On the Paradigms of Inquiry[1]
Sakban Rosidi[2]
Many people, including professional outside the human sciences, ask: Are social and related human studies real science? They think only of the natural sciences. In this chapter, we examine the meaning of science in the human sciences. We build on the ideas about the scientific community and the varieties of theories and researches in human studies discussed in the previous chapters. This chapter is concerned more with the method of inquiry --- how we know --- than specific techniques for gathering and examining data.
A question for which there are multiple answers noes not mean that anything goes; it means that researcher in human sciences choose from alternative paradigms, perspectives, or approaches. Each paradigm of inquiry has its own set of philosophical assumptions and principles and its own stance on how to do research.
Collins (1989) argued that the debate over whether the social and human sciences are scientific comes from an overly rigid definition of science. He remarked, "Modern philosophy of science does not destroy sociological science; it does not say that science is impossible, but gives us a more flexible picture of what science is".
Since Thomas Kuhn's original work on the "paradigm revolution" in the 1960s, the word "paradigm" has been used in myriad ways. Our discussion, therefore, starts with the concept of paradigm. Although there two emerging paradigm of inquiry in human sciences, feminist and post-modernist paradigm, the next section will only discuss the three competing paradigms in human sciences. They are positivist paradigm, interpretivist paradigm, and critical paradigm.
9.1. The Concept of Paradigm
The paradigm of a scientific community can usually be considered as a consensus that has a tendency to become a such a way of thinking which is never even questioned. An established scientific community tends to rebut all the criticism of the paradigm, as well as of the critic himself. The researcher who wishes to change the paradigm in the established disciplines has to be prepared to defend his ideas and points of view. A certain kind of pressure for change can, every now and then, be seen among the research groups in several disciplines. This pressure leads to the change of paradigm, for example, in the development of a new methodological approach (e.g. educational science, sociology), in the development of new theoretical starting points (e.g. bio-sciences), or even in the change on the perception of the world or human beings (e.g. medicine vs. nursing science).
What is a paradigm? Is it something you can choose, and if it is, then how can this be done? Or is it something you grow into because of the surrounding culture and education?
The factors influencing a paradigm include the following: (1) the ideal perception of a science, i.e. the norms of a good scientific practice, (2) a world view, i.e. the basic assumptions about the reality and the part which is studied by the particular discipline, and (3) a research ethical foundation, i.e. the rules and regulations which treat a research as a human and social activity (Tvrneblom 1982).
The ideal perception of a science is composed of the way in which a particular discipline sees the essence of a good science. In mathematics and natural sciences, for example, it is the quantities of a phenomenon and the forming of mathematical clauses. In some other discipline it can be generality, or individual, deep and thorough interpretation of a data. Some disciplines emphasize the independence from the values and social appreciation, whereas others put stress on the political statements and the necessity for a moral commitment when studying social phenomena. In other words, there is not one comprehensive ideal of science (Andersen 1994: 25).
A world view is related to the perception of human beings and the society, which every discipline possesses. How does your discipline see a man? Is he rational, goal-oriented, and the one who is well-aware of his personal rights? Is he directed by norms and roles? Is he directed by instincts and subconscious motives? Can upbringing influence on the development of a person's world view and the perception of a human being? What is the relation between the society and the individual? The list of these questions is endless, especially if we think about these perceptions from the viewpoint of a paradigm of every separate discipline.
The viewpoint of research ethics points out, for example, the fact how the research co-operation works between the separate researchers, as well as between the field of research and the surrounding society. There has been discussions about the status of the so-called ordered researches, and whether they tie the hands of the researcher. How self-sufficient and independent from the surrounding society the researcher has to be?
One of the special problems is the openness of the result: when a client pays for the research what should the communication concerning the results be like that it would serve both the development of the discipline and the practical use of the results, as well as the interests of a client at the same time? When and on what terms is it possible to declare the results to be kept in concealment. How is the open communication between the different research projects arranged?
When the planning of the research communication of the projects is been considered, the attention is drawn to the aesthetics of research. The overall impression of the project, the messages conveyed by the texts, pictures and statistics, all have an effect on the overall picture of the discipline, the way in which it is realized from outside, as well as on the way it is understood inside the discipline itself (Wallin 1993: 20).
Nested within the broad context of their particular world-view, qualitative researchers tend to work out of one of the "paradigms." A paradigm is an interpretive framework or a set of beliefs that guide action (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). It is a "net of epistemological and ontological premises which -- regardless of ultimate truth or falsity -- become partially self validating" (Bateson, 1972). Thus, paradigm refers to the focus of research and related ways of approaching inquiry (Burrell and Morgan, 1985).
According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994) all qualitative research is interpretative, guided by a set of beliefs about the world and how it should be understood and studied. They claim that "at the most general level, four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research: positivist-postpositivist, constructivist-interpretivist, critical, feminist-poststructuralist (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). However, other researchers have chosen to identify and divide the major paradigms in different ways. An alternate set of paradigms include: functionalist, interpretive, critical and postmodern.
9.2. The Brief Description of Three Paradigms
Identified below are a number of different paradigms. The first section describes the positivist, interpretivist and critical paradigm in brief. The next section compares and contrasts the positivist, interpretivist and critical paradigms. This is followed by a delineation of the major implications of each paradigm for inquiry in human sciences.
9.2.1. The Positivist Paradigm
Positivist paradigm is used widely, and positivism, broadly defined, is the approach of the natural sciences. In fact, most people never hear of alternative approaches. They assume that the positivist paradigm is science.
We probably find many positivist assumption familiar because the positivist approach is widely taught as being the same as science. Few people are aware of the origins of positivist assumptions. An early religious aspects exists in some assumptions because the scholars who developed them in western Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had religious training and lived in a cultural-historical setting that assumed specific religious beliefs.
A positivist approach implies that a researcher begins with a general cause-effect relationship that he or she logically derives from a possible causal law in general theory. He or she logically links the abstract ideas of the relationship to precise measurements of human-social world. The researcher remains detached, neutral, and objectives s he or she measures aspects of human life, examines evidence, and replicate the research of others. These processes lead to an empirical test of and confirmation for the laws of social life as outlined in a theory.
A researcher who adopts a positivist paradigm first deduces hypothesis from a general theory. The theory is probably in the form of causal statements or prediction. The researcher next gathers data from existing statistics of conducts a survey to precisely measure the factors that the theory identifies. Finally, the researcher uses statistics to formally test the theory's predictions (See figure below).
9.2.2. The Interpretivist Paradigm
In his major work, Introduction to the Human Sciences, Wilhelm Dilthey (1883) argued that there were two fundamentally different type of science: Natuwissenschaft and Geistewissenschaft. The former is based on Erklarung, or abstract-explanation. The latter is rooted in an empathetic understanding, or Verstehen, of the everyday lived experience of people in specific historical setting.
Interpretivist paradigm is related to hermeneutics, a theory of meaning that originated in the nineteenth century. Hermeneutics is largely found in the humanities (philosophy, art history, religious studies, linguistics, and literary criticism). It emphasizes a detailed reading or examination of text, which could refer to a conversation, written words, or pictures.
A researcher conducts "a reading" to discover meaning embedded within text. Each reader brings his or her subjective experience to a text. When studying the text, the researcher tries to absorb of get inside the viewpoint it presents as a whole, and then develop a deep understanding of how its parts relate to the whole. In other words, true meaning is rarely imply or obvious on the surface; one reaches it only through a detailed study of the text, contemplating its many messages and seeking the connections among its parts.
Interpretive researchers often use participant observation and field research. These techniques require that researcher spend many hours in direct personal contact with those being studied. Other interpretivists analyze transcripts of conversations or study videotapes of behavior in extraordinary detail, looking for subtle non-verbal communication, to understand details of interactions in their context.
An intepretivist researcher may live a year with a dozen of people and use careful method to gather large quantities of detailed qualitative data to acquire an in-depth understanding of how they create meaning in everyday life.
In contrast to positivism's instrumental orientation, the interpretive approach adopts a practical orientation. It is concerned with how ordinary people manage their practical affairs in everyday life, or how they get things done. Interpretive paradigm is concerned with how people interact and get along with each other (see Figure below).
9.2.3. The Critical Paradigm
Critical Perspective (in German 'Chritische Theorie') was originally a project of a group of German scientists, so-called the School of Frankfurt , which started in the republic of Weimar Frankfurt University
Together with one another they criticized the dominating positivistic conception of science. A socially and politically independent, critical intellectual who was not afraid to take a stand and make himself heard, was seen as an ideal counterbalance for a neutral, objective scientist who strictly followed the given rules and regulations.
Instead of developing universal and invariant regularities and models for different kinds of phenomena and processes in the society, the objective was to identify practical issues in their historical, social, and cultural contexts and development histories, as well as to change them as time goes by. The objective was to keep it as close to practice as possible. The phenomena in the society were not seen as given, natural, and stable ones, but rather they were considered to be more or less limited and changeable things in a dialectic development. The purpose of the researcher was to change the flow of the phenomenon, or at least promote this change. Therefore, it was not possible to produce new knowledge in a objective and neutral manner.
The human conception of the critical theory is based on the assumption that a man exists in the world as an element of the reality consisting of opportunities. There is an opportunity to freedom inside every human being. When a person is free, he is also free to choose. Which criteria are used for justifying the choices? Also these criteria are made by a person himself, after all he has an opportunity to set values and to make value statements.
The question of liberation is part of the critical reflection. Some of the most central examples of the critical theory include e. g. the value-critical research of the value history, and the psychoanalysis. Habermas sees the aspiration for freedom to be at the same time also an aspiration for finding one's identity, and therefore, also the correct interpretation of oneself. However, Habermas emphasises that this is done together with others, who one respects and with whom one can reach an understanding. This way Habermas creates an image of a free and responsible human being, as well as an image of a free and good life (Habermas 1990). See figure below.
9.3. The Three Paradigms Compared
To simplify the discussion, let us organize the assumptions and ideas of the approaches into eight aspects (see table below).
Positivism says, "there is only one logic of science, to which any intellectual activity aspiring to the title of science must conform" (Keat and Urry, 1975). Thus, the human sciences and the natural sciences must use the same method. In this view, the differences between the natural and human scien ces are due to the immaturity of the human sciences and their subject matter.
Assump-tions | Paradigm of Inquiry | ||
Positivism | Interpretivism | Critical | |
Reason for research | To discover natural laws so people can predict and control events | To understand and describe meaningful human actions | To smash myths and empower people to change society radically |
Nature of social reality | Stable preexisting patterns of order that can be discover | Fluid definitions of a situation created by human interaction | Conflict filled and governed by hidden underlying structures |
Self-interested and rational individuals who are shaped by external forces | Social beings who create meaning and who constantly make sense of their worlds | Creative, adaptive people with unrealized potential, tapped by illusion and exploitation | |
Role of common sense | Clearly distinct from and less valid than science | Powerful everyday theories used by ordinary people | False beliefs that hide power and objective conditions |
Theory looks like | A logical, deductive system of interconnected definitions, axioms, and laws | A description of how a group’s meaning system is generated and sustained | A critique that reveals true conditions and helps people see the way to better world |
An explanation that is true | Is logically connected to laws and based on facts | Resonates or feels right to those who are being studied | Supplies people with tools needed to change the world |
Good evidence | Is based on precise observations that others can repeat | Is embedded in the context of fluid social interactions | Is informed by a theory that unveils illusions |
Place for values | Science is value free, and values have no place excep when choosing a topic | Values are an integral part of human life : no group’s values are wrong, only different | All science must begin with a value position; some positions are right, some are wrong |
Table A summary of differences among three paradigms
Positivist paradigm sees human and social sciences as an organized method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical observations of human behavior in order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity.
The focus of this perspective is to explain, to predict and control reality. Its origins is anchored in nineteenth century sociological positivism (objectivism) in which biological and mechanical analogies were adopted to the study of human behavior.
In general, the interpretive approach is the systematic analysis of socially meaningful action through the direct detailed observation of people in natural settings in order to arrive at understandings and interpretations of how people create and maintain their social worlds.
An interpretive researcher personally talks with and observes specific people. His of her conversations and observations are used to learn what each person to be the its major problem. The researcher puts what people say into the context of their daily affairs. After that, he or she describes findings in terms that others can understand.
The focus of this perspective is to understand or to interpret (human) reality. Its origin is grounded in nineteenth century German idealism and "verstehen" (understanding). Those using this paradigm posit that meaning is "socially constructed" through people. Hence, they focus not on "uncovering reality" but on generating understandings based on the "subjective" interpretations of people (researchers and "researched"), that is, how people "experience" and "interpret" their realities.
Critical paradigm agrees with the criticism of intepretivists to the positivism for its failure to deal with the meanings of real people and their capacity to feel and think. It also believes that positivism ignores the social context and is antihumanist. The critical inquirer also believes that positivism defends the status quo because it assumes an unchanging social order instead of seeing current society as a particular stage in an ongoing process.
Moreover, the critical approach also criticizes the interpretive approach for being too subjective and relativist. Interpretive approach is overly concerned with the subjective reality. To critical researchers, the interpretivist is amoral and passive. It does not take a strong value position or actively help people to see false illusions around them so that they can improve their lives.
In general, critical perspective defines human science as a critical process of inquiry that goes beyond surface illusions to uncover the real structure in the material world in order to help people change conditions and build a better world for themselves. A critical researcher begins by looking at the larger social and historical context. He of she inquires from a moral or critical standpoint.
The focus of critical perspective is the reality of suffering and oppression that require explication and then social change. In radical humanism, for instance, the key focus is on "human consciousness", that human beings create meaning, rather than on "structures" as theorized by the functionalists.
What does all this about three paradigms mean to us in a course of inquiry? First, it means that there is no single, absolutely correct approach to human science inquiry. The basis for doing inquiry or research in human sciences is not settled. In other words, more than one approach is currently “in the running”. Perhaps this will always be the case. An awareness for the approaches will help us when we read research reports.
Second, it means that what we try to accomplish when we do research will vary with the approach we choose. For example, positivists are likely to conduct explanatory research, interpretive researcher are likely to do exploratory study, and critical researchers favor action-oriented research. By being aware of the approaches, we can make an informed decision about the type of study to conduct.
Third, the various techniques used in human sciences inquiry, are ultimately based on the assumptions of the different paradigms. Often, we will see research technique presented without the background reasoning on which it was originally based. By knowing about the approaches, we can better understand the principles on which the specific research techniques are based.
Fourth, the positivist paradigm emphasizes on the deductive approach wich is reflected in the logic of theory verification or from (grand) theory to empirical reality, while the interpretivist paradigm emphasizes on the inductive approach which is reflected in the logic of theory generation of from empirical reality to (grounded) theory.
[1] Taken from Sakban Rosidi, 2003, Foundations of Inquiry: Perspectives in Philosophy of Human Sciences, Malang: Center for Interdisciplinary Study and Cooperation, delivered as learning materials on the Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Islamic Law, The State Islamic University of Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang.
[2] Sakban Rosidi is the reader of Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Islamic Law, The State Islamic University of Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang.