Understanding Values and Procedures Used in Research Designs

Critical Comparison of the Principles and Practices of Research Designs

The manner through which research is carried out may be considered regarding the research philosophy pledged to, employed research strategies as well as the instruments of research used to achieve the research objectives and search for a solution to the research question. In pursuance of the best research criteria, paradigms are introduced into the research. The ideology of paradigms is accredited to Thomas Khun depicted in the natural science.

It was argued that paradigms were made up of a collection of concept, problems and variables interconnected with the similar methodological approaches and instruments, as time goes paradigms are taken over by other paradigms (Bryman & Bell 2011). Nonetheless, this is not the case with social sciences since paradigms are not entirely castoff with the emergence of others as they showcase distinct frameworks that reflect different perspectives that are chosen to fit the area of study or the researcher. In the contemporary educational sector, the paradigm has been used to refer to the framework that defines the ways of studying knowledge as well as its interpretation and the actuation and the research objectives. The paradigms are extensively conceptualized to be shaped by ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions. There are two key research philosophies that have been discovered in the Western tradition of science, positivist, and interpretive paradigms.

As a research philosophy, positivism focuses on the perspective that only factual information acquired via observation with the aid of the senses, encompassing measurement is valid. Positivists confine the researcher to data collection as well as its interpretation through honest approach at the same time the results of the study are normally observable as well as quantifiable. Studies acknowledge the idea that the paradigm of positivism is challenging when it comes to its explanation in an accurate and concise manner as it presents enormous distinctions between the contexts under which positivism is employed by the researchers Hendriks (2007). Apart from that, positivism relies entirely on quantifiable observations that guide themselves to a statistical evaluation. It has been stated that in consideration of positivism as a philosophy according to empiricist perspective that knowledge originates from the experiences in human life. It has an atomistic view of the world as including separate, observable events and elements in interaction with the observer. Additionally, in positivism, there is the freedom of the researcher from the research at the same time there is no incorporation of human interests in the research done. As a distinctive rule drawing the borderline between the positivism and interpretivist, positivist research normally assumes the deductive approach while the latter assumes the inductive research approach Hendriks (2007). Furthermore, positivism is associated with the perspective of the researcher desire to concentrates their fact findings, while interpretive are concerned with the meaning and integrates the individual interest provisions.

Moreover, it is worth noting that when one decides to adopt the positivist approach to their research, then it simply means that they are independent of their study and the study can be objective. Independent, in this case, refers to the fact that the researcher should maintain the least interaction with their study participants as they carry out their research. Therefore, the research that involves the positivist paradigm are virtuously grounded on facts at the same time views the world as external and objective (Bryman & Bell 2011). Positivism paradigm is established on five major principles making it distinct from the interpretive philosophy. Firstly, since positivism involves the observations aided by the senses, then there are no variances in the logic of inquiry across the science as the results expected the same besides similar research approaches. Secondly, in positivism the researcher has a responsibility of aiming to explain as well as predicting the desired outcomes. Furthermore, since it is positivism, the study should be practically observable through the human senses at the same time inductive reasoning employed to create the hypothesis to be tested amid the research process. Fourthly, there are also likelihoods of biases being encountered due to the common sense (Bryman & Bell 2011). In positivism philosophy, the researcher is independent of the study, therefore, so as to minimize the rate of bias due to ordinary senses the researcher has to limit the common sense in evaluating the results. Lastly, positivism demands that science should be value-independent, therefore, should only be judged by logic and rationalism.

The positivist paradigms incorporate observations with final outcomes that are statistically quantifiable for analysis. Therefore it can be applied in different research projects. For instance, in a country that has advanced technology, there is the use of the modernized Smartphones that depend on Android enabled applications. There are many software firms that are coming up with such applications to suit these Smartphones at the same time meet and suit their users’ desires. Due to increased demand for the applications they have been significantly generated and they have been seen diffuse into all regional areas of a nation. However, with the increased supply due to many emergences of software organizations the market will eventually saturate. Therefore, involving a positivism philosophy, a researcher will carry out a study to determine the relationship between diffusion of the novelty of the smartphone Android enabled applications and the saturation of the applications in the whole nation. The researcher will have to carry out an observation of the trends related to the diffusion rate of the innovation of the applications at the same time the saturation level of the application. Therefore, making use of the senses to establish quantifiable results.

Positivist philosophy in most cases incorporates the use of the available theory to establish a testable hypothesis during the study. Positivism research paradigm depends on science as its foundation. There are various scientific aspects dependent upon by the positivist philosophy. Science is deterministic in that all their approach relies on the assumptions that Z causes X under given conditions. The function of the researcher in this approach is to identify particular conditions as well the effect relationships. Secondly, science is mechanistic in that its approaches can be described in a manner that researchers generates the hypothesis to either be proved or disproved through the employment of particular research methods(Bryman & Bell 2011). As an outcome, it leads to the fact science applies methods. There are selected methods used mechanically so as to operationalize hypothesis. The use of methodology engages the choices of samples, measurements, interpretations at the same time determining a conclusion for the hypothesis. Hence, lastly, science deals with empiricism, that is, only science functions on what is observable and quantifiable. Based on this viewpoint, science can be evaluated as an objective.

Interpretivist research paradigm entails the researchers’ capacity to interpret the elements of the research; hence interpretivist incorporates the researcher’s interest in the research. Consequently, interpretive researchers adopt the idea that one can only have access to reality via the societal construction of consciousness, instruments, language, and shared meanings. In particular, the interpretivist paradigm is structured on the critique of the positivist research philosophy in the social sciences. Moreover, interpretivist is linked to the conceptual position of idealism where it is employed in the categorization of various approaches encompassing hermeneutics, phenomenology, and constructivism; an approach that refutes objective perspective that description is found in the world freely of consciousness. Interpretive approach demands the researcher to equally value people as a social performer and appreciate their differences. Additionally, interpretivist paradigms are normally concerned with the meaning, and they may use various approaches so as to reflect distinct aspects of the issue.

Differing from positivism philosophy, interpretivist paradigm approach is grounded on the naturalistic approach of data gatherings like the use of interviews and observations. The approach also employs the use of secondary data in research. The approach is distinctively characterized by the location of meanings in the research; the meanings are set to appear as the study ends. Interpretivist paradigm has various distinctive features including hermeneutics, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism. Hermeneutics entails the ideology of interpretation and indulgent. They majorly pay attention towards biblical contexts and wisdom literature and related informational materials. However, hermeneutics portrays little significance to business researchers Hendriks (2007). Phenomenology entails the ideological tradition that is after understanding the world by directly experiencing the phenomena. Lastly, symbolic interactionism embraces symbols in regard as culturally resulting social objects possessing share meanings. The symbolic interactionism philosophy considers symbols as the provisions of the means through which one can construct reality. However, the interpretive approach is grounded entirely in the beliefs including relativist ontology and subjectivist epistemology. In relative ontology, reality is perceived intersubjectively that is established on meanings and understandings on experimental and social levels. While subjectivist epistemology approach considers individuals to be secluded from their knowledge, hence there is a strong interconnection between the researcher and the study subject.

Unlike the positivist philosophy that incorporates five principles, interpretivist philosophy engages seven distinctive principles. Firstly, the fundamental principle of the Hermeneutic Circle that believes that a researcher understanding of the study subject as a whole is developed by reference to all sections at the same time understanding of all sections is attained through reference to the entire research subject. The principle of contextualization that relates the situation to wisdom texts and biblical contexts. Thirdly, the principle guiding the interaction of the researcher and the research subjects which progressively differs with the positivism paradigm as it allows interaction of the researcher with their research projects. The principle of abstraction and generalization that seeks to evaluate the parts of a research and how they are about the entire research. Fifthly, the principle of dialogical reasoning involving various parties and appreciating the differences observed amongst individuals. Interpretivist also incorporates the principle of multiple interpretations that observation is not just viewed in a single perspective but in several ways hence generating several ideas (Remenyi et al 2005). Lastly the principle of suspicion where the researchers' attitude is confined to themselves and does not extend to the research design, analysis of results, or society as a whole.

Based on the descriptions behind the two philosophies there are unique differences that arise between them regarding the nature of reality, the focus of interest, goal of the research, and the knowledge generated. Considering the nature of reality in positivism paradigm, it is valued objectively, tangible and single whereas in interpretivist the nature of reality is socially constructed and they are multiple interpretations. The positivism paradigm is guided by a goal seeking to offer a detailed explanation about the research question at the same time provide a strong prediction for its objectives, while in interpretivist philosophy the research is after understanding of the contexts and it offers weak predictions in return. Since positivism entirely depends on scientific observations, its focus of interest has majored on what is general, average and representative, whereas interpretivist paradigm focuses on what is specific, distinctive, and divergent (Remenyi et al 2005). Finally, the knowledge developed from the findings is developed into laws for the positivism philosophy.

Relating to the research methods, qualitative and quantitative methods, interpretivist and positivism paradigms also portray uniqueness. Interpretivist incorporates the qualitative research methods in its philosophical research evaluations. Similar in the description, qualitative research methods are interpretive and seek to offer a profundity of understanding. In qualitative methods, there is the engagement of the perceptions words and other social related aspects, but does not involve the numerical and figures, however, they also incorporate interviews, experiments, focus groups, as well as open-ended questionnaires. Similar to interpretivist philosophy, qualitative methods are also characterized with abstraction and generalization with the inclusion of images, spoken and printed words, vision, forms, and structures in media. The qualitative methods for data collection were brought into being after the realization that the available quantitative methods failed to account for the expression of the human feelings and emotions Hendriks (2007). The qualitative methods in most cases are considered to provide rich data detailing the real life of situations and persons at the same time can establish the sense of behavior and understand the behavior in a broad context. Nonetheless, the qualitative research methods are attacked for deficiency of generalizability, and being substantially dependent on the interpretation of the researchers as well as being unable to be replicated by other researchers.

On the other hand, positivism paradigm incorporates the quantitative research methods. The quantitative methods details and measure the extent of occurrences on the grounds of numeric and calculations. Furthermore, it attempts to consider the questions of “how often?” and “how many?” in quantitative research. Quantitative analysis can be explained as the collection of data in numbers and be showing the perspectives of the relationship between the theory as the hypothesis and research as deductive (Bryman & Bell 2011). It is majorly concerned with the natural science as the approaches portrayed in the positivism philosophy, at the same time it possesses an objectivist conception of the social reality.

Despite these paradigms having their discrete definitions limiting them to their place of application they still encounter criticism. Positivism paradigm meets criticism because of its idea of separating the researcher from the research work. The expectation that the person carrying out the study can observe but not allow values or personal interests to disrupt the research process. Therefore, contemporary positivism concedes that, despite the failure of establishing the absolute truth, there are possibilities of availability of more accurate knowledge that can be referred to; however, researchers should not route to epistemological skepticism. Therefore, the researchers are limited to only acquiring the data necessary for the prediction of the objectives as well response to the hypothesis. On the contrary, interpretivist is criticized for its inability to permit for generalizations as in inspires the research of a small number of cases that are essentially not applicable on the entire population (Remenyi et al 2005). Nonetheless, different scholars have also claimed that the effort and detail engaged in the interpretive inquiry permit researchers to acquire deeper understanding in given occurrences and also in a variety of viewpoints that may not be easily identified without the scrutiny.

In research philosophy, the beliefs regarding the manner in which data concerning a given research project has to be collected, interpreted, used and described. The research philosophies in most cases seek to identify and differentiate what is known to be true, and what is believed to be true. The philosophies are divided majorly into positivism and interpretivist paradigms. The positivism paradigms consider reality to be stable and can only be observed then described from the perspective of an objective without disrupting with the phenomenon under study (Remenyi et al 2005). Interpretivist on the other hand, it is believed that it is only through the subjective analysis of and intercession in reality that a given phenomenon can be fully understood. Additionally, the positivism paradigm entails the quantitative research methods involving numbers and other measures for a level of an occurrence, whereas interpretivist involves the qualitative research methods that are only interpretive and are after the understanding of the particular phenomenon. Therefore, in oneness, the two paradigms describe the whole possibilities expected as outcomes of a research project.