The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
“Society in general is unimpressed with the
contributions of social/behavioral inquiry; a
pox will soon be called down on all our
houses, if there is continuing conflict rather
than cooperation among the paradigm
adherents. It is to everyone’s benefit to
cooperate.”
(Guba, 1990b, 374)
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
“Let us engage in the paradigm wars. Let us
defend ourselves against those who would impose
their modern notions of science on us by exposing
the flaws in what they call scientifically
based research (SBR). Let us mount a strong
offense by generating qualitative studies that are
so powerful they cannot be dismissed.”
(Hatch 2006, 407)
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Outline of the paper
 From the 1980s to the present, taking up
multiple forms of paradigm discourse in
the third methodological moment.
 re-engaging Hatch and his critique of the
SBR backlash against interpretive inquiry.
 Returning to Guba’s (1990b) call for dialog
and collaboration across paradigms and
interpretive communities.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Some Post-Positivist Institutions
 CC
(Cochrane Collaboration)
 C2 (Campbell Collaboration)
 AIR (American Institutes for Research)
 WWC (What Works Clearinghouse)
 SBR (scientifically based research)
 IES (Institute of Education Science)
 NRC (National Research Council)
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 neo-liberalism
 post-positivism
 the
audit-accountability culture
 experimentalism
 mixed
methodologies
 ‘governmental incursion into the spaces of
research methods’
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)


Terminology
Neoliberalism is an approach to economic and social
policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that
minimise the role of the state and maximise the private
business sector.
The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in
cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing
ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and
political practices and policies that use the language of
markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional
thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from
governments and corporations onto individuals and to
extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social
and affective relationships.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
(from Wikipedia)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)



Terminology
The term epistemology comes from the Greek word
epistêmê, their term for knowledge. In simple terms,
epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how
we come to know.
Methodology is also concerned with how we come to
know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology
is focused on the specific ways -- the methods -- that we
can use to try to understand our world better.
Epistemology and methodology are intimately related:
the former involves the philosophy of how we come to
know the world and the latter involves the practice.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 In its broadest sense, positivism is a
rejection of metaphysics. It is a position
that holds that the goal of knowledge is
simply to describe the phenomena that we
experience. The purpose of science is
simply to stick to what we can observe
and measure. Knowledge of anything
beyond that, a positivist would hold, is
impossible. (E.g., behaviorism in mid20th Century psychology)
The new paradigm dialogs and
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 In a positivist view of the world, science was
seen as the way to get at truth, to understand
the world well enough so that we might predict
and control it.
 The positivist believed in empiricism -- the idea
that observation and measurement was the core
of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of
the scientific method is the experiment, the
attempt to discern natural laws through direct
manipulation and observation.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 Postpositivists believe that human
knowledge is based not on
unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations,
but rather upon humanconjectures.
(from Wikipedia)
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 Post-positivism is a wholesale rejection
of the central tenets of positivism. A postpositivist might begin by recognizing that
the way scientists think and work and the
way we think in our everyday life are not
distinctly different. Scientific reasoning
and common sense reasoning are
essentially the same process. There is no
difference in kind between the two, only a
difference in degree.
The new paradigm dialogs and
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 One of the most common forms of postpositivism is a philosophy called critical
realism. A critical realist believes that there is a
reality independent of our thinking about it that
science can study.
 Positivists were also realists. The difference is
that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes
that all observation is fallible and has error and
that all theory is revisable. In other words, the
critical realist is critical of our ability to know
reality with certainty.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)

Terminology
Where the positivist believed that the goal of science
was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical
realist believes that the goal of science is to hold
steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality,
even though we can never achieve that goal!


Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist
emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and
observations, each of which may possess different types
of error, and the need to use triangulation across
these multiple errorful sources.
The post-positivist believes that all observations are
theory-laden and that scientists are inherently biased by
their cultural experiences, world views, and so on.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist
idea of the incommensurability of different
perspectives, the idea that we can never
understand each other because we come from
different experiences and cultures.
 Most post-positivists are constructivists who
believe that we each construct our view of the
world based on our perceptions of it. Because
perception and observation is fallible, our
constructions must be imperfect.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Terminology
 So what is meant by objectivity in a postpositivist world? Positivists believed that
objectivity was a characteristic that resided in
the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible
for putting aside their biases and beliefs and
seeing the world as it 'really' is. Post-positivists
reject the idea that any individual can see the
world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased
and all of our observations are affected (theoryladen). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is
to triangulate across multiple fallible
perspectives.
The new paradigm dialogs and
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)



Terminology
Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture
characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global
cultural narrative. It emphasizes the role of language,
power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the
use of sharp classifications such as male versus female,
straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus
colonial.
Postmodernism has influenced many cultural fields,
including literary criticism, sociology, linguistics, architecture,
visual arts, and music.
Postmodernist thought is an intentional departure from
modernist approaches that had previously been dominant.
The term "Postmodernism" comes from its rejection of the
"Modern" scientific mentality of objectivity and progress
associated with the Enlightenment.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
(from Wikipedia)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): Qualitative studies in the era of
scientifically-based research
 neo-conservatism and postmodernism;
 postmodern paralysis;
 fighting back;
 re-engaging the paradigm wars.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): neo-conservatism and postmodernism
 SBR is a well-orchestrated attempt to return to
modern ways of thinking about ‘knowledge,
knowing and research methods’ In the language of
the paradigm wars, this is a return to positivism.
 Methodological conservatism blurs into and
supports conservative political ideology; the
conservative and SBR criticisms of the critical and
constructivist (postmodern) paradigms may have
created divisions within the qualitative research
community. Rather than endorsing many different
forms of inquiry, SBR has helped marginalize
critical qualitative inquiry.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): postmodern paralysis
 Hatch places some of the blame on those
who speak about the end of ethnography,
the crisis of representation, and the
postmodern, performance and
autoethnographic turn in qualitative inquiry.
 He fears that many who fought on the front
lines of 1980s paradigm wars now feel
trapped between ‘retrenched positivist
forces on the one hand and stinging
poststructuralist critiques on the other.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): postmodern paralysis
 This debate creates paralysis. People are writing
and theorizing about research but not doing it.
Students are not being taught how to do actual
qualitative research. Few ‘data-based studies’ (406)
are being conducted.
 Hatch fears that ‘the next generation of … may
well have been prepared to theorize, deconstruct,
and critique but have no clue how to design a
study, collect data and generating findings from a
thoughtful analysis’ (406).
 Denzin’s disagreement: Paralysis is not the case.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): Fighting back
 Hatch wants research done within all the
qualitative paradigms to be considered
legitimate. He does not want ‘knowledge
and how it is created to be in the hands of
those who happen to hold political power’
(406). He does not want to take a giant step
back to the pre-1980s paradigm wars. He
wants a strong line of defense in order to
re-establish qualitative inquiry as a valuable
and ‘respected form of inquiry’ (406).
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): Seven Ways to Fight back
 (1) publishing well-designed qualitative research in highquality journals;
 (2) increased support for new scholars doing qualitative
research;
 (3) lobbying journals and editors to publish more
qualitative work;
 (4) defending our territory by ‘exposing the flaws, faulty
logic, shaking assumptions, and sheer banality that
characterizes many of the arguments in the SBR movement’
(406);
 (5) rejecting SBR criteria for evaluating our work;
 (6) critiquing SBR studies which are held up as models for
the field; and
 (7) refusing to accept SBR’s concepts of science and
knowledge and properTheinquiry.
new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Hatch (2006): Who science? Whose research?
 We cannot allow the new positivist, SBR camp to claim
control over the word science, just as we must reclaim
control over what we mean by research.
 Eisenhart (2006) proposes a model of qualitative science
that is interpretive, after Geertz (1973), and practical, after
 Flyvberg (2001). A development of these alternatives to
experimental science could help improve the status of
qualitative inquiry in the current political environment.
 Likewise, queer, feminist, indigenous and postcolonial
models of science open up additional spaces for resisting
the narrow, hegemonic SBR framework.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Forming Alliances
 We need to find new strategic and tactical
ways to work with one another in the new
paradigm dialog between the poststructural,
mixedmethods and SBR advocates, as well
as spokespersons for the NRC, CC and C2.
 These three main interpretive communities
need to develop ways of communicating
with and learning from one another.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Forming Alliances
 We must learn from the Paradigm conflicts
of the 1980s to not over-reach, to not
engage in polemics, to not become too selfsatisfied. We need to develop and work with
our own concepts of science, knowledge
and quality inquiry.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Forming Alliances
 Over the course of the last two decades,
oststructuralists have fought hard to claim an
interpretive space for inquiry which questioned
norms of objectivity, emphasized complexity,
subjective interpretive processes, performance,
textuality, difference, uncertainty, politics, power
and inquiry as a moral as well as a scientific
process (see Lather 2006a, 48–52). These
understandings, like obdurate structures, ought
not be compromised. They are knots in our
interpretive handkerchief.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Carrying on the Dialog: Ten Position Statements
 Thesis 1: There needs to be a greater openness to
alternative paradigm critiques;
 Thesis 2: There needs to be decline in
confrontationalism by alternative paradigm
proponents;
 Thesis 3: Paths for fruitful dialog between and
across paradigms need to be explored;
 Thesis 4: Simplistic representations of the newer
(and older) paradigms need to be avoided. This
will help address confusion.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Carrying on the Dialog: Ten Position Statements
 Thesis 5: Complexity and interconnectedness, not simplicity
are ineluctable (Guba 1990b, 373);
 Thesis 6: The commensurability theses, as they apply to
paradigms and methods, need to be revisited.What is
gained and what is lost with these two theses?
 Thesis 7: A change in paradigmatic postures involves a
personal odyssey; that is, we each have a personal history
with our preferred paradigm and this needs to be honored.
 Thesis 8: The three main interpretive communities
(poststructural, mix-methods, SBR) must learn to how to
cooperate and work with one another. This is so because
paradigm dominance involves control over faculty
appointments, tenure, training, funding, publication, status
new paradigm374).
dialogs and
and legitimation (GubaThe1990b,
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Carrying on the Dialog: Ten Position Statements

Thesis 9: There is a need for conferences which
will allow scholars from competing paradigms to
see one another face to face and to interact. The
Annual International Congress of Qualitative
Inquiry is one attempt to address this need.
 Thesis 10: The complexity of the field of
qualitative research needs to be honored.
Polarization and elitism need to be avoided. In
conferences and congresses multiple language
communities need to be represented. Dialog
between persons and interpretive communities is
critical.
The new paradigm dialogs and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)
The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry
(Denzin, 2008)
Carrying on the Dialog: Three Agenda Items

The intellectual agenda: The global community of
qualitative inquiry needs annual events where it
can deal with the problems and issues that they
confront at this historical moment.
 The advocacy agenda: The community needs to
develop ‘systematic contacts with political figures,
the media …the professional press and with
practitioners such as teachers, health workers,
social workers, [and] government functionaries’.
 The operational agenda: Qualitative researchers
are encouraged to engage in self-learning, and
self-criticism, to resocialize
themselves.
The new paradigm dialogs
and
qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2008)