Respond to the 2 post below:
The researcherâ€™s ontology (or views and assumptions about reality) affect the methodology and epistemology of the research. Once this relativity of â€˜researcher ontologyâ€™ is realized, an axial middle-ground perspective (realist paradigm) can be sought, whereby these two polarized research paradigms (positivist/quantitative vs. constructivist/qualitative) can each be viable and applied intentionally depending on the phenomena in question (the research inquiry). There is no real superiority between the often-antagonistic categories of quantitative and qualitative research modes, because in the end they are each â€œa loose collection of logically held together assumptions, concepts, and propositions that orientates thinking and researchâ€ (Bogdan & Biklan, 1982, p. 30).
In professional practice, a research paradigm should be treated as a mode and as a perspective. The researcher does not need to treat one of these modes/perspectives as the absolutely â€œrightâ€ way, nor can the researcher use multiple paradigms at once. Only after assessing the research inquiry, and checking the ontological assumptions, should a researcher decide to apply a â€˜paradigm-dependentâ€™ methodology. It is most useful and balanced for the researcher to be open to making use of each paradigm but depending on the nature of the research inquiry. Once the phenomena are chosen for investigation/experimentation, and the ontological assumptions are recognized, then an â€˜axialâ€™ (realist) perspective/mode can be applied. This realist paradigm is axial because it unites the two extremes without necessarily and absolutely defaulting to either positivist or constructivist poles; it takes into consideration the strengths of both (extreme) positivist and constructivist modes/perspectives and uses quantitative and/or qualitative research methods according to the nature of the phenomenon being studied.
1. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer . The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. Retri
Paradigm is an educational context, which directed through “a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003).
The discussion of the research paradigm would better serve by positioning mixed methods research, as the natural accompaniment to traditional qualitative and quantitative analysis. The real pragmatisms contribution an attractive moral partner for mixed methods research, and this delivers a basis for scheming and steering mixed methods research. The shared aims between quantitative and qualitative research methods within the broad field of the specialized examination are implicit(Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017, p. 38). The comparisons and variances amongst the two ways stretch a summary of the historical expansion of mutually approaches, the paradigms and informational bases, deliberates main compensations and boundaries(Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017, p. 38). It reveals at the original tendency that combines equally quantitative and qualitative facts in a solitary investigation scheme to resolve equally both approaches.
The main intention of debating qualitative versus quantitative research, relatively to define and echo through an ideal posture guiding the research methodologies through different standpoints. The core of this learning is empowering researchers who lack the knowledge of the methods. Also, this lack causes deception that one research could be better than the other, expand their basic understanding of qualitative and quantitative analysis. The study settles that, in accumulation to quantitative and qualitative research, mixed research as well propositions an exhilarating method of conducting methods professional.
The thoughts of a researcher needing to treat one paradigm of research as the “right” paradigm, and paying attention to the research generated would vary due to its significance of the value. In reading, I noticed many research approaches that are excellent but, have some differences in what the researched needed. There is a dependency that varies and researching and what is validated (Denzin and Lincoln, 2001). Detailed expectations about research embrace the character of value in research, how to evade the amount from persuading analysis, and how best to use research products (Baptiste, 2000).
Crossman, A. (2019, July 3). What Is Qualitative Research?. Retrieved July 14, 2019, from https://www.thoughtco.com/qualitative-research-met…
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1154775.pdf
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning-making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss4/7/
Baptiste, I. (2000). Calibrating the “instrument”: Philosophical issues framing the researcher’s role. Class notes in ADTED 550.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E., G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.