Paradigms in social science

Chapter 1 

Introduction

Paradigms in social science provide a viewpoint or set of assumptions that frame the research process. But as definitions of the paradigm become not rigid anymore. This paper will explain how many paradigms (in one approach from many approach or perspective) in social science and which paradigm is the best to use in the Communication field.

key words : Paradigm, Positivism Paradigm, Interpretive Paradigm, Critical Paradigm, Epistemology, Axiology, Ontology, Methodology,

Chapter 2

Paradigm

We find many definitions of what a paradigm is that we generally understand as a theoretical framework or theoretical perspective that we use in research, especially in social sciences research. Originated from Greek language, “paradigm” was first used to mean a philosophical way of thinking (Kuhn, 1962).

• The term 'paradigm' is defined as a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research (Bogdan & Biklin, 1998) or the philosophical intent or motivation for undertaking a study (Cohen & Manion, 1994). 
• Paradigm also defined as the combination of three element such as belief about the nature of knowledge, a methodology, and criteria for validity (Mac Naughton, Rolfe, & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). 
• Paradigm especially in scientific research as the term is used to describe a researcher’s worldview, perspective, thinking or set of shared beliefs that inform the meaning or interpretation of research data (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) 
• In social Science, in which the combination of quantitative methods (such as surveys and questionnaires ) and qualitative methods (such as interview and ethnographical studies) is commonly employed, a paradigm is viewed as both “worldviews”, reflecting researchers ‘assumptions about reality, methodology, and epistemology (Guba & Lincoln, 2005)
• Paradigm is a general organizing framework for theory and research that includes basic assumptions, key issues, models of quality research, and methods for seeking answers (Neuman, 2014)

Paradigm as the theoretical frame work that underlies a research, comprises for elements covering its basic assumptions, belief, norms and values, namely ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology. This is as described by (O'Brien, 2019) by the picture below:

Picture 2.1

Source:  (O'Brien, 2019)

To understand the paradigm then we need to understand the four elements that make it up. For each element in paradigm below is the definition: 

1. Ontology, an area of philosophy that deals with the nature of being, or what exists; the area of philosophy that asks what really is and what the fundamental categories of reality are (Neuman, 2014).  Ontology is about nature of reality (what researcher belief about the nature of reality) and human nature etc. 
2. Epistemology, an area of philosophy concerned with the creation of knowledge; focuses on how we know what we know or what are the most valid ways to reach truth (Neuman, 2014). Epistemology is about how is knowledge is gained and how does the knowledge “accumulate”
3. Methodology, is an articulated, theoretically informed approach to the production of data (Ellen, 1984). (Hidayat, 2002) quoted the opinion from (Bailey,1987) that Methodology is the philosophy of the research process, it includes the assumptions and values that serve as a rationale for research and standards or criteria that researcher use for interpreting data and reaching conclusions.
4. Axiology, related to the position of value judgment, ethics, and moral choices of researchers in a study (Hidayat, 2002).

Meanwhile, according to (Guba E. , 1990) the dimensions of the paradigm consist 3 elements as follows:

Figure 2.2 

Ontology	Epistemology	Methodology
Assumption about reality	Assumption related to the relation between researcher and research object	Methodological assumptions about how researchers acquire knowledge
What is the nature of “reality”	What is the nature of the relationship between the inquirer and the knowable?	How should the inquirer go about finding out knowledge?

Source: (Guba E. , 1990)

Paradigm differences can be seen from the differences in these elements and specifically have implications for significant differences in methodology. 

Chapter. 3

Paradigm in Social Science (and communication field)

Paradigms as theoretical perspectives are categorized by expert in many very diverse groups. Some of them are as follows:

• (Crotty, 1998) grouped the paradigms including Positivism, interpretivism, critical inquiry, feminism, and postmodernism. 
• Burrel dan Morgan (1979), divided it into Radical Humanist Paradigm, Radical Structuralist Paradigm, Interpretive Paradigm, and Functionalist Paradigm.
• (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) proposed a typology that consists of 4 (four) paradigms: Positivism, Post-positivism, Critical Theories, and Constructivism.

In some literature experts categorize Positivism and Post-positivism as Classic Paradigm because at the practical level the methodological implications are not much different (Hidayat, 2002). Constructivism is also referred to as Constructivism-Interpretive Paradigm or Interpretive Paradigm. The three paradigms (positivist-constructivist-critical) which differs in ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects, in the classification of this study is also commonly included in the paradigm classification of the most researchers (Fazlıoğulları, 2012). The figure below displays a summary of explanations that represent these three paradigms from (Nurhajati, 2022) as follows below:

Figure 3.1 

Positivism Paradigm	Interpretive Paradigm	Critical Paradigm
-Based on the belief of an objective reality -Studies variables -Seeks to explain causal relationships between variables. -Seeks to generate laws that generalize communication behavior -Uses quantitative data	-Humans are capable of reflectivity and their action is purposive -Studies meaning through semantic relationships -Studies meaning through rules -Constructs theories of understanding (Local knowledge Theories and Heuristic frameworks) -Uses qualitative data	-Reflection produces knowledge -Critical reflection enables the exposure of ideologies and power imbalances -Research should enable social change -Social science is subject to critical reflection

Source: (Nurhajati, 2022)

The three paradigms (Positivism, Interpretive/ constructivism, and Critical) are also explained by (Guba & Lincoln, 2005) by looking at it from the side of 3 elements that become the foundation and differentiator for each paradigm as follows:

Figure 3.2

Source: (Guba & Lincoln, 2005)

How the social sciences are then placed/defined according to the three paradigms can be explained in the figure below which is abstracted from various sources:

Figure 3.3 

Classic Paradigm	Constructive Paradigm	Critical Paradigm
Placing social science similar to natural science &Physic and as an organized method for finding deductive logic with empirical observations, to probabilistically discover or confirm causal law that can be used to predict the general patterns of certain social phenomena	View social science as a systematic analysis of socially meaningful action through direct observation and detail of social actors in natural daily settings in order to be able to understand and interpret how social actors concerned create and manage their social world. (their social)	Define social science as a process that critically seeks to "reveal the real structure" behind the illusion, false needs, represented in the material world, with the aim of helping enlighten a human being to improve and change his or her life.

Source:  (Hidayat, 2002)

How the science of communication as part of social science is defined and placed in these three paradigms is thus the same as how these three paradigms view the social sciences. Paradigm differences in research in communication field then have an impact on how their theoretical perspectives in their research which will be described on the elements such as ontology, axiology, epistemology and research methodologies.  Any paradigm — as a mental window or worldview used by a particular community of scientists to study their scientific objects — may be contradictory and difficult to reconcile. Even some social science experts refuse to adopt the positivist paradigm in social science research. Some social science experts do criticize a lot of paradigm positivism (which is considered unsuitable for use in social sciences research) because some things such as the mismatch of views in placing a reality. In a positivist perspective, reality is viewed objectively, human being is governed by fixed law and that fact should be separate from value. (Sarantakos, 1995) for the example, argues that the positivist paradigm is not suitable for studying social reality because social reality is often biased, unsystematic and logically sometimes inconsistent. 

From my perspective according to the explanation above about the characteristic and the nature of each paradigm, each paradigm has assumptions and explanations about its own social reality, which is difficult to compare one by one (incommensurable). This is in line with (Lindlof, 1995)’s thinking that argues, "paradigms are incommensurable. That is the assumptions and explanations of two or more paradigms within a given discipline are so different that they cannot be compared by means of an independent value system. Thus, adherence to one paradigm forecloses the possibility of the acceptance of a competing one " 

Chapter 4

Conclusion

The question of ‘which paradigm is the best? Especially in communication field (or in social Science)’ is not a meaningful question since there is not any answer of it. Yes, some experts partly criticize paradigm positivism in its application to the social sciences but Every paradigm has a coherency and consistency in itself. For this reason, it is all in vain to compare the paradigms according to a criterion. These ideas require normally that multiple paradigm approach is recognized. Some research in the communication field in reality use many diverse paradigms tailored to the object of research, the purpose of the research, and the values that researchers adopt in relation to the object of research. The most important thing in research (also in social research or in communication field) is that the use of paradigms must be coherent and consistent which is reflected in its elements (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology)

References

Bogdan, R., & Biklin, S. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education : An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohen, l., & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education (4th ed). London: Routledge.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundation of Social research : Meaning and Perspective in the research process. Sage Publications Ltd.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Ellen, R. (1984). Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. New York: Academic Press.

Fazlıoğulları, O. (2012). Scientific Research Paradigms in Social Sciences. International Journal of Educational Policies, 6 (1). , 41-55.

Guba, E. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialogue. In Guba,E.(Ed). The Paradigm Dialogue. London: Sage.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions & Emerging Confluences. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). California: Sage.

Hidayat, D. N. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian dalam sebuah "Multi-Paradigm Science". Mediator Jurnal Komunikasi.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lindlof, T. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research methods. New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing Early Childhood Research:International Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research Dilemmas:Paradigms,Methods and Methodology. Issues in Educational Research 16, 1-15.

Neuman, W. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Seventh Edition). Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.

Nguyen, T. T. (2019). Selection of Research Paradigms in English Language Teaching: Personal Reflections and Future Directions. The Second Annual International Conference on Language and Literature KnE Social Sciences, 1-19.

Nurhajati, L. (2022). Methodology of Communication Research. Jakarta: LSPR Communication and Business Institute.

O'Brien, R. (2019). My Turakawaewae: A Review of Learning. research gate, 15.

Sarantakos, S. (1995). Social Research. Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd.