Research Philosophy and Assumptions – PSL

Font Size:

All research builds on philosophical and theoretical foundations. You will remember from Track I that these come in three flavors:

• Specialization assumptions derived from the school of thought whose point of view supports the research topic. These include assumptions about the kinds of research that can be done within the specialization, and topical assumptions derived from the literature about the specific topic of the dissertation.

• Philosophical assumptions derived from a paradigm that guides the design. These include:
• Ontological assumptions about the nature of reality.
• Epistemological assumptions about what can be known.
• Axiological assumptions about what is important and valuable in research.
• Methodological assumptions about what methods and procedures are allowable within the paradigm.

• Theoretical Frameworks, which are specific theories (from within the specialization) adopted by a researcher to develop the concepts and variables to be studied and to guide the data analysis.

You will address your dissertation's theoretical framework in Track 3 Qualitative researchers should note that, except in grounded theory, most qualitative research deigns do not use a theoretical framework—although each design or approach within qualitative methodology does have a set of theoretical premises and commitments it must adhere to,except generic qualitative inquiry. More on that in Track 3.

Here in Track 2, our focus is on the philosophical assumptions and paradigms that underlie your research. In this study guide, you will review:

• The two main paradigms that govern most traditional social science research.
• The four kinds of philosophical assumptions derived from those paradigms.

Finally, you will apply this material to your own study and complete the "Assumptions" section of your school's Research Plan for Track 2.

Research Philosophy

Terms synonymous with research philosophies include

• Research traditions.
• Philosophical paradigms (lens).
• Epistemological paradigms.
• Cultures of inquiry.

Research traditions or philosophies play this role:

• They tell us about the philosophical assumptions researchers have about the world and how to go about studying phenomena.
• As a result, the research tradition you select will reflect your assumptions about the world, and will shape the decisions you make throughout the entire research process.
• They make four key assumptions: ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions.

These four key assumptions have imposing sounding names, but they are understandable. When you design a research project (indeed, when you design any project at all), there are certain kinds of things you take for granted, that is, assume. You don't need to prove them or calculate them, you simply accept them as givens.

For instance, if you wish to study the psychological factors of obesity in America, you take it for granted that obesity is something real. We call this an ontological assumption, from the Greek word that means "reality."

You also assume that obesity can be studied productively; that we can learn something meaningful and useful about it. This comes from the Greek word "episteme-" which means knowledge. Epistemological assumptions are about what can be known.

You take it for granted that to learn about obesity would be a good thing, and that there are right and wrong ways to go about doing it. This kind of assumption comes from the Greek word axioma, meaning something that is worthy and fitting.

And finally, you take certain methods of learning about obesity for granted—you assume that there are some methods of inquiry that will be workable and others that will not. These methodological assumptions are based on the previous three kinds of assumptions.

How do we know what we should assume? The answer to that is in the paradigm we choose to work within. In Track 2, we will focus on the two main paradigms in social science research. There are others, but these two have stood the test of time since the days of Plato and Aristotle. They are logical positivism and interpretivism. We will take them one at a time.

Positivism (Logical Positivism)

Positivism is a philosophy that holds that empirical evidence obtained through the senses is the only firm foundation for knowledge. Further, it insists that valid knowledge can only be assumed if all observers come up with essentially the same description of a thing. Last, it requires that these descriptions be uniform across all researchers or observers, which leads to the requirement that measurement is the royal road to knowledge. Thus, positivism leads to the following four sets of assumptions:

• Ontological assumptions (nature of reality): There is one defined reality, fixed, measurable, and observable.
• Epistemological assumptions (knowledge): Genuine knowledge is objective and quantifiable. The goal of science is to test and expand theory.
• Axiological assumptions (role of values): Objectivity is good, and subjectivity is inherently misleading.
• Methodological assumptions (research strategies): Using quantitative research methods such as experiments, quasi-experiments, surveys, correlation studies, and so on—which require objective measurement and analysis—is the only acceptable method to generate valid knowledge.

As should be obvious, such assumptions lead to quantitative studies, which rely on objective measurement of observable phenomena. That which cannot be measured cannot be reliably known. B. F. Skinner's famous dictum that human consciousness itself was not the proper study of psychology—because it could not be directly observed and measured—was based on the positivist paradigm.

Positivistic Research Study Example

In 2005, Ilhun Gunbayi, I. published an article examining the leadership styles of primary and junior high school teachers if they were to assume the role of a principal. (If you wish to review the entire article, a link is availible in the Colloquium Track 2 Courseroom Resources.) Gunbayi made the following assumptions in his study:

• Ontological assumption: Leadership styles can be observed and measured. There is one defined reality for this concept: leadership style, and if measured, will be readily visible to all who observe it.
• Epistemological assumption: The acquisition of knowledge about leadership is an objective process, one that can be measured, and that measured and objective report is reliable and useful knowledge.
• Axiological assumption: The score for leadership style will objectively inform what type of leadership style a teacher possesses, which is a valuable thing to understand.
• Methodological assumption: Quantitative design – Specific closed-ended survey: Leadership Questionnaire by Bowers and Seashore (1966). Consists of 20 question items using a 5-point, Likert-type scale; captures four dimensions of leadership styles: support, interaction facilitation, goal emphasis, and work facilitation. No subjective data are necessary.

References

Interpretivism (Social Constructivism)

A second main paradigm or philosophical camp is known as interpretivism, or social constructivism. This philosophy has been more recent in development, but its roots are in the philosophy of Plato and his teacher Socrates, who held that the truth, even if it is only dimly shadowed by human approximations of it, can only be approached through careful reflection and dialog with others. Simply put, we can only interpret the truth, not measure it. We can only know what we can learn in thoughtful discussion with other seekers. Human beings, that is, construct their realities and truths by talking together about them.

Here is how the four groups of assumptions look to an interpretivist (a social constructivist):

• Ontological assumptions (nature of reality): There must be multiple realities, socially constructed by individuals together.
• Epistemological assumptions (knowledge): Knowledge is gained through an empathic understanding of participants' lived social realities; the goal of science is to describe people's subjective lived realities, experiences, and understandings.
• Axiological assumptions (role of values): The researcher's subjective values, intuition, and biases are important—they play a role in the dialog of social construction and inform his or her interpretation of the data.
• Methodological assumptions (research strategies): Using qualitative research methods such as phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and ethnography provides access to participants inner, subjective experiences.

As the positivist paradigm leads inevitably to objective, quantifiable methods, the interpretivist paradigm leads to methods that involve qualitative inquiry—researcher and participant talking together, constructing a new reality together.

Interpretivistic Research Study Example:

Jill Denner, Beth Meyer, and Steve Bean (2005) published a qualitative study designed to determine attitudes and opinions about the helpfulness of practices adults used in building supportive and empowering partnerships with young female participants of an all female after-school program. (If you wish to read the entire article, it is available as a link in the Resources area of the Track 2 Courseroom.) "Attitudes and opinions" are classic qualitative focuses. Quantitative opinion surveys simply ask people to rate pre-determined opinions on a scale of some sort, but the qualitative approach si to ask for the opinions and attitudes in the participant's own words. Then the researcher interprets those words to create a new reality, a set of themes or descriptions that transcends what any single individual may have thought before.

The four sets of assumptions look different from this interpretivist perspective:

• Ontological assumption – There are multiple social realities of attitudes about what practices are helpful. Reality cannot be easily defined by the researcher alone. It is more important to capture the meanings, experiences, and perceptions of those female participants who actually participated in the program.
• Epistemological assumption – The study of these girls' experiences could only be captured by hearing what they have to say since they are the ones who lived through this process.
• Axiological assumptions – The types of questions asked were influenced by the researchers' worldviews. The analysis of the findings; extrapolation of themes are also influenced by the researchers' values, personal experiences, and worldviews. At the same time, the values, experiences, and worldviews of the participants interact with those of the researchers to deepen the analysis.
• Methodological assumptions – Using a qualitative design and in-depth, face-to-face interviews, with open-ended questions, allows researchers to obtain deep and rich understandings of what these young women experienced.

Reference

A Small Example of the Two Paradigms' Power

Social science researchers work with both paradigms, and each has its unique power. The most apparent use of the two is in designing mixed methods studies in which both the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms interact in the design and the data analysis. Let us take a small example of a mixed study to illustrate the unique power of each paradigm.

Before doing so, a disclaimer: Mixed-methods research is governed by specific considerations in all schools at Capella University. Mixed-methods research is complex and arduous, and can require special permissions, additional coursework, and a mentor with expertise in mixed methods. Further, mixed-methods dissertations usually take longer and therefore are more costly, both in time and money. Each of Capella's doctoral schools has specific requirements for learners wishing to pursue mixed designs. You can find the requirements for your school on iGuide. Go to the iGuide Research at Capella page. There, click on the Research in [your school's name link. Then open the Acceptable Methods Document and review the requirements for mixed methods.

In a mixed-methods doctoral dissertation, Moin Syed investigated college major choice and the development of ethnic identity in college students between matriculation and senior year. (If you wish to read the full article, it is available in the Resources area of the Track 2 Courseroom.) Syed obtained interview data from a large number of undergrads about their own experiences of their ethnic identity's impact on their choice of a major, while also obtaining quantitative data about the process and timing of various choices and sub-choices of majors, minors, and courses of study. First, he presented the quantitative data, showing conclusively that specific kinds of major choices happened at specific times in the four-year trajectory of a college career. Then he presented the qualitative data, deriving from the interviews four themes regarding ethnic identity and its impact on major choice.

Each kind of analysis had a unique power. The quantitative analysis allows readers to see fairly clearly which majors took longer than others to choose and what relationships existed between those majors and the plans the students had when they started college. The statistical analysis also suggested that ethnicity might have a significant relationship to the other two points. But what did that relationship actually mean to the students?

The qualitative analysis cast rich light on that question. By understanding how his participants understood their own ethnicity's impact on their choice of majors, Syed was able to explain more fully how the quantitative data played out in various ethnic groups. By themselves, the two kinds of analysis offered useful information, but by integrating them into a coherent interpretation Syed greatly enhanced the power of his dissertation.

Reference

Summary of Research Paradigms and Their Related Assumptions

Use the table below to review the two major paradigms operating in social science research today, and the assumptions associated with them.

Table 1. Dominant Research Paradigms and Their Assumptions.

Doc. reference: phd_t2_psl_u03s1_h05_assumptn.html