Research Questions, Paradigms &

the “Language” of Variables &

Hypotheses

Links
Charles Tilley Interview on Paradigms in the Social Sciences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjESyyQ16AI

Hans Rosling on Using Empirical Research to Understand World

Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Hans Rosling: “Let my data set change your mind set”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVhWqwnZ1eM&feature=relat
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)
 Ranking Disciplines: Positivist ideas
(Auguste Comte)
19th century

abstract abstract

concrete concrete
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches
See also Neuman Ch. 5 (p. 83) & Ch. 16 (pp.333-41)

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Objective Subjective
Variables Processes and events
Reliability Authenticity
Value-Free Explicitly Stated Values
Independent of Context Aware of Content
Many cases or subjects Few cases or subjects
Statistical Analysis Other qualities
Detached Researcher Involved Researcher
 Empirical and Logical Foundations of
Research
(does not have to start with theory)

Theories

The
Empirical Scientific
Predictions
Generalizations Process (Hypotheses)

Observations

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)

Conflict/radical change

objective
subjective

radical humanist radical structuralist

interpretive functionalist

Order/stability/regulation
 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 possible
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