Paradigms & Models in Research Design
Jan Marontate
CMNS 801: Design and Methodology in Communication Research
School of Communication.
Simon Fraser University
Spring 2010
Plan for Today’s Class Session


Introductions and consultations with Sylvia
Roberts, CMNS area librarian
Overview of course assignments
 Discussion
of Readings & Notions about methodology
texts
 Discussion of aspects Methodological Design in 1st
Exercise
 “Special Topic Assignment” (Handouts 2 & 3)
Research Interests & Methodological Backgrounds
 Choosing Topics and Scheduling Presentations


Paradigms and Theories of Research Design
The Research Process
Babbie (1995) Social Science Research, p. 101
(Recall) Methods & Fundamental
Assumptions
“Savoir,
pouvoir, prévoir” (Auguste Comte)
 To
know, to be able (to have power), to predict the future and
plan for it
 Knowledge as power (to acquire skills for social action, change,
forecasting)
“décrire,
 describe,
comprendre, expliquer” (Gilles Gaston Granger)
understand and explain
 Knowledge as understanding
-notion of “normal” science
(Thomas Kuhn)
 based on past achievements, that sci. community



acknowledges as foundation for further practice
Innovations, need
recognition (and ability to attract adherents from
competing modes of activity)
open-endedness (to leave problems for
practitioners to resolve)
“paradigms” --a feature of
Normal Science
 other
features
 Generalizability
 but as definitions of the paradigm
become rigid the scientist builds
anew—need not start from “first
principles’ (can leave that to
textbook writers)
Normal Science & Paradigm Shifts

a science of puzzle-solving (not problem-finding because
everyone agrees on the paradigm for choosing problems)
following rules.

How do breaks occur in these traditions?





observation & Anomaly --awareness (recognition) that observation
has violated paradigm-induced expectations
Conceptual—theoretical--development of new concepts and
vocabulary to describe and analyze the anomaly
-change of paradigms, recognition of “discovery”
associated with crisis in established communities
-breakdown of normal technical puzzle-solving activity
-social & political pressures
Transition from one crisis to a
new one (Kuhn)
 Not cumulative in a mechanistic way, not necessarily
‘progress’ but have a history--a reconstruction of a new
field of new fundamentals (theories & methods)
 commitment to a paradigm necessary for the practice
of “normal science” but not a uniquely “internal”—
external factors (political, social etc.)
Scientific Revolutions = changes of world vie
 differentiates scientific articles, textbooks,
popularizations and philosophies (the last three are not
doing science—by testing the paradigm) but
reconstructing and analyzing it.
Structure of Scientific
Revolutions
Ground-breaking because Kuhn a
scientist—recognizes the social
aspects of scientific practice—
communities of scientists and
suggests that science not “theory
driven” in the internal sense
Empirical Research Methodology in the
Social Sciences (20th-c. conventions)

Process involving
 methods
 logic

of inquiry (assumptions & hypotheses)
produces
 laws,
principles and theories that can be tested
 (Karl
Popper & notion of falsifiability for politically
engaged scholars interested in the fight against
genocide in the early 20th century)
The Research Process
Babbie (1995) Social Science Research, p. 101
Methods & Fundamental Assumptions
“Savoir,
pouvoir, prévoir” (Auguste Comte)
 To
know, to be able (to have power), to predict the future and
plan for it
 Knowledge as power (to acquire skills for social action, change,
forecasting)
“décrire,
 describe,
comprendre, expliquer” (Gilles Gaston Granger)
understand and explain
 Knowledge as understanding
Classification of Theories to
Understand Different Approaches
Paradigms, other typologies (like quantitative
vs. qualitative)
 direction of reasoning (induction, deduction,
abduction)
 level of ‘reality’ (micro, macro)
 forms of explanation
 theoretical frameworks
 degree of abstraction

Identifying Styles of Research: Example of
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches
(common about 20-30 yrs ago but still used)
Neuman (2000: 16)
Quantitative
Objective
Variables
Reliability
Value-Free
Independent of Context
Many cases or subjects
Statistical Analysis
Detached Researcher
vs.
Qualitative
Subjective
Processes and events
Authenticity
Explicitly Stated Values
Aware of Context
Few cases or subjects
Other qualities
Involved Researcher
Research Paradigms

Sets of shared patterns in a scholarly community
about what constitutes worthwhile research (Thomas
Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions)
 What
problems are worth investigating?
 What constitutes an answer?

Different views on how approaches are grouped
(cf. Lincoln & Guba)
Assumptions about nature of people
& knowledge for use in classifying
approaches (Burrell & Morgan)*
Subjective vs.




Objective Assumptions
ontology :
nominalism
realism
epistemology : anti-positivism positivism
human nature: voluntarism
determinism
methodology:
ideographic
nomethetic (laws)
(idiographic=unique, singular)
*Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1982) “In search of a framework”, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis. London: Heinemen, pp. 1-37.
Assumptions about
Order/Conflict

Order/regulation) vs. Conflict/Radical Change)

Stability/solidarity
Integration
Functional coordination
consensus
need satisfaction




Change/emancipation
Conflict
disintegration
coercion
deprivation
Four Paradigms (Burrell &
Morgan)
radical humanist
interpretive
radical structuralist
functionalist
Order/stability/regulation
objective
subjective
Conflict/radical change
Four Paradigms in Communications
Research (Baxter & Babbie 2004)*

Positivism



Once widely taught as same as science
early religious aspect
association with quantitative research
Systems Paradigm
 Interpretive Approaches






Verstehen
association with qualitative research
direct observation, context, meaningful action
holistic
Critical Theory Approaches
* Baxter & Babbie (2004) The Basics of Communication Research, Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth.
Questions to Ask about Research (Neuman 1999)*
1. reasons for research
2. nature of social reality
3. nature of human beings
4. role of common sense
5. Ideas about what theory looks like
6. explanation that is acceptable
7. good evidence
8. place for values
*W. Lawrence Neuman (1999) Social Research Methods. Qaultiative and Quantitative
Approaches.Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.
Example: Positivism




1. Why
conduct research?
 instrumental orientation
 to predict and control
2. Nature of Social Reality?
 has order
 fundamentally unchanging
 can be discovered using science
3. Nature of Human Beings?
 self interest, pleasure seeking, rational
 operate on basis of external causes, probability
 mechanical model of man
4. Science and common sense?
 separate
Positivism (cont’d)




What constitutes Explanation or Theory?
 science nomethetic (universal laws)
 causal relationships, universally valid
6. How to judge explanation
 use reason : no logical contradictions
 Observation, Replication
7. Good evidence?
 observations , empirical knowledge
 can be communicated
8. Social/Political Values?
 value-free science
 objectivity
Concepts associated with Positivism
Objective Reality that can be studied
scientifically (logic & empirical
observation)
 Variables
 Relationships between variables
 Quantitative Reasoning

Interpretive Approaches




Why conduct research?
 to understand meanings
2. Nature of Social Reality?
 importance of human consciousness
 socially constructed
 multiple social realities possible
3. Nature of Human Beings?
 people use meanings, have reasons
 laws (?)
4. Science and common sense?
 must study common sense, pragmatic
Interpretive Approaches




1. Why conduct research?
 to understand meanings
2. Nature of Social Reality?
 importance of human consciousness
 socially constructed
 multiple social realities possible
3. Nature of Human Beings?
 people use meanings, have reasons
 laws (?)
4. Science and common sense?
 must study common sense, pragmatic
Interpretive Approaches (cont’d)
5.. What constitutes Explanation or Theory
 ideographic
 “thick”
descriptions), semantic relationships
 Rules in interpretive traditions= shared beliefs
6. How to judge explanation– as understanding
 makes
sense to others
 Heuristic framework
7. Good evidence?
 in
context, has meaning for social actors (evocative)
8. Social/Political Values?
 does
not try to be value free, state biases
Critical Theory as a Paradigm




Why conduct research?
 discover structures
 change world, action oriented
 knowledge is power (from below)
2. Nature of Social Reality?
 changing
 conflict (not always visible-myths, false consciousness)
3. Nature of Human Beings?
 have potential but can be mislead
 potential realized through collective action
4. Science and common sense?
 idea of objective reality , underlying truths but science can be
instrument of oppression
Critical Theoretical Approaches
(cont’d)




5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory
 combination of determinism and voluntarism
6. How to judge explanation
 capacity to describe social conditions and promote
change
7. Good evidence?
 material conditions separate from subjectivity but
facts not neutral
8. Social/Political Values?
 everpresent, promotes activism
“Dimensions” of Research
Purpose of
Study
Intended Use
of Study
Treatment of Time
in Study
Space
Unit of
Analysis
Exploratory
Descriptive
Explanatory
Basic
Applied
-Action
-Impact
-Evaluation
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
-Panel
-Time series
-Cohort analysis
- Case Study
- Trend study
-dependent
individual
-independent family
household
artifact
(media,
technology)
Neuman (2000: 37)
If time: Writing about Methods
Platt, Jennifer. “Writing on Method” and “Theory and practice” in A history of
sociological research methods in America, 1920-1960. Cambridge: Cambridge U.
Press 1996, pp. 1-67, 106-142.




Emergence of methodological textbooks (social sciences) in N.
America (c. 1920s)
writing on methods--often followed practices
Not necessarily derived from theory, influenced by commercial
uses and social work
Shifts over time



1920s-1940s --conflicts between qualitative & quantitative
1940s-1960s-- little work on qualitative methods (more on notions like
scaling, sampling, logic, design, practicalities of interviewing)
1960s re-emergence of qualitative methods
Causes of writing about methods?
Rise of university programs, need for
teaching resources
 Professionalization & differentiation
 Increasing orientation toward empirical
research
 Motivations often unstated (especially in
‘self-defence’-driven work

Problems




Relating methods to their uses and practices
Questions about relationship of specific methods
to theories
Mode of transmissions
Methodological choices
 Practical
influences
 Constraints (positive & negative)
 Accidental
 Notion of ‘bricolage’
 Untidiness of life in process
If time….
Two Paradigms

Bruhn-Jensen Reading
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5