Paradigm for "Theory" Papers
If you want to advance a thesis in your paper, use this next design.
Introduction
Establish the problem or question
Discuss its significance
Provide the necessary background information
Introduce experts who have addressed the problem
Provide a thesis sentence that addresses the problem from a fresh perspective if at all possible
Body
Evaluate the issues involved in the problem
Develop a past-to-present examination
Compare and analyze the details and minor issues
Cite experts who have addressed the same problem
Conclusion
Advance and defend your theory as it grows out of evidence in the body
Offer directives or a plan of action
Suggest additional work and research that is needed
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?
According to Eddie, and quoting directly, most social science sits into the following:
“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.”
Qualitative mode
Assumptions
Reality is socially constructed
Primacy of subject matter
Variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure
Emic (insider’s point of view)
Purpose
Contextualization
Interpretation
Understanding actors’ perspectives
Approach
Ends with hypotheses and grounded theory
Emergence and portrayal
Researcher as instrument
Naturalistic
Inductive
Searches for patterns
Seeks pluralism, complexity
Makes minor use of numerical indices
Descriptive write-up
Researcher Role
Personal involvement and partiality
Empathic understanding
Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs and Assumptions)
Axioms About Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative) Naturalist Paradigm (Q
The nature of reality Reality is single, tangible, and fragmentable. Realities are multiple
The relationship of knower to Knower and known are independent, a dualism. Knower and known a
the known
The possibility of Time- and context-free generalizations (nomothetic Only time- and conte
generalization statements) are possible. possible.
The possibility of causal There are real causes, temporally precedent to or All entities are in a st
linkages simultaneous with their effects. impossible to distingu
The role of values Inquiry is value-free. Inquiry is value-boun
Research with Subjects (Quantitative) Res
1. What do I know about a problem that will allow me to formulate and 1. What do my informants know abou
test a hypothesis?
2. What concepts can I use to test this hypothesis? 2. What concepts do my informants u
3. How can I operationally define these concepts? 3. How do my informants define these
4. What scientific theory can explain the data? 4. What folk theory do my informants
5. How can I interpret the results and report them in the language of my 5. How can I translate the cultural kno
colleagues? colleagues will understand?
