Scholars define a research paradigm differently. For some, a paradigm is defined as the broad framework, comprising perception, beliefs and understanding of several theories and practices that are used to conduct research (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000). A paradigm is a way of thinking about and conducting research; it is a philosophy that guides how the research is to be conducted (Modesto and Tichapondwa, 2016). A general assumption drawn from this definition is that a research paradigm is a worldview, which involves numerous phases created by a researcher to link the research objectives with the research (Creswell and Poth, 2017; Holloway and Galvin, 2016;
Padgett, 2016; Eisner, 2017). In research, the choice of a paradigm relies on the link that it has with the research philosophy; it concerns itself with attitudes, viewpoints, ideas, thinking, beliefs, values and interpretations of how the world works (Padgett, 2016). Modesto et al. (2016) established that a research paradigm and philosophy embrace various dynamics, such as the individual mental model, the way of viewing life, different views and perceptions, and a diversity of beliefs towards reality. The concept influences the beliefs and values of the researcher, so that they can provide valid arguments and operational terminology. Gliner and Morgan (2000) and Modesto and Tichapondwa (2016) claim that the fact that a paradigm affects the researcher’s beliefs and values, has the potential of producing possible research results. Thus, determining the research paradigm is important for the credibility of the study.
Some scholars have noted that there are four main research paradigms in research methodology:
post-positivism, constructivism, also called interpretivism, transformative and pragmatism (Bachman and Schutt, 2017; Creswell, 2013; Mertens, 2013; Goldkuhl, 2012; Pouliot, 2007; Hopf, 1998). Some scholars are in favour of a new research paradigm called philosophical realism, which is gaining momentum in the philosophy of science (Blanton and Kegley, 2016; Creswell and Poth, 2017; Nye Jr. and Welch, 2016). Table 4.1 shows the main research paradigms.
Table 4.1: Main research paradigms
Post-positivism Constructivism
• Determination
• Reductionism
• Empirical observation and measurement
• Theory Verification
• Understanding
• Multiple participant meanings
• Social and historical construction
• Theory generation
Transformative Pragmatism
• Political
• Power and justice orientation
• Collaborative
• Change-orientation
• Consequences of actions
• Problem centred
• Pluralistic
• Real-world practice orientation Source: Creswell (2013)
The first four research paradigms (i.e. post-positivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatism) are summarised in Table 4.1. A more detailed discussion of philosophical realism is given next.
4.2.1 Positivism
Modesto and Tichapondwa (2016) assert that positivism is derived from that of natural science and is characterised by the testing of hypothesis developed from existing theory. There is therefore the concept of deductive or theory testing, through measurement of observable social realities (Modesto and Tichapondwa, 2016). The position presumes that:
• The social world exists objectively and externally;
• Knowledge is valid only if it is based on observations of the external reality, and
• Universal or general laws exist.
Theoretical models can be developed that are generalizable and can explain cause and effect relationships, leading to predicting outcomes (Modesto and Tichapondwa, 2016). Modesto and Tichapondwa (2016) agree with Cooper and Schindler (2006), who posit that positivism is directly associated with objectivism. In this paradigm, the researcher refrains from using their own beliefs to influence the value of the study (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008).
4.2.2 Constructivism
Creswell (2013) submits that there is a direct contrast between constructivism and positivism.
Constructivism is also termed interpretivism. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) postulate that constructivism shows a general fundamental difference drawn between the subject matters of natural sciences and social sciences (Jervis, 2017; Beyer, 2017; Olssen, 2017). It is important for this study to discuss this concept because researchers carry along their beliefs and values as they try to adequately justify their research problem. It is the contention of Denzin and Lincoln (2003) that constructivists contemplate a multiplicity of realties in research paradigms. Appropriate steps taken to avoid bias in the mind of the researcher during the study are of great value to the results of the study (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008).
4.2.3 Transformative
The transformative paradigm arose partly because of the dissatisfaction with the traditional research approaches by people who had experienced discrimination and oppression such as feminists, people of colour, indigenous people, and people with disabilities (Mertens, 2014). The transformative assumption holds that research enquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and political change, which confront social oppression of marginalised people in our society (Creswell, 2013). This type of research enquiry gives a picture of issues being examined, the people to be studied and the change that is needed such as a feminist perspective.
4.2.4 Realism
Realism focuses on authenticity and principles that already exist in the surroundings. Philosophical realism substitutes both positivism or empiricism and constructivism as a standpoint for study and assesSMEsnt in the social sciences (Blanton and Kegley, 2016). Some scholars also posit that there are three types of paradigms to understand the reality (Jørgensen, 2017; Baylis, Owens; Smith, 2017; O’Toole, 2016; Futonge, 2017; Lennox and Jurdi-Hage, 2017; Modesto and Tichapondwa, 2016). These are positivism, interpretivism and realism (Weed, 2017; O’Toole, 2016; Futonge, 2017, Grant, 2017). These scholars contend that these paradigms are the most commonly referenced in the literature (Jervis, 2017; O’Toole, 2016; Grant, 2017). Modesto and Tichapondwa (2016) further declare that realism paradigms are chosen both for their prevalence in mixed methods research and because they effectively form the poles from which other paradigms are developed or derived.
4.2.5 Pragmatism
Sekaran and Bougie (2013) assert that any research is based on either objective, recognizable phenomenon or subjective significances, which makes it capable to produce valued knowledge dependent upon the research questions designed for the study. Other scholars advocate that researchers focus on the research problem and utilise all methods to understand the problem at hand (Creswell, 2013; Mertens, 2014). This is what is entailed by pragmatism. In this study, therefore, the researcher makes efforts to investigate both subjective as well as objective opinions. The researcher opted to use pragmatic approach for this same reason in concurrence with Modesto and Tichapondwa.
It can be summarized that the positivism paradigm is closely linked with quantitative research, while the constructivism paradigm synchronises with qualitative research (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2017; Orsi, 2016; Dwyer, Čorak and Tomljenović, 2017). On the contrary, this study used a mixed methods approach to achieve its research objectives. The pragmatic approach was, therefore, adopted in this study because it is closely linked to mixed methods research.