What is Research Philosophy and Research 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.
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.
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!