Research Questions, Paradigms & the “Language” of Variables & Hypotheses Links Charles Tilley Interview on Paradigms in the Social Sciences: Hans Rosling on Using Empirical Research to Understand World Change Hans Rosling: “Let my data set change your mind set” ed

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

Classification of Theories to Understand Different Approaches to Research Design Paradigms, other typologies (like quantitative vs. qualitative) refer to: – direction of reasoning (inductive, deductive) – level of reality (micro, meso, macro) – forms of explanation – theoretical frameworks – degree of abstraction – Degree of complexity (trivium & quadrivium, Comte’s disciplinary ranking)

19th century concrete abstract concrete abstract Ranking Disciplines: Positivist ideas (Auguste Comte)

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches See also Neuman Ch. 5 (p. 83) & Ch. 16 (pp ) Quantitative vs. Qualitative ObjectiveSubjective VariablesProcesses and events ReliabilityAuthenticity Value-Free Explicitly Stated Values Independent of ContextAware of Content Many cases or subjects Few cases or subjects Statistical Analysis Other qualities Detached ResearcherInvolved Researcher

Theories Empirical Generalizations Observations Predictions (Hypotheses) The Scientific Process Empirical and Logical Foundations of Research (does not have to start with theory) Source: Singleton & Straits (1999: 27); Babbie (1995: 55)

Assumptions about human nature & ways of knowing for use in classifying approaches ) Used by Burrell and Morgan (1982)for classification according to subjective vs. objective dimensions ontology : nominalism realism epistemology : anti-positivism positivism human nature: voluntarism determinism methodology: idiographic nomethetic

Assumptions about Society (Order vs. Conflict) Order/regulation vs. Conflict/Radical Change Stability/solidarity Change/emancipation Integration Conflict Functional coordination Disintegration consensus Coercion need satisfaction Deprivation

Four Paradigms (Burrell & Morgan) radical humanist radical structuralist interpretive functionalist Conflict/radical change Order/stability/regulation subjective objective

Examples: Paradigms Common in Communications Research & Training Positivist (“savoir, prévoir, pouvoir” A. Comte) Once widely taught as same as science early religious aspect association with quantitative research Interpretive (“décrire, comprendre, expliquer” Gilles Gaston Granger) Verstehen (understanding) association with qualitative research direct observation, context, meaningful action holistic Critical Theory Not just the Frankfurt School but also roots in humanities (notably literary studies)

Differentiating Types of Research Agenda & Implications for Research Design 1. reasons for research 2. nature of social reality 3. nature of human beings 4. role of common sense 5. what theory looks like 6. explanation that is acceptable 7. good evidence 8. place for researcher’s values

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 humans 4. Science and common sense? Separate 5. 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? Based on observations, empirical knowledge – can be communicated 8. Social/Political Values? value-free, objective

Interpretive Approaches 1. Why conduct research? – to understand meanings 2. Nature of Social Reality? – importance of human consciousness – socially constructed – multiple social realities possib le 3. Nature of Human Beings? – people use meanings, have reasons – laws (?) 4. Science and common sense? – must study common sense, pragmatic 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 (meaning) 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 1. 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? – objective reality & underlying truths but – science can be instrument of oppression 5. What constitutes Explanation or Theory – combination of determinism & voluntarism 6. How to judge explanation – capacity to describe social conditions & promote change 7. Good evidence? – material conditions separate from subjectivity but facts not neutral 8. Social/Political Values? –always present, promotes activism

Nature of Explanation Varies in different paradigms Causal Explanation (3 necessary features) – temporal order (cause before effect) – association – elimination of plausible alternatives Causal explanation studies relationships between “variables” – To test theories, predictions, etc… – Idea of “advancing” knowledge