1 Understanding Research Paradigm

Chapter Synopsis
The chapter begins by unpacking the concept of research paradigm and its
importance, exploring its historical development, and presenting an overview
and comparison of major research paradigms. Furthermore, the chapter delves
into the philosophical foundations of research paradigms, elucidating the role
of epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology. It highlights the cru-
cial link between research questions and paradigms, offering case studies that
effectively illustrate how to align research questions with specific paradigms.
Critiques and debates surrounding research paradigms are also addressed,
shedding light on the diverse perspectives and ongoing discussions within
the field. Additionally, the chapter provides invaluable guidance on how to
navigate the complexities inherent in research paradigms. It offers a range
of strategies and approaches to assist researchers in effectively manoeuvring
through the intricacies of their chosen paradigm, ultimately leading to rigor-
ous and impactful research outcomes. This chapter, therefore, serves as an
essential resource for researchers alike, aiming to demystify the concept of
research paradigms and emphasise their significance.

1.1 Concept of Research Paradigm

A paradigm is a worldview that forms the basis for understanding or inter-
preting a particular subject, phenomenon, or discipline. It represents a set of
assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that shape how people think or
view a given subject. It provides a framework for organising knowledge, con-
ducting research, and solving problems within a specific field or discipline
(Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). That is, paradigm establishes the boundaries and
methods for inquiry and guides the way individuals or communities under-
stand and interpret reality. Therefore, paradigm shapes worldviews, influenc-
ing beliefs, assumptions, and actions. However, paradigms are not fixed or
immutable; they can evolve and change over time as new evidence, ideas, or
perspectives emerge. Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science, popularised the
concept of paradigms in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”

DOI: 10.4324/9781003484066-1
2 Understanding Research Paradigm

He argued that scientific progress is not just a linear accumulation of knowl-

edge but involves periods of revolutionary change when existing paradigms
are challenged and replaced by new ones (Kuhn, 1997, 2012). This justifies
that paradigms are worthy of note in various domains, including scientific
disciplines, and even in everyday life.
In the research context, a paradigm provides a lens through which research-
ers view the world, conceptualise their research questions, select appropriate
methods, and interpret their findings. According to Davies and Fisher (2018),
it is a foundation that helps researchers make sense of their research and
determine what knowledge is valid and valuable within their field. Research
paradigm, therefore, specifically pertains to the application of a paradigmatic
framework within the field of research. This resonates with Raines’s (2013)
argument that paradigm refers to the assumptions, beliefs, and methods re-
searchers adopt when approaching their studies. One can then argue that
research paradigms define what is considered acceptable or valid within a
given discipline or field of study, which provides researchers with a shared
language, theoretical foundations, and methodological principles that guide
their investigations. In order words, it is a philosophical foundation that helps
to shape the research questions, theoretical and methodological process and,
data analysis techniques, and interpretations, ensuring that the research is
aligned with the underlying philosophical and theoretical principles of the
chosen paradigm.

1.2 Importance of Research Paradigm

Research paradigms play a fundamental role in shaping the landscape of
­research within social sciences and beyond. This is because they provide a
framework for understanding and conducting research, influencing how re-
searchers conceptualise their studies, gather and analyse data, and interpret
their findings. In this section, I shed more light on the significance of research
paradigms and their impact on the field of research in social sciences.
First and foremost, research paradigms serve as lenses through which re-
searchers view the world by offering distinct perspectives, theoretical orien-
tations, and assumptions that guide the research process (Park et al., 2020).
Therefore, by adopting a particular paradigm, researchers align themselves
with philosophical underpinnings shaping their knowledge-creation ap-
proach. This alignment helps researchers navigate the complex realities of so-
cial phenomena and enhances the rigour in the choice of research methods
and designs as well as the validity of their investigations (Shah & Al-Bargi,
2013). Furthermore, research paradigms contribute to the advancement of so-
cial sciences by facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. While
each paradigm offers a unique lens, they are not isolated entities. Researchers
from different paradigmatic schools of thought exchange ideas and challenge
one another’s assumptions. This intellectual exchange fosters a richer under-
standing of social phenomena and encourages the development of innovative
 Understanding Research Paradigm 3

research approaches. The research paradigm, therefore, is argued to reflect an

exercise that promotes intellectual growth and the expansion of knowledge in
the social sciences.
Research paradigms also play a pivotal role in addressing practical societal
challenges. They also highlight the importance of a research culture that sup-
ports knowledge society and the role of research in professional development
and educational practice (Baporikar, 2015). For instance, a researcher employ-
ing a critical/transformative paradigm may delve into societal power struc-
tures and inequalities to propose transformative strategies for social change
(Mertens, 2007). Conversely, a positivist researcher may examine causal rela-
tionships to inform policy decisions. Furthermore, an interpretive researcher
may explore individuals’ subjective meanings and lived experiences within
a particular social context (Adil et al., 2022). Through interpretive research,
researchers aim to illuminate the complex social processes, cultural norms,
and social constructions that shape individuals’ experiences, contributing
to a nuanced understanding of the social world. In another example, a re-
searcher embracing a postcolonial indigenous paradigm may examine the
impacts of colonialism, imperialism, and the marginalisation of indigenous
peoples (Chilisa, 2019). Research in this worldview usually aims to empower
indigenous communities, reclaim cultural identities, and address issues such
as land rights, self-determination, and cultural preservation. Through their
work, the researcher seeks to redress historical injustices and contribute to
the resurgence of indigenous knowledge and practices. Lastly, researchers
employing the pragmatism paradigm might investigate urban poverty by com-
bining quantitative data such as income levels with qualitative insights like
personal experiences, thus providing a multifaceted understanding to inform
policy decisions (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Similarly, in studying educational
strategies, a pragmatic researcher could merge standardised test scores with
teacher interviews and classroom observations, reflecting the paradigm’s
commitment to practical solutions and creating tailored interventions for spe-
cific community needs. Therefore, the choice of research paradigm reflects
the researcher’s commitment to making meaningful contributions to society.
Additionally, understanding research paradigms is crucial for students
and researchers in the social sciences. This is because a solid grasp of dif-
ferent paradigms allows researchers to critically evaluate existing literature,
comprehend the theoretical frameworks employed, and situate their research
within the broader scholarly landscape. Furthermore, I argue that having ad-
equate knowledge of the research paradigm enables researchers to identify
gaps in knowledge, identify innovative research questions, and contribute to
the ongoing dialogue in their field of study.
Despite the importance of research paradigms in knowledge development,
research paradigms are not without their challenges and controversies. De-
bates exist regarding the superiority of one paradigm over another, with critics
arguing for the limitations and biases inherent in each. Understanding these
critiques (as discussed in subsequent chapters) is essential for researchers,
4 Understanding Research Paradigm

as it encourages reflexivity and encourages individuals to critically assess their

own assumptions and biases. In a null shell, research paradigms form a nec-
essary foundation for social science researchers by shaping how researchers
approach their studies, engage in interdisciplinary dialogue, address societal
challenges, and contribute to knowledge creation. Therefore, by recognising
the importance of research paradigms, researchers can create a zealous inter-
est towards navigating the complexities of social research more effectively
and make meaningful contributions to their respective fields of study.

1.3 The Historical Development of Research Paradigms

The historical development of research paradigms is a testament to the evo-
lution of knowledge production in the social sciences. Understanding this
development is crucial for researchers to appreciate the context and evolu-
tion of different paradigms. In this section, I delve into the historical trajectory
of research paradigms and their key milestones with reference to five major
paradigms: positivist paradigm, interpretivism paradigm, transformative para-
digm, postcolonial indigenous paradigm, and pragmatist paradigm.
However, the roots of research paradigms can be traced back to ancient
civilisations, where philosophical inquiry laid the foundation for understand-
ing the social world. The works of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle intro-
duced foundational ideas about knowledge, truth, and the nature of reality,
which continue to shape contemporary research paradigms. However, signifi-
cant advancements were made in scientific inquiry and empirical research
during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment periods.
The positivist paradigm emerged as a dominant force during the 19th
century, heavily influenced by thinkers such as Auguste Comte and Emile
Durkheim (Nickerson, 2022; Panayotova & Panayotova, 2020). According to
Rehman and Alharthi (2016), positivism emphasises the application of scien-
tific methods to social research, seeking to uncover universal laws governing
social phenomena. This period witnessed the rise of quantitative methods,
hypothesis testing, and the establishment of social sciences as disciplines.
In contrast to positivism, the 20th century witnessed the emergence of inter-
pretivism as a reaction to the limitations of purely objective and quantitative
approaches. Influential figures like Max Weber and Alfred Schutz empha-
sised the importance of understanding social action and subjective mean-
ings attributed by individuals to their experiences (Rasid et al., 2021). Hence,
the interpretive paradigm stresses the need for qualitative methods, such as
ethnography, interviews, and textual analysis, to capture the complexity and
depth of human behaviour (Yanow, 2017).
During the latter half of the 20th century, the critical paradigm, otherwise
called the transformative paradigm, emerged as a significant development in
research paradigms. Influenced by scholars like Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse,
and Jurgen Habermas, critical theory focused on challenging power struc-
tures, inequality, and social injustices (Corradetti, 2012; Morley et al., 2020).
 Understanding Research Paradigm 5

This paradigm sought to uncover hidden power dynamics and emancipate

marginalised groups by examining social, economic, and political systems
through a critical lens. Critical paradigm encouraged researchers to question
prevailing assumptions, reveal underlying power imbalances, and propose
transformative strategies for social change (Chilisa, 2019).
Another significant development in recent decades has been the rise of
postcolonial and indigenous paradigms. Stemming from the experiences of
colonised peoples, these paradigms aim to decolonise knowledge production
and centre indigenous perspectives. Scholars such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith,
Vine Deloria Jr, and Bagele Chilisa highlighted the importance of indigenous
knowledge systems, cultural revitalisation, and self-determination (Chilisa,
2019; O’Neal, 2015; Smith et al., 2018). Postcolonial indigenous paradigms,
in its principles challenge dominant Western frameworks, engage in knowl-
edge co-creation with indigenous communities, and aim to address the lega-
cies of colonisation and cultural erasure.
Lastly, pragmatist paradigm also emerged in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries in the United States and was heavily influenced by philosophers
like Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey (Kaushik &
Walsh, 2019; Maxcy 2003), among others. Pragmatism rejects the idea that
there is a single, absolute truth, emphasising instead the usefulness and prac-
tical consequences of beliefs and theories. The paradigm encourages a flex-
ible and pluralistic approach to research, incorporating both qualitative and
quantitative methods, and is often associated with mixed-methods research
(Creswell & Clark, 2017; Morgan 2014). It has been applied across various
fields, including philosophy, education, social sciences, and more.
Hence, it is important to note that these paradigms have not existed in iso-
lation but rather have influenced and interacted with one another. Research-
ers from different paradigms have engaged in critical dialogue, ­borrowing
concepts and methodologies from one another. This interdisciplinary ex-
change has led to the emergence of mixed-methods research, which seeks
to integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches, recognising the comple-
mentary strengths of each paradigm. Therefore, the historical development of
research paradigms reflects the dynamic nature of knowledge production in
the social sciences. From the positivist emphasis on scientific objectivity to
the interpretivism focus on subjective meanings and the critical examination
of power structures, to postcolonial and indigenous view on people’s eman-
cipation and pluralistic approach tendency of pragmatist paradigm, research
paradigms have evolved to accommodate changing theoretical and meth-
odological landscapes. Therefore, understanding the historical development
of research paradigms is instrumental for researchers, as it allows adequate
appreciation of the intellectual lineage of their work. While it also offers re-
searchers a framework to engage in informed dialogue with fellow scholars
and academics, and a lens through which they can navigate the complexi-
ties of knowledge creation in the social sciences. This historical perspective
enriches their approach, enabling them to choose methodologies that are
6 Understanding Research Paradigm

grounded in well-established traditions, while also remaining receptive to

new innovations and approaches that reflect the evolving nature of scholarly
inquiry.

1.4 Major Research Paradigms: Brief Overview and Comparison

Research paradigms serve as worldviews that shape how researchers ­approach
and conduct their studies. This section briefly overviews the ­major research
paradigms, including positivism, interpretivism/constructivism, critical/trans-
formative, postcolonial indigenous and pragmatism paradigms. I also compare
these paradigms, highlighting their essential characteristics and differences.

• Positivism: The positivist paradigm is rooted in the belief that knowledge can
be acquired through direct observation, measurement, and the application
of scientific methods. It emphasises objectivity, causality, and the search
for universal laws (Aliyu et al., 2014). The aim of this paradigm is to test
hypotheses, employ quantitative methods, and gather empirical evidence
to explain and predict social phenomena. The researchers in this world-
view strive for generalisability and value replicable findings. The emphasis
on objectivity and detachment from the research subject distinguishes this
paradigm from others. See Chapter 2 for a comprehensive conceptualisa-
tion and analysis of the positivist paradigm.
• Interpretivism/Constructivism: The interpretive paradigm, otherwise
called the constructivist paradigm, places importance on understanding
the subjective meanings and social contexts in which individuals experi-
ence the world (Adil et al., 2022). Researchers adopting this paradigm
believe that reality is socially constructed and that interactions negotiate
meanings (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). They utilise qualitative methods such
as interviews, participant observation, and textual analysis to explore the
complexity of human experiences. Interpretive researchers seek to capture
the richness of social phenomena, highlight multiple perspectives, and
emphasise context and individual agency. See Chapter 3 for a comprehen-
sive conceptualisation and analysis of the interpretivist paradigm.
• Critical/Transformative: The critical paradigm, otherwise known as trans-
formative paradigm, focuses on power structures, social inequality, and
emancipation. Researchers adopting this paradigm aim to uncover hidden
power dynamics, challenge oppressive systems, and work towards social
change (Omodan, 2022a). They also engage in critical analysis, critique
existing structures, and advocate for the marginalised (Romm, 2015). This
paradigm draws from critical theory and employs interdisciplinary ap-
proaches to illuminate structural inequalities and encourages reflexivity,
actively involving participants and fostering collaboration with commu-
nities impacted by social injustices (Mertens, 2007). See Chapter 4 for
a comprehensive conceptualisation and analysis of the transformative
paradigm.
 Understanding Research Paradigm 7

• Postcolonial Indigenous Paradigm: The paradigm emerged from the experi-

ences of colonised peoples and the recognition of the need to decolonise
knowledge production. It centres indigenous communities’ perspectives,
voices, and knowledge, challenging Western dominance in research (Chilisa,
2019). Postcolonial indigenous researchers prioritise cultural revitalisation,
self-determination, and recognising diverse ways of knowing. They engage
in collaborative and community-based research, acknowledging indigenous
knowledge systems and advocating for the rights and well-being of indig-
enous peoples. See Chapter 5 for a comprehensive conceptualisation and
analysis of the postcolonial indigenous paradigm.
• Pragmatism: The pragmatist paradigm focuses on practicality and inte-
grating methods that best answer the research question (Morgan, 2013).
Unlike the positivist paradigm, which emphasises objectivity and the
use of quantitative methods, or the interpretivist paradigm, which val-
ues subjective meaning and employs qualitative techniques, pragmatism
­allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This
­paradigm recognises that different types of data can provide complemen-
tary insights and is more concerned with the problem to be solved than
the methods used to solve it (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). The pragmatist
researcher is often more flexible, adapting to the needs of the research
rather than adhering to strict philosophical positions. This contrasts the
critical paradigm’s focus on power structures and the postcolonial indig-
enous paradigm’s emphasis on decolonising knowledge. In pragmatism,
the emphasis is on finding what works to answer specific questions and
solve problems, reflecting a practical, real-world orientation that is will-
ing to use any available methods, techniques, or theories. See Chapter 6
for a comprehensive conceptualisation and analysis of the pragmatist
paradigm.

When comparing these paradigms, several vital distinctions emerge. Posi-

tivism prioritises objectivity, quantitative methods, and causal relationships,
seeking to uncover generalisable laws. Interpretivism/constructivism values
subjectivity, qualitative methods, and context, emphasising the role of human
agency in constructing social reality. Critical/transformative paradigms focus
on power dynamics, inequality, and social change, employing interdisciplinary
approaches and challenging dominant structures. While postcolonial indige-
nous paradigms emphasise decolonisation, centring marginalised voices and
indigenous knowledge systems, and fostering collaborative and community-­
based research and pragmatism, which focus on flexibility, adapting to the
needs of the research rather than adhering to protocol. It is important to note
that these paradigms are not mutually exclusive, and researchers often draw
on multiple paradigms or employ mixed-methods approaches. The choice of
paradigm depends on the research questions, the nature of the phenomena
under investigation, and the researcher’s philosophical and methodological
orientations. Therefore, understanding the distinctions and compatibilities
8 Understanding Research Paradigm

between these paradigms enables researchers to make informed choices and

select appropriate methods that align with their research goals.
Therefore, major research paradigms such as positivism, interpretivism/
constructivism, critical/transformative, postcolonial indigenous and prag-
matism paradigms provide distinct lenses for understanding and conducting
research in the social sciences. While each paradigm has its own philosophi-
cal foundations and methodological preferences, they collectively contribute
to advancing knowledge by addressing different aspects of the social world.
Hence, recognising the similarities and differences between these paradigms
allows researchers to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue, make informed
methodological choices, and navigate the complexities of social research.

1.5 The Philosophical Foundations of Research Paradigms

This section discusses the philosophical foundations of research paradigms:
epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology. These philosophical
pillars form the basis for building research paradigms, guiding researchers’
understanding of knowledge, reality, values, and the methods they employ.
These foundations offer researchers the underlying knowledge of the as-
sumptions and perspectives that shape their research approaches. Therefore,
they are essential for researchers as they conduct research and make con-
scious choices regarding their paradigmatic stance, research design, data
collection methods, and interpretation of findings. Consequently, research-
ers can critically engage with their assumptions and reflexive practices and
meaningfully contribute to paradigmatic dialogue within their respective
fields.

1.5.1 Epistemology
Epistemology in research paradigms pertains to the study of knowledge and
how it is acquired, justified, and understood within a particular framework. It
explores the underlying assumptions and beliefs about the nature of knowl-
edge, the methods of inquiry, and the criteria for establishing truth claims
(Tuli, 2010). That is, epistemology is an essential aspect of research paradigms
that influences the researcher’s approach to knowledge creation.
Different research paradigms have distinct epistemological perspectives. In
the positivist paradigm, epistemology is rooted in the belief that knowledge
is obtained through objective observation and empirical evidence (Godwin
et al., 2021). This is because positivist researchers aim to uncover general-
isable laws and causality, utilising quantitative methods and emphasising
replicability and reliability (Dieronitou, 2014). In contrast, interpretivist para-
digms embrace a subjective and socially constructed view of knowledge (Adil
et al., 2022). Epistemologically, this paradigm emphasises the importance of
understanding subjective meanings, social contexts, and the multiple per-
spectives of individuals. Researchers adopting interpretive paradigms employ
 Understanding Research Paradigm 9

qualitative methods, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis, to

capture the complexity and richness of human experiences.
The critical and transformative paradigm takes an epistemological stance
that acknowledges the influence of power structures on knowledge produc-
tion. Epistemologically, critical researchers aim to uncover hidden power dy-
namics, challenge oppressive systems, and promote social change (Mertens,
2007). They critically analyse social, economic, and political systems to un-
veil structural inequalities, engaging in interdisciplinary approaches and ad-
vocating for marginalised groups. In the postcolonial indigenous paradigm,
epistemology recognises the importance of decolonising knowledge produc-
tion and centring indigenous perspectives (Chilisa, 2019). It emphasises the
revitalisation of indigenous knowledge systems, self-determination, and the
inclusion of diverse ways of knowing and understanding the world.
In the pragmatism paradigm, the epistemological stance is characterised
by a flexible approach that recognises the complementary strengths of objec-
tive and subjective inquiry methods (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Pragmatism
values practical solutions and real-world applications, often integrating quan-
titative and qualitative approaches to develop a more comprehensive under-
standing. The focus is on solving specific problems, and truth is what works
best in terms of practical outcomes. This alignment with practicality allows
pragmatism to bridge other paradigms, seeking the most suitable methods for
the research question at hand.
Therefore, the epistemological foundations of research paradigms enable
researchers to make informed choices regarding research design, methods,
and interpretation of findings. By implication, epistemological underpinnings
also allow researchers to engage in intellectual dialogue and produce knowl-
edge consistent with the chosen paradigm’s philosophical foundations.

1.5.2 Ontology

Ontology in research paradigms refers to the philosophical study of the nature

of reality and existence. It explores and guides researchers on fundamental
questions about the nature of social phenomena, entities, and the relationship
between the researcher and the researched (Chilisa & Phatshwane, 2022).
Ontology examines the assumptions that underlie different research para-
digms and their implications for knowledge creation, influencing researchers’
perspectives on whether social phenomena are socially constructed or have
an objective and independent existence.
Ontological perspectives can range from realism, which posits an objec-
tive reality that exists independently of human perception, to social construc-
tionism, which views reality as a product of social and cultural processes.
The researcher’s ontological stance shapes the choice of research design, data
collection, and interpretation of findings. For example, in a positivist para-
digm with a realist ontology, the researcher may aim to discover and uncover
objective truths about the social world using methods that emphasise external
10 Understanding Research Paradigm

validity and generalisability (Al-Saadi, 2014). In contrast, within an interpre-

tive paradigm with a social constructionist ontology, the researcher may focus
on understanding the diverse perspectives and meanings attributed by indi-
viduals, employing qualitative methods to capture the subjective nature of
reality (Adil et al., 2022).
In a transformative paradigm, the researcher acknowledges that reality is
shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, and gender values (Romm,
2015). A study guided by this paradigm might investigate the systemic bar-
riers that marginalised communities face in accessing education, recognis-
ing that these barriers are both real and historically constructed. Within a
postcolonial indigenous paradigm, the researcher understands that reality is
interconnected and often defined by relationships between people, culture,
nature, and the spiritual world (Chilisa & Phatshwane, 2022). An example of
research in this paradigm might involve exploring indigenous communities’
relationship with their ancestral lands, among others.
In the pragmatism paradigm, which is often associated with a pluralis-
tic ontology, the researcher recognises that reality is complex and multifac-
eted, as discussed above. This paradigm allows for the integration of different
ontological stances to solve real-world problems (Creswell & Clark, 2017;
Morgan, 2014). For example, a pragmatist researcher might study urban
transportation issues by combining objective data on traffic patterns (realist
ontology) with subjective experiences of daily commuters (social construc-
tionist ontology). The result might be a comprehensive understanding that
leads to practical solutions, such as redesigned traffic flow or increased pub-
lic transportation options. By embracing multiple realities, the pragmatism
paradigm provides a flexible approach to knowledge construction and com-
plex social phenomena.
Therefore, understanding ontology in research paradigms allows research-
ers to critically reflect on their assumptions about the nature of reality and
social phenomena. And it helps researchers to navigate the complexities of
knowledge creation by aligning their ontological stance with their research
questions and methods. Hence, recognising the ontological underpinnings
of research, researchers can make informed choices that are consistent with
their philosophical and theoretical perspectives.

1.5.3 Axiology

Axiology in research paradigms pertains to the study of values and ethics, ex-
ploring the role of values in the research process and the researcher’s stance
towards objectivity, subjectivity, and the ethical responsibilities associated
with conducting research. Axiology addresses questions of value neutrality,
moral considerations, and the ethical implications of research (Khatri, 2020).
That is, axiology acknowledges that research is not value-free and recog-
nises the influence of the researcher’s values, beliefs, and biases on the re-
search process (De Monticelli, 2018) which involves reflecting on the ethical
 Understanding Research Paradigm 11

dimensions of research and considering the potential impacts on participants,

communities, and society. One could, therefore, argue that axiological con-
siderations involve transparency, fairness, respect for human dignity, privacy,
and informed consent.
Different research paradigms have distinct axiological orientations. For
instance, value neutrality and objectivity are emphasised in positivist para-
digms, aiming to minimise personal biases and ensure impartiality in the re-
search process (Killam, 2013). Researchers strive to maintain distance from
the research subject and focus on objective data collection and analysis. In
contrast, interpretivism recognises knowledge’s subjectivity and embraces the
researcher’s subjective perspective. Researchers in these paradigms are more
likely to acknowledge their values and subjectivity and actively engage in
reflexivity to understand their impact on the research process. Axiology also
plays a significant role in the transformative paradigm. Researchers adopting
these paradigms often commit to social justice and aim to challenge power
structures and address social inequalities (Mertens, 2007). Ethical considera-
tions are central to their work as they navigate issues of power, representa-
tion, and advocacy for marginalised communities. They prioritise the ethical
treatment of participants, collaboration with communities, and ensuring that
research outcomes contribute to positive social change.
In the postcolonial indigenous paradigm, axiology is deeply rooted in in-
digenous cultures’ values, ethics, and beliefs (Chilisa & Phatshwane, 2022).
Researchers working within this paradigm are committed to decolonising re-
search methods and honouring indigenous knowledge systems. An example
might involve a study of traditional agricultural practices within an indigenous
community. The researcher would actively engage with community mem-
bers, respecting their wisdom and cultural values, and work collaboratively
to ensure that the research process and outcomes align with the community’s
needs and interests. The pragmatism paradigm, on the other hand, emphasises
practical outcomes and problem-solving. Axiologically, pragmatist research-
ers are often guided by what works best in a particular context rather than ad-
hering to rigid philosophical or ethical stances (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). For
example, in a study of environmental conservation, a pragmatist researcher
might combine different methodologies, such as scientific measurements of
pollution levels and community interviews about local attitudes towards con-
servation. The researcher’s values would be oriented towards finding the most
effective and practical solutions to the environmental challenges at hand,
even if it means transcending traditional boundaries between qualitative and
quantitative methods.
Hence, understanding axiology in research paradigms is crucial for re-
searchers as it guides them in making ethical decisions throughout the re-
search process. It encourages researchers to critically reflect on their values,
biases, and the potential impact of their research on participants and soci-
ety. Axiological considerations inform the researcher’s approach to data
collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings, ensuring that research
12 Understanding Research Paradigm

is conducted with integrity and aligns with ethical standards. Therefore, by

recognising the axiological dimensions of research, researchers can navigate
ethical complexities and contribute to knowledge creation in an ethically
responsible manner.

1.5.4 Methodology
Methodology refers to the systematic approach and principles used to guide
the research process within a particular paradigm. It encompasses the over-
all framework, procedures, and techniques researchers employ to collect,
analyse, and interpret data (Patel & Patel, 2019), including the ontological,
epistemological, and axiological underpinnings of a research paradigm that
influence methods in any research process.
In positivist paradigms, methodology emphasises rigorous and standard-
ised quantitative methods. Researchers employ experimental designs, sur-
veys, and statistical analysis to collect numerical data and test hypotheses
(Park et al., 2020). The focus is on objectivity, generalisability, and establish-
ing causal relationships. Park et al. (2020) further argue that positivist meth-
odology emphasises reliability and validity, ensuring the research findings
are replicable and accurately reflect the phenomena under investigation. In
interpretive paradigms, methodology shifts towards qualitative approaches,
emphasising understanding subjective meanings and social contexts. Re-
searchers employ methods such as interviews, observations, and textual anal-
ysis to capture the richness, complexity, and nuances of human experiences.
Therefore, these premises confirm that interpretive methodology focuses on
in-depth exploration, emphasising contextual understanding and capturing
participants’ perspectives and lived experiences (Frechette et al., 2020).
Transformative paradigms employ diverse methodologies that reflect their
commitment to social justice and challenging power structures. Researchers
within these paradigms often utilise participatory action research, collabora-
tive methods, and critical discourse analysis. They engage with communi-
ties, giving voice to marginalised groups and involving them in the research
process. Methodology within transformative paradigms is designed to em-
power participants, challenge existing norms, and contribute to social change
(Mertens, 2007). In the postcolonial indigenous paradigm, the methodology
also encompasses diverse approaches that align with its goals of decolonisa-
tion, cultural revitalisation, and empowering indigenous communities. Re-
searchers within this paradigm may utilise community-based participatory
research, oral histories, and storytelling methodologies, emphasising collabo-
ration, indigenous knowledge systems, and the recognition of diverse ways
of knowing.
In the pragmatism paradigm, the methodology is not confined to a strict tra-
dition but combines quantitative and qualitative methods, reflecting practical
problem-solving needs. For example, a study on educational policy might use
standardised testing to measure achievement and interviews to understand
 Understanding Research Paradigm 13

perceptions. By employing a mixed-methods approach, the researcher pro-

vides a comprehensive understanding of the issue, harnessing the strengths
of both paradigms. The pragmatism methodology emphasises actionable in-
sights, aligning research design with the specific questions being asked, and
is driven by a desire to inform policy and practice.
Therefore, methodology is a crucial component of research paradigms as it
guides the researcher in systematically collecting, analysing, and interpreting
data. It helps researchers address their research questions, align their meth-
ods with the philosophical foundations of their paradigm, and ensure the
validity and reliability of findings. Hence, methodological choices should be
consistent with the paradigm’s epistemological, ontological, and axiological
assumptions, allowing researchers to produce rigorous and meaningful re-
search outcomes. Understanding the methodology within the chosen para-
digm enables researchers to make informed decisions about research design,
data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.

1.6 Aligning Research Questions and Paradigms

Methodology and methods are crucial components of the research process,
shaping how researchers approach and investigate their research questions
within a specific paradigm. The alignment between research questions and
paradigms is essential to ensure coherence and rigour in the research design
and to generate meaningful and relevant findings. This section explores the
importance of aligning research questions with the appropriate methodology
and methods within different research paradigms.
The choice of methodology depends on the paradigm’s underlying episte-
mological and ontological assumptions (Omodan, 2022b). For example, in
a positivist paradigm, research questions may focus on causal relationships
and the generalisability of findings. Therefore, quantitative methods such as
surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis would be appropriate to gather
and analyse data. On the other hand, the interpretivist paradigm emphasises
understanding subjective meanings and social contexts. Research questions
within these paradigms might explore individuals’ lived experiences and per-
spectives, necessitating the use of qualitative methods such as interviews,
observations, and textual analysis. In a transformative paradigm, research
questions may focus on social inequalities and the promotion of social jus-
tice. Therefore, methods such as participatory action research, collaborative
methods, or critical discourse analysis would be appropriate to engage and
empower marginalised communities. Also, in the postcolonial indigenous
paradigm, research questions may explore indigenous knowledge, rights, or
cultural heritage. Therefore, methodologies like community-based participa-
tory research, oral histories, and storytelling would be suitable, emphasising
collaboration with indigenous communities. And lastly, in a pragmatism para-
digm, research questions could aim at practical problem-solving or integrat-
ing different viewpoints. Therefore, a mixed-methods approach, combining
14 Understanding Research Paradigm

quantitative techniques like surveys and qualitative methods like interviews,

would be appropriate to comprehensively understand the problem.
The alignment between research questions and methodology also ensures
that researchers can effectively address their research objectives. This is in
line with the argument of Ramsay-Jordan et al. (2022) that a well-crafted re-
search question provides clarity and direction, guiding researchers in select-
ing the appropriate methodology and methods to obtain the desired insights.
For instance, a research question that aims to explore the impact of a social
intervention program on a specific community’s well-being would benefit
from a mixed-methods approach. This could involve collecting quantitative
and qualitative data to measure outcomes to understand the participants’
lived experiences and subjective perspectives. Most importantly, the align-
ment between research questions and paradigms contributes to the overall
coherence and integrity of the research. This means that a mismatch between
the research question and the chosen paradigm can lead to inconsistencies
and potential limitations in the research design and findings. For example,
attempting to answer a research question about individual experiences using
a purely positivist paradigm might overlook the richness and complexity of
human subjectivity.
Furthermore, aligning research questions and paradigms allows research-
ers to leverage the strengths and advantages of each paradigm (Järvinen,
2000). Different paradigms offer unique perspectives and methodologies that
can shed light on different aspects of the research question. Hence, it is essen-
tial to note that alignment between research questions and paradigms does
not imply rigid adherence or exclusivity to a single paradigm. Researchers
often adopt mixed-methods approaches or draw on multiple paradigms to
address complex research questions. This interdisciplinary approach enables
researchers to triangulate findings, enrich their understanding, and explore
different facets of the research topic.
Therefore, aligning research questions with the appropriate methodology
and methods within a specific research paradigm is crucial for conduct-
ing rigorous and meaningful research towards ensuring coherence, integ-
rity, and relevance in the research design and facilitating the generation of
valuable insights. By considering the paradigm’s underlying epistemologi-
cal and ontological assumptions and research objectives, researchers can
select the most suitable methodology and methods to effectively address
their research questions. The overall argument is that alignment between
research questions and paradigms enhances the quality of research, fosters
interdisciplinary engagement, and contributes to the advancement of valid
knowledge.

1.6.1 Case Studies on How to Align Research Questions With Paradigms

Case 1: To illustrate the process of aligning research questions with ­paradigms,

let’s consider a case study on the topic of gender inequality in the workplace.
 Understanding Research Paradigm 15

Suppose a researcher aims to investigate the experiences of women in

leadership positions and their strategies for overcoming barriers in a male-­
dominated industry. In this case, an interpretive paradigm may be appro-
priate to capture the subjective meanings and social contexts of w ­ omen’s
experiences. The research question could be framed as follows: “How do
women leaders navigate and challenge gender-based barriers in the XYZ in-
dustry?” This research question aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, as it
seeks to understand women’s lived experiences, perspectives, and strategies
in the workplace. To align the research question with the paradigm, the re-
searcher can select qualitative methods that emphasise understanding sub-
jective meanings and capturing rich, contextual data. In this case, methods
such as in-depth interviews with women leaders, participant observation in
workplace settings, and analysis of relevant organisational documents could
be employed. These methods allow the researcher to delve into the com-
plexities of gender inequality, exploring the strategies employed by women
leaders and the social dynamics within the industry. By aligning the research
question with the interpretivist paradigm and selecting appropriate qualita-
tive methods, the researcher can gain deep insights into the experiences of
women leaders, the challenges they face, and the strategies they employ to
overcome gender-based barriers. This alignment ensures that the research de-
sign and methods are consistent with the philosophical foundations of the
chosen paradigm, leading to a comprehensive and nuanced understanding
of the research topic.
Note that the case study provided is an example, and the choice of para-
digm and methods should be carefully considered based on the specific re-
search context, objectives, and available resources. The process of aligning
research questions with paradigms requires thoughtful reflection and an un-
derstanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the paradigms to ensure a
coherent and rigorous research design.
Case 2: Let’s consider a case study exploring the impact of a specific teach-
ing methodology on students’ academic performance in a secondary school
setting. The researcher aims to investigate whether the implementation of
an inquiry-based learning approach leads to improved academic outcomes
compared to traditional lecture-based instruction. To align the research ques-
tion with the positivist paradigm, the researcher formulates the question as
follows: “What is the effect of implementing an inquiry-based learning ap-
proach on students’ academic performance in a secondary school setting?”
This research question aligns with the positivist paradigm, which seeks to
establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the teaching methodology
and academic performance, focusing on measurable outcomes. To ensure
the alignment of the research question with the positivist paradigm, the re-
searcher would employ quantitative methods and collect data that can be
objectively measured and analysed. For instance, the researcher may con-
duct pre- and post-tests to assess students’ academic performance, comparing
the scores of those who received inquiry-based instruction with those who
16 Understanding Research Paradigm

received lecture-based instruction. This approach enables the researcher to

gather numerical data that can be analysed statistically, allowing for testing
hypotheses and drawing causal inferences. By aligning the research question
with the positivist paradigm and employing appropriate quantitative methods,
the researcher can obtain objective data on the impact of the teaching meth-
odology on students’ academic performance. The use of rigorous methods
and statistical analysis contributes to the reliability and generalisability of the
findings, as they are based on measurable outcomes and can be replicated in
similar educational contexts.
Note that the case study provided is an example, and the choice of para-
digm and methods should be carefully considered based on the specific re-
search context and objectives. It is crucial to ensure that the research design
aligns with the philosophical foundations of the positivist paradigm, empha-
sising objectivity, quantifiability, and the establishment of causal relationships.
Case 3: Let’s consider a case study examining the experiences of indi-
viduals from marginalised communities in accessing healthcare services
and the potential barriers they face. The researcher aims to explore the
systemic factors that contribute to healthcare disparities and propose strat-
egies for addressing these inequalities within the healthcare system. To
align the research question with the transformative/critical paradigm, the
researcher formulates the question as follows: “What are the structural and
systemic factors contributing to healthcare disparities among marginalised
communities, and how can the healthcare system be transformed to pro-
mote health equity?” This research question aligns with the transformative/
critical paradigm as it seeks to critically analyse power structures, chal-
lenge existing systems, and propose transformative strategies for social
change. To ensure the alignment of the research question with the trans-
formative/critical paradigm, the researcher would employ a mix of qualita-
tive and participatory methods. This may involve conducting interviews
with individuals from marginalised communities, engaging in f­ocus group
discussions, and collaborating with community organisations and health-
care providers. These methods allow the researcher to explore the lived
experiences, perspectives, and insights of marginalised individuals and
stakeholders, ensuring their voices are heard and empowering them in the
research process. By aligning the research question with the t­ ransformative/
critical paradigm and employing participatory methods, the researcher can
uncover the underlying power dynamics and systemic barriers contributing
to healthcare disparities. The research aims to generate knowledge that can
inform policy changes and transformative interventions within the health-
care system to promote health equity and social justice for marginalised
communities.
Note that the case study provided is an example, and the choice of par-
adigm and methods should be carefully considered based on the specific
research context and objectives. It is crucial to ensure that the research de-
sign aligns with the philosophical foundations of the transformative/critical
 Understanding Research Paradigm 17

paradigm, emphasising the critical analysis of power structures, engagement

with marginalised communities, and the pursuit of social change.
Case 4: Let’s consider a case study examining the impact of colonial
policies on the cultural identity and well-being of indigenous youth in a
specific community. The researcher aims to explore indigenous youth’s ex-
periences and perspectives and strategies for cultural revitalisation and em-
powerment. To align the research question with the postcolonial/indigenous
paradigm, the researcher formulates the question as follows: “How do co-
lonial policies and practices impact the cultural identity and well-being of
indigenous youth, and what strategies can be employed to promote cultural
revitalisation and empowerment?” This research question aligns with the
­postcolonial/indigenous paradigm as it seeks to centre the experiences and
voices of indigenous youth, challenge colonial influences, and promote the
decolonisation and empowerment of indigenous communities. To ensure the
alignment of the research question with the postcolonial/indigenous para-
digm, the researcher would employ a community-based and participatory
research approach. This may involve collaborating with indigenous com-
munity members, elders, and youth to co-create the research process, ensur-
ing their perspectives are central to the study. Methods such as storytelling,
focus groups, and cultural mapping may capture the multifaceted nature
of indigenous youth experiences and their cultural revitalisation efforts. By
aligning the research question with the postcolonial/indigenous paradigm
and employing community-based and participatory methods, the researcher
can uncover the impacts of colonial policies on indigenous youth, highlight
cultural strengths and resilience, and promote strategies for cultural revitali-
sation and empowerment. The research aims to contribute to the recognition
and validation of indigenous knowledge systems, advocate for the rights and
well-being of indigenous youth, and support efforts towards self-determina-
tion and decolonisation.
Note that the case study provided is an example, and the choice of para-
digm and methods should be carefully considered based on the specific re-
search context and objectives. It is crucial to ensure that the research design
aligns with the philosophical foundations of the postcolonial/indigenous par-
adigm, emphasising the recognition of indigenous voices, cultural revitalisa-
tion, and the promotion of self-determination and decolonisation.
Case 5: Let’s consider a case study that investigates the best methods
for reducing waste and increasing recycling in urban environments. The re-
searcher is interested in both the practical outcomes and the diverse perspec-
tives of the residents and local authorities. They pose the research question:
“What combination of policies, community engagement, and technological
innovations can effectively reduce waste and enhance recycling in an urban
context?” This research question aligns with the pragmatism paradigm as
it seeks to solve a real-world problem, emphasising the integration of vari-
ous methods and the collaboration between different stakeholders. To align
with the pragmatist paradigm, the researcher may choose mixed methods,
18 Understanding Research Paradigm

including surveys to quantify residents’ recycling behaviours, interviews

with policymakers to understand potential regulations and observations of
waste management practices. The research could also involve a participatory
design with community workshops to co-create waste reduction strategies.
Therefore, by aligning the research question with the pragmatism para-
digm and employing a blend of qualitative and quantitative methods, the
researcher can generate a comprehensive understanding of the waste reduc-
tion challenge. They can create practical recommendations that consider
both empirical evidence and the contextual and subjective experiences of
those involved. This alignment ensures that the research design is consistent
with the philosophical foundations of the pragmatism paradigm, emphasis-
ing practical solutions, the collaboration of various stakeholders, and the
flexibility in the use of methods.
Note that the case study provided is an example, and the choice of
paradigm and methods should be carefully considered based on the
specific research context, objectives, and available resources. Ensuring
that the research design aligns with the philosophical foundations of the
­chosen paradigm, leading to effective solutions to real-world challenges
is crucial.

1.7 Navigating the Complexities of Research Paradigms

Research paradigms are multifaceted frameworks that encompass a wide
array of philosophical, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. The
complexities inherent within these paradigms require researchers to navi-
gate them skilfully to conduct rigorous and meaningful research. This section
explores the intricate nature of research paradigms by highlighting their ten
associated complexities. These complexities include questions of objectiv-
ity and subjectivity, debates on validity and reliability, power dynamics and
representation, ethical considerations, the role of theory and generalisabil-
ity, the ongoing qualitative-quantitative debate, paradigm compatibility and
integration, the influence of context and reflexivity, the dynamic nature of
paradigms, and the impact of paradigms on research outcomes. Recognising
these complexities is crucial for researchers as they embark on their research
journey. A comprehensive list of strategies is provided to assist researchers
in navigating these intricacies. These strategies encompass understanding
the paradigm landscape, promoting reflexivity and self-awareness, embrac-
ing flexibility and openness, utilising methodological pluralism, engaging in
collaborative and participatory research, pursuing continuous learning and
professional development, considering ethical considerations, engaging in
reflexive iteration, participating in scholarly dialogue and debates, and seek-
ing mentorship and collaboration. Therefore, incorporating these strategies
into research practice enables researchers to effectively navigate the com-
plexities of research paradigms, ensuring that their research is robust, rigor-
ous, and impactful.
 Understanding Research Paradigm 19

Below are ten common complexities researchers face and provide strate-
gies to navigate them.

1 Ontological Assumptions: Ontology refers to the researcher’s assumptions

about the nature of reality and what can be considered valid knowledge
(Adil et al., 2022). Researchers encounter the complexity of different on-
tological perspectives, such as realism, constructivism, or pragmatism. To
navigate this complexity effectively, researchers should critically reflect on
their ontological assumptions and examine how these assumptions shape
their research questions, methodology, and interpretation of findings. By
explicitly stating their ontological stance, researchers can then ensure co-
herence and transparency in their research design, allowing readers to un-
derstand the philosophical foundation upon which their study is based.
2 Epistemological Considerations: Epistemology pertains to how knowledge
is acquired, validated, and understood (Tuli, 2010). Researchers must grap-
ple with questions such as how knowledge is constructed, the role of the
researcher in knowledge production, and the nature of truth claims. To
navigate this complexity, researchers should clarify their epistemological
stance and identify the most appropriate methods for generating and vali-
dating knowledge within their chosen paradigm. For example, researchers
adopting an interpretive paradigm may prioritise understanding subjective
experiences through in-depth interviews or observations, while those ad-
hering to a positivist paradigm may emphasise quantitative methods and
statistical analysis to establish empirical generalisations.
3 Methodological Choices: Methodology encompasses the research ap-
proaches, methods, and techniques used to gather and analyse data (Patel
& Patel, 2019). Researchers face the complexity of selecting the most suit-
able methods within their chosen paradigm. To navigate this, researchers
should comprehensively review available methods and techniques, con-
sider the fit between the research question and methodology, seek expert
advice, and ensure that their chosen methods align with their paradigm’s
underlying assumptions and goals. Additionally, researchers should be
aware of their chosen methods’ limitations and potential biases and em-
ploy strategies to mitigate them, such as triangulation or member checking.
4 Ethical Considerations: Research ethics is a critical complexity that re-
searchers must navigate. Ethical considerations encompass respecting par-
ticipants’ autonomy, protecting their privacy and confidentiality, minimising
harm, and ensuring equitable treatment (Okeke et al., 2022). Researchers
should familiarise themselves with ethical standards and guidelines spe-
cific to their field and seek institutional ethical review and approval. To
navigate ethical complexities effectively, researchers should be mindful of
power dynamics in the research process, obtain informed consent from
participants, provide clear information about the study’s purpose and pro-
cedures, and address any potential risks or discomfort that participants may
encounter.
20 Understanding Research Paradigm

5 Power Dynamics and Representation: Power imbalances and the repre-

sentation of diverse voices are significant complexities within research
paradigms (Fitzgerald, 2004; Hardy & Clegg, 2006; Karnieli-Miller et al.,
2009;). These issues are particularly pronounced in research with children,
Indigenous communities, and diverse cultural and gender groups. The ten-
sion between power redistribution and methodological challenges in qual-
itative research further complicates these dynamics. Despite the potential
of participatory research to address power imbalances, the gap between
theory and practice remains a challenge. Gender dynamics in research
teams can also influence the production of knowledge, highlighting the
need for a more inclusive and equitable research process. Therefore, re-
searchers should be aware of their own positions of power and strive to
ensure fair representation and inclusion of marginalised or underrepre-
sented groups. To navigate this complexity, researchers should seek diverse
perspectives by purposefully sampling participants from different back-
grounds, engaging in participatory research approaches involving partici-
pants as active partners, and promoting collaboration and dialogue with
marginalised communities. By sharing power in the research process and
involving participants in decision-making, researchers can foster a more
inclusive and empowering research environment.
6 Researcher Positionality: Researcher positionality is critical in qualitative
research, influencing the research process and findings (Holmes, 2020). It
presents ethical and methodological dilemmas, particularly for “insider”
researchers (Moore, 2012), and is a multi-dimensional and developmental
concept, challenging the insider/outsider dichotomy (Lu & Hodge, 2019).
Hence, researchers are expected to grapple with their own positionality,
including their social, cultural, and personal backgrounds that may influ-
ence the research process and outcomes. Researchers should acknowledge
their biases, be reflexive, and critically reflect on how their positionality
may impact the research design, data collection, analysis, and interpre-
tation. By engaging in reflexivity, researchers can actively examine how
their personal experiences, beliefs, and values shape their research and
ensure that they remain transparent about their positionality. Additionally,
researchers should consider the potential impact of their positionality on
participant engagement, data collection, and the interpretation of findings.
7 Paradigm Compatibility and Integration: Researchers may encounter chal-
lenges when integrating or bridging different research paradigms. To navigate
this complexity, researchers should engage in interdisciplinary research col-
laborations and seek common ground between paradigms. This can involve
exploring how different paradigms conceptualise similar phenomena, iden-
tifying shared assumptions or theoretical perspectives, or utilising mixed-
methods approaches that leverage the strengths of multiple paradigms. By
fostering dialogue and collaboration with researchers from different disci-
plines and paradigms, researchers can enrich their understanding, chal-
lenge their own assumptions, and expand their methodological repertoire.
 Understanding Research Paradigm 21

8 Data Analysis and Interpretation: Analysing and interpreting data within

a specific research paradigm can be complex. Researchers should care-
fully consider the analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks that
align with their chosen paradigm. They should engage in iterative data
analysis, seeking peer feedback or external validation to ensure that their
interpretations are consistent with their chosen paradigm and capture
the richness of the data. Researchers should also consider the context in
which the data was collected, reflect on their own biases, and critically
examine alternative interpretations to ensure the robustness and validity
of their findings.
9 Theoretical Frameworks: The selection and application of appropriate
theoretical frameworks within a research paradigm have been a seri-
ous concern for young researchers, most especially students (Omodan,
2022b). Hence, researchers need to critically review existing theories,
choose frameworks that align with their research questions and objec-
tives, and explore how these theories can inform their research design,
analysis, and interpretation. By carefully selecting and applying theoreti-
cal frameworks, researchers can enhance the theoretical underpinnings
of their research and contribute to knowledge development in their field.
It is essential to articulate how the chosen theoretical framework informs
the research questions, guides the data collection and analysis process,
and shapes the interpretation of findings.
10 Researcher Bias and Objectivity: Jukola (2015) and Mantzoukas (2005)
both emphasise the importance of context and reflexivity in ensuring ob-
jectivity, with the latter arguing that bias cannot be excluded from the re-
search process. Therefore, researchers must navigate the complexities of
their own biases and strive for objectivity within their chosen paradigm.
To address this complexity, researchers should be transparent about their
potential biases and acknowledge them as part of the research process.
Employing rigorous research design and methods, engaging in peer re-
view or external validation, seeking diverse perspectives, and document-
ing the decision-making process can help mitigate personal biases and
enhance the objectivity of the research. Researchers should be vigilant
in critically examining their assumptions and interpretations to ensure
that their findings are grounded in evidence rather than preconceived
notions.

1.8 Summary
The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of research paradigms in the
social sciences. It presents the importance of research paradigms, discusses
the historical development of paradigms, and compares major paradigms. The
chapter delves into the philosophical foundations of research paradigms, in-
cluding epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology. It examines the
complexities within research paradigms and offers strategies to navigate them
22 Understanding Research Paradigm

effectively. The chapter emphasises the alignment of research questions with

paradigms and provides case studies illustrating how different paradigms are
applied. It concludes by highlighting the challenges and considerations in
navigating research paradigms and the importance of continuous learning and
critical engagement in advancing research in the social sciences. Most impor-
tantly, the chapter serves as a comprehensive guide for researchers seeking to
understand the complexities of research paradigms to conduct rigorous and
impactful social science research.