Research Paradigms

JOURNAL #THREE [RES701]

Research Paradigms - A Discussion

A Very Brief Overview

A research paradigm is the approach and methodology researchers will follow when conducting research based around common views and understandings.

There can be several methodologies a researcher may choose before beginning the actual research process. These approaches to conducting research assist the researcher to choose the route that is most likely to answer the questions posed:

• Classic Scientific Paradigm
• Social Scientific Paradigm
• Post-Modernist Paradigm

There are several lines of inquiry that make up a research paradigm as referenced in my previous journal:

1. Ontological inquiry: The reality that is to be explored
2. Epistemological inquiry: How do we know what we know about the reality
3. Methodological inquiry: The procedures and methods used to gather the data

Reference: What are research paradigms?, http://researcharticles.com/index.php/what-research-paradigms/

Reference: The research paradigm – methodology, epistemology and ontology – explained in simple language, https://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/the-research-paradigm-methodology-epistemology-and-ontology-explained-in-simple-language/

My view on the subject of research paradigms

Well… This subject and class discussion certainly got the neurons firing… obviously this statement takes the nominalism approach!!!

It’s probably fair to say that my natural position falls with the classic scientific paradigm as my approach to research. That’s not to say that I don’t see the validity in the social science and post-modernist paradigms, and there are areas where I can see why they might be more useful.

However, I can’t shake the idea that when conducting research we are looking for ‘truth’, which is surely derived from the facts. Or is that my European up-bringing talking? When we look at facts we use, or should use, a positivism approach - if we don’t then is the outcome not far game? If anti-positivism is the approach then we never get to truth, and if we don’t does that make the research useless?

Is it not the case that so much scientific research is simply too important for the anti-positivism approach. For example, when we look at climate change, a massive challenge, we need to agree on an approach in order to meet that challenge. We need to agree for example that the measurements tell us the planet is warming, and agree on what is causing it. Essentially the question becomes, are the risks too high If we take a anti-positivism approach to climate change? Are facts not facts regardless of individual perception?

This leads to a real world example, the debate between Darwinism and Creationism. I’ve read articles and watched interviews between both sides where Darwinism is described as merely a theory, and Creationism sits alongside it as an alternative. But there is no factual evidence for Creationism, whereas there is overwhelming evidence for Darwinism. So are creationists using constructive ontology with an interpretivist epistemology?

This leads the debate away from the classic scientific paradigm where I think it belongs, and pulls it into the social science paradigm. If this is the case it may explain some of my discomfort with the social paradigm, but equally this validates it as a paradigm, despite my feelings that the approach fails those that believe in creationism.

It often seems that creationists (I have not met them all so I’m generalising) simply ignore the evidence for Darwinism. The realism approach, which is where I believe this debate should stay, doesn’t even factor in the equation for them. Nor does positivism. How can it when the evidence is ignored, or biblical text takes precedence? Taken further, if society as a whole agrees that there is a supernatural dictator that intervenes in our lives and welcomes us after we die (which it has in the past and may still to this day) - does that make it true?

For something to be true does it not need more then agreement, more then evidence? Does it not need agreement based on evidence? Until new evidence makes the old ‘truth’ untrue I guess! So could this be an example of a failing in the social paradigm as an approach? Or am I simply showing my bias towards the classic science paradigm?….. Maybe.

I suppose that the classic science paradigm can also serve as an example of producing failings. Early scientists made many understandable errors based on taking the ontological realism approach coupled with epistemological positivism, only to be proven wrong when new facts were discovered through advancement.

But then that is the scientific way is it not? Knowledge being based on what we think we know, and then either let what we know be proven over and over until it is discredited, if ever. I think I’m back to a potential bias, am I going around in circles? Let’s move on….

I guess constructivism can be viewed from the perspective of the occurrence of global warming by human activity. When this was first floated the evidence was less then compelling, and many scientist didn’t believe the evidence. So is global warming a fact, has it been a fact since warming started - or did it come into existence when society formed a consensus? Indeed, have we formed a consensus, or is it just the scientific community? I won’t digress…

Wow, do you agree this subject keeps you going around and around in circles (realism) - or is it just me? (nominalism) ;-)

Since starting NET602 and SEC602 this semester I have started to question some of the decision making from NET603. At the time I researched the various business solutions and, based on the facts known about the organisation requesting the infrastructure, was absolutely confident that a cloud server was right. I had used the classic scientific research paradigm and believed I took an objective approach.

But now I question that decision - I’m not saying I wouldn’t make the same decision again but, there are security concerns that I don’t think I fully appreciated at the time. I think if I were to present that solution again I wouldn’t have the same confidence. But would another paradigm approach have been better?

I haven’t discussed much the Post-Modernist Approach and for good reason, I find this less relatable. In particular I don’t like anti-positivism, the idea that each person’s perception is valid. For example, I can’t bring myself to take someone’s ‘truth’ that is based on faith, as valid. But maybe I should!!

I am however, more comfortable with the idea of interpretivism. As much as I tend to think of facts as facts and as humans, who have all evolved in the same way with the same sensory inputs, we will of course always be influenced in such a way that we can never be truly objective. But does that mean we shouldn’t still try and just give up?

Although I have struggled more with this paradigm I can see how, when looking at quantum computing, the classic scientific paradigm just won’t cut it! How can it when a qubit can be a 1 or a 0, or 1 and a 0, or 1 or a 0. My incredible ignorance of the quantum world is such that I’ll leave this thought here…

Conclusion

So after all that where does this leave me? I think at the moment I sit somewhere between the classic and social paradigm, with a lean towards the classic. I can’t deny that there is a social aspect that influences me, but still feel the classic approach will lead to more useful ‘truths’. And what wondrous truths this approach has given humanity.

I am however, happy to be convinced otherwise!