacts how you develop your research methodology.

In this post, we’ll explain what research philosophy is , what the main research paradigms  are and how these play out in the real world, using loads of practical examples . To keep this all as digestible as possible, we are admittedly going to simplify things somewhat and we’re not going to dive into the finer details such as ontology, epistemology and axiology (we’ll save those brain benders for another post!). Nevertheless, this post should set you up with a solid foundational understanding of what research philosophy and research paradigms are, and what they mean for your project.

Overview: Research Philosophy

• What is a research philosophy or paradigm ?
• Positivism 101
• Interpretivism 101
• Pragmatism 101
• Choosing your research philosophy

What is a research philosophy or paradigm?

Research philosophy and research paradigm are terms that tend to be used pretty loosely, even interchangeably. Broadly speaking, they both refer to the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study (whether that’s a dissertation, thesis or any other sort of academic research project).

For example, one philosophical assumption could be that there is an external reality that exists independent of our perceptions (i.e., an objective reality), whereas an alternative assumption could be that reality is constructed by the observer (i.e., a subjective reality). Naturally, these assumptions have quite an impact on how you approach your study (more on this later…).

The research philosophy and research paradigm also encapsulate the nature of the knowledge that you seek to obtain by undertaking your study. In other words, your philosophy reflects what sort of knowledge and insight you believe you can realistically gain by undertaking your research project. For example, you might expect to find a concrete, absolute type of answer to your research question , or you might anticipate that things will turn out to be more nuanced and less directly calculable and measurable . Put another way, it’s about whether you expect “hard”, clean answers or softer, more opaque ones.

So, what’s the difference between research philosophy and paradigm?

Well, it depends on who you ask. Different textbooks will present slightly different definitions, with some saying that philosophy is about the researcher themselves while the paradigm is about the approach to the study . Others will use the two terms interchangeably. And others will say that the research philosophy is the top-level category and paradigms are the pre-packaged combinations of philosophical assumptions and expectations.

To keep things simple in this video, we’ll avoid getting tangled up in the terminology and rather focus on the shared focus of both these terms – that is that they both describe (or at least involve) the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study .

Importantly, your research philosophy and/or paradigm form the foundation of your study . More specifically, they will have a direct influence on your research methodology , including your research design , the data collection and analysis techniques you adopt, and of course, how you interpret your results. So, it’s important to understand the philosophy that underlies your research to ensure that the rest of your methodological decisions are well-aligned .

So, what are the options?

We’ll be straight with you – research philosophy is a rabbit hole (as with anything philosophy-related) and, as a result, there are many different approaches (or paradigms) you can take, each with its own perspective on the nature of reality and knowledge . To keep things simple though, we’ll focus on the “big three”, namely positivism , interpretivism and pragmatism . Understanding these three is a solid starting point and, in many cases, will be all you need.

Paradigm 1: Positivism

When you think positivism, think hard sciences – physics, biology, astronomy, etc. Simply put, positivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements . In other words, the positivist philosophy assumes that answers can be found by carefully measuring and analysing data, particularly numerical data .

As a research paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use of quantitative data , and oftentimes (but not always) adopt experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Quite often, the focus is on causal relationships – in other words, understanding which variables affect other variables, in what way and to what extent. As a result, studies with a positivist research philosophy typically aim for objectivity, generalisability and replicability of findings.

Let’s look at an example of positivism to make things a little more tangible.

Assume you wanted to investigate the relationship between a particular dietary supplement and weight loss. In this case, you could design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) where you assign participants to either a control group (who do not receive the supplement) or an intervention group (who do receive the supplement). With this design in place, you could measure each participant’s weight before and after the study and then use various quantitative analysis methods to assess whether there’s a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. By doing so, you could infer a causal relationship between the dietary supplement and weight loss, based on objective measurements and rigorous experimental design.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that knowledge and insight can be obtained through carefully controlling the environment, manipulating variables and analysing the resulting numerical data . Therefore, this sort of study would adopt a positivistic research philosophy. This is quite common for studies within the hard sciences – so much so that research philosophy is often just assumed to be positivistic and there’s no discussion of it within the methodology section of a dissertation or thesis.

Paradigm 2: Interpretivism

 If you can imagine a spectrum of research paradigms, interpretivism would sit more or less on the opposite side of the spectrum from positivism. Essentially, interpretivism takes the position that reality is socially constructed . In other words, that reality is subjective , and is constructed by the observer through their experience of it , rather than being independent of the observer (which, if you recall, is what positivism assumes).

The interpretivist paradigm typically underlies studies where the research aims involve attempting to understand the meanings and interpretations that people assign to their experiences. An interpretivistic philosophy also typically manifests in the adoption of a qualitative methodology , relying on data collection methods such as interviews , observations , and textual analysis . These types of studies commonly explore complex social phenomena and individual perspectives, which are naturally more subjective and nuanced.

Let’s look at an example of the interpretivist approach in action:

Assume that you’re interested in understanding the experiences of individuals suffering from chronic pain. In this case, you might conduct in-depth interviews with a group of participants and ask open-ended questions about their pain, its impact on their lives, coping strategies, and their overall experience and perceptions of living with pain. You would then transcribe those interviews and analyse the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. Based on that analysis, you’d be able to better understand the experiences of these individuals, thereby satisfying your original research aim.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that insight can be obtained through engaging in conversation with and exploring the subjective experiences of people (as opposed to collecting numerical data and trying to measure and calculate it). Therefore, this sort of study would adopt an interpretivistic research philosophy. Ultimately, if you’re looking to understand people’s lived experiences , you have to operate on the assumption that knowledge can be generated by exploring people’s viewpoints, as subjective as they may be.

Paradigm 3: Pragmatism

Now that we’ve looked at the two opposing ends of the research philosophy spectrum – positivism and interpretivism, you can probably see that both of the positions have their merits , and that they both function as tools for different jobs . More specifically, they lend themselves to different types of research aims, objectives and research questions . But what happens when your study doesn’t fall into a clear-cut category and involves exploring both “hard” and “soft” phenomena? Enter pragmatism…

As the name suggests, pragmatism takes a more practical and flexible approach, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings , rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position. This allows you, as the researcher, to explore research aims that cross philosophical boundaries, using different perspectives for different aspects of the study .

With a pragmatic research paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative methods can play a part, depending on the research questions and the context of the study. This often manifests in studies that adopt a mixed-method approach , utilising a combination of different data types and analysis methods. Ultimately, the pragmatist adopts a problem-solving mindset , seeking practical ways to achieve diverse research aims.

Let’s look at an example of pragmatism in action:

Imagine that you want to investigate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student learning outcomes. In this case, you might adopt a mixed-methods approach, which makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. One part of your project could involve comparing standardised test results from an intervention group (students that received the new teaching method) and a control group (students that received the traditional teaching method). Additionally, you might conduct in-person interviews with a smaller group of students from both groups, to gather qualitative data on their perceptions and preferences regarding the respective teaching methods.

As you can see in this example, the pragmatist’s approach can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data . This allows the researcher to develop a more holistic, comprehensive understanding of the teaching method’s efficacy and practical implications, with a synthesis of both types of data . Naturally, this type of insight is incredibly valuable in this case, as it’s essential to understand not just the impact of the teaching method on test results, but also on the students themselves!

Wrapping Up: Philosophies & Paradigms

Now that we’ve unpacked the “big three” research philosophies or paradigms – positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism, hopefully, you can see that research philosophy underlies all of the methodological decisions you’ll make in your study. In many ways, it’s less a case of you choosing your research philosophy and more a case of it choosing you (or at least, being revealed to you), based on the nature of your research aims and research questions .

• Research philosophies and paradigms encapsulate the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that guide the way you, as the researcher, approach your study and develop your methodology.
• Positivism is rooted in the belief that reality is independent of the observer, and consequently, that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements.
• Interpretivism takes the (opposing) position that reality is subjectively constructed by the observer through their experience of it, rather than being an independent thing.
• Pragmatism attempts to find a middle ground, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings, rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position.

If you’d like to learn more about research philosophy, research paradigms and research methodology more generally, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help with your research, consider our private coaching service , where we guide you through each stage of the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

13 Comments

was very useful for me, I had no idea what a philosophy is, and what type of philosophy of my study. thank you

Thanks for this explanation, is so good for me

You contributed much to my master thesis development and I wish to have again your support for PhD program through research.

the way of you explanation very good keep it up/continuous just like this

Very precise stuff. It has been of great use to me. It has greatly helped me to sharpen my PhD research project!

Very clear and very helpful explanation above. I have clearly understand the explanation.

Very clear and useful. Thanks

Thanks so much for your insightful explanations of the research philosophies that confuse me

I would like to thank Grad Coach TV or Youtube organizers and presenters. Since then, I have been able to learn a lot by finding very informative posts from them.

thank you so much for this valuable and explicit explanation,cheers

Hey, at last i have gained insight on which philosophy to use as i had little understanding on their applicability to my current research. Thanks

Tremendously useful

thank you and God bless you. This was very helpful, I had no understanding before this.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Research Paradigm: An Introduction with Examples

This article provides a detailed and easy-to-understand introduction to research paradigms, including examples.

If you are considering writing a research paper, you should be aware that you must set criteria for constructing the approach you will use as a methodology in your work, which is why you must comprehend the concept of the research paradigm .

A research paradigm , in simplest terms, is the process of constructing a research plan that can assist you in quickly understanding how the theories and practices of your research project work.

The purpose of this article is to introduce you to research paradigms and explain them to you in the most descriptive way possible using examples. 

What is a research paradigm?

A research paradigm is a method, model, or pattern for conducting research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, or understandings within which theories and practices can function. The majority of paradigms derive from one of two research methodologies: positivism or interpretivism . Every research project employs one of the research paradigms as a guideline for creating research methods and carrying out the research project most legitimately and reasonably. 

Though there were essentially two paradigms, various new paradigms have arisen from these two, particularly in social science research. Keep in mind that selecting one of the paradigms for your research project demands a thorough understanding of the unique characteristics of each approach.

What are the 3 paradigms of research?

To select the best research paradigm for your project, you must first comprehend the three pillars: ontology, epistemology, and methodology.

Ontology is a philosophical theory regarding the nature of reality, asserts that there is either a single reality or none at all. To be more specific, ontology answers the question, “ What is reality? ” 

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, focusing on the validity, extent, and ways of gaining knowledge. Epistemology seeks to address the question, “ How can we know reality? “

Methodology

Methodology refers to general concepts that underpin how one explores the social environment and proves the validity of the knowledge gained. The methodological question is “ How to go about discovering the reality/answer? “

What is the purpose of a research paradigm?

The importance of choosing a paradigm for a research project stems from the fact that it establishes the foundation for the study’s research and its methodologies. 

A paradigm investigates how knowledge is understood and researched, and it explicitly outlines the objective, motivation, and expected outcomes of the research. 

The proper implementation of a research paradigm in research provides researchers with a clear path to examine the topic of interest. 

As a result, it gives a logical and deliberate structure for carrying it out, besides improving the quality of your work and your proficiency.

Research paradigms examples

Now that you understand the three pillars and the importance of the research paradigm, let’s look at some examples of paradigms that you may use in your research.

Positivist Paradigm

Positivists believe in a single reality that can be measured and understood. As a result, quantitative approaches are utilized to quantify this reality. 

Positivism in research is a philosophy related to the concept of real inquiry. A positivism-based research philosophy employs a rigorous approach to the systematic study of data sources.

Interpretivism or Constructivism Paradigm

The interpretivism approach is used in the majority of qualitative research conducted in the social sciences; it is predicated on the existence of numerous realities rather than a single reality. 

According to interpretivists, human behavior is complex and cannot be predicted by predefined probability. 

Human behavior is not like a scientific variable that can be easily controlled. The word interpretivism refers to methods of gaining knowledge of the universe that rely on interpreting or comprehending the meanings that humans attach to their behaviors. 

Pragmatism Paradigm

The research question determines pragmatism. Depending on the nature of the research issue, pragmatics may incorporate both positivism and interpretivism approaches within a single study. 

It is a problem-solving philosophy that maintains that the best research techniques are those that contribute to the most effective answer to the research issue. This is followed by an examination of many aspects of a research problem using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. 

Postpositivism Paradigm

The positivism paradigm gave way to the postpositivism paradigm, which is more concerned with the subjectivity of reality and departs from the logical positivists’ objective perspective. 

Postpositivism seeks objective answers by striving to recognize and deal with such biases in the ideas and knowledge developed by researchers.

Build a graphical abstract that perfectly represents your findings

Graphic abstracts are becoming significantly important. But where to begin? How should you go about creating the appropriate graphical abstract for your article? 

Mind The Graph is the ideal tool for this; utilize templates to easily create the most qualified graphical abstract for your target audience.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Research Paradigms

• First Online: 22 July 2021

Cite this chapter

• Paul Johannesson 3 &
• Erik Perjons 3  

2189 Accesses

A research paradigm is a set of commonly held beliefs and assumptions within a research community about ontological, epistemological, and methodological concerns. This chapter starts by introducing two well-established research paradigms, positivism and interpretivism, and discusses their role in design science research. We also present two alternative research paradigms, critical realism and critical theory, and show how these can influence design science work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aljafari R, Khazanchi D (2013) On the veridicality of claims in design science research. In: 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), January 2013, pp 3747–3756

Google Scholar  

Avenier M-J (2010) Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. In: Organization studies, September 2010, vol 31(9–10), pp. 1229–1255

Baskerville R (2008) What design science is not. Eur J Inf Syst 17(5):441–443

Article   Google Scholar  

Bronner SE (2011) Critical theory: a very short introduction. 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Book   Google Scholar  

Burr V (2003) Social constructionism, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

Carlsson SA (2006) Towards an information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, CA, 2006, pp 192–212

Collier A (1994) Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. Verso, London/New York

Horkheimer M et al. (1975) Critical theory: selected essays. 1st edn. Continuum Publishing Corporation, New York

Kuhn TS (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition, 4th edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Oates BJ (2005) Researching information systems and computing. 1st edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA

Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W (2004) Design research in information systems. http://www.desrist.org/desrist/ . Accessed 26 June 2014

Weber R (2004) Editor’s comments: the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Q 28(1), iii–xii

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden

Paul Johannesson & Erik Perjons

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Johannesson, P., Perjons, E. (2021). Research Paradigms. In: An Introduction to Design Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78132-3_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78132-3_12

Published : 22 July 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-78131-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-78132-3

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The search for understanding: the role of paradigms

Affiliations.

• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
• 2 National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
• 3 School of Political Science and Sociology.
• PMID: 29546961
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.2018.e1499

Background: Kuhn's ( 1962 ) acknowledgement of a paradigm as a way that scientists make sense of their world and its reality gave recognition to the idea of 'paradigm shift'. This shift exposes the transience of paradigm development shaped by societal and scientific evolution. This ongoing evolutionary development provides the researcher with many paradigms to consider regarding how research is undertaken and the search for understanding achieved.

Aim: An understanding of paradigm development is necessary when planning a study and can shape the search for understanding. It is hoped that the discussion presented here will assist novice and experienced researchers in articulating the rationales for their paradigm choices.

Discussion: An overview of the dominant paradigms is presented, reflecting ongoing paradigm development shaped by ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Potential paradigm choices that shape research aims, objectives and focus in the search for understanding are considered.

Conclusion: The inherent debates about paradigm shift, division, war and synthesis leave the researcher many perspectives to consider. Articulating the world views underpinning constructivism, interpretivism and pragmatism is particularly challenging because of the blurring of boundaries between them.

Implications for practice: The evolutionary nature of paradigmatic development has provided nurse researchers with the opportunity for methodological openness to the myriad research approaches, methods and designs that they may choose to answer their research question. However, it is imperative that researchers consider their ontological stances and the nature of their research questions. This is challenging in constructivism, interpretivism and pragmatism, where there is often an overlap of paradigm world views.

Keywords: epistemology; nursing research; ontology; paradigms; research method; world views.

©2018 RCN Publishing Company Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be copied, transmitted or recorded in any way, in whole or part, without prior permission of the publishers.

• Research Personnel*

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.2 Paradigms, theories, and how they shape a researcher’s approach

Learning objectives.

• Define paradigm, and describe the significance of paradigms
• Identify and describe the four predominant paradigms found in the social sciences
• Define theory
• Describe the role that theory plays in social work research

The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether these are identical or distinct concepts. This text makes a clear distinction between the two ideas because thinking about each concept as analytically distinct provides a useful framework for understanding the connections between research methods and social scientific ways of thinking.

Paradigms in social science

  For our purposes, we’ll define paradigm as a way of viewing the world (or “analytic lens” akin to a set of glasses) and a framework from which to understand the human experience (Kuhn, 1962). It can be difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our own, personal everyday way of thinking. For example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each individual woman. To others, abortion is murder and members of society should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic, you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion and yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Who is correct?

You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world does—or at least should—work. Perhaps your assumptions come from your political perspective, which helps shape your view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue. Those paradigms are a set of assumptions. Your classmate might assume that life begins at conception and the fetus’ life should be at the center of moral analysis. Conversely, you may assume that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb and that a mother’s choice is more important than a fetus’s life. There is no way to scientifically test when life begins, whose interests are more important, or the value of choice. They are merely philosophical assumptions or beliefs. Thus, a pro-life paradigm may rest in part on a belief in divine morality and fetal rights. A pro-choice paradigm may rest on a mother’s self-determination and a belief that the positive consequences of abortion outweigh the negative ones. These beliefs and assumptions influence how we think about any aspect of the issue.

In Chapter 1, we discussed the various ways that we know what we know. Paradigms are a way of framing what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it. In social science, there are several predominant paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Recall that ontology is the study of what is real, and epistemology is the study of how we come to know what is real. Let’s look at four of the most common social scientific paradigms that might guide you as you begin to think about conducting research.

The first paradigm we’ll consider, called positivism, is the framework that likely comes to mind for many of you when you think of science. Positivism is guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic. Deductive logic is discussed in more detail in next section of this chapter. The positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for a value-free science, one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth.

Another predominant paradigm in social work is social constructionism . Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966) are credited by many for having developed this perspective in sociology. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” varies. Truth is different based on who you ask, and people change their definitions of truth all the time based on their interactions with other people. This is because we, according to this paradigm, create reality ourselves (as opposed to it simply existing and us working to discover it) through our interactions and our interpretations of those interactions. Key to the social constructionist perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities.

Researchers operating within this framework take keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. Consideration of how meanings of different hand gestures vary across different regions of the world aptly demonstrates that meanings are constructed socially and collectively. Think about what it means to you when you see a person raise their middle finger. In the United States, people probably understand that person isn’t very happy (nor is the person to whom the finger is being directed). In some societies, it is another gesture, such as the thumbs up gesture, that raises eyebrows. While the thumbs up gesture may have a particular meaning in North American culture, that meaning is not shared across cultures (Wong, 2007). So, what is the “truth” of the middle finger or thumbs up? It depends on what the person giving it intended, how the person receiving it interpreted it, and the social context in which the action occurred.

It would be a mistake to think of the social constructionist perspective as only individualistic. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups—from a small one such as a married couple to large ones such as nations—often agree on notions of what is true and what “is.” In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. Therefore, the ways that people and communities work to create and change such meanings is of as much interest to social constructionists as how they were created in the first place.

A third paradigm is the critical paradigm. At its core, the critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm, in general, includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk, 2007), and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989). Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. Researchers in the critical paradigm might start with the knowledge that systems are biased against, for example, women or ethnic minorities. Moreover, their research projects are designed not only to collect data, but also change the participants in the research as well as the systems being studied. The critical paradigm not only studies power imbalances but seeks to change those power imbalances.

Finally, postmodernism is a paradigm that challenges almost every way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted (Best & Kellner, 1991). While positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the group that agrees on it), postmodernists may claim that we can never really know such truth because, in the studying and reporting of others’ truths, the researcher stamps their own truth on the investigation. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may in turn ask whose power, whose inequality, whose change, whose reality, and whose truth. As you might imagine, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for researchers. How do you study something that may or may not be real or that is only real in your current and unique experience of it? This fascinating question is worth pondering as you begin to think about conducting your own research. Part of the value of the postmodern paradigm is its emphasis on the limitations of human knowledge. Table 2.1 summarizes each of the paradigms discussed here.

Let’s work through an example. If we are examining a problem like substance abuse, what would a social scientific investigation look like in each paradigm? A positivist study may focus on precisely measuring substance abuse and finding out the key causes of substance abuse during adolescence. Forgoing the objectivity of precisely measuring substance abuse, social constructionist study might focus on how people who abuse substances understand their lives and relationships with various drugs of abuse. In so doing, it seeks out the subjective truth of each participant in the study. A study from the critical paradigm would investigate how people who have substance abuse problems are an oppressed group in society and seek to liberate them from external sources of oppression, like punitive drug laws, and internal sources of oppression, like internalized fear and shame. A postmodern study may involve one person’s self-reported journey into substance abuse and changes that occurred in their self-perception that accompanied their transition from recreational to problematic drug use. These examples should illustrate how one topic can be investigated across each paradigm.

Social science theories

Much like paradigms, theories provide a way of looking at the world and of understanding human interaction. Paradigms are grounded in big assumptions about the world—what is real, how do we create knowledge—whereas theories describe more specific phenomena. A common definition for theory in social work is “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615). At their core, theories can be used to provide explanations of any number or variety of phenomena. They help us answer the “why” questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. Theories also often help us answer our “how” questions. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.”

Introductory social work textbooks introduce students to the major theories in social work—conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, social exchange theory, and systems theory. As social workers study longer, they are introduced to more specific theories in their area of focus, as well as perspectives and models (e.g., the strengths perspective), which provide more practice-focused approaches to understanding social work.

As you may recall from a class on social work theory, systems theorists view all parts of society as interconnected and focus on the relationships, boundaries, and flows of energy between these systems and subsystems (Schriver, 2011). Conflict theorists are interested in questions of power and who wins and who loses based on the way that society is organized. Symbolic interactionists focus on how meaning is created and negotiated through meaningful (i.e., symbolic) interactions. Finally, social exchange theorists examine how human beings base their behavior on a rational calculation of rewards and costs.

Just as researchers might examine the same topic from different levels of inquiry or paradigms, they could also investigate the same topic from different theoretical perspectives. In this case, even their research questions could be the same, but the way they make sense of whatever phenomenon it is they are investigating will be shaped in large part by theory. Table 2.2 summarizes the major points of focus for four major theories and outlines how a researcher might approach the study of the same topic, in this case the study of substance abuse, from each of the perspectives.

Within each area of specialization in social work, there are many other theories that aim to explain more specific types of interactions. For example, within the study of sexual harassment, different theories posit different explanations for why harassment occurs. One theory, first developed by criminologists, is called routine activities theory. It posits that sexual harassment is most likely to occur when a workplace lacks unified groups and when potentially vulnerable targets and motivated offenders are both present (DeCoster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999). Other theories of sexual harassment, called relational theories, suggest that a person’s relationships, such as their marriages or friendships, are the key to understanding why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs and how people will respond to it when it does occur (Morgan, 1999). Relational theories focus on the power that different social relationships provide (e.g., married people who have supportive partners at home might be more likely than those who lack support at home to report sexual harassment when it occurs). Finally, feminist theories of sexual harassment take a different stance. These theories posit that the way our current gender system is organized, where those who are the most masculine have the most power, best explains why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs (MacKinnon, 1979). As you might imagine, which theory a researcher applies to examine the topic of sexual harassment will shape the questions the researcher asks about harassment. It will also shape the explanations the researcher provides for why harassment occurs.

For an undergraduate student beginning their study of a new topic, it may be intimidating to learn that there are so many theories beyond what you’ve learned in your theory classes. What’s worse is that there is no central database of different theories on your topic. However, as you review the literature in your topic area, you will learn more about the theories that scientists have created to explain how your topic works in the real world. In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, another good source of theories is a book about your topic. Books often contain works of theoretical and philosophical importance that are beyond the scope of an academic journal.

Paradigm and theory in social work

Theories, paradigms, levels of analysis, and the order in which one proceeds in the research process all play an important role in shaping what we ask about the social world, how we ask it, and in some cases, even what we are likely to find. A micro-level study of gangs will look much different than a macro-level study of gangs. In some cases, you could apply multiple levels of analysis to your investigation, but doing so isn’t always practical or feasible. Therefore, understanding the different levels of analysis and being aware of which level you happen to be employing is crucial. One’s theoretical perspective will also shape a study. In particular, the theory invoked will likely shape not only the way a question about a topic is asked but also which topic gets investigated in the first place. Further, if you find yourself especially committed to one theory over another, it may limit the kinds of questions you pose. As a result, you may miss other possible explanations.

The limitations of paradigms and theories do not mean that social science is fundamentally biased. At the same time, we can never claim to be entirely value free. Social constructionists and postmodernists might point out that bias is always a part of research to at least some degree. Our job as researchers is to recognize and address our biases as part of the research process, if an imperfect part. We all use our own approaches, be they theories, levels of analysis, or temporal processes, to frame and conduct our work. Understanding those frames and approaches is crucial not only for successfully embarking upon and completing any research-based investigation, but also for responsibly reading and understanding others’ work.

Spotlight on UTA School of Social Work

Catherine labrenz connects social theory and child welfare research.

When Catherine LaBrenz, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington’s School of Social Work was a child welfare practitioner, she noticed that several children who had reunified with their biological parents from the foster care system were re-entering care because of continued exposure to child maltreatment. As she observed the challenging behaviors these children often presented, she wondered how the agency might better support families to prevent children from re-entering foster care after permanence. In her doctoral studies, she used her practice experience to form a research project with the goal of better understanding how agencies could better support families post-reunification.

From a critical paradigm, Dr. LaBrenz approached this question with the understanding that families that come into contact with child welfare systems often experience disadvantage and are subjected to unequal power distributions when accessing services, going to court, and participating in case decision-making (LaBrenz & Fong, 2016). Furthermore, the goal of this research was to change some of the aspects of the child welfare system, particularly within the practitioner’s agency, to better support families.

To better understand why some families may be more at-risk for multiple entries into foster care, Dr. LaBrenz began with an extensive literature review that identified diverse theories that explained factors at the child, family, and system- level that could impact post-permanence success. Figure 2.1 displays the micro-, meso-, and macro-level theories that she and her research team identified and decided to explore further.

At the child-level, Attachment theory posits that consistent, stable nurturing during infancy impacts children’s ability to form relationships with others throughout their life (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). At the family-level, Family systems theory posits that family interactions impact functioning among all members of a family unit (Broderick 1971). At the macro-level, Critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) can help understand racial disparities in child welfare systems. Moreover, Systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) can help examine interactions among the micro-, meso- and macro-levels to assess diverse systems that impact families involved in child welfare services.

In the next step of the project, national datasets were used to examine child-, family-, and system- factors that impacted rates of successful reunification, or reunification with no future re-entries into foster care. Then, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine what evidence existed for interventions to increase rates of successful reunification. Finally, a different national dataset was used to examine how effective diverse interventions were for specific groups of families, such as those with infants and toddlers.

Figure 2.2 displays the principal findings from the research project and connects each main finding to one of the theoretical frameworks.

The first part of the research project found parents who felt unable to cope with their parental role, and families with previous attachment disruptions, to have higher rates of re-entry into foster care. This connects with Attachment theory, in that families with more instability and inconsistency in caregiving felt less able to fulfill their parental roles, which in turn led to further disruption in the child’s attachment.

With regards to family-level theories, Dr. LaBrenz found that family-level risk and protective factors were more predictive of re-entry to foster care than child- or agency-level factors. The systematic review also found that interventions that targeted parents, such as Family Drug Treatment Courts, led to better outcomes for children and families. This aligns with Family systems theory in that family-centered interventions and targeting the entire family leads to better family functioning and fewer re-entries into foster care.

In parallel, the systematic review concluded that interventions that integrated multiple systems, such as child welfare and substance use, increased the likelihood of successful reunification. This supports Systems theory, in that multiple systems can be engaged to provide ongoing support for families in child welfare systems (Trucco, 2012). Furthermore, the results from the analyses of the national datasets found that rates of re-entry into foster care for African American and Latino families varied significantly by state. Thus, racial and ethnic disparities remained in some, but not all, state child welfare systems.

Overall, the findings from the research project supported Attachment theory, Family systems theory, Systems theory, and Critical race theory as guiding explanations for why some children and families experience foster care re-entry while others do not. Dr. LaBrenz was able to present these findings and connect them to direct implications for practices and policies that could support attachment, multi-system collaborations, and family-centered practices.

Key Takeaways

• Paradigms shape our everyday view of the world.
• Researchers use theory to help frame their research questions and to help them make sense of the answers to those questions.
• Applying the four key theories of social work is a good start, but you will likely have to look for more specific theories about your topic.
• Critical paradigm- a paradigm in social science research focused on power, inequality, and social change
• Paradigm- a way of viewing the world and a framework from which to understand the human experience
• Positivism- a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic
• Postmodernism- a paradigm focused on the historical and contextual embeddedness of scientific knowledge and a skepticism towards certainty and grand explanations in social science
• Social constructionism- a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities
• Theory- “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615)

Image attributions

point mold and cloud mold by tasaikensuke CC-0

why by GDJ CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Research Paradigms: Explanation and Examples

4-minute read

• 1st March 2022

Are you planning a research project? If so, you’ll need a research paradigm. But what exactly is a research paradigm, and why is it important? This blog post will cover the following:

●  The definition of a research paradigm

●  Why research paradigms are important

●  Common examples of research paradigms

●  Merging research paradigms

●  Expert editing and proofreading

Read on to find out more or learn about research paradigms in the video below!

The Definition of a Research Paradigm

A research paradigm is a philosophical framework that your research is based on. It offers a pattern of beliefs and understandings from which the theories and practices of your research project operate.

A research paradigm consists of ontology, epistemology, and research methodology .

●  Ontology answers the question: “What is reality?” That is, does a single reality exist within your research? An example of an ontological question would be: “Does God exist?” There are two possible realities (or ontologies) in response to this question: “Yes, God exists,” or “No, God does not exist.”

●  Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It answers the question: “How is it possible to know reality?” Epistemology incorporates the validity, parameters, and methods of acquiring knowledge. An example of an epistemological question would be: “How is it possible to know whether God exists or not?”

●  Research Methodology answers the question: “How do we go about discovering the answer or reality?” This includes the process of data collection and analysis. Research methodology should outline how you conduct your research and demonstrate that the findings are valid.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Together, ontology and epistemology comprise research philosophy.

Research philosophy combined with research methodology comprises a research paradigm.

Why Are Research Paradigms Important?

Research paradigms are important because they form the philosophical basis of a research project. Research paradigms influence how different schools of learning (such as the sciences versus the humanities) undertake their research. Once a research philosophy has been determined, an appropriate methodology can be chosen.

Furthermore, a knowledge of the philosophical foundation of your research will increase its quality and improve your performance in any analysis you may have to undergo!

Common Examples of Research Paradigms

1. Positivism

Positivists believe that there’s a single reality that’s possible to measure and understand. Because of this, they’re most likely to use quantitative methods in their research. Typically, positivists propose a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved using statistical data analysis. Positivism tends to investigate the existence of a relationship between two variables rather than the reason behind it.

2. Constructivism

Constructivists believe that there’s no single reality or truth, but rather multiple realities. They devote themselves to understanding and interpreting the meaning attached to an action. For this reason, constructivists tend to use qualitative research methods, such as interviews or case studies, which focus on providing different perspectives. Constructivism aims to provide the answer to “why.” For example, asking “Why do 25% of the employees of an organization regularly arrive late to work?” rather than merely establishing the relationship between two variables (e.g., time of arrival at work and availability of nearby parking).

3. Pragmatists

Pragmatists believe that reality is continually interpreted and renegotiated against the backdrop of new and unpredictable situations. Because of this, the philosophy they apply in research depends on the research question itself. Pragmatists often combine positivist and constructivist principles in the same research project, using both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate different components of a research problem. They believe that the optimal research methods are those that most successfully answer the research question.

Merging Research Paradigms

While most social science research operates from either a positivist (experimental) or constructivist paradigm, it’s possible to combine both, as the field of psychology often does. Quantitative and qualitative methodology are frequently used together in psychology, illustrating the subject’s footing in multiple research paradigms (positivist and constructivist).

Expert Editing and Proofreading

If you’re writing a research proposal or paper , you’ll want to ensure that your writing is error-free, fluent, and precise. Although re-reading your own work is valuable, it can be very helpful to get another opinion on your writing. We offer a free trial of proofreading and editing services when you submit your first document. Click here to find out more!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Get help from a language expert. Try our proofreading services for free.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

2.2 Paradigms, Theories, and How They Shape a Researcher’s Approach

Learning objectives.

• Define paradigm, and describe the significance of paradigms.
• Identify and describe the four predominant paradigms found in the social sciences.
• Define theory.
• Describe the role that theory plays in sociological inquiry.

The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether these are identical or distinct concepts. In this text, we will make a slight distinction between the two ideas because thinking about each concept as analytically distinct provides a useful framework for understanding the connections between research methods and social scientific ways of thinking.

Paradigms in Social Science

For our purposes, we’ll define paradigm An analytic lens, a way of viewing the world, and a framework from which to understand the human experience. as an analytic lens, a way of viewing the world and a framework from which to understand the human experience (Kuhn, 1962). See Kuhn’s seminal work for more on paradigms: Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. It can be difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our own, personal everyday way of thinking. For example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each individual woman who might experience an unwanted pregnancy. To others, abortion is murder and members of society should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion and yet be equally confident about the truth of his or her perspective. Which of you is correct? You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world does—or at least should—work. Perhaps your assumptions come from your particular political perspective, which helps shape your view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue.

In Chapter 1 "Introduction" we discussed the various ways that we know what we know. Paradigms are a way of framing what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it. In social science, there are several predominant paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Let’s look at four of the most common social scientific paradigms that might guide you as you begin to think about conducting research.

The first paradigm we’ll consider, called positivism A paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic. , is probably the framework that comes to mind for many of you when you think of science. Positivism is guided by the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic. Deductive logic is discussed in more detail in the section that follows. Auguste Comte, whom you might recall from your introduction to sociology class as the person who coined the term sociology , argued that sociology should be a positivist science (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004). Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. J. (2004). Classical sociological theory (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. The positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for a value-free sociology A perspective associated with positivism. Posits that sociologists should set their personal opinions and beliefs aside in favor of pursuing objective truth. , one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth.

Another predominant paradigm in sociology is social constructionism A paradigm that argues that we create reality through our interactions and our interpretations of those interactions. . Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966) Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York, NY: Doubleday. are credited by many for having developed this perspective in sociology. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” is a varying, socially constructed, and ever-changing notion. This is because we, according to this paradigm, create reality ourselves (as opposed to it simply existing and us working to discover it) through our interactions and our interpretations of those interactions. Key to the social constructionist perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities. Researchers operating within this framework take keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. Consideration of how meanings of different hand gestures vary across different regions of the world aptly demonstrates that meanings are constructed socially and collectively. Think about what it means to you when you see a person raise his or her middle finger. We probably all know that person isn’t very happy (nor is the person to whom the finger is being directed). In some societies, it is another gesture, the thumbs up, that raises eyebrows. While the thumbs up may have a particular meaning in our culture, that meaning is not shared across cultures (Wong, 2007). For more about how the meanings of hand gestures vary by region, you might read the following blog entry: Wong, W. (2007). The top 10 hand gestures you’d better get right. Retrieved from http://www.languagetrainers.co.uk/blog/2007/09/24/top-10-hand-gestures

It would be a mistake to think of the social constructionist perspective as only individualistic. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups—from a small one such as a married couple to large ones such as nations—often agree on notions of what is true and what “is.” In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. Therefore, the ways that people work to change such meanings is of as much interest to social constructionists as how they were created in the first place.

A third paradigm is the critical paradigm A paradigm that focuses on how power, inequality, and social change shape the human experience. . At its core, the critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm, in general, includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk), Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., & Virk, I. (Eds.). (2007). Classical sociological theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989). Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in cotemporary social theory . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind.

Finally, postmodernism A paradigm that challenges most social scientific ways of knowing, arguing that there are no universals. is a paradigm that challenges almost every way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted (Best & Kellner, 1991). Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations . New York, NY: Guilford. While positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the group that agrees on it), postmodernists may claim that we can never really know such truth because, in the studying and reporting of others’ truths, the researcher stamps her or his own truth on the investigation. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may in turn ask, whose power, whose inequality, whose change, whose reality, and whose truth? As you might imagine, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for social scientific researchers. How does one study something that may or may not be real or that is only real in your current and unique experience of it? This fascinating question is worth pondering as you begin to think about conducting your own sociological research. Table 2.1 "Social Scientific Paradigms" summarizes each of the paradigms discussed here.

Table 2.1 Social Scientific Paradigms

Sociological Theories

Much like paradigms, theories provide a way of looking at the world and of understanding human interaction. Like paradigms, theories can be sweeping in their coverage. Some sociological theories, for example, aim to explain the very existence and continuation of society as we know it. Unlike paradigms, however, theories might be narrower in focus, perhaps just aiming to understand one particular phenomenon, without attempting to tackle a broader level of explanation. In a nutshell, theory A way of explanation, a mapping out of the why and how of the social phenomenon being studied. might be thought of as a way of explanation or as “an explanatory statement that fits the evidence” (Quammen, 2004). Quammen, D. (2004, November). Was Darwin wrong? National Geographic , pp. 2–35. At their core, theories can be used to provide explanations of any number or variety of phenomena. They help us answer the “why” questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. Theories also often help us answer our “how” questions. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.”

Introductory sociology textbooks typically teach students about “the big three” sociological theories—structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism (Barkan, 2011; Henslin, 2010). The theory discussions in each of the following texts provide useful examples: [citation redacted per publisher request] ; Henslin, J. M. (2010). Sociology: A down to earth approach, core concepts (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Most also mention at least a few additional theories or theorists (Sprague, 1997). See Sprague’s 1997 critique of social theory for a compelling and well-developed argument in favor of sociology reorganizing theory with the aim of increasing its relevance to social life today and bridging, rather than building, boundaries across diverse perspectives and disciplines: Sprague, J. (1997). Holy men and big guns: The can[n]on in social theory. Gender & Society, 11 , 88–107. As you probably recall from your introductory sociology course, structural functionalists focus on the interrelations between various parts of society and how each part works with the others to make society function in the way that it does. Conflict theorists are interested in questions of power and who wins and who loses based on the way that society is organized. Finally, symbolic interactionists focus on how meaning is created and negotiated though meaningful (i.e., symbolic) interactions. Just as researchers might examine the same topic from different levels of inquiry, so, too, could they investigate the same topic from different theoretical perspectives. In this case, even their research questions could be the same, but the way they make sense of whatever phenomenon it is they are investigating will be shaped in large part by the theoretical assumptions that lie behind their investigation.

Table 2.2 "Sociological Theories and the Study of Sport" summarizes the major points of focus for each of major three theories and outlines how a researcher might approach the study of the same topic, in this case the study of sport, from each of the three perspectives.

Table 2.2 Sociological Theories and the Study of Sport

Within each area of specialization in sociology, there are many other theories that aim to explain more specific types of interactions. For example, within the sociological study of sexual harassment, different theories posit different explanations for why harassment occurs. One theory, first developed by criminologists, is called routine activities theory. It posits that sexual harassment is most likely to occur when a workplace lacks unified groups and when potentially vulnerable targets and motivated offenders are both present (DeCoster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999). DeCoster, S., Estes, S. B., & Mueller, C. W. (1999). Routine activities and sexual harassment in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 26 , 21–49. Other theories of sexual harassment, called relational theories, suggest that a person’s relationships, such as their marriages or friendships, are the key to understanding why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs and how people will respond to it when it does occur (Morgan, 1999). Morgan, P. A. (1999). Risking relationships: Understanding the litigation choices of sexually harassed women. The Law and Society Review, 33 , 201–226. Relational theories focus on the power that different social relationships provide (e.g., married people who have supportive partners at home might be more likely than those who lack support at home to report sexual harassment when it occurs). Finally, feminist theories of sexual harassment take a different stance. These theories posit that the way our current gender system is organized, where those who are the most masculine have the most power, best explains why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs (MacKinnon, 1979). MacKinnon, C. 1979. Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. As you might imagine, which theory a researcher applies to examine the topic of sexual harassment will shape the questions the researcher asks about harassment. It will also shape the explanations the researcher provides for why harassment occurs.

Key Takeaways

• Paradigms shape our everyday view of the world.
• Sociologists use theory to help frame their research questions and to help them make sense of the answers to those questions.
• Some sociological theories are rather sweeping in their coverage and attempt to explain, broadly, how and why societies are organized in particular ways.
• Other sociological theories aim to explain more specific events or interactions.
• Of the four paradigms described, which do you find most compelling? Why?

Feeling confused about the social constructionism paradigm? Check out the 10-minute lecture that illustrates this framework online at: http://www.youtube.com/v/GVVWmZAStn8 .

After watching this lecture, come up with a two- to four-sentence description of social constructionism that would make sense to someone who has no background in sociological theory.

Understanding Research Paradigm

Research is the way or a set belief in every field of knowledge. Through research, we unearth the mysteries of the universe, make groundbreaking advancements in technology, and deepen our understanding of the human condition. But beneath the surface of the research lies a fundamental question:

How do we approach it?

What underlying philosophies, methodologies, and worldviews guide our research?

This is where the concept of research paradigms comes into play.

Table of Contents

Research Paradigm

Introduction.

Research paradigms are the lenses through which researchers view the world, the guiding principles that shape their inquiries, and the frameworks that influence their methodologies. They are the hidden but powerful forces that underpin the entire research process. Understanding research paradigms is not just an academic exercise but a key to unlocking the essence of research itself.

In this article, we will explore the intriguing world of research paradigms. We will delve into their definition, types, real-world examples, and vital roles in the academic and scientific realms. By the end of this journey, you will grasp the significance of research paradigms and gain insights into how they impact the research landscape.

A research paradigm is a set of fundamental beliefs and assumptions that guide researchers in their quest for knowledge. These paradigms encompass a range of philosophies about the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge, and the methods used to generate that knowledge. Consider them the foundational principles upon which a researcher’s work is built.

Imagine two researchers investigating the same topic, say, the effects of climate change on a particular ecosystem. One researcher might approach the study from a positivist paradigm, emphasizing objectivity, quantifiable data, and causality. They might employ statistical analyses and control groups to draw conclusions. The other researcher might adopt a constructivist paradigm, valuing subjectivity, context, and the voices of the individuals living in the ecosystem. They might use qualitative interviews and ethnographic methods to understand the lived experiences of the people affected by climate change. They have the same topic and vastly different approaches, all because of their chosen research paradigms.

The words “Research Paradigm,” “what is a research paradigm,” and “research paradigm definition” are frequently used in the academic world to initiate discussions about this fundamental concept. As we proceed, we will explore these words in greater depth and provide you with a comprehensive understanding of what research paradigms entail.

In the following sections of this blog post, we will look at the various types of research paradigms, providing real-world examples to illustrate their applications. We will also discuss the importance of identifying the most suitable research paradigm for your study, the role of theoretical frameworks within paradigms, and the advantages and disadvantages of different paradigms.

So, be ready to embark on a captivating journey through the labyrinthine world of research paradigms, where the pursuit of knowledge takes on various forms, each shaped by its unique philosophical foundations. Whether you are a seasoned researcher, a student entering the world of academia, or simply curious about the mechanics of research, this exploration of research paradigms promises to be enlightening and thought-provoking. Let’s begin our expedition into the heart of research philosophy and methodology.

What is a Research Paradigm?

The three foundations of research paradigms.

To truly grasp the concept of a research paradigm, it’s essential to break down its core components of Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology.

1.    Ontology

This branch of philosophy deals with the nature of reality . Research paradigms have different ontological stances. For example, a positivist paradigm assumes that there is an objective reality that can be measured and studied independently of the researcher’s perceptions. In contrast, a constructivist paradigm suggests that truth is subjective and socially constructed, varying from one person or group to another.

2.    Epistemology

Epistemology concerns the nature of knowledge . It explores how we come to know things and what constitutes valid knowledge. In research, paradigms often align with specific epistemological positions. Positivism, for instance, relies on empirical evidence and quantitative data as the basis for learning, while constructivism values the interpretive, context-dependent nature of knowledge and often employs qualitative methods.

3.    Methodology

Research paradigms dictate researchers’ methods and approaches to investigating phenomena. The underlying paradigm has a significant impact on the methods chosen, whether they are for conducting surveys, experiments, interviews, or content analysis. Positivist paradigms favor quantitative methods, while constructivist paradigms lean towards qualitative methods.

Definitions of Basic terms

Research Paradigm : This term encapsulates the entire concept we’re discussing. When researchers refer to their chosen research paradigm, they acknowledge the foundational beliefs and assumptions that shape their work.

What is a Research Paradigm ? Students and researchers who are seeking a succinct definition and explanation of the term frequently ask this question. It’s a natural starting point for those new to research methodologies.

Research Paradigm Definition : This keyword emphasizes the need for clarity and precision. A well-defined research paradigm is essential to ensure that all researchers involved in a study share a common understanding of the philosophical underpinnings guiding their work.

By exploring these, researchers can establish a solid foundation for their studies and ensure their research aligns with their chosen paradigm. This alignment is crucial because it shapes the methodology and influences how findings are interpreted and understood.

In the following sections of this post, we will delve into various research paradigms, each with its unique ontological, epistemological, and methodological characteristics. We will illustrate how these paradigms are applied in research across different disciplines through real-world examples and practical insights. Whether you are an aspiring researcher or simply curious about the intricacies of research methodology, our exploration of research paradigms aims to demystify this fundamental concept and provide valuable insights into the diverse approaches underpinning the pursuit of knowledge.

Types of Research Paradigms

There are three main types of Research Paradigms

• Positivism Research Paradigm
• Interpretivist Research Paradigm
• Pramatism Research Paradigm
• Cretical Research Paradigm

Although there are four main types of research paradigms but these are further divided into many types some of them are listed and explained below

Various paradigms in academic and scientific research guide how researchers perceive reality, construct knowledge, and conduct investigations. Let’s explore some of the most prominent research paradigms and highlight their significance and characteristics.

1. Positivism Research Paradigm

Significance : Positivism is rooted in the belief that there is an objective reality that can be studied through empirical observation and measurement . It emphasizes the importance of objectivity and the scientific method.

Characteristics :

• Quantitative research methods (e.g., surveys, experiments).
• Emphasis on control, replicability, and generalizability
• Seek to identify causal relationships.
• Data is often numerical and analyzed statistically.

2. Constructivist Research Paradigm

Significance : Constructivism posits that reality is constructed through the interaction of individuals with their environment. It values subjectivity, context, and the role of the researcher in shaping knowledge.

• Qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, participant observation).
• Focus on understanding meaning and context.
• Acknowledgment of multiple perspectives and interpretations.
• Researchers often partake in the research process.

3. Pragmatism Research Paradigm

Significance : Pragmatism is pragmatic and practical , valuing the utility of knowledge. It encourages researchers to use whatever methods and paradigms best serve the research question.

• Flexible and adaptive approach to research.
• Mixes quantitative and qualitative methods as needed.
• Focus on solving real-world problems.
• Emphasis on the usefulness of research outcomes.

4. Interpretivist Research Paradigm

Significance : Interpretivism centers on the idea that individuals interpret the world based on their subjective experiences and meanings. It seeks to understand these interpretations.

• Qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, content analysis)
• Emphasis on understanding the lived experiences of participants.
• Researchers act as interpreters, seeking to uncover subjective meanings.
• Context-rich data collection and analysis

Quantitative Research Design

Significance : Quantitative research uses numerical data and statistical analyses to establish patterns, correlations, and causality. It is favored when researchers aim to quantify phenomena.

• Structured data collection (e.g., surveys, experiments)
• Statistical analysis of data
• Emphasis on generalizability and replicability.
• Objective and detached researcher stance.

Qualitative Research Design

Significance : Qualitative research delves deep into the nuances and complexities of human experiences and behaviors . It is valuable for exploring rich, context-dependent phenomena.

• Open-ended data collection (e.g., interviews, observations).
• Focus on in-depth understanding.
• Data often consists of narratives, descriptions, and themes.
• The researcher’s presence is acknowledged.

Examples of research Paradigm

To gain a deeper understanding of research paradigms and their real-world applications, let’s explore practical examples of research studies or projects related to each of the mentioned paradigms. We’ll use relevant keywords to illustrate the diversity of research within these paradigms.

Example : A study examining the relationship between daily caffeine consumption and blood pressure levels among a large sample of participants Researchers collect quantitative data through surveys and use statistical analyses to identify correlations and causality.

Example : An ethnographic research project focusing on the experiences of refugees in a particular community. Researchers immerse themselves in the community, conducting in-depth interviews and participant observation to understand how refugees construct their sense of identity and belonging.

Example : A study investigating the effectiveness of a new teaching method in a diverse classroom setting. Researchers combine quantitative assessments of student performance with qualitative interviews to provide a comprehensive view of the method’s practicality and impact.

Example : Exploring online gaming communities and the meaning of “gamer” identity. Researchers conduct qualitative interviews with gamers to understand how they interpret and negotiate their identities within gaming subcultures.

Identifying Your Research Paradigm

Selecting the most suitable research paradigm is a critical decision that researchers must make at the outset of their studies. The chosen paradigm will shape the entire research process, from defining the research question to data collection and analysis. Here is guidance on how researchers can identify the most appropriate research paradigm for their study:

1. Clarify Your Research Question

Begin by clearly articulating your research question or problem. Consider what you want to investigate and why it is crucial. The nature of your inquiry will provide initial clues about the paradigm that aligns with your study. Ask yourself:

• Is my question focused on objective facts and causality (positivism)?
• Do I seek to understand the meaning and context of a phenomenon (constructivism or interpretivism) ?
• Is my research problem practical and action-oriented (pragmatism)?
• Am I exploring subjective experiences (phenomenology)?
• Do I aim to quantify relationships (quantitative) or explore in-depth narratives (qualitative)?

2. Review Existing Literature

Conduct a thorough review of existing literature related to your research topic. Pay attention to the methodologies and philosophical foundations used in studies like yours. Researchers in your field may have already established certain paradigms as common or appropriate for specific research questions.

3. Consider Your Epistemological and Ontological Stances

Reflect on your epistemological and ontological beliefs, which relate to the nature of knowledge and reality:

• Epistemology : Do you believe knowledge is objective and can be discovered through observation (positivism)? Or do you think learning is subjective and constructed by individuals (constructivism/interpretivism)?
• Ontology : Is reality objective and independent of human perception (positivism)? Or do you view reality as socially constructed or context-dependent (constructivism/interpretivism)?

Your beliefs in these areas will strongly influence your choice of paradigm.

4. Assess Your Preferred Methodology

Consider the research methods you are most comfortable using and that are best suited to answer your research question. Different paradigms favor specific research methods. For instance:

• If you prefer surveys and experiments, a positivist paradigm may align with your methodology.
• If you enjoy in-depth interviews and qualitative analysis, interpretivism or constructivism may be a better fit.
• If you seek a combination of methods to address practical issues, pragmatism is worth considering.

5. Consult with Peers and Advisors

Discuss with colleagues, mentors, or advisors with expertise in your research area. They can offer valuable insights and suggestions regarding the most appropriate research paradigm based on their experience.

6. Pilot Studies or Preliminary Research

If you need more clarification on the paradigm, consider conducting pilot studies or preliminary research using different paradigms. This can provide practical experience and help you determine which paradigm aligns best with your research goals.

7. Be Open to Adaptation

Remember that the choice of a research paradigm is not set in stone. Depending on the evolution of your research and new insights gained, you may need to adapt or even change your paradigm during your study. Flexibility is vital to practical analysis.

By following these steps and considering the alignment between your research question, beliefs, and methodology, you can identify the research paradigm that best suits your study. Remember that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and researchers often work across paradigms to explore complex research questions comprehensively. Identifying and adapting to the most suitable research paradigm is essential for researchers in various fields.

Theoretical Framework in Research Paradigms

In research, theoretical frameworks guide studies’ design, conduct, and interpretation. These frameworks serve as conceptual maps that provide structure and direction to research endeavors. The relationship between theoretical frameworks and research paradigms is intricate and influential. Let’s explore the role of theoretical frameworks within research paradigms and how paradigms influence the choice of these frameworks:

Role of Theoretical Frameworks within Research Paradigms

1.    Providing a Conceptual Foundation : Theoretical frameworks offer researchers a foundation of concepts, principles, and established theories relevant to their research questions. They help researchers organize their thoughts and ideas within existing knowledge.

2.    Guiding Research Questions : Choosing a theoretical framework often informs the research questions researchers pose. The framework provides a lens through which researchers view their topic, shaping the specific aspects they aim to explore .

3.    Informing Methodological Decisions : Theoretical frameworks influence the selection of research methods and data collection techniques. Different paradigms favor research methods, and the chosen framework aligns with these preferences. For example, a constructivist framework may prefer qualitative methods, while a positivist framework may prioritize quantitative approaches.

4.    Shaping Data Analysis : Theoretical frameworks guide data analysis by helping researchers identify relevant variables, construct hypotheses, and determine appropriate statistical or analytical techniques. The framework aids in making sense of the collected data within a coherent theoretical context.

5.    Interpreting Findings : When interpreting research findings, theoretical frameworks provide a lens through which researchers can understand and explain their results. The framework allows researchers to connect their findings to existing theories or concepts, enhancing the validity and significance of their work.

Influence of Paradigms on Theoretical Frameworks

1.    Alignment with Ontological and Epistemological Assumptions : Paradigms are deeply rooted in ontological (beliefs about the nature of reality) and epistemological (ideas about the nature of knowledge) assumptions. Theoretical frameworks are selected based on their compatibility with these assumptions. For instance, a positivist paradigm aligns with a realist or objectivist theoretical framework, while constructivist or interpretivist paradigms may favor frameworks that embrace subjectivity and context.

2.    Methodological Consistency : The choice of theoretical framework is often consistent with the methodological preferences associated with a particular paradigm. Positivist paradigms align with deductive, quantitative frameworks, while constructivist and interpretivist paradigms may favor inductive, qualitative frameworks.

3.    Influence on Research Questions : The research questions formulated within a specific paradigm are driven by the assumptions and perspectives of that paradigm. Researchers are guided by the theoretical underpinnings of their chosen paradigm when crafting research questions that align with their worldview.

4.    Interdisciplinary Borrowing : In some cases, researchers may borrow theoretical frameworks from other disciplines or paradigms to address multidisciplinary or complex research questions. This interdisciplinary approach reflects the influence of multiple paradigms on the choice of frameworks.

 The relationship between theoretical frameworks and research paradigms is symbiotic. Theoretical frameworks provide a structured lens through which research is conducted, while paradigms shape the selection of these frameworks based on their philosophical underpinnings and methodological preferences. Researchers must carefully consider the alignment between their chosen paradigm and theoretical framework to ensure a coherent and rigorous research design that contributes to advancing knowledge in their fields

You may also like

Exploring the Epistemology of Idealism in Education:...

Teaching Approach, Strategy, Method, and Technique

Classroom Management Styles: Finding Your Preferred...

10 Daily Classroom Management Strategies for Teachers

ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN TEACHING-LEARNING...

Educational Psychology: Definition, Nature, Scope, and...

[…] of reality, and there are different techniques used to gather and analyze data. It is important to understand the appropriate paradigm for a particular research question to ensure that the research is conducted […]

[…] research practices, should be considered when using the positivist research paradigm. By understanding the implications of the positivist research paradigm, researchers can use it to conduct meaningful research while also being aware of its […]

[…] interpretive paradigm in research aims to understand the reality of social life through subjective experiences and does not seek […]

[…] answers can be found by carefully measuring and analyzing data. particularly numerical data. As a research Paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use of quantitative data and oftentimes […]

[…] as a research paradigm, orients itself towards solving practical problems in the real world. It emerged as a method of […]

[…] you know we have already introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by reading all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, […]

[…] Dependent Variable (DV): There is a dependent variable that is measured or observed to assess the impact of the independent variable. The dependent variable is the outcome variable that researchers seek to understand. […]

[…] how we develop and change over time, and how we interact with others. Psychologists use various research methods to understand and explain human behavior, emotions, and thoughts. Through their work, they aim to help […]

Leave a Comment X

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.