4 Research Paradigms

The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether these are identical or distinct concepts. In this text, we will make a clear distinction between the two ideas. Regarding them as analytically distinct will provide a useful framework for understanding the connections between research methods and social scientific ways of thinking.

Paradigms in social science

For our purposes, we’ll define paradigm as a way of viewing the world (or “analytic lens” akin to a set of glasses) and a framework from which to understand the human experience (Kuhn, 1962).^[1] It can be difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our own, personal, everyday way of thinking. For example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each individual woman. To others, abortion is murder, and members of society should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic, you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion and yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Who is correct?

You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world works, or the way you believe the world should work. Perhaps your assumptions come from your political perspective, which helps shape your view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue. Those paradigms are a set of assumptions. Your classmate might assume that life begins at conception and the fetus’ life should be at the center of moral analysis. Conversely, you may assume that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb and that a mother’s choice is more important than a fetus’s life. There is no way to scientifically test when life begins, whose interests are more important, or the value of choice. They are merely philosophical assumptions or beliefs. Thus, a pro-life paradigm may rest in part on a belief in divine morality and fetal rights. A pro-choice paradigm may rest on a mother’s self-determination and a belief that the positive consequences of abortion outweigh the negative ones. These beliefs and assumptions influence how we think about any aspect of the issue.

We have previously discussed the various ways that we know what we know. Paradigms are a way of framing what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it. In social science, there are several predominant paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Recall that ontology is the study of what is real, and epistemology is the study of how we come to know what is real. Let’s look at four of the most common social scientific paradigms that might guide you as you begin to think about conducting research.

Positivism

Positivism is the first paradigm we will consider, as it is likely the first that comes to mind when thinking about science. Positivism is guided by the principles of objectivity, “knowability,” and deductive logic. The positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for a value-free science, one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth.

While the intention of positivism to seek objective truth free from researcher bias seems in keeping with the fundamental goals of science, in practice, this paradigm can lead to missteps in how one conducts research. A researcher may believe they are conducting a study based on the principles of objectivity, and thus draw a conclusion rooted in that belief; however, they may simply be limited by their own positionality to see an alternative vantage point on the information. Take, for instance, that much of the most famous psychological research of the 20th Century took a positivist approach, but used samples that were exclusively of a similar demographic to the researchers themselves: typically white, “WEIRD” men. WEIRD refers to an acronym for societies that are Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democracies, and are the minority of the population of the world (recent data suggested that WEIRD people represent about 12% of the world’s population but nearly 90% of psychological samples!). Beyond this egregious lack of representation of much of the world’s population, the findings from WEIRD samples that were taken as objective truth (due to this positivist approach) do not necessarily replicate when using non-WEIRD samples.^[2]. Thus, even when a researcher takes a positivist approach, guided primarily by the pursuit of empirical, objective truth, their own perspective and positionality can still impact the conclusions they are able to draw. 

Social Constructionism

Building from the positivist paradigm, another predominant paradigm in social sciences is social constructionism. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966)^[3] are credited by many for having developed this perspective in sociology. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” varies. Truth is different based on who you ask, and people change their definitions of truth all the time based on their interactions with other people. According to this paradigm, we create reality through our interactions and the interpretations that we have of our interactions, as opposed to the existence of an objective reality. Key to the social constructionist perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities.

Researchers operating within this framework take a keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. To better understand the idea of relativity and social constructionism, consider how certain hand gestures can connote different meanings across the globe. When someone raises their middle finger in North American culture, we can safely assume that neither the person raising the finger nor the person to whom the finger is being directed is very happy. Other gestures, such as the thumbs up, may carry similar eyebrow-raising meanings in other societies and cultures. While the thumbs-up gesture may have a particular meaning in North American culture, that meaning is not shared across cultures (Wong, 2007).^[4] So, what is the “truth” of the middle finger or thumbs up? It depends on the gesture’s intended meaning, the gesture’s interpretation, and the social context in which it occurs. But what if the intended meaning of the initiator and the interpretation of the receiver of the gesture are at odds with one another, then who is “right”? A social constructionist would claim that there is no universal truth, and the meaning of the gesture rests within the individuals themselves.

That is not to say that it would be a mistake to think of the social constructionist perspective as only individualistic. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups as small as married couples and as large as nations also agree on notions of truth. In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. Therefore, social constructionists are equally interested in the initial creation of meanings and the ways that people and groups work to redefine meanings.

However, a person’s (or couple’s or nation’s) constructed reality does not exist in a vacuum separate from the world around them, and social constructionism has historically not accounted for how things like power dynamics, privilege, and historical context impact perspective. For instance, if a white boss at a company comments about a Black female employee’s hair being “unprofessional,” the boss’ reality may be that they are being helpful to their employee by suggesting how she should present herself more professionally in the workplace. But the employee’s reality is that she experienced a microaggression and now feels harmed or unsafe in the workplace. Whose reality is “true”? Social constructionism does not consider the systemic racist history that Black women face, specifically surrounding how they wear their hair. Nor does it consider the structural power differences at play between a boss and an employee in the workplace. While both individuals’ constructed reality may be true to their individual perspective, there are important elements lacking consideration. Social constructionism is useful in recognizing how “truth” varies depending on a person’s vantage point; however, it does not highlight the structural and systemic foundations on which that vantage point exists.

Critical

Thus, a third paradigm is the critical paradigm. At its core, the critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm generally includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk, 2007),^[5] and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989).^[6] Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. Researchers in the critical paradigm might begin with the knowledge that systems are biased against others, such as women or marginalized ethnic groups. Moreover, their research projects aim to foster positive change in the research participants and the systems being studied, as well as collect important data. The critical paradigm not only studies power imbalances but also seeks to change them. More on the critical paradigm will be discussed in the following chapters.

Postmodernism

Finally, postmodernism is a paradigm that challenges almost every way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted (Best & Kellner, 1991).^[7] While positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder(s), postmodernists may claim that we can never know such truth. This is because postmodernists believe that researchers stamp their own truth on the investigation when studying and reporting on others’ truths. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may ask whose power, inequality, change, reality, and truth are in question. As you might imagine, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for researchers. How do you study something that may or may not be real or that is only real in your current and unique experience of it? This fascinating question is worth pondering as you begin to think about conducting your own research. Part of the value of the postmodern paradigm is its emphasis on the limitations of human knowledge. Table 3.1 summarizes each of the paradigms discussed here.

Let’s work through an example. If we are examining a problem like substance abuse, what would a social scientific investigation look like in each paradigm? A positivist study may focus on precisely measuring substance abuse and finding out the key causes of substance abuse during adolescence. Forgoing the objectivity of precisely measuring substance abuse, social constructionist studies might focus on how people who abuse substances understand their lives and relationships with various drugs of abuse. In so doing, it seeks out the subjective truth of each participant in the study. A study in the critical paradigm may investigate how people who abuse substances are an oppressed group in society, and then seek to liberate them from sources of oppression, like punitive drug laws and internalized fear or shame. A postmodern study may chronicle one person’s self-reported journey into substance abuse and the changes that they experienced in their self-perception as they transitioned from recreational to problematic drug use. These examples should illustrate how one topic can be investigated across each paradigm.

Social science theories

Much like paradigms, theories provide a way to look at the world and understand human interaction. Paradigms are grounded in overarching, general assumptions about the world, whereas theories describe more specific phenomena. A common definition for theory in social science is “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615). ^[8] At the core, theories can provide explanations for many phenomena. They help us answer the “why” and “how” questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.”

Just as researchers might examine the same topic from different levels of inquiry or paradigms, they could also investigate the same topic from different theoretical perspectives. In this case, their research questions could be the same, but the way they conceptualize their observations will be largely shaped by theory.

Within each area of specialization in psychology, there are many theories that aim to explain more specific types of interactions. For example, the study of sexual harassment includes different theories that posit varying explanations of why harassment occurs. One theory, first developed by criminologists, is called routine activities theory. It posits that sexual harassment is most likely to occur when a workplace lacks unified groups and when potentially vulnerable targets and motivated offenders are both present (DeCoster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999).^[9] Other theories of sexual harassment, called relational theories, suggest that a person’s relationships, such as their marriages or friendships, are the key to understanding why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs and how people will respond to it when it does occur (Morgan, 1999).^[10]  Relational theories focus on the power that different social relationships provide (e.g., married people who have supportive partners at home might be more likely than those who lack support at home to report sexual harassment when it occurs). Finally, feminist theories of sexual harassment take a different stance. These theories posit that the organizational structure of our gender system, where those who are the most masculine have the most power, best explains why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs (MacKinnon, 1979).^[11] As you might imagine, the theory a researcher applies to examine the topic of sexual harassment will shape the questions the researcher asks. It will also shape the explanations the researcher provides for why harassment occurs.

For students beginning their study of a new topic, it may be intimidating to learn that there are so many theories beyond what you’ve learned in your theory classes. What’s worse is that there is no central database of different theories on your topic. However, as you review the literature in your topic area, you will learn more about the theories that scientists have created to explain how your topic works in the real world. In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, books are another valuable source to learn theories related to your topic. Books often contain works of theoretical and philosophical importance that are beyond the scope of an academic journal.

Paradigm and Theory in Psychology

Theories, paradigms, levels of analysis, and the order in which one proceeds in the research process influence the questions we ask about the social world, how we ask them, and even what we may find. A micro-level study of gangs will look much different than a macro-level study of gangs. In some cases, you could apply multiple levels of analysis to your investigation, but doing so isn’t always practical or feasible. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the different levels of analysis and be aware of which level you are employing. One’s theoretical perspective will also shape a study. In particular, the chosen theory will not only shape the way a question is asked but also which topic will be investigated in the first place. Further, commitment to one theory over another may limit the kinds of questions you pose and could result in missing other possible explanations.

Social science is not fundamentally biased due to the limitations of paradigms and theories, but at the same time, it can never be completely value-free. Social constructionists and postmodernists might point out that bias is always a part of research to at least some degree. Our job as researchers is to recognize and address our biases as part of the research process, if an imperfect part. We frame and conduct our work by using our own theories, levels of analysis, temporal processes, and paradigms. Understanding those frames and approaches is crucial not only for successfully embarking upon and completing any research-based investigation but also for responsibly reading and understanding others’ work.