ANÁLISIS DE LOS RESULTADOS DE LAS PRUEBAS ADMINISTRADAS

In talking about the philosophical background of social science research, a few paradigms have to be mentioned. The concept of a “paradigm” was first introduced into the history and sociology of science by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. A paradigm is seen as a theoretical framework, “a word view, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world” (Patton, 1978, p. 203). It is “a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient thinking and research” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998, p. 22).

Guba (1990, p. 20) explained that paradigms can be viewed through three philosophical assumptions: ontology, epistemology and methodology. In starting from an ontological as- sumption, questions about “realism” need to be answered, for example, questions about the form and nature of reality, about how things really are and how things really work. From an epistemological stance, what these paradigms are looking for is “the nature of the rela- tionship between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known”. In other words, how does the knower know the would-be known? Guba and Lincoln (1994) argued that the answer to this question is constrained by the answer to the previous ontological question, as

it is important to know whether this relationship between the knower and would-be known really exist. From a methodology stance, the questions that need to be asked are through what kind of methods can the researcher go about finding out what ever s/he believes can be known? The answer to this question can also be constrained by the answers to the on- tological and epistemological questions as differences between these two perspectives may cause different views of the methods (ibid., p. 108).

There are many theoretical paradigms in social science, such as positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, constructivism and so on. In the following sections, two main paradigms, positivism and interpretivism, will be discussed.

4.2.1 The Positivist Paradigm

Positivism is often called the scientific paradigm. It is “based on the rationalistic, empiricist philosophy that originated with Aristotle, Francis Bacon, John Locke, August Comte, and Emmanuel Kant” (Mertens, 2005, p. 8). It is based on the belief that there is a reality that exists quite apart from our own perception of it, which can be understood and follows general laws. It seeks to uncover the “true” nature of reality and how it “truly” works with the ultimate aim being to predict and control natural phenomena (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 22). This realist ontology of the positivist leads to an objectivist epistemology. The inquirer and the inquired object are assumed to be independent entities, and the inquirer can study the object without influencing it or being influenced by it (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). The methodology of positivism tends to be experimental and manipulative. It is often described as “logical empiricism”, which is characterized by observation and measurement carried out in experimental contexts and in order to test hypotheses and increase control (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 23).

According to Bryman (1988), as positivism is based on a scientific approach to research, it uses highly structured research methodologies, such as social surveys, experiments, official statistics and “structured” observation.

Despite the fact that the positivist tradition has held a dominant position in science research for a long time, there has been a lot of challenges to and critiques of positivism in recent decades. Kuhn (1962, cited in Maykut and Morehouse 1994, p. 9) raised the point that the positivist paradigm can no longer answer the needs of all areas of research, “some new bits of information which have been verified by the methods of the science but which do not fit into the prevailing paradigms” (ibid., p. 9). Lincoln and Guba (1985) also explained the shift in research methods within the history of science with more detail in their book Naturalistic Inquiry. One of their strongest points is that positivism is deficient because it ignores the human respondents’ “humanness”, which has not only ethical but also validity implications (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 27).

4.2.2 The Interpretivist Paradigm

The interpretivist paradigm grew out of the philosophy of phenomenology and hermeneu- tics that originated from Edmund Husserl and Wilhelm Dilthey (Mertens, 2005, p. 12). Interpretivism, the opposite to positivism, holds that social reality is significantly socially constructed. “The recognition that subjective meanings play a crucial role in social actions. It aims to reveal interpretations and meanings” (Walliman, 2006, p. 15). It rejects the pri- macy of scientific realism, claiming that “‘reality’ resides neither with an objective external world nor with the subjective mind of the knower, but within dynamic transactions between the two” (Barone, 1992, p. 31). Walliman (2006, p. 20) claimed that social science re- searchers are “inextricably bound into the human situation which s/he is studying” rather than just observing phenomena from outside the system, which is normally what natural science researchers do.

The qualitative research methods in social science have arisen from the interprevism phi- losophy. These methods include participant observation, intensive interviewing, and focus groups that are designed to capture social life as participants experience it, rather than fit- ting it into categories predetermined by the researcher (Schutt, 2004, p. 15). Qualitative research data is treated mostly as written or spoken words, or observations which do not have a direct numerical interpretation (ibid., p. 15).

In order to present a clear comparison between positivist and interpretivist paradigms, a comparison originally produced by Cohen and Mannion (1994, p. 10-11) is shown in Table 4.1.

Dimensions of Comparisons Positivist Interpretivist Philosophical basis The world exists and is

knowable as it really is. Organizations are real en- tities with a life of their own.

The world exists but dif- ferent people construe it in very different ways. Organizations are in- vented social reality. The role of social science Discovering the universal

laws of society and hu- man conduct within it.

Discovering how differ- ent people interpret the world in which they live. Methods of understanding Identifying conditions or

relationships which per- mit the collectivity to ex- ist.

Conceiving what these conditions and relation- ships are.

Interpretation of the sub- jective meanings which individuals place upon their action.

Discovering the subjec- tive rules for such action. Methodology Abstraction of reality, es-

pecially through mathe- matical models and quan- titative analysis.

The representation of re- ality for purposes of com- parison.

Analysis of language and meaning.

Table 4.1: Comparison between positivist and interpretivist approaches. Source: Cohen and Mannion (1994, p. 10-11).

The next section will give a more detailed explanation of the methodology approaches of the positivist and interpretivist paradigms; quantitative and qualitative research; and how the researcher adopts these approaches for this study.