The paper discusses the differences and similarities between positivist and naturalistic paradigms (perspective) in knowing. Educational research is the formal, systematic application of the scientific method to the study of educational problems. The scientific method is an orderly process detailing a number of steps: recognition and definition of a problem; formulation of hypotheses; collection of data; analysis of data, and interpretation of data (Gay, Mills, & Airasian 2012). Nevertheless, the scientific method should be integrated with the non-scientific methods of knowing in order to foster our understanding. The non-scientific methods include: personal experience, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
This paper focuses on the differences between positivist and naturalistic paradigms in knowing under the philosophical bases underpinning research, and their similarities in research. A paradigm, or worldview, is a set of basic beliefs used to guide actions and make sense of complex real-world issues (Patton, 2002). The origin of the term paradigm is to be found in Thomas Kuhn's book called: the structure of scientific revolution, which was first published in 1962 (Mouton, 1996). Thomas Kuhn coined the word 'paradigm' to mean established research traditions in a particular discipline.
Researchers adopt the paradigm that best represents their relationship to that worldview, and helps legitimise the practice of their research ( Creswell, 2013). In brief, the positivist associate themselves with the quantitative research approach, whereas the naturalistic researchers associate themselves with the qualitative approach. The philosophical bases underpinning research are: ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Differences Between Positivist and Naturalist Researchers
Ontological Assumption
Epistemological Assumption
Axiological Assumption
Methodological Assumption
Similarities Between Positivist and Naturalist Researchers
Internal Validity/ Credibility
External Validity/ Transferability
Reliability/ Dependability
Objectivity/ Confirmability
Conclusion
References
Positivists and Naturalists Paradigm (Perspective) of Knowing
Introduction
The paper discusses the differences and similarities between positivist and naturalistic paradigms. Educational research is the formal, systematic application of the scientific method to the study of educational problems. The scientific method is an orderly process entailing a number of steps: recognition and definition of a problem; formulation of hypotheses; collection of data; analysis of data, and interpretation of data (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012). The scientific method should be integrated with the non-scientific methods of knowing to foster our understanding.
Nevertheless, the non-scientific methods include: personal experience, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. Experience is one of the ways we come to know about, and understand our world. For instance, doctoral students know that for one to complete a Ph.D. programme, there has to be a desire to understand research methods and statistics in order to successfully complete the programme. Another way we come to know about something is through reasoning. Reasoning refers to the process of using logical thought to reach a conclusion (Gay, Mills, & Airasian). There are two types of reasoning namely; inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The former involves developing generalizations based on observation of a limited number of related events. For example, a mathematics tutor examines six maths text books, and found that each of the test books contain a topic on integers. The tutor then concludes that all maths books contain a topic on integers. Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is essentially arriving at specific conclusions based on general principles, observations, or experiences. For instance, a mathematics teacher can generalize that understanding division and multiplication can increase the likelihood of a student liking mathematics as a course.
This paper focuses on the differences between positivist and naturalistic paradigms in knowing under the philosophical bases underpinning research, and their similarities in research. A paradigm, or worldview, is a set of basic beliefs used to guide action and make sense of complex real-world issues (Patton, 2002). The origin of the term paradigm is to be found in Thomas Kuhn’s book called: The structure of scientific revolution, which was first published in 1962 (Mouton, 1996). Thomas Kuhn coined the word ‘paradigm’ to mean established research traditions in a particular discipline. Specifically, a paradigm would include the accepted theories, traditions, approaches, models, and research methodologies, and it could be seen as a model or framework for understanding events (Creswell, 2007).
Researchers adopt the paradigm that best represents their relationship to that worldview, and helps legitimize the practice of their research (Creswell, 2013). Thus, paradigms form an important theoretical framework to describe the researcher’s belief system, how the inquiry will be carried, and how results of the study should be interpreted. In brief, the positivists associate themselves with the quantitative research approach, whereas the naturalistic researchers associate themselves with the qualitative research approach. The philosophical bases underpinning research are: ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology.
Differences Between Positivist and Naturalist Researchers
Ontological Assumption
Ontology answers the question, “what is the nature of reality?” According to Crotty (1998), ontology is the study of being. It is concerned with what constitutes reality, and answers the question, what is (Polit & Beck, 2008). It examines your underlying belief system as the researcher, about the nature of being and existence. It helps you to conceptualize the form and nature of reality, and what you believe to be reality.
Positivist researchers believed that there is only one reality that exist (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This existent reality can be determined. Polit and Beck (2008) claimed that the phenomenon is not haphazard, random or erratic occurrences, but have antecedent origins (causality, but sometimes considers association). For positivist paradigm investigators, reality is driven by the existence of one true and possible conclusion, and can be proven or disproven (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is not the same with naturalistic paradigm as they acknowledged the multiplicity of reality with existing core pattern or theme (Creswell, 2007). It is naturally constructed (Mertens, 2010). Naturalistic investigators accept that the ontological assumption around the nature of reality cannot be proven or disproven. They also believed that realities are wholes that cannot be understood in isolation from their contexts (Lincoln & Guba).
Again, positivist paradigm is highly realistic, demonstrated as empirical (Leach, 1990; Friedman, 1991) while naturalist researchers are relativistic, capturing subjective reality (Schwandt, 2002). When a positivist investigator views an object, it needs to be observed by the senses. However, for naturalist researchers, when a phenomenon is experienced, the perceptual interpretation of that certain involvement is highly relative contingent to how, and in what perspective the individual is obtaining multiple perspectives (Guba & Lincoln).
Epistemological Assumption
Epistemological assumption answers the question, what is the relationship between the inquirer and that be being studied? Epistemology is the theory of awareness that outlines the form of knowledge that is probable and reasonable (Crotty, 1998). Positivists are dualistic in terms of inquirer-object relationship in research. This individualistic philosophy is needed to maintain objectivity. It means that both do not influence each other (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Thus, there is an independent relationship between the inquirer and subjects in the research process. Naturalistic researchers believed the contrary, they are monistic (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). It is grounded on the assumption that the inquirer and subjects are interlocked in an interactive process (Mertens, 2010), dependent on each other (Woodhoude & Livingood, 1991). They are constantly influencing each other in the exploration of data.
Axiological Assumption
Oduor (2010) defined axiology as the theory of values. Axiology is concerned with the role of values in the inquiry. Positivist researchers believed in objective scientific knowledge, and it is viewed as valid, certain, and accurate (Crotty, 1998). Campbell and Stanley (1963) revised this claim as they argued that it is probability and not certainty. Crotty’s claim is totally impossible since nothing is certain in research (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Naturalist researchers think otherwise. Facts and values are interlocked. In determining the facts, values are inevitable and desirable (Polit & Beck, 2008), necessary for thick description (Warren & Karner, 2005). For Positivists, values are held in check, and objectivity is sought. The practical application of this is the concept of control. Contrarily, naturalist researchers avoid restraining the phenomenon since gear shifting the incident contaminates natural occurrence (Creswell, 2007).
Methodological Assumption
Positivist paradigm investigators assert that it is not possible to conduct an inquiry without establishing a priori theory (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002). The assertion of the positivists paradigm investigators differs with the naturalistic inquiries as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985), that there is no manipulation on the part of the inquirer, and that the investigation is void of a priori outcomes.
Positivist researchers follow a fixed, non-flexible, and rigid in the approach of data collection procedures. You just need to follow the protocol and nothing goes wrong (Cook, 1991). Data collection and analysis follow a pre-specified operation. The data is portrayed numerically, and analyzed by statistical methods in order to identify relationships between phenomena. Bias will be controlled by randomized sampling methods. Structured questionnaires or rating scales are often employed to collect data. The primary purpose of positivist researchers is to test a theory (deductive) by systematically testing hypotheses (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Thus, reality is converted to numerical form, and presented statistically to be meaningful.
However, it is not the case with the naturalistic researchers. Its design and methods are both flexible and emergent (Reichardt & Cook, 1979). The naturalist conducts research in a natural environment. This is because reality is a whole that cannot be fragmented for separate study of the part since the sum of the whole is not equal to the whole. A naturalist usually utilizes purposive sampling in order increase the scope of data exposed for developing a theory. Furthermore, instrumentation for the naturalist is not objective but subjective. Data analysis is open-ended, and inductive for the naturalistic researcher.
Similarities Between Positivist and Naturalist Researchers
Turning to the similarities between the positivist and naturalist paradigms, the two paradigms seek to establish trustworthiness in their findings, which in turn produces quality as far as research is concerned. For positivist researchers, the methods used to establish trustworthiness include: internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Likewise, Lincoln and Guba (1985) proposed the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to address the issue of trustworthiness and quality in naturalistic paradigm. Following is the discussion of how the positivist and naturalistic researchers ensure trustworthiness in the research process.
Internal Validity/Credibility
Positivist researchers use internal validity method to establish trustworthiness. Positivists evaluate trustworthiness by how well the threats to internal validity have been controlled, as well as the validity of the instruments and measurements used in the research. Internal validity is supported when changes in the dependent variable happens from only the independent variable, and not from other confounding variables (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
For naturalistic researchers, they use the term credibility which is analogous to internal validity to establish trustworthiness. Credibility is achieved through establishing confidence in the truth value of the data, and by truthfully interpreting them (Polit & Beck, 2014). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest naturalistic inquiries can generate credible findings through external checking (peer debriefing), negative case analysis, triangulation, referential adequacy (checking interpretations against raw data), and member checking (checking interpretations with participants). Reflexivity, field notes, accuracy in the transcription, and the use of direct quotes further strengthen the credibility in the interpretation of naturalistic data (Tuckett, 2004).
External Validity/Transferability
Positivist researchers use the method of external validity to establish trustworthiness. External validity refers to generalizability of findings to the larger population. Researchers are particular about sample representativeness of the population, sampling procedures, and statistical confidence interval to make reasonably accurate statements (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen).
Similarly, naturalistic researchers use transferability to refer to the extent to which significant elements or factors in a naturalistic study may be extrapolated to other contexts or to other groups (Polit & Beck, 2010). Nevertheless, it is not the role of the naturalist to determine if findings may be transferred to other situations outside of the time, and context in which they were found. Instead, it is the naturalist’s role to provide sufficiently rich descriptions of the contest whilst drawing inferences. Other transferability strategies include; providing a clear and comprehensive description of the project participants, setting, and of the processes associated with data collection and analysis (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Polit & Beck).
Reliability/ Dependability
Positivists utilize reliability as a method to establish trustworthiness. Researchers mainly use internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability (stability) method. Internal consistency is achieved by examining the consistency of measuring instruments used in the research. For test-retest reliability (stability) method, the researcher administers one measure to one group of participants, wait for a considerable amount of time, and re-administer the same instrument to the same group of participants. The researcher, thus, correlate the scores from the two administrations (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
Dependability is a method that naturalistic researchers use to show consistency of their findings. Naturalistic researchers describe the exact methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation in detail, which makes it possible for another inquirer to independently arrive at the same or similar interpretations. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue that as an emergent design, it is likely that the interpretation by two or more investigators will diverge in a naturalistic inquiry. This confliction may be reconciled by robust communication, particularly at milestone points, and by maintaining an auditable trail describing the project purpose, selection criteria, data collection methods, findings, and interpretations (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011).
Objectivity/ Confirmability
Objectivity is used through the methodology of measurements, data collection, and data analysis through which reliability and validity are established. Positivists researchers focus on the information statistically and present the results accordingly. Objectivity also refers to the appropriate distance between a researcher and participants that lessens bias (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
Naturalistic researchers use the term confirmability instead of objectivity as utilized by the positivist investigators. Confirmability is established when the data accurately reflects the information provided by the participants, and that findings are not imagined by the inquirer (Polit & Beck, 2014). Guba and Lincoln (1985) suggest that confirmability may be achieved through the triangulation of different sources and perspectives.
Conclusion
The paper has effectively discussed the differences and similarities between the positivist and the naturalistic paradigms in knowing. The assumptions under the positivist and naturalist paradigms help orient researchers’ thinking about the research problem, its significance, and how they might approach the research process in order to answer their research questions, hypotheses, understand the problem being investigated, and contribute to its solution. Moreover, the researcher’s philosophical stance contributes to how knowledge is discovered. It is important to emphasize that both paradigms seek to define truth, reality, and knowledge.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs. L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Cohen, L., Manion L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cook, T. D. (1991). Clarifying the warrant for generalized causal inferences in quasi-experimentation. In McLaughlin, M. W., & Phillips, D. (Eds.), Evaluation and education at quarter century (pp. 115-144). Chicago, IL: NSSE.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. J. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). California, CA: Thousand Oaks.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London, England: Sage Publication.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. California, CA: Thousand Oaks.
Friedman, M. (1991). The re-evaluation of logical positivism. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (10), 505-519.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24 (2), 105-112.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Leach, M. (1990). Philosophical choice. Journal of Education, 3 (3), 16-18.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). London, England: Sage Publication.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London, England: Sage Publication.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage Publication.
Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik
Oduor, R. M. J. (2010). Research methodology in philosophy within an interdisciplinary and commercialized African content guarding against undue influence from the social science. Thought and Practice. A Journal of Philosophical Association of Kenya, New Series, 2 (1), 87-118.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage Publication.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 (1), 1451-1458.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2008). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Reidchardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In Cook, T. D., & Reidchardt, C. S. (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16 (2), 151-155.
Tuckett, A. (2004). Qualitative research sampling: The very real complexities. Nurse Researcher, 12 (1), 47-61.
Warren, C. A. B., & Karner, T. X. (2005). Discovering qualitative methods: Field research, interviews and analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Woodhouse, L. D., & Livingood, W. C. (1991). Exploring the versatility of qualitative design. Qualitative Research, 1 (4), 434-445.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Michael Asante (Author), 2025, Positivists and Naturalists Paradigm (Perspective) of Knowing, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1587209
