print

Research Philosophy and Assumptions – SOE

Font Size:

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

You learned about specialization assumptions when you studied the various schools of thought in the history of psychology.  In Track 1, recall learning about the four philosophical frameworks, or schools of thought, for education research (scientific realism, social constructivism, advocacy-liberatory, and pragmatism) from which specialization assumptions are derived. You were also asked to select one of these frameworks that fits best with your worldview. When you did that, you were adopting—whether you realized it at the time—a set of specialization assumptions, that is, ideas and practices that are taken for granted within that school of thought.

You will address your dissertation’s theoretical framework in Track 3—qualitative researchers should note that, except in grounded theory, most qualitative research done in the field of education whether labeled so or not is basic qualitative research and the philosophical foundation for basic qualitative research is constructionism, phenomenology, and symbolic interaction. 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

Finally, in Unit 3, 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 or philosophies play this role:

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, such as building a backyard swing for your children or planning a holiday party for your friends), 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 for 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:

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 available in the Colloquium Track 2 Courseroom Resources section.) Gunbayi made the following assumptions in his study:

References
Bowers, D. B., & Seashore, S. B. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 238–263.
Gunbayi, I. (2005). Women and men teachers' approaches to leadership styles. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 33(7), 685–698.

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):

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 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 is 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:

Reference
Denner, J., Meyer, B., & Bean, S. (2005). Young women's leadership alliance: Youth-adult partnerships in an all-female after-school program. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 87–100.

 

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's Research at Capella page. There, click on the link to Research in [your school’s name].  On the Research Page for your school, 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
Syed, M., (2010). Developing an integrated self: Academic and ethnic identities among ethnically diverse college students. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1590–1604. DOI: 10.1037/a0020738

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

Assumptions Post-Positivist Interpretive
Ontological (nature of reality). Fixed, stable, observable, and measurable. Multiple realities that are socially constructed by individuals.
Epistemological (knowledge). Gained through scientific and experimental research. Knowledge is objective and quantifiable. Gained through understanding the meaning of the process or experience.
Axiological (role of values). Emphasis is on the objective researcher, value free; subjectivity and bias lead to error. Researcher’s subjective values, intuition, and biases are important; learning participants’ subjective ideas valuable.

Methodological (research strategies).

Experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental (e.g., correlation) research. Quantifiable methods only. Qualitative methods only: phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, heuristics, and generic qualitative.


Doc. reference: phd_t2_soe_u03s1_h03_assumptn.html