Phil Jones
Research paradigms
A research paradigm refers to a design, small, basic examples that are used to demonstrate procedures, methods and hypothetical points. It is also a framework guided by a set of beliefs and approaches concerning the world. Ontology, epistemology and methodology are examples of philosophical terms and represent the basic types of paradigms. Every research paradigm should be treated with the importance it deserves. A philosopher should not at any time ignore any paradigm, be it qualitative, quantitative or epistemology.
A proficient research should be a comparison of several other researches. For instance, a researcher should not be contented by the findings of one research and refute the other findings. In fact, a good research should encompass the findings of different research methods and their comparison. All the research approaches should be treated equally without bias.
Ontology and epistemology
Ontology is a philosophical term which deals with the nature of reality and of which exists. It can also be defined as the specifications of a conceptualization. Consequently, ontology is a description of the thoughts and relationships that can occur between agents and community agents. Ontology, on the other hand, is inscribed as a set of appropriate vocabularies. Epistemology, on the other hand, is a philosophical branch that studies knowledge. Epistemology attempts to explain the difference between true and false knowledge. Epistemology is also that part which asks what we know, what we are sure of and how to get over sheer opinions to real knowledge. Others who have defined ontology and epistemology have also thought so and in my line.
Distinctions of Naturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenscheften
First is the issue of dualism. This is whereby theory in education is treated differently from the theory in science. This does not matter whether its ‘Cartesian’ or otherwise. On the other hand, naturwissenschaften relates reasonably to the natural science while Geisteswissenschaften interprets literally to ‘the science of the spirit’. Secondly, there is the issue of the strong and weak views of the theory. While the weak views are used in the natural sciences, the strong views do not have use anywhere.
Personally, I do not see the above differences making any sagacity. The main distinction that exists are the ones that are characterized by natural sciences and the human sciences. However, the main pivotal role here is the research. Whether natural science or human science, the most beneficial part is that the means does not justify the end, therefore, same research paradigms are employed for both. The natural and human science does not have any implications on the quantitative and qualitative research. The reason is that qualitative and quantitative research is never affected by any study; however, it is affected by factors such as the depth of research and the presence physically of the researcher.
The nearest paradigms are qualitative, quantitative and mixed research. Qualitative research relies only on the collection of qualitative data. On the other hand, quantitative research relies on the collection of quantitative data. Mixed reaction involved mixing both qualitative, quantitative methods and other paradigm characteristics. The farthest paradigms are positivism and epistemology paradigms.
Ethnography is a qualitative research plan aimed at reconnoitering cultural occurrences. Ethnography is, therefore, a critical theory paradigm. Action research, on the other hand, one started to solve an instantaneous problem or a philosophical process of advanced problem solving, therefore, a positivism paradigm. Case study is a thorough analysis of an individual, thus interpretivism. Lastly, ground study is a logical methodology in the social sciences linking the discovery of theory through the analysis of data, thus a critical theory.
Reference
Asay, W. (1998). Research Pradigms. The Journal of the Research Methods, 34, 123-126.
