types research philosophy

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

The Four Types of Research Paradigms: A Comprehensive Guide

5-minute read

• 22nd January 2023

In this guide, you’ll learn all about the four research paradigms and how to choose the right one for your research.

Introduction to Research Paradigms

A paradigm is a system of beliefs, ideas, values, or habits that form the basis for a way of thinking about the world. Therefore, a research paradigm is an approach, model, or framework from which to conduct research. The research paradigm helps you to form a research philosophy, which in turn informs your research methodology.

Your research methodology is essentially the “how” of your research – how you design your study to not only accomplish your research’s aims and objectives but also to ensure your results are reliable and valid. Choosing the correct research paradigm is crucial because it provides a logical structure for conducting your research and improves the quality of your work, assuming it’s followed correctly.

Three Pillars: Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

Before we jump into the four types of research paradigms, we need to consider the three pillars of a research paradigm.

Ontology addresses the question, “What is reality?” It’s the study of being. This pillar is about finding out what you seek to research. What do you aim to examine?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It asks, “How is knowledge gathered and from what sources?”

Methodology involves the system in which you choose to investigate, measure, and analyze your research’s aims and objectives. It answers the “how” questions.

Let’s now take a look at the different research paradigms.

1.   Positivist Research Paradigm

The positivist research paradigm assumes that there is one objective reality, and people can know this reality and accurately describe and explain it. Positivists rely on their observations through their senses to gain knowledge of their surroundings.

In this singular objective reality, researchers can compare their claims and ascertain the truth. This means researchers are limited to data collection and interpretations from an objective viewpoint. As a result, positivists usually use quantitative methodologies in their research (e.g., statistics, social surveys, and structured questionnaires).

This research paradigm is mostly used in natural sciences, physical sciences, or whenever large sample sizes are being used.

2.   Interpretivist Research Paradigm

Interpretivists believe that different people in society experience and understand reality in different ways – while there may be only “one” reality, everyone interprets it according to their own view. They also believe that all research is influenced and shaped by researchers’ worldviews and theories.

As a result, interpretivists use qualitative methods and techniques to conduct their research. This includes interviews, focus groups, observations of a phenomenon, or collecting documentation on a phenomenon (e.g., newspaper articles, reports, or information from websites).

3.   Critical Theory Research Paradigm

The critical theory paradigm asserts that social science can never be 100% objective or value-free. This paradigm is focused on enacting social change through scientific investigation. Critical theorists question knowledge and procedures and acknowledge how power is used (or abused) in the phenomena or systems they’re investigating.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Researchers using this paradigm are more often than not aiming to create a more just, egalitarian society in which individual and collective freedoms are secure. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used with this paradigm.

4.   Constructivist Research Paradigm

Constructivism asserts that reality is a construct of our minds ; therefore, reality is subjective. Constructivists believe that all knowledge comes from our experiences and reflections on those experiences and oppose the idea that there is a single methodology to generate knowledge.

This paradigm is mostly associated with qualitative research approaches due to its focus on experiences and subjectivity. The researcher focuses on participants’ experiences as well as their own.

Choosing the Right Research Paradigm for Your Study

Once you have a comprehensive understanding of each paradigm, you’re faced with a big question: which paradigm should you choose? The answer to this will set the course of your research and determine its success, findings, and results.

To start, you need to identify your research problem, research objectives , and hypothesis . This will help you to establish what you want to accomplish or understand from your research and the path you need to take to achieve this.

You can begin this process by asking yourself some questions:

• What is the nature of your research problem (i.e., quantitative or qualitative)?
• How can you acquire the knowledge you need and communicate it to others? For example, is this knowledge already available in other forms (e.g., documents) and do you need to gain it by gathering or observing other people’s experiences or by experiencing it personally?
• What is the nature of the reality that you want to study? Is it objective or subjective?

Depending on the problem and objective, other questions may arise during this process that lead you to a suitable paradigm. Ultimately, you must be able to state, explain, and justify the research paradigm you select for your research and be prepared to include this in your dissertation’s methodology and design section.

Using Two Paradigms

If the nature of your research problem and objectives involves both quantitative and qualitative aspects, then you might consider using two paradigms or a mixed methods approach . In this, one paradigm is used to frame the qualitative aspects of the study and another for the quantitative aspects. This is acceptable, although you will be tasked with explaining your rationale for using both of these paradigms in your research.

Choosing the right research paradigm for your research can seem like an insurmountable task. It requires you to:

●  Have a comprehensive understanding of the paradigms,

●  Identify your research problem, objectives, and hypothesis, and

●  Be able to state, explain, and justify the paradigm you select in your methodology and design section.

Although conducting your research and putting your dissertation together is no easy task, proofreading it can be! Our experts are here to make your writing shine. Your first 500 words are free !

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Research Philosophy & Paradigms

Positivism, Interpretivism & Pragmatism, Explained Simply

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

Research philosophy is one of those things that students tend to either gloss over or become utterly confused by when undertaking formal academic research for the first time. And understandably so – it’s all rather fluffy and conceptual. However, understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your research is genuinely important as it directly impacts how you develop your research methodology.

In this post, we’ll explain what research philosophy is , what the main research paradigms  are and how these play out in the real world, using loads of practical examples . To keep this all as digestible as possible, we are admittedly going to simplify things somewhat and we’re not going to dive into the finer details such as ontology, epistemology and axiology (we’ll save those brain benders for another post!). Nevertheless, this post should set you up with a solid foundational understanding of what research philosophy and research paradigms are, and what they mean for your project.

Overview: Research Philosophy

• What is a research philosophy or paradigm ?
• Positivism 101
• Interpretivism 101
• Pragmatism 101
• Choosing your research philosophy

What is a research philosophy or paradigm?

Research philosophy and research paradigm are terms that tend to be used pretty loosely, even interchangeably. Broadly speaking, they both refer to the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study (whether that’s a dissertation, thesis or any other sort of academic research project).

For example, one philosophical assumption could be that there is an external reality that exists independent of our perceptions (i.e., an objective reality), whereas an alternative assumption could be that reality is constructed by the observer (i.e., a subjective reality). Naturally, these assumptions have quite an impact on how you approach your study (more on this later…).

The research philosophy and research paradigm also encapsulate the nature of the knowledge that you seek to obtain by undertaking your study. In other words, your philosophy reflects what sort of knowledge and insight you believe you can realistically gain by undertaking your research project. For example, you might expect to find a concrete, absolute type of answer to your research question , or you might anticipate that things will turn out to be more nuanced and less directly calculable and measurable . Put another way, it’s about whether you expect “hard”, clean answers or softer, more opaque ones.

So, what’s the difference between research philosophy and paradigm?

Well, it depends on who you ask. Different textbooks will present slightly different definitions, with some saying that philosophy is about the researcher themselves while the paradigm is about the approach to the study . Others will use the two terms interchangeably. And others will say that the research philosophy is the top-level category and paradigms are the pre-packaged combinations of philosophical assumptions and expectations.

To keep things simple in this video, we’ll avoid getting tangled up in the terminology and rather focus on the shared focus of both these terms – that is that they both describe (or at least involve) the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study .

Importantly, your research philosophy and/or paradigm form the foundation of your study . More specifically, they will have a direct influence on your research methodology , including your research design , the data collection and analysis techniques you adopt, and of course, how you interpret your results. So, it’s important to understand the philosophy that underlies your research to ensure that the rest of your methodological decisions are well-aligned .

So, what are the options?

We’ll be straight with you – research philosophy is a rabbit hole (as with anything philosophy-related) and, as a result, there are many different approaches (or paradigms) you can take, each with its own perspective on the nature of reality and knowledge . To keep things simple though, we’ll focus on the “big three”, namely positivism , interpretivism and pragmatism . Understanding these three is a solid starting point and, in many cases, will be all you need.

Paradigm 1: Positivism

When you think positivism, think hard sciences – physics, biology, astronomy, etc. Simply put, positivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements . In other words, the positivist philosophy assumes that answers can be found by carefully measuring and analysing data, particularly numerical data .

As a research paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use of quantitative data , and oftentimes (but not always) adopt experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Quite often, the focus is on causal relationships – in other words, understanding which variables affect other variables, in what way and to what extent. As a result, studies with a positivist research philosophy typically aim for objectivity, generalisability and replicability of findings.

Let’s look at an example of positivism to make things a little more tangible.

Assume you wanted to investigate the relationship between a particular dietary supplement and weight loss. In this case, you could design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) where you assign participants to either a control group (who do not receive the supplement) or an intervention group (who do receive the supplement). With this design in place, you could measure each participant’s weight before and after the study and then use various quantitative analysis methods to assess whether there’s a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. By doing so, you could infer a causal relationship between the dietary supplement and weight loss, based on objective measurements and rigorous experimental design.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that knowledge and insight can be obtained through carefully controlling the environment, manipulating variables and analysing the resulting numerical data . Therefore, this sort of study would adopt a positivistic research philosophy. This is quite common for studies within the hard sciences – so much so that research philosophy is often just assumed to be positivistic and there’s no discussion of it within the methodology section of a dissertation or thesis.

Paradigm 2: Interpretivism

 If you can imagine a spectrum of research paradigms, interpretivism would sit more or less on the opposite side of the spectrum from positivism. Essentially, interpretivism takes the position that reality is socially constructed . In other words, that reality is subjective , and is constructed by the observer through their experience of it , rather than being independent of the observer (which, if you recall, is what positivism assumes).

The interpretivist paradigm typically underlies studies where the research aims involve attempting to understand the meanings and interpretations that people assign to their experiences. An interpretivistic philosophy also typically manifests in the adoption of a qualitative methodology , relying on data collection methods such as interviews , observations , and textual analysis . These types of studies commonly explore complex social phenomena and individual perspectives, which are naturally more subjective and nuanced.

Let’s look at an example of the interpretivist approach in action:

Assume that you’re interested in understanding the experiences of individuals suffering from chronic pain. In this case, you might conduct in-depth interviews with a group of participants and ask open-ended questions about their pain, its impact on their lives, coping strategies, and their overall experience and perceptions of living with pain. You would then transcribe those interviews and analyse the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. Based on that analysis, you’d be able to better understand the experiences of these individuals, thereby satisfying your original research aim.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that insight can be obtained through engaging in conversation with and exploring the subjective experiences of people (as opposed to collecting numerical data and trying to measure and calculate it). Therefore, this sort of study would adopt an interpretivistic research philosophy. Ultimately, if you’re looking to understand people’s lived experiences , you have to operate on the assumption that knowledge can be generated by exploring people’s viewpoints, as subjective as they may be.

Paradigm 3: Pragmatism

Now that we’ve looked at the two opposing ends of the research philosophy spectrum – positivism and interpretivism, you can probably see that both of the positions have their merits , and that they both function as tools for different jobs . More specifically, they lend themselves to different types of research aims, objectives and research questions . But what happens when your study doesn’t fall into a clear-cut category and involves exploring both “hard” and “soft” phenomena? Enter pragmatism…

As the name suggests, pragmatism takes a more practical and flexible approach, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings , rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position. This allows you, as the researcher, to explore research aims that cross philosophical boundaries, using different perspectives for different aspects of the study .

With a pragmatic research paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative methods can play a part, depending on the research questions and the context of the study. This often manifests in studies that adopt a mixed-method approach , utilising a combination of different data types and analysis methods. Ultimately, the pragmatist adopts a problem-solving mindset , seeking practical ways to achieve diverse research aims.

Let’s look at an example of pragmatism in action:

Imagine that you want to investigate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student learning outcomes. In this case, you might adopt a mixed-methods approach, which makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. One part of your project could involve comparing standardised test results from an intervention group (students that received the new teaching method) and a control group (students that received the traditional teaching method). Additionally, you might conduct in-person interviews with a smaller group of students from both groups, to gather qualitative data on their perceptions and preferences regarding the respective teaching methods.

As you can see in this example, the pragmatist’s approach can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data . This allows the researcher to develop a more holistic, comprehensive understanding of the teaching method’s efficacy and practical implications, with a synthesis of both types of data . Naturally, this type of insight is incredibly valuable in this case, as it’s essential to understand not just the impact of the teaching method on test results, but also on the students themselves!

Wrapping Up: Philosophies & Paradigms

Now that we’ve unpacked the “big three” research philosophies or paradigms – positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism, hopefully, you can see that research philosophy underlies all of the methodological decisions you’ll make in your study. In many ways, it’s less a case of you choosing your research philosophy and more a case of it choosing you (or at least, being revealed to you), based on the nature of your research aims and research questions .

• Research philosophies and paradigms encapsulate the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that guide the way you, as the researcher, approach your study and develop your methodology.
• Positivism is rooted in the belief that reality is independent of the observer, and consequently, that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements.
• Interpretivism takes the (opposing) position that reality is subjectively constructed by the observer through their experience of it, rather than being an independent thing.
• Pragmatism attempts to find a middle ground, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings, rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position.

If you’d like to learn more about research philosophy, research paradigms and research methodology more generally, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help with your research, consider our private coaching service , where we guide you through each stage of the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

13 Comments

was very useful for me, I had no idea what a philosophy is, and what type of philosophy of my study. thank you

Thanks for this explanation, is so good for me

You contributed much to my master thesis development and I wish to have again your support for PhD program through research.

the way of you explanation very good keep it up/continuous just like this

Very precise stuff. It has been of great use to me. It has greatly helped me to sharpen my PhD research project!

Very clear and very helpful explanation above. I have clearly understand the explanation.

Very clear and useful. Thanks

Thanks so much for your insightful explanations of the research philosophies that confuse me

I would like to thank Grad Coach TV or Youtube organizers and presenters. Since then, I have been able to learn a lot by finding very informative posts from them.

thank you so much for this valuable and explicit explanation,cheers

Hey, at last i have gained insight on which philosophy to use as i had little understanding on their applicability to my current research. Thanks

Tremendously useful

thank you and God bless you. This was very helpful, I had no understanding before this.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Research Philosophy and Ethics

• First Online: 09 August 2019

Cite this chapter

• Christian Hürlimann 5  

Part of the book series: Sustainable Management, Wertschöpfung und Effizienz ((SMWE))

1217 Accesses

2 Citations

Before discussing the applied methods in this research in chapter 4, including the philosophical assumptions about the MMR approach, the chosen philosophical stance, the underlying philosophical assumptions, and the role of the researcher’s value are discussed. The aim of this chapter is to outline the relevant parts of this topic for this research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zurich, Switzerland

Christian Hürlimann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Hürlimann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Hürlimann, C. (2019). Research Philosophy and Ethics. In: Valuation of Renewable Energy Investments. Sustainable Management, Wertschöpfung und Effizienz. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27469-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27469-6_3

Published : 09 August 2019

Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-27468-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-27469-6

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.3 Research Paradigms and Philosophical Assumptions

Research involves answering questions, and the approach utilised is based on paradigms, philosophical assumptions, and distinct methods or procedures. Researchers’ approaches are influenced by their worldviews which comprise their beliefs and philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world and how it can be understood. 9 These ways of thinking about the world are known as research paradigms, and they inform the design and conduct of research projects. 10,11 A paradigm constitutes a set of theories, assumptions, and ideas that contribute to one’s worldview and approach to engaging with other people or things. It is the lens through which a researcher views the world and examines the methodological components of their research to make a decision on the methods to use for data collection and analysis. 12 Research paradigms consist of four philosophical elements: axiology, ontology, epistemology, and methodology. 10 These four elements inform the design and conduct of research projects (Figure 1.1), and a researcher would have to consider the paradigms within which they would situate their work before designing the research.

Ontology is defined as how reality is viewed (nature of reality) – accurately captured as an entity or entities. It is the study of being and describes how the researcher perceives reality and the nature of human engagement in the world. 13,14 It is focused on the assumptions researchers make to accept something as true. These assumptions aid in orientating a researcher’s thinking about the research topic, its importance and the possible approach to answering the question. 12 It makes the researcher ask questions such as:

• What is real in the natural or social world?
• How do I know what I know?
• How do I understand or conceptualise things?

In healthcare, researchers’ ontological stance shapes their beliefs about the nature of health, illness, and healthcare practices. Here are a few examples of ontological stances that are commonly adopted by researchers in healthcare:

• Biomedical ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that biological mechanisms can explain health and illness and that the body is a machine that can be studied and fixed when it malfunctions. 11 Researchers who take a biomedical ontological stance tend to focus on medical interventions such as drugs, surgeries, and medical devices.
• Social constructivist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that health and illness are social constructs that are shaped by cultural and social factors. 13 Researchers who take a social constructivist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the social and cultural context of health and illness, including issues such as health disparities, patient-provider communication, and the role of social determinants of health.
• Critical realist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that there is a reality that exists independently of our perceptions but that our understanding of that reality is always partial and mediated by our social context. 11,14 Researchers who take a critical realist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the complex interactions between social and biological factors in health and illness.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge and belief. It describes the ways knowledge about reality is acquired, understood, and utilised. 15 This paradigm highlights the relationship between the inquirer and the known –what is recognised as knowledge. Epistemology is important because it helps to increase the researcher’s level of confidence in their data. It influences how researchers approach identifying and finding answers while conducting research. 12 In considering the epistemology of research, the researcher may ask any of the following questions:

•       What is Knowledge?
•       How do we acquire knowledge and what are its limits?
•       Is it trustworthy? Do we need to investigate it further?
•       What is acceptable knowledge in our discipline?

The epistemological stance of healthcare researchers refers to their fundamental beliefs about knowledge and how it can be acquired. There are several epistemological stances that researchers may take, including positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and pragmatism.

• Positivism: This epistemological stance is grounded in the idea that knowledge can be gained through objective observation and measurement. 11 Researchers who adopt a positivist stance aim to create objective, measurable, and replicable research that can be used to predict and control phenomena. For example, a researcher studying the effectiveness of a medication might conduct a randomized controlled trial to measure its impact on patient outcomes.
• Interpretivism: This epistemological stance is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed through human interpretation and social interactions. It emphasizes the subjective and interpretive nature of human experience. 13, 14 Researchers who adopt an interpretivist stance seek to understand the subjective experiences of individuals and the meanings they attach to their experiences. For example, a researcher studying the experience of chronic pain might use qualitative methods to explore patients’ narratives and perspectives on living with pain.
• Critical theory: This epistemological stance is grounded in the belief that knowledge is shaped by power dynamics and social structures. 14 Researchers who adopt a critical theory stance seek to uncover and challenge power imbalances and injustices in society. For example, a researcher studying healthcare disparities might use critical theory to explore the ways in which social and economic factors contribute to inequities in access to healthcare.
• Pragmatism: This epistemological stance is focused on the practical application of knowledge. Researchers who adopt a pragmatic stance aim to create research that is both theoretically sound and applicable to real-world settings. 13  For example, a researcher studying the implementation of a new healthcare intervention might use mixed methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data to understand how the intervention is working in practice.

Overall, researchers’ epistemological stances have important implications for the questions they ask, the methods they use, and the interpretations they make. Understanding researchers’ epistemological stances can help healthcare professionals and policymakers to critically evaluate research findings and to consider the broader social, cultural, and political contexts that shape health and healthcare.

Axiology refers to the researcher’s understanding of values and their role in research. It examines values, deals with issues of right and wrong and measures the level of development and types of perceptual biases. 9 Axiology explains the role and importance of the research process, considers the values researchers assign to their research, and guides their pursuit of knowledge. 10 It makes the researcher consider the following questions:

• What should be done to uphold and respect the rights of each participant?
• What ethical principles will you follow during your research?
• What are the cultural and intercultural issues to be considered in the research?
• How can I conduct the research ins a respectful manner?
• How can we minimise or reduce risk during the research?

Researchers’ axiological stance in healthcare refers to their values, beliefs, and ethical positions that guide their research practices and interpretations of findings. Here are some examples of axiological stances that researchers may take in healthcare:

• Patient-centeredness: This value emphasizes the importance of incorporating patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences in healthcare decision-making. 9  For example, a researcher may prioritize qualitative research methods to explore patients’ experiences and needs in a specific healthcare setting.
• Evidence-based practice: This value emphasizes the use of the best available evidence to guide clinical decision-making. 14  For example, a researcher may conduct a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new medication or intervention.
• Health equity: This value emphasizes the importance of addressing health disparities and promoting fairness and justice in healthcare. 9 For example, a researcher may use a community-based participatory research approach to engage with marginalized or underrepresented populations and identify solutions to health inequities.
• Cultural humility: This value emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and respecting cultural differences and avoiding assumptions and stereotypes in healthcare interactions. 10 For example, a researcher may use qualitative research methods to explore the perspectives and experiences of patients from diverse cultural backgrounds.

These axiological stances are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways depending on the research question and context.

Methodology

Methodology is the strategy or action plan that informs the choice and use of particular methods within the context of a particular research paradigm. 11,16 The term methodology refers to the study design, methods, and procedures employed in a well-planned investigation to find answers. Examples include data collection, survey instruments, participants, and data analysis. In considering the methodology, researchers would ask the questions:

• How do I find out more about this reality? 17
• What approaches or methodology shall I use to obtain the data that will enable me to answer my research question? 12

The main types of methodology include quantitative and qualitative research. In some cases, mixed methods research, i.e., a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, may also be used. Researchers’ methodological stance in healthcare refers to their underlying beliefs and approach to conducting research in this field. Here are three examples of methodological approaches in healthcare research:

• Quantitative: This approach emphasizes objective and empirical measurement and relates to positivism. Quantitative researchers assume that there is a single objective reality and that the purpose of research is to discover the truth. 11 For example, a researcher using a quantitative, positivist approach might conduct a randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a new medication for treating a specific condition.
• Qualitative: This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding multiple perspectives and the subjective experiences of individuals. 14, 18 Qualitative researchers believe that reality is socially constructed and that the purpose of research is to generate new insights and understandings. For example, a researcher using a constructivist approach might conduct a qualitative study to explore how patients experience a particular health condition and how it affects their daily lives.
• Mixed methods: This approach emphasizes the use of multiple methods and the importance of adapting research to specific contexts and goals. 13, 19 Researchers who use this approach are pragmatists and they believe that research should be practical and useful for addressing real-world problems. For example, a researcher using a pragmatic approach might conduct a mixed-methods study to evaluate a new healthcare intervention, using both quantitative measures of effectiveness and qualitative data to understand patient experiences and preferences.

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility

Philosophy and Paradigm of Scientific Research

Submitted: 17 August 2017 Reviewed: 21 August 2017 Published: 18 April 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70628

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Monograph

Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility

Authored by Pranas ?ukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina Andriukaitien?

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

18,573 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

Before carrying out the empirical analysis of the role of management culture in corporate social responsibility, identification of the philosophical approach and the paradigm on which the research carried out is based is necessary. Therefore, this chapter deals with the philosophical systems and paradigms of scientific research, the epistemology, evaluating understanding and application of various theories and practices used in the scientific research. The key components of the scientific research paradigm are highlighted. Theories on the basis of which this research was focused on identification of the level of development of the management culture in order to implement corporate social responsibility are identified, and the stages of its implementation are described.

• philosophy of scientific research
• epistemology
• values and beliefs
• basic beliefs
• formal and informal factors

Author Information

Pranas žukauskas.

• Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania

Jolita Vveinhardt *

Regina andriukaitienė.

• Marijampolė College, Lithuania
• Lithuanian Sports University, Lithuania

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

1.1. relevance of the research.

Scientific research philosophy is a system of the researcher’s thought, following which new, reliable knowledge about the research object is obtained. In other words, it is the basis of the research, which involves the choice of research strategy, formulation of the problem, data collection, processing, and analysis. The paradigm of scientific research, in turn, consists of ontology, epistemology methodology, and methods. Methodological choice, according to Holden and Lynch [ 1 ], should be related to the philosophical position of the researcher and the analyzed social science phenomenon. In the field of research, several philosophical approaches are possible; however, according to the authors, more extreme approaches can be delimiting. Only intermediary philosophical approach allows the researcher to reconcile philosophy, methodology, and the problem of research. However, Crossan [ 2 ] drew attention to the fact that sometimes there is a big difference between quantitative and qualitative research philosophies and methods, and triangulation of modern research methods is common. It is therefore very important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. This allows preparing for the research and understanding the analyzed problem better. The theories of research philosophy and paradigms, on the basis of which the research in the monograph focuses on identifying the level of development of the management culture in order to implement corporate social responsibility, are presented in figures that distinguish the levels of organizational culture and their interaction, that is, corporate social responsibility stages, which reflect the philosophy and paradigm of this research.

The problem of the research is raised by the following questions: what are the essential principles of research philosophy and paradigm? and how to apply them to form the research position?

The level of problem exploration. The chapter presents the thoughts of the authors who analyze research philosophy [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ] and paradigm [ 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 ], relating them to the key researches of this monograph.

The object of this study is to understand essential principles of research philosophy and paradigm.

The purpose of the research is to analyze the essential principles of research philosophy and paradigm, substantiating the position of the key researches of this monograph.

The objectives of this research are (1) to discuss the fundamental aspects of research philosophy and paradigm; and (2) to substantiate the position of culture management and corporate social responsibility research.

Methods of the research. The descriptive method, analysis of academic sources, generalization, and systematization were used as the methods in this study. Graphical representation and modeling methods were used to convey the position of the research.

2. Philosophy and paradigm of scientific research

2.1. scientific research philosophy.

Each researcher is guided by their own approach to the research itself. It is said that Mill [ 12 ] was the first who called representatives of social sciences to compete with ancient sciences, promising that if his advice was followed, the sudden maturity in these sciences would appear. In the same way as their education appeared from philosophical and theological frames that limited them. Social sciences accepted this advice (probably to a level that would have surprised Mill himself if he were alive) for other reasons as well [ 3 , 13 ]. Research philosophy can be defined as the development of research assumption, its knowledge, and nature [ 7 ]. The assumption is perceived as a preliminary statement of reasoning, but it is based on the philosophizing person’s knowledge and insights that are born as a product of intellectual activity. Hitchcock and Hughes [ 4 ] also claim that research stems from assumptions. This means that different researchers may have different assumptions about the nature of truth and knowledge and its acquisition [ 6 ]. Scientific research philosophy is a method which, when applied, allows the scientists to generate ideas into knowledge in the context of research. There are four main trends of research philosophy that are distinguished and discussed in the works by many authors: the positivist research philosophy, interpretivist research philosophy, pragmatist research philosophy, and realistic research philosophy.

Positivist research philosophy . It claims that the social world can be understood in an objective way. In this research philosophy, the scientist is an objective analyst and, on the basis of it, dissociates himself from personal values and works independently.

The opposite to the above-mentioned research philosophy is the interpretivist research philosophy, when a researcher states that on the basis of the principles it is not easy to understand the social world. Interpretivist research philosophy says that the social world can be interpreted in a subjective manner. The greatest attention here is given to understanding of the ways through which people experience the social world. Interpretivist research philosophy is based on the principle which states that the researcher performs a specific role in observing the social world. According to this research philosophy, the research is based and depends on what the researcher’s interests are.

Pragmatist research philosophy deals with the facts. It claims that the choice of research philosophy is mostly determined by the research problem. In this research philosophy, the practical results are considered important [ 5 ]. In addition, according to Alghamdi and Li [ 14 ], pragmatism does not belong to any philosophical system and reality. Researchers have freedom of choice. They are “free” to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures that best meet their needs and scientific research aims. Pragmatists do not see the world as absolute unity. The truth is what is currently in action; it does not depend on the mind that is not subject to reality and the mind dualism.

Realistic research philosophy [ 5 ] is based on the principles of positivist and interpretivist research philosophies. Realistic research philosophy is based on assumptions that are necessary for the perception of subjective nature of the human.

2.1.1. Scientific research paradigm

The scientific research paradigm helps to define scientific research philosophy. Literature on scientific research claims that the researcher must have a clear vision of paradigms or worldview which provides the researcher with philosophical, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological foundations. Research of paradigms depends on these foundations [ 14 ]. According to Cohen et al. [ 6 ], the scientific research paradigm can be defined as a wide structure encompassing perception, beliefs, and awareness of different theories and practices used to carry out scientific research. The scientific research paradigm is also characterized by a precise procedure consisting of several stages. The researcher, getting over the mentioned stages, creates a relationship between research aims and questions. The term of paradigm is closely related to the “normal science” concept. Scientists who work within the same paradigm frame are guided by the same rules and standards of scientific practice. “That is how the scientific community supports itself,” claims Ružas [ 15 ] citing the French post-positivist Kuhn [ 16 ].

The scientific research paradigm and philosophy depend on various factors, such as the individual's mental model, his worldview, different perception, many beliefs, and attitudes related to the perception of reality, etc. Researchers' beliefs and values are important in this concept in order to provide good arguments and terminology for obtaining reliable results. The researcher’s position in certain cases can have a significant impact on the outcome of the research [ 11 ]. Norkus [ 17 ] draws attention to the fact that the specialists of some subjects of natural science are able by using free discussion to come to general conclusions the innovations of which are really “discoveries,” some of them are significant and some are not. Such consensus is difficult to achieve in social sciences. Academic philosophers claim this fact by the statement that “multi-paradigmatism” is characteristic to the humanities and social sciences, i.e., the permanent coexistence and competition of many different theoretical paradigms.

Gliner and Morgan [ 9 ] describe the scientific research paradigm as the approach or thinking about the research, the accomplishing process, and the method of implementation. It is not a methodology, but rather a philosophy which provides the process of carrying out research, i.e., directs the process of carrying out research in a particular direction. Ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods describe all research paradigms [ 3 , 10 , 14 ]. Easterby-Smith et al. [ 18 ] discuss three main components of the scientific research paradigm, or three ways in order to understand the philosophy of research ( Table 1 ).

Table 1.

Three components of scientific research paradigm.

Source: Easterby-Smith et al. [ 18 ].

The three paradigms (positivist, constructivist, and critical) which are different by ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects are also often included in the classification of scholarly paradigms [ 19 ]. In addition, Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ] present unique analysis of research paradigms with the most common terms associated with them. According to Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ], the description of the terminology is consistent with the descriptions by Leedy and Ormrod [ 21 ] and Schram [ 22 ] appearing in literature most often, despite the fact that it is general rather than specific to disciplines or research. Somekh and Lewin [ 23 ] describe methodology as a set of methods and rules, on the basis of which the research is carried out, and as “the principles, theories and values underlying certain approach to research.” In Walter’s [ 24 ] opinion, methodology is the support research structure, which is influenced by the paradigm in which our theoretical perspective “lives” or develops. Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ] state that in most common definitions, it is claimed that methodology is a general approach to research related to the paradigm or theoretical foundation, and the method includes the systematic ways, procedures, or tools used for data collection and analysis ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1.

Paradigms: terminology, methods, and means of data collection. Source: Adapted by the authors: Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ], Mertens [ 25 ], Creswell [ 10 ].

Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ] state that it is the paradigm and the research question that should determine which data collection and analysis methods (qualitative/quantitative or mixed) would be the most appropriate for research. In this way, the researchers do not become “the researchers of quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods,” but they adapt the data collection and analysis method that is most suitable for a specific research. According to the authors, the use of several methods may be possible to adapt to any and all paradigms instead of having one single method that could potentially dilute and unnecessarily limit the depth and richness of the research project.

The scientific paradigm refers to a range of problems, by presenting ways of their solutions. The methods are detailed and compared in Table 2 with regard to the basic paradigms.

Table 2.

Comparison of the main paradigms with regard to ontology, epistemology, and research methods.

Source: Adapted by the authors according to Hitchcock and Hughes [ 4 ], Kuhn [ 16 ], Mackenzie and Knipe [ 20 ], Walker and Evers [ 26 ], Brewerton and Millward [ 27 ], Delanty and Strydom [ 28 ], Bagdonas [ 29 ], Phiri [ 30 ], etc.

Although the paradigm has already been mentioned, but for the researcher, in order to understand different combinations of research methods, it is necessary to analyze the basic concepts and to perceive the philosophical position of research problems.

Kuhn [ 16 ] introduced the concept of paradigm (gr. paradeigma—example model) in the science philosophy. Kuhn calls a paradigm a generally accepted scientific knowledge achievement which provides the scientists with problem raising and solving methods for a period of time. According to the author, when some old ideas are being replaced by the new ones, i.e., better, more advanced, etc., then the progress in science is stated. In natural sciences, this is going on confirming the hypothesis by logical arguments and empirical research. When the scientific community reaches a consensus, there appears accepted theory on its basis [ 16 ]. Bagdonas [ 29 ] describes a paradigm as the whole of theoretical and methodological regulations, that is, regulations adopted by the scientific community at a certain stage of development of science and applied as an example, the model, the standard for scientific research, interpretations, evaluation, and hypotheses to understand and solve objectives arising in the process of scientific knowledge. The transition from one competing paradigm to another is the transition from one non-commensurable thing to the other, and it cannot go step by step, promoted by logical and neutral experience [ 31 ].

A more detailed discussion of ontology requires the emphasis of the insights of various scientists. Hitchcock and Hughes [ 4 ] state that ontology is the theory of existence, interested in what exists, and is based on assertions of a particular paradigm about reality and truth. Other authors [ 28 ] simply identify it as a theory about the nature of reality. Hatch [ 32 ] notes that ontology is related to our assumptions about reality, i.e., whether reality is objective or subjective (existing in our minds). The most important questions that differentiated the research by far are threefold and depend on whether differences among assumptions are associated with different reality construction techniques (ontology) where, according to Denzin and Lincoln [ 33 ], the majority of questions asked are “what are the things in reality?” and “how do they really happen?”. Ontological questions are usually associated with real existence and operation matters [ 33 ], varying forms of knowledge about reality (epistemology), since epistemological questions help to ascertain the nature of relationship between the researcher and the respondent, and it is postulated that in order to make an assumption about the true reality, the researcher must follow the “objectivity and value distancing position” to find out what things are in reality, how they occur [ 33 ], and certain reality cognition techniques (methodology). With the help of methodological questions, the researcher mostly tries to figure out ways by which he can get to know his concerns [ 33 ].

Further analysis of the epistemology terminology presents different interpretations by various authors. For example, according to Brewerton and Millward [ 27 ], epistemology refers to the examination of what separates reasonable assurance from the opinion. According to Walker and Evers [ 26 ], generally speaking, epistemology is interested in how the researcher can receive knowledge about the phenomena of interest to him. Wiersma and Jurs [ 11 ] describe epistemology as a research which attempts to clarify the possibilities of knowledge, the boundaries, the origin, the structure, methods and justice, and the ways in which this knowledge can be obtained, confirmed, and adjusted. Hitchcock and Hughes [ 4 ], talking about the impact on epistemology, emphasize that it is very big for both data collection methods and research methodology. Hatch [ 32 ] highlights the idea that epistemology is concerned with knowledge—specific questions presented by the epistemology researchers are how people create knowledge, what the criteria enabling the distinction of good and bad knowledge are, and how should reality be represented or described? Epistemology is closely related to ontology, because the answers to these questions depend on the ontological assumptions about the nature of reality and, in turn, help to create them. Sale et al. [ 34 ], Cohen et al. [ 6 ], and Denzin and Lincoln [ 33 ] note that epistemological assumptions often arise from ontological assumptions. The former encourage a tendency to focus on methods and procedures in the course of research. Šaulauskas [ 35 ] points out that, in general, modern Western philosophy is a “pure” epistemology establishment, and its systemic dissemination vector is basically the reduction of the whole theoretical vision of gender in epistemological discussion.

It is said that in order to understand the reality there are three main types of paradigms to be employed, namely positivism, interpretivism, and realism. The conception of positivism is directly related to the idea of objectivism. Using this philosophical approach, the researchers express their views in order to assess the social world, and instead of subjectivity, they refer to objectivity [ 36 ]. Under this paradigm, researchers are interested in general information and large-scale social data collection rather than focusing on details of the research. In line with this position, the researchers' own personal attitudes are not relevant and do not affect the scientific research. Positivist philosophical approach is most closely associated with the observations and experiments, used for collection of numerical data [ 18 ]. In the sphere of management research, interpretivism can still be called social constructionism. With this philosophical point of view, the researchers take into account their views and values so that they could justify the problem posed in the research [ 18 ]. Kirtiklis [ 37 ] notes that while positivistic philosophy critical trend encourages strict separation of scientific problems solved by research from “speculative” philosophical problems and thus rejects the philosophy, the other trend, called interpretivism, on the contrary, states that philosophy cannot be strictly separated from social sciences, but it must be incorporated or blended into them. With the help of this philosophy, the scientists focus on the facts and figures corresponding to the research problem. This type of philosophical approach makes it possible to understand specific business situations. Using it, the researchers use small data samples and assess them very carefully in order to grasp the attitudes of larger population segments [ 38 ]. Realism, as a research philosophy, focuses on reality and beliefs existing in a certain environment. Two main branches of this philosophical approach are direct and critical realism [ 39 ]. Direct realism is what an individual feels, sees, hears, etc. On the other hand, in critical realism, the individuals discuss their experience in specific situations [ 40 ]. It is a matter of social constructivism, as individuals try to justify their own values and beliefs.

Analyzing other types of paradigms, in a sense, not qualified as the main, constructivism, symbolic interpretivism, pragmatism should be mentioned. The constructivism paradigm in some classifications of paradigms is called the “interpretative paradigm” [ 19 ]. There is no other definition in ontology, epistemology, and methodology; both approaches [ 41 ] have a common understanding of the complex world experience from the perspective of the individuals having this experience. The constructivists point out that various interpretations are possible because we have multiple realities. According to Onwuegbuzie [ 42 ], the reality for constructivists is a product of the human mind, which develops socially, and this changes the reality. The author states that there is dependence between what is known and who knows. So, for this reason, the researcher must become more familiar with what is being researched. Analyzing symbolic interpretivism through the prism of ontology, it can be said that it is the belief that we cannot know the external or objective existence apart from our subjective understanding of it; that, what exists, is what we agree on that it exists (emotion and intuition: experience forms behind the limits of the five senses). Analyzing symbolic interpretivism through epistemological aspect, all knowledge is related to the one who knows and can be understood only in terms of directly related individuals; the truth is socially created through multiple interpretations of knowledge objects created in this way, and therefore they change over time [ 32 ]. Pikturnaitė and Paužuolienė [ 43 ] note that scientists in most cases when analyzing organizational culture communication and dissemination examine the behavior, language, and other informal aspects that need to be observed, understood, and interpreted. Pragmatism, as a philosophy trend, considers practical thinking and action ways as the main, and the criterion of truth is considered for its practical application. However, as noted by Ružas [ 15 ] who analyzed Kuhn’s approach [ 16 ], since there are many ways of the world outlook and it is impossible to prove that one of them is more correct than the other, it should be stated only that in the science development process, they change each other.

The theories, according to which this research concentrates on the management culture development-level setting for the implementation of corporate social responsibility, are presented in Figure 2 , which distinguishes organizational culture levels and their interaction. Figure 3 defines corporate social responsibility stages that reflect the scientific research philosophy and the paradigm of this survey.

Figure 2.

Management culture in the context of organizational culture. Source: Adapted by the authors according to French and Bel [ 44 ], Schein [ 45 , 46 ], Ott [ 47 ], Bounds et al. [ 48 ], Krüger [ 49 ], Franklin and Pagan [ 50 ], etc.

Figure 3.

Corporate social responsibility stages. Source: Adapted by the authors according to Ruževičius [ 52 ].

In order to relatively “separate” management culture from organizational culture, one must look into their component elements of culture. For this reason, below organizational culture levels and components forming them are discussed in detail.

According to Schein [ 45 , 46 ], artifacts are described as the “easiest” observed level, that is, what we see, hear, and feel. The author presents a model that if you happen to go to organizations, you can immediately feel their uniqueness in the way “they perform the work,” that is, open-space office against closed-door offices; employees freely communicating with each other against the muted environment; and formal clothing against informal clothing. However, according to the author, “you should be careful by appealing to these attributes when deciding whether we like or do not like the organization, whether it is operating successfully or unsuccessfully, as at this observation stage it is not clear why organizations present themselves and interact with one another in such a particular way.” Schein [ 45 , 46 ] elaborates the supported values by considerations that “in order to better understand and decipher why the observed matters happen on the first level, people within the organization should be asked to explain that. For example, what happens when it is established that two similar organizations have very similar company values recorded in documents and published, principles, ethics and visions in which their employees believe and adhere to – i.e., described as their culture and reflecting their core values – for all that, the natural formation and working styles of the two organizations are very different, even if they have similar supported values?” According to the author, in order to see these “imbalances,” you need to realize that “unhindered behavior leads to a deeper level of thought and perception.” In shared mental models, for understanding this “deeper” level of culture, one should study the history of the organization, that is, what were the original values, beliefs, and assumptions of its founders and key leaders, which led to the success of the organization? Over time they have become common and are accepted as self-evident as soon as new members of the organization realized that the original values, beliefs, and assumptions of its founders led to organizational success, that is, through common cognition/assimilation of “correct” values, beliefs, and assumptions. Cultural levels distinguished by Schein [ 45 , 46 ] can be “transferred” to the organizational culture iceberg levels formed by French and Bel [ 44 ]. According to the authors [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 51 ], visible organizational structures consist of ceremonies, communication, heroes, habits, management methods, and so on. French and Bel [ 44 ] distinguish between these formal and informal elements of organizational culture: formal—aims, technology, structure, skills and abilities, financial resources; informal—approaches, values; feelings—anger, fear, frustration, etc.; and interaction group rates. Franklin and Pagan [ 50 ] detail the formal and informal structure of organizational culture factors, allocating them into tangible and intangible factors. Tangible factors (formal or officially authorized) are socialization and/or acculturation experience (if the organization takes care of timely and detailed orientation, it is more likely that the manager will use the process of formal discipline); written documents (if the manager is presented with the relevant policy and relevant procedures, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process); training (if the organization organizes training on discipline issues, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process); and structure of the organization (if the organization provides the power to the manager and if the manager has more control, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process). Intangible factors (informal or informally developed) [ 50 ] include problematic employees (if the employee does not have good professional skills or high position, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process); socialization/acculturation which manifests itself in the human resource management subdivision activities (if the manager’s solutions are supported and not devalued by organizational management, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process); the same social status people (if other managers focus on formal discipline process, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process); groups outside work (if systems of values, partly overlapping, cherished by groups outside, strengthen the organizational culture-supported expectations, it is more likely that the manager will use the formal discipline process). Krüger [ 49 ] formed the change management iceberg which deals with both visible and invisible barriers in the organization. With the help of this iceberg, there is an attempt to force the management to look into the hidden challenges that need to be overcome in order to implement changes in the organization. Iceberg model is relevant to the submitted research presented in this book in the way that implementation of corporate social responsibility is considered as a strong change in the activities of the organization. As stated by Krüger [ 49 ], the change management iceberg is best perceived by managers who understand that the most obvious change obstacles that need to be overcome, such as cost, quality, and time, are only the top of the iceberg, and more complicated obstacles, which have more influence, lie below. The foundation of change management theory is based on the fact that many managers tend to focus only on the obvious obstacles, instead of paying more attention to more complex issues, such as perceptions, beliefs, power, and politics. The theory also distinguishes implementation types (based on what change must take place) and the strategy that should be used. Another aspect of this theory is the people involved in the changes and to what extent they can promote changes or contradict them. So, Krüger [ 49 ] argues that the basis for change is directly related to the management of perceptions, beliefs, power, and politics. If managers understand how this is related to the creation of obstacles, according to the author, they will be able to better implement the changes that they want to perform in their organizations.

It is not enough to analyze only a single component of management culture without evaluation of the entirety. Management culture analysis and changes require a systematic approach, on the basis of which management culture system is presented in the research and its diagnostics is carried out. Having discussed the management culture through formal and informal organizational culture elements, it is appropriate to introduce imputed corporate social responsibility development stages. Figure 4 presents the corporate social responsibility implementation guidelines and corporate social responsibility application plan [ 52 ], together with the supplements of the authors of the book that extend implementation guidelines identified in the plan for the preparation aiming for corporate social responsibility establishment and management system evaluation, which are significant in further process of corporate social responsibility implementation.

Figure 4.

Research philosophy: the main aspects of the research. Source: Adapted by the authors according to Flowers [ 53 ].

Although the plan recommended by Ruževičius [ 52 ] is meant for the companies managed by the public sector, it is estimated that it was prepared in accordance with standards applied in companies operating in the free market, regardless of the origin of the capital. Control system evaluation, which is associated with the previously discussed management culture, is an important process chain because the volume of resource use, cost amounts, and timing as well as ultimate effect depend on its functionality. In addition, it is proposed to assess the possibility of the organization's retreat from corporate social responsibility (shareholders’ change, company restructuring, economic conditions and other relevant circumstances, changes influencing decisions), but it could be part of separate research that this study does not develop.

The research position . Guba and Lincoln [ 3 ] pointed out that the fragmentation of paradigm differences can occur only when there is a new paradigm which is more sophisticated than the existing ones. It is most likely, according to the authors, “if and when the proponents of different approaches meet to discuss the differences rather than argue about their opinion holiness.” All supporters’ dialogue with each other will provide an opportunity to move toward congenial (like-minded) relations. In this research, considering its versatility, one strictly defined position is not complied with. There is compliance with the principle of positivism when a scientist is an objective analyst, isolates himself from personal values, and works independently; in addition, thought and access freedom provided by pragmatism philosophical system is evaluated. Figure 4 summarizes the main elements of the study. The main aim of the research presented in this book is to define the management culture development level which creates an opportunity for organizations to pursue the implementation of corporate social responsibility. The analysis has shown that there is a lack of theoretical insights and empirical research, systematically linking management culture and corporate social responsibility aspects; still this work is not intended to cast a new challenge to already existing theories, but they are connected.

When preparing the research, it was based on academic literature and the insights of experts by using the original questionnaires made by the authors. The employees of two groups of companies, having different socio-demographic characteristics, occupying different positions in organizations are interviewed, and the data obtained are analyzed statistically and interpreted. In this study, the reliability of a specially developed research instrument is argued, and the main focus is on the factors of management culture that influences the implementation of corporate social responsibility at organizational level, as well as evaluating the corporate staff reactions and participation in processes. During the interviews with managers, the management culture as a formal expression of the organizational culture aiming at implementation of corporate social responsibility is revealed.

In this book, great attention is paid to statistical verification of instruments and model in order to be able to make recommendations to the organization management practitioners.

Philosophy of expert evaluation is based on the increasing demand of the versatility of the compiled instrument, and its content suitability for distinguished scales and subscales. The target of this research is to determine the surplus statements, not giving enough necessary information, as well as setting the statements where the content information not only verifies the honesty of the respondent, but also obviously reiterates. Philosophy of expert assessment is based on the research instrument content quality assurance, so that it would consist of statements, revealing in detail the research phenomena and enabling the achievement of the set goal of the research.

The philosophy of expert evaluation is based on the need to increase the versatility of the compiled instrument and its content suitability for derived scales and subscales. This research aims to determine the methodological and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire with respect to a relatively small sample size, representing the situation of one organization. After eliminating the documented shortcomings during the exploratory research, the aim is to prepare an instrument featuring high methodological and psychometric characteristics, suitable for further research analyzing the cases of different sample sizes and different organizations.

The basic (quantitative and qualitative) research philosophy is based on perception of research data significance, importance for the public, and the principle of objectivity. In order to minimize subjectivity and guarantee reliability and the possibility of further discussions, quantitative research findings are based on conclusion (statistical generalization) and qualitative contextual understanding (analytic generalization). Both research results are presented in detail, openly showing the research organization and implementation process.

• 1. Holden MT, Lynch P. Choosing the appropriate methodology: Understanding research philosophy. The Marketing Review. 2004; 4 (4):397-409. DOI: 10.1362/1469347042772428
• 2. Crossan F. Research philosophy: Towards an understanding. Nurse Researcher. 2003; 11 (1):46-55. DOI: 10.7748/nr2003.10.11.1.46.c5914
• 3. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. p. 105-117
• 4. Hitchcock G, Hughes D. Research and the Teacher. London: Routledge; 1989
• 5. Lancaster G. Research Methods in Management: A Concise Introduction to Research in Management and Business Consultancy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005
• 6. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison KRB. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. UK: Routledge, Oxon; 2007. 657 p. ISBN-10: 0415368782, ISBN-13: 978-0415368780
• 7. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research Methods for Business Students. 4th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall; 2007
• 8. Andriukaitienė R. Vadybos kultūros raiška siekiant įgyvendinti įmonių socialinę atsakomybę [Expression of Management Culture Aiming to Implement Corporate Social Responsibility]. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas; 2015. p. 253. ISBN 978-609-467-123-4 [in Lithuanian]
• 9. Gliner JA, Morgan GA. Research Methods in Applied Settings: An Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000
• 10. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2007
• 11. Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Research Methods in Education: An Introduction. 9th ed. London, UK: Pearson; 2008. 493 p. ISBN-13: 978-0205581924, ISBN-10: 0205581927
• 12. Mill JS. A System of Logic. London: Longmans Green. 1906 p (Original work published 1843)
• 13. Guba EG. The Paradigm Dialog. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990
• 14. Alghamdi AH, Li L. Adapting design-based research as a research methodology in educational settings. International Journal of Education and Research. 2013; 1 (10):1-12
• 15. Ružas M. Dvi mokslo alternatyvos: Thomas Khunas ir Michelis Foucault [Two alternatives of philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault]. Žmogus ir žodis [Man and Word]. 2006; 4 :43-50 [in Lithuanian]
• 16. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962
• 17. Norkus Z. Gamtotyros pažangos prognozių epistemologinės prielaidos [Epistemological assumptions of natural science progress forecasts]. Problemos [Problems]. 2006; 69 :9-26 [in Lithuanian]
• 18. Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Jacson, P, Lowe A. Management Research: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publications; 2008. 368 p. ISBN-10: 1847871771, ISBN-13: 978-1847871770
• 19. Fazlıoğulları O. Scientific research paradigms in social sciences. International Journal of Educational Policies. 2012; 6 (1):41-55
• 20. Mackenzie N, Knipe S. Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research. 2006; 16 (2):1-11
• 21. Leedy P, Ormrod J. A Handbook for Teacher Research from Design to Implementation. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2005
• 22. Schram T. Conceptualizing and Proposing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006
• 23. Somekh B, Lewin C. Research Methods in Social Sciences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2005. p. 376
• 24. Walter M. Social Science Methods: An Australian Perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 400
• 25. Mertens DM. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 4th ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2014. 536 p. ISBN-13: 978-1452240275, ISBN-10: 1452240272
• 26. Walker J, Evers C. The epistemology unity of educational research. In: Keeves J, editor. Educational Research, Methodology and Measurements: An International Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon; 1988. p. 28-36
• 27. Brewerton PM, Millward L. Organizational Research Methods: A Guide for Students and Researchers. 1st ed. Great Britain: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2001. p. 224
• 28. Delanty G, Strydom P. Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings (UK Higher Education OUP Humanities & Social Sciences Sociology). 1st ed. United Kingdom: Open University Press Milton Keynes; 2003. 496 p. ISBN-13: 978-0335208845, ISBN-10: 0335208843
• 29. Bagdonas A. Socialinis darbas: profesinės veiklos įvadas [Social Work: Introduction into Professional Activity]. Vilnius: VU Specialiosios psichologijos laboratorija; 2007. p. 284 [in Lithuanian]
• 30. Phiri PM. Methods and Methodology: Which Approach? Qualitative or Quantitative Technical, Epistemological and Ontological Considerations? Implications for the Conduct of a Research Project [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/760617/Methods_and_Methodology_Which_approach_Qualitative_or_Quantitative_Technical_epistemological_and_ontological_considerations_Implications_for_the_conduct_of_a_research_project [Accessed: October 28, 2014]
• 31. Kuhn TS. Mokslo revoliucijų struktūra [The Structure of Science Revolutions]. Vilnius: Pradai; 2003. p. 243 [in Lithuanian]
• 32. Hatch MJ, Cunlife AL. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. 2nd ed. UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. 370 p. ISBN 9780199260218, ISBN 0199260214
• 33. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Entering the field of qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. p. 1-34
• 34. Sale JEM, Lohfeld LH, Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity. 2002; 36 (1):43-53. DOI: 10.1023/A:1014301607592
• 35. Šaulauskas MP. Moderniosios epistemologijos solipsizmas ex principio interno. Metafilosofinis agneologijos svarstymas [Metaphilosophy of modern agneological epistemology: solipsism ex principio interno]. Problemos [Problems]. 2012; 81 :33-43 [in Lithuanian]
• 36. Cooper DR, Schindler PS. Business Research Method. 12th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education; 2013. p. 692
• 37. Kirtiklis K. Ar filosofijai tebėra vietos socialiniuose moksluose? [Is there place for philosophy in social sciences?]. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas [Sociology. Thought and Action]. 2010; 1 (26):69-81 [in Lithuanian]
• 38. Kasi P. Research: What, Why and How? A Treatise from Researchers to Researchers. 1st ed. Bloomington: Author House; 2009
• 39. McMurray AJ, Pace RW, Scott D. Research: A Commonsense Approach. Southbank, Victoria, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press; 2004
• 40. Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2013. p. 436
• 41. Schwandt TA. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1994
• 42. Onwuegbuzie AJ. On becoming a Bi-Researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. In: Symposium Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Educational Researchers (NAER); Ponte Vedra, Florida; 2000
• 43. Pikturnaitė I, Paužuolienė J. Organizacinės kultūros institucionalizavimas [Institutionalisation of organisational culture]. Tiltai [Bridges]. 2013; 4 :93-108 [in Lithuanian]
• 44. French WL, Bel CH. A definition and history of organization development: some comments. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Academy of Management Proceedings; 1971;146-153. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1971.4980975
• 45. Schein EH. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1985
• 46. Schein EH. Organizational culture: Skill, defense, mechanism or addiction? In: Brush FR, Overmier JB, editors. Affect, Conditioning, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985. p. 315-323
• 47. Ott JS. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press; 1989
• 48. Bounds G, Yorks L, Adams M, Ranney G. Beyond Total Quality Management: Toward the Emerging Paradigm. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. p. 832
• 49. Krüger W. Excellence in Change—Wege zur strategischen Erneuerung. Gabler: Wiesbaden; 2002
• 50. Franklin AL, Pagan JF. Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 2006; 26 (1):52-73. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X05277335
• 51. Zakarevičius P. Organizacijos kultūra kaip pokyčių priežastis ir pasekmė [Organisation’s culture as cause and consequence of changes]. Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai [Management of Organizations: Systematic Research]. 2004; 30 :201-209 [in Lithuanian]
• 52. Ruževičius J. Pavyzdinis įmonių socialinės atsakomybės taikymo planas ir jo įgyvendinimo gairės valstybės valdomoms įmonėms [Exemplary Plan for Applying Corporate Social Responsibility and Guidelines for Its Implementation for State-Owned Enterprises] [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.kv.ef.vu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Mokymai-SA-ISA_Gaires_valstybes_imonems_JTVP_Svetainei_2012.pdf [in Lithuanian] [Accessed: October 24, 2014]
• 53. Flowers P. Research philosophies—Importance and relevance. Research Philosophies—Importance and Relevance. 2009; 1 :1-5

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License , which permits use, distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the original is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Authored by Pranas Žukauskas

Published: 18 April 2018

By Pranas Žukauskas, Jolita Vveinhardt and Regina And...

3855 downloads

1533 downloads

1314 downloads

Research Philosophies and Approaches

By rev. prof jonathan edward tetteh kuwornu-adjaottor posted 19th june 2020 post views: 15,943.

E very research has a philosophy behind it and an approach or approaches for studying a phenomenon. What is philosophy? What are the broad philosophies underpinning research? In this article, I would address these questions.

What is Philosophy?

Philosophy, from the Greek ‘love of wisdom’ is difficult to define since it does not possess a specific object of inquiry. In a broad sense, philosophy is concerned with fundamental problems that arise in every area of human thought and activity, and which cannot be resolved by a specific method. Thus, philosophy is an activity of human reasoning about problems that come up in the world of humans. If research is a study of a phenomenon with a view of understanding it, then there is a relationship between research and philosophy – they both seek to understand problems, but understanding alone is not enough; research acts after understanding to solve problems; thereby making the world a better place to live in.

What Philosophies Underpin Research?

There are three philosophies behind research – positivism, post-positivism and pragmatism.

Positivism as an epistemology (a way of knowing how knowledge is derived and how it is to be validated) is based on the idea that science is the only way to learn about the truth. The positivist determines truth  a priori  (a Latin term meaning, ‘from what comes before’.  And a priori  proposition is one that is known to be true or false, without reference to experience). As a philosophy, positivism adheres to the view that only ‘factual’ knowledge gained through observation (the senses), including measurement, is trustworthy. This school of thought posits that the researcher is limited to data collection and interpretation in a subjective way; and that, research findings are usually observable and quantifiable. In the positivism paradigm, the researcher is independent of the study and there are no provisions for human interests within the study; he or she depends on facts to deduce results from the research. Positivism is applied mainly in Basic Science in which experiments are used to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation. So to the positivist, research is subjective; the findings must be subjected to natural laws and principles to make them valid. Positivism employs the Quantitative approach to research which is much more numbers-driven. The emphasis is on the collection of numerical data that can be studied and categorized into frequencies and described in percentages and other descriptive statistical methods such as mode and mean charts and graphs. The conclusion then makes inferences based on that data.

• Post-Positivism

Post-positivism is a rejection of the central tenets of positivism. Post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions. A post-positivist determines truth  a posteriori  (a Latin term meaning ‘from what comes after’.  A posteriori  propositions are true or false in relation to known established facts of experience).    The epistemology of the post-positivist is that; truth can be known objectively by recognizing the possible effects of biases. The post-positivists postulate that theories, background knowledge and values of the researcher can influence what is observed. They are of the view that research is objective; the findings are open-ended because they could be influenced by a number of factors, including the biases of the researcher. Finding of research on a topic may differ from one researcher to the other because they see reality from different perspectives. Post-positivists use their thought in applied research. Most of the research in the Social Sciences is Applied Research. In other words, the research techniques, procedures and methods that form the body of the methodology are applied to find solutions to practical problems and develop innovative technologies, rather than to acquire knowledge for knowledge’s sake. The post-positivist considers both quantitative and qualitative methods as valid approaches to research. The Qualitative research approach is descriptive in nature because it deals with non-numerical and unquantifiable things. The research might involve some numerical data in that the researcher would document the number of observations; however, the observations themselves would be descriptive of what the animals do.

Pragmatism is derived from the Greek word  pragma,  meaning action. Pragmatism is a deconstructive philosophy in which truth is not seen as an absolute but a moveable and usable construct for understanding the reality of nature. The pragmatists’ epistemology is that truth is ‘what works’ rather than what might be considered absolutely and objectively ‘true’ or ‘real’. The pragmatists hold the view that there are many different ways of interpreting the world and that in conducting research, no single point of view can ever give the entire picture because there may be multiple realities. In terms of research, the pragmatists integrate multiple approaches and strategies such as Qualitative, Quantitative and Action research methods within the same study. Action research is an approach applied in the Social Sciences. Action research goes through a cycle – planning, acting, observing, reflecting, planning and then reporting the findings.

Are you a researcher or an upcoming researcher? You may want to try your hands on the following questions.

• In what sense can you say that research findings are not absolute truths?
• Propose a research topic in your field of study and determine which methodological approach you would prefer to use for the study? Justify your choice of approach.

Bibliography

Crowther, D.  & Lancaster G.,  Research Methods: A Concise Introduction to Research Management and Business Consultancy  (Butterworth: Heinemann, 2008).

Kumar, R.,  Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners  3 rd  Edition (London: SAGE Publications, 2011).

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy  3 rd  Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

This article is published with the kind courtesy of the author – Prof.  Jonathan Edward Tetteh Kuwornu-Adjaottor. He is an Associate Professor of New Testament and Mother Tongue Biblical Hermeneutics in the Department of Religious Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.

Subscribe & Receive Updates

Share this article, related posts.

Undertaking a PhD Research Work: A Few Guidelines

Predatory Publishers/Journals

Know more about ORCID iDs

Helpful Tips for conducting your undergraduate research project

Becoming a Successful Researcher: Three Key Principles

Writing a Research Proposal: A Suggested Approach (Part II)

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Philosophical Approaches to Qualitative Research

Renée Spencer, School of Social Work, Boston University

Julia M. Pryce, School of Social Work, Loyola University, Chicago

Jill Walsh, Department of Sociology, Boston University

• Published: 04 August 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter reviews some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and includes some historical background for each. Taking a “big picture” view, the chapter discusses post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory and offers a brief history of these approaches; considers the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and details some of their distinguishing features. In the last section, attention is turned to the future, identifying three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as it moves forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches.

Much ink has been spilled in what have been called the “paradigm wars,” or battles within psychology and related disciples about how we know—and who judges—what is real. Efforts to establish the legitimacy of qualitative research have often taken the form of vociferous arguments for the merits of qualitative approaches, typically cast in terms of the contrasts between these and the more widely accepted quantitative approaches to knowledge production. More recently, even as the push toward evidence-based practice gains momentum and predictably lists the field toward greater uniformity in acceptable approaches to establishing what can be deemed credible evidence, qualitative approaches have continued to strengthen in presence and broaden in reach. Once a seeming fledging movement, despite its long but sometimes forgotten history ( Wertz et al., 2011 ), qualitative research in psychology appears to have come of age. This maturity is reflected in the wide variety of philosophical approaches to qualitative research that have now firmly taken root.

In this chapter, we review some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and include some historical background for each. Here, we offer a “big picture” view and leave it to other chapters in this section (on interpretive, critical, feminist, and indigenous approaches) to take a more fine-grained look at some of the particular fields of thought within these. Described by Denzin and Lincoln (2013) as “a field of inquiry in its own right” (p. 5), qualitative research cuts across disciplines and is represented in many areas of scholarship. We focus here on psychology, but recognize the substantial work done in related fields such as sociology, anthropology, social work, social policy, humanities, and the health sciences, in particular nursing. We cannot possibly do justice to the work that has been done in this arena in this one chapter. Entire volumes (c.f., Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) are devoted to introducing researchers to these issues. We offer here what we hope is a concise and practical overview of some of the major philosophical assumptions that undergird qualitative research and shape its implementation today.

Once dominated by quantitative methods anchored in positivistic and post-positivistic research paradigms, a greater balance in the use of methodological and philosophical approaches is now being utilized in psychological research ( Ponterotto, 2005 ; Rennie, Watson, & Monteiro, 2002 ). The importance of qualitative research has long been justified by many on the basis of Dilthey’s argument that the distinctive natures of natural science and human science called for different approaches: “We explain nature, but we understand psychic life” (1894/1977, p. 27; as cited in Wertz et al., p. 80). Today, qualitative methods are viewed as being particularly well-suited to addressing some of our most pressing issues and concerns, such as the influence of culture on psychological development and its role in psychological interventions ( Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2010 ). The rise of participatory action research (PAR), with its emphasis on social change and the empowerment of community participants ( Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005 ), has also required employing a range of qualitative approaches (i.e., focus groups, interviews, participant observation, photo-voice, and storytelling) to collecting data that contribute to the development of the kind of deeper understandings of the experiences of the participants needed to effect meaningful change.

The diversity of qualitative approaches can be dizzying and makes agreement about their appropriate use, in what forms, and according to what standards difficult, if not impossible. It can be challenging for “insiders” to navigate these issues, let alone the novice researcher wading into this terrain. Seemingly simple questions about sample size and composition or the specific steps one should take in data analysis and how to achieve reliable findings can provoke lengthy discussion and even heated debates, with researchers take opposing positions and rooting their justification for these in foundational principles of qualitative research. Even more maddening for some, such questions may simply yield a repeated singular and highly unsatisfying response of “it depends.”

This seeming confusion can stem in part from differences in the purpose or aims of the research and in beliefs associated with core philosophies of science embedded within the varying approaches, namely ontology, epistemology, and axiology ( Creswell, 2007 ; Hays & Singh, 2012 ; Ponterotto, 2005 ). At its core, psychological research may be carried out with markedly distinct purposes, such as explaining and predicting aspects of the human experience, increasing our understanding of the lived experiences of different groups of people, or critiquing and changing the current conditions within which we live and strive to grow ( Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2013 ). These different aims may also be carried out using approaches to research that rest on differing foundational assumptions about the nature of our world (ontology) and our knowledge about it (epistemology), as well as the role of values in the process of knowledge production (axiology), that are conceptualized by Hays and Singh (2012) as falling along separate continuums of beliefs.

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Within the context of qualitative research, ontology is discussed in terms of beliefs about the existence of some “universal truth” and about objectivity. At one end of the spectrum is a belief that reality is objective and that there are universal truths about reality that can be known. At the other end is a belief that reality is subjective and contextual, and a universal understanding of psychological experiences cannot be obtained because they must always be understood within the contexts within which they are embedded ( Hays & Singh, 2012 ). The crux of these viewpoints is also represented in the terms “emic” and “etic,” which are often used in anthropology and cultural psychology. These terms have been used to capture the distinction between experience-near understandings of culture and human experience, or what an insider within a local context would recognize and resonate with, and more experience-distant conceptualizations or abstractions about cultural processes (e.g., Geertz, 1983 ). Etic can also be thought of as generalizations about human behavior that are universally true and emic as those that are contextually situated and not generalizable, such as local customs ( Ponterotto, 2005 ).

Epistemology is the study of the process of knowing or “how we know what we know” (Guba & Lincoln, 2008; Ponterotto, 2005 ). It is concerned with how we gain knowledge of what exists and the relationship between the knower—in this case the researcher—and the world. The researcher and research participant may be considered independent of one another. In this view, researchers can use rigorous, systematic approaches to studying participants objectively or without researcher bias. This results in much attention being paid to rigor in research, particularly in the form of strict adherence to generally accepted systematic approaches to enhancing objectivity and reducing researcher bias. On the other side of the continuum is an understanding of knowledge as being actively constructed by the researcher and participant, who exert mutual influence on one another. Rather than removing or guarding against researcher bias, the dynamic interaction between the researcher and participant is viewed as central to capturing the inherently contextualized experiences of the participant. Issues of rigor remain but take on different meanings and forms. The goal here is not to eliminate bias—because that would be futile—but rather to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings by including and documenting multiple perspectives on the focus of the inquiry. In some cases, this might mean demonstrating that the researcher became immersed enough in the participants’ experiences so as to credibly represent and interpret them. In others, this might involve triangulating the data sources and/or the investigators.

Axiology is concerned with how values and assumptions of the researcher influence the scientific process, as well as what actions the researcher takes with the research produced ( Lincoln et al., 2013 ). What place do the emotions, expectations, and values of the researcher have in the research process? Should systematic steps be taken to ensure that the process is kept free of these so that they do not influence the participants and the results? Or is such a pursuit futile and the best a researcher can do is identify, describe, or even attempt to “bracket” ( Wertz, 2011 ) his or her values? Much qualitative research today rests on the assumption that research is “radically relational” and is inevitably shaped, and even intentionally informed, by the researcher’s orientation, values, and personal qualities ( Wertz et al., 2011 , p. 84). In research that seeks to change the status quo with regard to the unequal distribution of power and resources, such as in PAR, the researcher’s experience is central to the process and may be key to achieving the intended outcomes of the research ( Ponterotto, 2005 ). With regard to action, the positions range from researcher as distant observer of the study participants to researcher as change agent who is deliberately striving to achieve social justice through the work produced.

In some cases, the assumptions of a researcher may align more neatly along one side of these continuums. For example, a feminist researcher may hold that there are multiple truths and that knowledge is constructed in relationship with study participants, with the values and assumptions of the researcher integral to the construction of this knowledge. In others, the assumptions may be more mixed, such as a researcher who endorses a constructivist view of reality but views researcher reflexivity as less central to the research process. When these differing ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances go unacknowledged, the differences among qualitative approaches can seem as vast as those between quantitative and qualitative methods. As Camic, Rhodes, and Yardley (2003) , among many, have argued, the principle that should unify us is the need for coherence between the nature of our questions and the methodological and philosophical approach taken to answering them.

In the next sections, we review the following major overarching philosophical approaches that guide and structure qualitative research: post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory. We offer a brief history of each of the approaches; consider the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and detail some of the distinguishing features while also attempting to capture some of the diversity within them. We also touch on some prominent applications of these approaches to qualitative research in psychology. We recognize that these approaches have been grouped and defined in varying ways and that they defy this sort of tidy categorization. Still, we draw some lines here in an effort to highlight distinctive ideas within each. Also included are discussions of applications of each of the approaches.

Philosophical Approaches

Post-positivism.

Post-positivism grew out of the positivist view of science, and together these have dominated research in psychology for much of the field’s history ( Packer, 2011 ). Positivism rests on the ontological assumption that some objective truth or reality exists that is independent of our beliefs and constructions and can be ascertained through direct observation and experience. The efforts of science, thus, are put toward establishing universal laws of nature and, within psychology, universal laws of human development and experience. The attainment of this knowledge and our confidence in it depends on following systematic procedures through which claims about truth can be verified. Hypothesis generation and testing using valid measures of operationally defined variables are primary tools, and the goal is to be able, with confidence, to generalize the knowledge obtained to some larger general population. Post-positivism introduces the idea that hypotheses can never actually be proven beyond any doubt and that theory should tested in order to be falsified as well as verified. Issues of validity and reliability are of central importance in research within this paradigm, as are considerations of credible alternative hypotheses to explain the phenomenon being studied.

Post-positivism is rooted in logical positivism, a term coined by a group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers in the early 1900s known as the Vienna Circle. Building on the “positive philosophy” of Auguste Comte, but also emphasizing the importance of formal logic in scientific investigation, these thinkers determined that science required a systematic way of organizing our direct observations of experience and sought to inductively build laws of the natural world based on the construction of meaningful and unambiguous logical statements ( Packer, 2011 ). Only statements of fact that could be verified in some way or tested empirically were considered to be meaningful in the scientific endeavor.

Karl Popper (1934/1959 ) objected to the idea that this kind of inductive construction and confirmation of factual, logical statements that were purportedly free from personal and theoretical bias could lead to certainty about the natural world. Instead, he argued that the laws of science had to be built through a process of falsification or testing of hypotheses. He argued that data disproving hypotheses are more definitive than those supporting them, as in any given study there is always the risk that the data gathered do not accurately or fully represent the real world being studied. The disconfirming case or cases may simply have not made it into the sample drawn for study.

Foundational Assumptions

Post-positivism retains the belief in an observable external reality and the existence of universal truths but contends that a fully accurate representation of them can never be achieved with certitude ( Popper, 1934/1959 ). Although things exist beyond our experience of them, it is recognized that our knowledge of this world is socially constructed. Bias is unavoidable. All observations are fallible because they are inherently laden with our individual and cultural biases. Although we can never get to the truth with any certainty, post-positivists contend that we should continually strive to come as close as we possibly can. Because all measurement is biased and introduces error, issues of reliability and validity are paramount. Great attention is paid to reducing or controlling for bias through the design of the research and the use of clearly defined techniques such as controls groups and multiple forms of measurement or triangulation. This attempt to remove or at least reduce bias extends to the subjectivity of the researcher as well as to the intentions of the research. The researcher is to remain as neutral as possible throughout the research process and should not engage in research in the service of advocacy for any particular position within their field.

From a post-positivist perspective, the existence of multiple worldviews does not extend into a belief in complete relativism and an incommensurability of perspectives—the belief that our differences in experiences and culture mean that we can never understand each other. Whereas we may never achieve objectivity in the true sense of the word, we can employ systematic ways of checking our biases both individually and collectively through engaging in the scientific enterprise within a community of people who critically review one another’s work.

Implications for Research Methods

Research rooted in post-positivism aims to explain psychological phenomenon by identifying factors that predict particular outcomes and the relationships between them. A priori theory about how things are related is used to guide the research, which then seeks to verify or falsify these theory-based ideas. Having confidence in the findings from such research rests on the rigor with which systematic steps in the research process are employed. Multiple levels of data analysis and taking steps to ensure validity contribute to the rigor of the research, and the results of these studies are typically written in the form of scientific reports similar in structure to that used for the reporting of quantitative studies.

Application

Grounded theory , a now widely used approach to qualitative research, as traditionally constructed aligns most closely with positivistic and post-positivistic assumptions ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2010 ). It was first developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in response to what they considered to be an overemphasis on hypothesis testing and the verification of theory in sociological research. They argued that the work of theory generation could not be complete and that all human experience was unlikely to be captured and accounted for by the existing grand theories of the time. They put forth grounded theory as a systematic approach to qualitative data collection and analysis to be carried out with the explicit purpose of discovering new theory from data or building new theory from the ground up, rather than by logical deductions from a priori assumptions. Although grounded theory turned the process of scientific inquiry in the post-positivist tradition on its head by beginning with the collection of data to use to ultimately build theory rather than collecting data to prove or disprove existing theory, the foundational assumptions on which traditional grounded theory rests are largely rooted in post-positivism. That said, constructive approaches to grounded theory have also been articulated and widely implemented (e.g., Charmaz, 2006 ), and others have argued that grounded theory techniques can be implemented using a variety of philosophical approaches ( Birks & Mills, 2011 ).

Traditional grounded theory “accepts that there is an external world that can be described, analyzed, explained and predicted: truth, but with a small t ” ( Charmaz, 2000 , p. 524). Part of the intent of grounded theory was to codify qualitative research methods and put forth a systematic set of explicit strategies for carrying out the research process, with the assumption being that following a systematic set of methods would lead to the discovery of real phenomena and the development of verifiable “theories” of them ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). Such work, however, requires getting out into the field to collect rich data on which to build these theories. Some of the defining features of a grounded theory approach are (a) simultaneous data collection and analysis, (b) the development of codes from the data rather than from theory, (c) constant comparison of data at all levels of the data collection and analytic process, (d) theoretical sampling to serve the purpose of theory generation rather than representativeness of the sample, and (e) memo writing to define and elaborate on emerging categories and the relationships among them ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ).

Social Constructionism

The tenets of the discipline throughout the twentieth century tended to place social constructionism at the opposite pole of experimental social psychology ( Jost & Kruglanski 2002 ), with the idea being that work in social psychology should fall on either end of the spectrum: you either do quantitative experiments or you engage in qualitative studies that are undergirded by a social constructionist paradigm. Although the two extremes have begun to meet in the middle in recent years, it is important to examine the role that the social constructionist perspective has played in shaping our thinking and work in the field of psychological research.

The notion of social construction first gained popularity in the United States after the publication of Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) seminal book, The Social Construction of Reality. Relying on the work of Schutz, Berger and Luckmann argued that all of our understandings and knowledge are socially constructed. The idea is that we create our own reality through social interactions, relationships, and experiences. From the ontological perspective, reality is context- and socially relative, and therefore many realities can exist simultaneously ( Berger & Luckmann, 1966 ; Gergen, 1996 ). If our reality is constructed, then, too, our knowledge and meanings are derived from social interactions. Individuals hold them in their minds, but the epistemological notion of reality and meanings are not individual in nature but instead are constantly “negotiating meaning” ( Gergen, 1996 ).

This has significant implications for both how we analyze the findings from past research in the field as well as how we shape future research projects. As Gergen (1996) states, “research findings don’t have any meaning until they are interpreted” and interpretations “result from a process of negotiating meaning in the community (119).” The data do not reveal anything in or of themselves; instead, it is the way that psychologists utilize and interpret the data that reveals meaning. But again, it is not a truth that is revealed, or rather it is a truth, the truth that the researcher, given his or her experiences and knowledge, created while interacting with the social environment. Diverse and influential work, such as Milgram’s (1974) experiment and Burr’s (1998) work on the social construction of gender, illustrates the power of social interactions to frame and influence our understandings and realities.

Perhaps most importantly for our purposes, social construction highlights the social creation of identity. Identity creation and maintenance is work that we are constantly engaged in as individuals; we use Goffmanian (1955) performances and props to test how others interpret our identities, which then impacts how we think of our identity. This is also true for the related notion of self-worth. In an interesting study examining the social construction of identity among the homeless in Austin, Texas, Snow and Anderson (1987) found that there can be both a social identity (the identity that society gives you) and a personal identity (the identity you hold in your mind). Traditionally, these would be thought to align, but through a social construction approach Snow and Anderson (1987) argued that there are cases in which people cannot easily reconcile the public and personal. This has obvious implications for the field of social psychology and identity research.

Social construction, as defined by Berger and Luckmann (1966) , suggests that reality is constantly in flux as it is negotiated and renegotiated through our experiences social worlds. From this core idea, other branches of social construction, such as symbolic interaction, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology, have evolved. Because they all fall under the social construction umbrella, it can be difficult at times to determine their differences. How does symbolic interactionism really differ from phenomenology, for example? The following sections lay out these three offshoots of social construction and attempt to present both their historical precedence as well as their current engagement with the discipline.

Symbolic Interactionism

The symbolic interactionist approach was first developed in the early 1900s by George Herbert Mead (1913) at the University of Chicago. He was a member of the eminent group of sociologists (loosely termed at the time because he also taught philosophy) working as part of the Chicago School in the early to mid-1900s. The Chicago School came to be known in particular for the development of the symbolic interactionist approach to studying daily life. Mead argued that society and all its component parts—structures, interactions, and meanings—are developed through social interactions, thus macroanalyses can and should really be reduced to their smaller microlevel interactions. The theory was popular during the time of the Chicago School and was then expanded and adapted by Herbert Blumer in 1960s. Blumer did not like the emphasis placed on macrolevel structures that dominated most of the sociological research at the time and thought that symbolic interactionism offered an alternative theoretical framework. Blumer’s work (1969) was resurrected as an empirical framework in the 1980s, and its popularity has ebbed and flowed since. One of the most renowned sociologists utilizing symbolic interactionism today is Sheldon Stryker at Indiana University.

Although Mead did not refer to the theory as such, symbolic interactionism is based on the overarching premise that all aspects of society are socially constituted. From macrolevel power structures to microlevel daily interactions, all are created through social interactions at various levels. Embedded in this perspective is the notion that meanings (about these power structures, interactions, etc.) are derived from social interactions. For both Mead and Blumer, the unit of analysis is the individual, not society or institutions. They were both reacting against the notion that social structures (i.e., socioeconomic stats) explain outcomes. Structures, according to symbolic interactionists, are just groups of people repeatedly engaged in interaction.

Our social interactions lead us to develop “shared meanings” ( Sandstrom, Martin, & Fine, 2006 ); through our interactions with others, we take on common definitions of emotions, experiences, and ways of acting. Thus, for example, gender norms may be taught, both consciously and unconsciously from early childhood; in this way, a female understands what it “means” to be a woman in her society without ever being explicitly told. A girl does not learn this in a bubble; rather, it is through her social interactions with others that she comes to understand what constitutes appropriate behavior, dress, appearance, and the like. She learns this through her experiences and the responses she gets from others.

Symbolic interactionism “stresses that people create, negotiate, and change social meanings through the process of interaction” ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 1). The key point here, for Blumer and others, is that meanings are constantly evolving. So, to follow the example just mentioned, our understanding of gender is not a fixed fact (because it might be different in different regions, religions, and time periods) but the result of previously experienced gendered interactions in our past. We take our previous interactions with us and apply them to the next interaction. Interactions, even with people we have just met, are not completely insulated events. Rather, each person brings to the interaction all of his or her previous interactions and meanings. Thus, a man and a woman in conversation will bring to this exchange all of their previously held ideas about femininity and masculinity, which they will use as a guide for navigating this new interaction. And of ultimate importance is Goffman’s (1959) notion of the feedback loop; you act based on your prior understandings, receive feedback from your new partner, and then take this new feedback with you into your future interactions. As this process continues, you may alter your meanings, and potentially your behavior, over time. It is a process, not a set plan.

Because behavior and meaning are social constituted, so, too, is the self. Most symbolic interactionists would argue that there is no core/true individual identity. Rather, we engage in identity work in which take on different identities to manage the diversity of our social interactions. So, for example, in the classroom setting, one takes on the role of either professor or student. Out of this context, we may take on an entirely different identity, such as mother. None of these identities represents our “true self,” but rather they are all appropriate context-specific roles. We base these roles on what Goffman (1959) called “the generalized other” or the group/people we interact with. So, we base our mothering role on our interactions with our children, our experiences with our own parents, friends, and media/cultural influences. As the “generalized other” changes, so do our identities. As a result of the primacy of social interactions, Mead’s original theory is a very fluid one. Meanings are iterative because they are informed by our ongoing interactions.

The legacy of symbolic interactionism for research in psychology is an important one. First, the notion that all behaviors, from internal thoughts to outward interactions, are socially constituted has an impact on the psychological discourse. For researchers, this means that the participant cannot be looked at simply as an individual but rather as an individual in the social context. Thus, a person’s thoughts and judgments are not solely the product of his or her own mind, but rather of his or her understandings based on social interactions ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 ). And, additionally, one of the byproducts of social interaction is feedback about ourselves; we internalize others’ perceptions of us, which can in turn influence our self-concept ( Cook & Douglas 1998 ). This has significant implications for any researchers studying mental health because it means that the mind is no longer a solely internal, individual unit of analysis. Our thoughts, ideas, hopes, and fears are all rooted in the social world and therefore have both social causes and consequences. Therefore, the “social act” should be the unit of analysis ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 ).

Symbolic interactionists also highlight individual agency to form and change the world around us. Individuals “designate meanings, define situations and plan lines of action. In so doing, they actively construct the reality of their environment and exercise a measure of control over it” ( Sandstrom et al., 2006 , p. 6). We do this through the process of interacting, reflecting on, and evaluating interactions, and acting. This process is dynamic and, at least to some degree, controlled by the individual. There is no right or set meaning or type of interaction. Instead, we each create our own realities based on our understandings and meanings. Thus, it is still possible for two people to react to the same interaction very differently because each will bring his or her own history of social interactions and meanings to this experience.

Rooting the theory in individual meanings and experiences has implications for the types of research methods symbolic interactionists will utilize. The most commonly utilized approaches are ethnography, grounded theory, and narrative analysis because these methods allow the themes to emerge from the data, thereby preserving the individual experiences and realities. These methods more readily address the question of how people make meaning out of experiences in their lives and do not allow the researcher’s assumptions and own set of meanings to dictate the findings that emerge from the data.

The border between social psychology and sociology is often blurred by researchers in both disciplines’ use of symbolic interactionism. In particular, Stryker (1987) argued that the movement in psychology away from behaviorism and toward a value placed on subjective experience is the result of the use of symbolic interactionism as a lens through which to examine psychological research. Thus, it is fair to say that the scope of symbolic interactionism’s influence is far reaching within the field. One interesting study that took a symbolic interactionist approach is Ponticelli’s (1999) study of former lesbians who, due to religious involvement in an ministry that does not acknowledge homosexuality, must reframe their sexual identities to align with their newly acquired religious beliefs. Ponticelli’s research method involved eight months of participant observations, interviews, and material analysis, and her goal was to understand the ways that the ex-lesbians in her study construct a narrative of their sexuality. Symbolic interactionism lends itself well to this kind of study because it brings participants’ own understandings and narratives to the study rather than the researcher’s personal assessment of the participants’ stories. Additionally, Ponticelli’s study also incorporates a symbolic interactionist approach in its attempt to focus on the ways that meaning is created and adjusted over time.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology was first established by Edmund Husserl in the early 1900s. It has subsequently been used as an approach within psychology as well as in other disciplines in the social sciences. Husserl’s original goal was to find a way to conduct objective scientific analysis of subjective topics, such as emotion. Phenomenology, along with the ideologically similar symbolic interactionism, has been an important philosophical approach underpinning much of psychological research. In particular, phenomenology has influenced the Duquesne School as well as the experimental approaches utilized in psychological research. In spite of the influence of phenomenology within the field of psychology, over time, its theoretical premise has been challenged by some of the field’s giants: James, Skinner, and Watson have at various times all challenged phenomenology and advocated a more scientific approach to the discipline of psychology. The debate continues today, and many researchers still question what constitutes phenomenological research as well as its merits as a philosophical framework.

Phenomenology is rooted in the notion that all of our knowledge and understanding of the world comes from our experiences ( Hein & Austin, 2001 ). At their core, there are significant similarities between phenomenology and symbolic interactionism in that both focus on the ways our engagement with society affects our worldviews. However, whereas symbolic interactionism focuses on the ways that social interactions affect our meaning, phenomenology takes the broader aim of studying experiences (phenomena). But, like symbolic interactionism, the focus is not on the events themselves, but rather on the ways in which we experience things and the meanings these experiences create for us. As Kockelmans (1973) writes, it is “bringing to light the usually hidden meanings which motivate the concrete modes of man’s orientation toward the world” (p. 274). As such, those who utilize the phenomenological approach seek to make explicit the “taken-for-grantedness” assumptions that guide our experiences ( Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6). In essence, there is no objective reality, but rather it is our experiences and our perceptions of these experiences (i.e., our lived experiences) that are our reality. Given that the meanings we create from our experiences are largely based on the social context ( Smith, 2011 ), there is a clear link to symbolic interactionism.

Additionally, phenomenologists believe that behavior is a reflection of our previous experiences; we act in response to our temporal and spatial memories of past experiences or, as Keen (1975) writes, “behavior is an expression of being in the world” (p. 27). Thinking about behavior as a product of our past experiences forces us to consider action and individual agency as embedded in a broader social context. Related to this question of behavior is the notion of intentionality; namely, the idea that every experience is in response to or connected to some past experience. Thus, attempting to examine the experience as “in the moment” is, from a phenomenological perspective, missing the unique understandings the individual brought to the current experience.

As a research method, phenomenology involves studying how we make sense of our experiences or “participant perspectives” ( Bogdan & Biklen, 1998 , p. 26). Therefore, as researchers, we cannot assume that we know what meanings people make of certain events. For example, even though we may think the standard response is to be sad after the death of a parent, we cannot presume that a participant in our study feels this or any other emotion. The job of the researcher is to uncover what it is people take for granted (i.e., what they might not even think to tell us in an interview and what we might not think to ask because we assume they think like we do). To do this, the researcher must first come to understand the assumptions and biases he or she brings to the research. Underlying phenomenological research is the notion of bracketing assumptions, which is the idea that, before we can conduct any analysis of our data, we must first explore our own biases or the “taken-for-grantedness” ( Hein & Austin, 2001 , p. 6) that make up our unique perspectives. Of course, there is no way we, as researchers, can operate outside of our assumptions and experiences. However, the self-reflection for which phenomenologists advocate does at least charge the researcher with keeping these biases in mind when conducting analysis.

Approaching a research question with the assumption that experience forms the basis for behavior and understanding fundamentally lends itself to certain research methods. In particular, utilizing methods that emphasize gathering data on lived experience from the participant’s perspective is essential. To that end, methods such as ethnomethodology, ethnography, and narrative analysis are particularly relevant for researchers utilizing the phenomenological approach because all of these methods focus on uncovering the meanings individuals give to their experiences.

A great deal of the research in psychotherapy is rooted in the phenomenological approach because many scholars in this field see as their goal “discovering psychological meanings by identifying the essential psychological structure of an interviewee’s description of an experience” ( Camic et al., 2003 , p. 8). A concrete example of this comes from Carl Rogers’s client-centered therapy (1951). Rogers found that many of his patients struggled not with what actually happened—that is, the “in the moment” reality—but with their perceptions and feelings about what happened. As a result, therapy must be targeted to address the individual’s set of perceptions and understandings. To follow up with the example of a person dealing with the death of a parent, a therapist cannot follow a preset protocol for helping the client because each patient’s experiences and feelings about death will be different.

From the perspective of social psychology, the phenomenological approach has implications for how we conduct and think about research on identity. In its most general sense, phenomenology de-emphasizes the self as a unique individual, which has implications for the types of research questions we ask, as well as for the methods we utilize. A phenomenological study of identity allows for open-ended questions that allow participants to present, through the construction of a narrative for example, what identity means to them and how it functions in their lives. This is especially relevant for factors such as gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, which, depending on our context, can constrain or enhance our experiences and interactions. One example of this type of work is Friedman, Friedlander, and Blustein’s (2005) study that used a phenomenological approach to develop an understanding of how Jews construct their collective religious and ethnic identity as a highly assimilated but still distinct population within the United States.

A well-defined method with some roots in phenomenology (among other approaches) is consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill, Knox, Thompson, Williams, Hess, & Ladany, 2005 ; Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ). It is a method for interview research that has been used in numerous studies in psychology, especially within counseling psychology. Consensual qualitative research is actually constructivist in ontology, in that it assumes multiple realities, and in epistemology because the researcher experience matters and informs interview question development. However, it also has post-positivistic leanings, with its emphasis on consensus among a team of researchers in the construction of findings, close adherence to a systematic approach, and interest in generalization and ( Hill et al., 2005 ).

In CQR, consistent data are collected across participants through semistructured interviews and then analyzed by multiple “judges” who must come to a consensus about the meaning of the data. At least one “auditor” also checks the “primary team of judges” to work against the potential for groupthink. Data analysis is carried out in three steps. First, participant responses to the open-ended interview questions are divided into domains or topic areas. Then, core ideas, which are abstracts or brief “summaries of the data that capture the essence of what was said in fewer words and with greater clarity” are constructed within each domain for each individual case ( Hill et al., 2005 , p. 200). Finally, cross-case analysis is carried out by developing categories that describe the common themes reflected in the core ideas within domains across cases.

Consensus is at the core of the CQR method, with the assumption being that consideration of multiple perspectives brings us closer in our approximation of the “truth” and reduces the influence of researcher bias ( Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997 ). Using teams of three to five analysts, coders first look at the data independently and then come together to discuss their ideas until consensus about the single best representation of the data is reached. The goal here is not what is typically thought of as interrater reliability, wherein preagreement about how to code data is established and then carried out with the goal of achieving the highest levels of accuracy in agreement in coding. Rather, it is expected, and even hoped, that team members will begin with different ideas about the data so that the final product reflects and integrates multiple perspectives and is less fraught with individual bias. The potential for groupthink is minimized through the use of one or two additional team members who serve as auditors to review and check the primary team’s interpretations and judgments. The auditors review the work of the primary team once the core ideas for each domain have been established consensually and then again when the cross-case categories have been determined. At each of these stages, the auditors review the raw material and provide comments back to the primary team who must then carefully consider each comment and determine through discussion whether to accept or reject each one.

Critical Theory

Critical theory as an approach represents a key postmodern paradigm and offers alternatives to the postmodernist and constructivist lenses. In the context of research, the application of critical theory emphasizes the ways by which the values of the researcher and those studied impact the social world. This point of view contributes to a larger shift in research over the past several decades ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), one that privileges meaning and requires a rethinking of knowledge ( Goodman & Fisher, 1995 ).

Critical theory has had many distinct historical phases that cross several generations. The birth of this paradigm is considered to have taken place through the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main during 1929–1930. During this time, the arrival of the “Frankfurt School” philosophers and social theorists ( Creswell, 2007 ), including Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, marked an idealistic, utopian vision that stretched beyond the more customary “positivist” tradition of the time. This emergence offered criticism to the status, structure, and goal of the traditional social sciences ( Adorno et al., 1969 ). The German philosophers and social theorists of the Frankfurt School were influenced by the barbarism of World War I and what was perceived as the inhumanity of post-war capitalism so widespread in Europe at the time. During World War II, several key contributors to the School moved to the United States in an effort to escape the war. Once in the United States, these thinkers were struck by the gulf between the stated progressive agenda within the United States and the very real differences between races and social classes present, in large part due to discrimination ( Ponterotto, 2005 ).

According to these theorists, “critical” theory may be distinguished from “traditional” theories to the extent that it seeks human emancipation and a disruption of the status quo. Ontologically, critical theory challenges the idea that reality is natural and objective because reality is shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender-based forces into social structures. Instead, critical theorists assume that reality can only come to be known through a subjective frame and as shaped by values and mediated by power relations that are socially and historically constituted.

More recently, Jurgen Habermas’s (1988 ; 1990 ) work on communicative reason and linguistic intersubjectivity has represented iconic work in critical theory in the more modern era. Habermas’s work has enabled strategies of community building and social movements based on his work in communication. This work has not taken place without scrutiny, however. Theorists such as Nikolas Kompridis have opposed some of Habermas’s ideas ( Kompridis, 2006 ), claiming that these recent approaches have undermined the original aims of social change espoused by critical theory, particularly in terms of the critique of modern capitalism.

According to Horkheimer, a critical theory is adequate only if it is explanatory, practical, and normative (1972). In other words, it has to address what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, provide clear norms for criticism, and identify practical goals for social transformation. The orientation of this theory is toward transformation, traditionally of capitalism into a “real democracy”.

Foundation ideals are based on a fundamental struggle for equality and social justice. Knowledge is used to emancipate the oppressed, and “validity is found when research creates action” ( Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011 , p. 114). Given this definition, a number of “critical theories” have been developed to demonstrate differences in power in the areas of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disabilities, many of which have emerged in connection with the social movements associated with these areas, particularly in the United States. In short, a critical theory provides the basis and groundwork for research aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom.

Critical theory by and large rejects the assumption that a scientific or objective basis of criticism needs to be grounded in a grand theory. Rather, epistemologically, critical theory privileges agents’ own knowledge and understandings, with an assumption that these understandings can be a basis for social criticism in themselves. In other words, theories can have “a relative legitimacy” ( Habermas, 1988 , p. 3). Habermas also argues that, relative to other existing theories, the role of critical theory is to unify these multiple theories, considering their varied methods and presuppositions ( Habermas, 1988 ). Given this role, it stands to reason that any social scientific method or explanation-producing theory can be potentially critical.

Similarly, in critical theory, the relationship between researcher and participant is transactional, subjective, and dialectic. In other words, what can be known is inextricably tied to the interaction between an investigator and an object or group. Insofar as one can separate oneself from marginalized groups in an effort to remain “objective,” one removes oneself from one’s “share” of the social condition studied, likely perpetuating the inequalities that contribute to the adverse social conditions often of interest to social scientists.

Researchers who employ critical theory take values a step further than constructivists do in that they hope and expect their value biases to influence the research process and outcome. More specifically, because critical theory concerns itself with unequal distributions of power and the resultant oppression of subjugated groups, a preset goal of the research is to empower participants to transform the status quo and emancipate themselves from ongoing oppression. Thus, critical theorist researchers acknowledge at the outset that they expect results to document the high levels of stress or disadvantage of the group under study. Beyond this, such researchers aim to use the results and report of the study in some way to advocate for improvement of the examined group.

Critical theorists, given their stance on the importance of researcher–participant interaction and the significance of understanding values as influencing the reality under study, more often use naturalistic designs in which the researcher is engaged in the daily life of participants. Critical theoretical approaches tend to rely on dialogic methods, which may combine data collection methods (e.g., participant observation, in-depth interviewing, first-person written reports) with opportunity for reflection. This approach intentionally invites a questioning of the “natural” status quo and order and an exploration of the tensions that characterize the social issue under exploration. Inherently challenging, this approach values transparency and welcomes opportunities for alternative paradigms to be considered as part of the learning process itself.

Methodologically, contexts are not merely conceptualized as “variables,” but as essential parts of subjectivity according to critical theory. In terms of the field of psychology, this approach invites us to consider the role of research in terms of how liberation might take shape across the lifespan. Qualitative approaches in which a researcher’s social justice values help direct inquiry, such as PAR ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ), provide ample example of critical theory at work in the research context.

Application in the Field

Participatory action research is a form of action research anchored in the belief that the research process itself serves as a mechanism for social change. Participatory action research is an approach focused on critical theory because, at its core, PAR is geared toward empowerment of participants that leads to emancipation from oppression and enhanced quality of life. In laypersons’ terms, “you get people affected by a problem together, figure out what is going on as a group, and then do something about it” ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 , p. 187).

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) , PAR often involves a cycle of self-reflection and action in addressing a community problem. Participants and researchers establish a collaborative relationship as they ask critical questions about the current life situation. This dialogue moves the group to action as they develop knowledge and further explore the problem and how it can be addressed. In this way, collaborators using PAR begin to set a stage of social action to instigate change.

The process of change emerges and shifts as part of the self-reflective cycles, but typically is not predetermined by a clear series of procedural and analytic steps. Instead, during the reflective and action spiral, PAR investigators rely on a wide variety of methods and procedures as they gradually better understand the needs of the community. As such, many studies that use PAR take on varied methods such as storytelling, sharing experiences, individual and focus group interviews, participant observation, drawings, and even the more structured qualitative interview or quantitative survey as the need merits.

When engaged in a PAR process, study participants are expected to participate fully. However, the creation of such participatory contexts is very challenging and time-consuming, and is not the norm ( Kidd & Kral, 2005 ). Disempowered groups are seldom given the opportunity and at times are discouraged from this type of action. Further compounding this problem is the tendency for established forums (e.g., academia) to claim exclusive ownership of methods of knowledge gathering and avenues for change. All of these challenges further lend the process of PAR to be informed by critical theory. As a specific example, Dentith, Measor, and O’Malley (2012) outline the practice of using critical theory across three separate research projects involving young people facing various life difficulties and vulnerabilities. In so doing, they highlight the dilemmas they face in doing so within the context of more traditional, positivist approaches frequently favored in academic research settings.

Participatory action research is somewhat new to the field of psychology and has not historically been utilized frequently in this field. This is likely at least in part due to the axiology of PAR as a critical theory method that advocates a value-directed (rather than value-neutral post-positivism or value-bracketed constructivism) stance. Traditionally trained psychologists may be made initially uncomfortable by research that is value mediated because psychological training often conceives of research as objective, in which participants are studied without changing them or the researchers.

Feminist Theories

Feminist theories are used to frame and understand research approaches across a range of disciplines and social problems. They developed in part in response to prevailing ideas that more traditional scientific inquiry tended to exclude women from inquiry and deny women epistemic authority ( Anderson, 1995 ). They are often associated with critical theory, although they have been considered by some to be separate ( Crotty, 1998 ), yet closely related, within the epistemological continuum.

Informed by the political ideologies of the 1970s women’s movement, feminist scholars sought to reinterpret and modify concepts within the philosophy of science to create feminist approaches to research. Originally fueled by activism, feminism as an academic focus has developed significantly from the 1980s until the present. According to feminist paradigms, the traditional philosophy of science has tended to produce theories that represent women (or their activities and interests) as inferior to their male counterparts. Further, “feminine” cognitive styles and modes of knowledge have been denigrated by traditional inquiry ( Anderson, 1995 ), producing knowledge that is not relevant to people in subordinate positions and/or that reinforces unequal power dynamics, particularly as it relates to gender.

Feminist theories “place gender at the center of inquiry,” and yet “increasingly incorporate multiple... intersectionalities of identity,” including sexuality, race, religion, and social class ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 , p. 27). Similar to critical theory, the larger aim of feminist theories is to turn thought into action ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ), in this case by focusing on the issues faced by women and other often marginalized groups.

Epistemologically, feminist theories focus on the accounts of women (and other historically marginalized groups) as legitimate and core sources of knowledge. Of note, feminist theories are not distinguished so much by their substantive topic (e.g., women’s issues, gender, reproductive rights, etc.) or by the gender of the researcher (i.e., male or female) but rather by their orientation and guiding philosophy on epistemology and research creation (e.g., methodology).

Over the past two decades, feminist scholars have developed alternative epistemologies to guide the process of doing research. Feminist methodologies attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research while capturing women’s voices, particularly those consistent with feminist ideals. Epistemologically, feminist theories privilege women’s experiences as not only legitimate, but also as important and revealing bases of knowledge. Work guided by feminist theories often aims to employ qualitative methodologies toward the exploration of power imbalances, starting with that between the researcher and researched ( Marshall & Rossman, 2010 ), so as to engender trust and collect accurate data. Research informed by feminist theory, like critical theory more broadly, also challenges academia traditionally due to its value of application of research to lived experiences ( Smart, 2009 ), particularly among those who are oppressed. Thus, feminist theories mirror the core values of critical theory in emphasizing the mutual learning between the researcher and the researched, an exchange that is critical to the emancipation of disenfranchised or overlooked groups.

Feminist research has emphasized the importance of exploring the day-to-day experiences of marginalized groups, particularly women. Qualitative approaches are particularly well-suited to capturing the “messiness” of these daily experiences because these methods can account for emotions, as well as for other less tangible aspects of experience, in data collection. Often, feminist theories invite more traditional forms of qualitative data collection (e.g., interviewing, focus groups, ethnography) to be adapted to be more consistent with feminist ideology.

As referenced earlier, a feminist approach to research can be employed across the social as well as physical sciences and beyond. For the most part, researchers employing this approach attempt to eradicate sexist bias in research while seeking to capture women’s voices, particularly as they apply to the day-to-day experiences of everyday life. This angle lends itself well to studies such as those examining the experiences of domestic workers and domestic violence. Core to the use of feminist theory is the understanding that ways of knowing, or epistemologies, are constantly evolving as knowledge grows and as the “knowers” expand in scope. Thus, bodies of research, as they make use of a feminist lens, may find that the social problem under study increases the complexity of the problem under study. This is characteristic of feminist methodologies. However, such an approach is also characterized by reducing the hierarchical relationship between researchers and their participants to facilitate trust and disclosure and recognizing and reflecting on the emotionality of women’s lives.

Queer Theory

With the rise of the gay liberation movement in the post-Stonewall era, gay and lesbian perspectives began to contribute to politics, philosophy, and social theory. Initially, these were often connected to feminist ideology. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, queer theory was developed as its own framework. The term “queer,” as opposed to “gay and lesbian,” also distinguished the theory from those that preceded it, specifically gay liberation theories. Similar to feminist theories, queer theory was accompanied by social movements, and its emergence evolved in part as a reaction to the marginalization of the LBGTQ community and the ways by which “science” had historically been used against them ( Minton, 1997 ).

Queer theory found a more natural home in qualitative research because this form had historically been less focused on objective reality and more on subjective experiences ( Downing & Gillett, 2011 ). However, its emergence has occurred within an ongoing evolution in terms of how we consider sexuality and marginalization in research and in society at large. In the early 1900s, the scientific examination of those who were in same-sex relationships was perpetually challenged by the stigma and silence faced by this group. In short, this population was hard to identify and find, much less research. The second half of the twentieth century, however, shifted this as lesbian and gay studies expanded exponentially ( Gamson, 2000 ), focusing explicitly on the lives of those who identify as gay or lesbian. Queer theory, a more recent arrival on the scene, has introduced a post-structuralist critique by suggesting that the self cannot and should not be identified by sexuality or sexual orientation by itself, thereby challenging the importance of studying sexuality as a “subject” of inquiry. Although the tension proposed by these shifts is often applauded within the qualitative research world (e.g., Gamson, 2000 ), it is this context in which queer theory has emerged.

Queer theory was separate from gay liberation theories in several ways. First, queer theory defined itself as not specific only to sexuality. Instead, queer theory does not refer to a nature, be it sexual or otherwise, but rather as a relational construct. “Queer” refers specifically to being “outside the norm”; this norm can vary relative to context. In other words, “Queer is... whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers . It is an identity without an essence” ( Halperin, 1995 , p. 62; emphasis in the original).

Because queer theory does not suggest a specific nature or essence, it therefore is inclusive of those who may express themselves outside any norm, including that of the gay and lesbian community. In other words, sadomasochism, perhaps marginalized by some constructs, is not so according to queer theory. Additionally, this lack of focus on a specific essence allows gays and lesbians to identify by their sexuality or by any other aspect of their identity, thereby placing the focus on personal meaning, as opposed to societally ascribed labels.

A central claim of queer theorists, which is that identity is understood exclusively as a social construct (rather than given by nature), significantly affects how research is carried out within this approach. Most immediately, it implies that research needs to be evaluated for biases that privilege heterosexuality ( Butler, 1990 ; 1993 ), however subtle. Based on the concern that queer theory places on false dichotomies (e.g., “closeted” and “out,” etc.), this theory also is critical of other dichotomies implied in research, particularly as it relates to assumptions regarding what is natural or artificial and what is masculine versus feminine. Instead, queer theory emphasizes the importance of understanding categories more fluidly, an approach that lends itself more toward qualitative methods, which seek to explore social phenomena with an eye toward complexity rather than standardization.

Queer theory has been applied to multiple social problems and developmental issues. However, it is most often applied to questions concerning empowerment, resistance to domination (e.g., heterosexism, homophobia), gender identity and marginalization due to gender, sexual orientation, or sexual behavior. Because queer theory is concerned with the nonessential nature of sexual identity, this theory pushes the field to consider identity from multiple perspectives, and invites cultural as well as race-related inquiry.

Conclusion and Future Directions

It is impossible to fully represent the richness of any one of these philosophical approaches in a chapter such as this one. We have instead tried to convey a sense of the breadth of the field and to illuminate at least some of the meaningful distinctions in the major approaches to qualitative research in psychology today. In this last section, we turn our attention to the future and identify three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as we move forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches. The contested nature of these issues stems in part from the very diversity of philosophical approaches that has defined the field. Here, again, we cannot possibly represent the considerable thought behind and debate around each of these matters. Rather, we simply raise and mark them at this time.

The diversity of approaches represented in the field of qualitative research today speaks to the strength of the movement and bodes well for our efforts to both advance and deepen our understanding of the psychological world. As Ann Hartman (1990) wrote many years ago, “each way of knowing deepens our understanding and adds another dimension to our view of the world” (p. 3). Just as no single research design or data collection method can adequately capture the multidimensional nature of human psychology, no one philosophical approach can suitably guide our efforts to address the full range of questions that need to be pursued to develop the knowledge needed “to benefit society and improve people’s lives” ( American Psychological Association, 2013 ).

However, this diversity in approaches to qualitative research also creates significant tensions and makes attempts to “define” the field quite challenging. Despite the substantial work done by many scholars (c.f. Denzin & Lincoln, 2013 ) to delineate these contrasting perspectives and approaches, a lack of awareness remains, especially (but not exclusively) among those not well-versed in qualitative methods. The predictable misunderstandings and strong differences in beliefs about what is “credible” research that can result continue to plague those of us who practice qualitative research as we strive to get our work funded and published more widely. Peer reviews of our work can often be riddled with contradictory assessments of its rigor and even of its basic value or contribution. (c.f. Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, & Peck, 2011 ).

Continued efforts to make clear the diversity of approaches, the philosophical assumptions guiding these, and the particular contributions the differing approaches make to our understanding of psychology are critical. We must be cautious about making general claims about rigor and the “right” way to do qualitative research that are actually framed within our own narrower terms or experience with certain approaches. Keeping the richness of the field alive will require discipline on all of our parts to respond to questions about how best to go about engaging in high quality qualitative research or evaluating the quality of the work of others by first acknowledging “it depends” and then inquiring about the philosophical approach, aims, and context of the work.

One of the biggest challenges before us is the continued articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research that represent, and which ideally can be applied to, the full range of approaches. The very differences in purpose and aims and in philosophical approaches that comprise the rich field of qualitative research today makes such efforts seem impossible. However, ignoring this task in the era of what has been called the scientifically based research movement ( National Research Council, 2002 ; Torrance, 2008 ), defined largely in terms of experimental design and methods and with randomized controlled trials heralded as the “gold standard,” leaves the array of approaches that do not readily fit this mold highly vulnerable. But what is the best way to address these complex and high-stakes issues?

Researchers taking a more post-positivistic approach have argued that there are separate but parallel sets of standards for validity and reliability in qualitative and quantitative research (e.g., Hammersley, 1992 ; Kuzel & Engel, 2001 ). Some constructivists have put forth that a common set of standards can be established but because the foundational philosophical approaches between post-positivism and constructivism are so different, a separate and distinct set of criteria need to be applied. Models using concepts such as trustworthiness, transferability, and authenticity have been developed (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 1989 ), and it is estimated that more than 100 quality appraisal forms have been put forth ( Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ). Unfortunately, most do not make clear the philosophical assumptions that undergird them ( Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ), which unfortunately further muddies the water. Moreover, other adherents to constructivist approaches hold that the contextual and relational nature of knowledge construction precludes the possibility of establishing such standards (e.g., Lincoln, 1995 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). Finally, many working from within critical theory and related approaches suggest that such standards are inevitably formed by the power structures in which they are housed, thereby potentially further perpetuating the inequalities the research aims to address or study (e.g., Garrett & Hodkinson, 1998 ). Furthermore, they assert that the quality of the research should be based on an assessment of whether it empowered participants to effect meaningful and lasting changes ( Correa, 2013 ).

Some have tried to resolve these tensions by suggesting guidelines they believe account for and are applicable across the diversity of approaches to qualitative research (e.g., Drisko, 1997 ; Saini & Shlonsky, 2012 ; Tracy, 2010 ). These guidelines focus on the different components of the research process, such as clear identification of philosophical approach and aims of the research, specification of methods and congruence between these and the stated philosophical approach and aims, and transparency and clarity in sampling, data collection, and data analytic procedures. Although the imperative to tackle these issues is clear, the way forward to doing this is less so. Should we push further toward agreeing on a shared set of standards that can be applied across traditions, or invest in more localized ones tailored specifically to particular approaches (e.g., narrative analysis) and developed by scholars practicing these ( Preissle, 2013 ), or both? How might the myriad elements of research, including the many gatekeeping activities in the research and scholarship enterprise from funding through publication of research findings, address and accommodate these standards in their expectations and processes? What is clear is that the diversity of approaches to qualitative research must be fully represented in any efforts to further define and move the field forward on this front.

Embracing and fully representing the diversity of approaches and coming to terms with standards for them stills leaves unaddressed a third concern for the field moving forward, namely what has been referred to as the commensurability of approaches . That is, whether approaches rooted in the differing philosophical approaches can be “retrofitted to each other in ways that make the simultaneously practice of both possible” ( Lincoln et al., 2013 , p. 238). Some, such as critical and feminist theorists, have argued that epistemological differences between methods can render research paradigms incompatible ( Lincoln et al., 2013 ). Others have dismissed assertions about irreconcilable differences between philosophical approaches and research paradigms and argue for what they call a “pragmatic” approach, particularly in the service of carrying out mixed-methods research (e.g., Creswell, 2009 ; Creswell & Clark, 2007 ; Maxcy, 2003 ). Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2013) take a middle position and offer a “cautious” endorsement of the commensurability of approaches. They assert that some approaches share some elements that are similar or strongly related and therefore can be effectively and meaningfully combined, whereas others are more “contradictory and mutually exclusive” (p. 239). Preissle (2013) , in her consideration of the future of the field, makes a pragmatic argument of a different sort for commensurability. Citing the work of her students that has combined approaches in unconventional yet highly productive ways, she observes that the novice scholars of today are “challenging, even transgressing, epistemological and theoretical boundaries” that will ultimately move research forward in unexpected ways” (p. 536).

There is nothing new about these questions. They have been debated for decades now, and clarity seems no nearer. What has changed is the climate. It is at once more open to qualitative methods than ever before and less accommodating of the rich diversity among the approaches taken to this work. Increasing numbers of graduate students are being trained in multiple methodologies. Although, unfortunately, there does not yet appear to be a cry for purely qualitative studies on the horizon, most major funding sources are at least indicating a preference for the use of multiple methods, in some cases even quite strongly so. Qualitative studies can be found in journals of differing ilk, not just within the confines of those dedicated to publishing qualitative research. However, what is deemed acceptable or “credible” qualitative research is narrowing. In the parlance of the old expression “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” the widening exposure and reach of qualitative work means that many more scholars are encountering and engaging with it in some way; these scholars often do not realize that what they know is but a small slice of a now large and longstanding field. Researchers outside the field of qualitative research who participate in setting the standards for research more broadly may be friendly to particular kinds of approaches, such as seeing a place for qualitative work only in the exploration of new areas of inquiry to offer “thick description” and examples or to complement or round out the quantitative findings, but much less so to stand-alone work or work aimed at explicating processes and mechanisms at work in human psychology. Scholars from within who are joining in the work of setting the standards of research can sometimes allow certain kinds of qualitative research to stand for the field, which can serve to belie and even shut out other, often more transgressive forms. These perhaps seemingly old and familiar questions about philosophies of science, rigor, and commensurability are alive and well, taking new forms, and they are, in some ways, more important now than ever before.

Adorno, T. , Albert, R. , Dahrendorf, H. , Habermas, J. , Pilot, H. , & Popper, K. ( 1969 ). The positivist dispute in German sociology . London: Heinemann.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). About APA . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/3/27/2013

Anderson, E. ( 1995 ). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and defense.   Hypatia , 10 , 50–84.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. ( 1966 ). The social construction of reality: A Treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York: Anchor Books.

Birks, M. , & Mills, J. ( 2011 ). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method . Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. ( 1998 ). Foundations of qualitative research in education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. ( 2010 ). Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account. In K. Charmaz & A. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 31– 57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burr, Vi. ( 1998 ). Gender and social psychology . London: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1990 ). Gender trouble . London: Routledge.

Butler, J. ( 1993 ). Bodies that Matter: On the discursive limits of “sex” . London: Routledge.

Camic, P. M. , Rhodes, J. E. , & Yardley, L. ( 2003 ). Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. In P. M. Camic , J. E. Rhodes , & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 3–15). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ceglowski, D. , Bacigalupa, C. , & Peck, E. ( 2011 ). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of “scientifically based research”.   Qualitative Inquiry , 17 (8), 679–686.

Charmaz, K. ( 2000 ). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. ( 2006 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cook, W. L. , & Douglas, E. M. ( 1998 ). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relational analysis.   Journal of Family Psychology , 12 (2), 299–309.

Correa, F. P. ( 2013 ). The evaluation of qualitative research: A reflection from a justice perspective.   Qualitative Inquiry , 19 (3), 209–218.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2007 ). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. ( 2009 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. , & Clark, V. L. P. ( 2007 ). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crotty, M. ( 1998 ). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dentith, A. M. , Measor, L. , & O’Malley, M. P. (2012). The research imagination amid dilemmas of engaging young people in critical participatory work. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 13 (1), Art 17. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1788/3309

Denzin, N. K. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 2013 ). The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downing, L. , & Gillett, R. ( 2011 ). Viewing critical psychology through the lens of queer.   Psychology & Sexuality , 2 (1), 4–15.

Dilthey, W. ( 1977 ). Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology (1894). In Descriptive psychology and historical understanding ( R. M. Zaner & K. L. Heiges , Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Drisko, J. ( 1997 ). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to enhance academic integrity.   Journal of Social Work Education , 33 , 1–13.

Friedman, M. , Friedlander, M. , & Blustein, D. ( 2005 ). Toward an understanding of Jewish identity: A phenomenological study.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (1), 77–83.

Gamson, J. ( 2000 ). Sexualities, queer theory, and qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). (pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garrett, D. , & Hodkinson, P. ( 1998 ). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical analysis of an inescapable dilemma.   Qualitative Inquiry , 4 (4), 515–539.

Geertz, C. ( 1983 ). Local knowledge . New York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. ( 1996 ). Social psychology as social construction: The emerging vision. In C. McGarty & A. Haslam (Eds.), For the message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society (pp. 113–128). Oxford: Blackwell.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. ( 1967 ): The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The presentation of self in everyday life . New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Goodman, F., & Fisher, W. (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Rethinking knowledge: Reflections across the disciplines . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Guba, E. G. , & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1989 ). Fourth generation evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Habermas, J. ( 1988 ). On the logic of the social sciences . ( S. W. Nicholsen & J. A. Stark , Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. ( 1990 ). Moral consciousness and communicative action . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halperin, D. M. ( 1995 ). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M. ( 1992 ). What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hartman, A. ( 1990 ). Many ways of knowing.   Social Work , 35 (1), 3–4.

Hays, D. G. , & Singh, A. A. ( 2012 ). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings . New York: Guilford Press.

Hein, S. F., & Austin, W. J. ( 2001 ). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology: A comparison.   Psychological Methods , 4 (1), 3–17.

Hill, C. E. , Knox, S. , Thompson, B. J. , Williams, E. N. , Hess, S. A. , & Ladany, N. ( 2005 ). Consensual qualitative research: An update.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 196–205.

Hill, C. E. , Thompson, B. J. , & Williams, E. N. ( 1997 ). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research.   The counseling psychologist , 25 (4), 517–572.

Horkheimer, M. ( 1972 ). Critical theory: Selected essays . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Jost, J. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. ( 2002 ). The estrangement of social constructionism and experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation.   Personality and Social Psychology Review , 6 (3), 168–187.

Keen, E. ( 1975 ). A primer in phenomenological psychology . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. ( 2005 ). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 559–604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kidd, S. A. , & Kral, M. J. ( 2005 ). Practicing participatory research.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 187–195.

Kockelmans, J. ( 1973 ). Theoretical Problems in Phenomenological Psychology. In M. Natanson (Ed.). Phenomenology and the Social Sciences . (Vol. 1, pp. 225–280). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Kompridis, N. ( 2006 ). Critique and disclosure: Critical theory between past and future . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kuzel, A. & Engel, J. ( 2001 ). Some pragmatic thought on evaluating qualitative health research. In J. Morse , J. Swanson , & A. Kuzel (Eds.), The Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp. 114–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1995 ). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.   Qualitative Inquiry , 1 , 275–289.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2013 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 199–265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S. , Lynham, S. A. , & Guba, E. G. ( 2011 ). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. ( 2010 ). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxcy, S. J. ( 2003 ). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mead, G. H. ( 1913 ). The social self.   Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods , 10 (14), 374–380.

Milgram, S. ( 1974 ). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . New York, NY: HarperPerennial.

Minton, H. L. ( 1997 ). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology.   Theory & Psychology , 7 (3), 337–353.

National Research Council (NRC). ( 2002 ). Scientific research in education . Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. ( R. J. Shavelson , & L. Towne , Eds.). Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Packer, M. J. ( 2011 ). The science of qualitative research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ponterotto, J. G. ( 2005 ). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science.   Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 126–136.

Ponterotto, J. G. , Casas, J. M. , Suzuki, L. A. , & Alexander, C. M. ( 2010 ). Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ponticelli, C. ( 1999 ). Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction.   Social Science Quarterly , 62 (2), 157–172.

Popper, K. R. (1934/ 1959 ). The logic of scientific inquiry . New York: Basic Books.

Preissle, J. ( 2013 ). Qualitative futures: Where we might go from here. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 517–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rennie, D. L. , Watson, K. D. , & Monteiro, A. M. ( 2002 ). The rise of qualitative research in psychology.   Canadian Psychology , 43 , 179–189.

Rogers, C. R. ( 1951 ). Client-centered therapy . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Saini, M. , & Shlonsky, A. ( 2012 ). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandstrom, K. L. , Martin, D. D. , & Fine, G. A. ( 2006 ). Symbols, selves, and social reality: A symbolic interactionist approach (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 1996 ). Farewell to criteriology.   Qualitative Inquiry , 2 (1), 58–72.

Schwandt, T. A. ( 2001 ). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smart, C. ( 2009 ). Shifting horizons: Reflections on qualitative methods.   Feminist theory , 10 (3), 295–308.

Smith, D. W. (2011). Phenomenology. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ( E. N. Zalta , Ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/phenomenology

Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. ( 1987 ). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities.   The American Journal of Sociology , 92 (6), 1336–1371.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1998 ). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stryker, S. ( 1987 ). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism.   Social Psychology Quarterly , 50 , 83–94.

Torrance, H. ( 2008 ). Building confidence in qualitative research: Engaging the demands of policy.   Qualitative Inquiry , 14 (4), 507–527.

Tracy, S. J. ( 2010 ). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.   Qualitative inquiry , 16 (10), 837–851.

Wertz, F. J. ( 2011 ). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience. In F. J. Wertz , L. M. McMullen , R. Josselson , R. Anderson , & E. McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry (pp. 124–164). New York: Guilford Press.

Wertz, F. J. , Charmaz, K. , McMullen, L. J. , Josselson, R. , Anderson, R. , & McSpadden, E. ( 2011 ). Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology.   Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry . New York: Guilford Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Integration and Implementation Insights

A community blog and repository of resources for improving research impact on complex real-world problems

A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers

By Katie Moon and Deborah Blackman

How can understanding philosophy improve our research? How can an understanding of what frames our research influence our choices? Do researchers’ personal thoughts and beliefs shape research design, outcomes and interpretation?

These questions are all important for social science research. Here we present a philosophical guide for scientists to assist in the production of effective social science (adapted from Moon and Blackman, 2014).

Understanding philosophy is important because social science research can only be meaningfully interpreted when there is clarity about the decisions that were taken that affect the research outcomes. Some of these decisions are based, not always knowingly, on some key philosophical principles, as outlined in the figure below.

Philosophy provides the general principles of theoretical thinking, a method of cognition, perspective and self-awareness, all of which are used to obtain knowledge of reality and to design, conduct, analyse and interpret research and its outcomes. The figure below shows three main branches of philosophy that are important in the sciences and serves to illustrate the differences between them.

(Source: Moon and Blackman 2014)

The first branch is ontology, or the ‘study of being’, which is concerned with what actually exists in the world about which humans can acquire knowledge. Ontology helps researchers recognize how certain they can be about the nature and existence of objects they are researching. For instance, what ‘truth claims’ can a researcher make about reality? Who decides the legitimacy of what is ‘real’? How do researchers deal with different and conflicting ideas of reality?

To illustrate, realist ontology relates to the existence of one single reality which can be studied, understood and experienced as a ‘truth’; a real world exists independent of human experience. Meanwhile, relativist ontology is based on the philosophy that reality is constructed within the human mind, such that no one ‘true’ reality exists. Instead, reality is ‘relative’ according to how individuals experience it at any given time and place.

Epistemology

The second branch is epistemology, the ‘study of knowledge’. Epistemology is concerned with all aspects of the validity, scope and methods of acquiring knowledge, such as a) what constitutes a knowledge claim; b) how can knowledge be acquired or produced; and c) how the extent of its transferability can be assessed. Epistemology is important because it influences how researchers frame their research in their attempts to discover knowledge.

By looking at the relationship between a subject and an object we can explore the idea of epistemology and how it influences research design. Objectivist epistemology assumes that reality exists outside, or independently, of the individual mind. Objectivist research is useful in providing reliability (consistency of results obtained) and external validity (applicability of the results to other contexts).

Constructionist epistemology rejects the idea that objective ‘truth’ exists and is waiting to be discovered. Instead, ‘truth’, or meaning, arises in and out of our engagement with the realities in our world. That is, a ‘real world’ does not preexist independently of human activity or symbolic language. The value of constructionist research is in generating contextual understandings of a defined topic or problem.

Subjectivist epistemology relates to the idea that reality can be expressed in a range of symbol and language systems, and is stretched and shaped to fit the purposes of individuals such that people impose meaning on the world and interpret it in a way that makes sense to them. For example, a scuba diver might interpret a shadow in the water according to whether they were alerted to a shark in the area (the shark), waiting for a boat (the boat), or expecting a change in the weather (clouds). The value of subjectivist research is in revealing how an individual’s experience shapes their perception of the world.

Philosophical perspectives

Stemming from ontology (what exists for people to know about) and epistemology (how knowledge is created and what is possible to know) are philosophical perspectives, a system of generalized views of the world, which form beliefs that guide action.

Philosophical perspectives are important because, when made explicit, they reveal the assumptions that researchers are making about their research, leading to choices that are applied to the purpose, design, methodology and methods of the research, as well as to data analysis and interpretation. At the most basic level, the mere choice of what to study in the sciences imposes values on one’s subject.

Understanding the philosophical basis of science is critical in ensuring that research outcomes are appropriately and meaningfully interpreted. With an increase in interdisciplinary research, an examination of the points of difference and intersection between the philosophical approaches can generate critical reflection and debate about what we can know, what we can learn and how this knowledge can affect the conduct of science and the consequent decisions and actions.

How does your philosophical standpoint affect your research? What are your experiences of clashing philosophical perspectives in interdisciplinary research? How did you become aware of them and resolve them? Do you think that researchers need to recognize different philosophies in interdisciplinary research teams?

To find out more : Moon, K., and Blackman, D. (2014). A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists. Conservation Biology , 28 : 1167-1177. Online:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12326/full

Biography: Katie Moon is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. She is also an adjunct at the Institute for Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra. She has worked in the environmental policy arena for 17 years within Australia and Europe, in government, the private sector and academia. Her research focuses on how the right policy instruments can be paired to the right people; the role of evidence in policy development and implementation; and how to increase policy implementation success .

Biography: Deborah Blackman is a Professor in Public Sector Management Strategy and Deputy Director of the Public Service Research Group at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. She researches knowledge transfer in a range of applied, real world contexts. The common theme of her work is creating new organisational conversations in order to improve organisational effectiveness. This has included strengthening the performance management framework in the Australian Public Service; the role of social capital in long-term disaster recovery; and developing a new diagnostic model to support effective joined-up working in whole of government initiatives .

Related posts:

A guide for interdisciplinary researchers: Adding axiology alongside ontology and epistemology by Peter Deane https://i2insights.org/2018/05/22/axiology-and-interdisciplinarity/

Epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research by Evelyn Brister https://i2insights.org/2017/10/31/epistemology-and-interdisciplinarity/

Transforming transdisciplinarity: Interweaving the philosophical with the pragmatic to move beyond either/or thinking by Katie Ross and Cynthia Mitchell https://i2insights.org/2018/11/13/transdisciplinarity-and-either-or-thinking/

What is the role of theory in transdisciplinary research? by Workshop Group on Theory at 2015 Basel International Transdisciplinary Conference http://i2insights.org/2016/02/17/role-of-theory-in-transdisciplinary-research/

Share this:

13 thoughts on “a guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers”.

Hi Katie and Deborah, First of all want to thank you for such incredible synthesis! Then I want to ask you, how can we situate a paradigm or an school or though in this map? For example, where do you think we can situate the complex paradigm of Edgar Morin? in between the relativistic ontology? or critical theory? thanks in advance.

• Pingback: creative drift: on being natural - bob's thoughts, images, feelings

The table summary is admirable. All your write is very nice

• Pingback: A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers | Learning Research Methods
• Pingback: Week 2 – Ontology and Epistemology – Research Methods

Great post! I really like the table and find it a very helpful illustration!

Hi Kate, thank you very much for helping out. I understand the subject matter more now than before Olushola

• Pingback: RES 701, Week 2, Ontology & Epistemology – RES701 Research Methods

Thanks so much for the debate and discussion around the blog post. Machiel is right in pointing out that the blog post (and the article it is based on) was intended as a conversation piece, and we’re pleased that a useful conversation is taking place. The resources and links are very helpful, philosophy is a fascinating discipline and the opportunity to learn and expand our thinking is endless.

We tried to make it clear in the article the blog post is based on that we wanted to bring attention to philosophy; it was obviously impossible to do the discipline of philosophy any real justice within 6,000 words. We wanted to start a conversation: “The purpose of the guide is to open the door to social science research and thus demonstrate that scientists can bring different and legitimate principles, assumptions, and interpretations to their research.”

As Jessica and Melissa point out, it can be challenging to offer social research to a natural science community that typically adopts a narrow philosophical position (e.g. objectivist). The paper was intended to encourage natural scientists to consider alternative ways of generating knowledge, particularly about the human, as opposed to natural, world.

We accept unequivocally that the framework does not get close to accommodating the depth and diversity of philosophy. Adam, we agree that the approach we have taken may not resonate with some philosophers, but we wanted to communicate with a particular audience (conservation scientists) and so we defined ontologies and epistemologies (and posited them relative to one another) that are most commonly observed within this discipline and that might be best understood by the audience. We tried to identify points of difference between ontologies, epistemologies and philosophical perspectives in an attempt to explain how they can influence research design. In the article, we use a case of deforestation in rainforests to demonstrate how different positions can influence the nature of the research questions and outcomes, including the assumptions that will be made.

We did explain in the introduction to our paper the limitations of our approach: “The multifaceted nature and interpretation of each of the concepts we present in our guide means they can be combined in a diversity of ways (see also Lincoln & Guba 2000; Schwandt 2000; Evely et al. 2008; H¨oijer 2008; Cunliffe 2011; Tang 2011). Therefore, our guide represents just one example of how the elements (i.e., different positions within the main branches of philosophy) of social research can apply specifically to conservation science. We recognize that by distilling and defining the elements in a simplified way we have necessarily constrained argument and debate surrounding each element. Furthermore, the guide had to have some structure. In forming this structure, we do not suggest that researchers must consider first their ontological and then their epistemological position and so on; they may well begin by exploring their philosophical perspective.”

This point comes back to Bruce’s comment, about pragmatic approaches to research. Often researchers pick and choose between a range of options that will allow them to define and answer their research questions in a way that makes most sense to them. We make this point in the paper: “Each perspective is characterized by an often wide ranging pluralism, which reflects the complex evolution of philosophy and the varied contributions of philosophers through time (Crotty 1998). All ontologies, epistemologies, and philosophical perspectives are characterized by this pluralism, including the prevailing (post) positivist approach of the natural sciences. It is common for more than one philosophical perspective to resonate with researchers and for researchers to change their perspective (and thus epistemological and ontological positions) toward their research over time (Moses & Knutsen 2012). Thus, scientists do not necessarily commit to one philosophical perspective and all associated characteristics (Bietsa 2010).”

We tried to anticipate concerns that scholars of philosophy might have with our rather reductionist approach, but felt that the more important contribution to make was to bring attention to alternative worldviews, and highlight the importance of philosophy in generating any type of knowledge.

With respect to the characterization of epistemologies, we adopted a continuum provided by Crotty (1998) that focuses on the relationship between the subject and the object. Again, this choice was made on the basis of our audience, to demonstrate that different types of relationship can exist between subject and object

This blog post has generated an interesting discussion on the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies listserv ([email protected]). Selected excerpts below.

Adam Potthast: I hate to make one of my first posts to this list critical without the time to correct some of the errors, but I don’t think you’d see many philosophers agreeing with the characterizations of philosophical views in this post. The infographic strongly mischaracterizes a lot of these positions, and the section on epistemology doesn’t map on to any of the standard understandings of epistemology in the discipline of philosophy. I’d caution against thinking of it as a reliable source to the philosophy behind science.

Gabriele Bammer: Thanks Adam for raising the alarm. It would be great if you and/or others who have problems with this post would spell out your criticisms – not only via this listserv, but (more importantly from my perspective) in a comment on the blog itself. Non-philosophers are hungry for a version of epistemology, ontology etc that they can understand and use and this blog post (and the paper it is based on) address this need. If it is seriously misleading though, that’s obviously a problem. It’s important that this is pointed out and that better alternatives are offered. I appreciate that time is an issue for everyone – anything you can do will be appreciated.

Stuart Henry: Well a good start, so we don’t reinvent the wheel again is James Welch’s article: https://oakland.edu/Assets/upload/docs/AIS/Issues-in-Interdisciplinary-Studies/2009-Volume-27/05_Vol_27_pp_35_69_Interdisciplinarity_and_the_History_of_Western_Epistemology_(James_Welch_IV) .pdf

Gabriele Bammer: Thanks Stuart, I may be missing something, but it seems to me that Welch’s article covers different terrain, being more about the philosophy underpinning interdisciplinarity. What Moon and Blackman provide is a quick guide to understanding people’s different philosophical positions, so that if you are working in a team, for example, you can better understand why someone sees the world differently. The Toolbox developed by Eigenbrode, O’Rourke and others provides a practical way of uncovering these differences.

Julie Thompson Klein: Good point Gabriele about the value of the Toolbox, though people still need the kind of background you’re aiming to provide.

Machiel Keestra: Although I agree that the blog post should perhaps not so much be taken to offer a current representation of the main positions in philosophy of science or about the interconnections between epistemological and ontological positions, I think it does a nice job in offering a conversation piece: what are relevant positions and options that people might -implicitly– take and how are they different from other positions. Given the modest ambitions of the authors, I think that is a fair result.

In addition to the interesting approach offered by the Toolbox Project, an alternative is presented in Jan Schmidt’s Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10202-007-0037-8 In our Introduction to interdisciplinary research, I’ve inserted an all-too brief philosophy of science which should help to raise some understanding of this difficult issue as well: https://www.academia.edu/22420234/An_Introduction_to_Interdisciplinary_Research._Theory_and_Practice

Lovely work! Thank you. I am also initially trained as a natural scientist, and now consider myself a ‘social-ecological researcher’ and have had to do a lot of learning about ontologies, epistemologies etc. I think I might use this paper as a discussion paper in our department as I think it is crucial for interdisciplinarians to understand these issues.

Kia ora Katie and Debbie, great post! I am a biophysical scientist who has come to social science and one of the struggles is being able to place the new and relevant concepts about questions that we don’t necessarily ask as biophysical scientists. Your table is a really useful aid to this – I immediately sent it to all my colleagues! It also makes it clearer to me how I can use the concept of triangulation that Bruce alluded to in his reply. So thank you for explaining so concisely. Thanks, Melissa

Hi Katie and Deborah,

Thank you for that discussion. I think that you have created a really useful table showing the philosophical continuums/polarities, how the various ontological and epistemological positions relate to each other, and the importance for researchers to be aware of them. In my own research practice, I am not committed to any one particular philosophical theory or perspective. They all appear to be true to some degree, that is, in some conceivable context – even though some of the concepts and philosophical positions appear, in the extreme form of their statement, to be contradictory, that is, if one end of a continuum/polarity is true then by implication it seems the other must be false – thus creating a quandary of research perspective. Hence the attraction, for me, of the application of a multiplicity of methods, approaches and philosophical perspectives – as and when they seem able to give ontological or epistemological insight – with triangulation between the results of the disparate approaches as the temporary arbiter of an evolving meaning and truth. This might be considered a pragmatic, perhaps even an opportunistic, approach to conducting science. However, as the old adage goes “the proof is in the pudding” – how useful is the knowledge obtained?

cheers Bruce

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from Integration and Implementation Insights

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Library Guides

Dissertations 4: methodology: introduction & philosophy.

• Introduction & Philosophy
• Methodology

Introduction

The methodology introduction is a paragraph that describes both the design of the study and the organization of the chapter. This prepares the reader for what is to follow and provides a framework within which to incorporate the materials. 

This paragraph says to the reader, “This is the methodology chapter, this is how it is organized, and this is the type of design I used.” 

In this introduction, you can also state:  

The objectives of your research and/or 

The research question or hypothesis to be tested 

Research Philosophy

Carrying out your own research for your dissertation means that you are engaging in the creation of knowledge. Research philosophy is an aspect of this. It is belief about the way studies should be conducted, how data should be collected and how it is then analysed and used.  At its deepest level, it includes considerations of what is (ontology), like, is there an objective truth or is it everything subjective, and how to know (epistemology), like, can we know the truth, and how can we get to know it.

Writing about your research philosophy, therefore, involves reflecting on your assumptions and beliefs about data collection to develop, analyse, challenge and evaluate them.  

If you need to have a research philosophy section in your dissertation, the handout attached below provides some guidance.  

• Research Philosophies Offers descriptions of different research philosophies
• << Previous: Structure
• Next: Methods >>
• Last Updated: Sep 14, 2022 12:58 PM
• URL: https://libguides.westminster.ac.uk/methodology-for-dissertations

CONNECT WITH US

Epistemology

Epistemology in a business research as a branch of philosophy deals with the sources of knowledge. Specifically, epistemology is concerned with possibilities, nature, sources and limitations of knowledge in the field of study. Alternatively, epistemology can be explained as the study of the criteria by which the researcher classifies what does and does not constitute the knowledge. [1] In simple words, epistemology focuses on what is known to be true. It is a way of thinking opposite to ontology.

As a branch of research philosophy epistemology deals with the following questions:

• What is knowledge?
• Do we have knowledge?
• How we can gain knowledge?

Epistemology is a vast field with multiple areas and issues. However, you are not expected to discuss it in great details in business studies. You need to discuss the sources of knowledge in general and the sources of knowledge used in your research in particular. In research philosophy there are many different sources of knowledge. Sources of knowledge related to business research in particular can be divided into the following four categories:

• Intuitive knowledge is based on intuition, faith, beliefs etc. Human feelings play greater role in intuitive knowledge compared to reliance on facts.
• Authoritarian knowledge  relies on information that has been obtained from books, research papers, experts, supreme powers etc.
• Logical knowledge  is a creation of new knowledge through the application of logical reasoning.
• Empirical knowledge  relies on objective facts that have been established and can be demonstrated.

Research process may integrate all of these sources of knowledge within a single study. For example, researchers can use intuitive knowledge i.e. researchers can use their intuition to choose a specific problem to explore within research area. Authoritarian knowledge, on other hand, can be obtained during the process of literature review. Moreover, researchers can generate logical knowledge as a result of analysing primary data findings, and conclusions of the research can be perceived as empirical knowledge.

Epistemology has many branches that include essentialism, historical perspective, perennialsm, progressivism, empiricism, idealism, rationalism, constructivism etc. Empiricism and rationalism are two major constructing debates within the field of epistemological study that relate to business studies. Empiricism accepts personal experiences associated with observation, feelings and senses as a valid source of knowledge, whereas rationalism relies on empirical findings gained through valid and reliable measures.

Once you accept a specific epistemology, you need to employ associated research methods.  The table below describes important aspects of epistemologies of the main research philosophies related to business research:

Epistemology of popular research philosophies in business research [2]

In your dissertation you are expected to address and clarify the epistemology of your study, but you don’t have to go much into the details. You can do the following:

1. If you are writing a dissertation for an undergraduate, bachelor-level level, you need to provide a definition of epistemology. If you are writing an MBA dissertation or a PhD thesis you need to provide several definitions by referring to relevant sources and specify the definition you adapt for your study.

2. You need to discuss what is accepted and what is not accepted as knowledge in your research. It is important to justify your arguments by referring to your research aim and objectives.

3. You have to specify research philosophy and research methods that correspond to your chosen epistemology. For example, if you only accept observable phenomena based on data and facts as knowledge, your research philosophy would be positivism. Alternatively, if you consider subjective meanings and non-quantifiable data as knowledge, you would have to follow interpretivism research philosophy.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  contains discussions of theory and application of research philosophy. The e-book also explains all stages of the  research process  starting from the  selection of the research area  to writing personal reflection. Important elements of dissertations such as  research philosophy ,  research approach ,  research design ,  methods of data collection  and  data analysis  are explained in this e-book in simple words.

John Dudovskiy

[1] Hallebone, E. &         Priest, J. (2009) “Business and Management Research: Paradigms and Practices” Palgrave Macmillan

[2] Table adapted from Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6 th  edition, Pearson Education Limited