example of research paradigm in research paper

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Paradigm? Types of Research Paradigms with Examples

If you’re a researcher, you’ve probably heard the term “ research paradigm .” And, if you are a researcher, especially if you haven’t been trained under the social sciences, you are probably confused by the concept of a research paradigm . What is a research paradigm? How does it apply to my research? Why is it important? 

Research paradigms refer to the beliefs and assumptions that provide the structure for your research. These can be characteristics of your discipline or even your personal beliefs. For example, if you are a physical scientist and you are conducting research on the performance of a newly developed catalyst for removing chemical impurities from drinking water, your study is probably based on the premise that there is one reality, and your results will show that the new product either works better or it doesn’t. However, if your research discipline is education and you’re looking at the effects of parental literacy rates on the literacy or academic success of their children, you will not expect a such a definite result, and you may be examining your topic from different viewpoints, such as cultural or socio-economic. Your findings will then depend on those assumptions, beliefs, and biases.  

The rest of this article will try to clarify the concept of research paradigms, provide a research paradigm definition, and offer some examples of different types of research paradigms . While years of study may not completely clear up your confusion about research paradigms , perhaps you will think a little better of them and how they can help you in your work and maybe even in your personal life.  

Table of Contents

What is a research paradigm?  

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a paradigm is “ a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated. ” 1 As applied in the context of research, a research paradigm is a worldview or philosophical framework, including ideas, beliefs, and biases, that guides the research process. The research paradigm in which a study is situated helps determine the manner in which the research will be conducted.  

The research paradigm is the framework into which the theories and practices of your discipline fit to create the research plan. This foundation guides all areas of your research plan, including the aim of the study, research question, instruments or measurements used, and analysis methods.   

Most research paradigms are based on one of two model types: positivism or interpretivism. These guide the theories and methodologies used in the research project. In general, positivist research paradigms lead to quantitative studies and interpretivist research paradigms lead to qualitative studies. Of course, there are many variations of both of these research paradigm types, some of which lead to mixed-method studies.  

What are the three pillars of research paradigms ?     

So, now you may be asking, what makes up a research paradigm ? How are they formed and categorized? The research paradigm framework is supported by three pillars: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Some scholars have recently begun adding another pillar to research paradigms : ethics or axiology. However, this article will only discuss the three traditional aspects, which together define the research paradigm and provide the base on which to build your research project.  

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality. Is there a single reality, multiple realities, or no reality at all? These are the questions that the philosophy of ontology attempts to answer. The oft-used example of an ontological question is “Does God exist?” Two possible single realities exist: yes or no.  

Think about your research project with this in mind; that is, does a single reality exist within your research? If you’re a medical researcher, the answer is probably yes. You’re looking for specific results that ideally have clear yes or no answers. If you’re an anthropologist, there probably isn’t one clear, specific answer to your research question but multiple possible realities, and the study results are interpreted through the researcher’s viewpoint or paradigm.  

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we can know reality. It incorporates the extent and ways to gain knowledge and how to validate that knowledge. A frequently used example question in epistemology is “How is it possible to know whether or not God exists?”  

The epistemology of your research project will help determine your approach to your study. For example, if the medical researcher believes there is one singular truth, an objective approach will be taken. On the other hand, if the anthropologist believes in multiple realities viewed through a cultural lens, the research results will be more subjective and understood only in the proper context. This difference divides research studies into those using quantitative and qualitative techniques.  

Methodology is the study of how one investigates the environment and validates the knowledge gained. It attempts to answer the question “how to go about discovering the answer/reality.” Addressing this pillar leads to specific data collection and analysis plans.   

The medical researcher may create a research plan that includes a clinical trial, during which blood tests that measure a specific protein are conducted. These results are then analyzed, with a focus on differences within groups. The anthropologist, on the other hand, may conduct observations, examine artifacts, or set up interviews to determine certain aspects of reality within the context of a group’s culture. In this situation, yes or no answers are not sought but a truth is discovered.  

What is the purpose of research paradigms ?  

Put all the information about the three pillars of a research paradigm together, and you can see the purpose of research paradigms . Research paradigms establish the structure and foundation for a research project.   

Once the research paradigm has been determined, an appropriate research plan can be created. The philosophical basis of the study guides what knowledge is sought, how that knowledge can be discovered, and how to form the collected information or data into the knowledge being sought. The research paradigm clearly outlines the path to investigate your topic. This brings clarity to your study and improves the quality of your methods and analysis.  

In addition, it is important for researchers to understand how their own beliefs, assumptions, and biases can affect the research process. The study’s data collection, analysis, and interpretation will be impacted by the worldview of the researcher. Knowing the underlying research paradigm and how it frames the study allows researchers to better understand the effect of their perspective on the study results.   

Types of research paradigms  

As mentioned previously, there are two basic types of research paradigms , from which other frequently used paradigms are derived. This section will briefly describe these two major research paradigms .   

Positivist paradigm – Proponents of a positivist paradigm believe that there is a single reality that can be measured and understood. Therefore, these researchers are likely to utilize quantitative methods in their studies. The research process for positivist paradigm studies tend to propose an empirical hypothesis, which is then supported or refuted through the data collection and analysis. Positivists approach research in an objective manner and statistically investigate the existence of quantitative relationships between variables instead of looking for the qualitative reason behind those relationships. Researchers who subscribe to this paradigm also believe that the results of one study can be generalized to similar situations. Positivist paradigms are most frequently used by physical scientists.  

Interpretivism paradigm – Interpretivists believe in the existence of multiple realities rather than a single reality. This is the research paradigm used by the majority of qualitative studies conducted in the social sciences. Interpretivism holds that because human behavior is so complex, it cannot be studied by probabilistic models, such as those used under positivist paradigms . Knowledge can only be created by interpreting the meanings that people put on behaviors and events. Therefore, studies employing this framework are necessarily subjective and are greatly affected by the researcher’s personal viewpoint. Interpretivist paradigm research is conducted within the reality of those being studied, not in a contrived environment such as a laboratory. Because of the nature of interpretivist studies, their results are only valid under the particular circumstances of the study and are usually not generalizable.   

Research paradigm examples    

Positivist and interpretivist research paradigms , sometimes referred to as quantitative and qualitative paradigms, are the two major approaches to research. However, many other variations of these have been used. Following are brief descriptions of some of the more popular of these research paradigm variations.  

Pragmatism paradigm – Pragmatists believe that reality is continually changing amid the flow of constantly changing situations. Therefore, rather than use a single research paradigm , they employ the framework that is most applicable to the research question they are examining. Both qualitative and quantitative techniques are often used as positivist and interpretivist approaches are combined. Pragmatists believe that the best research method is the one that will most effectively address the research question.  

Constructivist paradigm – Like interpretivists, constructivists believe that there are numerous realities, not a single reality. The constructivist paradigm holds that people construct their own understanding of the world through experiencing and reflecting on those experiences. Constructivist research seeks to understand the meanings that people attach to those experiences. Therefore, qualitative techniques, such as interviews and case studies, are frequently used. Constructivists are seeking the “why” of events. Constructivism is also a popular theory of learning that focuses on how children and other learners create knowledge from their experiences and learn better through experimentation than through direct instruction.  

Post-positivism paradigm – Post-positivists veer away from the concept of reality as being an absolute certainty and view it instead in a more probabilistic manner, thus taking a more subjective viewpoint. They believe that research outcomes can never be totally objective and a researcher’s worldview and biases can never be completely removed from the research results.  

Transformative paradigm – Proponents of transformative research reject both positivism and interpretivism, believing that these frameworks do not accurately represent the experiences of marginalized communities. Transformative researchers generally use both qualitative and quantitative techniques to better understand the disparities in community relationships, support social justice, and ultimately ensure transformative change.    

Combining research paradigms    

While most research is based on either a positivist (quantitative) or interpretivist (qualitative) foundations, some studies combine both. For example, quantitative and qualitative techniques are frequently used together in psychology studies. These types of studies are referred to as mixed-method research. Some research paradigms are themselves combinations of other paradigms and frequently employ all the associated research methods. Post-positivism combines the paradigms of positivism and interpretivism.  

5 steps to a paradigm shift  

Research studies aren’t the only things that can be considered to have paradigms. Researchers themselves bring a specific worldview to their work and produce higher quality work when they are aware of the effect their perspective has on their results. Understanding all the aspects of a personal paradigm, including beliefs, habits, and behaviors, can make it possible for that paradigm to be changed. Here are suggested steps to successfully shift your personal paradigm and increase the quality of your research 2 .  

• Identify the paradigm element you want to change – what part of your worldview do you want to change? What habitual or hidden behavior may be adversely affecting your research or your life? 
• Write down your goals – setting specific desired outcomes and putting them down on paper sets them in your subconscious.   
• Adjust your mindset – intentionally influencing your thoughts to support your goals can motivate you to create the change you want. Some suggested activities to help with this include journaling, reading motivational books, and spending time with like-minded people.  
• Do uncomfortable things – you need to get out of your comfort zone to effect real change. This will get your subconscious out of its usual habits and move you toward your goal.  
• Practice being who you want to be – the change you want will become solidified and part of your new paradigm once you break out of your old habit and keep repeating the new behavior so as to cement it in your subconscious.  

References:  

• Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm [Accessed March 10, 2023]  
• What is research paradigm – explanation and examples. Peachy Essay. https://peachyessay.com/blogs/what-is-research-paradigm/ [Accessed March 10, 2023]  

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Research Paper Appendix: Format and Examples

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

Research Paradigms: Explanation and Examples

4-minute read

• 1st March 2022

Are you planning a research project? If so, you’ll need a research paradigm. But what exactly is a research paradigm, and why is it important? This blog post will cover the following:

●  The definition of a research paradigm

●  Why research paradigms are important

●  Common examples of research paradigms

●  Merging research paradigms

●  Expert editing and proofreading

Read on to find out more or learn about research paradigms in the video below!

The Definition of a Research Paradigm

A research paradigm is a philosophical framework that your research is based on. It offers a pattern of beliefs and understandings from which the theories and practices of your research project operate.

A research paradigm consists of ontology, epistemology, and research methodology .

●  Ontology answers the question: “What is reality?” That is, does a single reality exist within your research? An example of an ontological question would be: “Does God exist?” There are two possible realities (or ontologies) in response to this question: “Yes, God exists,” or “No, God does not exist.”

●  Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It answers the question: “How is it possible to know reality?” Epistemology incorporates the validity, parameters, and methods of acquiring knowledge. An example of an epistemological question would be: “How is it possible to know whether God exists or not?”

●  Research Methodology answers the question: “How do we go about discovering the answer or reality?” This includes the process of data collection and analysis. Research methodology should outline how you conduct your research and demonstrate that the findings are valid.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Together, ontology and epistemology comprise research philosophy.

Research philosophy combined with research methodology comprises a research paradigm.

Why Are Research Paradigms Important?

Research paradigms are important because they form the philosophical basis of a research project. Research paradigms influence how different schools of learning (such as the sciences versus the humanities) undertake their research. Once a research philosophy has been determined, an appropriate methodology can be chosen.

Furthermore, a knowledge of the philosophical foundation of your research will increase its quality and improve your performance in any analysis you may have to undergo!

Common Examples of Research Paradigms

1. Positivism

Positivists believe that there’s a single reality that’s possible to measure and understand. Because of this, they’re most likely to use quantitative methods in their research. Typically, positivists propose a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved using statistical data analysis. Positivism tends to investigate the existence of a relationship between two variables rather than the reason behind it.

2. Constructivism

Constructivists believe that there’s no single reality or truth, but rather multiple realities. They devote themselves to understanding and interpreting the meaning attached to an action. For this reason, constructivists tend to use qualitative research methods , such as interviews or case studies, which focus on providing different perspectives. Constructivism aims to provide the answer to “why.” For example, asking “Why do 25% of the employees of an organization regularly arrive late to work?” rather than merely establishing the relationship between two variables (e.g., time of arrival at work and availability of nearby parking).

3. Pragmatists

Pragmatists believe that reality is continually interpreted and renegotiated against the backdrop of new and unpredictable situations. Because of this, the philosophy they apply in research depends on the research question itself. Pragmatists often combine positivist and constructivist principles in the same research project, using both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate different components of a research problem. They believe that the optimal research methods are those that most successfully answer the research question.

Merging Research Paradigms

While most social science research operates from either a positivist (experimental) or constructivist paradigm, it’s possible to combine both, as the field of psychology often does. Quantitative and qualitative methodology are frequently used together in psychology, illustrating the subject’s footing in multiple research paradigms (positivist and constructivist).

Expert Editing and Proofreading

If you’re writing a research proposal or paper , you’ll want to ensure that your writing is error-free, fluent, and precise. Although re-reading your own work is valuable, it can be very helpful to get another opinion on your writing. We offer a free trial of proofreading and editing services when you submit your first document. Find out more today!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Research Paradigm: An Introduction with Examples

This article provides a detailed and easy-to-understand introduction to research paradigms, including examples.

If you are considering writing a research paper, you should be aware that you must set criteria for constructing the approach you will use as a methodology in your work, which is why you must comprehend the concept of the research paradigm .

A research paradigm , in simplest terms, is the process of constructing a research plan that can assist you in quickly understanding how the theories and practices of your research project work.

The purpose of this article is to introduce you to research paradigms and explain them to you in the most descriptive way possible using examples. 

What is a research paradigm?

A research paradigm is a method, model, or pattern for conducting research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, or understandings within which theories and practices can function. The majority of paradigms derive from one of two research methodologies: positivism or interpretivism . Every research project employs one of the research paradigms as a guideline for creating research methods and carrying out the research project most legitimately and reasonably. 

Though there were essentially two paradigms, various new paradigms have arisen from these two, particularly in social science research. Keep in mind that selecting one of the paradigms for your research project demands a thorough understanding of the unique characteristics of each approach.

What are the 3 paradigms of research?

To select the best research paradigm for your project, you must first comprehend the three pillars: ontology, epistemology, and methodology.

Ontology is a philosophical theory regarding the nature of reality, asserts that there is either a single reality or none at all. To be more specific, ontology answers the question, “ What is reality? ” 

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, focusing on the validity, extent, and ways of gaining knowledge. Epistemology seeks to address the question, “ How can we know reality? “

Methodology

Methodology refers to general concepts that underpin how one explores the social environment and proves the validity of the knowledge gained. The methodological question is “ How to go about discovering the reality/answer? “

What is the purpose of a research paradigm?

The importance of choosing a paradigm for a research project stems from the fact that it establishes the foundation for the study’s research and its methodologies. 

A paradigm investigates how knowledge is understood and researched, and it explicitly outlines the objective, motivation, and expected outcomes of the research. 

The proper implementation of a research paradigm in research provides researchers with a clear path to examine the topic of interest. 

As a result, it gives a logical and deliberate structure for carrying it out, besides improving the quality of your work and your proficiency.

Research paradigms examples

Now that you understand the three pillars and the importance of the research paradigm, let’s look at some examples of paradigms that you may use in your research.

Positivist Paradigm

Positivists believe in a single reality that can be measured and understood. As a result, quantitative approaches are utilized to quantify this reality. 

Positivism in research is a philosophy related to the concept of real inquiry. A positivism-based research philosophy employs a rigorous approach to the systematic study of data sources.

Interpretivism or Constructivism Paradigm

The interpretivism approach is used in the majority of qualitative research conducted in the social sciences; it is predicated on the existence of numerous realities rather than a single reality. 

According to interpretivists, human behavior is complex and cannot be predicted by predefined probability. 

Human behavior is not like a scientific variable that can be easily controlled. The word interpretivism refers to methods of gaining knowledge of the universe that rely on interpreting or comprehending the meanings that humans attach to their behaviors. 

Pragmatism Paradigm

The research question determines pragmatism. Depending on the nature of the research issue, pragmatics may incorporate both positivism and interpretivism approaches within a single study. 

It is a problem-solving philosophy that maintains that the best research techniques are those that contribute to the most effective answer to the research issue. This is followed by an examination of many aspects of a research problem using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. 

Postpositivism Paradigm

The positivism paradigm gave way to the postpositivism paradigm, which is more concerned with the subjectivity of reality and departs from the logical positivists’ objective perspective. 

Postpositivism seeks objective answers by striving to recognize and deal with such biases in the ideas and knowledge developed by researchers.

Build a graphical abstract that perfectly represents your findings

Graphic abstracts are becoming significantly important. But where to begin? How should you go about creating the appropriate graphical abstract for your article? 

Mind The Graph is the ideal tool for this; utilize templates to easily create the most qualified graphical abstract for your target audience.

Related Articles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Research Philosophy & Paradigms

Positivism, Interpretivism & Pragmatism, Explained Simply

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | June 2023

Research philosophy is one of those things that students tend to either gloss over or become utterly confused by when undertaking formal academic research for the first time. And understandably so – it’s all rather fluffy and conceptual. However, understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your research is genuinely important as it directly impacts how you develop your research methodology.

In this post, we’ll explain what research philosophy is , what the main research paradigms  are and how these play out in the real world, using loads of practical examples . To keep this all as digestible as possible, we are admittedly going to simplify things somewhat and we’re not going to dive into the finer details such as ontology, epistemology and axiology (we’ll save those brain benders for another post!). Nevertheless, this post should set you up with a solid foundational understanding of what research philosophy and research paradigms are, and what they mean for your project.

Overview: Research Philosophy

• What is a research philosophy or paradigm ?
• Positivism 101
• Interpretivism 101
• Pragmatism 101
• Choosing your research philosophy

What is a research philosophy or paradigm?

Research philosophy and research paradigm are terms that tend to be used pretty loosely, even interchangeably. Broadly speaking, they both refer to the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study (whether that’s a dissertation, thesis or any other sort of academic research project).

For example, one philosophical assumption could be that there is an external reality that exists independent of our perceptions (i.e., an objective reality), whereas an alternative assumption could be that reality is constructed by the observer (i.e., a subjective reality). Naturally, these assumptions have quite an impact on how you approach your study (more on this later…).

The research philosophy and research paradigm also encapsulate the nature of the knowledge that you seek to obtain by undertaking your study. In other words, your philosophy reflects what sort of knowledge and insight you believe you can realistically gain by undertaking your research project. For example, you might expect to find a concrete, absolute type of answer to your research question , or you might anticipate that things will turn out to be more nuanced and less directly calculable and measurable . Put another way, it’s about whether you expect “hard”, clean answers or softer, more opaque ones.

So, what’s the difference between research philosophy and paradigm?

Well, it depends on who you ask. Different textbooks will present slightly different definitions, with some saying that philosophy is about the researcher themselves while the paradigm is about the approach to the study . Others will use the two terms interchangeably. And others will say that the research philosophy is the top-level category and paradigms are the pre-packaged combinations of philosophical assumptions and expectations.

To keep things simple in this video, we’ll avoid getting tangled up in the terminology and rather focus on the shared focus of both these terms – that is that they both describe (or at least involve) the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that underlie the way you approach your study .

Importantly, your research philosophy and/or paradigm form the foundation of your study . More specifically, they will have a direct influence on your research methodology , including your research design , the data collection and analysis techniques you adopt, and of course, how you interpret your results. So, it’s important to understand the philosophy that underlies your research to ensure that the rest of your methodological decisions are well-aligned .

So, what are the options?

We’ll be straight with you – research philosophy is a rabbit hole (as with anything philosophy-related) and, as a result, there are many different approaches (or paradigms) you can take, each with its own perspective on the nature of reality and knowledge . To keep things simple though, we’ll focus on the “big three”, namely positivism , interpretivism and pragmatism . Understanding these three is a solid starting point and, in many cases, will be all you need.

Paradigm 1: Positivism

When you think positivism, think hard sciences – physics, biology, astronomy, etc. Simply put, positivism is rooted in the belief that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements . In other words, the positivist philosophy assumes that answers can be found by carefully measuring and analysing data, particularly numerical data .

As a research paradigm, positivism typically manifests in methodologies that make use of quantitative data , and oftentimes (but not always) adopt experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Quite often, the focus is on causal relationships – in other words, understanding which variables affect other variables, in what way and to what extent. As a result, studies with a positivist research philosophy typically aim for objectivity, generalisability and replicability of findings.

Let’s look at an example of positivism to make things a little more tangible.

Assume you wanted to investigate the relationship between a particular dietary supplement and weight loss. In this case, you could design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) where you assign participants to either a control group (who do not receive the supplement) or an intervention group (who do receive the supplement). With this design in place, you could measure each participant’s weight before and after the study and then use various quantitative analysis methods to assess whether there’s a statistically significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. By doing so, you could infer a causal relationship between the dietary supplement and weight loss, based on objective measurements and rigorous experimental design.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that knowledge and insight can be obtained through carefully controlling the environment, manipulating variables and analysing the resulting numerical data . Therefore, this sort of study would adopt a positivistic research philosophy. This is quite common for studies within the hard sciences – so much so that research philosophy is often just assumed to be positivistic and there’s no discussion of it within the methodology section of a dissertation or thesis.

Paradigm 2: Interpretivism

 If you can imagine a spectrum of research paradigms, interpretivism would sit more or less on the opposite side of the spectrum from positivism. Essentially, interpretivism takes the position that reality is socially constructed . In other words, that reality is subjective , and is constructed by the observer through their experience of it , rather than being independent of the observer (which, if you recall, is what positivism assumes).

The interpretivist paradigm typically underlies studies where the research aims involve attempting to understand the meanings and interpretations that people assign to their experiences. An interpretivistic philosophy also typically manifests in the adoption of a qualitative methodology , relying on data collection methods such as interviews , observations , and textual analysis . These types of studies commonly explore complex social phenomena and individual perspectives, which are naturally more subjective and nuanced.

Let’s look at an example of the interpretivist approach in action:

Assume that you’re interested in understanding the experiences of individuals suffering from chronic pain. In this case, you might conduct in-depth interviews with a group of participants and ask open-ended questions about their pain, its impact on their lives, coping strategies, and their overall experience and perceptions of living with pain. You would then transcribe those interviews and analyse the transcripts, using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. Based on that analysis, you’d be able to better understand the experiences of these individuals, thereby satisfying your original research aim.

As you can see in this example, the underlying assumptions and beliefs revolve around the viewpoint that insight can be obtained through engaging in conversation with and exploring the subjective experiences of people (as opposed to collecting numerical data and trying to measure and calculate it). Therefore, this sort of study would adopt an interpretivistic research philosophy. Ultimately, if you’re looking to understand people’s lived experiences , you have to operate on the assumption that knowledge can be generated by exploring people’s viewpoints, as subjective as they may be.

Paradigm 3: Pragmatism

Now that we’ve looked at the two opposing ends of the research philosophy spectrum – positivism and interpretivism, you can probably see that both of the positions have their merits , and that they both function as tools for different jobs . More specifically, they lend themselves to different types of research aims, objectives and research questions . But what happens when your study doesn’t fall into a clear-cut category and involves exploring both “hard” and “soft” phenomena? Enter pragmatism…

As the name suggests, pragmatism takes a more practical and flexible approach, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings , rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position. This allows you, as the researcher, to explore research aims that cross philosophical boundaries, using different perspectives for different aspects of the study .

With a pragmatic research paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative methods can play a part, depending on the research questions and the context of the study. This often manifests in studies that adopt a mixed-method approach , utilising a combination of different data types and analysis methods. Ultimately, the pragmatist adopts a problem-solving mindset , seeking practical ways to achieve diverse research aims.

Let’s look at an example of pragmatism in action:

Imagine that you want to investigate the effectiveness of a new teaching method in improving student learning outcomes. In this case, you might adopt a mixed-methods approach, which makes use of both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. One part of your project could involve comparing standardised test results from an intervention group (students that received the new teaching method) and a control group (students that received the traditional teaching method). Additionally, you might conduct in-person interviews with a smaller group of students from both groups, to gather qualitative data on their perceptions and preferences regarding the respective teaching methods.

As you can see in this example, the pragmatist’s approach can incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data . This allows the researcher to develop a more holistic, comprehensive understanding of the teaching method’s efficacy and practical implications , with a synthesis of both types of data . Naturally, this type of insight is incredibly valuable in this case, as it’s essential to understand not just the impact of the teaching method on test results, but also on the students themselves!

Wrapping Up: Philosophies & Paradigms

Now that we’ve unpacked the “big three” research philosophies or paradigms – positivism, interpretivism and pragmatism, hopefully, you can see that research philosophy underlies all of the methodological decisions you’ll make in your study. In many ways, it’s less a case of you choosing your research philosophy and more a case of it choosing you (or at least, being revealed to you), based on the nature of your research aims and research questions .

• Research philosophies and paradigms encapsulate the set of beliefs, assumptions, and principles that guide the way you, as the researcher, approach your study and develop your methodology.
• Positivism is rooted in the belief that reality is independent of the observer, and consequently, that knowledge can be obtained through objective observations and measurements.
• Interpretivism takes the (opposing) position that reality is subjectively constructed by the observer through their experience of it, rather than being an independent thing.
• Pragmatism attempts to find a middle ground, focusing on the usefulness and applicability of research findings, rather than an all-or-nothing, mutually exclusive philosophical position.

If you’d like to learn more about research philosophy, research paradigms and research methodology more generally, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach blog . Alternatively, if you’d like hands-on help with your research, consider our private coaching service , where we guide you through each stage of the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

21 Comments

was very useful for me, I had no idea what a philosophy is, and what type of philosophy of my study. thank you

Thanks for this explanation, is so good for me

You contributed much to my master thesis development and I wish to have again your support for PhD program through research.

the way of you explanation very good keep it up/continuous just like this

Very precise stuff. It has been of great use to me. It has greatly helped me to sharpen my PhD research project!

Very clear and very helpful explanation above. I have clearly understand the explanation.

Very clear and useful. Thanks

Thanks so much for your insightful explanations of the research philosophies that confuse me

I would like to thank Grad Coach TV or Youtube organizers and presenters. Since then, I have been able to learn a lot by finding very informative posts from them.

thank you so much for this valuable and explicit explanation,cheers

Hey, at last i have gained insight on which philosophy to use as i had little understanding on their applicability to my current research. Thanks

Tremendously useful

thank you and God bless you. This was very helpful, I had no understanding before this.

USEFULL IN DEED!

Explanations to the research paradigm has been easy to follow. Well understood and made my life easy.

Very useful content. This will make my research life easy.

The explanation is very efficacy to those who were still not understanding the research philosophy. Very clear explanations on the types of research paradigms.

The explanation is very efficacy to those who were still not understanding the research philosophy.

thank you for this informative page.

thank you:)

Very well explained.I am grateful for the understanding I gained from this scholarly writeup.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Educ
• v.30(1); 2020 Mar

A Medical Science Educator’s Guide to Selecting a Research Paradigm: Building a Basis for Better Research

Megan e.l. brown.

Health Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, John Hughlings Jackson Building, University Road, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD UK

Angelique N. Dueñas

A research paradigm, or set of common beliefs about research, should be a key facet of any research project. However, despite its importance, there is a paucity of general understanding in the medical sciences education community regarding what a research paradigm consists of and how to best construct one. With the move within medical sciences education towards greater methodological rigor, it is now more important than ever for all educators to understand simply how to better approach their research via paradigms. In this monograph, a simplified approach to selecting an appropriate research paradigm is outlined. Suggestions are based on broad literature, medical education sources, and the author’s own experiences in solidifying and communicating their research paradigms. By assisting in detailing the philosophical underpinnings of individuals research approaches, this guide aims to help all researchers improve the rigor of their projects and improve upon overall understanding in research communication.

Introduction

There has been a recent movement within medical education towards greater methodological rigor [ 1 , 2 ]. Many scholars argue that in order to achieve “academic legitimacy” [ 3 ] strong theoretical frameworks [ 4 , 5 ] engaging in discussion concerning the nature of knowledge within a piece of work are required [ 6 ]. Put simply, clear research principles assist others in understanding your research.

The nature of knowledge within a piece of work is detailed and explored within a research project’s paradigm . A research paradigm may be defined as “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed” [ 7 ]. A paradigm is an assumption about how things work, sometimes illustrated as a “worldview” involving “shared understandings of reality” [ 8 , 9 ]. Detailing one’s research paradigm is essential, as paradigms “guide how problems are solved” [ 10 ], and directly influence an author’s choice of methods. All researchers make assumptions about the state of the world before undertaking research. Regardless of whether that research is quantitative or qualitative, these assumptions are important as they impact upon the interpretation of a study’s results. Mitroff and Bonoma summarize this position and put forth “the power of an experiment is only as strong as the clarity of the basic assumptions which underlie it. Such assumptions not only underlie laboratory experimentation but social… research as well” [ 11 ]. Paradigms also assist in setting ground rules for the application of theory when observing phenomena. Such ground rules “set the scene” for research, providing information as to how best evaluate new concepts [ 7 ].

Medicine and, as a consequence, health professions education, has traditionally been conducted from a positivist or post-positivist paradigm, detailed later in this paper, both of which maintain a universal truth exists, as, “in medicine, the emphasis on… body parts, conditions and treatments assumes that these are universally constant replicable facts” [ 12 ]. Given the dominance of this belief, there has been a relative dearth of literature within medical sciences education explicitly detailing paradigmatic assumptions. This is changing, with an increasingly widespread recognition of the important role assumptions play in result interpretation and in setting ground rules, both in research and in classrooms [ 13 , 14 ]. As such, explicitly acknowledging one’s paradigm is becoming an expected element of medical science education research.

In order to detail your work’s paradigm, it is important to consider what a paradigm consists of. The paradigm of a piece of work is constructed of several “building blocks,” detailed in Fig.  1 . The first set of these building blocks (axiology, ontology, epistemology, methodology) are composed of philosophical assumptions that “direct thinking and action” such as selecting one’s methods [ 16 ].

The building blocks forming a piece of work’s research paradigm and how they interrelate. Image is an adapted version of Grix’s paradigmatic building blocks [ 15 ]. Image adapted by authors to include axiology as an important block not originally detailed

Axiology, the first “brick” in the construction of a project’s paradigm involves the study of value and ethics [ 17 ]. Once an area of value to study has been identified, and research ethics considered, ontology, which questions “the nature of reality” [ 3 ] must be contemplated. Once you possess a firm philosophical understanding of your study area’s reality, the nature of knowledge within that reality needs determining—this is known as the epistemology of a piece of work.

Frank discussion of a work’s ontology and epistemology allows an appropriate methodological approach to be selected and reduces the ambiguity surrounding result interpretation [ 18 ]. Without such regulation “even carefully collected results can be misleading” as the “underlying context of assumptions” is unclear [ 19 ]. This monograph will detail a series of considerations, forming a how-to guide, for selecting an appropriate paradigm for your medical sciences education research.

Select your Research Paradigm Before You Begin Researching

Given that paradigms inform the design of, and fundamentally underpin, both quantitative and qualitative research, it is important to select your paradigm before you begin researching. Teherani et al. emphasize the need for this nicely: “alignment between the belief system underpinning the research approach, the research question, and the research approach itself is a prerequisite for rigorous… research” [ 20 ]. Such alignment can only be assured prospectively.

One frequently cited argument for not considering the research paradigm of a piece of work is the time-consuming nature of this process. Admittedly, selecting a research paradigm does (and should if done well) take time. Ensure you factor this consideration into your plans when drafting a timeline for your research project. It is difficult to provide guidance on how much time one should spend selecting a research paradigm as, depending upon the project in question and research team, this may vary. We recommend threading consideration of your research paradigm into the “design” phase of your research. Using the present work will also contribute to reducing the time-consuming aspect of this work; for many novices, approaching the language and process of paradigms can prove daunting and take time. However, this work is designed to ease that process.

Try Thinking About Research Paradigms Using the Metaphor of a Glass Box

Research paradigms can seem overwhelming—indeed, even experienced academics may struggle to distinguish between the various building blocks constituting a paradigm. Thinking of one’s research paradigm using the metaphor of a glass box, as described by Varpio [ 21 ], may assist in better visualizing and understanding the constituent elements of a paradigm. Using this metaphor, your paradigm is the glass box in which you stand, framing how you see the outside world. One’s beliefs regarding the ontology and epistemology of knowledge color the glass box in different ways, lending different lights to the same situation for different individuals. Given this, you may research a topic using a different approach to your colleague within the same area.

Think About your Reason for Carrying Out the Research

This may seem like an obvious consideration, but it is an area that is often not consciously reflected upon within medical science education research. What is your motivation to study this topic? Have you been practically, academically, or politically motivated? In other words, is it something you have noticed in your day to day work that requires further study; are you simply passionate to know more; or is there a political “hot topic” you or others are interested in researching?

Building upon your initial thoughts regarding your motivation, try to reflect more deeply regarding what you are really trying to achieve. Chilisa compares different paradigmatic reasons for doing research, as can be seen in Table ​ Table1 1 [ 23 ]. Thinking of your own reason for doing research and comparing this with Chilisa’s reasons should begin to cast light on which paradigm may be an appropriate choice for your research.

Adapted from Chilisa’s comparison of paradigmatic reasons for doing research [ 22 ]

Consider your Axiological Approach

The next step in the consideration of an appropriate paradigm for your research is reflecting upon your axiological approach. Traditionally, Guba and Lincoln describe a paradigm as involving three building blocks: ontology, epistemology, and methodology [ 24 ]. However, there has been a move towards including axiology as a fourth defining characteristic of a paradigm [ 25 ]. Axiology involves ethical considerations and “asks what ought to be” within a field of research [ 26 ]. It is an important starting point for any proposed research, as it considers what would be of value to research and how to go about conducting ethical research within that area [ 27 ]. Given this, we modified Grix’s paradigmatic building blocks [ 15 ] to include axiology as a key early consideration in paradigm selection (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 ).

Considering your axiological approach is best done in a designated reflective space with all members of your research team during the planning phase of a research proposal. Building on considering your purpose in doing research, you must consider the personal values informing your proposal. Ask yourself the following:

• Why is this research worth my time and attention?
• What motivates me? Am I driven by imperatives (e.g. funding, social justice)?
• Or, do I believe education to be inherently valuable, providing justification for any research that informs educational practice? [ 28 ]

Once the values underpinning your inquiry are clear and it is evident your research is justified, potential ethical issues should also be considered. For example, if your axiological reflection reveals you are being driven by an external motivator, it may be appropriate to disclose this within your research design. Most journals mandate inclusion of detail regarding any funding underpinning your research and any conflicts of interest (which could include sources of personal funding). Kirkman et al. include a detailed “competing interests” statement in their systematic review evaluating the outcomes of recent patient safety interventions for junior doctors and medical students [ 29 ]. Particularly relevant are two author’s affiliations with the General Medical Council (GMC), the UK’s regulatory body for physicians, and consultancy work several authors had undertaken previously on the topic of patient safety for a variety of institutions. These institutional affiliations could color the author’s perspectives and interpretations in tacit ways, in line with institutional values. As such, considering any such competing interests or associations within your team’s axiological reflection is the key.

Reflect upon your Ontological Assumptions

We all hold ontological assumptions, even if we do not explicitly consider or detail them. Reflecting upon them allows you to choose a paradigm in keeping with your beliefs regarding the nature of reality [ 3 ]. Reality refers to the social world in which you wish to conduct your research [ 22 ].

Different paradigms adopt different approaches to defining the nature of reality. There are many paradigms research may operate within, with some scholars even attempting to define new, albeit contested, paradigms within the social sciences in recent years [ 30 ]. Given this, detailing the ontology of every available paradigm is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, we will focus upon the four paradigms most commonly used within general medical education [ 3 ]: positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory.

To assess your ontological assumptions, ask yourself this: do you believe there is “one verifiable reality,” or that “multiple socially constructed realities” exist? [ 21 , 31 ] The former stance is sometimes referred to as a “realist” ontological position, with the latter stance known as “anti-realism” or “relativism” [ 32 ]. Broadly speaking, the four paradigms most commonly used within medical education fall into either of these two categories, but there are differences in how they frame their position, detailed in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Ontological assumptions of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory [ 30 , 33 – 39 ]

Reflect upon your Epistemological Assumptions

Once you are aware of your assumptions regarding the nature of reality, reflecting upon your epistemological assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge is necessary. When considering your research epistemology, it may be useful to reflect upon “what counts as knowledge within the world” [ 40 ]. Epistemology seeks to answer two questions—one, what is knowledge , and two, how is knowledge acquired ? [ 41 ].

Again, the epistemological approaches of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and critical theory differ. These are outlined within Table ​ Table3 3 .

Epistemological assumptions of positivism, post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, and critical theory [ 27 , 34 ]

Become Familiar with Different Types of Paradigm to Evaluate Where You and Your Work Fit

Above, we have focused on positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and critical theory as four common paradigms in medical education [ 37 ]. These are only a subset of paradigms that might align with an individual’s medical education research aims [ 42 ]. We recommend researchers to familiarize themselves with as many different types of paradigms as possible, to best understand where you as a researcher, but also your team and project fit.

Given the complexity of paradigms, rather than delving too deeply into the nuances of philosophy associated with paradigms, seeking simple infographics and metaphors can make exploration more manageable. We have already introduced some simple tables and the glass house metaphor [ 21 ], but you may find it helpful to seek other visualizations, such as the

“research onion” [ 43 , 44 ]. In brief, the “research onion” depicts paradigmatic considerations as layers, in lieu of building blocks or glass walls.

Another helpful way to explore paradigms is to be mindful of such in your own reviews of literature. Are authors explicitly discussing their paradigms? If so, do you agree? If not, how would you categorize their paradigm based on their study details? Zaidi and Larsen provide an excellent commentary where they categorize papers based on research paradigms, using their own interpretations [ 45 ]. Such an activity may prove useful to those wishing to improve their understanding of paradigms, in a practical fashion.

Use your Chosen Paradigm to Select an Appropriate Methodology

How you can go about “acquiring” knowledge, so that it aligns naturally with your paradigm, might be considered next. For example, if an individual is a strict positivist, believing that there are single truths, and that such truths can be measured, you would expect them to utilize stricter forms of experimental research, with explicit hypothesis testing. Different methodologies align best with different paradigms [ 46 ].

Consideration of research teams’ methodologies can also be helpful in understanding your paradigm, prior to moving forward with research projects. Following the example above, if your research team most often utilizes experimental design in your projects, what might this say about your regard for what knowledge and information you place value in?

Examine your Methodology in Order to Select an Appropriate Data Gathering Technique

Too often, methodology and methods are used interchangeably by novice researchers, when they should be regarded as distinct concepts [ 47 ]. Methodology is the strategy or overall plan to acquire knowledge, and methods are the actual techniques used to gather and analyze data [ 33 ].

For example, a research team interested in examining interprofessionalism in a healthcare setting may identify most with a constructivist paradigm, believing reality is subjectively constructed by individuals. Such a team might consider ethnography to be an appropriate methodology. But the actual research methods they undertake might be a variety of observations with field notes, audio or video recordings, or qualitative interviews [ 48 ]. These methods align with the methodology, although eventual selection of methods may also be highly associated with the practicality of such techniques, in addition to paradigm considerations.

The above sections have provided an overview of the “building blocks” of a research project’s paradigm. For ease of reference, these building blocks are summarized for the four main paradigms used within medical science education, in Fig. ​ Fig.2 2 [ 30 , 36 , 49 , 50 ].

The building blocks of a research project’s paradigm within the four main medical science education paradigms summarized. Each shape in the figure refers to one of the four main medical science paradigms. Each color refers to an element of a piece of research’s paradigm. Please see the key to this figure to aid with interpretation

Clearly Detail Your Paradigm and its Building Blocks When You Write about your Research

A paradigm does no good if it only exists in the mind of the researcher and is not clearly communicated. Clearly detail your paradigm, for your own understanding as a researcher. It is often helpful to describe your paradigm by answering the questions outlined in the building blocks, as shown in Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 .

But also keep in mind to make any details of your paradigm accessible and understandable for your target audience when disseminating your research. Depending on the scope and goals of your research, description of your paradigm could range from a paragraph or two in a research report designed for publication, to a multipage subchapter of a larger report or thesis assignment. In either case, writing about the paradigm is key for the audience to understand the context of your research, although the level of detail in which you communicate your paradigm may vary.

Locating accessible literature to draw upon when writing about your paradigm can prove difficult. The field is littered with philosophical jargon that can act as a barrier to entry into the world of paradigms, as earlier addressed in time consideration of paradigm selection. We hope this guide will assist you in beginning to understand some of the foundational terms within this field. If you are interested and have time, there is a wealth of literature within the field of “Philosophy of Science” that explicitly discusses the nature of knowledge and varying paradigmatic stances. Some seminal texts include The Foundations of Social Research [ 36 ], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [ 7 ], Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a Hybrid world [ 51 ], and The Paradigm Dialog [ 52 ].

Several introductory textbooks and articles offer integrated summaries of these seminal texts including, but not limited to Kivunja and Kuyini’s “Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts” [ 53 ]; Avramidis and Smith’s “An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research” [ 54 ]; Denzin and Lincoln’s The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research [ 55 ]; and Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction [ 56 ].

Move from Philosophy to Practicality

For those involved in the day-to-day aspects of healthcare teaching, many times one of the first questions that comes to mind around the philosophical underpinnings of research is: how can this be practically applied to my work? Beyond improving rigor and understanding, as thoroughly discussed, there are two key ways to approach the practical side of research: from the before and the after.

Considering the practical problems and questions you face as a medical sciences educator, then considering how different paradigms could be used to approach problems in different ways, is a practical “before” way to consider paradigms. To elucidate the ways in which real-world problems can be approached from a paradigm-informed perspective, we’ve included some examples in Fig. ​ Fig.3. 3 . For somevarious real-world examples, at different educational levels, we have provided some different examples of research approaches, that would naturally align with different paradigms.

Examples of real-world educational scenarios at a macro-, mid-, and microlevel and how consideration of different paradigms could be aligned to varying research aims and processes

From the “after” research perspective, praxeology is the last -ology you may wish to reflect upon. Concerned with the more practical recommendations that often arise from research, praxeology is concerned with not just understanding human actions, but interpreting them in meaningful ways [ 45 ]. If your research has contributed to “knowledge,” what does this mean for your day-to-day role as a medical sciences educator? In this way, practicality can be also important after the research process. Using the mid-level example from Fig.  2 , if you completed research from a constructivist approach, you may have discovered that self-guided methods in virtual histology labs was not leading to a conducive learning environment. This may lead to your decision to create video guides to accompany virtual histology resources, so students have instructor-led examples to initially guide their learning.

In addition to the above ways of practically approaching paradigms, researchers may also wish to contemplate the practical paradigm of pragmatism. Pragmatism focuses on research outcomes and, as such, does not place value on considering either epistemology or ontology. Instead, pragmatism strives to focus on what works best for understanding and solving problems [ 57 ]. Pragmatists rely on the methods that work best in practice to answer specific research questions, focusing most heavily on the practicalities of the chosen approach, not just paradigmatic alignment [ 58 ]. However, it is the view of some that pragmatism should be viewed as more of an approach, rather than a “true” paradigm. Consequently, the present work has not explored pragmatism in detail as it has other common paradigms [ 30 ].

Collaborate with or Consult Experienced Researchers Where Possible

While paradigms might seem complex and novel for many in the medical education community, they are a key facet of research, and certainly not new to other disciplines, such as sociology and general education [ 59 – 61 ]. Given this, collaboration can prove fruitful and may be the final key to success. When possible, collaborating with experienced researchers, particularly those who focus upon methodology, can be very beneficial. Experienced scholars can provide guidance regarding the philosophical questions associated with paradigms, while keeping in mind which methodology and methods may be best utilized by the research team. Where collaboration is not feasible, you may wish to contact a methodologist or experienced researcher to enquire as to whether they provide consultation services to review your research approach.

Although immensely helpful for those wishing to develop their research skills, collaboration with regard to paradigm choice can generate tension, especially if researchers disagree concerning which paradigm would be best suited for their research. We recommend that, prior to agreeing upon any collaborative projects, potential collaborators meet to develop a “shared agenda.” Shared agendas include a set of common objectives, a list of available resources, research questions of interest, and discussion as to each researcher’s personal paradigm. Compromise may be required on the behalf of one, or several, researchers, who may need to research within a paradigm unfamiliar to their personal stance, but best befitting the shared agenda of the collaborative team. For example, if you consider yourself to be a strict pragmatist, as introduced above, you might find extensive discussions about ontology and reality to be an unproductive use of research time. However, if working with a team of interpretivists, this may be viewed as a key part of their research efforts and study design. Through recognizing personal stances and being able to clearly express them in a dedicated reflexive space, collaboration may be eased, and even enhanced.

Lastly, when writing for publication, we recommend transparency as to each team member’s paradigmatic stance and inclusion of detail regarding how reflexivity was used to navigate any tensions. This monograph may be used as an example of collaborative writing. The authors approached this topic neutrally but have different personal paradigms. One author (MB) is a constructivist, and the other (AD) is a pragmatist. In the conception and construction of this work, the authors began with reflexive discussions on their paradigmatic assumptions, including personal views regarding the philosophy of science discussed in this paper. It was determined the shared agenda of this work was to remain as neutral as possible, while acknowledging potential assumptions each author holds. We hope this allows for a more transparent presentation of this monograph.

Conclusions

While initially complex, identification of a research paradigm is an essential aspect of any rigorous research project. Further, beyond individual projects, association of knowledge with specific paradigms may lead to a better overall understanding of research within medical education, furthering the advancement of the entire field.

Through this article, we have attempted to outline some initial tips for researchers looking to improve on projects via identification of a research paradigm. With consideration of these tips, and more open discussions within research teams, your research can take on new purpose and be understood with greater depth.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.3 Research Paradigms and Philosophical Assumptions

Research involves answering questions, and the approach utilised is based on paradigms, philosophical assumptions, and distinct methods or procedures. Researchers’ approaches are influenced by their worldviews which comprise their beliefs and philosophical assumptions about the nature of the world and how it can be understood. 9 These ways of thinking about the world are known as research paradigms, and they inform the design and conduct of research projects. 10,11 A paradigm constitutes a set of theories, assumptions, and ideas that contribute to one’s worldview and approach to engaging with other people or things. It is the lens through which a researcher views the world and examines the methodological components of their research to make a decision on the methods to use for data collection and analysis. 12 Research paradigms consist of four philosophical elements: axiology, ontology, epistemology, and methodology. 10 These four elements inform the design and conduct of research projects (Figure 1.1), and a researcher would have to consider the paradigms within which they would situate their work before designing the research.

Ontology is defined as how reality is viewed (nature of reality) – accurately captured as an entity or entities. It is the study of being and describes how the researcher perceives reality and the nature of human engagement in the world. 13,14 It is focused on the assumptions researchers make to accept something as true. These assumptions aid in orientating a researcher’s thinking about the research topic, its importance and the possible approach to answering the question. 12 It makes the researcher ask questions such as:

• What is real in the natural or social world?
• How do I know what I know?
• How do I understand or conceptualise things?

In healthcare, researchers’ ontological stance shapes their beliefs about the nature of health, illness, and healthcare practices. Here are a few examples of ontological stances that are commonly adopted by researchers in healthcare:

• Biomedical ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that biological mechanisms can explain health and illness and that the body is a machine that can be studied and fixed when it malfunctions. 11 Researchers who take a biomedical ontological stance tend to focus on medical interventions such as drugs, surgeries, and medical devices.
• Social constructivist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that health and illness are social constructs that are shaped by cultural and social factors. 13 Researchers who take a social constructivist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the social and cultural context of health and illness, including issues such as health disparities, patient-provider communication, and the role of social determinants of health.
• Critical realist ontological stance: This ontological stance assumes that there is a reality that exists independently of our perceptions but that our understanding of that reality is always partial and mediated by our social context. 11,14 Researchers who take a critical realist ontological stance tend to focus on understanding the complex interactions between social and biological factors in health and illness.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge and belief. It describes the ways knowledge about reality is acquired, understood, and utilised. 15 This paradigm highlights the relationship between the inquirer and the known –what is recognised as knowledge. Epistemology is important because it helps to increase the researcher’s level of confidence in their data. It influences how researchers approach identifying and finding answers while conducting research. 12 In considering the epistemology of research, the researcher may ask any of the following questions:

•       What is Knowledge?
•       How do we acquire knowledge and what are its limits?
•       Is it trustworthy? Do we need to investigate it further?
•       What is acceptable knowledge in our discipline?

The epistemological stance of healthcare researchers refers to their fundamental beliefs about knowledge and how it can be acquired. There are several epistemological stances that researchers may take, including positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and pragmatism.

• Positivism: This epistemological stance is grounded in the idea that knowledge can be gained through objective observation and measurement. 11 Researchers who adopt a positivist stance aim to create objective, measurable, and replicable research that can be used to predict and control phenomena. For example, a researcher studying the effectiveness of a medication might conduct a randomized controlled trial to measure its impact on patient outcomes.
• Interpretivism: This epistemological stance is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed through human interpretation and social interactions. It emphasizes the subjective and interpretive nature of human experience. 13, 14 Researchers who adopt an interpretivist stance seek to understand the subjective experiences of individuals and the meanings they attach to their experiences. For example, a researcher studying the experience of chronic pain might use qualitative methods to explore patients’ narratives and perspectives on living with pain.
• Critical theory: This epistemological stance is grounded in the belief that knowledge is shaped by power dynamics and social structures. 14 Researchers who adopt a critical theory stance seek to uncover and challenge power imbalances and injustices in society. For example, a researcher studying healthcare disparities might use critical theory to explore the ways in which social and economic factors contribute to inequities in access to healthcare.
• Pragmatism: This epistemological stance is focused on the practical application of knowledge. Researchers who adopt a pragmatic stance aim to create research that is both theoretically sound and applicable to real-world settings. 13  For example, a researcher studying the implementation of a new healthcare intervention might use mixed methods to gather both qualitative and quantitative data to understand how the intervention is working in practice.

Overall, researchers’ epistemological stances have important implications for the questions they ask, the methods they use, and the interpretations they make. Understanding researchers’ epistemological stances can help healthcare professionals and policymakers to critically evaluate research findings and to consider the broader social, cultural, and political contexts that shape health and healthcare.

Axiology refers to the researcher’s understanding of values and their role in research. It examines values, deals with issues of right and wrong and measures the level of development and types of perceptual biases. 9 Axiology explains the role and importance of the research process, considers the values researchers assign to their research, and guides their pursuit of knowledge. 10 It makes the researcher consider the following questions:

• What should be done to uphold and respect the rights of each participant?
• What ethical principles will you follow during your research?
• What are the cultural and intercultural issues to be considered in the research?
• How can I conduct the research ins a respectful manner?
• How can we minimise or reduce risk during the research?

Researchers’ axiological stance in healthcare refers to their values, beliefs, and ethical positions that guide their research practices and interpretations of findings. Here are some examples of axiological stances that researchers may take in healthcare:

• Patient-centeredness: This value emphasizes the importance of incorporating patients’ perspectives, values, and preferences in healthcare decision-making. 9  For example, a researcher may prioritize qualitative research methods to explore patients’ experiences and needs in a specific healthcare setting.
• Evidence-based practice: This value emphasizes the use of the best available evidence to guide clinical decision-making. 14  For example, a researcher may conduct a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new medication or intervention.
• Health equity: This value emphasizes the importance of addressing health disparities and promoting fairness and justice in healthcare. 9 For example, a researcher may use a community-based participatory research approach to engage with marginalized or underrepresented populations and identify solutions to health inequities.
• Cultural humility: This value emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and respecting cultural differences and avoiding assumptions and stereotypes in healthcare interactions. 10 For example, a researcher may use qualitative research methods to explore the perspectives and experiences of patients from diverse cultural backgrounds.

These axiological stances are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways depending on the research question and context.

Methodology

Methodology is the strategy or action plan that informs the choice and use of particular methods within the context of a particular research paradigm. 11,16 The term methodology refers to the study design, methods, and procedures employed in a well-planned investigation to find answers. Examples include data collection, survey instruments, participants, and data analysis. In considering the methodology, researchers would ask the questions:

• How do I find out more about this reality? 17
• What approaches or methodology shall I use to obtain the data that will enable me to answer my research question? 12

The main types of methodology include quantitative and qualitative research. In some cases, mixed methods research, i.e., a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, may also be used. Researchers’ methodological stance in healthcare refers to their underlying beliefs and approach to conducting research in this field. Here are three examples of methodological approaches in healthcare research:

• Quantitative: This approach emphasizes objective and empirical measurement and relates to positivism. Quantitative researchers assume that there is a single objective reality and that the purpose of research is to discover the truth. 11 For example, a researcher using a quantitative, positivist approach might conduct a randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a new medication for treating a specific condition.
• Qualitative: This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding multiple perspectives and the subjective experiences of individuals. 14, 18 Qualitative researchers believe that reality is socially constructed and that the purpose of research is to generate new insights and understandings. For example, a researcher using a constructivist approach might conduct a qualitative study to explore how patients experience a particular health condition and how it affects their daily lives.
• Mixed methods: This approach emphasizes the use of multiple methods and the importance of adapting research to specific contexts and goals. 13, 19 Researchers who use this approach are pragmatists and they believe that research should be practical and useful for addressing real-world problems. For example, a researcher using a pragmatic approach might conduct a mixed-methods study to evaluate a new healthcare intervention, using both quantitative measures of effectiveness and qualitative data to understand patient experiences and preferences.

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Research Paradigms

A lot of effort can be spent refining and calibrating a research question to fully understand what kind of data could be collected and what kind of validity analysis might offer when answering the question. Researchers rarely proceed by choosing an ontology, epistemology and axiology separately and then deciding which research method to apply. Instead, the starting point will usually be a research question framed within a particular paradigm. It’s also common in practice for researchers to identify the method they will use (perhaps determined by the data that is available) and then articulate the theoretical justification behind it by drawing on a paradigm.

Kuhn’s (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most influential works on the philosophy of science, and is credited with introducing the idea of competing paradigms (or “disciplinary matrices”) in research. Kuhn investigated the,way that scientific practices evolve over time, arguing that we don’t have a simple,progression from “less knowledge” to “more knowledge” because the way that we,approach inquiry is changing over time. This can happen gradually, but results in,moments of change where our understanding of a phenomenon changes more,radically (such as in the transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics; or from,Lamarckian to Darwinian theories of evolution).

There are four stages in the cycle of science in Kuhn’s approach. Firstly, a pre-paradigmatic state where competing approaches share no consensus. Secondly, the “normal” state where there is wide acceptance of a particular set of methods and assumptions. Thirdly, a state of crisis where anomalies that cannot be solved within the existing paradigm emerge and competing theories to address them follow. Fourthly, a revolutionary phase where some new paradigmatic approach becomes dominant and supplants the old. Schnieder (2009) suggests that the Kuhnian phases are characterised by different kinds of scientific activity.

Newer approaches often build upon rather than replace older ones, but they also overlap and can exist within a state of competition. Scientists working within a particular paradigm often share methods, assumptions and values. In addition to supporting specific methods, research paradigms also influence things like the ambition and nature of research, the researcher-participant relationship and how the role of the researcher is understood.

For studies that look into paradigmatic change within open education research, see Bozkurt (2019) and Weller et al. (2018). Next we will go on to look at methods associated with different research paradigms.

Research Methods Handbook Copyright © 2020 by Rob Farrow; Francisco Iniesto; Martin Weller; and Rebecca Pitt is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• How it works

How Research Paradigms Improve the Research Process?

Published by Alvin Nicolas at June 13th, 2024 , Revised On July 9, 2024

If you’re planning to write a research paper on a particular topic, then you should set specific criteria. These criteria will help you to successfully structure the approach that will be used in the methodology of your work. To write an outstanding research paper and set efficient criteria, you should understand the concept of the research paradigm.

In this blog, you will get to know about research paradigms, different types of research paradigms, and the importance of those paradigms.

What is the Research Paradigm?

Research paradigms refer to those beliefs and ideologies that efficiently help you to properly structure your research. These paradigms assist the researchers so that they can quickly understand how to implement different theories and practices for their research work.

Research Paradigm Definition

In simple words, a research paradigm is a method, model or pattern for conducting research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, and understandings by using which theories and techniques are implemented for the research process.

Research paradigms are used in the research projects for the creation of research methods and their execution for the leal and appropriate research.

Research Paradigm Example

However, if you want to research the effects of parental literacy rate on the academic research of their children, then the result would not be one-sided. You will have to examine the agenda from different perspectives, such as socio-economical and cultural.

What are the Pillars and Different Types of Paradigms in Research?

Before discussing the different types of paradigms in research, you should also know about the three pillars of research paradigms.

3 Pillars of Research Paradigms

4 Types of Paradigms in Research

Here are the different types of paradigms in research:

• Positivist Research Paradigm

According to the positivist research paradigm, there is only one objective reality. People can accurately know about this reality and describe and explain it. Activists significantly obtain knowledge of their surroundings by relying on their observations through their senses.

When there is just one single reality, researchers can efficiently compare it with claims and determine its certainty. Positivists use qualitative research methodology in their research. This research paradigm is mostly used for research in physical sciences and natural sciences because large sample sizes are used in it.

• Interpretivist Research Paradigm

According to the interpretivists, people experience and understand reality in different ways in our society. In short, there could be only one reality, but everyone interprets it according to their own point of view.

People also tend to believe that the theories and worldviews of the researchers heavily influence research all around the world. Interpretivists use qualitative research methodology. This includes interviews, focus groups, document collection, etc.

• Critical Theory Research Paradigm

According to the critical theory paradigm, social science can never be one hundred percent objective. This paradigm is mainly focused on achieving societal change through thorough scientific investigation.

The objective of critical theorists is to ask questions about knowledge and procedure to know how power is being used in investigating. They aim to create an egiilitarian society for all the individuals with their freedom. Critical theorists use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Constructivist Research Paradigm

In this paradigm, constructivists believe that reality is the construct of our minds. It is better to assume that reality is subjective. According to constructivists, knowledge comes from individual experiences and the reflections of those experiences.

Constructivists only use qualitative research methodology. There is only a single methodology to generate knowledge according to this paradigm. The constructivists mainly focus on the subjective experiences of the participants as well as of their own.

Difference Between Research Philosophy & Research Paradigm

Importance of Paradigms in Research

The research paradigms significantly help to establish the foundation of research and its methodologies. They thoroughly examine and investigate how information is researched and understood. They specifically encompass the objectives, motives and predicted results of the research.

When research paradigms are perfectly implemented, then the researchers can have a clear path to research their desired topics. They ensure high quality and proficiency in work. Some of the important terms related to research paradigms are discussed below:

What is Axiology?

Axiology refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with value judgements. It deals with the understanding of researchers about their values and role in the research process . Axiology is subdivided into ethics and aesthetics. Axiology compels the researcher to assume these questions:

• Which ethical principles should be used in the research?
• What should be done to respect the rights of each and every participant?

Critical Realism in Research

Critical realism refers to the branch of philosophy that differentiates between the real world and the observable world. The real world cannot be truly observed. It exists independently of the viewpoints of humans. The world is constructed through the perspective of humans and their experiences. Critical realism helps to enhance the research questions by accomplishing the complexity and context of social phenomena.

Feminist Paradigm in Research

This paradigm deals with and is specifically concerned with the oppression and exclusion of women in society. It also throws light on the struggles and insights of the oppressed and disempowered groups of society.

This paradigm leads to the construction of different ways to alleviate and empower those oppressed and disempowered groups. It also focuses on improving social policies for the betterment of society.

Functionalist Paradigm in Research

According to the functionalist paradigm, anything that exists in the society plays an important role to create social stability. Any person or institution that will not play its part will simply not survive.

Functionalism efficiently interprets how every part of the society contributes to the stability of the whole society. If anything becomes absent from it, whether any individual or an institution will significantly influence the performance of the community as a whole.

Research Paradigms for Mixed-Methods

Mixed-methods research has gained immense popularity in the field of social research during the past 20-25 years. This research is motivated by practical considerations rather than philosophical ones. It mainly focuses on what is achievable, what is useful, and what is most likely to get funded.

Quantitative research can provide researchers with a bigger picture by using numeric data and help them understand what has happened. Qualitative research deals with a deep understanding of the stories and experiences of different individuals. When these methods are combined, the best results can be obtained.

Difference Between Research Paradigm & Research Design

Research Paradigm Examples

Here are a few examples of research paradigms to thoroughly understand their concept:

Example 1: Pragmatism

Imagine an organisation is striving to reduce Type 2 diabetes in a low-income neighbourhood. They use a pragmatic approach to efficiently reduce Type 2 diabetes in the specific community. 

• They will use the mixed-methods research (both quantitative and qualitative).
• They will develop necessary interventions by introducing workshops about nutrition and diet.
• They will gather feedback from the participants to improve their approach. 

Example 2: Positivism

Imagine a pharmaceutical company that wants to develop a specific medicine to treat hypertension. They will use a positivist approach to go through this process. 

• They will formulate the necessary hypothesis focusing on the effectiveness of the new medicine compared to the old one.
• They will use a gold-standard positivist method for medical research.
• A quantitative data collection method will be used to collect blood pressure readings.
• A statistical analysis will be done to compare treatment and blood groups.
• They will analyse the results to study whether the new medicine is better than the old or not. 

Frequently Asked Questions

A research paradigm is a method, model, or pattern used to conduct research. It is a set of ideas, beliefs, and understandings using which theories and techniques are implemented for the research process.

What are Different Paradigms in Research?

Different types of research paradigms are given below:

What is a Positivist Research Paradigm?

You may also like.

Make sure that your selected topic is intriguing, manageable, and relevant. Here are some guidelines to help understand how to find a good dissertation topic.

This article is a step-by-step guide to how to write statement of a problem in research. The research problem will be half-solved by defining it correctly.

Not sure how to approach a company for your primary research study? Don’t worry. Here we have some tips for you to successfully gather primary study.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Qualitative research paradigm.

I am amazed how often we hear qualitative researchers applying their standards to quantitative research or quantitative researchers applying their standards to qualitative research. Each functions within different assumptions. Finding fault with one approach with the standards of another does little to promote understanding. Each approach should be judges on its theoretical basis.

The Assumptions of Qualitative Designs

• Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process , rather than outcomes or products.
• Qualitative researchers are interested in meaning: ­how people make sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world.
• The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires, or machines.
• Qualitative research involves fieldwork . The researcher physically goes to the people, setting, site, or institution to observe or record behavior in its natural setting.
• Qualitative research is descriptive in that the researcher is interested in process, meaning, and understanding gained through words or pictures.
• The process of qualitative research is inductive in that the researcher builds abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, and theories from details.

…..Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

….. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Arguments Supporting Qualitative Inquiry

• Human behavior is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs; thus one must study that behavior in situations. The physical setting (­e.g., schedules, space, pay, and rewards­) and the internalized notions of norms, traditions, roles, and values are crucial contextual variables. Research must be conducted in the setting where all the contextual variables are operating.
• Past researchers have not been able to derive meaning…from experimental research.
• The research techniques themselves, in experimental research, [can]…affect the findings. The lab, the questionnaire, and so on, [can]…become artifacts. Subjects [can become]…either suspicious and wary, or they [can become]…aware of what the researchers want and try to please them. Additionally, subjects sometimes do not know their feelings, interactions, and behaviors, so they cannot articulate them to respond to a questionnaire.
• One cannot understand human behavior without understanding the framework within which subjects interpret their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Researchers need to understand the framework. In fact, the “objective ” scientist, by coding and standardizing, may destroy valuable data while imposing her world on the subjects.
• Field study research can explore the processes and meanings of events.

…..Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1980). Designing qualitative research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry

Although some social science researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1989) perceive qualitative and quantitative approaches as incompatible, others (Patton, 1990; Reichardt & Cook, 1979) believe that the skilled researcher can successfully combine approaches. The argument usually becomes muddled because one party argues from the underlying philosophical nature of each paradigm, and the other focuses on the apparent compatibility of the research methods, enjoying the rewards of both numbers and words. Because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptions about the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to find the type of data desired. This does not mean, however, that the positivist never uses interviews nor that the interpretivist never uses a survey. They may, but such methods are supplementary, not dominant….Different approaches allow us to know and understand different things about the world….Nonetheless, people tend to adhere to the methodology that is most consonant with their socialized worldview. (p. 9)

….. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs and Assumptions)

….. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

….. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Five popular types of Qualitative Research are

• Ethnography
• Phenomenological
• Grounded Theory

Del Siegle, Ph.D [email protected] www.delsiegle.info

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The Positivism Paradigm of Research

Affiliation.

• 1 Y.S. Park is associate professor and associate head, Department of Medical Education, and director of research, Office of Educational Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8583-4335. L. Konge is professor, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1258-5822. A.R. Artino Jr is professor and deputy director, Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education, Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853.
• PMID: 31789841
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093

Research paradigms guide scientific discoveries through their assumptions and principles. Understanding paradigm-specific assumptions helps illuminate the quality of findings that support scientific studies and identify gaps in generating sound evidence. This article focuses on the research paradigm of positivism, examining its definition, history, and assumptions (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and rigor). Positivism is aligned with the hypothetico-deductive model of science that builds on verifying a priori hypotheses and experimentation by operationalizing variables and measures; results from hypothesis testing are used to inform and advance science. Studies aligned with positivism generally focus on identifying explanatory associations or causal relationships through quantitative approaches, where empirically based findings from large sample sizes are favored-in this regard, generalizable inferences, replication of findings, and controlled experimentation have been principles guiding positivist science. Criteria for evaluating the quality of positivist research are discussed. An example from health professions education is provided to guide positivist thinking in study design and implementation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The redundancy of positivism as a paradigm for nursing research. Corry M, Porter S, McKenna H. Corry M, et al. Nurs Philos. 2019 Jan;20(1):e12230. doi: 10.1111/nup.12230. Epub 2018 Nov 15. Nurs Philos. 2019. PMID: 30431226
• Postpositivism in Health Professions Education Scholarship. Young ME, Ryan A. Young ME, et al. Acad Med. 2020 May;95(5):695-699. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003089. Acad Med. 2020. PMID: 32345881
• Are randomised controlled trials positivist? Reviewing the social science and philosophy literature to assess positivist tendencies of trials of social interventions in public health and health services. Bonell C, Moore G, Warren E, Moore L. Bonell C, et al. Trials. 2018 Apr 19;19(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2589-4. Trials. 2018. PMID: 29673378 Free PMC article. Review.
• Methods, methodological challenges and lesson learned from phenomenological study about OSCE experience: Overview of paradigm-driven qualitative approach in medical education. Ataro G. Ataro G. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2019 Nov 23;49:19-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2019.11.013. eCollection 2020 Jan. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2019. PMID: 31871678 Free PMC article. Review.
• "Your double-blind RCT needs feminism": an argument for engaging critical theory in quantitative rehabilitation research. Slade T, Duebel E, Ryan J. Slade T, et al. Disabil Rehabil. 2023 May;45(9):1563-1571. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2068679. Epub 2022 May 4. Disabil Rehabil. 2023. PMID: 35507752 Clinical Trial.
• Inclusive Research in Medical Education: Strategies to Improve Scholarship and Cultivate Scholars. Hauer K, Minhas P, McDonald J, Perez S, Phinney L, Lucey C, O'Sullivan P. Hauer K, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Aug 5. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08827-2. Online ahead of print. J Gen Intern Med. 2024. PMID: 39103603 No abstract available.
• A realist evaluation protocol: assessing the effectiveness of a rapid response team model for mental state deterioration in acute hospitals. Dziruni TB, Hutchinson AM, Keppich-Arnold S, Bucknall T. Dziruni TB, et al. Front Health Serv. 2024 Jul 15;4:1400060. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1400060. eCollection 2024. Front Health Serv. 2024. PMID: 39076771 Free PMC article.
• The impact of a mixed reality technology-driven health enhancing physical activity program among community-dwelling older adults: a study protocol. Dino MJS, Dion KW, Abadir PM, Budhathoki C, Huang CM, Padula WV, Himmelfarb CRD, Davidson PM. Dino MJS, et al. Front Public Health. 2024 May 14;12:1383407. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1383407. eCollection 2024. Front Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38807990 Free PMC article.
• Factors that influence the scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia: a thematic analysis. Wiggins D, Downie A, Engel R, Grace S, Brown BT. Wiggins D, et al. Chiropr Man Therap. 2024 May 27;32(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12998-024-00535-2. Chiropr Man Therap. 2024. PMID: 38802926 Free PMC article.
• Experiences of support received by carers of people who are involuntarily admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act: qualitative study of carers' perspectives. Wells I, G-Medhin A, Owen N, Thelwell ELR, Giacco D. Wells I, et al. BJPsych Open. 2024 Apr 16;10(3):e82. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2024.44. BJPsych Open. 2024. PMID: 38622966 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ingenta plc
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Wolters Kluwer

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Research Paradigms

• First Online: 01 January 2014

Cite this chapter

• Paul Johannesson 3 &
• Erik Perjons 3  

17k Accesses

A research paradigm is a set of commonly held beliefs and assumptions within a research community about ontological, epistemological, and methodological concerns. The chapter starts with introducing the two most established research paradigms, positivism and interpretivism, and discusses their role in design science research. The chapter also presents two alternative research paradigms, critical realism and critical theory, and how these can influence design science work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aljafari R, Khazanchi D (2013) On the veridicality of claims in design science research. 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), pp 3747–3756

Google Scholar  

Avenier M-J (2010) Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organ Stud 31:1229–1255. doi: 10.1177/0170840610374395

Article   Google Scholar  

Baskerville R (2008) What design science is not. Eur J Inf Syst 17:441–443. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2008.45

Bronner SE (2011) Critical theory: a very short introduction, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, USA

Burr V (2003) Social constructionism, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

Carlsson SA (2006) Towards an information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, CA, pp 192–212

Collier A (1994) Critical realism: an introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. Verso, London

Horkheimer M, O’Connell MJ, Aronowitz S et al (1975) Critical theory: selected essays, 1st edn. Continuum Publishing Corporation, New York

Kuhn TS (2012) The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition, 4th edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Oates BJ (2006) Researching information systems and computing. Sage, London. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/textbooks/Book226898

Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W (2004) Design research in information systems. http://www.desrist.org/desrist/ . Accessed 26 Jun 2014

Weber R (2004) Editor’s comments: the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view. MIS Q 28:iii–xii

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm University, Kista, Sweden

Paul Johannesson & Erik Perjons

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Johannesson, P., Perjons, E. (2014). Research Paradigms. In: An Introduction to Design Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10632-8_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10632-8_12

Published : 12 September 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-10631-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-10632-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Role of Research Paradigms and Theories in Library and Information Science: A Critical Examination

12 Pages Posted: 20 Aug 2024

Fataneh vahabi

Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

The Role of Research Paradigms and Theories in Library and Information Science: A Critical Examination This critical examination of the role of research paradigms and theories in Library and Information Science (LIS) argues that the choice of paradigm and theory can have a significant impact on the results of LIS research. The study examines the dominant research paradigms in LIS, including positivism and constructivism, and evaluates their strengths and limitations. The critical examination also explores the implications of these paradigms for the design of information systems and services. The study finds that positivist research paradigms have been criticized for their neglect of social context and individual experiences, while constructivist research paradigms have been praised for their ability to provide a nuanced understanding of information behavior. However, the study also highlights the limitations of both paradigms, including the potential for bias and the lack of generalizability. The study concludes that a critical examination of research paradigms and theories is essential for advancing the field of LIS. By acknowledging the limitations and biases of each paradigm, researchers can develop more nuanced understandings of information behavior and inform the design of more effective information systems and services.

Keywords: Research paradigms, theories, Library and Information Science, positivism, constructivism, critical examination

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Fataneh Vahabi (Contact Author)

Isfahan university of medical sciences ( email ).

Hezar Jerib Avenue Isfahan, 81745 Iran

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, information & library science education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Library Management & Operations eJournal

Libraries & media ejournal.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Where are the costs using an economic analysis of educational interventions approach to improve the evaluation of a regional school improvement programme.

1. Introduction

2. formative assessment in policy and practice.

• Making observations: The teacher needs to explore what the learner does or does not know, and this is typically achieved by listening to learners’ responses, observing the learner on tasks, and/or assessing class or homework tasks.
• Interpretation: The teacher interprets the skill, knowledge, or attitudes of the learners.
• Judgement: Once evidence has been gathered through observation and interpretation, the teacher then makes a judgement on the next course of action to move the learner forward.
• Sharing Learning Expectations: Ensuring the learner knows what they are going to learn and the success criteria to achieve this goal.
• Questioning: Using effective questioning to facilitate learning.
• Feedback: Providing feedback that enhances learning within the moment.
• Self-assessment: Allowing learners to take ownership of, and reflect on, their learning.
• Peer assessment: Providing opportunities for learners to discuss their work with, and to instruct, others.

3.1. Trial Design

3.2. recruitment, 3.3. study population, 3.4. outcomes, 3.5. analysis, 3.6. interviews, 3.7. focus group, 3.8. procedure, 3.9. observations.

• Is it clear what the teacher intends the students to learn?
• Does the teacher identify student learning needs?
• Do students understand what criteria will make their work successful?
• Are students chosen at random to answer questions?
• Does the teacher ask questions that make students think?
• Does the teacher give students time to think after asking a question?
• Does the teacher allow time for students to elaborate their responses?
• Is a whole-class response system used?
• Is teaching adjusted after gathering feedback from pupils (data collection)?
• Is there more student talk than teacher talk?
• Are most students involved in answering questions?
• Are students supporting each other’s learning?
• Is there evidence that various forms of teacher feedback advance student learning?
• Do students take responsibility for their own learning?
• Does the teacher provide oral formative feedback?
• Does the teacher find out what the students have learned before they leave the room?

4. Intervention

5. economic analysis of educational interventions (eaei), 5.1. cost-consequence analysis, 5.2. rationale for cca, 5.3. cost collecting methodology, 5.4. collating costs, 5.5. sensitivity analysis, 6.1. learner outcomes, 6.2. classroom observations, 6.3. the opinions of teachers and learners, 6.4. interviews with teachers.

“…helps me feel I get a greater understanding of my children. And I don’t go home at the end of the week thinking, I don’t think I’ve said five words to that child.” Teacher 6

“And sometimes it can be a little bit of idleness of picking up a pen but sometimes it’s their belief in themselves a lot of the time. And it is, it’s them thinking, “actually, I can do it”. “I think a lot of it is the confidence they have…” Teacher 4

“So, it’s easier. I think the quality of work is easier to mark…I do feel I’ve got extra time.” Teacher 2

“I would say predominantly it’s that the lower achievers it’s had the bigger impact on.” Teacher 5

6.5. Focus Group Interviews with Learners

“You kind of get to know them more, cos like…you just like…you don’t really play with them, cos you like different things, but if you’re discussion partners, you might have to try and get to know them…You might think better of them.” Learner, school L

“It makes the work a bit more straight forward, Cos when you look at the success criteria when you’re working, then it like gives you more to think about it and then more to think about the work.” Learner, school P

“…the teacher will take you out of the lessons and things just to like go over your piece of work and if you’ve done something well, he’ll tell you what you’ve done well and he’ll like highlight it on the success criteria, which is a list of things that you have to do and he’ll highlight it pink and then if you need to do something better, he’ll highlight it green and then he’ll tell you to re-do it and he’ll tell you what to re-do and stuff.” Learner, school O

The teachers discussed how FAIP supported them to help learners better understand the nature of successful outcomes and understand the expectations of quality standards in their work. Additionally, learners described how success criteria helped them complete tasks more successfully.

Teachers identified how using the strategies contained within the FAIP training helped them better understand where the learners were in their learning and provided them with useful, additional information to plan next steps. Teachers also indicated that they were more able to identify which learners needed support and adapt teaching in real time to provide next steps advice and support to learners.

Teachers discussed how feedback strategies supported them to better understand learner progress. Some teachers discussed being able to give immediate feedback to support learners to improve the outcomes they achieve.

Learners identified how the use of a range of self-assessment strategies impacted positively on the learning process and how it helped them engage with, and complete, tasks more successfully.

Teachers identified improved opportunities for learners to discuss their own work to enhance understanding and knowledge. Learners understood what a talk partner was, and how it helped them with their learning. It also enabled them to provide support for other learners. Learners also identified how it improved social relationships in school.

6.6. The Full Economic Cost of FAIP for Tier 2 Teachers

6.7. sensitivity analysis, 6.7.1. sensitivity analysis 1, 6.7.2. sensitivity analysis 2, 6.7.3. sensitivity analysis 3, 6.7.4. sensitivity analysis 4, 7. discussion, 8. limitations, 9. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Gorard, S.; See, B.H.; Siddiqui, N. What is the evidence on the best way to get evidence into use in education? Rev. Educ. 2020 , 8 , 570–610. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities ; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pegram, J.; Watkins, R.C.; Hoerger, M.; Hughes, J.C. Assessing the range and evidence-base of interventions in a cluster of schools. Rev. Educ. 2022 , 10 , e3336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slavin, R.E. How evidence-based reform will transform research and practice in education. Educ. Psychol. 2020 , 55 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levin, H. Waiting for Godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education. New Dir. Eval. 2001 , 2001 , 55–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owen, K.L.; Watkins, R.C.; Hughes, J.C. From evidence-informed to evidence-based: An evidence building framework for education. Rev. Educ. 2022 , 10 , e3342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hummel-Rossi, B.; Ashdown, J. The state of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in education. Rev. Educ. Res. 2002 , 72 , 1–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Machin, S.; Mcnally, S.; Wyness, G. Educational Research Educational attainment across the UK nations: Performance, inequality and evidence Educational attainment across the UK nations: Performance, inequality and evidence. Educ. Res. 2013 , 55 , 139–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraft, M.A. Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions. Educ. Res. 2020 , 49 , 241–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• EEF. Cost Evaluation Guidance for EEF Evaluations. 2019. Available online: https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/documents/evaluation/evaluation-design/Cost_Evaluation_Guidance_2019.12.11.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).
• CBCSE. Centre for Benefit Cost Studies in Education. 2015. Available online: https://www.cbcse.org/costout (accessed on 8 January 2024).
• Hinde, S.; Walker, S.M.; Lortie-Forgues, H. Applying the Three Core Concepts of Economic Evaluation in Health to Education in the UK ; Centre for Health Economics, University of York: York, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn, B.; Van Mondfrans, A.; Worthen, B.R. Cost-Effectiveness of Two Math Programs as Moderated by Pupil SES. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 1984 , 6 , 39–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hollands, F.; Bowden, A.B.; Belfield, C.; Levin, H.M.; Cheng, H.; Shand, R.; Pan, Y.; Hanisch-Cerda, B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice: Interventions to Improve High School Completion. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2014 , 36 , 307–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buxton, M.J. Economic evaluation and decision making in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 , 24 , 1133–1142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corbacho, B.; Pinto-Prades, J.L. Health economic decision-making: A comparison between UK and Spain. Br. Med. Bull. 2012 , 103 , 5–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 1998 , 5 , 7–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 2018 , 25 , 551–575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clarke, S. Outstanding Formative Assessment: Culture and Practice ; Hachette: London, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• EEF. Teacher Feedback to Improve Pupil Learning. 2021. Available online: https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/eef-guidance-reports/feedback/Teacher_Feedback_to_Improve_Pupil_Learning.pdf?v=1713861365 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
• Bennett, R.E. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 2011 , 18 , 5–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess., Eval. Account. (Former. J. Pers. Eval. Educ.) 2009 , 21 , 5–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD; CERI. Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms ; CERI/OECD: Paris, France, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiliam, D. Embedded Formative Assessment: Strategies for Classroom Assessment That Drives Student Engagement and Learning ; Solution Tree: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• James, M. Embedding formative assessment in classroom practice. In Life in Schools and Classrooms ; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 509–525. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiliam, D. Research into practice. In Getting Evidence into Education: Evaluating the Routes to Policy and Practice ; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson, G. Successful Futures Independent Review of Curriculum and Assessment Arrangements in Wales Cardiff: Welsh Government. 2015. Available online: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-03/successful-futures.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2024).
• Allal, L. Involving primary school students in the co-construction of formative assessment in support of writing. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 2021 , 28 , 584–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anders, J.; Foliano, F.; Bursnall, M.; Dorsett, R.; Hudson, N.; Runge, J.; Speckesser, S. The effect of embedding formative assessment on pupil attainment. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2022 , 15 , 748–779. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cosi, A.; Voltas, N.; Lázaro-Cantabrana, J.L.; Morales, P.; Calvo, M.; Molina, S.; Quiroga, M.Á. Formative assessment at university through digital technology tools. Profr. Rev. Curric. Y Form. Profr. 2020 , 24 , 164–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cisterna, D.; Gotwals, A.W. Enactment of ongoing formative assessment: Challenges and opportunities for professional development and practice. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2018 , 29 , 200–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barana, A.; Marchisio Conte, M. Promoting socioeconomic equity through automatic formative assessment. J. Math. Educ. 2023 , 15 , 227–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kingston, N.; Nash, B. Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2011 , 30 , 28–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• James, M. Assessment for learning: Research and policy in the (dis) United Kingdom. In Assessment Reform in Education ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 15–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leahy, S.; Wiliam, D. Embedding Formative Assessment: Practical Techniques for K-12 Classrooms ; Hawker Brownlow Education: Cheltenham, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell, D.T.; Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research ; Ravenio Books: Charleston, SC, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray, E.; McCambridge, J.; Strang, J. The effectiveness of motivational interviewing delivered by youth workers in reducing drinking, cigarette and cannabis smoking among young people: Quasi-experimental pilot study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2005 , 40 , 535–539. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hakim, C. Research Design: Successful Designs for Social Economics Research ; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Handley, M.A.; Lyles, C.R.; McCulloch, C.; Cattamanchi, A. Selecting and improving quasi-experimental designs in effectiveness and implementation research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2018 , 39 , 5–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.M.; Green, C.A.; Wisdom, J.P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2015 , 42 , 533–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Welsh Government. National Reading and Numeracy Personalised Assessments: Administration Handbook. 2019. Available online: https://hwb.gov.wales/curriculum-for-wales/reading-and-numeracy-assessments/personalised-assessments/national-reading-and-numeracy-personalised-assessments-administration-handbook#specific-requirements-for-numeracy-(procedural)-and-numeracy-(reasoning)-personalised-assessments (accessed on 8 February 2024).
• Dunphy, E. Assessing early learning through formative assessment: Key issues and considerations. Ir. Educ. Stud. 2010 , 29 , 41–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stevens, K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics 2012 , 30 , 729–747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boyer, N.; Miller, S.; Connolly, P.; McIntosh, E. Population Health Economic Evaluation of the School-Based Roots of Empathy Program in Northern Ireland. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Research Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 24–26 June 2018; AcademyHealth: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• White, J.; Connelly, G.; Thompson, L.; Wilson, P. Assessing children’s social and emotional wellbeing at school entry using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: Professional perspectives. Educ. Res. 2013 , 55 , 87–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weintraub, N.; Bar-Haim Erez, A. Quality of life in school (QoLS) questionnaire: Development and validity. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2009 , 63 , 724–731. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghotra, S.; McIsaac, J.L.D.; Kirk, S.F.; Kuhle, S. Validation of the “Quality of Life in School” instrument in Canadian elementary school students. PeerJ 2016 , 4 , e1567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gorard, S.A.C. Rethinking ‘quantitative’methods and the development of new researchers. Rev. Educ. 2015 , 3 , 72–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gorard, S.; Gorard, J. What to do instead of significance testing? Calculating the ‘number of counterfactual cases needed to disturb a finding’. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2016 , 19 , 481–490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bell, A. Designing and testing questionnaires for children. J. Res. Nurs. 2007 , 12 , 461–469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Welsh Government. Curriculum for Wales ; Welsh Government: Cardiff, UK, 2024. Available online: https://hwb.gov.wales/curriculum-for-wales/ (accessed on 12 February 2024).
• Morris, S.; Devlin, N.; Parkin, D.; Spencer, A. Principles of economic evaluation in health care. In Economic Analysis in Health Care , 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2012; pp. 232–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles, J.; Edwards, R.T. A Guide to Health Economics for Those Working in Public Health: A Concise Desktop Handbook ; Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation: Bangor, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles, J.M.; Harrington, D.M.; Davies, M.J.; Edwardson, C.L.; Gorely, T.; Bodicoat, D.H.; Khunti, K.; Sherar, L.B.; Yates, T.; Edwards, R.T. Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2019 , 14 , e0221276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Haghparast-Bidgoli, H.; Skordis, J.; Harris-Fry, H.; Krishnan, S.; O’Hearn, M.; Kumar, A.; Pradhan, R.; Mishra, N.K.; Upadhyay, A.; Pradhan, S.; et al. Protocol for the cost-consequence and equity impact analyses of a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing three variants of a nutrition-sensitive agricultural extension intervention to improve maternal and child dietary diversity and nutritional status in rural Odisha, India (UPAVAN trial). Trials 2019 , 20 , 287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hartfiel, N.; Edwards, R.T. Cost–consequence analysis of public health interventions. In Applied Health Economics for Public Health Practice and Research ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 233–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coast, J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 2004 , 329 , 1233–1236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rogers, J.C.; Simmons, E.A.; Convery, I.; Weatherall, A. Public perceptions of opportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy 2008 , 36 , 4217–4226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glouberman, S.; Zimmerman, B. Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapko, M.K.; Liu, C.F.; Perkins, M.; Li, Y.F.; Fortney, J.C.; Maciejewski, M.L. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: Bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ. 2009 , 18 , 1188–1201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scammacca, N.; Swanson, E.; Vaughn, S.; Roberts, G. Cost-Effectiveness of a Grade 8 Intensive Reading and Content Learning Intervention. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2020 , 49 , 374–385. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harden, J. The True Cost of £ducation. 2019. Available online: https://www.ascl.org.uk/ASCL/media/ASCL/Our%20view/Campaigns/The-True-Cost-of-Education.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
• NASUWT. Directed Time (Wales). 2024. Available online: https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/conditions-of-service/teachers-working-hours/directed-time-wales.html#TeachersWorkingTime (accessed on 25 January 2024).
• Limwattananon, S. Sensitivity analysis for handling uncertainty in an economic evaluation. J. Med. Assoc. Thail. Chotmaihet Thangphaet 2014 , 97 , S59–S64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaismoradi, M.; Jones, J.; Turunen, H.; Snelgrove, S. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2016 , 6 , 100–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis ; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh Government. Draft Curriculum for Wales 2022: A Guide to Curriculum for Wales 2022 ; Welsh Government: Cardiff, UK, 2019. Available online: https://cyfarthfahigh.merthyr.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/A-Guide-to-the-Curriculum-for-Wales-2022.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
• Levin, H.; McEwan, P.; Belfield, C.; Bowden, A. Economic Evaluation in Education: Cost-Effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analysis ; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh Government. School Census Results ; Welsh Government: Cardiff, UK, 2018. Available online: https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2018-12/180725-school-census-results-2018-en.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2024).
• Boström, E.; Palm, T. The effect of a formative assessment practice on student achievement in mathematics. Front. Educ. 2023 , 8 , 1101192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martin, C.; Mraz, M.; Polly, D. Examining elementary school teachers’ perceptions of and use of formative assessment in mathematics. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 2022 , 14 , 417–425. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beames, J.R.; Spanos, S.; Roberts, A.; McGillivray, L.; Li, S.; Newby, J.M.; O’Dea, B.; Werner-Seidler, A. Intervention programs targeting the mental health, professional burnout, and/or wellbeing of school teachers: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2023 , 35 , 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gorard, S.; Siddiqui, N.; See, B.H. What works and what fails? Evidence from seven popular literacy ‘catch-up’schemes for the transition to secondary school in England. Res. Pap. Educ. 2017 , 32 , 626–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Speckesser, S.; Runge, J.; Foliano, F.; Bursnall, M.; Hudson-Sharp, N.; Rolfe, H.; Anders, J. Embedding Formative Assessment: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary ; Education Endowment Foundation: London, UK, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell, R.G.; Pizer, W.A.; Prest, B.C. The Shadow Price of Capital: Accounting for Capital Displacement in Benefit-Cost Analysis. Environ. Energy Policy Econ. 2024 , 5 , 49–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Curtis, L.A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013 ; Personal Social Services Research Unit: Kent, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shand, R.; Bowden, A.B. Empirical support for establishing common assumptions in cost research in education. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2022 , 15 , 103–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MacKillop, E.; Sheard, S. Quantifying life: Understanding the history of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Soc. Sci. Med. 2018 , 211 , 359–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hartz, S.; John, J. Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: A methodological and empirical review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2008 , 24 , 465–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramsey, S.D.; Willke, R.J.; Glick, H.; Reed, S.D.; Augustovski, F.; Jonsson, B.; Briggs, A.; Sullivan, S.D. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015 , 18 , 161–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levin, H.M.; Belfield, C. Guiding the development and use of cost-effectiveness analysis in education. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2015 , 8 , 400–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McMillan, J.H.; Venable, J.C.; Varier, D. Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: So much more is needed. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2013 , 18 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gorard, S. A proposal for judging the trustworthiness of research findings. Radic. Stat. 2014 , 110 , 47–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorard, S. Judging the relative trustworthiness of research results: How to do it and why it matters. Rev. Educ. 2024 , 12 , e3448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greenberg, M.T.; Abenavoli, R. Universal interventions: Fully exploring their impacts and potential to produce population-level impacts. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2017 , 10 , 40–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Charles, J.M.; Edwards, R.T.; Bywater, T.; Hutchings, J. Micro-costing in public health economics: Steps towards a standardized framework, using the incredible years toddler parenting program as a worked example. Prev. Sci. 2013 , 14 , 377–389. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolan, P.; Peasgood, T. Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. Br. J. Criminol. 2007 , 47 , 121–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Tiesteel, E.; Watkins, R.C.; Stringer, C.; Grigorie, A.; Sultana, F.; Hughes, J.C. Where Are the Costs? Using an Economic Analysis of Educational Interventions Approach to Improve the Evaluation of a Regional School Improvement Programme. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 957. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090957

Tiesteel E, Watkins RC, Stringer C, Grigorie A, Sultana F, Hughes JC. Where Are the Costs? Using an Economic Analysis of Educational Interventions Approach to Improve the Evaluation of a Regional School Improvement Programme. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):957. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090957

Tiesteel, Emma, Richard C. Watkins, Carys Stringer, Adina Grigorie, Fatema Sultana, and J. Carl Hughes. 2024. "Where Are the Costs? Using an Economic Analysis of Educational Interventions Approach to Improve the Evaluation of a Regional School Improvement Programme" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 957. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090957

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

AI Research Guide

Start your search, introduction to artificial intelligence, ethics & ethical questions, privacy & security, how do i....

• AI Citation Guide This link opens in a new window
• Computer Science
• Criminal Justice
• Earth, Ocean, & Environment
• Engineering
• Library & Information Science
• Public Health & Nursing

Ask a Librarian Online

Research & instruction librarian.

• "artificial intelligence" OR AI
• "generative AI" OR "Chat GPT" OR GenAI
• "machine learning" OR ML
• "internet of things" OR IoT

Example search

• Find It @ USC Search for articles, books, and more.
• A-Z List of Databases A complete alphabetical list of all library subscription databases.
• Schedule an Appointment Do you need help with your research? Book a research appointment with a librarian

• Get full text access of an article
• Find and Use Ebooks
• Access from Off Campus/At a Distance
• Renew Books Online
• Next: AI Citation Guide >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 4:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.sc.edu/ai-research