chos lang

Webster Dictionary defines paradigm as "an example or pattern: small, self-contained, simplified examples that we use to illustrate procedures, processes, and theoretical points." The most quoted definition of paradigm is Thomas Kuhn's (1962, 1970) concept in The Nature of Science Revolution, i.e. paradigm as the underlying assumptions and intellectual structure upon which research and development in a field of inquiry is based. The other definitions in the research literature include:
1. Patton (1990): A paradigm is a world view, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world.
2. Paradigm is an interpretative framework, which is guided by "a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied." (Guba, 1990). Denzin and Lincoln (2001) listed three categories of those beliefs:
Ontology: what kind of being is the human being. Ontology deals with the question of what is real.
Epistemology: what is the relationship between the inquirer and the known: "epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated" (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996)
Methodology: how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?
When challenging the assumptions underlying positivism, Lincoln and Guba (2000) also identified two more categories that will distinguish different paradigms, i.e. beliefs in causality and oxiology. The assumptions of causality asserts the position of the nature and possibility of causal relationship; oxiology deals with the issues about value. Specific assumptions about research include the role of value in research, how to avoid value from influencing research, and how best to use research products (Baptiste, 2000).
Dill and Romiszowski (1997) stated the functions of paradigms as follows:
Define how the world works, how knowledge is extracted from this world, and how one is to think, write, and talk about this knowledge
Define the types of questions to be asked and the methodologies to be used in answering
Decide what is published and what is not published
Structure the world of the academic worker
Provide its meaning and its significance
Two major philosophical doctrines in the social science inquiry are positivism and postpositivism. The following is a contrast of the research approach that are entailed from these two different philosophical paradigms.

Positivism
Postpostivism
Philosophical Inquiry
The physical and social reality is independent of those who observe it
Observation of this reality, if unbiased, constitutes scientific knowledge.
Behavioral researchers in education and psychology exemplify an approach to scientific inquiry that is grounded in positivist epistemology.
Social reality is constructed by the individuals who participate it.
It is constructed differently by different individuals.
This view of social reality is consistent with the constructivist movement in cognitive psychology, which posts that individuals gradually build their own understandings of the world through experience and maturation.
The mind is not tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which knowledge is written.
Research Design
The inquiry focuses on the determination of the general trends of a defined populations.
The features of the social environment retain a high degree of constancy across time and space.
Local variations are considered "noise"· Study of samples and population
Generalization: first defining the population of interest, select a representative of the population, the researcher generalizes the findings obtained from studying the sample to the larger population using the statistical techniques to determine the likelihood that sample findings are likely to apply to the population.
The scientific inquiry must focus on the study of multiple social realities, i.e. the different realities created by different individuals as they interact in a social environment.
Find a ways to get individuals to reveal their constructions of social realities, including the person being studied and the researcher.
Reflexivity: focus on the researcher's self as an integral constructor of the social reality being studied
The study of individuals' interpretations of social reality must occur at the local, immediate level.
Study of cases: have you learned something about his case that informs us about another cases? Generalization of case study findings must be made on a case-by-case basis. In other words, it is the reader who made the generalization based on his or her own interpretation: The focus is on the transferability instead of generalization.
Data Collection and Design
The use of mathematics to represent and analyze features of social reality is consistent with positivist epistemology: a particular feature can be isolated and conceptualized as a variable.
The variables can be expressed as a numerical scales.
Deductive analysis: identify underlying themes and patterns prior to data collection and searching through the data for instances of them: hypothesis testing
Focuses on the study of individual cases and by making "thick" verbal descriptions of what they observe.
Analytic induction: search through data bit by bit and then infers that certain events or statements are instances of the same underlying themes or patterns
View of causality
A mechanistic causality among social objects
Individuals' interpretation of situations cause them to take certain actions

Lincoln and Guba (2000) made the following distinctions between positivist and naturalist inquiries.
Positivist
Naturalist
Reality is single, tangible, and fragmentable.
Realities are multiple, constructed, and holistic.
Dualism: the knower and the known are independent.
The knower and the known are interactive and inseparable.
Time and context free generalization
Only time-and context-bound working hypotheses are possible.
Real causes, temporally precedent to or simultaneous with their effects (causal relationship)
All entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects.
Inquiry is value free.
Inquiry is value bounded.

The Positive Research Paradigm Philosophy Essay
A paradigm can be defined as a set of shared assumptions about some aspect of the world. A research paradigm directs our approach towards research by defining the ontology and epistemology of our research. That is, a paradigm denotes its members shared premise regarding the nature of reality, the purpose of research and the form of knowledge it provides. (OATES, 2007:282; LEE, 2004:5)
Lee (2004:5-6) notes that research paradigms can be separated by their various ontologies and epistemologies. A paradigm's ontology encapsulates the researcher's view of what the real world is. An ontology flows to one or more epistemology. Epistemology is the over-arching process by which a school of thought performs its logical and empirical work. Epistemologies are usually labeled to be either quantitative or qualitative. Again, and epistemology is divided into several lower levels of methodology which is he more specific manner in which research is conducted. The devices defined in each methodology are called methods.
The positivistic research paradigm, or scientific method, is an approach towards research founded on the premise that our world is defined by a set of regular laws or patters, and that we can investigate these laws objectively (OATES, 2007:283). Lee (2004:8) defines the positivism paradigm as one in which theory is typically provided as a set of related variables express by some form of formal logic, proven empirically to be significant.
Positivism is term used to characterize a specific research position in which scientific theory is grounded on objective empirical observation. Positivism offers predictions based on the knowledge of laws that connect specific outcomes with specific initial conditions. (ROMM, 1991:1).
2. Comte and Popper on positivism
The positivistic school of thought can be found in early work of such as Bacon, Galileo and Newton (OATES, 1992:283). Auguste Comte and Karl Popper contributed significantly towards systematizing, clarifying and formalizing the arguments posed by earlier authors (ROMM, 1991:1; LEE, 1992:8).
Comte was born in 1798, just after the French revolution which characterized a period of social and political revolt against aristocratic rule in European. At this time positivistic philosophy has already filtered down to the physical sciences but it was yet to reach the social sciences. Comte became concerned with finding theoretical and practical solutions to the social anarchy of the period. He argued that the social research will only be able to serve as moral compass if it was to become a science. (ROMM, 1992: 10-11)
Popper, born in 1902, grew up in a socialist pre-Viennese society which was characterized by doctornistic views as opposed to critical thinking. Popper was intrigued by Einstein's approach to theorizing. Einstein regarded his own theory as plausible only if it failed critical tests. Popper became convinced that the only way to build strong theory was to define critical test that could refute the theory but never verify it. (ROMM, 1992: 28-29)
ROMM (1992:9-97) defines positivism with reference to the original writings of Comte (1975) and Popper (1992). He discusses this philosophy on the grounds of its definition of knowledge, the logic that governs its investigation, the methods used in investigation and the practical utility of knowledge:
2.1. The definition of knowledge.
Comte criticized theological and metaphysical view of the world. According to the theological view all abnormalities in the universe is the direct and conscious intervention of a supernatural agent, while the metaphysical view describes all phenomena as the reaction of some abstract forces, real entity or personified abstraction being invoked. Comte regarded this as untrue and incompatible with science. Comte defined phenomena as being governed by set natural laws which, if known, can be used to predict the outcomes.
These natural laws state under which circumstance we can expect to encounter a certain outcome. We can learn these laws by analyzing the circumstances that produce an outcome and drawing inference to its succession. Only by asking questions about these natural laws can we create knowledge. Asking questions about first-and-final truths is futile, because this is beyond the reach of human comprehension.
Popper agrees with Comte that a natural law is an unvarying regularity that defines the outcome that flows from a certain set of circumstances. Knowledge is added by uncovering theses laws operating in the respective fields of enquiry. According to Popper, scientist should not be sidetracked by the essentialist meaning of things (first-and-final truths) but rather in observing occurrences in the world in order to find true theories and descriptions of the world. Popper also adds that even the formulation and falsification of untrue theories advances knowledge, such that by discovering mistakes we better approximate truths.
2.2. Logic that governs its investigation.
Comte argues that observed facts are the only basis for speculation. We should observe and reason about facts to form knowledge, rather than sterile empiricism. Sound theorizing should guide our observations; science therefore is a cycle of theorizing, observing and building theories. The process of building knowledge starts by deducing or inducing a hypothesis from general theory or specialized theory respectively.
Induction is the logical formation of generalized theory form specialized consequences. For example, every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist; all life depends on liquid water to exist. Deduction is the logical formation of specialized consequences from generalized theory. A popular example, all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Comte (1975) describes a hypothesis as the 'provisional supposition, altogether conjectural in the first instance with regards to some of the notions which are the object of enquiry'. Simply put, a hypothesis states the anticipated result for undertaking a scientific enquiry. A hypothesis is valid if it is able to accurately predict what it is proposing given the initial set of circumstances.
Science therefore is the activity of observing and disclosing the new observable consequences that confirms or invalidates our primitive supposition. We constantly incorporate new knowledge by making new observations or more profound meditations that either refute or confirm our hypothesis. Through repeated scientific endeavors knowledge comes to approximate reality.
Popper's definition of a hypothesis is similar to that of Comte, but he differs in his approach of validation a hypothesis. Popper criticize Comte arguing that our experience can only falsify our theories not validate them. He postulates that a statement can only be verified as not being untrue as opposed to being true. He argues that theories can never be validated, but only corroborated. A theory is corroborated if we are, based on experience to date, unable to falsify a theory. The strength of a hypothesis lies in its openness to be tested on observations made. Popper describes science then to be the formulation of testable theories which cannot be falsified through experience.
Poppers work also introduces an additional idea of probability statements which is hypothesis with some form of probability of outcome attached. Logically these statements can never be proven to be untrue. Popper argues that this hypothesis can be corroborated if they reasonably present all possible outcomes and if they cannot be falsified given reasonable and fair samples.
Unlike Comte, Popper does not follow the notion that theories can be induced from specialized facts. With reference to the work of David Hume (1748), Popper argues that induction cannot be justified rationally. We should not go from fact to theory, but rather deduce our hypothesis into lower level statements which are individually testable hypothesis, which when falsified proving our original hypothesis wrong.
Popper argues that we should ensure purity and objectivity in our research by subjecting our decision (on whether our most basic lower level statements should be accepted) to peer criticism. Through criticism science will become unbiased and detached from individuals.
2.3. The methods used in investigation.
Compete argues that we should test our hypothesis by observing how they hold in reality. Direct observation is when we look at phenomena before our eyes. As example, in astronomy we observed that planets are elliptical with flat ends on both sides. Observation by experiments is when we observe how phenomena react to artificially modified circumstance. As example, in physics we experiment with gravity by having different particles fall to the ground. Comparison is when we observe a series of analogous cases in which the phenomena is more and more simplified. As example, imagine the comparison of the same chemical fluid under different combinations of pressure and temperature.
Popper also distinguishes between experiments and observations as the two main positivistic methods of research. He does however disagree that comparison is a methods on its own, but argues that it is inherent to the other two methods. In an experiment, as example, a researcher compares the artificially induced results with the results under normal conditions.
Both Popper and Comte both (referencing Francis Bacon) argue that empirical methods are superior as they provide objectivity to researchers that untimely removes bias from the science. They do however mention that observation should take place in all five senses, and though it might be possible to objectively measure an observed distance, it might be less possible to objectively measure smell. Qualifying these abstract observations should be done in a way that is unambiguous. For example, the distinct rotten-egg smell of H2S is widely cited in modern scientific literature.
2.4. Practical utility of knowledge.
Comte theorized that once we know a certain outcome will always occur given conditions presented we are able to produce the outcomes we want. Theories formed for truly scientific purposes will result in knowledge to be acquired, and eventually lead to practical uses. If science is able to furnish the theoretical basis for practical action, Comte hoped, we will be able to direct social outcomes. We are able to use the knowledge of the laws that govern society to correct the negative externalities in the world.
Popper argues that knowledge allow us to predict on the basis of engineering the initial conditions. With the knowledge that science provide we can plan to make their society a better and more reasonable one. We should use piece-tinkering (as termed by Popper for policy that is aimed at singular results) to mitigate unavoidable results of change rather than striving towards ideal.
3. Discussion of positivism
Ramm (1991:55) defines positivism as the belief in 'logico-deductive theory as the idealized conception of scientific theory.' Many researchers do accept the principles of the positivistic approach without explicitly noting positivism as there ontology. Positivistic research tries to find cause and effect relationships between dependent and independent variables in order to make predictions about our reality.
According to the positivistic paradigm science should seek to find all the regular laws or patters in our universe. These laws and patterns in our world exist independently of any individual cognition. We can carry out experiments or observe reality to determine cause and effect relationships and test hypotheses regarding these relationships. Aim of science is to explain the variation in the dependent variable with reference to the variation in the independent variable. (Ramm, 1992:57; Lee, 2004:8; Oates, 2007:284)
Our hypotheses can either be refuted by empirical investigation or corroborated. Some hypothesis will seem to be true for all observations made, and after reasonable peer review we can accept them to be true. If something is found to be false just once, it is false. In the positivistic ontology theories and explanations should be seen as the best knowledge that approximates reality at the current time. (Ramm, 1992:52; Oates, 2007:285)
Modern positivism is seen as the cycle between induction and deduction (Ramm, 1992:61). o Derive hypothesis from more general statements o Test these hypothesis through observation o Generate empirical generalizations o Induce theoretical principles which should again be tested.
Our observations should be tested empirically. Ramm (1992:60) notes that data collected should not be treated as formless mass; neither should theoretical categories be imposed on the data a priori. Theoretical notions become grounded in empirical observation, and data is offered theoretical treatment. Oates (2007:288) refers to this in terms of internal validity external validity. The data generated should be designed to provide the necessary insight into the research topic under observation as well as be applicable in a more general context.
According to Oates (2007:285) the techniques that lie at the center of positivistic research are:
- Reductionism: breaking complex things into smaller things that are more easy to be studies
- Repeatability: researcher don't rely on the results of just one experiment, they repeat the experiments many times to be sure that their first set of results was not just a fluke
- Refutation: If other researchers can't repeat an experiment and get the same results as the original researchers they refute they hypothesis. The more a hypothesis can stand up to test designed to refute it, the stronger it is
Oates (2007:33) lists the following possible research strategies: survey, design and creation, experiment, case study, action research, ethnography and interviews. Ramm (1992:67) suggest that the experiment and the survey are the favored methods to observe within the positivistic epistemology. The research paradigm in question is not determined by the research strategy used but rather on the shared assumptions about how to view the world. Oates (1992: 286) names five characteristics of the positivistic research ontology:
- The world exists independently of humans: Physical and social world exist independently from individual how the world works.
- Measurement and modeling: Researcher discovers this world by making observations and measurements and producing models of how it works
- Objectivity: the researcher is neutral and objective and impartial to observer
- Hypothesis testing: Research is based on the empirical testing of theories and hypotheses lead to confirmation or refutation of them
- Quantitative data analysis: Research often have a strong preference for mathematical modeling and proofs and statistical analysis
- Universal laws: A researcher looks for generalizations universal laws patterns or irrefutable facts that can be shown to be true regardless of the researcher and the occasions.
Furthermore Oates (2007:287) characterizes quality positivistic research as being,
- Objective: Research needs to be free of bias and individual preferences.
- Reliable: The research instruments used need to be neutral, accurate and reliable. Repeated use of the same instrument should yield the same results.
- Internally valid: The research methods well chosen and designed to provide the necessary insight into the research topic under observation.
- Externally valid: The research should be applicable in a more general context.
Positivism should not be confused with qualitative research, it does tend to follow apply quantitative research methods; but it should be distinguished on the grounds of its ontology (Oates, 2007:287). The Oxford (2010:1198) dictionary distinguishes quantitative research as being characterized by assigning values, measures or numbers to variables representing the entity under observation, whereas qualitative research describe entities in terms of adjectives. Both Popper (1992) and Comte (1975) mentions that empirical methods provide objectivity to researchers. Qualitative methods are not excluded from positivistic research though; they can be included in positivistic research if they are done in an objective, neutral and repeatable fashion.
Furthermore, Oates (1992) distinguishes between four data generation data generation methods: observation, interviews, questionnaires and documents. These methods fall under the ontology of positivism when they meet the characteristics listed above.
In most cases interviews are not objective and repeatable, but this research method to can be applied in the framework of positivistic research. As example, physiological ink blob tests/interviews are conducted in an objective and repeatable fashion and responses modeled and evaluated empirically.
Documents can fall inside or outside the positivistic ontology as well. They can directly provide quantified facts and measures or they can be analyzed objectively. For example, Google search engines use heuristic measures to objectively measure the relevance of internet pages.
Observation and questionnaires can also fall within or outside the scope of the positivistic ontology depending on how the research approaches are designed. Questionnaires with open ended questions falls under the interpretive approach, while questionnaires that require respondents to rate options or provide short true-false yes-no responses are positivistic. Whether observation falls within the scope of positivistic research again depends on whether this research instrument is objective and repeatable.
4. Conclusion
The essence of the positivistic approach is systematic skepticism. The proper approach is to disprove that which researcher believe is actually true. Empirical testing can never proof without a doubt a hypothesis. Science is a method by which theories are formulated and tested repeatedly and objectively against appropriate observations. It is therefore the continuous process of deciding how to observe, code and analyses our observations, and in the light of these observations we decide to temporally accept or reject the postulated hypothesis.

what is critical research paradigm?
What is Critical research paradigm?
Critical research paradigm is one of the emerging research paradigms in educational research which aims to promote democracy by making changes in different social, political, cultural, economical, ethical as well as other society oriented believes and systems. Here democracy means the people’s ability to speak without any fear from others or to have a kind of sense of freedom from the various restrictions in the society as well as the social, political, economical, cultural, religious, gender, cast barriers. It has its origins in critical theory, attributed to the philosopher as well as theorists like George Hegel in eighteenth century and Karl Marx in nineteenth century. Likewise, in critical pedagogy a key figure Paulo Freire in twenties century. According to the view point of Hammersley, n.d.; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, these prominent figures give more attention on eliminating injustices in society and the critical researchers today also aims to transform society to address inequalities, particularly in relation to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other parts of society that are marginalize. So from this we can clearly detect that critical research aims to support political agendas for bringing changes by challenging the interpretation as well as values exist in the society. Similarly, according to Comstock 1982 as cited by Sujan Kim “critical research seeks to explain social inequalities through which individuals can take actions to change in justices”. It promotes the notion of social justice in order to create the world that is fair, more impartial as well as harmonious. Likewise, according to the viewpoint of Kincheloe and McLaren (2002), critical theory is concerned with the power and justice of several issues in society such as economy, race, gender and education. Their view entails the power of social politics and ideologies which influence the educational research. This paradigm relates to the “political agenda and that the task of the researchers is not to be dispassionate, disinterested, and objective” (Morisson 1995 as cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2001, p. 28). From these view points what I have understood about critical research paradigm is, it is a part of educational research which basically deals with the oppression and inequalities in a society that attempts to emancipate an individuals as well as the certain ethnic group to gain power and have freedom from the different social, political, economical ethnic and other barriers exist in the society.

What is critical in Critical Research Paradigm?
As I read some articles to answer the first question given by our tutor; what is critical research I come up with the second answer as well, what makes critical in critical research? In the critical research paradigm there are some aspects which make it critical. As I understood one aspect is to make individuals counter or challenge the false believes exist in the society and direct them in the new trains. Another is to make an argument critically and make a critical judgment towards those believes. Moreover it also tries to capture the unheard voices within the society. In addition it attempts to question against the previous ideologies and construct the new one.