Paradigms of research

There are two main paradigms that form the basis of research in the social sciences. It is beyond the scope of this book to go into any detail about these. The crucial question that divides the two is whether the methodology of the physical sciences can be applied to the study of social phenomena. The paradigm that is rooted in the physical sciences is called the systematic, scientific or positivist approach. The opposite paradigm has come to be known as the qualitative, ethnographic, ecological or naturalistic approach. The advocates of the two opposing sides have developed their own values, terminology, methods and techniques to understand social phenomena. However, since the mid-1960s there has been a growing recognition that both paradigms have their place. It is the purpose for which a research activity is undertaken that should determine the mode of enquiry, hence the paradigm. To indiscriminately apply one approach to all the research problems can be misleading and inappropriate.

A positivist paradigm lends itself to both quantitative and qualitative research. However, the author makes a distinction between qualitative data on the one hand and qualitative research on the other as the first is confined to the measurement of variables and the second to a use of methodology.

The author believes that no matter what paradigm the researcher works within, s/he should adhere to certain values regarding the control of bias, and the maintenance of objectivity in terms of both the research process itself and the conclusions drawn. It is the application of these values to the process of information gathering, analysis and interpretation that enables it to be called a research process.

Source: Kumar Ranjit (2012), Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners, SAGE Publications Ltd; Third edition.