Exploring Research Paradigms: A Guide to Methodology and Methods

This document provides a detailed overview of selecting a research approach by examining various paradigms, methodologies, and methods. It begins by defining a paradigm as a shared worldview influenced by philosophical assumptions about social reality, ways of knowing, and value systems. The review explores several paradigms, including positivism/post-positivism, constructivism/interpretativism, transformative/emancipatory, and postcolonial indigenous research paradigms, detailing their philosophical underpinnings, ontological assumptions, and epistemological considerations. The document emphasizes the relationship between paradigm and methodology, highlighting how paradigms inform the research process, theoretical frameworks, data collection, analysis, and ethical considerations. It also discusses the shift from positivism to post-positivism, influenced by critical realism, and includes a comparison table summarizing the key aspects of each paradigm. The document concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding these paradigms in shaping research design and answering research questions effectively. Desklib is a valuable platform for students seeking similar solved assignments and study resources.

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