ONTOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL POSITIONING OF

RESEARCH PARADIGMS

A research is a search for knowledge. This knowledge can be new or advancing on the existing.
O’Leary (2004), agrees to this and defines a research as a systematic study of materials and
sources in order to establish facts and conclusions. Cresswell (2014) breaks down the definition
by defining research as a process of collecting data, analyzing and interpreting it in order to
address different issues and problems requiring research attention. For each researcher to
successfully undertake these processes, they use paradigms. A paradigm is a system or theory
that guide the way people do things or establish some practices (Kothari, 2004). In research,
many paradigms are used including positivism, pragmatism, interpretivism, feminism and critical
theory. Let us take a look at two of these paradigms; positivism and interpretivism in terms of
their ontology, epistemology and methodology.

Positivism is one research paradigm that people use when conducting research. This paradigm,
according to Robson (2011), assumes that there is a reality or truth out there that exists
independent of the social phenomena. This paradigm connotes that the researcher and all others
involved in the research do not and must not affect the results of the research. Robson explains
that the truth here, means that the researcher do not and must not seek to promote or sell their
ideas while doing their research. This will therefore mean an objective study that should produce
replicable results if similar approaches to research are taken. To understand the applications of
this research, Robson (2002) explains that this paradigm was developed from natural sciences
that use empirical methods of generalising data. For example, a research on the gross
contribution of tourism on the economy in the past five years may use empirical methods of data
analysis thus produce replicable results. This is why this paradigm is mostly used where a theory
or hypothesis is tested and proven not necessarily collecting data to come up with a theory.

Let us turn to positioning of the positivist paradigm, firstly definitions of the terms ontology,
epistemology and methodology. Marsh and Furlong (2002) define ontology as a science or
theory of being. By the theory of being, we ponder on the existence of a real world, the world of
truth that our mind and social aspect will not affect. We also look at the nature of social aspects
we might acquire knowledge about, whether there is a universal truth or not. We have three basic
ontological positions: realism, critical realism as well as relativism. On epistemology, Willig
(2008) state that this is a theory of knowledge, the view of what we can know about the world
and how we can know it. This is about the extent of the researcher’s and respondents’
involvement into the research and how much they affect the results. Epistemologically, a
researcher can be either objective or subjective. Marsh and Furlong (2002) pick the importance
of these two positions. They argue that these positions are pivotal to any research, commanding
the approach to theory and methods used. On the other hand, methodology is just a strategic
approach to finding knowledge and carrying out a research (Marvasti, 2004). A research can be
done using quantitative or qualitative methods or sometimes both.

The positivist paradigm, since it hints on the existence of the real world that is independent of
social standing, should connote realism in its research methods. Realism is an ontology that
assumes that only one universal truth exists independent of the researcher and the respondents. A
realist view that only one truth exists will mean doing a research following a theory or
hypothesis that will certainly give a replicable result. Typical of positivist paradigm!

On epistemology, the positivist paradigm assumes that the researcher and respondents be
exclusive of the results of the research. They should not affect it in any way. This denotes an
objective epistemological position. With an objective epistemological position, a researcher
keeps distance from the knowledge to be found and does not tamper with it. Flick (2015)
believes that this kind of research is even possible in social sciences since everyone observes
things the same way and can do the research systematically and ethically to avoid bias.

A positivist researcher may do well to employ quantitative research methods rather than
qualitative methods. This is because, with one truth believed to be out there, a research may not
need social views of a problem but just a sample to use to test hypothesis by probably using
statistical and empirical methods. The results are then generalised as per assumptions of the
positivist paradigm (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Also, positivism focuses on the explanation of a
theory not the meaning as according to Robson (2011) so quantitative methods would be ideal.
Quantitative methods in social science may include social surveys, structured questionnaires and
official statistics finding.

Another very important paradigm that is used in research is known as interpretivism or

constructionalism. This paradigm as suggested by Kothari (2004), argue that there is nothing like
objective truth away from our mental activity. The assumption is that truth is constructed in our
minds not just perceived as it is thus a notion that there is no ‘real’ reality. Many people had
doubted the use of positivist theory in social science research citing that there is no way the
researcher and respondents can just perceive the truth as it is as a general truth since what is
observed can be influenced by their background knowledge, values as well as time and culture.

Stake (2010) explains that all research must be interpreted to give meaning and human behavior
is no exception. The concepts that we know from our background, culture and values are the
ones used to interpret an observation and these concepts inevitably cause changes to an outcome.
Stake (2010) blames the use of theory that is tested to generate data. He states that theories shape
the outcome as they affect the way people look at observation and outcome. The theories
therefore give preset results that may be misplaced for objectivity. This is why Braun and Clarke
(2013) argue that the objective criteria that is used as basis for determining an objective truth are
just ways designed to persuade people to believe in those claims of truth. For instance, when a
person dies in a car accident, some people will interpret that as driving carelessness, while some
will think that is due to fate. Others may even interpret that as a reminder for a need to form new
driving law. This example shows us that as much as research involves people as main machines,
there will always be interpretations to anything and no general truth will exist away from the
social thinking. Interpretivist paradigm defends this thinking.

Let us talk of the positioning of the interpretivist paradigm, starting with ontological positioning.
The interpretivist paradigm best fits a relativist ontological position (Kothari, 2004). Relativism
is an ontology that suggest that there is no single reality that can be found and studied in the
universe. It suggest that every reality is then interpreted and related to researchers and
respondents’ values, culture and background. For instance, asking a question; “is praying
important?” will give us several different views depending on the respondents’ social standing in
terms of culture, values and background. This shows that in social science research, the same
question or problem will not give the same answer or solution respectively even if the researched
are exactly the same people.

On epistemological positioning, an interpretivist research best fits a subjective position. Flick

(2015) reminds us that researchers are people with five senses that do not give unpainted news
and that they operate within discourses and traditions that they cannot live away from. Because
of this, we must understand that the truth in social science research is constructed through
subjective interpretation of ideas. Subjectivity help researchers seek meaning of a phenomena
from the social world by consulting them not merely observing.

Following these two positions, an interpretivist paradigm should use a qualitative research
method as the best method. Qualitative research is interested in getting and giving explanations
on phenomena that will give meaning to a problem. Instead of focusing on how many people
believe in a phenomena, qualitative research looks at what do people believe in and the reasons
for doing so. Qualitative method will in this case give us a platform for understanding in depth
the social behaviour. This research should give us a theory after analyzing the data and reasons
for social actions. Stake (2010) explains that all subjective ideas must be explained and given
meaning if they are to be useful. This is why qualitative research is very important in an
interpretivist paradigm. Qualitative methods may include unstructured questionnaires and
participant observation.

Having described the two paradigms, which one is the best for a social science research? To
answer this question, we must first understand that social science research is an act of re-
examining the social world in order to understand and explain how people behave and the
reasons for doing so (Marvasti, 2004). Furthermore, let us review the validity of using either of
the paradigms, first, positivism. Positivist paradigm seek to impart that there is a general truth
that exist and this implies that all researchers must do their research in an objective way and thus
the research questions should be structured. The advantage is that the results here are valid and
trustworthy since they follow a universal truth in form of a theory. For instance, if one comes up
with a theory that people only need food to be happy, any research on the subject will only focus
around proving if really food makes people happier and the results will be valid since there will
be a benchmark for testing validity. But this is not fair and beneficial in social science research
since it restrict human involvement in finding the results. The study of people should go as much
as why do things happen as they do. In our case, a fairer case would be a research on what makes
people happy and not structuring their research to be aligned to some ‘reality’ that may not apply
to some people. Willig (2008) emphasize that understanding human behaviour requires
willingness to receive subjective thoughts from the people. Empathetic researching will drive us
at real meaning and reasons for a social behaviour. Therefore, interpretivism is ideal for social
science research than positivism.

The advantage of using interpretive paradigm in social sciences is that the meaning of a
phenomena is derived from real life experiences incorporating different cultures, values and
thoughts of people. Therefore, real life problems can be solved after seeking views of
stakeholders, main machines of a research that are people. The criticisms on validity of the
results have been tried to be addressed. Stake (2010) suggests triangulation as one best way.
Triangulation is where a research is done by multiple people using multiple methods.

Any research revolves around paradigms. They are fundamental to deciding the approach to be
taken towards the research. In a nut shell, positivism uses realism ontologically, is objective and
may suit quantitative methods. On the other hand, interpretivism uses relativism as ontology, are
subjective and may require qualitative methods. When doing every research, we must make sure
that ontological, epistemological and methodological positioning match and are not used
haphazardly.
 REFERENCES
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners.

London: SAGE publications.

Cresswell, J. (2014). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches

(4th ed.). London: SAGE publications.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology (2nd ed.). London: SAGE publications

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi:

New Age International.

Marsh, D. & Furlong, E. (2002). Theory and methods in political science (2nd ed.). Basingstoke:

Palgrave.

Marvasti, A. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: SAGE publications.

O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London: SAGE publications
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Stake, R. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work. New York: The Guilford

Press.

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open

University Press.
 MZUZU UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM

TO : MISS GRACE KAMANGA

FROM : TIMSON M ZGAMBO (BSHM/2C/22/15)

PROGRAMME : HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

COURSE TITLE : RESEARCH METHODS

COURSE CODE : HRTA 3505

TASK : EXPLAINING RESEARCH PARADIGMS

DUE DATE : 8th December, 2017