Three Scientific Philosophy Paradigms

Three Scientific Philosophy Paradigms. In the world of research, some questions may arise on how to conduct research properly and what is the best method for it. Actually, there are many ways to conduct a research and each field has its own preferred method and logics. Principally, there is no sole best method that could manage and cope with everything. Before starting research, it is essential for researcher to know about the research paradigm which comprises of the epistemology (parameters and assumptions on how to investigate), ontology (a created assumptions how to understand the nature) and methodology (techniques which used by researcher). According to Gliner and Morgan (2000) “paradigm is a way of thinking about and conducting a research”. It acts as the broad framework which consists of variety of beliefs, many understandings and different perceptions of theories or practices on how to carry out a research. By understanding on the differences among research paradigm which emerge so far, it will guide researcher to conduct research that fit in with their field. As for accomplishment of this assignment, in this paper the writer provides three types of philosophies. They are Positivism, Interpretivism and Realism. And the rest of this writing are comparing of those three philosophies which consist of their nature, logics, assumptions, application and their limitation. 1. Positivism The idea of this philosophy is the concept that science has to be conducted in such a way that is objective. It means that researcher’s opinion is irrelevant to the study. Subsequently researcher’s is expected to work on general information and data from large samples than focus on sample research details because the role of research is to test theories or hypothesis. Being observer as indicated of this approach is important because Positivists assert that theoretical terms and concept were simply to generate hypothesis that can be examined and tested based on observational data. Consequently there is only phenomena that can be recognised by the senses is accepted as a valid knowledge after supporting facts have been collected. Therefore, Positivists argue that only scientific statement that could be confirmed as science since normative statement is not valued-free or it has the researcher interferences. However, with rapid development of social sciences, it is obvious that since 1960, many social researchers have altered their paradigm from positivism. They criticised that there is a mistake to treat positivism as equal as scientific and science especially for social sciences because there is a huge differences between philosophers of science and the social science itself, mainly related to how to depict a scientific practice. Thus these scientists refuse to apply the natural sciences approach into social field. They argued that positivism should be appropriate for natural sciences and to enforce this approach to social sciences is beyond its limit. 2. Interpretivism This approach is a true contrast of Positivism. According to its supporters, research should be treated as a unity between the observer and its object. They belief that researcher contributes to the research by sharing their value and opinion in order to justify research problems. The interpretivism provide spaces for researcher to focus on only small samples with a greater details in some specific facts or figures and justification to extrapolate their findings on a larger scale. Some scholars refer to the Interpretivism as the Social Constructionism in the study of management. They grounded their view that there is segregation between people as part of social community and the object of natural sciences and hence this need social scholars expertise to bridge over of this gap especially in anticipating of people’s subjectivism. In this situation then Weber’s notion of Verstehen (the hermeneutic-phenomenological path) would be put into place. Max Weber (1864-1920) described Verstehen approach as ‘a science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order to arrive of its course and effects’. This view has large influence on the interpretivism development, besides the other view of this approach such as symbolic interaction and hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition. Since researchers may voice their value in this approach, as consequences that those research results may come up with surprising findings or sometimes this findings could be out of the context from its research problems. Another limitation of this approach is such findings could be not universally accepted because the other scholars might have different interpretation at similar research problems. So that those findings on this approach may represent tendencies rather than a definite answers of the research questions. 3. Realism Realism is an approach that natural and social studies should be applied in the same direction in term of data collection and its explanation. The important point here is a researcher must be aware that there is an external reality existence in the environment. Here the realists consider that, in contrast with Positivism, theoretical terms as referring to actual properties of a real world. This approach mainly consists of Empirical Realism and Critical Realism. The former states that through the use of proper method then reality could be captured. It means that the reality exist within an individual senses i.e. hearing, seeing, feeling etc. Meanwhile, Critical Realism argues that to be able to understand a social society, researcher has to identify about their experiences for a specific situation. This implies that the structures which encompass both of natural order and social world are not spontaneously appears in the observable pattern; they can only be identified by the social sciences works. In other words, reality could be also pursued by scientists’ conceptualization and not merely theoretical term. This position that the observable objects are through scientist state of mind is raising scepticism for other scholars. The latter argue that unobservable entity is there i.e. electrons, genes or some social issues such as gender emancipation. Some social studies especially which embracing Post-Modernism refuse to accept Realism in their studies. References: Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods 3e. Oxford university press. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.