{"id":26,"date":"2023-02-13T04:37:23","date_gmt":"2023-02-13T04:37:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/chapter\/__unknown__-2\/"},"modified":"2025-06-14T13:54:38","modified_gmt":"2025-06-14T13:54:38","slug":"__unknown__-2","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/chapter\/__unknown__-2\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 2: Foundations of qualitative research - paradigms, philosophical underpinnings","rendered":"Chapter 2: Foundations of qualitative research – paradigms, philosophical underpinnings"},"content":{"raw":"
\n
\n

Learning outcomes<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:<\/p>\n\n

    \n \t
  • Recognise and understand the four main paradigms that underpin research.<\/li>\n \t
  • Understand how paradigms differ between qualitative and quantitative research.<\/li>\n \t
  • Describe the differences between approaches in inductive and deductive research.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n

    What is a<\/strong> paradigm<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    All research takes place within a paradigm. A paradigm is a\u00a0worldview \u2013 a framework of beliefs, values and methods. For researchers, the paradigm or worldview framing their research informs the meaning they interpret from the data. Each researcher works within their own, unique paradigm; this includes the techniques they choose for collecting and analysing data.1<\/sup> There are four main research paradigms in social science<\/span> (see<\/span> Table 2.1.<\/span>)<\/span>: <\/span><\/p>\n\n

      \n \t
    • positivist<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>scientific<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span><\/li>\n \t
    • interpretivist<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>constructivist<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span> (also known as the naturalistic paradigm)<\/span><\/li>\n \t
    • radical<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>critical<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span><\/li>\n \t
    • post<\/span>-<\/span>structuralist paradigm.<\/span>2,3<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      These paradigms reflect the researcher<\/span>\u2019<\/span>s beliefs about what is reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), the <\/span>means<\/span> to obtain<\/span>ing<\/span> knowledge (methodology) and the values of the researcher (axiology).<\/span>3<\/sup> We might think of ontology as 'what is true' and epistemology as 'how do we know those truths?'. The positivist<\/span> paradigm is<\/span> suited to<\/span> quantitative<\/span> research <\/span>because it is grounded in<\/span> the notion of<\/span> cause and effect<\/span>. T<\/span>he <\/span>remaining<\/span> three paradigms are<\/span> suited to<\/span> qualitative<\/span> research <\/span>because they are grounded in exploration <\/span>and <\/span>understanding<\/span>.<\/span>3<\/sup> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Qualitative research is embedded in the interpretivist, or constructivist paradigm. The understandings and beliefs of interpretivism or constructivism can be considered in terms of:<\/p>\n\n

        \n \t
      • Assumptions and values: The research seeks to understand what it is to be human, and the significance and meanings people ascribe to life events. It aims to identify what is important and what is evidence.4<\/sup><\/li>\n \t
      • Researcher\u2013participant relationship: The relationship is \u2018intersubjective\u2019 \u2013 that is, the researcher is the listener and interpreter of the data obtained from the participant. The researcher discovers the truth of a situation through thinking and analysis, rather than sensory observation. Interpretation is required.4<\/sup><\/li>\n \t
      • Methodology (the research approach): Qualitative research includes study designs such as descriptive, phenomenology, action research, case study, grounded theory and ethnography.4<\/sup> These are covered in section 2 of this textbook.<\/li>\n \t
      • Ontology (the nature of reality): The researcher recognises that there are multiple subjective realities, and that these are socially constructed in the interactions between research participants and between the researcher and participants.5<\/sup><\/li>\n \t
      • Epistemology (the theory of knowledge, or how knowledge is created): Knowledge is derived from the everyday. The researcher creates meaning from the data through their thinking and analysis of the data informed by their encounters with participants.3<\/sup><\/li>\n \t
      • Axiology (the value and ethics of the research): The research will reflect the values of the researcher who aims to present a balanced interpretation of the results.5<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        A good <\/span>example of the <\/span>interpretivist<\/span> or<\/span> constructivist paradigm is <\/span>a study <\/span>exploring physical <\/span>and <\/span>bodily pain. <\/span>We humans each experience pain differently, due to many factors, including how we were socialised to respond to pain in our family and communities, our individual pain threshold, our past experiences of pain and the context of our current pain \u2013 what else is happening in that moment of pain. Thus, it is reasonable to say that pain is socially constructed. In health care, pain is measured on a numerical scale, but it is the person's perception of the pain that determines the number assigned to their pain (self-report). We may therefore question whether there is an objective, scientific method for measuring pain. A common facilitator for pain relief \u2013 paracetamol \u2013 reduces pain for some people and not for others. Consider why this is the case. (It is the person\u2019s perception of what is working to relieve their perceived pain.) Positivists do not rely on subjective experiences, only facts and a singular truth: objectivity. Constructionists and intepretivists contend that subjective and social experiences create<\/em> reality, and that there are many truths.<\/p>\n

        Although it is not one of the four main paradigms, post-positivism is another paradigm that appears in the literature. Post-positivism asserts that there are multiple and competing views of science, and multiple truths. Therefore, researchers cannot be completely objective, unbiased and value-free, as the positivist paradigm asserts.4<\/sup> This shift in perspective from positivism to post-positivism has led to the incorporation of qualitative methods into the post-positivist paradigm, to enable the research to explore participants\u2019 experiences of the phenomenon under study. This paradigm is included in Table 2.1. since its basic ontology is similar to the positivist paradigm.6<\/sup><\/p>\n[table id=7 \/]\n

        In Table 2.2. an article is provided to highlight the different components of the research paradigms. Note: The aims are reproduced verbatim from the papers (word for word).<\/p>\n[table id=5 \/]\n\nApproaches <\/strong>in <\/strong>qualitative methods<\/strong>\n\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Approaches are how a researcher intends to carry out their research. In qualitative research, there are two main approaches:<\/p>\n\n

          \n \t
        • Inductive: Driven by the participants and their data<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          An inductive approach employs a \u2018whole world\u2019 view and includes the wider social and historical context. It considers the layers that surround the individual \u2013 temporal, spatial, ideational, institutional and structural, and focuses on meanings, ideas and experiences. The inductive approach is concerned with participants' subjective views. When examining what participants have said in an interview, the researcher searches for themes, setting aside preconceived notions.6<\/sup> (Review the example in Chapter 3 of exploring seniors\u2019 perceptions of health and loneliness. The theoretical drive of the research is inductive <\/span>because it is<\/span> describ<\/span>ing<\/span> and explor<\/span>ing<\/span> the <\/span>perceptions of seniors<\/span>.<\/span>)<\/span> An inductive <\/span>research approa<\/span>ch is hypothesis<\/span>-<\/span>generating \u2013 <\/span>this means the researchers do not<\/span> have preconceived ideas of what <\/span>they <\/span>will find in <\/span>their <\/span>research and data<\/span>, and hypotheses will be generated in the process of analysing the data<\/span>.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/p>\n\n

            \n \t
          • Deductive: Driven by a pre-existing theory, framework or series of questions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            A deductive approach can employ a theory or framework to guide the research, and responses are usually categorised into pre-determined labels (most often called \u2018codes\u2019). This is usually how questionnaires or structured interviews are interpreted. The pre-determined codes are based on the questions asked in interviews or focus groups. A deductive approach, particularly in the positivist paradigm, is hypothesis-testing \u2013 the researchers are looking for evidence of specific ideas, concepts and relationships in the research and data.5<\/sup><\/p>\n

            All research takes place within a paradigm, consciously or subconsciously; that is, regardless of whether this is understood by the researcher. To interpret the data well, qualitative researchers must explore and acknowledge their own framework of beliefs, values and methods informing the meaning of their data. Qualitative research is embedded in the interpretivist paradigm. Four main paradigms have been explored and explained in this chapter.<\/p>\n\n

            References<\/strong><\/h2>\n
              \n \t
            1. Donmoyer R. Paradigm. In: Given LM, ed. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods<\/em>.\u00a0 SAGE Publications; 2008:591-595.<\/li>\n \t
            2. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.<\/em> SAGE Publications; 2006.<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            3. Giddings LS, Grant BM. Mixed methods research for the novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. <\/em>2006;23(1):3-11. doi:10.5172\/conu.2006.23.1.3<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            4. Levers, M-JD. Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE<\/em> Open<\/em>. 2013;3(4). doi:10.1177\/2158244013517243<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            5. Kivunja C, Kuyini AB. Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. <\/em>2017;6(5):26-41. doi:10.5430\/ijhe.v6n5p26<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            6. Morse JM. The paradox of qualitative research design. Qual Health Res. <\/em>2003;13(10):1335-1336. doi:10.1177\/1049732303258368<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            7. Loeb M, Bartholomew A, Hashmi M, et al. Medical masks versus N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 among health care workers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. <\/em>2022;175(12):1629-1638. doi:10.7326\/M22-1966<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            8. Sterling MR, Tseng E, Poon A, et al. Experiences of home health care workers in New York City during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Intern Med. <\/em>2020;180(11):1453-1459. doi:10.1001\/jamainternmed.2020.3930<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            9. Ananda-Rajah M, Veness B, Berkovic D, Parker C, Kelly G, Ayton D. Hearing the voices of Australian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Leader. <\/em>2021;5:31-35. doi:10.1136\/leader-2020-000386<\/span><\/li>\n \t
            10. Boulton M, Garnett A, Webster F. A Foucauldian discourse analysis of media reporting on the nurse-as-hero during COVID-19. Nurs Inq. <\/em>2022;29(3):e12471. doi:10.1111\/nin.12471<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>","rendered":"
              \n
              \n

              Learning outcomes<\/strong><\/h2>\n

              Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:<\/p>\n

                \n
              • Recognise and understand the four main paradigms that underpin research.<\/li>\n
              • Understand how paradigms differ between qualitative and quantitative research.<\/li>\n
              • Describe the differences between approaches in inductive and deductive research.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n

                What is a<\/strong> paradigm<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

                All research takes place within a paradigm. A paradigm is a\u00a0worldview \u2013 a framework of beliefs, values and methods. For researchers, the paradigm or worldview framing their research informs the meaning they interpret from the data. Each researcher works within their own, unique paradigm; this includes the techniques they choose for collecting and analysing data.1<\/sup> There are four main research paradigms in social science<\/span> (see<\/span> Table 2.1.<\/span>)<\/span>: <\/span><\/p>\n

                  \n
                • positivist<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>scientific<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span><\/li>\n
                • interpretivist<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>constructivist<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span> (also known as the naturalistic paradigm)<\/span><\/li>\n
                • radical<\/span>,<\/span> or <\/span>critical<\/span>,<\/span> paradigm<\/span><\/li>\n
                • post<\/span>–<\/span>structuralist paradigm.<\/span>2,3<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  These paradigms reflect the researcher<\/span>\u2019<\/span>s beliefs about what is reality (ontology), knowledge (epistemology), the <\/span>means<\/span> to obtain<\/span>ing<\/span> knowledge (methodology) and the values of the researcher (axiology).<\/span>3<\/sup> We might think of ontology as ‘what is true’ and epistemology as ‘how do we know those truths?’. The positivist<\/span> paradigm is<\/span> suited to<\/span> quantitative<\/span> research <\/span>because it is grounded in<\/span> the notion of<\/span> cause and effect<\/span>. T<\/span>he <\/span>remaining<\/span> three paradigms are<\/span> suited to<\/span> qualitative<\/span> research <\/span>because they are grounded in exploration <\/span>and <\/span>understanding<\/span>.<\/span>3<\/sup> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  Qualitative research is embedded in the interpretivist, or constructivist paradigm. The understandings and beliefs of interpretivism or constructivism can be considered in terms of:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  • Assumptions and values: The research seeks to understand what it is to be human, and the significance and meanings people ascribe to life events. It aims to identify what is important and what is evidence.4<\/sup><\/li>\n
                  • Researcher\u2013participant relationship: The relationship is \u2018intersubjective\u2019 \u2013 that is, the researcher is the listener and interpreter of the data obtained from the participant. The researcher discovers the truth of a situation through thinking and analysis, rather than sensory observation. Interpretation is required.4<\/sup><\/li>\n
                  • Methodology (the research approach): Qualitative research includes study designs such as descriptive, phenomenology, action research, case study, grounded theory and ethnography.4<\/sup> These are covered in section 2 of this textbook.<\/li>\n
                  • Ontology (the nature of reality): The researcher recognises that there are multiple subjective realities, and that these are socially constructed in the interactions between research participants and between the researcher and participants.5<\/sup><\/li>\n
                  • Epistemology (the theory of knowledge, or how knowledge is created): Knowledge is derived from the everyday. The researcher creates meaning from the data through their thinking and analysis of the data informed by their encounters with participants.3<\/sup><\/li>\n
                  • Axiology (the value and ethics of the research): The research will reflect the values of the researcher who aims to present a balanced interpretation of the results.5<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    A good <\/span>example of the <\/span>interpretivist<\/span> or<\/span> constructivist paradigm is <\/span>a study <\/span>exploring physical <\/span>and <\/span>bodily pain. <\/span>We humans each experience pain differently, due to many factors, including how we were socialised to respond to pain in our family and communities, our individual pain threshold, our past experiences of pain and the context of our current pain \u2013 what else is happening in that moment of pain. Thus, it is reasonable to say that pain is socially constructed. In health care, pain is measured on a numerical scale, but it is the person’s perception of the pain that determines the number assigned to their pain (self-report). We may therefore question whether there is an objective, scientific method for measuring pain. A common facilitator for pain relief \u2013 paracetamol \u2013 reduces pain for some people and not for others. Consider why this is the case. (It is the person\u2019s perception of what is working to relieve their perceived pain.) Positivists do not rely on subjective experiences, only facts and a singular truth: objectivity. Constructionists and intepretivists contend that subjective and social experiences create<\/em> reality, and that there are many truths.<\/p>\n

                    Although it is not one of the four main paradigms, post-positivism is another paradigm that appears in the literature. Post-positivism asserts that there are multiple and competing views of science, and multiple truths. Therefore, researchers cannot be completely objective, unbiased and value-free, as the positivist paradigm asserts.4<\/sup> This shift in perspective from positivism to post-positivism has led to the incorporation of qualitative methods into the post-positivist paradigm, to enable the research to explore participants\u2019 experiences of the phenomenon under study. This paradigm is included in Table 2.1. since its basic ontology is similar to the positivist paradigm.6<\/sup><\/p>\n

                    [table id=7 \/]<\/p>\n

                    In Table 2.2. an article is provided to highlight the different components of the research paradigms. Note: The aims are reproduced verbatim from the papers (word for word).<\/p>\n

                    [table id=5 \/]<\/p>\n

                    Approaches <\/strong>in <\/strong>qualitative methods<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

                    \n

                    Approaches are how a researcher intends to carry out their research. In qualitative research, there are two main approaches:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Inductive: Driven by the participants and their data<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      An inductive approach employs a \u2018whole world\u2019 view and includes the wider social and historical context. It considers the layers that surround the individual \u2013 temporal, spatial, ideational, institutional and structural, and focuses on meanings, ideas and experiences. The inductive approach is concerned with participants’ subjective views. When examining what participants have said in an interview, the researcher searches for themes, setting aside preconceived notions.6<\/sup> (Review the example in Chapter 3 of exploring seniors\u2019 perceptions of health and loneliness. The theoretical drive of the research is inductive <\/span>because it is<\/span> describ<\/span>ing<\/span> and explor<\/span>ing<\/span> the <\/span>perceptions of seniors<\/span>.<\/span>)<\/span> An inductive <\/span>research approa<\/span>ch is hypothesis<\/span>–<\/span>generating \u2013 <\/span>this means the researchers do not<\/span> have preconceived ideas of what <\/span>they <\/span>will find in <\/span>their <\/span>research and data<\/span>, and hypotheses will be generated in the process of analysing the data<\/span>.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      • Deductive: Driven by a pre-existing theory, framework or series of questions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                        A deductive approach can employ a theory or framework to guide the research, and responses are usually categorised into pre-determined labels (most often called \u2018codes\u2019). This is usually how questionnaires or structured interviews are interpreted. The pre-determined codes are based on the questions asked in interviews or focus groups. A deductive approach, particularly in the positivist paradigm, is hypothesis-testing \u2013 the researchers are looking for evidence of specific ideas, concepts and relationships in the research and data.5<\/sup><\/p>\n

                        All research takes place within a paradigm, consciously or subconsciously; that is, regardless of whether this is understood by the researcher. To interpret the data well, qualitative researchers must explore and acknowledge their own framework of beliefs, values and methods informing the meaning of their data. Qualitative research is embedded in the interpretivist paradigm. Four main paradigms have been explored and explained in this chapter.<\/p>\n

                        References<\/strong><\/h2>\n
                          \n
                        1. Donmoyer R. Paradigm. In: Given LM, ed. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods<\/em>.\u00a0 SAGE Publications; 2008:591-595.<\/li>\n
                        2. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research.<\/em> SAGE Publications; 2006.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. Giddings LS, Grant BM. Mixed methods research for the novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. <\/em>2006;23(1):3-11. doi:10.5172\/conu.2006.23.1.3<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. Levers, M-JD. Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE<\/em> Open<\/em>. 2013;3(4). doi:10.1177\/2158244013517243<\/span><\/li>\n
                        5. Kivunja C, Kuyini AB. Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. <\/em>2017;6(5):26-41. doi:10.5430\/ijhe.v6n5p26<\/span><\/li>\n
                        6. Morse JM. The paradox of qualitative research design. Qual Health Res. <\/em>2003;13(10):1335-1336. doi:10.1177\/1049732303258368<\/span><\/li>\n
                        7. Loeb M, Bartholomew A, Hashmi M, et al. Medical masks versus N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 among health care workers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. <\/em>2022;175(12):1629-1638. doi:10.7326\/M22-1966<\/span><\/li>\n
                        8. Sterling MR, Tseng E, Poon A, et al. Experiences of home health care workers in New York City during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Intern Med. <\/em>2020;180(11):1453-1459. doi:10.1001\/jamainternmed.2020.3930<\/span><\/li>\n
                        9. Ananda-Rajah M, Veness B, Berkovic D, Parker C, Kelly G, Ayton D. Hearing the voices of Australian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Leader. <\/em>2021;5:31-35. doi:10.1136\/leader-2020-000386<\/span><\/li>\n
                        10. Boulton M, Garnett A, Webster F. A Foucauldian discourse analysis of media reporting on the nurse-as-hero during COVID-19. Nurs Inq. <\/em>2022;29(3):e12471. doi:10.1111\/nin.12471<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"","pb_short_title":"Foundations of qualitative research - paradigms, philosophical underpinnings","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["darshini-ayton","tess-tsindos"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[61,62],"license":[],"class_list":["post-26","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-darshini-ayton","contributor-tess-tsindos"],"part":23,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/26\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/26\/revisions\/27"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/23"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/26\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openpub.libraries.rutgers.edu\/qualgo2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}