A topic in research methodology
Paradigms in the natural and social sciences
A term that is widely used in social science research (such as in educational studies) is paradigm. Widely used, that is, since the physicist/historian Thomas Kuhn (1970) adopted the word to describe research traditions in the natural sciences, and referred to scientific revolutions in terms of paradigm shifts.
The term has come to be used in the social sciences in a somewhat boarder sense than Kuhn intended as Kuhn's focus was on specific research traditions/programmes, whereas 'paradigms' in the social sciences are seen as very broad and encompassing a diversity of work in different topics but sharing some underpinning assumptions.
The discussion on this page refers to this broader understanding, not Kuhn's model of disciplinary traditions in the natural sciences.
Paradigms are the researcher’s friends!
As with many things concerning research, there are differences in how different authors label and describe paradigms.* The issues underpinning social science paradigms are fundamental and needs to be considered when undertaking research. That is, it is possible to get bogged down in the various labels for and descriptions of paradigms (i.e., these are not very important), but the underlying questions they respond to are critical to clear thinking about research.
(* Paradigms do not 'really' exist, of course. These are just ways of trying to make good sense of the complex , diverse, and often messy range of research studies that exist!)
Behind the labels are important distinctions that relate to
- your purposes in the research
- the nature of what you wish to study (ontology)
- the kind of knowledge you might be able to obtain (epistemology)
- the values that inform your research (axiology)
An introductory model of paradigms in educational research
"In education (and most social sciences), 'paradigm' has a … general meaning: studies in the same paradigm may have quite different designs, but share basic assumptions about the nature of research…
it is commonly accepted that much educational research seems to fall into two main clusters of approach, informed by distinct perspectives on the research process. Appreciating the distinction between these two 'paradigms' offers a good deal of insight into why many studies are carried out and reported in the way they are, and what kind of lessons the reader should expect to draw from the reports. The model of these two research paradigms presented here is necessarily a simple one, but at an appropriate level for those who are new to reading educational research. I will signify these two clusters as being educational research paradigms 1 and 2…"
Taber, 2013: 44
Characterising Paradigm 1:
One paradigm (ERP 1) is associated with characteristics such as:
- positivistic (sometimes identified with objectivism)
- nomothetic
- confirmatory
Sometimes this is simplistically referred to as 'quantitative research'
Characterising Paradigm 2:
The other paradigm (ERP2) is associated with characteristics such as:
- interpretivist (sometimes identified with constructivism)
- idiographic
- discovery
Sometimes this is simplistically referred to as 'qualitative research'
| "The nomological sciences, whose aim it is to formulate and verify hypotheses concerning the laws governing empirical regularities, | ||
| have extended themselves far beyond the sphere of the theoretical natural sciences, into psychology and economics, sociology and political science. | ||
| On the other hand, the historical-hermeneutic sciences, which appropriate and analyze meaningful cultural entities handed down by tradition, continue uninterrupted along the paths they have been following since the nineteenth century. | ||
| There is no serious indication that their methods can be integrated into the model of the strict empirical sciences." |
Paradigms and methodology
A researcher's choice of research methodology (strategy) for a study should match the 'paradigmatic commitments' they have for that study (see Tables below from Methodological issues in science education research…):
Either/or?
Sometimes it is suggested that these two paradigms reflect alternative ways of looking at the world, and a researcher has to choose which of the two perspectives they have (or will offer) allegiance to.
There are even references to 'paradigm wars' between different groups of researchers arguing their side is right! This might make sense if all research concerned the same kinds of things, and researchers had similar access to those different things.
"…in the social sciences, heterogenous aims and approaches conflict and intermingle with one another."
Habermas, 1967/1998
In reality, different foci of research are quite different in this respect. Consider:
- school class sizes
- changes in styles of examination question over time
- teacher quality
- student views on the nature of the curriculum
- levels of engagement in virtual teaching and learning
- …
It should be obvious that in different research studies the type of things we are studying are very different and the kinds of knowledge it might be possible to generate about those things also varies. For example, we might expect to be able to reach agreement on how many pupils are in class 9C, but it would be foolhardy to think everyone should agree about a judgement of teacher quality. Realistically, then, a research approach that makes perfect sense in one study may not be appropriate in another.
** Natural scientists who move into research in social fields such as education may find it difficult to adjust to the different mindset ("Why do natural scientists tend to make poor social scientists?")!
"Whereas the natural and the cultural or hermeneutic sciences are capable of living in a mutually indifferent, albeit more hostile than peaceful, coexistence, the social sciences must bear the tension of divergent approaches under one roof, for in them the very practice of research compels reflection on the relationship between analytic and hermeneutic methodologies."
Habermas, 1967/1998
Introducing 'ontology' and 'epistemology'
Exploring the nature of things is sometimes called 'ontology' and studying the nature of knowledge we can acquire is sometimes called 'epistemology'. So (whether we use these formal terms of not) considering ontology and epistemology is important when setting out on a research project as before we can decide on a sensible research design we need to ask
What kind of thing am I studying here?
What sort of knowledge can I expect to generate in my research?
Advice on paradigms
A paradigm should be adopted for a particular research study only after thinking about these issues. It only makes sense to sign up to a paradigm as a long-term commitment if you are only wanting to do one kind of research on one type of focus. If you are likely to do research on multiple types of foci then 'a paradigm for life' is likely to act as mental block and be unhelpful. Rather, select a sensible paradigm for the research at hand.
Mixed methods: A middle way?
A major area of discussion in research methods comes under the heading 'mixed methods'. Unfortunately, the term is used in several quite different ways. Studies that should be called 'mixed methods' actually adopt elements of both main paradigms.
This can make sense as sometimes a research project will have multiple foci that are of different natures. Consider a study to explore how school absentee rates vary between different secondary schools in a town, and also why school absentee rates vary between the different secondary schools. It should be possible to be reasonably objective in profiling the rates of truancy in the different schools, and this involves quantification. But looking to explain the pattern is going to require very different tools, and may not have a single answer.
So, mixed methods can be a very strong approach in some contexts when it is used with insufficient thought , although (for example, when it is selected as a default option in some courses, or is used a way of avoiding choosing between the two main approaches) can lead to poor research designs that offer unconvincing outcomes.
Read about mixed methods research
Sources cited:
- Habermas, J. (1967/1998). On the logic of the social sciences (S. W. Nicholason & J. A. Stark, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
- Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
- Taber, K. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education research: a perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1839-1893): Springer Netherlands.)
My introduction to educational research:
Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
