I never really understood the concept of research paradigm and how important it is for doing research (I was actually tearing my hair out while trying to understand this), until when I had to work on an assignment related to this terminology for my post-master study. I hope this post might help some of you out there. Have you ever struggling developing a research proposal? Understanding your own belief is the first step to developing a research approach. Why? Cause it will guide your research action and design, decide how you collect data and influence the way you interpret your research finding. In this sense, it is of special importance to understand the concept of research paradigm, which is defined as “ a set of basic beliefs […] that presents a worldview and defines […] the nature of the world” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.107). In simple language, we can describe paradigm as a conceptual len through which we view the world and that guides how we solve problems. A paradigm is based on three philosophical assumptions/components including ontology, epistemology and methodology. In this article, I will place special emphasis on explaining ontological and epistemological assumptions of two major research paradigms, including positivism and constructivism. Argued by Guba and Lincoln (1994), the philosophy of ontology refers to beliefs about reality, which is concerned with the question about the nature of reality. Positivism is ontologically posited as “naive realism”, meaning that there is a reality independent of human mind and governed by universe law, awaiting to be uncovered (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In other words, reality is neither something in our heads nor subjected to our experience. The role of research is, through data and science, to uncover this truth. Positivists claim that a thing can be true regardless of context, culture and researcher’s perspectives. Post-positivism theory, on the other hand, confirms the existence and observability of reality, yet made a giant step in labeling ontology, which is “critical realism” (Sumner and Tribe, 2004). Specifically, post-positivists believe that there is an existing reality out there, yet as human being, there is a limitation in the researcher’s intellect which makes him incapable of understanding reality completely and perfectly. Accordingly, there is a probability that observations may involve errors and that reality can be modified. The ontological philosophy of constructivism is way far from that of positivism. Ontology is labeled “relativism” which assumes that there is not a single reality beyond and independent of human experience. Reality is constructed from human subjective minds and perceptions. Individually constructed, there can be multiple truths and are just equally valid. Researchers, therefore, have to be aware of different contexts, cultures and their personal values in the inquiry process. I learnt a great quote the other day from one of my lectures. It says “Just because you are right does not mean I am wrong. You just haven’t seen life from my side.” And sometimes the line between right and wrong is very thin, without context, it is difficult to say. Take the concept of poverty, for example. Positivists claim that poverty exists as an independent reality and is conceived as the nonfulfillment of the basic needs. Constructivists, meanwhile, argue that there is no objective poverty itself. People are poor within a context and the understanding of poverty can only be achieved through proper interactions within contexts and people. A concrete example of how positivism and constructivism define poverty can be found in these two studies: Growth is good for the Poor (Positivist Approach), carried out by Dollar and Kraay (2002) and Voices of the Poor (Constructivist Approach) implemented by Narayan (2002). The poverty definition used in the Narayan study is a much broader definition of poverty including non-economic dimensions inclyding security, vulnerability and empowerment. Dollar and Kraay (2002), meanwhile, only look at the economic concept of poverty, or income poverty, in other words. The term “epistemology” sounds fancy indeed but in simple language, epistermology addresses the question “How do we know things?” , “How do we know reality?” Stated by Sumner and Tribe (2004,), epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. Positivism verifies knowledge as facts that can be tested empirically by reliable data and tool through hypothesis testing. Posivitism researchers construct hypothesis and collect data without bias, and through reliable design, they verify hypotheis and knowledge. The epistemological perspective of positivism is, thus, named “dualist/objectivist”. It again lies in the belief that human mind and matter exist separately and regardless of the researchers, the research findings remains unchanged. Constructivism, in contrast, claims that knowledge is subjective, because it is socially constructed and mind dependent (Creswell, 2003). The epistemology of constructivism is labeled “subjectivist” and highlights that a researcher’s perceptions are useful instruments to explain his or her experiences and therefore explain the truth. In this case, theory emerges from the investigator’s experiences, known as deductive reasoning. That said, in the poverty example mentioned above, positivism believes that, all researchers need to do is to collect data, let’s say income, and from that draw a conclusion about poverty status. Constructivism, however says that, poverty does not have to do with income and a line that someone draws. It has to do with how people feel about their lives and what drive their experiences. In order to understand that, during the inquiry process, researchers need to interact with people and put themselves in the context, to be aware of culture to understand what poverty really means in that social setting. With regard to the roles of values in the inquiry process, positivism advocates value-free research as a result of its “subjectivist” epistemological position. Values are perceived as confounding variables that can influence the subjectivity of the research findings and hence have no place during the research process. The assumptions of constructivism; in contrast, place special emphasis on values that a researcher bring to the inquiry process. Constructivists perceive values as a central role in shaping research outcomes, particularly in the social research as it is believed within constructivism comunity that different researchers see and experience the world differently. Recommended by Eyben (2014, p.164), a researcher should have reflexive practice, which encourages him or her to “test different explanatory models against observation”. Nevertheless, one should be very careful since reflexivity is tricky in the sense that personal values and positionality can have huge impact on the way people perceive, and choose to perceive things. When it comes to doing research, this can result in biases as researchers may have a selective look at the matter. He or she might not interpret things objectively but rather in a way that supports his or her own prior belief .Research paradigm as a set of basic beliefs
Ontology as the nature of reality
Epistemology as the nature of knowledge
Where is the place for personal values?
In which belief system do I position myself?
The combination of ontological and epistermological stance will give you a holistic view on how you see reality and the way you understand knowledge. Once you have determined this, you will be able to develop the research approach and design that best suit your beliefs, which would definitely help improving your research quality and consistency.
That being said, my approach to carrying out research is in accordance with post-positivism assumptions. The ontological position is by far the most logical reason that differentiates my research approach from constructivism. The concept of ontology raises this question in my mind: Are we, as researchers, creating the reality or searching for the reality? This is the exceptional point that drives my research approach. In my view, there are realities waiting to be uncovered and the role of researchers is to get the truths through sciences based on good data and evidence. Nevertheless, I have also learnt over the past few years that, things can be very complicated and data sometimes hides the complexity. I am still learning to see the grey areas of life rather than only seeing things in black and white.
Thank you for reading!
References
Eyben, R. (2014). International Aid and the Making of a Better World. Reflexive Practice (pp. 154–172). London & New York: Routledge.
Guba, E., & Lincoln Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S., Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanbur, R., & Shaffer, P. (2007). Epistemology, normative theory and poverty analysis: implications for Q-squared in practice, World Development, 35 (2), 183–196.
Scheyvens, R. N. (2003). ‘Ethical issues’, in: Scheyvens, R. & D. Nowak ‘Development Fieldwork: A practical guide’. London: Sage.
Sumner, A. & Tribe, M. (2004). The nature of epistemology and methodology in development studies: what do we mean by rigour?, Conference paper presented at: DSA Annual Conference, Bridging Research and Policy, London.
Wagner, C., Kawulich, B., & Garner, M. (Eds.). (2012). Doing social research: A global context. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Youtube video Amgad Badewi : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8wGvunyG8