Paradigms

A paradigm can be described as a set of beliefs regarding how the world operates/functions. Paradigms can be thought of as models or patterns for thinking about or valuing a situation, or as a framework that identifies a set of rules we live by. Reese, in the Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, stated that a paradigm came from the Greek word, paradeigma, meaning "a pattern, model, or plan."

The modern use of the word "paradigm" is most commonly traceable to the ideas of the late Harvard-affiliated scientist and philosopher, Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn described a paradigm as "...a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions and practices shared by a community which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way a community organises itself." the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

In terms of research paradigms provide philosophical, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological foundations for conducting research and, in addition, provide researchers with a platform from which to interpret the world (Morgan, 1983)

The root of traditional research, which has become known as positivism, dates back to the sixteenth century (Gale, 1979) and continues to direct traditional scientific inquiry today. Positivism assumes an objective world which scientific methods can more or less readily represent and measure, and it seeks to predict and explain causal relations among key variables. Positivism emphasises on a highly structured methodology to facilitate replication (Gill and Johnson, 1997 cited Saunders) 5 and on Quantifiable observations that lend themselves to statistical analysis. Using scientific objectivity allows researchers to stand at a distance and derive knowledge through empirical study. In this way, "the knower can be completely differentiated from the known"6 (Allen, Benner, & Diekelmann, 1986,).

Positivism has become a dominant institutional form in social research. Yet this dominance is increasingly challenged by critics from two alternative traditions, Interpretivism and Realism, which are both well established and which have played prominent roles in Western thought.

Interpretivism and realism raise fundamental philosophical challenges for positivism and offer alternative theoretical, methodological and practical approaches to research on management and organisations. These traditions have gathered enhanced interest in part because they address timely social and political issues which positivist research has tended not to address.

Interpretive research is fundamentally concerned with meaning and it seeks to understand social members' definition of a situation (Schwandt, 1994). Interpretivists assume that knowledge and meaning are acts of interpretation hence there is no objective knowledge which is independent of thinking, reasoning humans. There are many interpretivist genres but central to all of these has been a concern with subjective meanings -- how individuals or members of society apprehend, understand and make sense of social events and settings (the idea of interpretation) and how this sense making produces features of the very settings to which sense making is responsive (the concern for reflexivity).

Given the concern with understanding members' meanings, interpretive researchers have often preferred meaning (versus measurement) oriented methods. In particular, data collection and representation have been accomplished with informant interviewing (Spradley, 1979), ethnography, or the thick description of cultures based on intimate knowledge and participation (Van Maanen, 1988), and even ethnographically linked textual analyses (Gephart, 1993) which use transcripts or verbal protocols of meetings as data.

The interpretivist paradigm thus generally leads to the use of qualitative research methods that enable the researcher to gain a descriptive understanding of the values, actions and concerns of the subjects under study. The approach emphasises validity, possibly at some cost in terms of reliability and representativeness

Social constructionism also recognises that people are likely to share interpretations of their socially constructed environment. Realism is based on the belief that a reality exists that is independent of human thoughts and beliefs. Realists argue that knowledge and truth are the result of perspective (Schwandt, 1994) hence all truths are relative to some meaning context or perspective.

My own research paradigm.

Quantitative research can be defined as "a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical data are utilised to obtain information about the world," (Burns and Grove cited by Cormack 1991) and qualitative research is described as "the non-numerical examination and interpretation of observations, for the purpose of discovering underlying meanings and patterns of relationships."13 Reviewing these definitions of what is meant by quantitative versus qualitative research helps identify the reasons for the primarily separate use of each method and the continuing debate among researchers concerning the relative value of each approach. The arguments can be complicated and often are philosophical; however, they essentially make the following kinds of distinctions.

The word qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not rigorously examined or measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry ... In contrast, quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes. Inquiry is purported to be within a value-free framework. (Denzin 1994)

Both designs, quantitative and qualitative are said to be systematic. In fact having a system or following a process is a defining principle of research. Quantitative research is usually linked to the notion of science as objective truth or fact, whereas qualitative research is more often identified with the view that science is lived experience and therefore subjectively determined. It is thought that in gaining, analysing and interpreting quantitative data, the researcher can remain detached and objective. Often this is not possible with qualitative research where the researcher may actually be involved in the situation of the research. Consider a study being undertaken into waiting times in the Accident & Emergency (A&E) Department of a hospital. A quantitative study, measuring how long people wait, can