‘Research philosophy’ refers to a system of assumptions and beliefs about knowledge development (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2019:130). The process of research involves researchers making decisions on paradigms, worldviews or assumptions informing their research methodology (Creswell 2014:35). The term paradigm was first introduced by Kuhn in 1970 (Kuhn 1970:10). Kuhn defined a paradigm as “an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools (Kuhn 1970:10). Johnson and
153
Christensen (2014:79) defined research paradigm as a perspective or worldview held by a community of researchers about research, founded on common assumptions, values, practices and concepts. Putting the picture into a broader perspective, Morgan (2007:50-51) proposed the following fourfold views to explain the paradigm concept as construed in the social sciences:
i. Paradigms as world views (all-encompassing perspectives on the world);
ii. Paradigms as epistemological stances (ontology, epistemology and methodology from the philosophy of knowledge);
iii. Paradigms as shared beliefs among members of a specialty area (pertaining to the nature of questions and answers in a field of research; and
iv. Paradigms as model examples of research (depend on existing typical examples of best solutions to problems).
The paradigmatic position of research is normally represented in ontological, epistemological, methodological and axiological terms as described below:
i. Ontology defined by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2019:133) as researchers’ assumptions about the nature of social reality. The present study conformed to an interactive ontology which used the mind dependent constructionist perspective to understand existing digital archiving practices and challenges experienced, and thereafter develop a framework to enhance the management of digital archives in public universities.
ii. Epistemology defined by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2019:133) as knowledge assumptions, what makes up acceptable, legitimate and legal knowledge, and how this knowledge can be communicated to others. The epistemology for the present study derived from an interpretivist approach whereby the principles entrenched in the theoretical framework for the study were realistically mapped and adopted into the study scenario to develop a framework.
iii. Methodology referring to how we find out that reality (Johnson and Christensen 2014:81). Qualitative and quantitative methodologies were applied in line with the pragmatic paradigm.
iv. Axiology defined as the ethical values upheld during the process of inquiry, that is, the role of ethics and values (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill
154
(2019:134; Guba 1990 in Johnson and Christensen 2014:81). The study was undertaken in conformance to ethical requirements stipulated by the UKZN.
All scientific inquiries conform to particular world views with specific philosophical assumptions which underpin the research and determine the study’s credibility (Gringeri, Barusch and Cambron 2013a:762; Farquhar 2012:88). Therefore, acknowledging the foundations of our beliefs and appreciating the beliefs held by others lends credibility to research (Johnston 2014:23). Babbie (2010:33) buttressed that when researchers acknowledge that they are operating in a particular paradigm, they are able to benefit from stepping outside the precincts of their own paradigm to better understand the seemingly weird opinions and activities of others operating in a different paradigm. Matter-of-factly, there’s no specific or right paradigm for a given type of research study. The choice of research paradigms remains a thorny issue, and the least common among social scientists is the issue of model examples of research (Hall 2020:21), as there is no consensus on what constitutes model research, but that which works best for a particular study.
A good number of paradigms have been developed by scholars, all of which have predominantly been grouped into two main categories namely positivist and constructive/interpretivist paradigms. Scholars such as Romm and Ngulube (2015:159) proposed a third paradigm which borrows from the two, known as the pragmatic paradigm. The differing epistemological and ontological perspectives of researchers lead researchers to choose dissimilar methodological research approaches while investigating the same research problem, though most research studies are anchored against a background of non-critical paradigms, that is, constructive or positivist paradigms (Asghar 2013:3121). In support of this assertion, Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011:38) argued that there are no defined paradigms for studies, noting that “paradigms or worldviews are neither right nor wrong; one way of seeing is another way of not seeing…” Nevertheless, researchers should select a paradigm with assumptions that will be supported most appropriately by the phenomenon under study (Kawulich 2012:2) as illustrated in Figure 4.2. This notwithstanding, researchers should clearly discuss their research paradigms to enable readers gain understanding of the assumptions and philosophical foundations framing their research (Gringeri, Barusch and Cambron 2013b:57).
155
Figure 4.2 Considerations when choosing research paradigms (Source: Kawulich 2012:3)
Positivism paradigm was propounded by French philosopher Auguste Comte, who submitted that behavior can be understood through observation and reason (Shah and Al-Bargi 2013:254), hence the only way to establish truth and objective reality is through the scientific method. The paradigm holds that the procedures, techniques and methods used in the natural sciences provide the most appropriate approach for investigating the social world (Pickard 2013:20). Researchers conforming to this paradigm adopt scientific methods applied in natural sciences to objectively study social phenomena (Shah and Al-Bargi 2013:254). Thus, positivists make use of numerical and empirical languages (quantitative methodologies) unlike interpretivists who utilize descriptive language (qualitative methodologies) in describing their studies (Asghar 2013:3122). Positivistic thinking takes a realism ontological stance which assumes that reality is out there awaiting discovery by researchers using conventional and scientific methodologies (Shah and Al-Bargi 2013:254).
In contrast to the positivist paradigm is the interpretivist or constructivist paradigm (also referred to as the anti-positivist, naturalistic or humanistic paradigm), which features commonly in psychology, anthropology and sociology studies (Shah and Al-