Theoretical Perspectives and Research Paradigm - Coursework Example

Theoretical perspectives and research paradigm Introduction This research is aimed at investigating whether the choice of a paradigm and the validation of some theoretic issues in which the research is based on have the effect on the conceptualisation of an educational enquiry. For a research to be a success it must be grounded on the essential elements which are conventionally agreed upon by a given group of people. The people referred to here are the students and the platform here is the educational institution curriculum. The research in most cases entails tools. It is of essence to note that most of the educational research touches on the theoretical or the practical bits of a given curriculum. A paradigm basically is a representation of a real entity with something which is not the real thing. In our case a paradigm can be taken to mean an element for understanding a given research. The conceptualisation of research is design in a way to come up with an informed and a clear decisive take in regard to the approach to the research process, once a researcher is fully endowed with this concept, he or she will be able to carry out the research concerning the educational or any other enquiry of any discipline at an individual capacity. In our case we offer a formulation for design thinking in which brings about the correlation between these variables. There are diverse forms of these frameworks which will be put in place in ensuring that there is thorough understanding of the research concept in our study. In both the theoretical and practical angles the research must have tools for an easy interpretation by the students as well as the teachers. Theory is one of the biggest tools used in enhancing consistence in the work of the research in a given discipline. Theory is a thought which in most cases needs some proof for the validation of its conclusion. Most of the research is conducted with a view to establish the reality or the truth about something whose originality and existence is in doubt. What will drive most people in finding out the truth from the research is the magnitude of the suggestion of the theory. Some theories make the readers and researchers to try to find more. The theory can have different suggestions but again this will mostly be viewed by the parties concerned to look on the validity of a given essay. It therefore beats logics that the research is the only way in which validation can be based. According to (Mercer, 1995), theories are simplified models with concrete explanatory bits which can be applied by people to analyze and bring a clear and understandable sense about the complex world. The main reason why the learners as well as teachers or even researchers may embrace the issue of the theories is to find out the sense behind the theory suggested. Inasmuch as one may think that the theory approval is something that just comes automatically may be wrong as this passes through a process of learning. In our research we collected data on the students’ perception on the theories and the set paradigm in which the enquiry should be grounded. Like all other institutions or organizations, learning institutions experience a multitude of changes imposed both externally and internally. As such, it is of significance for administrators, faculty members and students to adapt to the change without experiencing excessive disruptions. Those seeking to instigate change use either “top-down”, non-negotiable or “bottom-up” approaches. The “top-down” approach allows top management to issue mitigations to those lower in the hierarchy with an aim of diffusing the administration obligations to the lower levels authorities. In this part we explore and find out the existence of the theoretical values in which the most significant part in the educational enquiry. We are obliged to look into the theories and the epistemology responsiveness in bringing about the ket perspectives which has been the point of the emphasis in the deployment of the educational findings. The main reason for coming up with the theories is to ensure the backing up of the theoretical claims which are aimed at seeing the validation of the claims. In addition, the theories are there to ensure the illustration and the evaluation of the theories presented by the known scientists and the earlier researchers. However, it should be noted that this does not show pure presentation of advanced account of the theoretical claims. Various world views have been introduced in order to bring a description of the grand theories but theories goes over board in the explanation of the nature of the human beings in the societies. Philosophy on the same point is geared towards seeing the clarification of what has been the belief that the philosophy is just used as knowledge but as not a branch of knowledge. It is again realized that the significant existence of major values which guides the instinct of the human is enclave in the philosophical beliefs in the educational set up. The research paradigm is a model which encompasses the systems which portrays beliefs together with the theoretical assumptions which is composed of ontology and the epistemological branches which is to justify the given disciplines which is the portaged in the choice of paradigm Explored below are different paradigm perspectives towards change implementation. In addition, the different paradigms are compared and contrasted with regard to research in education. The scientific theories have been detailed to encompass the positivism, constructivism and so on. The following are the elements and their effects. Positivism paradigm For many years past it has been a belief that education has been focused on the learning of the way things are but not on the way things should be. With this it is clear that the education of the day is not innovative but kind of knowledge consummation by the students and their teachers. Positivism is a form of paradigm which is associated with scientific theories. It in most cases regarded as a scientific way of incorporating understanding and learning to the pursuant of knowledge in diverse disciplines including social sciences as well as the business oriented courses. Positivism negates theism and the existence of metaphysics, as his assertions are grounded on the presumption that mathematical or logical proof is crucial in understanding phenomena. As such, researchers guided by positivism ideologies utilize the scientific method to gather, analyse and interpret data. By using statistical analysis or the experimentation method, positivist researchers are able to examine phenomena; hence, ascertain the logic or rationale behind the initial hypotheses. The introduction of Key stages by the Educational Reform Act (1988) sought to set age-specific targets pertaining to educational knowledge. After ascertaining that the hypothesis is justifiable through statistical procedures or experimentation, the positivist then proceeds to identify his study’s variables. Experimental designs feature two categories of variables, which include independent variables and dependent variables. The nature of phenomenon under observation predetermines the number of variables in each study, which in turn predetermines the experimental design.The two major experimental designs include within-subjects design and between-subjects design. Within each major design are sub-designs; for example, when a study necessitates the use of more than one independent variable, a between-subjects, factorial design is used. Positivists seek to establish correlation or causation between their variables. From the above research question, the independent variable would be the targets set in the key stages whereas the dependent variable would be the student’s academic achievement. The subject of the experimental study would be students at the secondary level whereby, researchers will expose the same participants of the study to the all the treatment conditions (within-subject design). Data gathered from studies guided by tenets of positivism yield quantitative data. As such, researchers are able to subject them to different mathematical procedures. For example, a positivist researcher investigating the above research question would analyse results from the experiment by comparing data from the control and the experimental group.In addition, data from researches guided by positivism is objective and standardized easing the process of generalizing. Six fundamental positivism principles enlighten positivist research. They include: Naturalism- infers that natural sciences’ principles should solely be used for social sciences Phenomenalism- negates subjective perspectives, as valid information results from only observable phenomena Nominalism- infers that scientifically valuable words have single of fixed meanings Atomism- infers that enlightenment of change is achievable through reduction to its smallest parts Scientific laws- asserts that establishing generalized laws is the fundamental goal of science Facts and values- infers that research should endeavour to establish facts and not necessarily individual’s values Therefore, implementing recommendations from positivist researches becomes easier, as the implementations are grounded on facts. Governments and administrators of learning institutions gravitate towards such data when instigating change via non-negotiable and “top-down” approaches respectively. Interpretism Negating positivist ideologies, a researcher guided by interpretivism places great emphasis on natural sciences’ social character. The basic presumption of the interpretivism ideology holds that it is necessary for people to adopt a strategy, which respects the differences between people and the animate and inanimate objects of the natural disciplines. Different cultural orientations account for diversity whereby, cultural contexts predispose people’s behaviours, beliefs and attitudes. As such, interprets researchers postulate that social experts possess the skills and knowledge to comprehend social action’s subjective meaning (Edwards 2000, p. 196). Research in education guided by principles of interpretivism seeks to dispel the universality of laws in predetermining social phenomena. These researchers negate the existence of linear causal models and the uniformity of nature. Interprets researchers rely on exploratory studies that seek to uncover distinctly different orientations responsible for predisposing subjects’ behaviours in a specific context. An interpretists approach towards the above research question necessitates little to no imposition of subjective biases prior to commencement of the study. Meaning, the researcher maintains an open-mind as they proceed with the study despite their subjective inclinations. For example, the implementation of the National Curriculum proposed by the Education Reform Act (1988) resulted in favourable and adverse consequences for state schools; therefore, a researcher exploring these factors might explore these factors and pinpoint factors that are likely to affect public schools in the UK. Interpretist researchers agree on the nature of reality. The relativist ontology in interpretivism infers that experimentally developed tolerances and meanings result in the inter-subjective construction of reality. Conversely, the transactional or subjectivist epistemology in interpretivism posits that it is impossible for people to detach themselves from what they know (Edwards 2000, p. 198). Such researches yield qualitative data, as they explore respondents’ subjective perspectives of social phenomena within specific contexts. Therefore, non-experimental design methods such as case studies, phenomenology and ex-post facto studies among others, prove efficient in the collection of data in a systematic and scientific manner. In addition, majority of these studies are done on a large scale and progress over time (longitudinal studies). This allows for the generalizability of data, as the study utilizes a large representative sample. Questionnaires and interviews prove efficient in the collection of data for such studies. Recommendations made from such researches lobby for change that is implementable through the “top-down” approach. The fact that researchers take into account the diverse nature of their subjects enables them to consider and explore mitigating challenges, which might impede the successful implementation of the change. For example, many opposed the mode of assessment imposed by the National Curriculum (GCSE) claiming that it “dumbed down” students (failed to challenge them academically), as such public schools were reluctant to adopt the mode of assessment whereby, they opted for independent modes such as the IGSCE. Constructivist Dissimilar to a positivist and an interpretist, a constructivist views people as active architects of their own knowledge, they abide by constructivism’s basic presumption, which states that individuals construct their unique, personal comprehension of the world and garner knowledge from their surroundings through experiencing various phenomena and later internalizing those experiences. In addition, constructivists assert that people’s interactions contribute to the construction and reconstruction of their understanding of the social world. Constructivists distinguish between various cultures’ symbolic representation of the world, which they presume account for the different perspectives of reality held by a diverse group of people. Therefore, a researcher guided by constructivist ideologies seeks to study know phenomenon in a systematic and scientific manner whereby, they rely on observation to gather data. The immigrant population is steadily on the rise in the UK, as immigrants search for better education and employment opportunities. As a result, there continues to be an influx of non-English speaking, foreign students in all education levels. Their integration into the UK education system is integral for the overall success of the country’s education system. ethnographic study helps to promote new understandings of culture in real-life changing contexts. Constructivists support the use of the “bottom-up” approach to instigate change, as it creates a platform for top-management (such as school administrators) to interact with recipients of possible change. Each party is able to voice their concerns; therefore, establish a common ground for all parties. For example, the non-English speaking, foreign students best understand factors that affect their academic outcomes compared to policy makers subjected to none of the constraints that impede foreign students’ academic outcomes (Goldstein 2004, p. 311-315). Staff administrators and students .Therefore, a critical researcher studying the impact of legislative reforms to on the education sector must first seek to understand the impact of these reforms on the society in general. More often than not, critical researchers use non-experimental designs whereas they rely on the following research instruments: surveys, interviews and questionnaires (Hammersley 2006, p. 14) Data yielded from studies guided by critical research is qualitative, as the social phenomena under investigation cannot be subjected to experimental methods that yield quantitative data. However, just like other post-positivism paradigms, the application of statistical procedures to the qualitative data enables researchers to derive quantitative data, which highlights patterns. A critical researcher’s main objective is to demystify personal values in order to instigate change (Hammersley 2006, p. 13). Therefore, both “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches to change are efficient in fostering changes proposed by critical researchers from their research findings. For example, legislative reforms seeking to end discrimination against homosexuals, mandates that all institutions comply; hence, adopt attitudes that are more tolerant and practices towards homosexuals; non-compliance results in adverse consequences. PART TWO Born in 1798, Auguste Comte is credited for founding the positivist paradigm. A disciple of the St. Simon until 1824 before proceeding to publish the much acknowledged discourse pertaining to positivism in 1826, he had previously enrolled and entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. As is the stereotypical notion for most philosophers, Auguste Comte, while pursuing the publication of his philosophy in positivism, became deranged temporarily. The transient nature of his mental state fortunately kept his brilliant brain sane enough to be appointed the examiner and instructor of mathematics at the Ecole Polytechnique, mathematics being the core in which positivism would be realized to centre on. Comte had come to realize that it would be insufficient to possess mere intellectual development as human beings. Rather, it would be paramount to adopt positivism as the scientific and systematic doctrine and technique as the religion in, which humanity should abide. This is what Comte was aiming to accomplish, the transformation of positivism into a religion. Positivism was not a stand-alone paradigm, as it had a number of influences to support its founding tenets. Works such as Empiricism (Locke), Scepticism (Hume), the Sensism of the eighteenth century period, Criticism (Kant), the Mysticism of medieval times, Traditionalism (De Maistre and de Bonald) and finally the Philanthropy (Saint-Simon) all contributed towards the conceiving and development of positivism. Comte thus held on to the fact that science passed through three distinctive but successive junctures. As has come to be known, there is the theological phase, the metaphysical phase and the positive phase, the final on which positivism hangs on. Since Comte intended positivism to be a religion, he also had his own version of the holy trinity, which he termed as the positivist trinity. These were; humanity as “the great being”, world space as “the great medium” and the earth which was also known as the “great fetich”. With the trinity, there had to be a hierarchical priesthood. There was a Catholicism based calendar, an organized cult and its own positive philosophies. A division came about among the Positivists when Comte passed away. The orthodox group being led by Pierre Laffitte and the dissidents of the two under the direction of Emile Littre acknowledged positivism in its scientific aspect. The ideologies of Positivism permeated the scientific and philosophical assumption of the 19th century and exercised a malevolent inspiration in every domain. Like positivism, all paradigms supported by theoretical and factual philosophies came with their founders and contributors. Franz Boas while in Germany fathered the interpretivism paradigm. His works was based on fieldwork and observations he had conducted on an expedition in the Baffin Island whereby majority of the inhabitants were the Central Eskimos. His findings prompted him to further investigations in British Columbia among the Native Americans; therefore, further his theory’s presumptions. The anthropology of America was greatly influenced by Boas, specifically after his improvement of his theoretical structure, which persisted throughout the evolutionary scale leading from barbarity to “modern” culture, as brought forward by his predecessors of the 19th century. His predecessors lived by the popular ideologies of the time of scientific racism, which was the idea that race was a biological perception and human characteristic is best acknowledged and understood through the typology of these biological characteristics. By believing that varying cultures can be/are too complex to be appraised by theorizing characteristics of the known evolutionary laws of culture development, he sought to understand the development of communities and cultures through their specific traditions. This includes the history of these cultures. The four field approaches associated with interpretivism include human evolution, language, archaeology and culture, as established by Boas became a sub-field in the broader doctrine of American anthropology. Boas was recognized for defending what he believed to be right with an unendingly defiant passion. What better way to counter the scientifically racist anthropologists of the time who camouflaged themselves under the scientific realm by openly remonstrating Hitlerism. Boas concluded that all anthropologists had an obligation to support their work and have no shame in speaking out on various social issues. This earned him accreditation whereby, he was regarded as being the first scientist to publish the ideology that all human races are equal. This was a notion that could earn deadly reprimanding. Jean Paiget’s theory of genetic epistemology laid the foundation for constructivism’s psychosomatic roots. Through his contributions, Piaget highlighted cognition’s adaptive function and analogized the mind’s development. Piaget suggested four stages of cognitive development, which unfolded sequentially (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete and formal operational stages). Piaget presumed that the development of human intellect occurred through adaptation and organization (Von Glasersfeld 1989, p. 122). Within the theory, there falls two general doctrines; social constructivism associated with Lev Vygotsky and cognitive constructivism associated with Jean Piaget. During the 1930s towards the end of the 40s, constructivism was the frontal perception among all educators of public schools in Northern America. The philosophy placed its emphasis on the students by viewing the educators as facilitators who assisted their students to construct their own conceptualizations and elucidations to their current complications. The ideologies underpinning constructivism began with the comprehensions of Socrates who maintained that there were generic situations for the learning process that are in the cognizance of an individual. It was however, Piaget’s philosophy of knowledgeable growth, which had a crucial stimulus on the development of contemporary situations. Lev Vygotskys (1896–1934) a Russian psychologist built on Piaget’s work by exploring concepts such as thought and language in relation to the society. According to Vygotsky, competent external parties contribute to a child’s internalization of social and external activities such as language (Gao 2010, p. 273). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was a concept developed when he found a fundamental difference in children’s reasoning between those working independently and those working with more people that are proficient. His findings posit that learning environments ought to incorporate guided interactions, which create a platform for children to reflect in inconsistencies and in turn change their conceptualizations via communication. Vygotsky’s advancements prove useful in the situated approach to learning (Vygotsky 1979, p. 6). The critical research paradigm is a theoretical perspective most notably advanced by Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse at the Frankfurt School. Their investigations and findings were a critical response to the philosophical works of Marx, Kant, Weber and Hegel. These philosophers went aheadto assume that there is a reality that is fathomable. This reality is fashioned and dictated by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender-based and political powers, crystallized over time into social systems comprehended to be natural or tangible. Contemporary critical research theory has further been influenced by Gyorgy Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second-generation scholar, Jurgen Habermas. According to Habermas’s findings, critical research surpassed its theoretical pedigrees in German impracticality, progressing closer to American uncomplicatedness with each passing moment. One of the originators of the paradigm, Max Horkheimer, argued that human beings can change veracity, and the circumstances necessary for this change are already in existence. Horkheimer was convinced that the future of all humanity was dependent on the existence of the knowingly critical attitude, which he comprehended as “part of the development of the community”. The underlying presumptions of the four paradigms differentiate them from each other. As mentioned earlier, positivism negates any form of subjective information derived through processes such as intuition or contemplation. Through experimentation and application of statistical procedures, positivists study social phenomena that have mathematical and logical backing. In addition, positivists also study information derived from sensory experiences. For this reason, positivism differs from all other post-positivism paradigms. Research guided by positivism explores causal relationships between variables and correlation of the same variables. Interpretivism emphasizes on the role of distinctive cultures in shaping individuals’ realities. According to interpretists, cultural diversity imparts subjective biases upon individuals who ascribe to a specific culture; which in turn affects their appraisal of social phenomena. Conversely, constructivists place great emphasis on the role of cognition in appraising experiences; hence, moulding one’s conceptualization of reality. Moreover, social constructivists hold that interrelationships between individuals also contribute to an individual’s conceptualization of reality. Consequentially, constructivists rely on subjective accounts of participants of research studies to understand social phenomena. Finally, critical research is founded on the basic presumption that institutions shape social reality. Therefore, critical researchers are mindful of the context within, which social phenomena occur. In addition, they also seek to explore disparities created by institutions that have power. A critical researcher aims to dispel norms with the aim of exposing prejudicial practices; therefore, facilitate desired change (Edwards 2000, p. 197). In relation to research, the type of research design, methodology and methods used to explore social phenomena using specific research paradigms also differ. More often than not, individuals use the terms methodology and methods interchangeable, which should not be the case. Methodology refers to the study of methods, which encompasses analysing philosophical assumptions pertaining to a specific research process. Conversely, method refers to specific data collection techniques and is a derivative of the underlying philosophical assumptions. The nature of the phenomenon under investigation predetermines the methodology used to carry out the research. Social phenomena that are objective and have are explicable through rational, logical, or mathematical processes rely are studied using the positivism methodology. Conversely, social phenomena that are subjective can be studied through interpretivism, constructivism or critical research. Anti-positivist methodologies are further distinguished by whether or not the social phenomena under investigation pertain to individuals’ subjective experiences, cultural diversity, or role of institutions. The methodology determines the method used to study varying social phenomena. Researches guided by the positivist methodology utilize objective scientific methods such as experiments or the application of statistical procedures to collect data. On the other hand, researches guided by anti-positivist methodologies utilize longitudinal or cross-sectional non-experimental methods to collect data; for example, surveys, phenomenology and ex-post-facto studies (Edwards 2000, p. 195-198). Reliability and validity is crucial in research in spite of the methodology and methods used to study specific social phenomena. Reliability is the degree to, which research instruments yield consistent results whereas, validity encompasses the degree to, which research instruments measure what they purport to measure. Internal reliability ensures that items on the research instruments are consistent whereas external reliability ensures that generalizability of data yielded by a research. Determining reliability in researches guided by positivism is easier, as data yielded is quantitative in nature. In addition, the procedures used in experimentation or in the application of statistical procedures are straightforward. When dealing with research guided by post-positivist paradigms, this is far from the case. This is because the social phenomena under investigation are predominantly driven by subjective conceptualizations of reality. As such, it is much difficult to determine internal reliability using methods such as test-retest. It is also hard to generalize, which is an indicator of external validity, as data yielded is qualitative. In order to mitigate this problem, researchers apply statistical procedures to the qualitative data turning it into quantitative data. They are then able to see patterns; therefore, establish external reliability by generalizing. There are no fundamental differences between validity in researches guided by different paradigms. Inadequacy of the items on the research instrument undermines the validity of research (Hammersley 2006, p. 6-7). Freeman et al. (2007, p. 29) infers that: “Qualitative researchers often make connections across studies to establish the applicability of their work…” This seeks to ensure external validity of data. In spite of the differences, all paradigms are integral in enhancing scientific exploration. Positivism enables researchers to undertake quantitative research studies, which yield indisputable, factual information. Theoretical perspectives in pure sciences such as Physics benefit from researches guided by positivism. On the other hand, anti-positivist approaches enable researchers to explore social phenomena that have no rational or mathematical explanations, as they hinge on individuals’ conceptualizations of reality. Theoretical perspectives in social sciences such as Psychology and Sociology benefit from researches guided by anti-positivist ideologies. In addition, all paradigms centre on the use of the scientific method in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, which guarantees objectivity of data. For example, experiments carried out in researches undertaken by positivists follow a rigorous and systematic process, which is also the case for researches undertaken by anti-positivists whereby, they ensure that their data collection procedures such as observation remain free from their personal subjective biases. It is at the disposal of researchers in education to choose a paradigm that best captures the social phenomena they seek to investigate. This is achievable through asking the following questions. Is the social phenomenon under investigation a product of objective, logical, innate origins or a human creation? In addition, results from any paradigm represent a conceivable foundation for the premeditated consequence. This means that findings are subject to change with advancements in knowledge. One of the main objectives in undertaking any research entails directing efforts towards filling an identified knowledge gap. Researchers seek to dispute findings from pre-existing research, build upon pre-existing research or establish new theoretical frameworks. For example, positivism dominated scientific research for an extensive period; however, when proponents of interpretivism failed to reconcile tenets of positivism with their ideologies, they endeavoured to develop their own theoretical framework, which mirrored their ideologies. With the refining and honing of techniques, inessential causal associations become apparent. Findings from research continue to prove useful in instigating change. After the identification of a research question, researchers proceed with the research with preconceived ideologies pertaining to possible solutions to the research question. They seek to support their findings with empirical evidence in order to convince instigators of change of its merits. For example, before the government implements legislative reform policies in the education sector, researchers must conduct researches exploring various perspectives. Research findings also predetermine the change approach that will permit the successful implementation of change, as its subjected by minimal resistance from the recipients of the change (Peshkin 2000, p. 6-7). The “top-down” approach allows top management to issue change directives to those lower in the hierarchy without prior consultation. The non-negotiable approach closely resembles the “top-down” approach; however, it authorizes the imposition of stringent change policies. Conversely, the “bottom-up” approach allows for more interactions between instigators and recipients of change; hence, reduces resistance to proposed change.   PART THREE For a comprehensive understanding and the inculcation of the improvement of the paradigm it is of importance to involve the aspect of constructivist approach. This touches on the interest of the gender as well as the environmental make up. According to Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky’s contributions to the paradigm proves necessary. For Piaget, Vygotsky and other proponents of constructivism, an individual’s unique experience supersedes their conceptualization of reality. Generally cognition is complicated as it takes on a subjective dimension. Jean Piaget advanced his ‘Genetic Epistemology Theory’, which laid the framework for constructivism. According to him, cognition’s adaptive function explained the evolutionary nature of the human mind. Cognitive development occurred through a series of universal stages, which included sensor motor, preoperational, concrete and formal operational stages. Piaget believed that these stages unfolded sequentially in spite of the genetic and environmental differences. In each stage, the individual developed cognitive skills that helped them accomplish different cognitive tasks (Von Glasersfeld 1989, p. 121). The implication of Piaget’s contribution to the education researchers was that they had to take into consideration the cognitive capabilities of students before suggesting reform policies. For example, curriculum development takes into consideration students’ cognitive abilities as per their age differences; therefore, informing instructors on what to teach. Building on Piaget’s work, Vygotsky explored different concepts relating to cognition; however, he focused mainly on language, Unlike Piaget, he accepted the influential role of competent external parties in children’s internalization of external and social activities. This introduced a social component to constructivism, which was initially individual-cantered (Vygotsky 1979, p. 5). Therefore, constructivist researchers began exploring the impact of interpersonal interactions in shaping an individual’s experiences and conceptualization of reality. Both scholars affected other constructivist researchers; for example, John Dewey who presumed that learners draw on experiences that are personal and meaningful to them to comprehend knowledge and ideas that emerge from various contexts. Humans are at the centre of any research study; therefore, it is upon researchers to focus predominantly on their unique conceptualization of reality. The constructivist paradigm offers researcher the ability to implement it; therefore, better understand different social phenomena. The other paradigms give precedence to other factors, and not individual experiences. Positivist researchers focus on phenomena that are explicable through statistical or experimental procedures, an assertion that fails to consider the subjective account of individuals. In addition, interpretist researchers focus on distinctive cultural differences in shaping individual’s reality. Little to no focus is placed on an individual’s ability to conceptualize situations independently without cultural pressures. Conversely, critical researchers focus on the role of institutions in predisposing social reality. Just like in researches guided by interpretivism ideologies, critical researchers view individual experiences as product References Clark, A. (2011) ‘ Multimodal map making with young children : exploring ethnographic and participatory methods’, Qualitative Research, vol. 11(3): 3121-330 Edwards, A. (2000) ‘Looking at action research through the lenses of sociocultural psychology and activity theory’, Educational Action Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 195–204. Ercikan, K. and Roth, W-M. (2006) ‘What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?’ Educational Researcher, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 14–23. Freeman M., deMarrais K., Preissie J., Roulston K., and St. Pierre E. (2007) “Standards of evidence in qualitative research: an incitement to discourse’, Educational Researcher, vol. 36(25). Gao F. and Shum F. S. K. (2010) Investigating the role of bilingual teaching assistants in Hong Kong: an exploratory study, Educational Research, 52:4, 445-456. Goldstein, T. 2004. Performed ethnography for critical language teacher education. In Critical pedagogies and language learning, ed. B. Norton and K. Toohey, 311–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammersley, M. (2006) ‘Ethnography: problems and prospects’, Ethnography and Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–14. Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D. and Murphy, K. (2010) ‘Ethical challenges in qualitative research: examples from practice’, Nurse Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 15–25. Peshkin, A. (2000) ‘The nature of interpretation in qualitative research’, Educational Researcher, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 5–10. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989) ‘Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching’, Synthese, vol. 80, pp. 121–40. Vygotsky, L.S. (1979) ‘Consciousness as a Problem in the Psychology of Behaviour’, Soviet Psychology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 3–35. Read More