International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences

Volume 2, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2349–5219

Main Approaches to Research

Thuraya Al Riyami

I. INTRODUCTION

The term paradigm was first termed by Thomas Kuhn who introduced it as an overall historical
research framework (Crotty, 1998). A paradigm can be defined as “a loose collection of logically
related assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient thinking and research” (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1998, as cited in Mackenzie & Knip, 2006). Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 108) identify three
questions that help define a paradigm. That is, the ontological, the epistemological and the
methodological:
1. The ontological question asks, what is the nature of the “knowable”? Or what is the nature of
reality?
2. The epistemological question asks, what is the nature of knowledge and the relationship
between the knower (the inquirer) and the known or the (knowledge)?
3. The methodological question asks, how can the knower go about obtaining the knowledge?
But the question is why does ones view of reality and knowledge affect the research? In fact, the
researcher’s intentions, goals and philosophical assumptions are inseparably linked with the
research s/he conducts. Thus, how social reality and knowledge are viewed will lead one to
how to go and uncover knowledge of a certain social phenomenon. This paper focuses on
three of the most popular paradigms today: positivism, interpretivism and critical theory.

II. POSITIVISM

Positivism, which is also known as the “scientific method”, gives emphasis to the position that the
social world should be studied the way that physical phenomenon are studied. Positivism is
based on a realist ontology, which postulates that “there exists a reality out there, driven by
immutable natural laws” (Guba, 1990, p. 19). Thus, positivism addresses causal relationships and
basic regularities between different components of the world. Positivists have an objectivist
epistemology, which requires for the researcher that, in order to discover the real world, he must
“put questions directly to nature and allow nature to answer back” (Guba, 1990, p. 19). In addition,
the researcher should maintain a detached, objective view in order to understand the facts
(Duffy, 1986). Values and other biasing factors are excluded so as not to influence the outcomes of
the research. Based on its ontological and epistemological assumptions, positivist research uses
experimental and quasi-experimental methodologies (Creswell, 2007).
The data collection techniques in the positivist approach focus on gathering data in the form of

Copyright © 2015 IJIRES, All right reserved

1
 International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences
Volume 2, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2349–5219

numbers to enable evidence to be presented in quantitative form (ibid). They utilize tests or
standardized questionnaires to measure carefully what is observed. Thus, I believe that positivists
spend a lot of time in designing their research tool to ensure its reliability and validity. A reliable and
valid research tool is considered to be the basic quality standard of positivism.
Limitations
Despite the fact that positivism has been a dominant mode of inquiry in social science for over a
century (Willis, 2007), I believe like others (Cohen, Manion & Marison, 2011; Crottey, 1998;
Guba, 1983; Creswell, 2007; Gage, 1989; Mack, 2010) that it has some limitations, if not many.
First, human affairs, including learning and teaching, are involved with intentions, goals and
purposes that give them meaning (Gage, 1989, p. 4). Second, the scientific method can only be
applied to natural phenomena that are stable across time, space and context. Talking about
education, where learning, interaction and teaching can change annually, monthly, weekly or even
daily, challenges researchers with positivist views. Furthermore, I find fault with the positivist
ideology of determinism, which means that all levents are fully determined by one or more causes
(Cohen, Manion & Marison, 2011).. Finally, since positivism aims to generalize the results of the
research, there is a risk of neglecting individuals whose understandings and interpretations
can reveal plenty of truths about the reality. These limitations lead us to an explanation of the
next paradigm, interpretivism.
III. INTERPRETIVISM

The interpretivist paradigm can be also called the “constructivist paradigm” since it is rooted in
the fact that realities are multiple and socially constructed. Interpretivists adopt a relativist
ontology, where a single phenomenon can have multiple interpretations and there is no basic
process by which truth can be determined. They aim to get a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon and its complexity in its unique context, not to generalize to a whole population
(Creswell, 2007). Epistemologically speaking, interpretivists believe that knowledge is gained
through a strategy that “respects the differences between people and the objects of natural
science and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social
action” (Bryman, as cited in Grix, 2004, p. 64). Interpretivists do not generally begin with a theory,
rather they “generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meanings” (Creswell, 2007, p. 9)
throughout the research process. They treat people as research participants and not as objects.
They try to capture different perspectives and look at the phenomenon from different angles.
Interpretive researchers implement a methodology that allows the researcher to conduct a study in
its natural setting. Having such an insider insight can lead to deeper understanding into the
phenomenon under study. However, I personally think that interpretivists cannot get this insider view
they are aiming for because the moment they join the group, they are influencing the atmosphere of
the group one way or another. For instance, if a researcher was aiming to investigate teachers

Copyright © 2015 IJIRES, All right reserved

2
 International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences
Volume 2, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2349–5219

reactions to underachiever students in a certain school by observing classes, the existence of the
researcher in the classroom would consciously or subconsciously affect both teachers and students.
Interpretivists collect qualitative data via various methods. The most popular method of interactive
approach is the interview because “interviewing allows a researcher to investigate and prompt things
that we cannot observe. We can probe an interviewee’s thoughts, values, prejudices, perceptions,
views, feelings and perspectives.” (Wellington & Szczerbinski, 2007, p. 81). They also utilize other
methods, such as observation, through collecting field notes or video-taping. They also tend to
collect documents and participants‟ diaries (Punch, 1998). Such qualitative data can be overwhelming
for researchers when they try to transcribe the data and organize it in themes. In my opinion, I think
the researchers with an interpretive viewpoint need to have the skills to organize their data and make
links between it and the research questions.
Limitations
Although the interpretive paradigm has its strength in exploring a given phenomenon and providing
valuable information, it has some limitations. One of these limitations is that it has gone too far in
leaving out the scientific procedures of verification. Thus, findings cannot be generalized to other
people or other contexts (Cohen, Manion & Marison, 2011). Many positivists question the ultimate
usefulness of interpretive research. However, my response to this criticism is that an interpretive
research of a high quality can be transferred to other contexts and teachers can benefit from it. For
example, much case study research about individual students or teachers have revealed valuable
information about classroom life that has inspired teachers and positively affected their practices.
Another criticism of interpretivism is that its ontological assumption is subjective rather than
objective (Mack, 2010). The results are more easily affected by the researcher‟s personal
biases. However, I believe that it is impossible to be totally objective in any kind of research, even
positivist research. In fact, positivists deceive themselves by thinking that their research is
totally objective and value-free. This is because throughout the research process, researchers make
plenty of decisions that are value laden, such as selection of variables, actions to be observed, and
interpretation of findings (Salomon, 1991).
The last and the strongest limitation of interpretivism is that it does not address the political and
ideological impact on knowledge and social reality. It neglects the issues of power and agency,
which are features of our society (Mack, 2010). Intepretivism focuses more on understanding the
current situation and does not address the issues of empowering individuals and societies. Thus,
these limitations, especially the last one, have led to the rise of the critical theory approach to
research.
IV. CRITICAL THEORY
The critical theory paradigm is also known as the “transformative paradigm‟. The ontology of the
critical theory paradigm is based on relativism. Reality is socially constructed through the media,
institutions and society. Critical theory emphasizes that humans‟ behaviour is the outcome of
Copyright © 2015 IJIRES, All right reserved
3
 International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences
Volume 2, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2349–5219

“particular illegitimate, dominatory and repressive factors: illegitimate in the sense that they do not
operate in the general interest. In other words, critical theorists believe that “research should
contain an action agenda for reform that may change the lives of participants” (Creswell, 2007,
p. 21). Part of this empowerment process, which can be described as emancipation, involves
research participants to problematize their current situations and decide on actions to
improve them.
Epistemologically speaking, they believe that knowledge is produced by power and is an
expression of power rather than truth. Critical theorists adopt a “pragmatic epistemology” that
seeks “to stimulate critical self-reflection among human agents so that they can freely choose
whether and how to transform the world” (Chris, Putnam & Smith, 1985, p. 71).
Based on its ontological and epistemological assumptions, the critical theory paradigm can include
many methodologies. The most popular one is critical action research, which is a systematic
study that combines action and reflection with the intention of improving practice” (Ebbutt,
1985, as cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011, p. 345). Another methodology is critical discourse
analysis, which aims to “capture the dynamic nature of both power relations and text production by
uncovering the hegemonic structures within texts” (Joseph, 2004, p. 58). The third methodology is
ideology critique, which illustrates hidden ideologies by revealing participants‟ places in
systems which empower or disempower them (Penneycook, 2001). Within these methodologies,
critical theorists may utilise qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods data collection. It appears that
most critical theorists apply a mixed methods approach because it provides them with opportunities
to develop “more complete and full portraits of our social world through the use of multiple
perspectives and lenses” (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 275, as cited in Mackenzie & Knip, 2006).I
strongly believe that raising people’s awareness of a problem or an issue is the first step to
make their situation better since such awareness will make them question and think how to
ameliorate things.

V. CONCLUSION
I always think that a purpose of life in general and research in particular is to change the world for the
better. From the moment that I joined the teaching profession, I have always believed that our
responsibilities as English teachers are about more than elaborating a grammatical rule or delivering
a reading activity (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2002, as cited in Troudi, & Alwan, 2010). Rather, our
responsibilities are critical about questioning our daily practices and suggesting alternatives that go
well with our students‟ educational needs. I believe in Yeats‟ quote that “Education is not the
filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”. Thus, the role of schools, institutions, colleges and
universities is more than spoon-feeding students with information and equipping them with the skills
to cope with their future life. The role of these institutions is to transform people and
emancipate them so that they can live better lives. I believe that the best way to define
Copyright © 2015 IJIRES, All right reserved
4
 International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences
Volume 2, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2349–5219

educational research is “a critical enquiry aimed at informing educational judgments in order to

improve educational action” (Bassey, 1999). Thus, I can summarize my role as a researcher as one
to empower teachers and learners by encouraging them to “go from action to reflection and
from reflection upon action to a new action” (Freire, 1972, p. 31). This is because when a
person’s daily life is based on action and reflection, emancipation and amelioration can be
achieved and a better life can be lived.

Copyright © 2015 IJIRES, All right reserved

5