Educational research is essentially concerned with exploring and understanding social phenomena

which are educational in nature, mainly pertaining to formalized and/or spontaneously occurring
social, cultural, psychological processes which could be termed as education. In doing so, it deals with
educational questions that can be investigated in a satisfactory manner, and the methods which enable
such satisfactory investigation and the utility of results emanating from such investigation (Dash,
1993). Since theoretical questions in education emerge from different conceptions and interpretations
of social reality, different paradigms have been evolved to determine the criteria according to which
one would select and define problems for inquiry. Thomas Kuhn who is known for the term paradigm,
characterizes a paradigm as: An integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems
attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools For further clarification see this
article by Frank Pajares of Emory University.
During the past century, different paradigms have taken birth due to the remarkable growth in social
sciences research. There are mainly two paradigms to the verification of theoretical propositions, i.e.
positivism and anti-positivism (or naturalistic inquiry).

Positivism

The positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the philosophical ideas of the French
philosopher August Comte, who emphasized observation and reason as means of understanding human
behaviour. According to him, true knowledge is based on experience of senses and can be obtained by
observation and experiment. Positivistic thinkers adopt his scientific method as a means of knowledge
generation. Hence, it has to be understood within the framework of the principles and assumptions of
science. These assumptions, as Conen et al (2000) noted, are determinism, empiricism, parsimony, and
generality.
Determinism means that events are caused by other circumstances; and hence, understanding such
casual links are necessary for prediction and control. Empiricism means collection of verifiable
empirical evidences in support of theories or hypotheses. Parsimony refers to the explanation of the
phenomena in the most economic way possible. Generality is the process of generalizing the
observation of the particular phenomenon to the world at large. With these assumptions of science, the
ultimate goal of science is to integrate and systematise findings into a meaningful pattern or theory
which is regarded as tentative and not the ultimate truth. Theory is subject to revision or modification
as new evidence is found. Positivistic paradigm thus systematizes the knowledge generation process
with the help of quantification, which is essential y to enhance precision in the description of
parameters and the discernment of the relationship among them. The examples of positivist paradigm
and quantitative approach are provided in Table 1 at the end.
Although positivistic paradigm continued to influence educational research for a long time in the later
half of the twentieth century, it was criticized due to its lack of regard for the subjective states of
individuals. It regards human behaviour as passive, controlled and determined by external
environment. Hence human beings are dehumanized without their intention, individualism and freedom
taken into account in viewing and interpreting social reality. According to the critics of this paradigm,
objectivity needs to be replaced by subjectivity in the process of scientific inquiry. This gave rise to
anti-positivism or naturalistic inquiry.

Anti-positivism

Anti-positivism emphasizes that social reality is viewed and interpreted by the individual herself
according to the ideological positions she possesses. Therefore, knowledge is person all y experienced
rather than acquired from or imposed from outside. The anti-positivists believe that reality is multilayered and complex (Cohen et al, 2000) and a single phenomenon is having multiple interpretations.
They emphasize that the verification of a phenomenon is adopted when the level of understanding of a
phenomenon is such that the concern is to probe into the various unexplored dimensions of a
phenomenon rather than establishing specific relationship among the components, as it happens in the
case of positivism.

Anti-positivism is marked by three schools of thought in the social science research. These
are phenomenology,ethnomethodology and symbolicinteractionism. All the three schools of thought
emphasise human interaction with phenomena in their daily lives, and suggest qualitative rather than
quantitative approach to social inquiry.
Phenomenology is a theoretical view point which believes that individual behaviour is determined by
the experience gained out of ones direct interaction with the phenomena. It rules out any kind of
objective external reality. Husserl and Schutz are the main proponents of this school of thought. During
interaction with various phenomena, human beings interpret them and attach meanings to different
actions and or ideas and thereby construct new experiences. Therefore, the researcher has to develop
empathic understanding to know the process of interpretation by individuals so that she can reproduce
in her mind feelings, motives and thoughts that are behind the action of others.
Ethnomethodology, an approach of phenomenological sociology, was developed by Harold Garfinkel
and his fellow ethnomethodologists. It deals with the world of everyday life. According to
enthomethodologists, theoretical concerns centres around the process by which common sense reality
is constructed in everyday face-to-face interaction. This approach studies the process by which people
invoke certain take-for-granted rules about behaviour which they interpret in an interactive situation
and make it meaningful. They are mainly interested in the interpretation people use to make sense of
social settings.
The school of thought for symbolic interactionism was pioneered by Dewey, Cooley and Mead among
others. It basic all y emphasizes the understanding and interpretation of interactions that take place
between human beings. The peculiarity of this approach is that human beings interpret and
define each others actions instead of merely reacting to each others actions. Human interaction in
the social world is mediated by the use of symbols like language, which help human beings to give
meaning to objects. Symbolic interactionists, therefore, claim that by only concentrating attention on
individuals capacity to create symbolic all y meaningful objects in the world, human interaction and
resulting patterns of social organizations can be understood. As a result, not only human beings change
themselves through interaction, but also bring in change in societies.
The two paradigms presented here are concerned with two concepts of social reality. While positivism
stands for objectivity, measurability, predictability, controllability and constructs laws and rules of
human behaviour, non-positivism essenti all y emphasizes understanding and interpretation of
phenomena and making meaning out of this process. Alongside the presence of these two major
paradigms, another trend, which got developed during the post-sixties, gave rise to the third paradigm
of research namely the Paradigm of Critical Theory.

Critical theory

The main protagonist of this theory was Jurgen Habermas, who worked at the Frankfurt School in
Germany to develop an approach of investigation and action in the social sciences, which could
describe the historical forces that restrict human freedom and expose the ideological justification of
those forces.
Critical theorists like Habermas were critical of the earlier paradigms as they were not tuned to
question or transform the existing situation. He developed theories which were built on a typology of
interest. Habermas (1970) postulated three types of interest which generate three types of knowledge:

A technical interest concerned with the control of the physical environment, which generates
empirical and analytical knowledge.
A practical interest concerned with understanding the meaning of situation, which generates
hermeneutic and historical knowledge.
An emancipating interest concerned with the provision for growth and advancement, which
generates critical knowledge and is concerned with exposing conditions of constraints and
domination.
Critical theorists suggest two kinds of research methodologies, namely, ideology critique and action
research, for undertaking research work.

Critical theory has also been criticized by some of the contemporary scholars. Lakomski (1999)
questions the acceptability of the consensus theory of truth on which Habermas work is premised.
Habermas work is little more than speculation. Whist the claim to there being three forms of
knowledge has the epistemological attraction of simplicity, one has to question this very simplicity
(Keat, 1981); there are a multitude of interests and ways of understanding the world; and it is simply
artificial to reduce these to three interests (Cohen et al, 2000).

Research paradigms and research methods

Each of the paradigms discussed above has definite research methods which can be used in carrying out
scientific investigation.
Positivism which emphasizes objectivist approach to studying social phenomena gives importance to
research methods focusing on quantitative analysis, surveys, experiments and the like.
Similarly, anti-positivism which stresses on subjectivist approach to studying social phenomena
attaches importance to a range of research techniques focusing on qualitative analysis, e.g. personal
interviews, participant observations, account of individuals, personal constructs etc.
Similarly, critical theory suggests ideology critique and action research as research methods to explore
the existing phenomena.
The question arises: how does a researcher select a research paradigm and corresponding methodology?
The following questions may be raised by the researcher:
1. What is the nature or essence of the social phenomena being investigated?
2. Is social phenomenon objective in nature or created by the human mind?
3. What are the bases of knowledge corresponding to the social reality, and how knowledge can
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?
Based on the above questions, the researcher can identify whether the research questions pertain to
positivism, anti-positivism, and critical theory; and choose the appropriate methodology accordingly.
For a concrete understanding of research paradigms vis--vis selection of research methods, please see
Table1.
Table 1: Selection of research paradigms and research methods
Research
paradigms

Research
approach

Research methods

Positivism

Quantitative

Surveys:
longitudinal,
cross-sectional, correlational;
experimental, and
quasi-experimental and
ex-post facto research

Anti-positivism

Qualitative

Biographical;
Phenomenological;
Ethnographical;
case study

Critical theory

Critical and
action-oriented

Ideology critique;
action research

Examples
- Attitude of distance learners towards
online based education
- Relationship between students
motivation and their academic
achievement.
- Effect of intelligence on the academic
performances of primary school learners
- A study of autobiography of a great
statesman.
- A study of dropout among the female
students
- A case study of a open distance learning
Institution in a country.
- A study of development of education
during the British rule in India
- Absenteism among standard five

students of a primary school

Although, each of the paradigms has corresponding approaches and research methods, still a
researcher may adopt research methods cutting across research paradigms as per the research
questions she proposes to answer.

References

Cohen, Louis; Lawrence, Manion and Morrison, Keith (2000). Research Methods in Education (5 th Ed.).
London .
Dash, N.K. (1993). Research Paradigms in Education: Towards a Resolution. Journal of Indian
Education 19(2), pp1-6.
Habermas, J. (1970). Knowledge and Human Interests (J. Shapiro.Trans.). London : Heinemann.
Keat, R. (1981). The Politics of Social Theory. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Lakomski, G. (1999). Critical theory. In J. P. Keeves and G. Lakomoki (Eds.). Issues in Educational
Research. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 174-82.

http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/

Webster Dictionary defines paradigm as "an example or pattern: small, self-contained,

simplified examples that we use to illustrate procedures, processes, and theoretical
points." The most quoted definition of paradigm is Thomas Kuhn's (1962, 1970)
concept in The Nature of Science Revolution, i.e. paradigm as the underlying
assumptions and intellectual structure upon which research and development in a field
of inquiry is based. The other definitions in the research literature include:
1. Patton (1990): A paradigm is a world view, a general perspective, a way of
breaking down the complexity of the real world.
2. Paradigm is an interpretative framework, which is guided by "a set of beliefs
and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied."
(Guba, 1990). Denzin and Lincoln (2001) listed three categories of those
beliefs:

Ontology: what kind of being is the human being. Ontology deals with the
question of what is real.
Epistemology: what is the relationship between the inquirer and the known:
"epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge
and the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated" (Gall, Borg, &
Gall, 1996)
Methodology: how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?

When challenging the assumptions underlying positivism, Lincoln and Guba (2000)
also identified two more categories that will distinguish different paradigms, i.e.
beliefs in causality and oxiology. The assumptions of causality asserts the position of
the nature and possibility of causal relationship; oxiology deals with the issues about
value. Specific assumptions about research include the role of value in research, how
to avoid value from influencing research, and how best to use research products
(Baptiste, 2000).
Dill and Romiszowski (1997) stated the functions of paradigms as follows:

Define how the world works, how knowledge is extracted from this world, and
how one is to think, write, and talk about this knowledge
Define the types of questions to be asked and the methodologies to be used in
answering
Decide what is published and what is not published
Structure the world of the academic worker
Provide its meaning and its significance

Two major philosophical doctrines in the social science inquiry are positivism and
postpositivism. The following is a contrast of the research approach that are entailed
from these two different philosophical paradigms.
Positivism
Philosophical
Inquiry

The physical and

social reality is
independent of those
who observe it
Observation of this
reality, if unbiased,
constitutes scientific
knowledge.
Behavioral researchers
in education and
psychology exemplify
an approach to
scientific inquiry that
is grounded in

Postpostivism

Social reality is constructed by

the individuals who participate
it.
It is constructed differently by
different individuals.
This view of social reality is
consistent with the constructivist
movement in cognitive
psychology, which posts that
individuals gradually build their
own understandings of the world
through experience and
maturation.
The mind is not tabula rasa

positivist
epistemology.

Research
Design

Data
Collection
and Design

(blank slate) upon which

knowledge is written.

The inquiry focuses on

the determination of
the general trends of a
defined populations.
The features of the
social environment
retain a high degree of
constancy across time
and space.
Local variations are
considered "noise"
Study of samples and
population
Generalization: first
defining the population
of interest, select a
representative of the
population, the
researcher generalizes
the findings obtained
from studying the
sample to the larger
population using the
statistical techniques to
determine the
likelihood that sample
findings are likely to
apply to the
population.

The use of
mathematics to
represent and analyze
features of social
reality is consistent
with positivist
epistemology: a
particular feature can
be isolated and
conceptualized as a
variable.
The variables can be
expressed as a
numerical scales.
Deductive analysis:
identify underlying
themes and patterns
prior to data collection
and searching through
the data for instances

The scientific inquiry must focus

on the study of multiple social
realities, i.e. the different
realities created by different
individuals as they interact in a
social environment.
Find a ways to get individuals to
reveal their constructions of
social realities, including the
person being studied and the
researcher.
Reflexivity: focus on the
researcher's self as an integral
constructor of the social reality
being studied
The study of individuals'
interpretations of social reality
must occur at the local,
immediate level.
Study of cases: have you learned
something about his case that
informs us about another cases?
Generalization of case study
findings must be made on a
case-by-case basis. In other
words, it is the reader who made
the generalization based on his
or her own interpretation: The
focus is on the transferability
instead of generalization.
Focuses on the study of
individual cases and by making
"thick" verbal descriptions of
what they observe.
Analytic induction: search
through data bit by bit and then
infers that certain events or
statements are instances of the
same underlying themes or
patterns

of them: hypothesis
testing

View of
causality

A mechanistic
causality among social
objects

Individuals' interpretation of
situations cause them to take
certain actions

Lincoln and Guba (2000) made the following distinctions between positivist and
naturalist inquiries.
Positivist
Reality is single, tangible, and
fragmentable.
Dualism: the knower and the
known are independent.
Time and context free
generalization
Real causes, temporally
precedent to or simultaneous
with their effects (causal
relationship)
Inquiry is value free.

References:

Naturalist
Realities are multiple, constructed,
and holistic.
The knower and the known are
interactive and inseparable.
Only time-and context-bound
working hypotheses are possible.
All entities are in a state of mutual
simultaneous shaping, so that it is
impossible to distinguish causes
from effects.
Inquiry is value bounded.

Baptiste, I. (2000). Calibrating the "instrument": Philosophical issues framing the

researcher's role. Class notes in ADTED 550.
Dills, C. R., & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). The instructional development paradigm:
An introduction. In C. R. Dills, and A. J. Romiszowski (Eds)., Instructional
development paradigms. Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational Research: An
Introduction ( 6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E., G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods ( 2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional Design. 2nd ed. John, Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/paradigm.htm

ssues In Educational Research, Vol 16, 2006

[ Contents Vol 16 ] [ IIER Home ]

Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology

Noella Mackenzie and Sally Knipe
Charles Sturt University
In this article the authors discuss issues faced by early career researchers, including
the dichotomy, which many research textbooks and journal articles create and
perpetuate between qualitative and quantitative research methodology despite

considerable literature to support the use of mixed methods. The authors review
current research literature and discuss some of the language, which can prove
confusing to the early career researcher and problematic for post-graduate
supervisors and teachers of research. The authors argue that discussions of research
methods in research texts and university courses should include mixed methods and
should address the perceived dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative
research methodology.

Introduction
Social scientists have come to abandon the spurious choice between qualitative and
quantitative data; they are concerned rather with that combination of both which
makes use of the most valuable features of each. The problem becomes one of
determining at which points he [sic] should adopt the one, and at which the other,
approach (Merton & Kendall, 1946, pp.556-557).
Given that the qualitative/quantitative debate has been discussed for half a century
you could be forgiven for questioning the need for another article, which includes
this topic. However, many university courses and research texts continue to discuss
research in terms of 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' methods. When research is
described in such terms, confusion may be created for the undergraduate student,
first time or early career researcher. The research process is already a daunting
prospect to the inexperienced researcher and the ongoing debate and contradictory
information adds to the confusion. This is further exacerbated by laypeople that
continually ask researchers whether their research is qualitative or quantitative. By
writing this article, the authors aim to assist first time and early career researchers
make considered decisions about the type of study they may undertake, the process
involved in undertaking a research project and the debates in the literature
surrounding theoretical frameworks underpinning research. Associated definitions
and constructs will also be discussed.
This article begins with a discussion of research paradigms, providing definitions and
discussion of the role of paradigms in educational research. Paradigms receive varied
attention in research texts. The role of the paradigm can, therefore, appear somewhat

mysterious. It is, therefore, a priority of this article to 'demystify' the role of paradigms
in research. The article then moves to a discussion of methodology as it relates to the
research paradigm. In some research discussions methodology appears to be central
and may even be seen to replace what is in effect the pre-ordinate role of the
paradigm. In this article the authors discuss how the research paradigm and
methodology work together to form a research study. The qualitative, quantitative and
mixed methods debate is then discussed as it pertains to the decisions that need to be
made by the researcher. A diagram is provided to show the 'research journey' although
the authors acknowledge that the research process is more cyclical than linear. More
than 40 widely available research texts were reviewed during the preparation of this
article, with particular attention given to the treatment of paradigms, methods and
methodology.
Research paradigms
Research has been described as a systematic investigation (Burns, 1997) or inquiry
whereby data are collected, analysed and interpreted in some way in an effort to
"understand, describe, predict or control an educational or psychological
phenomenon or to empower individuals in such contexts" (Mertens, 2005, p.2).
O'Leary (2004) puts forward the argument that what was relatively simple to define
thirty or forty years ago has become far more complex in recent times with the
number of research methods increasing dramatically, "particularly in the
social/applied sciences" (p.8). It has been suggested, however, that the "exact nature
of the definition of research is influenced by the researcher's theoretical framework"
(Mertens, 2005, p.2) with theory being used
to establish relationships between or among constructs that describe or explain a
phenomenon by going beyond the local event and trying to connect it with similar
events (Mertens, 2005, p.2).
The theoretical framework, as distinct from a theory, is sometimes referred to as the
paradigm (Mertens, 2005; Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) and influences the way knowledge
is studied and interpreted. It is the choice of paradigm that sets down the intent,
motivation and expectations for the research. Without nominating a paradigm as the
first step, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods,
literature or research design. Paradigms are not discussed in all research texts and
are given varied emphasis and sometimes conflicting definitions. In some research
texts, paradigms are discussed at the beginning of the text along-side research

design, while others may make only passing reference to paradigms at a much later
stage or make no reference to paradigms at all. This may lead the first time or early
career researcher to wonder where the notion of paradigm fits into the research
course of action and to question its relevance. The term 'paradigm' may be defined
as "a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts, or propositions that
orient thinking and research" (Bogdan & Biklen 1998, p.22) or the philosophical
intent or motivation for undertaking a study (Cohen & Manion 1994, p.38).
Alternatively, Mac Naughton, Rolfe and Siraj-Blatchford (2001) provide a definition of
paradigm, which includes three elements: a belief about the nature of knowledge, a
methodology and criteria for validity (p.32). Some authors prefer to discuss the
interpretive framework in terms of 'knowledge claims' (Creswell, 2003);
epistemology or ontology; or even research methodologies (Neuman, 2000) rather
than referring to paradigms. A number of theoretical paradigms are discussed in the
literature such as: positivist (and postpositivist), constructivist, interpretivist,
transformative, emancipatory, critical, pragmatism and deconstructivist. The use of
different terms in different texts and the varied claims regarding how many research
paradigms there are, sometimes leads to confusion for the first time or early career
researcher. Definitions of some of the more common paradigms referred to in
research texts follow.
Postpositivist (and positivist) paradigm
Positivism is sometimes referred to as 'scientific method' or 'science research', is
"based on the rationalistic, empiricist philosophy that originated with Aristotle,
Francis Bacon, John Locke, August Comte, and Emmanuel Kant" (Mertens, 2005, p.8)
and "reflects a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects
or outcomes" (Creswell, 2003, p.7). Positivism may be applied to the social world on
the assumption that "the social world can be studied in the same way as the natural
world, that there is a method for studying the social world that is value free, and that
explanations of a causal nature can be provided" (Mertens, 2005, p.8). Positivists aim
to test a theory or describe an experience "through observation and measurement in
order to predict and control forces that surround us" (O'Leary, 2004, p.5). Positivism
was replaced after World War II (Mertens, 2005) by postpositivism. Postpositivists
work from the assumption that any piece of research is influenced by a number of
well-developed theories apart from, and as well as, the one which is being tested

(Cook & Campbell, 1979, p.24). Also, since Thomas Khun, (1962) theories are held to
be provisional and new understandings may challenge the whole theoretical
framework. In contrast, O'Leary (2004), provides a definition of postpositivism which
aligns in some sense with the constructivist paradigm claiming that postpositivists
see the world as ambiguous, variable and multiple in its realities - "what might be the
truth for one person or cultural group may not be the "truth" for another" (p.6).
O'Leary (2004) suggests that postpositivism is intuitive and holistic, inductive and
exploratory with findings that are qualitative in nature (pp.6-7). This definition of
postpositivism seems to be in conflict with the more widely used definition provided
by Mertens (2005). Positivists and postpositivist research is most commonly aligned
with quantitative methods of data collection and analysis.
Interpretivist/constructivist paradigm
The interpretivist/constructivist paradigm grew out of the philosophy of Edmund
Husserl's phenomenology and Wilhelm Dilthey's and other German philosophers'
study of interpretive understanding called hermeneutics (Mertens, 2005, p.12 citing
Eichelberger, 1989). Interpretivist/constructivist approaches to research have the
intention of understanding "the world of human experience" (Cohen & Manion,
1994, p.36), suggesting that "reality is socially constructed" (Mertens, 2005, p.12).
The interpretivist/constructivist researcher tends to rely upon the "participants'
views of the situation being studied" (Creswell, 2003, p.8) and recognises the impact
on the research of their own background and experiences. Constructivists do not
generally begin with a theory (as with postpositivists) rather they "generate or
inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings" (Creswell, 2003, p.9)
throughout the research process. The constructivist researcher is most likely to rely
on qualitative data collection methods and analysis or a combination of both
qualitative and quantitative methods (mixed methods). Quantitative data may be
utilised in a way, which supports or expands upon qualitative data and effectively
deepens the description.
Transformative paradigm
According to Mertens (2005) the transformative paradigm arose during the 1980s
and 1990s partially due to dissatisfaction with the existing and dominant research
paradigms and practices but also because of a realisation that much sociological and
psychological theory which lay behind the dominant paradigms "had been developed

from the white, able-bodied male perspective and was based on the study of male
subjects" (Mertens, 2005 p.17). Transformative researchers felt that the
interpretivist/constructivist approach to research did not adequately address issues
of social justice and marginalised peoples (Creswell, 2003, p.9). Transformative
researchers "believe that inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political
agenda" (Creswell, 2003, p.9) and contain an action agenda for reform "that may
change the lives of the participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live,
and the researcher's life" (Creswell, 2003, pp.9-10). Transformative researchers may
utilise qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods in much the
same way as the interpretivist/constructivists. However, a mixed methods approach
provides the transformative researcher structure for the development of "more
complete and full portraits of our social world through the use of multiple
perspectives and lenses" (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p.275), allowing for an
understanding of "greater diversity of values, stances and positions" (Somekh &
Lewin, 2005, p.275).
Pragmatic paradigm
Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy or reality. Pragmatist
researchers focus on the 'what' and 'how' of the research problem (Creswell, 2003,
p.11). Early pragmatists "rejected the scientific notion that social inquiry was able to
access the 'truth' about the real world solely by virtue of a single scientific method"
(Mertens, 2005, p.26). While pragmatism is seen as the paradigm that provides the
underlying philosophical framework for mixed-methods research (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003; Somekh & Lewin, 2005) some mixed-methods researchers align
themselves philosophically with the transformative paradigm (Mertens, 2005). It
may be said, however, that mixed methods could be used with any paradigm. The
pragmatic paradigm places "the research problem" as central and applies all
approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003, p.11). With the research
question 'central', data collection and analysis methods are chosen as those most
likely to provide insights into the question with no philosophical loyalty to any
alternative paradigm.
Paradigm language

When reading research texts, confusion can be created when authors use different
terms to discuss paradigms. Table 1 has been developed using the language
identified in a range of research texts and grouped according to their alignment with
the broad paradigm groups discussed above. While the major paradigms will have an
overall framework consistent with the definitions provided above, specific research
paradigms may have particular features, which differentiate them from other
paradigms within the same group. For example, while feminist and neo-Marxist
research both fall within the transformative paradigm they have unique features,
which are specific to their particular approach.
Methodology and paradigms
In reviewing research texts for this article, the authors were surprised to discover
that a large number of texts provided no definition for the
terms methodology or method, some texts use the terms interchangeably and others
use them as having different meanings. According to the Macquarie Dictionary (3rd
Ed) methodology is
the science of methods, especially: a. a branch of logic dealing with the logical
principles underlying the organisation of the various special sciences, and the
conduct of scientific inquiry. b. Education a branch of pedagogics concerned with the
analysis and evaluation of subject matter and methods of teaching (p.718).
Table 1: Paradigms: Language commonly associated with major research paradigms
Positivist/ Postpositivist

Experimental
Quasi-experimental
Correlational
Reductionism
Theory verification
Causal comparative
Determination
Normative

Interpretivist/
Constructivist
Naturalistic
Phenomenological
Hermeneutic
Interpretivist
Ethnographic
Multiple participant
meanings
Social and historical
construction
Theory generation

Transformative

Critical theory
Neo-marxist
Feminist
Critical Race Theory
Freirean
Participatory
Emancipatory
Advocacy
Grand Narrative
Empowerment issue

Pragmatic

Consequences of
actions
Problem-centred
Pluralistic
Real-world practice
oriented
Mixed models

Symbolic interaction

oriented
Change-oriented
Interventionist
Queer theory
Race specific
Political

Adapted from Mertens (2005) and Creswell (2003)

This definition is consistent with much of the literature (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005;
Schram, 2006) despite it being a generic definition as opposed to one which is
discipline or research specific. Somekh and Lewin (2005) define methodology as both
"the collection of methods or rules by which a particular piece of research is
undertaken" and the "principles, theories and values that underpin a particular
approach to research" (p.346) while Walter (2006) argues that methodology is the
frame of reference for the research which is influenced by the "paradigm in which our
theoretical perspective is placed or developed" (p.35). The most common definitions
suggest that methodology is the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or
theoretical framework while the method refers to systematic modes, procedures or
tools used for collection and analysis of data.
Matching paradigms and methods
Readers are advised by the literature that research, which applies the positivist or
postpositivist paradigm, tends to predominantly use quantitative approaches
(methods) to data collection and analysis, though not necessarily exclusively, while
the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm generally operates using predominantly
qualitative methods (Silverman, 2000; Wiersma, 2000; Bogdan & Biklen 1998;
Mertens, 1998; Burns, 1997; Cohen & Manion 1994; Glesne & Peshkin 1992). The
pragmatic paradigm provides an opportunity for "multiple methods, different
worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection
and analysis in the mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003, p.12). Likewise the
transformative paradigm allows for the application of both qualitative and
quantitative research methods. Deconstructivist and in particular poststructuralist
research "seeks to understand the dynamics of relationships between the
knowledge/meaning, power and identity" (Mac Naughton et al, 2001, p.46) applying
data collected and analysed using qualitative methods. Poststructuralists emphasise
the local nature of knowledge placing strict limits on the validity of the knowledge

gathered and produced (Mac Naughton et al, 2001). Table 2, indicates the ways in
which research methods cross paradigm boundaries.
Table 2: Paradigms, methods and tools
Paradigm

Methods (primarily)

Data collection tools (examples)

Positivist/
Postpositivist

Quantitative. "Although qualitative methods

can be used within this paradigm,
quantitative methods tend to be
predominant . . ." (Mertens, 2005, p. 12)

Experiments
Quasi-experiments
Tests
Scales

Interpretivist/
Constructivist

Qualitative methods predominate although

quantitative methods may also be utilised.

Interviews
Observations
Document reviews
Visual data analysis

Transformative

Qualitative methods with quantitative and

Diverse range of tools - particular
mixed methods. Contextual and historical
need to avoid discrimination. Eg:
factors described, especially as they relate to sexism, racism, and homophobia.
oppression (Mertens, 2005, p. 9)

Pragmatic

Qualitative and/or quantitative methods may

be employed. Methods are matched to the
specific questions and purpose of the
research.

May include tools from both

positivist and interpretivist
paradigms. Eg Interviews,
observations and testing and
experiments.

This suggests that it is the paradigm and research question, which should determine
which research data collection and analysis methods (qualitative/quantitative or mixed
methods) will be most appropriate for a study. In this way researchers are not
quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods researchers, rather a researcher may apply
the data collection and analysis methods most appropriate for a particular research
study. It may in fact be possible for any and all paradigms to employ mixed methods
rather than being restricted to any one method, which may potentially diminish and
unnecessarily limit the depth and richness of a research project.
Qualitative or quantitative? Methodology or method?

In the literature the terms qualitative and quantitative are often used in two distinct
discourses, one relating to what is more commonly understood to be the research
paradigm and the second referring to research methods. This is illustrated the
following definition.
At one level quantitative and qualitative refers to distinctions about the nature of
knowledge: how one understands the world and the ultimate purpose of the
research. On another level of discourse, the terms refer to research methods - how
data are collected and analysed - and the types of generalizations and
representations derived from the data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006, p. 12).
Confusion for the first time researcher or early career researcher is created by
informal reference to researchers as qualitative or quantitative researchers and
research as qualitative or quantitative research. This is further exacerbated by
research texts, which utilise these terms within their titles, suggesting a purity of
method, which is potentially impossible in social research. O'Leary (2004) argues
another way of thinking about these terms by defining qualitative and quantitative
as
adjectives for types of data and their corresponding modes of analysis, i.e.
qualitative data - data represented through words, pictures, or icons analyzed using
thematic exploration; and quantitative data - data that is represented through
numbers and analyzed using statistics (p.99).
This definition suggests that the terms qualitative and quantitative refer to the data
collection methods, analysis and reporting modes instead of the theoretical
approach to the research. While acknowledging that some research texts refer to
quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods as paradigms (see Table 1) the authors
will use the terms quantitative and qualitative to refer to methods of data collection,
analysis and reporting.
Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined?
As discussed earlier, the use of the term 'paradigm' in this article is reserved for the
philosophical intent or underlying theoretical framework and motivation of the
researcher with regard to the research. While data collection methods can be
combined, a researcher usually aligns philosophically with one of the recognised

research paradigms, which proceed from different premises, leading to and seeking
different outcomes (Wiersma, 2000). According to Mertens (2005, p.7) a
"researcher's theoretical orientation has implications for every decision made in the
research process, including the choice of method" (pp.3-4).
Educational research traditionally followed the empirical "objective scientific model"
(Burns, 1997, p.3) which utilised quantitative methods of data collection, analysis and
reporting modes. In the 1960s there was a move towards a more constructivist
approach which allowed for methods which were "qualitative, naturalistic and
subjective" (p.3) in nature. It would appear that at the time there was considerable
debate regarding the introduction of this form of data collection. This philosophical
debate "left educational research divided between two competing methods: the
scientific empirical tradition, and the naturalistic phenomenological mode" (Burns,
1997, p.3).
More recently, research approaches have become more complex in design and more
flexible in their application of methods with mixed-methods being more acceptable
and common. A mixed-methods approach to research is one that involves
gathering both numeric information (e.g., on instruments) as well as text information
(e.g., on interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and
qualitative information (Creswell, 2003, p.20).
According to Gorard (2004) combined or mixed-methods research has been
identified as a "key element in the improvement of social science, including
education research" (p.7) with research strengthened by the use of a variety of
methods. Gorard (2004) argues that mixed method research "requires a greater level
of skill" (p.7), "can lead to less waste of potentially useful information" (p.7), "creates
researchers with an increased ability to make appropriate criticisms of all types of
research" (p. 7) and often has greater impact,
because figures can be very persuasive to policy-makers whereas stories are more
easily remembered and repeated by them for illustrative purposes (p.7).
Many researchers including Creswell (2003), Thomas (2003) and Krathwohl, (1993)
now view qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary choosing the most
appropriate method/s for the investigation. While some paradigms may appear to
lead a researcher to favour qualitative or quantitative approaches, in effect no one

paradigm actually prescribes or prohibits the use of either methodological approach.

However, this may not sit comfortably with researchers who are strongly aligned
with a particular approach to research. Almost inevitably in each paradigm, if the
research is to be fully effective, both approaches need to be applied. It is unduly
impoverished research, which eschews the use of both qualitative and quantitative
research approaches. Paradigms, which overtly recommend mixed methods
approaches allow the question to determine the data collection and analysis
methods applied, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and integrating
the data at different stages of inquiry (Creswell, 2003).
The research process
While this article does not suggest that research projects ever follow a neat linear
path, the steps and decisions made by the researcher may look something like Figure
1, which has been used to situate paradigms, methodology and data collection tools
within the research process. Although represented in a linear fashion in the diagram,
the process is more realistically cyclical with the researcher returning to earlier steps
while at the same time moving ahead to later steps. As the research progresses
changes may be made that could be subtle or significant.
Discussion
In this article the authors have exposed the various approaches undertaken by many
writing in the field through a review of research books. In this review it has been
found that many writers fail to adequately define research terminology and
sometimes use terminology in a way that is not compatible in its intent, omitting
significant concepts and leaving the reader with only part of the picture. Texts are
sometimes structured in a way that does not provide a clear path to information
terms and major concepts crucial to assist those undertaking the research process
especially for the first time. The research process for early career researchers can be
a complex task which may be compounded by text books (and university courses)
which fail to adequately substantiate the difficulties of the process, fail to explore
the role of the research paradigm and perpetuate a perceived and unhelpful
dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methodology despite the plethora
of research which is now combining the two. The role of the paradigm is paramount

to the choice of methodology and yet this is not addressed effectively in many of the
research texts reviewed. Wider acceptance and employment of mixed method
research can only enrich and strengthen educational research through the
application of qualitative and quantitative methods in complementary ways and
should therefore be clearly described and explored within research texts. Mixed
method is itself a statement of what could be, rather than a groundbreaking notion,
especially in the instance of educational research. Mixed method, like all research
approaches, needs to be viewed through a critical lens while at the same time
recognising as valid its contribution to the field of research. Research books are
designed to assist students and researchers in understanding the research process
but instead many are baffling readers and adding to confusion and misconceptions.

Figure 1: A research journey

Acknowledgement
Dr Noella Mackenzie would like to acknowledge the Writing Up Award, which she
received from the Research and Graduate Studies Unit, Charles Sturt University. This
award allowed Dr Mackenzie access to the time needed to write this article.
References
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklin S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods. (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to research methods. (3rd ed.) Australia: Longman.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th ed.) London:
Routledge.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues
for field settings. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Gorard, G. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Khun, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An
integrated approach. New York: Longman.
Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2005). A handbook for teacher research from design to
implementation. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe S.A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing Early Childhood
Research: International perspectives on theory and practice. Australia: Allen &
Unwin.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education. (6th ed.) Boston:
Pearson Education.
Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Merton, R.K., & Kendall, P.L. (1946). The focused interview. The American Journal
of Sociology, 51, 6, 541-557.
Neuman, (2000). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative
approaches. (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
O'Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: Sage.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Schram, T. (2006). Conceptualizing and proposing qualitative research. (2nd ed.)
New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in social sciences. London: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioural research. London: Cassell.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in
theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc, A Sage
Publications Company.
Walter, M. (2006). Social Science methods: an Australian perspective. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. (7th ed.)
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Authors: Dr Noella Mackenzie, Murray School of Education, Charles Sturt University. Email:
nmackenzie@csu.edu.au

Dr Sally Knipe, Murray School of Education, Charles Sturt University. Email: sknipe@csu.edu.au
Please cite as: Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
methodology. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

[ Contents Vol 16 ] [ IIER Home ]

2006 Issues In Educational Research. This URL: http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
Created 14 Oct 2006. Last correction: 19 Jul 2009.
HTML: Clare McBeath [c.mcbeath@bigpond.com] and Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html