example of research paradigm

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Paradigm? Types of Research Paradigms with Examples

If you’re a researcher, you’ve probably heard the term “ research paradigm .” And, if you are a researcher, especially if you haven’t been trained under the social sciences, you are probably confused by the concept of a research paradigm . What is a research paradigm? How does it apply to my research? Why is it important? 

Research paradigms refer to the beliefs and assumptions that provide the structure for your research. These can be characteristics of your discipline or even your personal beliefs. For example, if you are a physical scientist and you are conducting research on the performance of a newly developed catalyst for removing chemical impurities from drinking water, your study is probably based on the premise that there is one reality, and your results will show that the new product either works better or it doesn’t. However, if your research discipline is education and you’re looking at the effects of parental literacy rates on the literacy or academic success of their children, you will not expect a such a definite result, and you may be examining your topic from different viewpoints, such as cultural or socio-economic. Your findings will then depend on those assumptions, beliefs, and biases.  

The rest of this article will try to clarify the concept of research paradigms, provide a research paradigm definition, and offer some examples of different types of research paradigms . While years of study may not completely clear up your confusion about research paradigms , perhaps you will think a little better of them and how they can help you in your work and maybe even in your personal life.  

Table of Contents

What is a research paradigm?  

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a paradigm is “ a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated. ” 1 As applied in the context of research, a research paradigm is a worldview or philosophical framework, including ideas, beliefs, and biases, that guides the research process. The research paradigm in which a study is situated helps determine the manner in which the research will be conducted.  

The research paradigm is the framework into which the theories and practices of your discipline fit to create the research plan. This foundation guides all areas of your research plan, including the aim of the study, research question, instruments or measurements used, and analysis methods.   

Most research paradigms are based on one of two model types: positivism or interpretivism. These guide the theories and methodologies used in the research project. In general, positivist research paradigms lead to quantitative studies and interpretivist research paradigms lead to qualitative studies. Of course, there are many variations of both of these research paradigm types, some of which lead to mixed-method studies.  

What are the three pillars of research paradigms ?     

So, now you may be asking, what makes up a research paradigm ? How are they formed and categorized? The research paradigm framework is supported by three pillars: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Some scholars have recently begun adding another pillar to research paradigms : ethics or axiology. However, this article will only discuss the three traditional aspects, which together define the research paradigm and provide the base on which to build your research project.  

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Is there a single reality, multiple realities, or no reality at all? These are the questions that the philosophy of ontology attempts to answer. The oft-used example of an ontological question is “Does God exist?” Two possible single realities exist: yes or no.  

Think about your research project with this in mind; that is, does a single reality exist within your research? If you’re a medical researcher, the answer is probably yes. You’re looking for specific results that ideally have clear yes or no answers. If you’re an anthropologist, there probably isn’t one clear, specific answer to your research question but multiple possible realities, and the study results are interpreted through the researcher’s viewpoint or paradigm.  

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we can know reality. It incorporates the extent and ways to gain knowledge and how to validate that knowledge. A frequently used example question in epistemology is “How is it possible to know whether or not God exists?”  

The epistemology of your research project will help determine your approach to your study. For example, if the medical researcher believes there is one singular truth, an objective approach will be taken. On the other hand, if the anthropologist believes in multiple realities viewed through a cultural lens, the research results will be more subjective and understood only in the proper context. This difference divides research studies into those using quantitative and qualitative techniques.  

Methodology is the study of how one investigates the environment and validates the knowledge gained. It attempts to answer the question “how to go about discovering the answer/reality.” Addressing this pillar leads to specific data collection and analysis plans.   

The medical researcher may create a research plan that includes a clinical trial, during which blood tests that measure a specific protein are conducted. These results are then analyzed, with a focus on differences within groups. The anthropologist, on the other hand, may conduct observations, examine artifacts, or set up interviews to determine certain aspects of reality within the context of a group’s culture. In this situation, yes or no answers are not sought but a truth is discovered.  

What is the purpose of research paradigms ?  

Put all the information about the three pillars of a research paradigm together, and you can see the purpose of research paradigms . Research paradigms establish the structure and foundation for a research project.   

Once the research paradigm has been determined, an appropriate research plan can be created. The philosophical basis of the study guides what knowledge is sought, how that knowledge can be discovered, and how to form the collected information or data into the knowledge being sought. The research paradigm clearly outlines the path to investigate your topic. This brings clarity to your study and improves the quality of your methods and analysis.  

In addition, it is important for researchers to understand how their own beliefs, assumptions, and biases can affect the research process. The study’s data collection, analysis, and interpretation will be impacted by the worldview of the researcher. Knowing the underlying research paradigm and how it frames the study allows researchers to better understand the effect of their perspective on the study results.   

Types of research paradigms  

As mentioned previously, there are two basic types of research paradigms , from which other frequently used paradigms are derived. This section will briefly describe these two major research paradigms .   

Positivist paradigm – Proponents of a positivist paradigm believe that there is a single reality that can be measured and understood. Therefore, these researchers are likely to utilize quantitative methods in their studies. The research process for positivist paradigm studies tend to propose an empirical hypothesis, which is then supported or refuted through the data collection and analysis. Positivists approach research in an objective manner and statistically investigate the existence of quantitative relationships between variables instead of looking for the qualitative reason behind those relationships. Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm also believe that the results of one study can be generalized to similar situations. Positivist paradigms are most frequently used by physical scientists.  

Interpretivism paradigm – Interpretivists believe in the existence of multiple realities rather than a single reality. This is the research paradigm used by the majority of qualitative studies conducted in the social sciences. Interpretivism holds that because human behavior is so complex, it cannot be studied by probabilistic models, such as those used under positivist paradigms . Knowledge can only be created by interpreting the meanings that people put on behaviors and events. Therefore, studies employing this framework are necessarily subjective and are greatly affected by the researcher’s personal viewpoint. Interpretivist paradigm research is conducted within the reality of those being studied, not in a contrived environment such as a laboratory. Because of the nature of interpretivist studies, their results are only valid under the particular circumstances of the study and are usually not generalizable.   

Research paradigm examples    

Positivist and interpretivist research paradigms , sometimes referred to as quantitative and qualitative paradigms, are the two major approaches to research. However, many other variations of these have been used. Following are brief descriptions of some of the more popular of these research paradigm variations.  

Pragmatism paradigm – Pragmatists believe that reality is continually changing amid the flow of constantly changing situations. Therefore, rather than use a single research paradigm , they employ the framework that is most applicable to the research question they are examining. Both qualitative and quantitative techniques are often used as positivist and interpretivist approaches are combined. Pragmatists believe that the best research method is the one that will most effectively address the research question.  

Constructivist paradigm – Like interpretivists, constructivists believe that there are numerous realities, not a single reality. The constructivist paradigm holds that people construct their own understanding of the world through experiencing and reflecting on those experiences. Constructivist research seeks to understand the meanings that people attach to those experiences. Therefore, qualitative techniques, such as interviews and case studies, are frequently used. Constructivists are seeking the “why” of events. Constructivism is also a popular theory of learning that focuses on how children and other learners create knowledge from their experiences and learn better through experimentation than through direct instruction.  

Post-positivism paradigm – Post-positivists veer away from the concept of reality as being an absolute certainty and view it instead in a more probabilistic manner, thus taking a more subjective viewpoint. They believe that research outcomes can never be totally objective and a researcher’s worldview and biases can never be completely removed from the research results.  

Transformative paradigm – Proponents of transformative research reject both positivism and interpretivism, believing that these frameworks do not accurately represent the experiences of marginalized communities. Transformative researchers generally use both qualitative and quantitative techniques to better understand the disparities in community relationships, support social justice, and ultimately ensure transformative change.    

Combining research paradigms    

While most research is based on either a positivist (quantitative) or interpretivist (qualitative) foundations, some studies combine both. For example, quantitative and qualitative techniques are frequently used together in psychology studies. These types of studies are referred to as mixed-method research. Some research paradigms are themselves combinations of other paradigms and frequently employ all the associated research methods. Post-positivism combines the paradigms of positivism and interpretivism.  

5 steps to a paradigm shift  

Research studies aren’t the only things that can be considered to have paradigms. Researchers themselves bring a specific worldview to their work and produce higher quality work when they are aware of the effect their perspective has on their results. Understanding all the aspects of a personal paradigm, including beliefs, habits, and behaviors, can make it possible for that paradigm to be changed. Here are suggested steps to successfully shift your personal paradigm and increase the quality of your research 2 .  

• Identify the paradigm element you want to change – what part of your worldview do you want to change? What habitual or hidden behavior may be adversely affecting your research or your life? 
• Write down your goals – setting specific desired outcomes and putting them down on paper sets them in your subconscious.   
• Adjust your mindset – intentionally influencing your thoughts to support your goals can motivate you to create the change you want. Some suggested activities to help with this include journaling, reading motivational books, and spending time with like-minded people.  
• Do uncomfortable things – you need to get out of your comfort zone to effect real change. This will get your subconscious out of its usual habits and move you toward your goal.  
• Practice being who you want to be – the change you want will become solidified and part of your new paradigm once you break out of your old habit and keep repeating the new behavior so as to cement it in your subconscious.  

References:  

• Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm [Accessed March 10, 2023]  
• What is research paradigm – explanation and examples. Peachy Essay. https://peachyessay.com/blogs/what-is-research-paradigm/ [Accessed March 10, 2023]  

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

What are the Best Research Funding Sources

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach

• 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.

Free email newsletter template (2024).

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

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

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.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

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 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 ...

21 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.

USEFULL IN DEED!

Explanations to the research paradigm has been easy to follow. Well understood and made my life easy.

Very useful content. This will make my research life easy.

The explanation is very efficacy to those who were still not understanding the research philosophy. Very clear explanations on the types of research paradigms.

The explanation is very efficacy to those who were still not understanding the research philosophy.

thank you for this informative page.

thank you:)

Very well explained.I am grateful for the understanding I gained from this scholarly writeup.

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

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.

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

1.3 Research Paradigms and Philosophical Assumptions

Research involves answering questions, and the approach utilised is based on paradigms, philosophical assumptions, and distinct methods or procedures. Researchers’ approaches are influenced by their worldviews which comprise their beliefs and philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world and how it can be understood. 9 These ways of thinking about the world are known as research paradigms, and they inform the design and conduct of research projects. 10,11 A paradigm constitutes a set of theories, assumptions, and ideas that contribute to one’s worldview and approach to engaging with other people or things. It is the lens through which a researcher views the world and examines the methodological components of their research to make a decision on the methods to use for data collection and analysis. 12 Research paradigms consist of four philosophical elements: axiology, ontology, epistemology, and methodology. 10 These four elements inform the design and conduct of research projects (Figure 1.1), and a researcher would have to consider the paradigms within which they would situate their work before designing the research.

Ontology is defined as how reality is viewed (nature of reality) – accurately captured as an entity or entities. It is the study of being and describes how the researcher perceives reality and the nature of human engagement in the world. 13,14 It is focused on the assumptions researchers make to accept something as true. These assumptions aid in orientating a researcher’s thinking about the research topic, its importance and the possible approach to answering the question. 12 It makes the researcher ask questions such as:

• What is real in the natural or social world?
• How do I know what I know?
• How do I understand or conceptualise things?

In healthcare, researchers’ ontological stance shapes their beliefs about the nature of health, illness, and healthcare practices. Here are a few examples of ontological stances that are commonly adopted by researchers in healthcare:

• Biomedical ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that biological mechanisms can explain health and illness and that the body is a machine that can be studied and fixed when it malfunctions. 11 Researchers who take a biomedical ontological stance tend to focus on medical interventions such as drugs, surgeries, and medical devices.
• Social constructivist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that health and illness are social constructs that are shaped by cultural and social factors. 13 Researchers who take a social constructivist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the social and cultural context of health and illness, including issues such as health disparities, patient-provider communication, and the role of social determinants of health.
• Critical realist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that there is a reality that exists independently of our perceptions but that our understanding of that reality is always partial and mediated by our social context. 11,14 Researchers who take a critical realist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the complex interactions between social and biological factors in health and illness.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge and belief. It describes the ways knowledge about reality is acquired, understood, and utilised. 15 This paradigm highlights the relationship between the inquirer and the known –what is recognised as knowledge. Epistemology is important because it helps to increase the researcher’s level of confidence in their data. It influences how researchers approach identifying and finding answers while conducting research. 12 In considering the epistemology of research, the researcher may ask any of the following questions:

•       What is Knowledge?
•       How do we acquire knowledge and what are its limits?
•       Is it trustworthy? Do we need to investigate it further?
•       What is acceptable knowledge in our discipline?

The epistemological stance of healthcare researchers refers to their fundamental beliefs about knowledge and how it can be acquired. There are several epistemological stances that researchers may take, including positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and pragmatism.

• Positivism: This epistemological stance is grounded in the idea that knowledge can be gained through objective observation and measurement. 11 Researchers who adopt a positivist stance aim to create objective, measurable, and replicable research that can be used to predict and control phenomena. For example, a researcher studying the effectiveness of a medication might conduct a randomized controlled trial to measure its impact on patient outcomes.
• Interpretivism: This epistemological stance is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed through human interpretation and social interactions. It emphasizes the subjective and interpretive nature of human experience. 13, 14 Researchers who adopt an interpretivist stance seek to understand the subjective experiences of individuals and the meanings they attach to their experiences. For example, a researcher studying the experience of chronic pain might use qualitative methods to explore patients’ narratives and perspectives on living with pain.
• Critical theory: This epistemological stance is grounded in the belief that knowledge is shaped by power dynamics and social structures. 14 Researchers who adopt a critical theory stance seek to uncover and challenge power imbalances and injustices in society. For example, a researcher studying healthcare disparities might use critical theory to explore the ways in which social and economic factors contribute to inequities in access to healthcare.
• Pragmatism: This epistemological stance is focused on the practical application of knowledge. Researchers who adopt a pragmatic stance aim to create research that is both theoretically sound and applicable to real-world settings. 13  For example, a researcher studying the implementation of a new healthcare intervention might use mixed methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data to understand how the intervention is working in practice.

Overall, researchers’ epistemological stances have important implications for the questions they ask, the methods they use, and the interpretations they make. Understanding researchers’ epistemological stances can help healthcare professionals and policymakers to critically evaluate research findings and to consider the broader social, cultural, and political contexts that shape health and healthcare.

Axiology refers to the researcher’s understanding of values and their role in research. It examines values, deals with issues of right and wrong and measures the level of development and types of perceptual biases. 9 Axiology explains the role and importance of the research process, considers the values researchers assign to their research, and guides their pursuit of knowledge. 10 It makes the researcher consider the following questions:

• What should be done to uphold and respect the rights of each participant?
• What ethical principles will you follow during your research?
• What are the cultural and intercultural issues to be considered in the research?
• How can I conduct the research ins a respectful manner?
• How can we minimise or reduce risk during the research?

Researchers’ axiological stance in healthcare refers to their values, beliefs, and ethical positions that guide their research practices and interpretations of findings. Here are some examples of axiological stances that researchers may take in healthcare:

• Patient-centeredness: This value emphasizes the importance of incorporating patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences in healthcare decision-making. 9  For example, a researcher may prioritize qualitative research methods to explore patients’ experiences and needs in a specific healthcare setting.
• Evidence-based practice: This value emphasizes the use of the best available evidence to guide clinical decision-making. 14  For example, a researcher may conduct a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new medication or intervention.
• Health equity: This value emphasizes the importance of addressing health disparities and promoting fairness and justice in healthcare. 9 For example, a researcher may use a community-based participatory research approach to engage with marginalized or underrepresented populations and identify solutions to health inequities.
• Cultural humility: This value emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and respecting cultural differences and avoiding assumptions and stereotypes in healthcare interactions. 10 For example, a researcher may use qualitative research methods to explore the perspectives and experiences of patients from diverse cultural backgrounds.

These axiological stances are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways depending on the research question and context.

Methodology

Methodology is the strategy or action plan that informs the choice and use of particular methods within the context of a particular research paradigm. 11,16 The term methodology refers to the study design, methods, and procedures employed in a well-planned investigation to find answers. Examples include data collection, survey instruments, participants, and data analysis. In considering the methodology, researchers would ask the questions:

• How do I find out more about this reality? 17
• What approaches or methodology shall I use to obtain the data that will enable me to answer my research question? 12

The main types of methodology include quantitative and qualitative research. In some cases, mixed methods research, i.e., a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, may also be used. Researchers’ methodological stance in healthcare refers to their underlying beliefs and approach to conducting research in this field. Here are three examples of methodological approaches in healthcare research:

• Quantitative: This approach emphasizes objective and empirical measurement and relates to positivism. Quantitative researchers assume that there is a single objective reality and that the purpose of research is to discover the truth. 11 For example, a researcher using a quantitative, positivist approach might conduct a randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a new medication for treating a specific condition.
• Qualitative: This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding multiple perspectives and the subjective experiences of individuals. 14, 18 Qualitative researchers believe that reality is socially constructed and that the purpose of research is to generate new insights and understandings. For example, a researcher using a constructivist approach might conduct a qualitative study to explore how patients experience a particular health condition and how it affects their daily lives.
• Mixed methods: This approach emphasizes the use of multiple methods and the importance of adapting research to specific contexts and goals. 13, 19 Researchers who use this approach are pragmatists and they believe that research should be practical and useful for addressing real-world problems. For example, a researcher using a pragmatic approach might conduct a mixed-methods study to evaluate a new healthcare intervention, using both quantitative measures of effectiveness and qualitative data to understand patient experiences and preferences.

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• How it works

How Research Paradigms Improve the Research Process?

Published by Alvin Nicolas at June 13th, 2024 , Revised On July 9, 2024

If you’re planning to write a research paper on a particular topic, then you should set specific criteria. These criteria will help you to successfully structure the approach that will be used in the methodology of your work. To write an outstanding research paper and set efficient criteria, you should understand the concept of the research paradigm.

In this blog, you will get to know about research paradigms, different types of research paradigms, and the importance of those paradigms.

What is the Research Paradigm?

Research paradigms refer to those beliefs and ideologies that efficiently help you to properly structure your research. These paradigms assist the researchers so that they can quickly understand how to implement different theories and practices for their research work.

Research Paradigm Definition

In simple words, a research paradigm is a method, model or pattern for conducting research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, and understandings by using which theories and techniques are implemented for the research process.

Research paradigms are used in the research projects for the creation of research methods and their execution for the leal and appropriate research.

Research Paradigm Example

However, if you want to research the effects of parental literacy rate on the academic research of their children, then the result would not be one-sided. You will have to examine the agenda from different perspectives, such as socio-economical and cultural.

What are the Pillars and Different Types of Paradigms in Research?

Before discussing the different types of paradigms in research, you should also know about the three pillars of research paradigms.

3 Pillars of Research Paradigms

4 Types of Paradigms in Research

Here are the different types of paradigms in research:

• Positivist Research Paradigm

According to the positivist research paradigm, there is only one objective reality. People can accurately know about this reality and describe and explain it. Activists significantly obtain knowledge of their surroundings by relying on their observations through their senses.

When there is just one single reality, researchers can efficiently compare it with claims and determine its certainty. Positivists use qualitative research methodology in their research. This research paradigm is mostly used for research in physical sciences and natural sciences because large sample sizes are used in it.

• Interpretivist Research Paradigm

According to the interpretivists, people experience and understand reality in different ways in our society. In short, there could be only one reality, but everyone interprets it according to their own point of view.

People also tend to believe that the theories and worldviews of the researchers heavily influence research all around the world. Interpretivists use qualitative research methodology. This includes interviews, focus groups, document collection, etc.

• Critical Theory Research Paradigm

According to the critical theory paradigm, social science can never be one hundred percent objective. This paradigm is mainly focused on achieving societal change through thorough scientific investigation.

The objective of critical theorists is to ask questions about knowledge and procedure to know how power is being used in investigating. They aim to create an egiilitarian society for all the individuals with their freedom. Critical theorists use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Constructivist Research Paradigm

In this paradigm, constructivists believe that reality is the construct of our minds. It is better to assume that reality is subjective. According to constructivists, knowledge comes from individual experiences and the reflections of those experiences.

Constructivists only use qualitative research methodology. There is only a single methodology to generate knowledge according to this paradigm. The constructivists mainly focus on the subjective experiences of the participants as well as of their own.

Difference Between Research Philosophy & Research Paradigm

Importance of Paradigms in Research

The research paradigms significantly help to establish the foundation of research and its methodologies. They thoroughly examine and investigate how information is researched and understood. They specifically encompass the objectives, motives and predicted results of the research.

When research paradigms are perfectly implemented, then the researchers can have a clear path to research their desired topics. They ensure high quality and proficiency in work. Some of the important terms related to research paradigms are discussed below:

What is Axiology?

Axiology refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with value judgements. It deals with the understanding of researchers about their values and role in the research process . Axiology is subdivided into ethics and aesthetics. Axiology compels the researcher to assume these questions:

• Which ethical principles should be used in the research?
• What should be done to respect the rights of each and every participant?

Critical Realism in Research

Critical realism refers to the branch of philosophy that differentiates between the real world and the observable world. The real world cannot be truly observed. It exists independently of the viewpoints of humans. The world is constructed through the perspective of humans and their experiences. Critical realism helps to enhance the research questions by accomplishing the complexity and context of social phenomena.

Feminist Paradigm in Research

This paradigm deals with and is specifically concerned with the oppression and exclusion of women in society. It also throws light on the struggles and insights of the oppressed and disempowered groups of society.

This paradigm leads to the construction of different ways to alleviate and empower those oppressed and disempowered groups. It also focuses on improving social policies for the betterment of society.

Functionalist Paradigm in Research

According to the functionalist paradigm, anything that exists in the society plays an important role to create social stability. Any person or institution that will not play its part will simply not survive.

Functionalism efficiently interprets how every part of the society contributes to the stability of the whole society. If anything becomes absent from it, whether any individual or an institution will significantly influence the performance of the community as a whole.

Research Paradigms for Mixed-Methods

Mixed-methods research has gained immense popularity in the field of social research during the past 20-25 years. This research is motivated by practical considerations rather than philosophical ones. It mainly focuses on what is achievable, what is useful, and what is most likely to get funded.

Quantitative research can provide researchers with a bigger picture by using numeric data and help them understand what has happened. Qualitative research deals with a deep understanding of the stories and experiences of different individuals. When these methods are combined, the best results can be obtained.

Difference Between Research Paradigm & Research Design

Research Paradigm Examples

Here are a few examples of research paradigms to thoroughly understand their concept:

Example 1: Pragmatism

Imagine an organisation is striving to reduce Type 2 diabetes in a low-income neighbourhood. They use a pragmatic approach to efficiently reduce Type 2 diabetes in the specific community. 

• They will use the mixed-methods research (both quantitative and qualitative).
• They will develop necessary interventions by introducing workshops about nutrition and diet.
• They will gather feedback from the participants to improve their approach. 

Example 2: Positivism

Imagine a pharmaceutical company that wants to develop a specific medicine to treat hypertension. They will use a positivist approach to go through this process. 

• They will formulate the necessary hypothesis focusing on the effectiveness of the new medicine compared to the old one.
• They will use a gold-standard positivist method for medical research.
• A quantitative data collection method will be used to collect blood pressure readings.
• A statistical analysis will be done to compare treatment and blood groups.
• They will analyse the results to study whether the new medicine is better than the old or not. 

Frequently Asked Questions

A research paradigm is a method, model, or pattern used to conduct research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, and understandings using which theories and techniques are implemented for the research process.

What are Different Paradigms in Research?

Different types of research paradigms are given below:

What is a Positivist Research Paradigm?

You may also like.

Struggling to find relevant and up-to-date topics for your dissertation? Here is all you need to know if unsure about how to choose dissertation topic.

How to write a hypothesis for dissertation,? A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested with the help of experimental or theoretical research.

Make sure that your selected topic is intriguing, manageable, and relevant. Here are some guidelines to help understand how to find a good dissertation topic.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

The Positivism Paradigm of Research

Park, Yoon Soo PhD; Konge, Lars MD, PhD; Artino, Anthony R. Jr PhD

Y.S. Park is associate professor and associate head, Department of Medical Education, and director of research, Office of Educational Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8583-4335 .

L. Konge is professor, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1258-5822 .

A.R. Artino Jr is professor and deputy director, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853 .

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a collection of Invited Commentaries exploring the Philosophy of Science .

Funding/Support: None reported.

Other disclosures: None reported.

Ethical approval : Reported as not applicable.

Disclaimers: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the United States Department of Defense, or other federal agencies.

Correspondence should be addressed to Yoon Soo Park, Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, 808 South Wood St., 963 CMET (MC 591), Chicago, IL 60612-7309; telephone: (312) 355-5406; email: [email protected] ; Twitter: @YoonSooPark2.

Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.

Research paradigms guide scientific discoveries through their assumptions and principles. Understanding paradigm-specific assumptions helps illuminate the quality of findings that support scientific studies and identify gaps in generating sound evidence. This article focuses on the research paradigm of positivism , examining its definition, history, and assumptions (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and rigor). Positivism is aligned with the hypothetico-deductive model of science that builds on verifying a priori hypotheses and experimentation by operationalizing variables and measures; results from hypothesis testing are used to inform and advance science. Studies aligned with positivism generally focus on identifying explanatory associations or causal relationships through quantitative approaches, where empirically based findings from large sample sizes are favored—in this regard, generalizable inferences, replication of findings, and controlled experimentation have been principles guiding positivist science. Criteria for evaluating the quality of positivist research are discussed. An example from health professions education is provided to guide positivist thinking in study design and implementation.

Scientific research, the systematic quest for knowledge, can be considered through different research paradigms that make assumptions about how the world operates. 1 These research paradigms are the philosophies of science, 2 which guide the way science is conducted by shaping the following core elements: ontology (how reality is viewed), epistemology (how the nature of knowledge is conceived), axiology (the role and values of the research process), methodology (how the paradigm defines processes associated with conducting science), and rigor (the criteria used to justify the quality of research in the paradigm). 3 , 4

In this article, we focus on the research paradigm of positivism— its definition, historic formation, components, and assumptions. Understanding paradigm-specific assumptions is important, as they provide deeper understanding of how science is operationalized and of components that promote legitimate problems, solutions, and criteria for evidence. 1 , 5 , 6 We present examples of positivist research and applications that facilitate understanding of this research paradigm, including its use in health professions education and in scientific research more broadly. We conclude with a case study of how a clinician–educator working with the positivist paradigm might approach a specific case.

The Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Science

Positivism is aligned with the hypothetico-deductive model of science. As such, identifying the structure and basis of positivism through the hypothetico-deductive lens is a useful place to start. 7 The hypothetico-deductive method is a circular process that begins with theory from the literature to (1) build testable hypothese s, (2) design an experiment through operationalizing variables (i.e., identifying variables to manipulate and measure through group assignments), and (3) conduct an empirical study based on experimentation. Ultimately, the findings from such a study are used to help inform theory and contribute to the literature, thereby completing the circular process (theory → hypothesis → operationalizing variables → experimentation → theory). Findings from the empirical study can help strengthen or refine theory; for example, a hypothesis that confirms the effectiveness of an instructional approach to a new group of learners can help inform and refine theory. 8–10

Positivism: Definition and History

Definition and components of positivism.

Positivism relies on the hypothetico-deductive method to verify a priori hypotheses that are often stated quantitatively, where functional relationships can be derived between causal and explanatory factors (independent variables) and outcomes (dependent variables). 8 Positivist research, however, does not always rely on quantitative methods. For example, an experimental study examining the effects of an intervention through qualitative analysis fits within the positivist paradigm. 11

Box 1 lists definitions of key terms associated with positivism. Box 2 provides a list of useful materials for further reading.

A primary goal of positivist inquiry is to generate explanatory associations or causal relationships that ultimately lead to prediction and control of the phenomena in question. 12 , 13 In the purest view, positivism is rooted in the following principles as categorized by Mill in the classic text, A System of Logic : 14

• Goals of science: Social and natural sciences should focus on discovery of laws that facilitate explanation and prediction.
• Methodology: Social and natural sciences should use the same methodology based on the hypothetico-deductive model of science (theory, hypothesis, operationalization, experimentation).
• Laws of nature: Basic laws of nature, formed through replication and syntheses of scientific discoveries and theories, assert the existence of a single true and identifiable reality.
• Evidence for law: Laws of nature are derived from empirical data.
• Sampling and inference: Larger samples are favorable over smaller, idiosyncratic samples; larger samples reveal generalizable tendencies, causes, and the nature of reality.

Key Terms and Definitions Related to Understanding the Research Paradigm of Positivism

Dependent variable: Measures of interest (outcomes) in the study; unlike independent variables, dependent variables can only be measured, not manipulated.

Dualism: Separation of researcher and participants in study design and data collection to minimize bias.

Effect size: Quantified metric reflecting the impact of an intervention, expressed in standardized units to allow comparison across studies.

Functional relationship: Association between a study’s independent and dependent variables, often expressed quantitatively, through direct or indirect effects (e.g., increase in independent variables also increases the dependent variable). Functional relationships can also be causal, where the impact of independent variables causes the results of the outcome to change.

Hypothesis: A statement or idea derived from theory or literature that can be tested through experimentation.

Hypothetico-deductive model: Scientific model based on forming a testable hypothesis and developing an empirical study to confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Independent variable: Factors that influence outcomes of the study; independent variables can be manipulated (e.g., assigning study participants to treatment or control groups) or measured.

Internal validity: Evidence and inference supporting the “causal” relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

Laws of nature: Synthesis of scientific discoveries and theories that form the foundation of how nature operates; examples include our scientific understanding of how time and space operate, through scientific findings in physics.

Objectivity: Absence of bias due to researcher influences, flaws in experimental design, or outliers in data.

Additional Resources on Understanding the Research Paradigm of Positivism

• Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
• Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44:358–366.
• Hoyle RH, Harris MK, Judd CM. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York, NY: Wadsworth; 2009.
• Ponterotto JG. Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. J Coun Psych. 2005;52:126–136.

Based on these principles, positivism seeks to discover laws of nature, expressing them through descriptions of theory. These theories focus on explanation and prediction based on the hypothetico-deductive model.

Within this focus is the notion that large sample sizes are valued over smaller samples (i.e., objective data collected across a large sample are superior to data gathered through smaller samples). Larger samples improve consistency in data and representation of the population characteristics, facilitating better generalizations regarding the causes of phenomena in nature. What is more, to make stronger claims regarding generalizations, replication of findings is also valued through systemic and controlled experiments. 15 In this way, positivist research focuses on verifying theories. 16

History of positivism

The history of positivism dates back to the Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries, inspired by philosophers Descartes and Locke. The scientific community at the time promoted a movement away from medieval notions of totalitarianism based on royal decrees. During the Enlightenment, philosophers and scholars valued individual thinking and the worldview of objective knowledge. Reflecting this history, the development of positivism is characterized by a move away from social elites (e.g., royalty) defined by truth via decree, and toward scholars discovering objective, evidence-based truth through well-described experimentation. Examples of scientists who contributed to positivist views include Copernicus and Galileo, both of whom challenged and redefined laws of nature through experimentation and the collection of data to make explanations and causal inferences. To date, positivist thinking still dominates modern research in clinical and basic sciences, as evidenced by international standards for science in leading journals and professional organizations. 7 As such, positivist thinking influences the advances in science and the approach that clinicians take to scholarly understanding. 8

Philosophical Foundations of the Positivist Paradigm

Ontology: nature of reality.

The positivist paradigm is based in the assumption that a single tangible reality exists—one that can be understood, identified, and measured. This allows explanation and prediction in a causal framework to operate naturally, as causal inferences rely on (1) temporal precedence (i.e., for X to cause Y, X must precede Y in time), (2) association (i.e., X and Y are correlated), and (3) lack of confounders (i.e., no other factors besides the identified factors affect the outcome; X is the only cause of Y within the space identified). 7 , 17

Epistemology: Nature of knowledge

Positivists contend that knowledge can and must be developed objectively, without the values of the researchers or participants influencing its development. Knowledge, when appropriately developed, is truth—that is, it is certain, congruent with reality, and accurate. To appropriately develop truth, absolute separation must exist between the research participant and the researcher. To achieve this separation, positivists operate in dualism and objectivity . 16 , 18 In other words, positivist thinking asserts that participants and researchers can actually be separated (dualism). Moreover, by following strict protocols, the 2 entities are separated to reduce bias in the study (objectivity).

Axiology: Values of the research process

Positivism relies heavily on objectivity and so dismisses the importance of individuals’ subjective experiences and values—be they the experiences and values of research participants or of researchers. These subjective experiences and values are seen as unimportant in positivist thinking. This requires the researcher to stay objective and not interact with participants during data collection. Further, it requires the researcher to not be involved in the experiment in any meaningful way. In some domains, such objectivity can be implemented in rather straightforward ways. For example, one can imagine an experimental physicist conducting research in a vacuum, where no external factors beyond the systems being studied are part of the experiment. This objectivity is more difficult to realize in other domains. For instance, positivism can be applied to social science research—albeit with a bit more difficulty—since it requires the use of rigid and strict study protocols that result in as little researcher bias as possible.

Methodology: How to conduct scientific research

Positivist methodology emphasizes engaging in research in settings where variables can be controlled and manipulated. 19 In the social sciences, this requires that the researcher creates somewhat artificial environments where other extraneous factors, beyond the study variables, are minimized. In the purest form of positivism, the sole focus of the study is to examine the explanatory or causal relationships between variables in the study, as is done in the natural sciences. As such, experimental designs are favored in the positivist paradigm, including quasi-experimental designs. 17 Results from experiments are used to confirm or refine theories, which, in turn, can lead to new hypotheses and questions for new studies.

Rigor: Criteria for evaluating quality of research

A key goal in positivist experimentation is to isolate and control the influence of all factors so that only the key variables of interest are studied (e.g., only X could have caused Y). In this regard, positivist researchers are most interested in the study’s internal validity— how well the study design and evidence gathered support claims for causal inference. Internal validity that focuses on causality should not to be confused with assessment validity that deals with how well a particular construct (e.g., educational assessment, psychological measure) is measured.

Rigor in the positivist paradigm—particularly quantitatively oriented social science research—is evaluated based on the degree to which the researcher has been able to minimize threats to internal validity. 20 Such threats include, for example: (1) maturation: naturally occurring changes in participants over time, (2) history: events that take place during research that influence results, (3) instrumentation: measurement issues that reflect how well the construct is measured (i.e., assessment validity), (4) statistical regression: tendency for scores to regress toward the mean in follow-up measurements, (5) testing effect: effect of testing on subsequent measurements, (6) selection: preexisting differences in participants, (7) mortality: participant attrition, and (8) interaction of selection and maturation: differences between groups that cause changes in the groups at different rates. Studies conducted in the positivist paradigm pay careful attention to these threats to internal validity and work to generate study designs that allow the associated confounders to be controlled. 21

It is a deeply rooted assumption that quantitative foundations using statistical inference to estimate the effects of a given experiment are key to the rigor of the positivist research paradigm. This quantitative focus requires sufficient sample size and power to detect meaningful effect sizes based on appropriate statistical tests. While other research paradigms may not place heavy emphasis on large sample sizes, the use of and reliance on statistical principles requires that the positivist researcher carefully consider study designs that determine a priori hypothesized effect sizes. That is, before the study, the researcher must determine the anticipated size of the difference between the control and treatment groups that will be considered meaningful. 21 Larger sample sizes reduce uncertainty in statistical results and yield stronger confidence in findings; this is a fundamental law of inferential statistics.

Case Study: Lee’s Experiment

In Box 3, we present a scenario in which a resident (“Lee”) injects 10 times the normal medication dose. In this final section, we use this sample case to prompt an application of a positivist paradigm to design an experiment that uses theory, articulates and tests a hypothesis, operationalizes variables, and informs theory.

Sample Case a

Lee was a resident assigned to monitor a post-op patient. The patient had a periodically low respiratory rate and lower-than-normal pulse and blood pressure. Narcan was ordered on an “as needed” basis, to be given in doses of 0.2 mg intravenously. In checking the patient’s vitals, Lee decided it was time to administer an intravenous (IV) dose of Narcan.

Once Lee injected the vial of Narcan into the IV port, Lee noticed it was labeled “2 milligrams per 1 milliliter (ml)”—the entire vial should not have been injected. Feeling panicky, Lee reported the mistake to an attending and rushed back to the patient’s side to monitor the vital signs. Lee was surprised to find that the patient’s vitals had come up to normal rates, and the patient was actually much more alert. When Lee reported this change to the attending surgeon and anesthesiologist, they told Lee to continue to monitor the patient closely, remarking that it may have been just what the patient needed.

Lee felt hugely relieved, but was still overwhelmed and very upset. In most cases, giving 10 times a normal dose of any medication could have led to extremely serious consequences, and even death. Still, Lee managed to remain outwardly composed, and took the time to complete an incident report. At the end of the day, when Lee finally sat down to rest, the incident played over and over again. Lee did not sleep.

a This sample case is used throughout the Philosophy of Science Invited Commentaries to illustrate each research paradigm.

After the experience of administering an incorrect medication dosage under pressure, Lee decides to examine this issue further. Lee chooses to design a study investigating how to improve training to correct medication dosage using different curricular interventions (mastery-based simulation versus traditional curriculum). Below are steps Lee would follow to engage in a positivist educational research study.

Theory-based hypothesis

Lee approaches the program director with a proposal to design a mastery-based simulation curriculum that trains residents under pressure to apply correct doses of Narcan (Naloxone), specific to patient age and race/ethnicity. Lee hypothesizes that using a mastery-based simulation curriculum approach can improve trainees’ ability to identify and administer correct medication doses under pressure, relative to traditional instruction she received through direct patient contact (non-simulation-based training).

Operationalizing variables

Under the supervision of the program director, Lee recruits 2 groups of learners—an experimental (intervention) group who receive the mastery-based simulation training for applying correct medication doses under pressure, and a control group of learners who are trained under the traditional curriculum. 21 All other learning conditions are comparable. Lee designs a simulation-based assessment to compare the 2 groups of learners following their training. Measures that define outcomes (e.g., correct medication dose, duration of medication application) are identified. The literature informs the effect sizes that Lee uses to signal significant improvement in outcomes, which allows calculating the required sample size and power for recruiting learners.

Experimentation

Following appropriate ethical approval, Lee measures outcomes before experimentation in both groups. After the intervention, Lee measures outcomes again, then compares pre- and postintervention outcomes between the 2 groups from the simulation assessment.

Results to inform theory

Lee makes a statistical comparison between the outcomes of the 2 groups and the findings reported to confirm (verify) the hypothesis. If Lee identifies that mastery-based simulation training is more effective than a traditional curriculum in improving application of correct medication doses, then this result contributes to mastery-based learning theory. Specific nuances of the study findings (e.g., type of mastery-learning condition or instruction) can help refine the mastery-based learning theory.

Conclusions

This article provides the definition, assumptions, and application examples of research that can be conducted in a positivist paradigm, summarized as follows:

• Scientific research in a positivist paradigm focuses on explanation and prediction.
• The hypothetico-deductive model of science is used to facilitate the research process, taking a theory-verification approach.
• Research operates in a dualistic and objective world, where the researcher does not interact with study participants to minimize bias.
• Theories of nature depend on empirical data, with larger samples used to make generalizations.

While different research paradigms provide their unique value in advancing science, positivism has been a dominant form of research in basic and clinical science for over 150 years. 6 , 8 , 22 As such, understanding positivism and its language is important for researchers hoping to conduct research in interdisciplinary fields such as medical education.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations, the distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework, chatgpt and generative artificial intelligence for medical education: potential ..., philosophy of science series: harnessing the multidisciplinary edge effect by..., amending miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation.

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Qualitative research paradigm.

I am amazed how often we hear qualitative researchers applying their standards to quantitative research or quantitative researchers applying their standards to qualitative research. Each functions within different assumptions. Finding fault with one approach with the standards of another does little to promote understanding. Each approach should be judges on its theoretical basis.

The Assumptions of Qualitative Designs

• Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process , rather than outcomes or products.
• Qualitative researchers are interested in meaning: ­how people make sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world.
• The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires, or machines.
• Qualitative research involves fieldwork . The researcher physically goes to the people, setting, site, or institution to observe or record behavior in its natural setting.
• Qualitative research is descriptive in that the researcher is interested in process, meaning, and understanding gained through words or pictures.
• The process of qualitative research is inductive in that the researcher builds abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, and theories from details.

…..Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

….. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Arguments Supporting Qualitative Inquiry

• Human behavior is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs; thus one must study that behavior in situations. The physical setting (­e.g., schedules, space, pay, and rewards­) and the internalized notions of norms, traditions, roles, and values are crucial contextual variables. Research must be conducted in the setting where all the contextual variables are operating.
• Past researchers have not been able to derive meaning…from experimental research.
• The research techniques themselves, in experimental research, [can]…affect the findings. The lab, the questionnaire, and so on, [can]…become artifacts. Subjects [can become]…either suspicious and wary, or they [can become]…aware of what the researchers want and try to please them. Additionally, subjects sometimes do not know their feelings, interactions, and behaviors, so they cannot articulate them to respond to a questionnaire.
• One cannot understand human behavior without understanding the framework within which subjects interpret their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Researchers need to understand the framework. In fact, the “objective ” scientist, by coding and standardizing, may destroy valuable data while imposing her world on the subjects.
• Field study research can explore the processes and meanings of events.

…..Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1980). Designing qualitative research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry

Although some social science researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1989) perceive qualitative and quantitative approaches as incompatible, others (Patton, 1990; Reichardt & Cook, 1979) believe that the skilled researcher can successfully combine approaches. The argument usually becomes muddled because one party argues from the underlying philosophical nature of each paradigm, and the other focuses on the apparent compatibility of the research methods, enjoying the rewards of both numbers and words. Because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptions about the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to find the type of data desired. This does not mean, however, that the positivist never uses interviews nor that the interpretivist never uses a survey. They may, but such methods are supplementary, not dominant….Different approaches allow us to know and understand different things about the world….Nonetheless, people tend to adhere to the methodology that is most consonant with their socialized worldview. (p. 9)

….. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs and Assumptions)

….. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

….. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Five popular types of Qualitative Research are

• Ethnography
• Phenomenological
• Grounded Theory

Del Siegle, Ph.D [email protected] www.delsiegle.info

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

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.

Research Paradigms

A lot of effort can be spent refining and calibrating a research question to fully understand what kind of data could be collected and what kind of validity analysis might offer when answering the question. Researchers rarely proceed by choosing an ontology, epistemology and axiology separately and then deciding which research method to apply. Instead, the starting point will usually be a research question framed within a particular paradigm. It’s also common in practice for researchers to identify the method they will use (perhaps determined by the data that is available) and then articulate the theoretical justification behind it by drawing on a paradigm.

Kuhn’s (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most influential works on the philosophy of science, and is credited with introducing the idea of competing paradigms (or “disciplinary matrices”) in research. Kuhn investigated the,way that scientific practices evolve over time, arguing that we don’t have a simple,progression from “less knowledge” to “more knowledge” because the way that we,approach inquiry is changing over time. This can happen gradually, but results in,moments of change where our understanding of a phenomenon changes more,radically (such as in the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics; or from,Lamarckian to Darwinian theories of evolution).

There are four stages in the cycle of science in Kuhn’s approach. Firstly, a pre-paradigmatic state where competing approaches share no consensus. Secondly, the “normal” state where there is wide acceptance of a particular set of methods and assumptions. Thirdly, a state of crisis where anomalies that cannot be solved within the existing paradigm emerge and competing theories to address them follow. Fourthly, a revolutionary phase where some new paradigmatic approach becomes dominant and supplants the old. Schnieder (2009) suggests that the Kuhnian phases are characterised by different kinds of scientific activity.

Newer approaches often build upon rather than replace older ones, but they also overlap and can exist within a state of competition. Scientists working within a particular paradigm often share methods, assumptions and values. In addition to supporting specific methods, research paradigms also influence things like the ambition and nature of research, the researcher-participant relationship and how the role of the researcher is understood.

For studies that look into paradigmatic change within open education research, see Bozkurt (2019) and Weller et al. (2018). Next we will go on to look at methods associated with different research paradigms.

Research Methods Handbook Copyright © 2020 by Rob Farrow; Francisco Iniesto; Martin Weller; and Rebecca Pitt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Research, Digital, UX and a PhD.

The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language

Published July 15, 2015 by Salma Patel

I have put together this post to explain what a research paradigm is, which includes ontology, epistemology, theoretical framework and methodology, and why it is important for your research or PhD. It took me a while to understand this properly, and below is a summary of my understanding of the topic, which I hope will help you. I suggest you go easy on yourself (I was pulling my hair out on the second day). I would also love to be corrected if anything below is wrong (though as you are aware, there are so many disagreements amongst philosophers and epistemologists – there is no one right answer!). So, let’s get started …

[This post is also available to read in Arabic here .]

What is a research paradigm?

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

• ontology  – What is reality?
• epistemology  – How do you know something?
• methodology  – How do you go about finding it out?

The diagram below explains the above terms and the relationship between them:

If the above still doesn’t make things clear, don’t worry. I would now recommend you watch this video which explains the above in very simple terms, and explains the two major paradigms: positivism and constructivism.

Why is it important?

Your ontology and epistemology create a holistic view of how knowledge is viewed and how we can see ourselves in relation to this knowledge, and the methodological strategies we use to un/discover it. Awareness of philosophical assumptions will increase quality of research and can contribute to the creativity of the researcher. Furthermore, you will be asked about it in your viva and are expected to narrate it when you write up your research findings.

Which research paradigm does my research belong to?

In really simple terms, the three most common paradigms are explained below (and are shown in this epistemology diagram too, taken from here ):

• Positivists believe that there is a single reality, which can be measured and known, and therefore they are more likely to use quantitative methods to measure and this reality.
• Constructivists believe that there is no single reality or truth, and therefore reality needs to be interpreted, and therefore they are more likely to use qualitative methods to get those multiple realities.
• Pragmatists believe that reality is constantly renegotiated, debated, interpreted, and therefore the best method to use is the one that solves the problem

The table below (which I created) gives a more detailed overview of each paradigm (and contains subjectivism and critical too), and your own research paradigm could very well sit in between one of the paradigms. You could use a top down or a bottom up approach (Rebecca explains here ) to decide where your research sits. In a bottom up approach, you decide on your research question, then you decide which methods, methodology, theoretical perspective you will approach your research from. In reality, I believe its probably neither strictly a top down or bottom up approach, you probably go back and forth till you find the right fit. I believe each research project would have a different research paradigm and hence a different theoretical perspective.

Table adapted from various sources, including Crotty (1998). Crotty left ontology out of his framework, and also didn’t include Pragmatism and Critical. But the assumptions underlying every piece of research are both ontological and epistemological.

Where does most social science research sit?

“1. Experimental (Positivist), with a more realist ontology (i.e. reality is out there), with an empiricist epistemology (i.e. and I’ll gather sense data to find it);

2. Postmodernist constructivism, with a less realist ontology (i.e. reality is just a load of competing claims), and a constructivist epistemology (i.e. and I’ll analyse those competing accounts to explore it)

Applied, then to social psychology, it is important to understand the tension, throughout its history, between:

1. A more traditional experimental (quantitative) approach, which sees social reality as a set of facts to be known for all time by measuring people in the laboratory;

2. A more critical, discursive (qualitative) approach, which sees social reality as mutually constructed between people in the real world.”

However, I must add that pragmatism (and hence mixed methods research) is also being increasingly used in social sciences.

What impact will my chosen paradigm have on my research?

It will have a huge impact. Let me give you an example of an interview based research that is constructivist:

“So as GP trainers, constructivism means that to understand our trainees and their learning, beliefs or behaviours we have to be aware of their experience and culture (the historical and cultural contexts) and recognise that they don’t just potentially see the world differently to us, but experience it differently too.” Source.

Useful reading and references

Texts I found useful:

Crotty, M., 1998. Foundations of social research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. p.256.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R., 2012. Management Research . [online] SAGE Publications. Available at: <https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Management_Research.html?id=ahbhMb-R7MQC&pgis=1> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].

Scotland, J., 2012. Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching , 5(9), pp.9–16.

Blog posts that were useful:

http://doctoralstudy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/being-clear-about-methodology-ontology.html?m=1

http://eddiechauncy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/what-are-ontology-and-epistemology_12.html

https://www.academia.edu/12235888/Developing_an_Appreciative_Understanding_of_Epistemologies_in_Educational_Research_One_Bloggers_Journey 

Useful video:

Assumptions of researchers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gONyWHpSSWc

Related Posts:

• An explanation in Arabic of the Research Paradigm
• Changing direction a little …
• More about me ...
• #Quicknotes: Key takeaways from Hands on Agile for…
• Measure to assess users' digital competency
• 13 steps I took to prepare for my PhD viva

Published in Research Research Research Methods

• epistemology
• research methods
• research paradigm

147 Comments

[…] other news, my post on The Research Paradigm has proved to be very popular (1,372 views so far!) and received a lot of praise from researchers, […]

Jazakamullah Khair

Thank so much. I have been struggling with the research terminology. This is now so clear. Help me now understand the difference between a conceptual framework and theoretical framework.

Very very useful article, thank you. Is this the correct way to cite in APA? Patel, S. (2015). The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language. Retrieved from https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explained-in-simple-language/

Thanks Vana, I’m pleased to hear it was useful. I think that looks fine.

Thanks a million brother Salma Patel. A scholastic, helpful post that made me understand the subject crystal clear. God bless you.

You’re very welcome Anthony, I’m glad it was helpful!

[…] (method), however always theorise while I “do”. On pondering this I came across a blog by Salma Patel which had a summary table that helped with some of my reflection. My drawing reflects me (the […]

Oh my gosh, this is amazing. And so, so helpful. Thank you for making it so clear. That table alone is worth a million bucks. THANK YOU! You’re amazing.

Thank you so much for the knowledge you shared for us who are working on research as I was confused about these long words but the explanation provided for each word and their meaning, enlightening myself in research terminology for words like epistemology, ontology, and many more. Thanks again and God bless .

Thanks Salma This is very helpful, clearly laid out information. it helped with my assignment.

Hi Lauren, Thank you for your comment. I am very pleased to hear it was useful for your assignment. Best wishes, Salma

What an excellent explanation you have given brother.. It is really useful for my thesis works. Decided to keep in touch with your site… Thanks

in research conducts , how important is it to consider the relationships between research paradigms, approaches, and methods? need an clarification

Many thanks Salma. I’ve just begun my journey in doctorate research and the biggest learning curve so far is simply understanding academic language. Your explanation has made it all that much simpler. Brilliant – thank you!!

Thanks Rowley, I’m pleased to hear it was useful. Best wishes, Salma

I re-read this information, and now I am now certain that I am locating my research in the correct paradigm of Pragmatism. So I am also using genealogy, which is part critical. Therefore, mixed methods.

Dear Salma, I found it very useful and learn lots out of it. Thank you for sharing.

I have been pulling my hair out! Thank you for your explanation at least I can attempt my assignment

very informative. Thank you Salma. I have been really pulling my hair out. Now I can attempt my assignment.

Thank you so much for your sharing such an informative information, it was very helpful for me.

[…] The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language […]

I Love charts. This is so ridiculously helpful of you. Very generous.

Brilliant! Felt like I was a little lost until I came across your page. Thanks for your hard work!

Alhamdulillah. A very useful review. Shared. JazakAllah Khair Kathira.

Absolutely useful guidelines as I embark on my doctoral journey. I am busy with my research proposal and your post has come in handy and is helping me clarify my research methodology. Many thanks Salma.

thanks very much this has being of good help.

mashalla brelient assumption JZ KL

this is amazing!!!! I actually understand it!! this should be in text books, books and everything ! amazing amazing amazing !!!

What a great article and video! It was extremely helpful! I was reading the whole day a lot of shitty articles about the philosophy of research and couldn’t interpret it according to my research. Holistic and very useful materials. Thanks a lot!

Thank you so much.. very useful for research.

Very useful, BIG thank you from UK.

Just wanna say thanks for the explicit / definitive explanation!! An exampler of a best teacher!

This is very helpful, thanks

I must confess that this post helped to lift the burden of understanding this process few hours to the before submission of my Mphil-PhD transfer report. This is absolutely resourceful Patel. Presented in such a manner that a layman can understand this process. Thanks once again as you have just saved a brother.

Thanks for this article and the youtube video. Breaking the concepts down as you have done has really helped grasp these concepts as I commence my PhD studies. Great job!

Thanks Patel.The work is superb.It has assisted me great deal.May be if you have PDF versions of Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology, you can assist me to use in my Masters degree.

Great site to make sense of big words in simple terms. Thank you for the insight and simplicity of approach.

Thank you everyone for your lovely comments. I am truly pleased to hear this article has been useful to so many of you! Wishing you all the best with your research endeavors.

Thanks Salma, this was helpful, easy to understand and interesting above all. The presentation simplifies everything about research. Thanks so much

I really appreciate your great effort for helping students who have been facing challenge with research.

You have lucidly and successfully explain the technical terms to the novice

Can you use the ontology and epistemology at the same time in the dissertation? Example say ontology of power is socially constructed and my epistemology to explain power is what?

You would normally make reference to both Ontology and Epistemology in the thesis. I am not sure if the example you have given is correct though.

Best wishes, Salma

Ontology is let say What is AIDS and epistemology is finding how you find AIDS? So ontology is a topic and epistemology finding how you arrive with the knowledge. Ontology can be positivist or non-positivist, subjective and objective.

Grt work man. Learnt a lot from ur simple explanations Thanks n keep up

Thanks for information.. it’s really good and very helpful for me to complete my assignment and also for my exams.

This has been very helpful. thanks a million

Very useful, You made this so simple. Well done and thanks for relieving me of some of the stress.

Hi . if anyone can guide. Can i only use the quantitative research approach while following the pragmatism paradigm

Yes Tariq, I don’t see why not. Salma

Thank you so much Salma. Brilliant explanation. From South Africa / Eritrea.

Thanks very much for this – after reading many text books and articles and still feeling lost, this was super helpful!! One thing that i’m still not sure on though is where it is best to include your epistemological stance in the dissertation? Is it in the Analysis part of your methods? Or is it in Design as it is supposed to influence your whole study? I haven’t ever seen anyone reporting it in a journal article before so don’t have any insight into this, yet we are expected to include it ‘somewhere’. Any recommendations or thoughts would be much appreciated!

Hi Natalie, I have usually seen it reported in the methodology chapter – that is also where I placed mine. I hope that helps. Best wishes, Salma

This is amazing, thank you so much – I’ve been trying to get my head around this for months and you’ve done such a great job of explaining it in ways that are easily understood. Why aren’t you my lecturer haha :'(

Your information is very useful. I have really enjoyed reading it. I have little understanding of ontoloy and epistemology now

Hello,thank you so much saima,i am very happy that i found it the meaning of research paradigm.i have many learn about methodology and also thank you that you are sharing your knowledge with us. God bless you saima patel!!!!

Wow, thank you so much for making this clear. It will certainly help with my assignment.

Thank you for sharing, this has been so helpful for my understanding of the different paradigms.

Thank you for helping us to know critical things in precise ;concise; and simple manner. honestly speaking it is crucial and insightful in doing of my assignment and i owed to acknowledges you ideas dully. How ever, I would like forward one question for you.Is there an instance in which two or more research paradigm may likely included in single research?

Hi, Thank you so much for this. However. I would like to ask something: is it possible to conduct a phenomenological research with a deductive analysis? Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Your comments really helped with my assignment in understanding ontology & epistemology

[…] What Paradigms are there?  Read The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language at https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explain… […]

Thank you so much for creating this post Salma! I struggled with these concepts during undergrad, now that I’m completing my masters I had to get to grips with them, this post helped a lot and so did your recommendations for further reading 🙂

Thank you so much brother! Your article has helped me a lot in my thesis review.

Thanks so much salma for sharing the very useful information. I appreciate you. I have more learn about various types of research paradigm. Best of luck. Again thanks for sharing us. Stay blessed

you page saved my time and reading , well analyzed document

This is amazing. You really simplified it to a point where it’s understandable yet sticks to the core of what it is. Huge props.

Dr. P, thank you so much for this explanation! I haven’t explored the rest of your blog but just this one has been so helpful. Glad to know I have some place to go to for clarity 🙂

i really appreciate your work, for me, knowingly that I am a young scholar, your work is going to be my motivational device to get puberty academically

This was good and helpful,,,i was about to begin pulling my hair out. Thank you

I came to this post seeking information to address an article reviewer’s request to restructure a methodology section that directly contrasted with the second reviewers’ request for the same article. this is not the first time this has happened. I wish all reviewers would read your article it is useful and clear. I certainly will keep it in mind for my own future reviews. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for the information. I have a question that maybe you or someone can help me with. If symbolic interactionism is influenced by pragmatism, how did it end up being a interpretist theoretical perspective? I get that pragmatism states to use the best methods possible, but is there any more information on this? Many thanks in advance

Thank you. This is a clear, logical post that provides explanation in an easily accessible fashion.

Many thanks Salma, that ‘s really helps clearing up lots of confusions and same me much more time.

Truly appreciate this information, it could not have been any clearer,

This is brilliant. I am currently writing my Methods chapter and was struggling to understand a lot of the philosophical underpinnings piece. What you have provided here is very clear and comprehensive. Thank you for sharing.

I just wanted to say Thank you! Finally, someone who can explain all the jargon simply. I am so much better equipped both in my personal studies and in my academic career. Best wishes.

[…] (Diagram from https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explain&#8230 😉 […]

Salma, I have shared this with many researchers and students and keep coming back to it. It is really an invaluable post and you have done the academic community a great service in sharing it. Just wanting to say thank you. x

Thanks you Becca, that’s very kind! Best wishes, Salma

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE CONTRIBUTION. JUST A REQUEST FOR A MORE ELABORATE AND PRECISE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A METHOD AND A METHODOLOGY. THANK YOU

That was extremely helpful. your explanation, and the videos you have linked to. It is just so good!

Great help for my dissertation thanks!!!

[…] does a superior job of explaining this in layperson terms is Salma Patel, whom I’m putting up right here. To further entice you to read her post, here’s a neat image she adapted from secondary […]

thank you thank you – even pronouncing the words was a task in itself but your simple guidelines enabled an understanding and have formed good foundation to build upon.

I am a PhD candidate and return to this page time and again. Thank you for putting it together. It’s been a tremendous help.

Thank you for this very useful information. Please anyone, help me to understand that, where is the definition of Paradigm mentioned in the book of Kuhn 1962.

Salma, Thank you so much for your time, effort and sharing your knowledge. Your website is invaluable and has really helped me feel confident about starting my thesis, after feeling completely lost and hopeless. you are a genius!

thank you so much Patel i benefited a lot I was confused of the methodological approach and the interpretative if still apply in qualitative

[…] at the back of my mind. Ideally I should be able to clearly articulate to others what my research paradigm is, though I often find myself oscillating between different poles depending on the day of the […]

Thank you so much. Really helped.

Very useful to me as a newbie.Thank you so much Mr Salma Patel.

its very clear and simple to understood

A well written article on the paradigms of research in social science. I found many insights regarding the topic. The tabular form is much interesting and comprehensive. thanks for sharing such information on one of the important aspects of conducting research in social science

Thanks so much for this. Its simply awesome

a vivid explaination (i was so confused) thank you maam

[…] https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explain&#8230 ; […]

This has been fantastic and has saved me from losing my mind. The detail is clear, simple and understandable. I thank you for this.

thank Dr Amjad, it relays very helpful and interesting videos and notes all the best with the new post. Fares

This was really helpful! I struggle with epistemology and what to actually say about it when writing up how I did a mini study.

I would like to take your permission to translate this post into Arabic with reference to the source.

Hi Zanah, thanks, that would be helpful! Could you drop me a quick line please on me (at) salmapatel.co.uk? Thanks! Salma

I like the whole presentation, made things a little clearer Question: Where do i talk about the theoretical perspective and paradigm when it comes to developing the proposal. Which chapter and section?

I’m pleased to hear you found it useful. It usually goes in the methodology chapter, which is normally found after the literature review chapter. All the best, Salma

Thank you Salma. Now, Can someone use phenomenology as a theory to base the research or it is inadequate. What do you think?

This was awesome! It was simple and easy to understand. Thank you so much! I’m sure I’ll be back with more questions though!

So very helpful Salma. Clearly written and in brilliantly simple terms. You have helped me to no end with the design of my research, thank you.

[…] am very pleased to share that my popular post (335,894 views to date) on The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language has now been very kindly translated into Arabic by Zanah Alshehri, a doctoral researcher in […]

Thanks, its a wonderful explanation.

this has been very helpful. am happy I read.

This saved me! Thanks. I was feeling really overwhelmed by the terminology. thanks so much.

Good day salma may I ask your help? how would I write a research paradigm about Identification and assessment of learners with learning disabilities? please help. thanks

Thank you, this helped me so much. What all the information my uni tried to give me but I didn’t need to filter through everything I couldn’t understand.

Thank you Salma; this has deepened my understanding.

Thanks Salma, its a wonderful and simple explanation

Thank you so much, this article and video has made my life so much easier, I was really struggling with research paradigms and you have made the subject very clear!

Thank you so much for your effort in explaining all the aspects about research in many forms. Your materials have really clarified all my confusion especially about the terms involved in research. I salute you for your intelligence and simplistic method of explaining research to those who are not well-versed about it. May the force be with you, man!

Thank you so much for the write. I know what to do now

Very useful, understandable. Thank you

Very easy to understand ,useful content Thank you

Thank you! This has been most helpful!

Very simple and clear explanation . Really useful. Thank you for posting this.

This was very helpful I even cited you. Continue the good work Dr Patel. Very informative

Thanks so much for this detailed but simplified explanation. It is of great help.

Thank you. This is the most useful explanation I have ever come across with in Research Paradigms

This is insightful. Thank you for the clear explanations. I have fully understood the terms and now able to apply them. Thank you a million times

This came at a time when I am struggling understanding their meanings and trying to apply them to research philosophical underpinning. Thank you Salma for this simplified explanation. I salute you

Thank you, very clear explanation.

Thank you Dr Salma for the ever green demystification of research paradigm. God Bless You.

I read a book for 5 hours and I didn’t get it. I read your post in 5 mins and I completely understood. Thank you

[…] Patal, S. (2015, July 15). The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language. https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explain&#8230 ; […]

Salma, thank you so much for this scholarship of knowledge. I am just starting my Research Paradigm journey on what system (s) I will use for my Dissertation Research. I am not sure if it will be Qualitative, Quantitative or both. I’m Just diving in!

Oh my goodness. Sanity at last!! Thank you so much for sharing this comprehensive and easy to understand post. Your videos are also wonderful!

Thank you so much. This has been really helpful and – I think – the information has finally gone in!!

This is INCREDIBLY complex and yet tremendously easy to understand. Thank you for sharing. It helped me with my placement research. 🙂

Hi Salma Found this very helpful and it was referred to in a recent text on Community and Human Services. However my supervisor is not keen on me referring to a blog in my PhD. Just wondering if you have submitted this to peer reviewed journal. I am particularly interested in the sections on constructionism and pragmatism. I am using mixed methods with qualitative data based on phenomenological interpretation with quant data which I have got from an organisation. Look forward to your reply! Mary

Very Useful Content

I would like to suggest Recep Senturk Maratib Alwujud for an Islamic Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology guide.

OMG Thank you so much, this is so helpful and the best explanation I have seen yet. I am currently studying Qualitative research at Uni for my Master of Nursing and this has helped me a lot.

Thanks Jackie

Thank you so much. This article and table has made life much easier. Much appreciated.

Brilliant, thank you so much. An easy to read guide and explanation. I can actually now start writing my methodology section

It is simply Super. If willing, convert it into well structured journal article. that will increase its reach beyond imagination like crotty

Thanks for the clear info, really helpful article!

I am in the second of three research courses, all building up to my doctoral thesis proposal. This is very helpful!

Thank you! this made everything much easier to understand. Very clear

Thank you very much For information on research paradigms Dr. Salma Patel they are very difficult to grasp, this will brighten my understanding of research report together with referencing ??

I cant thank you enough for this! I was on the verge of giving up on my Phd until I read this! Wonderfully written and made it so easy to understand

Leave a Reply 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.

Research Paradigms, Methodologies and Methods

• First Online: 20 December 2016

Cite this chapter

• Peter Hassmén 4 ,
• Richard Keegan 5 &
• David Piggott 6  

1669 Accesses

The prevailing belief system, worldview, research tradition, or as it is also known paradigm influences what can be studied, who can study it, and how it should be studied—or using fancier words: the answers to the ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions. In the early days positivism ruled, slowly replaced by postpositivism, and complemented by critical theory and constructivism; the dominating quantitative methods were joined by qualitative methods and the nomothetic focus interspersed by idiographic efforts. As always when different belief systems exist, there is a risk for confrontations, possibly explaining the paradigm wars that some say still rages. The emerging audit culture, where more is always better—more peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals, more and bigger research grants—increases the risk for methodological fundamentalism and a preference for biomedical models of research. Unless we are aware of the danger and take action to prevent that sport and exercise psychology research once again will be conducted in a less than optimal way.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Allport, G. W. (1937). The functional autonomy of motives. American Journal of Psychology, 50 , 141–156.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allwood, C. M. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity, 46 , 1417–1429.

Bairner, A. (2012). For a sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29 , 102–117.

Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., and Trimble, S.W. (2010). We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education LVI, issue 38, back page Point of View, p. 80 , 10 June 2010.

Google Scholar  

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6 , 97–113.

Cronin, C., & Armour, K. M. (2015). Lived experience and community sport coaching: A phenomenological investigation. Sport, Education and Society, 20 , 959–975.

Crowe, S. F., & Samartgis, J. (2015). ERA 2012 versus ERA 2010: Like the curate’s egg … good in parts. Australian Psychologist, 50 , 186–193.

Cruickshank, J. (2012). Positioning positivism, critical realism and social constructionism in the health sciences: A philosophical orientation. Nursing Inquiry, 19 , 71–82.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Culver, D., Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research published in sport psychology journals: 1990–1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17 , 1–15.

Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W., & Sparkes, A. (2012). Qualitative research in sport psychology journals: The next decade 2000–2009 and beyond. Sport Psychologist, 26 , 261–281.

Darbyshire, P. (2008). ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’: The nonsense of ‘quality’, ‘excellence’, and ‘audit’ in education, health and research. Collegian, 15 , 35–41.

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9 (2), 139–160.

Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (6), 419–427.

Dowling, G. R. (2014). Playing the citations game: From publish or perish to be cited or sidelined. Australasian Marketing Journal, 22 , 280–287.

Doyle, J., & Cuthill, M. (2015). Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’? Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (3), 671–674.

Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27 , 926–944.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18 , 4–10.

Griffiths, P., & Norman, I. (2013). Qualitative or quantitative? Developing and evaluating complex interventions: Time to end the paradigm war. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50 , 583–584.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hansen, J. T. (2004). Thoughts on knowing: Epistemic implications of counseling practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82 , 131–138.

Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Possible research area bias in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft journal rankings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62 (2), 112–114.

Hassard, J. (1988). Overcoming hermeticism in organization theory: An alternative to paradigm incommensurability. Human Relations, 41 (3), 247–259.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice . New York: Guilford Press.

Hollings, S. C., Mallett, C. J., & Hume, P. A. (2014). The World Junior Athletics Championships: New Zealand athletes’ lived experiences. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9 , 1357–1374.

Jackson, M. R. (2015). Resistance to qual/quant parity: Why the “paradigm” discussion can’t be avoided. Qualitative Psychology, 2 , 181–198.

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

Keegan, R. (2015). Being a sport psychologist . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, S. (2003). Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes of inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21 (1), 9.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 87–138). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Krauss, S. (2008). A tripartite model of idiographic research: Progressing past the concept of idiographic research as a singular entity. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 , 1123–1140.

Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36 , 276–289.

Landrum, B., & Garza, G. (2015). Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches of quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 2 (2), 199–209.

Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth . Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles: The University of California Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 , 3–9.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lindahl, J., Stenling, A., Lindwall, M., & Colliander, C. (2015). Trends and knowledge base in sport and exercise psychology research: A bibliometric review study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8 , 71–94.

Lunde, Å., Heggen, K., & Strand, R. (2012). Knowledge and power: Exploring unproductive interplay between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7 , 197–210.

Madill, A. (2015). Qualitative research is not a paradigm: Commentary on Jackson (2015) and Landrum and Garza (2015). Qualitative Psychology, 2 , 214–220.

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakotos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–91). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

McGannon, K. R., & Schweinbenz, A. N. (2011). Traversing the qualitative-quantitative divide using mixed methods: Some reflections and reconciliations for sport and exercise psychology. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3 (3), 370–384.

Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic: Ratiocinative and inductive: Vol. I . London: John W. Parker, West Strand.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7 , 85.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 , 375–387.

Sparkes, A. C. (2013). Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health in the era of neoliberalism, audit and New Public Management: Understanding the conditions for the (im)possibilities of a new paradigm dialogue. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 5 , 440–459.

Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16 , 49–59.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 285–300). London: Sage.

Tourish, D. (2011). Leading questions: Journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of Leadership ? Leadership, 7 , 367–381.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia

Peter Hassmén

Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Canberra Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Richard Keegan

Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

David Piggott

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hassmén, P., Keegan, R., Piggott, D. (2016). Research Paradigms, Methodologies and Methods. In: Rethinking Sport and Exercise Psychology Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48338-6_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48338-6_5

Published : 20 December 2016

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-48337-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-48338-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (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