Scientific Paradigm and Research Methodologies in Engineering - Coursework Example

Scientific Paradigm and Research Methodologies in Engineering Introduction There are varying views across and within the disciplines on what research is, in relation to the kind of knowledge being developed. This brings in the concept of paradigm, which is a system of beliefs that dictate the criteria of doing research, and establishes a formal set of processes and practices, ranging from thoughts to actions. Thomas Kuhn defines paradigm as “an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools” (Kuhn 1962). Evidently, each academic discipline has its research methodology given the kind of paradigm it uses, prompting the researchers to establish first where the discipline they deal with belong. Research is an undertaking that is concerned with the exploration and understanding of social phenomena that are both academic and informative in nature. It pertains to formalized and spontaneously occurring social, psychological and cultural processes which are known as education. Research, therefore, deals educational concerns from a range of concepts and understandings of the social reality. This explains why a number of varied paradigms have been developed to explain the criteria according to the one selected and the definition of the problems awaiting the inquiry. Research methodology, on the other hand, is the inquiry strategy, which draws from the underlying assumptions to research design and data collection (Niglas 2000). Research methodology is mostly classified as either qualitative or quantitative, although there are other distinctions concerning the mode of the research. These two tend to create distinctions about the knowledge of nature and also the way data is collected and analyzed. (Rescher 2000), and finally the kind of generalizations deduced from the data. While quantitative research method tends to study natural phenomena, qualitative method inquiries into the social and cultural phenomena. This paper will inquire into the various ways in which scientific paradigms influence research methodologies, which of the current theoretical views and methodologies are most relevant within the discipline of engineering. Finally, it will also look into the reasons why the methodologies so selected are most relevant in this discipline. There are three philosophical perspectives widely accepted as paradigms in the contemporary social, management and organizational research. These paradigms include the Positivism paradigm, Interpretivism paradigm and the Critical Postmodernism paradigm. Notably, the main distinctive features of the paradigms are the nature of knowledge pursued, different means by which the knowledge is produced and assessed and finally the world view. Positivism It is a paradigm of exploring social reality. It is majorly anchored on the philosophical ideas of August Comte, a French philosopher. He postulated that observation and reason provide the best means of understanding behavior. He affirmed that true knowledge is only based on experience of senses and is obtained by observation and experiment. Indeed, Rossman (2003) emphasize “Positivists use scientific methods and generate knowledge systematically and also use quantification to attain precision in the description of parameters and the relationship among them”. The positivism uncovers the truth and presents it as by empirical means. In this understanding, scientific knowledge is constituted of facts and does not depend on the social construction. For these reasons, if the research in question is constituted by stable and unchanging reality, the researcher has to use the perspective of objectivity, which is the belief in an objective real world. This implies that it does not rely on methods that depend on control and manipulation of reality (Shadish1995b). This paradigm views human behavior as passive, which is only manipulated by the external environment. It holds a realist and objectivist views of knowledge, which informs why it employs instructionist and constructionist approaches in a complementary manner. Due to its lack of subjectivity in analyzing and interpreting the social reality, who argue that there is a need to replace objectivity with subjectivity so as to interpret and understand the reality. Because of this, the assumptions of science which include pursuing empiricism, generality and the determinism form the framework within which it is comprehended. Collection of the testable and the verifiable data to support the hypotheses and the oriented expositions form the basis of empiricism. Also, the exposition of one or sets of phenomena in the direct and precise manner refers to ‘parsimony’, while determinism refers to the understanding that events are caused by other circumstances, making such causal links important and applicable in prediction and control. Generality, on the other hand, is the projection of an observation of a phenomenon to a larger populace and the world over. The above assumptions are used to guide the research to the realization of reasonable correlation of ideas and finally, reach a provisional body of knowledge but not the final truth. The paradigm offers a systematic process of understanding and body of knowledge creation through the use of evidence. Through this, it creates precision in the description of a range of identical parameters and understanding of how they relate. The paradigm of positivism is, therefore, applicable in the quantitative research methods. Some of the approaches include the surveys and experiments which could be longitudinal, correlation or even cross sectional dimensions of research. It is also clear that the paradigm proceeds to dehumanize humans without consideration of the social reality. In fact, its critics are of the opinion that there is need to replace the objectivity with the elements of subjectivity in the course of the scientific inquiry. The paradigm of positivism is for the above reasons highly pinned on the predictability, measurability, controllability, objectivity and the construct laws and the rules of human behavior. This sends the inquirer and the inquired into the process of engagement through interviews, surveys and active record taking. The records are then used for the analysis and from such, deductions are drawn. As for the ontology, which refers to multiple realities, the exploration of the phenomena is through human interactions and meaningful actions. This paradigm hence applies the quantitative research methodology. This is because of its aspect of subjective knowledge of the phenomena and its reliance on empirical methods to test the data used to draw conclusions. It, therefore, holds that the positivists focus on the experimental and quantitative methods in knowledge search, and as such, it emphasizes on the objectivity of the inquiry. However, this cannot be achieved without the independence of the human mind. Interpretivism This paradigm holds the belief that reality is composed of human subjective experiences of the external world. It propounds an argument that the reality is at times socially constructed. In the same way, Smith & Heshusius (1986) argue “…interpretivists are anti-foundationalist who believes that there is no single correct route or method to knowledge”. They hold that deriving the constructs by the researchers by an examination of their phenomenon interest; then that knowledge and meaning are subjects of interpretation. Through the interpretivism brushes of the objective knowledge. The major underpinnings of interpretivism paradigm are observation and interpretation. The researcher is, therefore, required to observe and collect information, then do interpretation to deduce the meaning. They do this by inferring the match of the information and the abstract pattern (Platt 1996). This paradigm does not focus or predefine the independent and the dependent variables, but instead explores the complexity of human sense on the situation. According to Rescher (2000), interpretivism does not exist as a single paradigm but a large family of different paradigms. The philosophical base of this paradigm includes hermeneutics and phenomenology. The hermeneutics is, in fact, understood as an underlying philosophy and mode of analysis. It gives the philosophical underpinning to human understanding of the interpretivism. In terms of the analysis mode, it suggests and provides ways of understanding the meaning and sense of textual data, which for one reason or the other may not be clear. By iterating between the consideration of the independent meaning of parts and the whole that the data form, the human understanding is achieved. It also takes into consideration the presuppositions and the pre-understandings of phenomena. The phenomenology, on the other hand, focuses on the uncovering of the basic characteristics of certain phenomena as they really occur. In actual sense, it means the study of the “phenomena” which is the appearance of things. For this reason, it attempts to establish conditions for the objective study of topics as subjective There are other key features of the positivism which other research publications have categorized as paradigms themselves. These features are the ontology and the epistemology. The epistemology suggests that events and phenomena are understood through a careful mental process of interpretation informed by interaction with the context in question. Because of the social and cultural bearing and the emphasis on the subjectivity and human interaction in the quest for knowledge, this paradigm of interpretivism uses the qualitative research methods to obtain knowledge. This paradigm is also widely applicable in the philosophical disciplines in their processes of conducting research works Critical Postmodernism Developed by the Frankfurt school in Germany, it is a paradigm that combines two different views of the critical theory and the postmodern scholarship Zammito (2004). Though developed from different views; together they provide larger rubrics for academic movement than specific theories. This paradigm uses a radical approach and act as a force which aims at liberating the education system from the raging conflict with oppression powers. The researchers postulate “…social reality is historically constituted and as such, only reproduced by the humans” (Shadish, Cook & Campbell 2002). It argues that as much as people are able to change certain aspects of their life, their ability to do so is indeed constrained by cultural, political and social domination. For that matter, they enhance self conscious criticism to transcend the taken for granted values, beliefs and the social structures. This paradigm hence requires the researchers, the instructional designers and the evaluators to question and evaluate the political, cultural and the gender assumptions that underlie the efficacy of instructional product or program. The paradigm, just like the interpretivism is also widely accepted and applied in the philosophical disciplines. An example of the research study which can be done using this paradigm is the ethnographical case study and the study of biographies. It aims at displaying the existing structures of domination and opens the avenues for social participation. In my understanding of these paradigms and the corresponding research methodologies for each, it is my view that the discipline of engineering can only make use of the positivism paradigm in the process of conducting its research. This is because the engineering is all about the physical reality and tends to disregard the metaphysics that other paradigms tend to encompass and embrace. In the field of engineering, the question of empiricism is key, and the knowledge sought and obtained is regarded as the objective knowledge. There is no room whatsoever for the subjective knowledge. Again, being a practical discipline, the methods of carrying out research like the surveys and accurate measurements and record taking are most appropriate. This paradigm, therefore, becomes the most relevant to be applied in the engineering discipline. . Reference List Guba, E.G & Lincoln, Y.S 1994, Competing paradigms in Qualitative Research. Sage, London Niglas, K 1999, Quantitative and Qualitative inquiry in educational research: is there pragmatic difference between them? Education –line: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ Tesch, R 1990, Qualitative Research: Analysis of types and tools. Falmer Press. Zammito, J 2004, a nice derangement of epistemes: post positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Smith, J& Heshusius, L 1986, Closing down the conversation: the end of quantitative and qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Sage, London. Platt, J 1996, A History of sociological research methods in America, 1920-1960. Cambridge University Press, New York. Rescher, N 2000, Realistic Pragmatism: an introduction to pragmatic philosophy. State University on New York Press, Albany. Ritzer, G 1975, Sociology, A multiple paradigm science. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Rossman, G & Rallis S 2003, Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Shadish, W, Cook, T & Campbell, D 2002, Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for causal inference. Houston Mifflin, Boston. Niglas, k 2000, Combining Quantitative and Qualitative approaches. Education-line: Shadish, W http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ 1995b, The quantitative-qualitative debates: “DeKuhnifying” the conceptual context. Evaluation and program Planning, 18(1), 47-49. Read More