Comment on the very idea of paradigms in social science research. Does the idea of a paradigm seem too constraining or do you think it is a useful construct to help us to understand the role that our perspectives/approaches play in our ability to observe and understand our world. Not required, but feel free to watch the Monkey Business video in Module 4 (a refresher on the “Awareness Test” we took in class two weeks ago) and to write about what this does or doesn’t have to do with the idea of paradigms.
From Dana Rahbar-Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe question that comes to mind in terms of evoking and adopting a worldview as a researcher is “Why is this important?” When thinking about the nature and historical emergence of the different intellectual worldviews or paradigms that are now applied in social sciences research, I see several underlying factors possibly at work. These factors seem to relate in significant ways to our human striving for “meaning” or “sense-making” frameworks in what we experience as “life” together, perhaps especially in our professional endeavors. Personal identification and active alignment with one or more “self-adopted” paradigms or worldviews can provide an ongoing source of consistent direction and reflective coherence for the researcher in dealing with the complexities, uncertainties and “rabbit holes” that seem endemic in most, or maybe all, formal research pursuits. “Communities of practice” in the various scholarly and practitioner research fields also seem to benefit in certain situations from using the “short-hand” terminology of research paradigms to communicate a great deal about “where I am coming from as a researcher” to each other. Of course, as with any categorization language, it may also lead to inadvertent miscommunication and even estrangement between researchers where they have divergent understandings of, or attitudes toward, the content and implications of the referenced paradigm(s).
Reflecting on my experiences from repeated views of the Monkey Business video and how these experiences relate to choosing among the paradigms to identify with as a researcher, I can see how different “learning takeaways” could connect with different paradigms. For example, my initial viewing when I did not perceive a gorilla while counted basketball passes, and the subsequent viewings when I did see the gorilla and a color shift in the scene background (as prompted by the video narrator) seem to carry implications for both the postpositivist and constructionist orientations. On one side, the clear contrasts in my perceptions between viewings seem to align with the constructivist outlook that “objective” perceptual abilities are not how we function (perceptual bias is our human nature) and all perception is inevitably and substantially affected by surrounding influences (such as the narrator’s prompts). In essence, we often see what we are inclined and/or prepared to see. On the other hand, my ability to repeatedly count the same number of passes in the scene seems to argue for the postpositivist outlook that certain human behavioral patterns can be quantitatively investigated and discovered as objective “realities”, at least in reasonable approximations. In this instance, the question might be “How important is determining the actual number of basketball passes to generating a meaningful research finding and conclusion?”
Paradigm in Social Science Research
ReplyDeleteThe question is can we understand reality, or do we need to measure reality? So, the distinction is made either a positivist view or an interpretivist view. The core idea is that if there is a way, we could apply natural science methods to social sciences. The most simple route would be empiricist point of view. Which means that all knowledge we gain, we gain through our senses. So, everything should be observable and measurable. The elements in positivism is that it can be 1. deductivist (testing theories) 2. Inductivist (focus on theory building) 3. Hypothetical Deductivist (positivist focusing on deductivism), 4. Objectivity (value free researcher). Positivism in qualitative research is not quite often used. In interpretivist epistemology view, the focus lies with the meaning of social action. The dichotomy between positivist and interpretivist is way too simple. So, some more dimensions/paradigm are added.
One way of looking at knowledge is objectivity verses subjectivity, intersubjectivity versus subjectivity. Third dimension is verification verses falsification. Fourth dimension is empirical verses rational. Fifth dimension is Verstehen verses Explanation.
These dimensions/paradigms are simplifications of ways of knowing. Every research is somewhere in between. So, I think constructing paradigm help us to understand the role that our perspective play in our ability to understand the world better.
Monkey Business Video
Focus is necessary in order to confirm our findings. But there is problem in confirming like this. This is called ‘confirmation bias’. The focus was created and pinned down. In scientific literature, it is also ‘inattentional blindness’ or ‘inattentional bias’. Basically, it is we are not looking at something we are not looking for. And it is also related to another kind of blindness called ‘change blindness’.
I believe that they are helpful but we should not box ourselves into once way of viewing things. They all have usefulness and one might guide our initial thoughts, research, theories, etc. I look at them how I look at MBTI. They are all rooms in the same house and in order to be successful we need to be able to freely move about each room. With that said, we undoubtably will be more comfortable in one room than others. That room is where we will spend most of our time and probably do our best work from. Getting too comfortable will cause us to see our paradigm as right and not allow us to look from other perspectives and see the value that they bring.
ReplyDeleteThe monkey business video is a great illustration of paradigms. Most people would not notice the gorilla, curtain changing color and one person leaving on their first watch. It highlights both confirmation bias and blind spot bias. In our efforts to be “right” we often overlook important pieces of information that could help us.
This was the most concise look at paradigms in education I have seen so far in my program. I really wish I had started with this class! I guess baptism by fire works too! I had to laugh because I was able to really get a grasp the evolution of the paradigms when using Marvel Universe to discuss the spectrum and how someone or an idea can progress through the various paradigms. That is embarrassing, but I am what I am! I get very frustrated with the severe pendulum swings, and I talk about this all the time, and I can see a value in each one of the ontological and epistemological stances in all of the paradigms that James Paul discussed. Even Behaviorists have a small hold in some truth about the way people learn. I would not want to attend or work at a school that ONLY focused on Behaviorism; however, I think we need to look at the value of each in its own right and consider how they can be used together. We do need to look at them separately as researchers in order to be more analytical, but the truth is that educators pull from so many different paradigms when they teach that isolation of one isn’t ideal. When I watched the Monkey Business video I was reminded of an article I read last semester that I appreciated so much because it basically discussed the idea that the different paradigms were in a war that was damaging education and the advancement of education. The different groups were so focused on their own method, that they lost sight of what was important and missed many opportunities to work together in order to create more significant educational opportunities. I think the positivists started with something important and have some very important ideas about scientific research, and those ideas are essential in all of the other paradigms. The post positivists take the ideas and add their spin and put in what they feel is lacking in the very cut and dry scientific approach. Then we have the constructivists who still take the scientific approach in that they ask the questions and create the hypothesis. Their methods may be different, but I think the end result is similar. Then comes the critical theorists who, once again, still have to look at problems in a scientific way in order to make an assertion about the critique. The paradigms all build off of one another and I think what changes is the axiological stance on what they feel is most important. If we only focus on one thing; however, it limits our opportunities to see other things.
ReplyDeleteJackie Hopkins
On Paradigms:
ReplyDeleteI found this week’s reading (and a supplementary reading I did trying to get a better grasp on positivism/post-positivism: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/205699711201600104?casa_token=x5DonXAC2FgAAAAA:SmGn07-W7X-f7JgUPb7doAM6Uv8EuPidnQFaJL5GT01ZgwA3Pk4obt-91xDuxXXygWdoURNqHSE) to be helpful in elucidating these concepts that I’ve heard folks kick around in discussions of educational research. It seems to me that many people describe themselves in one way or another (eg: I’m a positivist, I’m a post-positivist), when the very idea of falling into a camp in some ways is counter to the ideas of many of these philosophies. After all, if there is no objective basis on which to observe or measure reality, than it’s not really possible to apply a label like that to an individual.
For myself, I wouldn’t say that I find the ideas of any given paradigm to be overly constrictive, so much as I find that their philosophical stance and positions in relationship to reality are undervaluing one of the key aspects of a scientific approach to understanding reality – skepticism. It is certainly not that skepticism of the ability to quantify reality isn’t endemic to many of these views, indeed it’s foundational. What I mean is that much of this talk about research positionality and the nature of reality, and when it is or isn’t possible to quantify reality seems to me to be predicated on a false construct that the goal of scientifically-driven research is to establish something as fact with hard and fast certainty. In the behaviorist tradition, we approach things from the standpoint of determinism – that anything that happens can, with the right tools, be measured, defined, and explained. It is a myth, however, that this logically leads to an assumption that anything can be perfectly predicted.
In some senses, this aligns with postpositivism – it puts us in search of evidence. In others, it puts us in line with constructivism. In others it is most aligned with pragmatism, as there is an understanding that our measures are imperfect. What I’m trying to get at by saying “undervaluing skepticism” is that it seems to me that these paradigms are striving for a higher level of reality than is necessary to make meaningful decisions. In the context of practical educational research, it can be enough to concern oneself with the bits of reality that our tools are adequate to measuring, and to leave the higher-order Reality in the realm of philosophy.
From Hui Sun
ReplyDeleteI have been away from school for nearly 20 years. What I have been exposed to is knowledge of economic management. Social science is very abstract to me. This week, I spent a lot of time learning about paradigms. In addition to Rallis & Rossman's book, I also learned about paradigms and theories with the help of Google search. For me, it's like a bunch of classification rules of chemical elements that I can't understand. I have to understand them before I can understand the chemical formula. A bunch of new names emerges, which are ontology, epistemology, methodology, and the paradigm consisting of positivism, constructivism, criticism, and postmodernism.
I come from China. My growing up background and educational experience required me to consciously use the Dialectical Laws of the development of the objective world to understand and transform the world, that is, materialist dialectics. Marxism and dialectical materialism may only exist in my memory. After searching and recalling, Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology of our country; materialist dialectics requires people to proceed from reality and seek truth from facts in their cognition and practice. We are also taught: "contradictions are everywhere, all the time. The contradiction is not only the deep foundation of the existence of things but also the internal basis of the development of things. " Therefore, for a long time, we had been taught that the main contradiction in China was no longer the contradiction between classes, but the contradiction between the people's growing material and cultural needs and the backward social production. Therefore, the focus of the government's work is to solve the problem of productivity development. This may be the first paradigm theory that I come into contact with, that is, the Marxist research paradigm. All these are created by China's special political background.
With the growth of age and experience, I will no longer simply evaluate a country's system by its political system. Especially after the global epidemic in 2020, the authoritarian countries we criticized in the past have shown good performance in the control of the epidemic. After I have learned the concept of paradigm, I think it is a useful concept, because it can provide a specific perspective to show my position and present the world I observe and understand. For example, with the help of the postmodernist paradigm, some people can question those complete denial of the centralized system's social role in the past. Monkey business video provides a good reference to narrow our focus to the appropriate level. If our problem is the number of passes by people in white clothes, what does it matter whether the gorilla appears or not? The focus of our discussion is not whether the gorilla disrupted the order of the court, but only how many times the people in white passed the ball. When the critical paradigm may think that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, postmodernists may ask whose power, inequality, change, reality, and truth are questioned. This is my first reflection on the concept of paradigm.
I enjoyed this week's reading, as it gave me a chance to objectively question my own epistemology and see where I fell on the paradigm continuum. Understanding where we sit in our paradigms is important (dare I say essential) to understanding the goals of our inquiry, which in turn influences our methodology, our audience, and our questions. For example, would someone who identifies as an objectivist aligned with the status quo take a lot of stock in qualitative research based in critical theory? How would an interpretivist who believes in radical change diagnose the usefulness of standardized tests in admission processes? There's value in understanding where one sits in this process, if only to understand how someone else may look at the same set of circumstances and come to a different conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe danger comes when people believe so strongly that their particular paradigm is the one correct paradigm. All of these viewpoints are valid, and while they may differ in practicality in different situations, every inquiry from every paradigm can add to our understanding of any particular problem. And it is important to not lock oneself into any particular paradigm or way of thought. The beauty of the human experience is the ability to grow, change, and accept flexibility. We can get so caught up the notion that what we believes defines who we are. In my experience, what we believe more accurately reflects what we know. So as we learn more, our beliefs should change, so what good does it do to lock ourselves into any particular paradigm at any particular moment?
I placed myself in the upper left quadrant of the paradigm chart, but I toe the line between radical change and status quo. I wholeheartedly believe in monumental change and inquiry that disrupts, but I understand that power structures don't often make space for those sorts of paradigm shifts (pun intended?). So I sat with the question: what does it mean to be an interpretivist who believes in radical change but accepts status quo as the reality in which policy operates? What does that mean for my inquiry? I concluded that I see change as a cycle. In order to enact change, we must change minds. But in order to change minds, change must be enacted. We cannot change minds without first enacting the change we want to see. With this paradoxical belief, how on earth do we get started? To that end, I believe in the power of individual radical courage in the face of the status quo. All it takes to change the world is for individuals to make courageous choices in the face of opposition, and my theory is that radical courage will have a ripple effect on society. The next step is figuring out how my particular line of inquiry can inspire radical courage.
-Ash TB
I believe paradigms are useful and necessary, especially in the world of social science research. Social science research can quickly become a rabbit hole of thoughts, ideologies, and perspectives. Paradigms can provide a solid foundation for researchers which allows them to be reflective and critical in their approach. Naturally, when we interact with others we have the potential to adapt their ways and opinions. Being "rooted" in a particular paradigm makes it easier for researchers to stay focused, measure their own growth, and decide when compromise is necessary. I use the term rooted lightly, because I think it is also necessary for researchers to stay open to incorporating the perspectives of the paradigms. Thinking back to last week, paradigms can assist with the translation function. As researchers, it can be beneficial to have a basic understanding of where we stand when we begin to interact with each other.
ReplyDeleteSierria's comment.
DeleteWhile learning about the topic of paradigms this week, I couldn’t help but think about an experience at work that I had a couple years ago. Working in school counseling, my department is oftentimes utilized by parents and students as the customer service department, a place to go when you have a problem or an issue with the way things are being conducted in the building. We receive multiple of these types of communications each day via email, phone calls, and even surprise visits by parents. A couple of years ago (during the time of a very tumultuous school administration), my department received multiple parent complaints to the School Board Office that we were not responding quickly enough to their complaints. In talking with a supervisor at the School Board Office, she told me that “The parents’ perceptions are their reality.” This got me thinking about what reality really is. Is reality truth? If perception is reality, a person who is experiencing hallucinations would have a different reality than what is factually existing before them. In this context, I do not believe we can claim that reality and truth are the same thing. Reality is a conceived notion of the world based on one’s own thoughts and beliefs whereas truth refers to an absolute fact. For example, people often refer to arguments that occur having 3 sides: the side of one person, the side of the other person, and the truth. In this scenario, each person’s side is their own reality based on their perceptions of the events that transpired but there is also an absolute truth of what occurred.
ReplyDeleteDuring this week’s module, I struggled a bit with the use of the word reality when describing these paradigms because, in my mind, reality is a personal construct unique to each individual which would place me on the far right of the paradigm spectrum but I am a firm believer in absolute truths as well. I believe in the laws of nature; I believe that the world is round; I believe that plants need sunlight to survive and so on and so on. However, if we apply the concept of absolute truth to the field of social science, I believe we are doing so at the disservice of human kind altogether. The very nature of social sciences requires researchers to take into account the unique perceptions (realities) of those which we are studying. Regardless of the generalizability of a social science study, the rapidity of social changes (especially with the advent of new technologies every day) requires the field of social science to continually evolve as well; what was generalizable 15 years ago is likely already out of date in the field of social science. I believe that there is not enough research in the field to determine the qualities that a good teacher/counselor should embody in order to be an effective educator. In recalling the impact that particular teachers had on students, students oftentimes talk about the way that the teacher made them feel rather than the specific curriculum or methods that they’ve taught. I think more research needs to be conducted on these aspects of education in order to more effectively train teachers to be successful in the classroom.
I believe that paradigms can useful constructs to help us understand our own values and how those can be translated to how we conduct research. As I was watching Pat Norman’s video, “What even is a research paradigm,” I caught myself thinking about what resonated most with me as a researcher. I also thought about what really didn’t. I agree with Norman’s point that most people likely don’t fit in a binary of either positivists or interpretivists. Instead, I think that these other paradigms such as postpositivists, constructivists, critical, and poststructuralists allow for both structure and a little more flexibility when thinking about how research can be approached. That being said, I don’t think these paradigms are the end all, be all, of how one may think about research, or even that a person may fit neatly into one category. When thinking back to the “Awareness Test” video, I think about the idea of boxing oneself into a singular paradigm (only focusing on one thing or one “right way” to conduct research), and then missing the potential to see alternatives that may positively impact your area of study.
ReplyDeleteOne of the videos also named and discussed a few theorists who have contributed to the creation of these paradigms. They noted that that many of these theorists were people who made contributions long ago. I think it’s helpful to examine the identities of the theorists whose work we continue to uphold in these paradigms. Whose contributions are we missing? Are there values that we’re failing to consider that may contribute to how someone approaches research?
In science and philosophy, a paradigm is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field. With this definition in mind, and our readings this week, I 100& agree that our experiences, perceptions and knowledge all play a part in our understanding. Our experiences (especially when we are younger) are what we know to be true. Then we spend the rest of our lives either trying to learn something different from those experiences or we live those experiences out through others. This week had me reflecting on my own epistemology (way of knowing) and the things I have known to be true, and then seen differently as I got older through travel, meeting new people, leaving my home town etc. In research we have to take the "human" side into account. It is not a constraint but a necessity.
ReplyDeleteComment Melissa Reams
ReplyDeleteMichelle Carter
ReplyDeleteI do think that paradigms are useful constructs to help us understand the role that our perspectives/approaches play in our ability to observe and understand our world. I also agree with Rallis and Rossman that no one’s way of knowing formulaically follows just one of the models, but is actually a “synthesis of several models.” I am simultaneously concerned about the idea that the debates of the qualities of these perspectives can narrow what is considered “good research” as mentioned by Paul, Graffam, and Fowler. The readings emphasized for me the importance of knowing myself and being open to critical feedback. It is also helpful to understand critical feedback if I understand the paradigm of the person providing the feedback. (I liked the dialogue at the beginning of Chapter followed by the character descriptions.) The table in Chapter 3 (Paul, Graffam, and Fowler) was interesting because I read through the different perspectives, I found value in all of them, including the ones that do not represent my way of thinking. I also was very interested in the discussion of inquiry as learning. I agree with the assumptions about inquiry listed by Rallis and Rossman in Chapter 1. There is an interesting difference in the language used in the assumptions of inquiry versus how learning is described, measured, and evaluated in practice.
I do think that the idea of paradigms in research are helpful and can be necessary in research. I think that novice researchers can benefit more from the paradigms as they are still learning what type of researcher they are and these can serve as a useful tool to help them understand themselves. As someone who appreciates some guidance, I found these chapters extremely beneficial to starting to understand what kind of researcher I might be. If a researcher is laser focused on a certain paradigm, then it can absolutely become a constraint and hinder their projects. However, as explained in the readings, one can move along the string of paradigms - as long as researchers are open to that growth and movement, the constraint isn’t as pressing. Comment by Lauren Mortensen
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion research paradigms should be considered when appropriate in social science research. Reflecting on the readings was interesting because I was able to understand how what we know vs. what we think we know plays a role in how we perceive things. When looking at the paradigms I was able to identify context in which my beliefs were across the spectrum, not just limited to one perspective. During my educational research journey I look forward to diving deeper into the idea of paradigms and how they shape reality & perceived knowledge.
ReplyDelete