Over many centuries ago, there was just but one research paradigm. As reflected by Kuhn (1962, p. 25), ‘scientific achievement’ stemmed from one source, which is presently called natural science to distinguish them from the social science’. Smith et al (2011) further explained that until the 19th century, research had only focused on inanimate objects in the physical world such as physics, which for example, focuses on properties of matter and energy and the interaction between them. The systematically organized methods used by these scientists involved observation and experiment accompanied by deductive logic in discovering and confirming instructive theories that could be used for prediction. Their beliefs about the world and nature of knowledge were based on
positivism, a concept developed by theorists such as Comte (1798-1857), Mill (1806- 1873) and Durkheim (1858-1917).
The advent of industrialization and capitalism influenced researchers and turn their attention to social phenomena. Initially, these new social scientists used methods established by the natural scientists, but this practice was challenged by a number of theorists leading to debates that lasted many decades (Smith et al., 2011). The substitute to positivism could somehow be labelled as interpretivism, which is based on the principles of idealism, a philosophy associated with Kant (1724-1804) and subsequently developed by Dilthey (1833-1911), Rickert (1863-1936) and Weber (1864-1920). This means that the emergence of social sciences paved way for the development of the second research paradigm. Figure 5.3 shows the two main traditional paradigms that were used before the emergence of modern research paradigms.
Positivism Interpretivism
Figure 5.3: A continuum of paradigms (Source: Doran, 2014) 5.4.1.1 Positivist
The historical development recounted above shows how positivism provided the framework for which a research is conducted in the natural sciences and the scientific methods that are still widely used in social science research today. Auguste Comte (1798- 1857) is believed to have coined the term ‘positivism’. He believed that legitimate knowledge could only be found from experience (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2014). According to Collis and Hussey (2014), positivism is underpinned by the principle that reality is independent of us and it aims to discover theories based on empirical research (observation and experiment). Knowledge is derived from ‘positive information’ once it can be scientifically verified. By this, Oates (2012) was trying to say that it is possible to logically or mathematically prove any rationally justifiable claim. Flowers (2009), agreeing to this position, presume the social world exists externally objective, and that knowledge is valid only if it is based on observations of this external reality. He also believes universal or general laws exist but argues that theoretical models can be
developed that could be generalized to explain cause-and-effect relationships and for predicting outcomes.
Positivism is supported by values of reason, truth and validity but its focus is purely on facts gathered through direct observation and experience, and empirically measured using quantitative methods (surveys and experiments) and statistical analysis (Blaikie, 1993; Saunders et al., 2014; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2015; Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). The positivist position is derived from that of natural science and is characterized by the testing of hypothesis developed from existing theory (hence deductive or theory testing) through measurement of observable social realities. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) explains it in an organizational context, stating that what really happens in organizations can only be exposed through categorization and scientific measurement of the behaviour of people and systems. Language is also truly considered representative of that reality.
Some researchers (Creswell, 2014 and Collis & Hussey, 2014) have however punched holes into positivism stating some perceived inadequacies listed below in their criticism.
It is impossible to separate people from the social contexts in which they exist. It is not easy to understand people without examining how they perceive their
world.
A highly structured research design imposes constraints on the results and may ignore other relevant findings.
Researchers are not objective, but part of what they observe. They bring their own interests and values to the research
Capturing complex phenomena in a single measure is misleading (for example, it is not possible to capture a person’s intelligence by assigning numerical values)
5.4.1.2 Interpretivist
Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) explains interpretivism as anti-positivism and by Blaikie (1993) as post-positivism since it is contended that there is a fundamental difference between the subject matters of natural and social sciences. Interpretivists believe that social reality lies in our individual minds, thus subjective and multiple. To Collis and
Hussey (2014), interpretivism is a school of thought that emerged in response to the criticisms of positivism. In the social world, it is argued that individuals and groups’ understanding to situations depend upon experiences, memories and expectations. In other words, meaning is constructed and constantly re-constructed over time through experience accompanied by various or multiple interpretations into creating a social reality by which people act.
Under this paradigm, it is apparently necessary to discover and understand these meanings notwithstanding the contextual factors that influence, determine and affect the interpretations reached by these different individuals. Interpretivists consider that there are multiple realities (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Since ‘all knowledge is relative to the knower’, Interpretivists in the context of their research academic experience try as much as possible to work alongside others as they make sense of, draw meaning from and create their realities in order to understand their points of view and to interpret these experiences (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). Hence, this becomes an inductive or theory building approach.
The focus of an interpretivist is to understand the meanings and interpretations of ‘social actors’ and therefore understanding their worldview is so highly contextual to be widely generalized (Saunders et al., 2012). Understanding what people think and how they feel and communicate (verbally or non-verbally) is important (Easterby-Smith et al., 2014). The subjective nature of this paradigm together with its emphasis on language qualifies it for the qualitative approach to data gathering (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2014). The researcher is expected to be close to the researched in this paradigm, and the risk this also poses in subjectively framing interpretations within the mind of the researcher requires some steps to be taken to avoid biases.
As was done to positivism, Hammersly (2013) also levelled some criticisms against interpretivism which are presented below:
Descriptions are too vague and inconsistent in providing a sound basis for comparing the orientations of different people and their characteristics within different situations.
It does not provide a means of showing how one set of factors, rather than another, plays key role in bringing about particular outcomes.
It encourages the study of a small number of cases, thereby failing to provide a platform for broader conclusion.
It is preoccupied with a coherent and newsworthy narrative, rather than checking the validity of the interpretations produced.
It presents the standpoint of the researcher, rather than that of the true response provided by the individuals being studied.
5.4.1.3 Assumptions of positivism and interpretivism
In designing a research project, we must consider the philosophical assumptions underlying both the positivism and interpretivism paradigms in order to ascertain whether the direction of the study broadly falls under any of these paradigms. This may change as the study progresses. Drawing from some other authors (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2012; Collis and Hussey 2014), a summary of assumptions of the two main paradigms is provided in table 5.1 below
Table 5.1: Assumptions of the two main paradigms
Philosophical assumptions Positivism Interpretivism
Ontological assumption
(the nature of reality)
Social reality is objective and external to the researcher. There is only one reality.
Social reality is subjective and constructed. There are multiple realties. Epistemological assumption (what constitutes valid knowledge) Knowledge comes by objective evidence through observation and measurable phenomena. The researcher is distant from phenomena under study.
Knowledge comes by subjective evidence of participants. The researcher interacts with phenomena under study.
Methodological
assumption (the process of research)
The researcher takes a deductive approach. The researcher studies cause and effect, uses a static design where categories are identified in advance. Generalizations lead to prediction, explanation and understanding. Results are accurate and reliable through validity and reliability. Use of large samples. Produce precise and quantitative data.
The researcher takes an inductive approach. The researcher studies the topic within its context and uses an emerging design where categories are identified during the process. Patterns and / or theories are
developed for
understanding. Findings are accurate and reliable through verification. Use of small sample size. Produce ‘rich’ and qualitative data.
Sources: Adapted from Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2014;
Saunders et al., 2012; Collis and Hussey 2014.
Collis & Hussey (2014) argue that for a model to be fully established, more modern approaches to research paradigms need to be explored. There are series of issues (debates and inconsistencies) with the traditional paradigms presented in this section which have also led to a series of new formulations based on the two classic opines. These are analysed before the research paradigm for this study is presented.