Research Questions, Paradigms & Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & the “Language” of Variables &

HypothesesHypotheses

Research Questions, Paradigms & Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & the “Language” of Variables &

HypothesesHypotheses

Links Charles Tilley Interview on Paradigms in the Social Sciences:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjESyyQ16AI

Hans Rosling on Using Empirical Research to Understand World Change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Hans Rosling: “Let my data set change your mind set”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVhWqwnZ1eM&feature=related

Research Paradigms

• Sets of shared patterns in a scholarly community about what constitutes worthwhile research (Thomas Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions) – What problems are worth investigating?– What constitutes an answer?

• Different views on how approaches are grouped

Classification of Theories to Understand Different Approaches to Research Design

• Paradigms, other typologies (like quantitative vs. qualitative) refer to:– direction of reasoning (inductive, deductive)– level of reality (micro, meso, macro)– forms of explanation– theoretical frameworks– degree of abstraction– Degree of complexity (trivium & quadrivium,

Comte’s disciplinary ranking)

19th century

concrete

abstract

concrete

abstract

Ranking Disciplines: Positivist ideas (Auguste Comte)

Quantitative vs. Qualitative ApproachesSee also Neuman Ch. 5 (p. 83) & Ch. 16 (pp.333-41)

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Objective SubjectiveVariables Processes and eventsReliability

AuthenticityValue-Free Explicitly Stated ValuesIndependent of Context Aware of ContentMany cases or subjects Few cases or subjectsStatistical Analysis Other qualitiesDetached Researcher Involved Researcher

Theories

EmpiricalGeneralizations

Observations

Predictions(Hypotheses)

TheScientificProcess

Empirical and Logical Foundations of Research

(does not have to start with theory)

Source: Singleton & Straits (1999: 27); Babbie (1995: 55)

Assumptions about human nature & ways of knowing for use in classifying approaches

)

Used by Burrell and Morgan (1982)for classification according to subjective vs. objective dimensions

• ontology : nominalism realism• epistemology : anti-positivism positivism• human nature: voluntarism determinism• methodology: idiographic nomethetic

Assumptions about Society (Order vs. Conflict)

Order/regulation vs. Conflict/Radical ChangeStability/solidarity Change/emancipationIntegration ConflictFunctional coordination Disintegrationconsensus Coercionneed satisfaction Deprivation

Four Paradigms (Burrell & Morgan)

radical humanist radical structuralist

interpretive functionalist

Conflict/radical change

Order/stability/regulation

subj

ecti

ve

objective

Examples: Paradigms Common in Communications Research & Training

• Positivist (“savoir, prévoir, pouvoir” A. Comte)

• Once widely taught as same as science• early religious aspect• association with quantitative research

• Interpretive (“décrire, comprendre, expliquer” Gilles Gaston Granger)

• Verstehen (understanding)• association with qualitative research• direct observation, context, meaningful action• holistic

• Critical Theory• Not just the Frankfurt School but also roots in humanities

(notably literary studies)

Differentiating Types of Research Agenda & Implications for Research Design

1. reasons for research2. nature of social reality3. nature of human beings4. role of common sense5. what theory looks like6. explanation that is acceptable7. good evidence8. place for researcher’s values

Positivism1. Why conduct research?

– instrumental orientation (to predict and control)2. Nature of Social Reality?

– has order, fundamentally unchanging– can be discovered using science

3. Nature of Human Beings?– self interest, pleasure seeking, rational– operate on basis of external causes, probability– mechanical model of humans

4. Science and common sense? Separate5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory?

– science nomethetic (universal laws)– causal relationships, universally valid

6. How to judge explanation– use reason, no logical contradictions, observation, replication

7. Good evidence? Based on observations , empirical knowledge– can be communicated

8. Social/Political Values? value-free, objective

Interpretive Approaches1. Why conduct research?

– to understand meanings2. Nature of Social Reality?

– importance of human consciousness– socially constructed– multiple social realities possible

3. Nature of Human Beings?– people use meanings, have reasons– laws (?)

4. Science and common sense?– must study common sense, pragmatic

5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory– ideographic – “thick” descriptions), semantic relationships– Rules in interpretive traditions= shared beliefs

6. How to judge explanation– as understanding– makes sense to others– Heuristic framework (meaning)

7. Good evidence?– in context, has meaning for social actors (evocative)

8. Social/Political Values?• does not try to be value free, state biases

Critical Theory1. Why conduct research?

– discover structures – change world, action oriented, knowledge is power (from below)

2. Nature of Social Reality?– changing– conflict (not always visible-myths, false consciousness)

3. Nature of Human Beings?– have potential but can be mislead– potential realized through collective action

4. Science and common sense?– objective reality & underlying truths but – science can be instrument of oppression

5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory– combination of determinism & voluntarism

6. How to judge explanation– capacity to describe social conditions & promote change

7. Good evidence?– material conditions separate from subjectivity but facts not neutral

8. Social/Political Values? –always present, promotes activism

Nature of Explanation

• Varies in different paradigms• Causal Explanation (3 necessary features)– temporal order (cause before effect)– association– elimination of plausible alternatives

• Causal explanation studies relationships between “variables”– To test theories, predictions, etc…– Idea of “advancing” knowledge