Selecting a Research Approach: Paradigm, Methodology and Methods

This chapter discusses the importance of selecting a research approach and the role of paradigm, methodology, and methods in conducting research. It explores different paradigms such as positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, transformative/emancipatory, and postcolonial indigenous research paradigm. The chapter also delves into the philosophical assumptions about perceptions of reality, what counts as truth, and the value systems in each of these paradigms.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257944787
Selecting a research approach: Paradigm, methodology and methods
Chapter · January 2012
CITATIONS
6
READS
135,097
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research methods pedagogyView project
Barbara Kawulich
University of West Georgia
37PUBLICATIONS586CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Barbara Kawulich on 08 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
CHAPTER 3
Selecting a research approach: paradigm, methodology and methods
Bagele Chilisa
Barbara Kawulich
Once you have a topic in mind to study, you must consider how you want to go about investigating it.
Your approach will depend upon how you think about the problem and how it can be studied, such
that the findings are credible to you and others in your discipline. Every researcher has his/her own
view of what constitutes truth and knowledge. These views guide our thinking, our beliefs, and our
assumptions about society and ourselves, and they frame how we view the world around us, which is
what social scientists call a paradigm (Schwandt, 2001). In his monograph The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962), Thomas Kuhn used the term ‘paradigm’ in two ways:
1. to represent a particular way of thinking that is shared by a community of scientists in
solving problems in their field and
2. to represent the “commitments, beliefs, values, methods, outlooks and so forth
shared across a discipline” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 183-4).
A paradigm is a way of describing a world view that is informed by philosophical assumptions about
the nature of social reality (known as ontology – that is, what do we believe about the nature of
reality?), ways of knowing (known as epistemology – that is, how do we know what we know?), and
ethics and value systems (known as axiology – that is, what do we believe is true?) (Patton, 2002). A
paradigm thus leads us to ask certain questions and use appropriate approaches to systematic inquiry
(known as methodology – that is, how should we study the world?). Ontology relates to whether we
believe there is one verifiable reality or whether there exist multiple, socially constructed realities
(Patton, 2002). Epistemology inquires into the nature of knowledge and truth. It asks the following
questions: What are the sources of knowledge? How reliable are these sources? What can one
know? How does one know if something is true? For instance, consider that some people think that
A paradigm is a shared world view that represents the beliefs and
values in a discipline and that guides how problems are solved
(Schwandt, 2001).

2
the notion that witches exist is just a belief. Epistemology asks further questions: Is a belief true
knowledge? Or is knowledge only that which can be proven using concrete data? For example, if you
say witches exist, what is the source of your evidence? What methods can you use to find out about
their existence? Together, these paradigmatic aspects help to determine the assumptions and beliefs
that frame a researcher’s view of a research problem, how he/she goes about investigating it, and the
methods he/she uses to answer the research questions.
The objectives of this chapter are to:
1. Describe the following paradigms: positivism/post-positivism,
constructivism/interpretativism, transformative/emancipatory and postcolonial
indigenous research paradigm.
2. Describe philosophical assumptions about perceptions of reality, what counts as truth
and value systems in each of the paradigms.
3. Demonstrate the relationship between paradigm and methodology.
PARADIGM, METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
Particular paradigms may be associated with certain methodologies. For example, as will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter, a positivistic paradigm typically assumes a quantitative
methodology, while a constructivist or interpretative paradigm typically utilizes a qualitative
methodology. This is not universally the case, however; there are instances in which one may pursue
an interpretative study using a quantitative methodology. No one paradigmatic or theoretical
framework is ‘correct’ and it is your choice to determine your own paradigmatic view and how that
informs your research design to best answer the question under study. How you view what is real,
what you know and how you know it, along with the theoretical perspective(s) you have about the
topic under study, the literature that exists on the subject, and your own value system work together to
help you select the paradigm most appropriate for you to use (See Figure 3.1).

3
Figure 3.1 Factors influencing the choice of a paradigm
The methodology summarizes the research process, that is, how the research will proceed. Deciding
on a methodology starts with a choice of the research paradigm that informs the study. The
methodological process, therefore, is guided by philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality,
knowledge, and values and by the theoretical framework that informs comprehension, interpretation,
choice of literature and research practice on a given topic of study (see Figure 3.2). Methodology is
where assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge, values, and theory and practice on a
given topic come together. Figure 3.2 illustrates the relationship. Methods are the means used for
gathering data and are an important part of the methodology.

4
Figure 3.2 Methodology as convergence of three parts
Building the methodology of a study begins with a standpoint on the following questions:
Paradigm: What paradigm informs your methodology? To help you determine which paradigms may
fit your beliefs about truth, we will discuss some prevalent paradigms later in this chapter.
Theoretical Framework: What theories inform the choice of your research topic, the research
questions you ask, the literature reviewed, data collection methods, analysis and
interpretation?
Research Approach: What research approach is called for, based on the research questions
developed from the theoretical framework?
Data collection: What types and sources of data might you be able to use to help answer your
research questions? What are the best ways to collect data for your study? What
assumptions guide the choice of selection of participants in the study (sampling), the setting
of the study, and the techniques of data collection?
Data Analysis: How does theory inform your approach to data analysis and interpretation?
Ethics: What are the ethical considerations for your study, based on the paradigm, theoretical
framework, research approach, data collection and analysis?
Validity: By what and whose standards are the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of
research findings deemed valid and reliable?

5
PARADIGMS AND PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS
What follows is a discussion of the positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, transformative, and
postcolonial indigenous paradigms, along with the philosophical assumptions about perceptions of
reality, what counts as truth, and the value systems in each of these paradigms. It is important to note
that a number of philosophers working over a long period of time contributed towards the thinking,
knowledge, and worldviews embodied in each paradigm.
See Table 3.1 for a summary of the paradigms selected for comparison; the list is not exhaustive. The
paradigms chosen for discussion in this chapter are simply some of the most frequently used
frameworks of assumptions.
Table 3.1 Comparison of selected paradigms (Chilisa, 2011)
POSITIVIST/
POST-
POSITIVIST
PARADIGM
CONSTRUCTIVIST/
INTERPRETATIVE
PARADIGM
TRANSFORMATIVE/
EMANCIPATORY
PARADIGM
POSTCOLONIAL/
INDIGENOUS
RESEARCH
PARADIGM
Reason for
doing the
research
To discover
laws that are
generalizable
and govern the
universe
To understand and
describe human
nature
To destroy myths
and empower people
to change society
radically
To challenge
deficit thinking
and pathological
descriptions of the
former colonized
and reconstruct a
body of
knowledge that
carries hope and
promotes
transformation
and social change
among the
historically
oppressed
Philosophical
underpinnings
Informed
mainly by
realism,
idealism and
critical realism
Informed by
hermeneutics and
phenomenology
Informed by critical
theory, postcolonial
discourses, feminist
theories, race-
specific theories and
neo-Marxist theories
Informed by
indigenous
knowledge
systems, critical
theory,
postcolonial
discourses,
feminist theories,
critical race-

6
specific theories
and neo-Marxist
theories
Ontological
assumptions
One reality,
knowable
within
probability
Multiple socially
constructed realties
Multiple realties
shaped by social,
political, cultural,
economic, race,
ethnic, gender and
disability values
Socially
constructed
multiple realities
shaped by the set
of multiple
connections that
human beings
have with the
environment, the
cosmos, the living
and the non-living
Place of
values in the
research
process
Science is
value free, and
values have no
place except
when choosing
a topic
Values are an
integral part of
social life; no
group’s values are
wrong, only different
All science must
begin with a value
position; some
positions are right,
some are wrong.
All research must
be guided by a
relational
accountability that
promotes
respectful
representation,
reciprocity and
rights of the
researched
Nature of
knowledge
Objective Subjective;
idiographic
Dialectical
understanding aimed
at critical praxis
Knowledge is
relational and is
all the indigenous
knowledge
systems built on
relations
What counts
as truth
Based on
precise
observation
and
measurement
that is
verifiable
Truth is context
dependent
It is informed by a
theory that unveils
illusions
It is informed by
the set of multiple
relations that one
has with the
universe
Methodology Quantitative;
correlational;
quasi-
experimental;
experimental;
causal
comparative;
survey
Qualitative;
phenomenology;
ethnographic;
symbolic interaction;
naturalistic
Combination of
quantitative and
qualitative action
research;
participatory
research
Participatory,
liberating, and
transformative
research
approaches and
methodologies
that draw from
indigenous
knowledge
systems
Techniques of
gathering
data
Mainly
questionnaires,
observations,
tests and
experiments
Mainly interviews,
participant
observation,
pictures,
photographs,
diaries and
documents
A combination of
techniques in the
other two paradigms
Techniques based
on philosophic
sagacity, ethno
philosophy,
language
frameworks,
indigenous
knowledge
systems and talk
stories and talk
circles

7
Positivism/Post-positivism paradigm
Positivism (also known as logical positivism) holds that the scientific method is the only way to
establish truth and objective reality. Can you imagine using scientific methods to carry out research on
witches? The positivists would conclude that, since the scientific method does not yield any tangible
results on the nature of witches, then witches do not exist. Positivism is based upon the view that
science is the only foundation for true knowledge. It holds that the methods, techniques and
procedures used in the natural sciences offer the best framework for investigating the social world.
The term ‘positivism’ was coined by Auguste Compte to reflect a strict empirical approach in which
claims about knowledge are based directly on experience; it emphasizes facts and the causes of
behaviour (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Compte sought to distinguish between empirical knowledge and
knowledge derived from metaphysics or theology; he proposed that scientific knowledge was more
representative of truth than that derived from metaphysical speculation (Schwandt, 2001, p. 199).
Positivism typically applies the scientific method to the study of human action. Positivism today is
viewed as being objectivist – that is, objects around us have existence and meaning, independent of
our consciousness of them (Crotty, 1998). The middle part of the 20
th century saw a shift from
positivism to post-positivism.
Post-positivism
Physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr chipped away at the dogmatic view of positivism,
turning the emphasis from absolute certainty to probability; they portrayed the scientist as one who
constructs knowledge, instead of just passively noting the laws of nature (Crotty, 1998). Their
argument is that “no matter how faithfully the scientist adheres to scientific method research, research
outcomes are neither totally objective, nor unquestionably certain” (Crotty, 1998, p. 40). This view is
known as post-positivism (or logical empiricism); it describes a less strict form of positivism. Logical
empiricists (or post-positivists) support the idea that social scientists and natural scientists share the
same goals for research and employ similar methods of investigation.
Post-positivism is influenced by a philosophy called critical realism (Trochim, 2002). It can be
distinguished from positivism according to whether the focus is on theory verification (positivism) or on

8
theory falsification (postpositivism) (Ponterotto, 2005). Guba and Lincoln (1994) share an example to
explain this difference in which, as they put it, a million white swans cannot prove that all swans are
white, but one black swan can disprove this contention. The post-positivists, like the positivists,
believe that there is a reality independent of our thinking that can be studied through the scientific
method. Critical realism, however, recognizes that observations may involve error and that theories
can be modified (Trochim, 2002). Reality cannot be known with certainty. Observations are theory-
laden and influenced by the observer’s biases and worldview. For example, two people may observe
the same event and understand it differently, based upon their own experiences and beliefs.
Objectivity can nevertheless be achieved by using multiple measures and observations and
triangulating the data to gain a clearer understanding of what is happening in reality. It is important to
note that the post-positivists share a lot in common with positivists, but most of the research
approaches and practices in social science today fit better into the post-positivist category. In the
discussion below, the two are treated as belonging to the same family.
Assumptions about the Nature of Reality, Knowledge and Values
Let us look closely at the positivist/post-positivist assumptions about the nature of reality (ontology),
knowledge (epistemology) and values (axiology).
Ontology: On the question of what is the nature of reality, positivists hold that there is a single,
tangible reality that is relatively constant across time and setting (known as naïve realism). Part of the
researcher’s duty is to discover this reality. Positivists believe that reality is objective and independent
of the researcher’s interest in it. It is measurable and can be broken into variables. Post-positivists
concur that reality does exist but maintain that it can be known only imperfectly because of the
researcher’s human limitations (known as critical realism). The researcher can discover reality within
a certain realm of probability (Mertens, 2009; Ponterotto, 2005).
Epistemology: For the positivist, the nature of knowledge is inherent in the natural science paradigm.
Positivists view knowledge as those statements of belief or fact that can be tested empirically, can be
confirmed and verified or disconfirmed, and are stable and can be generalized (Eichelberger, 1989).
Knowledge constitutes hard data, is objective and, therefore, independent of the values, interest and
feelings of the researcher. Positivists believe that researchers only need the right data gathering
instrument or tools to produce absolute truth for a given inquiry. The research approaches are

9
quantitative and include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, causal comparative, and
survey designs. The techniques of gathering data are mainly questionnaires, observations, tests and
experiments. Within this context, the purpose of research is to discover laws and principles that
govern the universe and to predict behaviours and situations. Post-positivists believe that perfect
objectivity cannot be achieved but is approachable.
Axiology: For the positivist, all inquiries should be value-free. The researchers should use the
scientific methods of gathering data to achieve objectivity and neutrality during the inquiry process.
Post-positivists, however, modified the belief that the researcher and the subject of study were
independent by recognizing that the theories, hypothesis and background knowledge held by the
investigator can strongly influence what is observed, how it is observed and the outcome of what is
observed.
Methodology: In the positivism/post-positivism paradigm, the purpose of research is to predict
results, test a theory, or find the strength of relationships between variables or a cause and effect
relationship. Quantitative researchers begin with ideas, theories or concepts that are defined as they
are used in the study to point to the variables of interest. The problem statement at minimum specifies
the variables to be studied and the relationship among them. Variables also are operationally defined
to enable others to replicate, verify and confirm the results. Operationally defining a variable means
that the trait to be measured is defined according to the way it is used or measured or observed in the
study. Typical methodologies include designs that are experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational,
causal comparative, quantitative and randomized control trials research. Data gathering instruments
include questionnaires, observations, experiments and tests. Chapter 8 discusses quantitative
designs in more detail.
The Constructivist/Interpretativist paradigm
Constructivism and interpretativism are related concepts that address understanding the world as
others experience it. Constructivists differ from the positivists on assumptions about the nature of
reality, what counts as knowledge and its sources, values and their role in the research process. The
constructivist approach can be traced back to Edmund Husserl’s philosophy of phenomenology (the
study of human consciousness and self-awareness; see chapters 9 and 15) and to the German
philosopher Wilhem Dilthey’s philosophy of hermeneutics (hermeneutics is the study of interpretation
and was elaborated upon in later years by Martin Heidegger and Max Weber) (Eichelberger, 1989;

10
Neuman, 1997). Let us examine these, and the related assumptions on ontology, epistemology,
axiology and methodologies used in the constructivist paradigm.
Ontology: On the question of what is reality, the interpretativists believe that it is socially constructed
(Creswell, 2003; Mertens, 2009) and that there are as many intangible realities as there are people
constructing them. Reality is, therefore, mind dependent and a personal or social construct. Do you
believe, for instance, that witches exist? If you do, it is your personal reality, a way in which you try to
make sense of the world around you. Reality is, in this sense, limited to context, space, time and
individuals or group in a given situation and cannot be generalized into one common reality. These
assumptions are a direct challenge to the positivist’s assumption about the existence of a tangible
external reality. The assumptions legitimize conceptions of realities from all cultures. There are
individual realities as well as group-shared realities. Of interest is how these assumptions about the
nature of reality are built into the research process.
Epistemology: Constructivists believe that knowledge is subjective, because it is socially constructed
and mind dependent. Truth lies within the human experience. Statements on what is true or false are,
therefore, culture bound, historically and context dependent, although some may be universal. Within
this context, communities’ stories, belief systems and claims of spiritual and earth connections find
space as legitimate knowledge.
Axiology: Constructivists assert that, since reality is mind constructed and mind dependent and
knowledge subjective, social inquiry is in turn value-bound and value-laden. You are inevitably
influenced by your values, which inform the paradigm you choose for inquiry, the choice of topic you
study, the methods you choose to collect and analyse data, how you interpret the findings and the
way you report the findings. As a constructivist researcher, you admit the value-laden nature of the
study and report your values and biases related to the topic under study that may interfere with
neutrality.
Methodology: The purpose of interpretative research is to understand people’s experiences. The
research takes place in a natural setting where the participants make their living. The purpose of the
study expresses the assumptions of the interpretativist researcher in attempting to understand human
experiences. Assumptions about the multiplicity of realities also inform the research process. For
instance, the research questions may not be established before the study begins but rather may
evolve as the study progresses (Mertens, 2009). The research questions are generally open-ended,

11
descriptive and non-directional (Creswell, 2003). A typical model includes a “grand tour” question
followed by a small number of sub-questions (Spradley, 1979). The grand tour question is a statement
of the problem that is examined in the study in its broadest form, posed as a general issue, so as not
to limit the inquiry (Creswell, 2003). The sub-questions are used as guides for the methodology and
methods used to enable the researcher to answer the broad-based grand tour question.
You, the researcher, gather most of the data. In recognition of the assumption about the subjective
nature of research, you will need to describe yourself, your values, ideological biases, relationship to
the participants and closeness to the research topic. Access and entry to the study site are important
and sensitive issues that need to be addressed (Kawulich, 2011). You also have to establish trust,
rapport and authentic communication patterns with the participants so that you can capture the subtle
nuances of meaning from their voices (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Ethics is an important issue that the
researcher addresses throughout the study whenever it arises (cf Chapter 5). Common designs
include ethnography, phenomenology, biography, case study and grounded theory (Creswell, 2003),
several of which are discussed further in Chapter 10. Data gathering techniques are selected,
depending on the choice of design, the nature of the respondents and the research problem. They
include interviews, observations, visual aids, personal and official documents, photographs, drawings,
informal conversations, and artifacts.
Transformative/Emancipatory paradigm
There are scholars who criticize both the positivist/post-positivist and the interpretative paradigms.
Some scholars (i.e., Gillian, 1982) argue that most research studies that inform sociological and
psychological theories were developed by white male intellectuals on the basis of studying male
subjects. In the United States, African Americans argue that research-driven policies and projects
have not benefited them, because they were racially biased (Mertens, 2009). In Africa, some scholars
(e.g., Chambers, 1997; Escobar, 1995; Mshana, 1992) argue that the dominant research paradigms
have marginalized African communities’ ways of knowing and have thus led to the design of research-
driven development projects that are irrelevant to the needs of the people, a sentiment echoed by
indigenous scholars in the West (e.g., Fixico, 1998; Mihesuah, 2005). A third paradigm,
transformative or emancipatory research, which includes critical social science research (Neuman,
1997), participatory action research (Mertler, 2005; Mills, 2007; Stringer & Dwyer, 2005) and feminist

12
designs (Merriam & Simpson, 2000) and research with the aim to emancipate (Lather, 1992), has
emerged. The term transformative paradigm denotes a family of research designs influenced by
various philosophies and theories with a common theme of emancipating and transforming
communities through group action (Mertens, 2009). One of the influential theories is Marxism. The
German philosopher Karl Marx believed that those who controlled the means of production, that is,
the ruling class, also controlled the mental production of knowledge and ideas. Inevitably, the
knowledge produced perpetuates the domination of other social classes by the ruling class. The
theory also helps to explain the dominance of Western research paradigms and the marginalization of
knowledge produced in other cultures. Other theories within this paradigm include critical theory,
feminist theories, Freirian theory, race-specific theories and post-colonial theories.
Ontology: The transformative paradigm adopts the stance that social reality is historically bound and
is constantly changing, depending on social, political, cultural and power based factors (Neuman,
1998). Like the positivists/post-positivists, scholars within this paradigm adopt the stance that reality is
out there to be discovered. They differ from the positivists/post-positivists, however, in that they
believe that social reality is constantly changing. Reality has multiple layers -- the surface reality that
is visible and the deep structures that are unobservable. Theories and a historical orientation help to
unmask the deep structures.
Epistemology: On the question of what is truth, the researchers within this paradigm maintain that
knowledge is true, if it can be turned into practice that empowers and transforms the lives of the
people. Theory is the basic tool that helps the researcher to find new facts. The facts are built into
theory that is consistently improved by relating it to practice (Neuman, 1998). True knowledge in this
context lies in the collective meaning-making by the people, which can inform individual and group
action that improves the lives of the people. Knowledge is constructed from the participants’ frame of
reference. The relationship between the researcher and the researched is not based on a power
hierarchy as it may be in the interpretative paradigm, but involves a transformation and emancipation
of both participant and researcher.
Axiology: Researchers who adopt the transformative paradigm view research as a moral and political
activity that requires them to choose and commit themselves to a value position. Researchers achieve
objectivity by reflecting and examining their values to ensure that they are appropriate for carrying out

13
the research study. Unlike in the interpretative paradigm where every viewpoint is correct, some views
will be wrong, while others will be right.
Methodology: In the transformative paradigm, the purpose of research is to destroy myth, illusions,
and false knowledge and empower people to act to transform society. Quantitative as well as
qualitative methods are used in the research process. Techniques of collecting data and sampling
procedures used in quantitative and qualitative studies are employed. Participants are involved in
identifying the problem, defining the problem, collecting and analysing the data, disseminating the
findings and using the findings to inform practice. Common designs are the participatory rural
appraisal approach and action research.
A Postcolonial Indigenous paradigm
Chilisa (2005) has discussed postcolonial indigenous research paradigm as a world view that focuses
on the shared aspects of ontology, epistemology, axiology and research methodologies of
disempowered or historically oppressed social groups. Postcolonial indigenous researchers have
conducted research in former colonized societies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and with indigenous
peoples in Australia, Canada, the U.S.A. and other parts of the world. In his book Research is
Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods, Wilson (2008) describes a research paradigm shared by
indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia as a paradigm informed by relational ontologies,
relational epistemologies and relational accountability. The postcolonial indigenous paradigm has
blossomed in recent years as a means for hearing non-Western voices and emancipating the voices
of formerly oppressed generations from silence imposed by colonization (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). It
provides a means for valuing indigenous knowledge systems and philosophies (Chilisa, 2011; Chilisa
& Preece, 2005; Smith, 1999).
Assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge and values
Ontology: Ontology is that body of knowledge that deals with the essential characteristics of what it
means to exist. In a relational ontology the social reality that is investigated can be understood in
relation to the connections that human beings have with the living and the non-living. The thrust of the
discussion is that, among the indigenous and former colonised societies, people are ‘beings’ with
many relations and many connections. They have connections with the living and the non-living, with
land, with earth, with animals and with other beings. There is an emphasis on I/We relationships as

14
opposed to the Western I/You relationship with its emphasis on the individual. Among the Bantu
people of Southern Africa, for example, one of the views of ‘being’ is the conception that ‘nthu, nthu
ne banwe’ (Ikalanaga/Shona version). An English translation that comes close to the principle is: “I
am we; I am, because we are; we are, because I am” (Goduka, 2000); a person is because of others.
Communality, collectivity, social justice, human unity and pluralism are implicit in this principle. Reality
implies a set of relationships.
Epistemology: A relational epistemology is all the ‘systems of knowledge built on relationships’
(Wilson, 2008, p.74). Wilson explains the difference between an indigenous and a dominant research
paradigm thusly:
The major difference between those dominant paradigms and an Indigenous
paradigm is that those dominant paradigms build on the fundamental belief that
knowledge is an individual entity: the researcher is an individual in search of
knowledge, knowledge is something that is gained and therefore knowledge may be
owned by an individual. An indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief
that knowledge is relational. Knowledge is shared with all of creation. It is not just
interpersonal relationships, or just with the research subjects I may be working with,
but it is a relationship with all of creation. It is with the cosmos; it is with the animals,
with plants, with the earth that we share this knowledge. It goes beyond the
individual’s knowledge to the concept of relational knowledge….you are answerable
to all your relations when you are doing research (p. 56).
Some of the techniques of gathering data emanating from a relational epistemology include methods
that are based on language frameworks, talk stories and talk circles and indigenous knowledge
systems, in general.
Axiology: The postcolonial indigenous paradigm emphasizes respect for marginalized groups’ belief
systems and equality in the relationships between researcher and participants. It has much in
common with the values of critical theory, which Jurgen Habermas promoted in his work at the
Frankfurt School, where he focused his work on those societal forces that address domination and
restrictions of freedom. Postcolonial researchers value cultural ways of understanding the world and
emphasize the use of oral histories, social justice and healing methods, sharing circles, and songs as
examples of useful methods (Chilisa and Ntseane, 2010, provide additional discussion about
indigenous paradigms from a feminist theoretical perspective).
Selecting a research paradigm and research methods

15
Designing research studies begins with selecting a topic and a paradigm that reflects the framework
of beliefs and values for investigating that topic. Dash (2005, p. 4) provides several questions you
should ask in selecting a paradigm and methodology:
1. What is the nature or essence of the social phenomena being investigated?
2. Are social phenomena objective in nature or created by the human mind?
3. What are the bases of knowledge corresponding to the social reality, and how can knowledge
be acquired and disseminated?
4. What is the relationship of an individual with her environment? Is she conditioned by the
environment or is the environment created by her?
From the answers to these questions, you can then determine which paradigm your questions fit into
and select the methodology that is most appropriate. Refer back to table 4.1 for assistance in
answering these questions. Once you determine the paradigm that most closely relates to your way of
thinking about the topic, you can use the table to give you ideas about how to design your study.
Students will sometimes say, “I want to do a quantitative study, because I prefer numbers.”
This is the wrong way to determine an approach for your study. Each paradigm shown in table 4.1
illustrates different reasons why it would be appropriate. It may be that your research question calls
for hypothesis testing – that is, you want to test the theory that something is generalizable to the rest
of the world. This would call for a positivist approach to research. In a separate example, you may
think to yourself that you want to understand some phenomenon from the perspectives of those who
have experienced it; this would be appropriately answered within a constructivist/interpretativist
paradigm. Let us say that you and other community members wish to work together to discover how
local regulations may be instituted to impact the crime rate; this stance would call for a transformative/
emancipatory paradigm. In another example, you may want to explore how elders’ knowledge can be
incorporated into public school curricula in South Africa; this would be in line with the
postcolonial/indigenous research paradigm. Once you have identified the paradigm in which your
research question fits, the other aspects of table 4.1 will assist you in determining what an appropriate
research design would be.
A Note about Rhetoric
Researchers using a particular paradigm tend to describe the study and its findings in certain ways
(known as rhetoric – that is, what language is employed to persuade or inform?) (Firestone,1987).

16
The focus of your inquiry may be defined as either idiographic or nomothetic. Idiographic means that
the study emphasises the individual as a complex entity, and the writing is very descriptive and
detailed. Nomothetic relates to people in general, and focuses on prediction and explanation that
relates to the general population (Ponterotto, 2005).
Since positivist paradigms focus on objectivity in data collection, the research design (typically
quantitative) and related instruments used to collect data are chosen to alleviate potential bias and
error. Interpretativist and constructivist paradigms lean more toward use of qualitative approaches and
emphasize the existence of multiple realities. Findings in these studies typically rely on in-depth
descriptions that help to explain the situation being studied. Some researchers describe quantitative
studies as using numbers and qualitative studies as using words, though this is not always the case.
Another difference in how you describe your study, depending upon the paradigm within which you
are working, may include whether you refer to those people who participate in the study as subjects
(quantitative) or participants (qualitative). Communication and literacy studies provide another way of
differentiation in the presentation of your findings. Etic studies (from the word phonetic) focus on
“universal laws and behaviors that transcend nations and cultures and apply to all humans,” while
emic (from the word phonemic) refers to constructs that are unique to the individual and have a
sociocultural basis (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 128). This may be further viewed in this way: an etic
perspective would present the findings from the viewpoint of the researcher, while an emic
perspective would present findings using the words of the participants themselves to illustrate their
perspective. These and other differences in terminology and how you explain your study affect how
the reader will interpret its quality.
Rhetoric also relates to how you persuade the reader that your findings are valid. In a
quantitative/positivist study, you stress those things that you did to convince the reader that you used
established procedures and did not simply rely on your own judgement (Firestone, 1987). This means
including a full description of the sample, the methods used to collect data, the statistical procedures
used to analyse them and the results of the study. Similarly, in a qualitative study, whether within the
constructivist/interpretativist, transformative, or post-colonial indigenous framework, the emphasis is
on persuading the reader that the findings resulted from the data and were not simply made up by the
researcher. You will need to provide rich description of your procedures and resulting findings,

17
typically including quotes or other data to substantiate the veracity of your findings. Rhetoric stems
from the particular paradigm within which you have chosen to work. “In the positivist and postpositivist
positions, in which objectivity and a detached, emotionally neutral research role prevails, rhetoric is
precise and ‘scientific,’ presented in an objective manner. By marked contrast, in the constructivist
and criticalist stances, in which a subjective and interactive researcher role prevails, the rhetoric of the
final research report is in the first person and is often personalized,” including information about the
researcher’s own biases and experiences in the research (Ponterotto, 2005, p. 132). Chapter 17 will
give you more information about aspects of rhetoric to help you make your argument.
TEST YOUR UNDERSTANDING
In the following examples, determine which paradigm the example fits and what methodology would
be appropriate. Justify your answer.
1. A study to determine whether there is a relationship between students’ entrance exam scores
and their grade in an introductory maths course.
2. A study of health centre personnel’s attitudes toward the use of placebo therapy in the case of
malarial diseases.
3. A study to determine how community leaders can address the increasing crime rate in a
suburban area.
4. An investigation of the differences in the number of highway accidents following a national
push for seatbelt use.
5. A study of the factors that affect migration into city centres from rural areas.
6. An investigation of women’s perceptions of the usefulness of available prenatal care services
in one neighbourhood.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes four prominent paradigms used to guide research. Each is described within
a framework of its epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology. Methods of data collection
typically used for each are also included.
Positivists and post-positivists view reality as being objective and knowable. Such research is
value free and based on precise observation and verifiable measurement. Typical research

18
designs include quantitative approaches, such as experimental and quasi-experimental
research, correlational research, and causal comparative research.
Constructivists or interpretativists view reality as being socially constructed and hold that
there are multiple realities. Knowledge is subjective and idiographic, and truth is dependent
upon the context. This paradigm is value-laden and emphasizes that values influence how we
think and behave, as well as what we find to be important. Typical research designs are
qualitative approaches, such as phenomenology, ethnography, symbolic interaction, and
other naturalistic designs.
Transformative or emancipatory research focuses on the view that reality is shaped by
culture, politics, economics, race, gender, ethnicity, and disability. Values are considered to
be important, particularly as values and beliefs differ from one culture to the next. Knowledge
and understanding are aimed at critical praxis. Typical research designs may involve
quantitative and/or qualitative approaches, such as action research and participatory
research.
Postcolonial Indigenous research emphasizes reality as being socially constructed with
multiple realities, based on the relationships humans have with each other and the world
around them, both living and non-living. Values of reciprocity, respect, and representation are
emphasized. Knowledge is derived from relationships and drawn from indigenous knowledge
systems. Typical research designs include participatory, transformative, or indigenous
approaches.
CHAPTER REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is the view of reality for each of the four paradigms discussed in this chapter?
2. What place do values hold in each of the four paradigms discussed in this chapter?
3. What types of knowledge are valued in each of the four paradigms discussed in this chapter?
REFERENCES
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and
methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

19
Chilisa, B. (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: a critique of HIV/AIDS research in
Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), p. 659-684.
Chilisa, B. (2011). Indigenous Research Methodologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chilisa, B., & Ntseane, G. (2010). Resisting dominant discourses: Implications of indigenous, African
feminist theory and methods for gender and education research. Gender and Education, 22
(6), 617-632.
Chilisa B., & Preece J. (2005). Research Methods for Adult Educators in Africa. Cape Town: Pearson
Education.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London: Sage.
Dash, N.K. (2005). Module: Selection of the research paradigm and methodology. Online Research
Methods Resource for Teachers and Trainers. Retrieved from
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/index.php.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3 rd edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eichelberger, R.T. (1989). Disciplined inquiry: Understanding and doing educational research. New
York: Longman.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research.
Educational Researcher, 16 (7), 16-21.
Fixico, D.L. (1998). Ethics and responsibilities in writing American Indian history. In D.A. Mihesuah
(Ed.). Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians, (pp. 84-99).
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

20
Goduka, I.N. (2000). African Indigenous philosophies: legitimizing spiritually centred wisdoms within
the academy. In P. Higgs, N.C.G Vakalisa, T.V. Mda, & N.T. Assie-Lumumba (Eds.). African
Voices in Education (pp. 63-83). Cape Town: Juta.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kawulich, B.B. (2011). Gatekeeping: An ongoing adventure in research. Field Methods Journal, 23(1),
57-76.
Lather P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives.
Theory in Practice, 31(2), 87-99.
Merriam, S.B. & Simpson, E.L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers for adults (2 nd
ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Mertens, D. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: The Guilford Press.
Mertler, C.A. (2005). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mihesuah, D.A. (2005). So you want to write about American Indians? A guide for writers, students,
and scholars. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Mills, G.E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mshana, R.R. (1992). Insisting upon people’s knowledge to resist developmentalism: peasant
communities as producers of knowledge for social transformation in Tanzania. Erziehung und
Gesellschaft im Internationalen Kontext 9.
Neuman, W.L. (1997). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 126-136.
Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed
Books.

21
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Stringer, E., & Dwyer, R. (2005). Action research in human services. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research as ceremony: indigenous research methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood
Press.
View publication statsView publication stats