The Benefits and Challenges of Conducting Multi-Paradigm Research - Assignment Example

........ ..... Explore the benefits and challenges of conducting multi-paradigm researchTerm “paradigm”, as the definition of a pattern or example of something, came from ancient Greek philosophy. In Plato’s texts, paradigm is the prototype of world’s structure, taken from the world of ideas, according to which, the Demiurge created earthy reality. In general meaning, the term “paradigm” is a philosophical or theoretical framework for any kind of scientific research. Thomas Kuhn, who is known for the discussing of meaning ‘paradigm’ in his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, characterized paradigm as “an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools…” (p.43). Kuhn also specified the questions, which should be clarified within a paradigm to consider it as a valid base for a scientific research. A paradigm has to define what should be studied, what question and how should be asked, and also, which rules the researcher should follow to interpret obtained results. The notion of paradigm considers as the broadest unit of consensus, which serves to differentiate one scientific community from another. It appears to be a set of principles and axioms that relates to research process on the stage of assessment of a problem up to its solution. Paradigms define and correlate theories, methods and instruments, accepted within a scientific research. Analyzing the main paradigms, dominating in modern science, such as positivism, post positivism, critical theory, and constructivism, Guba and Lincoln (1994), represented their opinion about the role of paradigms, their assumptions, and the implications of those assumptions for research. “Paradigms define for the [researcher] what it is they are about, and what falls within and outside the limits of legitimate [research]” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p. 108). The authors states that the basic beliefs that define a particular research paradigm may be summarized by the responses given to three fundamental questions: the ontological question (what is the form and nature of reality), the epistemological question (what is the nature of the relationship between a researcher and the object of research), and the methodological question (how can the inquirer go about finding out whatever he/ she believes can be known) (pp. 105-117). From this aspect, we will analyze some of the well- known paradigms such as positivism and critical theory. Positivism. French philosopher August Comte (1798–1857) was the initiator of positivist paradigm, based on the philosophical ideas of observation and reasoning as the main ways of understanding reality and human behavior. According to August Comte, true knowledge is based on experience of senses and can be obtained by observation and experiment. Positivistic thinkers adopted his scientific method for knowledge generation. The main postulates of the positivist paradigm consist in understanding of nature as an objective, true reality, which is governed by unchangeable natural laws. Nature has its stable, pre-existing patterns and order that can be discovered. Positivism considers human nature to be described from the behaviorist approach, asserting the external factors play the main role in the formation of the similar specific behavior of everyone, who has been influenced the same objective factors. Accurate and certain, knowledge should be described in a systematic way, and verify hypotheses that can be regarded as facts or laws. The role of research is uncovering the natural laws of reality, scientifically explaining, predicting and controlling phenomena. A researcher have to be objective, independent from influencing the subject of research, and eliminate any bias or subjective values within research. The main methods of research are empirical and experimental, structured observation, quantification or measurement. The results of research consider true, if they can be observed and measured, solving problems within a specific context (Comte, 2003). Although, positivistic paradigm has been continuing to influence some researchers till now, it is criticized because of the lack of regard for the subjective nature and states of individuals, considering human behavior as passive, controlled and determined by external environment. According to the critics of positivism, objectivity needs to be replaced by subjectivity in the process of scientific research. Critical Theory. The founder of critical theory, Jurgen Habermas (1929), worked to develop the new approach of investigation and action in science. From his point of view, social sciences have to describe the historical forces, which restrict human freedom, and expose the ideological justification of those forces. Habermass theoretical system purposes to reveal the possibility of emancipation and rational-critical communication in human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests. Critical theory blames earlier paradigms, because they are not tuned to solve the main problems of human existence in society and transform existing situation. Habermas probes deep linkages among knowledge, experience and human purpose, what needs eventually to be done in a form of self-analysis. Critical theory develops the idea of three types of interest, which generate three types of knowledge. A technical interest concerns with the control of the physical environment, which generates empirical and analytical knowledge. A practical interest concerns with understanding the meaning of situation, which generates historical knowledge. An emancipating interest concerns with the provision for growth and advancement, which generates critical knowledge, and also it is concerns with exposing conditions of constraints and domination. According to critical theory, nature of reality governs by conflicting, underlying structures – social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, gender. People can design or reconstruct their own world through action and critical reflection. As a source of power, knowledge is dispersed and distributed. It is constituted by experience and social relations that structure the experience. Critical theory examines events within their social and economic context. The theory is constructed in the act of critique in the dialectical process of reconstruction of the world. The process of research cannot be isolated from values and subjective attitude of a researcher, influencing it continuously. The role of scientific research consists in promoting critical consciousness, breaking down the institutional structures that produce oppressive ideologies and social inequality. As a result, it has to lead to political emancipation of an individual. (Geuss, 1981) In point of fact, critical theory challenged the value neutral nature of positivism by displaying that particularistic and elite interests, embedded in positivist paradigm and knowledge, serve to reproduce the structures of social inequality and oppression. Thus, a paradigm within a research can explain a problem relatively its opportunity to influence and apply available knowledge. Any paradigm represents social and cultural traditions, ideological positions of its creators. We should also take in account the moments of contingency and ambiguity, which bound the cognitive potential of one isolated paradigm used within research.  Even the most rigorous empirical observations provide no guarantee of single, unequivocal solution, and the same empirical data can be explained in the terms of different, sometimes, conflicting scientific paradigms. The development of society and science brings changing paradigms by each other. Also, they can coexist simultaneously as theoretical bases of different scientific communities. Change occurs as far as science leads to finding that some things and phenomena cannot be explained by a dominant paradigm. "Well-established theories collapse under the weight of new facts and observations which cannot be explained, and then accumulate to the point where the once useful theory is clearly obsolete" (Kuhn, 1996, p. 12). Polarization of modern paradigms and ruptures between modern and postmodern stances make a researcher to choose the provocative alternative of multi-paradigm research. The complex problems of social and scientific realities demand diversified approach for seeking correct ways of solving. The tendency of multi-paradigm research spreads wide under the influence of critical theory, bringing the idea of impossibility to solve a problem rationally within existing theories in favor of one line of thought, because such a choice would have been virtually predetermined by politics or subjective tastes. Also, there is, sometimes, the case, as it is appear to be with social science, if there is no dominant paradigm governing the research works within the branch of science, just segmental influence of multiple paradigms. Such anomaly requires creating an agreed-upon paradigm system rather than crisis because of the co-existence of multiple paradigms in basic disagreement. Therefore, there is the tendency in modern science to rely upon many paradigms in order to reproduce the process, the object or phenomenon in its integrity and completeness. Such direction of research is based on the combination of different paradigmatic approaches within a research. Nevertheless, an actual research is not able to cover all various aspects of a phenomenon. A real scientist is not physically able to undertake all possible experiments and laboratory tests related to a phenomenon.  So, objectively and subjectively, a researcher inevitably forced to study the ways of unification of the most suitable paradigms along with the methodological instruments related to them purposing to create a multi-paradigm complex. In order to develop an initial concept idea for an orientation framework for a research, object characteristics and methodology for choosing or combining within suitable paradigmatic approaches, a scientist has to identify some major differences between paradigms first of all. Also, it is necessary to clarify the following questions, which may appear within research: 1. What is the nature or essence of a phenomena being investigated? 2. Is the phenomenon objective in nature or created by human mind? 3. What are the bases of knowledge corresponding to the reality, and how knowledge can be acquired and disseminated? 4. Is the phenomena conditioned by the environment or is the environment created by it? After replying the questions, a researcher can identify whether the problem pertains to the chosen paradigms and find the appropriate combination of them. One of the first steps after definition of a problem context should be reflection upon paradigms and methodologies, which can suit purpose and object best. At this stage, a researcher may have two options: he can either focus on one basic paradigm gaining the advantage of supplementing it with some additional points of view and methods, adopted from other established paradigms, or he can try to combine suitable methodologies and turn towards multi-paradigm research. There is the necessity of correct understanding of the multi-paradigm approach in research, which means the reasonable combination of different paradigms, not contradicting each other essentially. After the selection of paradigms, the next step would be to build multi-paradigm system, what consists on the interaction of the best-fit paradigms modules. The components of cognitive structure should not be just picked up and added to each other. They have to be integrated, forming the new cognitive complex, being able to develop the qualitative base, on which we could build further research and theoretical conclusions.   The process of coordination of different paradigms seems difficult enough. It starts with comparative analysis, which allows exploring similarities and differences between cognitive modules, including the number of actions of a researcher. We can designate the main directions and activities demanded from a researcher for the harmonization of various paradigms within a unique multi-paradigm complex. It should include: - Identification of the relations of different modules forming multi-paradigm; - Establishing the nature of the processes of interactions (similarity of content ); - Identification of "parallelism"(common ground) ,which should give the opportunities for intersection of the heterogeneous parts of multi-paradigm; - Estimation of the preconditions to overcome fragmentation and splitting within the multi-paradigm complex; - Withdrawing of the elements of the primary paradigmatic constructions that appears to be unnecessary or outdated for current research; - Intensification of interactions, which consist in the removal of permanent conflicts among the cognitive modules; - And finally, the linking of methodologies with the purpose to form the research instrument, which should be able to level the methodological imperfection of every primary source. This effort would help solving the task of identification of the right procedure for conducting a research and avoid unnecessary work by trying different methodologies. Multi-paradigm research purposes to create the basis of study, a heuristically capacious model, which would give criteria for the assessment and assumption of main principles, from which a research should be started and conducted, till getting the valid interpretation of final results.  Any single paradigm (with all of its prerequisites, assumptions and qualifications) is not able to describe the process and the result of research completely. Modern science faces the problem constantly, especially, with regard to the humanitarian branches of science (social science, psychology, linguistics, ecology etc.), which are multi-paradigmatic in essence, and they cannot be observed just with the aspect of objective or subjective theory particularly.  Multi –paradigm research seems foreground in the research works of modern science. Nevertheless, the main challenge of multi-paradigm research consists in creating a harmonious cognitive complex, which could assume the reasonable combination of conflicting paradigms, which should be able to clarify the different sides of phenomena.  Otherwise, a purely artificial connection of heterogeneous, internally incompatible or even opposing principles will be dissociative basically. It will be difficult or just impossible to rely upon the postulates that are completely different with their cognitive abilities.  Ignoring the challenge and accepting unbalanced multi –paradigm complex, a researcher risks to get wrong results and conclusions. As we have discovered, multi-paradigm research can be as summative (if we missed correction and coordination of different explanatory patterns) as essentially integral. Well-balanced multi-paradigm complex should be able to overcome dissociation of its components. The variety of approaches, which passed through the procedure of logical and meaning synthesis, appears as the connecting links, working on the implementation of common purpose, capable to explain the problem from different perspectives, aspects and angles. It makes possible to match a multi- paradigm to a complex problem. Figuratively speaking, a holistic multi-paradigm complex reminds a building with lots of different entries, but single and integral in its essence. Works Cited Comte, Auguste. Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, Part I, translated by Harriet Martineau, Kessinger Publishing, 2003  Geuss, Raymond. The Idea of a Critical Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1981. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln.Y. S. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage, 1994, pp. 105-117 Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed. Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996, p.12, p.43 Read More