Barriers affecting adult women living with Dementia.

21JARNA Volume 21 Number 3 December 2018

Understanding research paradigms

Clare Davies* RN, RSCN, MPhil (Nursing), BSc (Hons) Community Health, Grad Cert Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Lecturer in Nursing, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sydney

Email [email protected]

Murray Fisher RN, PhD, DipAppSc (Nursing), BHSc (Nursing), MHPEd, ITU Cert Associate Professor, Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sydney

Nursing Scholar in Residence, Royal Rehab *Corresponding author

Research in brief

Keywords: Research, methodology, paradigms.

Introduction

In order to better understand research methodology, nurses need

an understanding of research paradigms. Paradigms can be

described as different ways of viewing the world and often form

the foundation from which research is undertaken. They consist

of a set of assumptions about what is reality, how knowledge

is created and what is valuable to learn. It is important that

researchers are clear about their own beliefs and assumptions

in this regard. In understanding paradigms and their impact

upon the research process, nurses will be better positioned

to understand the nature of research questions, why particular

methodologies are used to answer those questions and how

data collected is analysed and interpreted (Weaver & Olson,

2006). Consequently, this will assist nurses in developing a

clearer understanding of how to critique research, how research

results can be translated to their clinical practice and, ultimately,

how to undertake research themselves (Scotland, 2012).

What is a research paradigm?

Put simply, a paradigm is a world view, or a belief system. It is

the lens through which we see the world around us. In research,

the paradigm governs how we ask research questions and

conduct the research. A research paradigm consists of several

components: the nature of reality or truth (ontology) which

asks the question “What is reality?”; the nature of knowledge

(epistemology) “What does it mean to know?” ; the nature of

values (axiology) “What is valuable to know?”, and; the strategy

used (methodology) “How do we find out?”. (Creswell, 2014).

Table 1 provides a comparison of the major paradigms for each

of these components.

It is important to note that there is often overlap between

paradigms and they are not always exclusive of one another. This

can cause confusion for the novice researcher, as often paradigm

arguments in the literature can seem contradictory and may

differ from publication to publication. However, they are often a

starting point for a researcher, allowing them to conceptualise

and articulate the research approach and provide them with a

foundation to work from when designing their study.

What are the major paradigms in scientific inquiry?

There are a number of research paradigms, and numerous

sources in the literature that explain and define them (Atkinson

& Delamont, 2011; Creswell, 2014; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018;

Vogt, 2011). Here, we provide you with an overview of the

major paradigms in scientific inquiry: positivist, post-positivist,

interpretive, critical and pragmatic.

The scientific paradigm/positivism

The scientific paradigm developed from the period in history

known as the Enlightenment. This was the 18th century

intellectual movement that challenged traditional religious views

and emphasised knowledge and reasoning (Scotland, 2012).

Positivism is based on the assumption that there is one, single

reality (ontology) and that in order to know this single reality,

the study of a phenomenon must be undertaken with objectivity

and detached impartiality (epistemology). In order to discover

this single reality in an objective way, positivist methodology

is experimental in nature, tests predetermined hypotheses

or theories and usually uses rigorous, quantitative research

methods with large sample sizes (Oliver, 2010). The positivist

22 Volume 21 Number 3 December 2018 JARNA

researcher is detached from the research participant in order

to eliminate bias and is often blinded to specific conditions of

the research study. The objective of positivist research is to

produce data that is predictive, generalisable to a population or

situation and relies upon the concept of probability (the measure

of likelihood of something occurring) (Dorey, 2010). It employs

deductive reasoning, a thought process whereby hypotheses are

predetermined and general (what is already known), that is then

applied to what is being tested (Schneider, Haber, LoBiondo-

Wood & Whitehead, 2013). When reported, positivist research

will usually reduce data to numerical indices. A research study that

comes from a positivist perspective will often use experimental

methodologies and data collection methods. Positivism is

criticised by some for not taking into account individuality or the

subjectivity of human experiences (Schneider et al., 2013).

An example of research from the positivist paradigm is the

work conducted by McKechnie et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2018)

who undertook a series of quantitative studies to identify

the characteristics that could be used to predict falls in the

inpatient traumatic brain injury rehabilitation population. Using

a convenience sample of consecutively admitted patients

(N=140) in three metropolitan inpatient brain injury rehabilitation

units, McKechnie et al. (2018) found that a model including five

weighted predictors provided the best predictive validity of fallers

in this population. The resultant tool had better predictive validity

than the Ontario Modified STRATIFY falls risk screening tool.

Post-positivism

Post-positivism was developed as an approach to research

that recognised that human behaviour is complex and that the

positivist objective of unbiased, objective reporting of research

was not always possible (Clark, 1998). Post-positivist research

is based on a critical realist ontology, the belief that there is a

single reality but we cannot know it for sure, and a modified

objectivist epistemology, meaning that pure objectivity is

impossible (Sharma, 2010).

Post-positivist research uses a triangulation of approaches to

research, as it is grounded in the belief that there is no perfect

way of determining the truth, and that using different approaches

allows the weakness of one approach to be offset by the strength

of another. Triangulation can occur within methodologies,

methods and data analysis (Oliver, 2010).

Characteristics Positivist Post-positivist Interpretive Critical Pragmatic

Other names Scientific Naturalistic, constructivist

Emancipatory

Aim Production of predictive, generalisable data

Uncover meaning of reality as understood by individuals or groups

Description, exploration and understanding of experience

Raise awareness and elicit social change

Solving “real world” problems

Ontology Single reality; real world driven by natural causes

Critical realism Multiple subjective realities mentally constructed by individuals

Historical realism Single and multiple realities

Epistemology Researcher objectivity and detached impartiality; control

Modified objectivity Researcher entwined in production of knowledge; dialectical

Knowledge is socially constructed

None

Research methods Quantitative Qualitative and quantitative — triangulation

Qualitative Qualitative Quantitative and qualitative

Common designs/ methodologies

Descriptive, cohort, cross-sectional, case control, experimental, randomised control trials

Modified experimental, critical multiplism

Phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, narrative, biographical

Neo-Marxist, Feminist Research, Queer Theory, Participatory Action Research

Mixed methods research

Criticisms Does not take into account individual experiences

Does not always produce well defined answers

Limited transferability and generalisability

Does not always guarantee its aims of emancipation

Flexibility in approach can lead to confusion

Table 1: A summary of the characteristics of each of the major paradigms

Adapted from (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018)

23JARNA Volume 21 Number 3 December 2018

Post-positivist research often uses both qualitative and

quantitative methods but is criticised for not always producing

well-defined answers to research questions (Sharma, 2010)

Interpretive paradigm

An interpretive paradigm (also referred to a naturalistic or

constructivist paradigm) takes an anti-positivist approach and is

based on a relativist ontology. Relativism views reality as being

subjective and differs from person to person (Guba & Lincoln,

1994). It does not accept the concept of a single reality and

aims to describe, explore and understand the context of naturally

occurring events. As opposed to the positivist approach, an

interpretive approach employs inductive reasoning, where

theories are not tested, but developed from specific observations

(Schneider et al., 2013).

Interpretive research uses qualitative research methods with

small samples sizes in an attempt to collect rich, in-depth

data that describes the individual experiences of those being

studied (Schreier, 2018). Rather than trying to be impartial and

detached from the research process, qualitative researchers

recognise that they cannot be separated from the research

or the people involved. Interpretive research is dialectical; it is

through dialogue and interaction between the subject and the

researcher that findings are generated. The researcher sees

themselves as entwined in the knowledge being produced and

acknowledge their possible biases, rather than trying to eliminate

them (Charmaz, 2014). Therefore, interpretive research is a

deeply self-reflective process for the researcher.

There are a number of methodological approaches that

are derived from the interpretive paradigm. Each of these

approaches is guided by a particular philosophical stance, for

example, phenomenology, grounded theory or ethnography. Data

collection methods may include observation, interviews and/or

focus groups (Flick, 2018). Interpretive approaches are criticised

by some for their limited transferability and the inability to apply

the results to a general population. Policy makers tend to like

generalisable results and therefore can be reluctant to fund

interpretive research (Scotland, 2012).

An example of research from the interpretive paradigm is a

grounded theory study that explored “clinicians’ experiences of

implementing goal setting with community dwelling clients with

acquired brain injury, to develop a goal setting practice framework”

(Prescott, Fleming & Doig, 2018, p. 2388). Using a Straussian

approach to grounded theory, Prescott et al. (2018) conducted

a series of semi-structured interviews, drawing on participant

experiences and opinions of goal-setting processes using

everyday practice to engage clients. All interviews were audio

recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed

using open coding to extract key concepts that were further

tested in subsequent interviews. In this research all participants’

stories are different and are equally valued. The results describe

a three-phase process where clinicians actively engage clients in

goal setting. It is acknowledged that contextual factors influence

how clients and clinicians engage in this process.

Critical paradigm

The critical paradigm aims to raise awareness and promote

social change. Its purpose is often to empower groups who are

marginalised, or to investigate inequalities or social injustices,

and is sometimes referred to as emancipatory research (Denzin,

2016). Critical research is based in the ontological position

of historical realism and the epistomological position of social

constructivism, believing knowledge to be socially and historically

constructed (Scotland, 2012).

There are a number of critical research approaches that are

guided by different philosophical ideological positions; for

example feminist research, queer theory or participatory action

research are all emancipatory methodologies. Critical research

generally uses qualitative research methods to collect data and

will often seek participant involvement in the research process

in order to address inequalities in the researcher/participant

relationship and to empower those individuals to take action

for themselves (Given, 2008). However, changing systems

of oppression is not easy and the emancipation of research

participants cannot be guaranteed; therefore this paradigm is

often criticised for not fulfilling its intention (Scotland, 2012).

In an example of feminist research, Fish and Hatton (2017)

examined the gendered experiences of physical restraint on

locked wards for women with a mild to moderate intellectual

disability. The feminist analysis focused on the women’s

embodied experiences in the context of a power structure that

incorporates gender and disability. This study aimed to challenge

existing power relationships in treatment, and attitudes towards

women with intellectual disabilities in order to explore new

responses to policy and practice.

Pragmatic paradigm

Pragmatism views the traditional research paradigms as being

prescriptive in their approach to undertaking research, and

24 Volume 21 Number 3 December 2018 JARNA

believes that they constrain intellectual curiosity. It avoids

the ontological and epistemological arguments that have

led to paradigm tensions between positivist and interpretive

approaches, acknowledging that there are single and multiple

realities, while turning its attention to solving “real world”

problems rather than focusing on philosophical positioning

(Feilzer, 2010). Mixed methods research is a methodology that

is based on pragmatism and may employ both quantitative and

qualitative methods of data collection. It has grown in popularity

in recent years as researchers try to address the failing of

other approaches and “do what works” (Morgan, 2014). Mixed

methods researchers should have skills in both quantitative and

qualitative research design. There is criticism of this paradigm

due to its flexible approach and the potential for confusion to

arise during design and interpretation of mixed methods research

(Schneider et al., 2013).

Hawkins, McGuire, Linder and Britt (2015a) undertook a mixed

methods study, used an “explanatory sequential mixed methods

study design to understand the influence of contextual factors

on community reintegration among injured, community-dwelling

service members” (p. 528). The first phase, a quantitative study,

consisted of a sample of 51 individuals who completed an

online survey. The survey measured community reintegration

(participation), environmental factors (including attitudes and

support, services and assistance, physical and structural,

policies, and work and school), personal factors (including self-

efficacy) and background variables (including age, sex, military

background, time since injury, severity of injury, and rehabilitation

program attended) (Hawkins, McGuire, Britt & Linder, 2015b).

Statistical procedures such as multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) and discriminant analysis were used to determine

the relative contribution of contextual factors on discriminating

the cluster levels of community reintegration (Hawkins et al.,

2015b). The second phase was a qualitative study using

phenomenology and participant interviews to understand the

subjective experience of injured service members and explain

how contextual factors influence the different cluster levels of

community reintegration (Hawkins et al., 2015a). Participants

in phase two were selected based on their cluster affiliation for

level of community reintegration as identified in phase one.

Conclusion

A research paradigm is a set of assumptions about the nature

of reality and how knowledge is created. Paradigms are

influential in determining research questions, methodology,

methods and the way data is collected and analysed; there

should be demonstrated congruence between these in any

research study. This article presented a brief overview of the

major research paradigms in order to provide the reader with a

preliminary understanding of the topic. With an understanding

of the philosophical underpinning of research studies, nurses

and novice researchers are better positioned to be able to

comprehend, critically analyse and apply the research they read

to their clinical practice.

“ Wit h an u n d e r s t an d i ng o f t h e p hi l o s o p hi c a l u n d e r p i nni ng o f re s e arch s t u d i e s , nu r s e s an d n o v i c e re s e arch e r s are

b e t t e r p o s i t i o n e d t o b e ab l e t o c o mp reh e n d , c r i t i c a l ly an aly s e

an d ap p ly t h e re s e arch t h e y re a d t o t h e i r c l i n i c a l p ra c t i c e . ”

References Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2011). SAGE qualitative research methods.

Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (2014). An Invitation to Grounded Theory. In K. Charmaz (Ed.), Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd edn, pp. 1–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, A. M. (1998). The qualitative-quantitative debate: Moving from positivism and confrontation to post-positivism and reconciliation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(6), 1242–1249. doi:10.1046/ j.1365-2648.1998.00651.x

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th edn). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, N. K. (2016). Critical Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative inquiry, 23(1), 8–16. doi:10.1177/1077800416681864

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th edn). Los Angeles: Sage.

Dorey, F. (2010). The p value: what is it and what does it tell you? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(8), 2297–2298. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1402-9

Feilzer, Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691

Fish, R., & Hatton, C. (2017). Gendered experiences of physical restraint on locked wards for women. Disability and Society, 32(6), 790– 809.

Flick, U. (2018). Doing qualitative data collection — charting the routes. . In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 3–16). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub. com/reference/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-collection. doi:10.4135/9781526416070

25JARNA Volume 21 Number 3 December 2018

Given, L. (2008). Critical Action Research. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). London: Sage.

Hawkins, B., McGuire, F., Linder, S., & Britt, T., (2015a) Understanding contextual influences of community reintegration among injured servicemembers. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 52(5), 527–542.

Hawkins, B., McGuire, F., Britt, T., & Linder, S., (2015b) Identifying contextual influences of community reintegration among injured servicemembers. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 52(5), 527–542.

McKechnie, D., Fisher, M. J., Pryor, J., Bonser, M., & De Jesus, J. (2018) Development of the Sydney Falls Risk Screening Tool (SFRST) in brain injury rehabilitation: A multisite prospective cohort study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27 (5–6): 958–968.

McKechnie, D., Fisher, M. J., & Pryor, J. (2016a) A Case-control study of faller characteristics in an inpatient traumatic brain injury rehabilitation setting. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 31(2): E59–E70.

McKechnie, D., Fisher, M. J., & Pryor, J. (2016b) The characteristics of falls in an inpatient traumatic brain injury rehabilitation setting. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(1–2):213–222.

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. doi:10.1177/1077800413513733

Oliver, P. (2010). The scientific method. In Understanding the Research Process (pp. 67–80). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/books/understanding-the-research- process. doi:10.4135/9781446279373

Prescott, S., Fleming, J., & Doig, E., (2018) Rehabilitation goal setting with community dwelling adults with acquired brain injury: a theoretical framework derived from clinician’s reflections on practice. Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(20), 2388–2399.

Schneider, Z., Haber, J., LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Whitehead, D. (2013). Nursing and midwifery research: methods and appraisal for evidence-based practice (4th edn). Chatswood, NSW: Mosby.

Schreier, M. (2018). Sampling and generalization. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 88–97). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/ reference/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-collection. doi:10.4135/9781526416070

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16.

Sharma, B. (2010). Postpositivism. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.

Vogt, W. P. (2011). SAGE quantitative research methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 459–469. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03740.x

Copyright of Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses' Association (JARNA) is the property of Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses' Association (ARNA) Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.