How the authors presented their views is appreciated with the displayed openness/accommodation in their presentation of the different paradigms, despite mentioning their position in the earlier passage of the article. The fact that they accommodated other paradigms such as the participatory paradigm, despite their outright stand of being constructivists, it indicates that the proposition holds a bearing in social research. Although it cannot be denied that participatory paradigm is much nearer to constructivism that the authors allude to.
To help comprehend and give credit to what I suppose is the paradigm/s I am inclined to, I would like to include my insights or biases on some of the controversies discussed in the reading. I would like to start with the inclusion of values in social inquiry. With the increasing interest of researchers to the interpretative realm of human behavior with socio-cultural interaction, new paradigm inquirers are moving away from the clinical, faceless, emotionless state of research to the inclusion of spirituality and spiritual concerns. The move towards the so-called subjective realm creates issues between paradigms.
With the issue on commensurability, It was mentioned in the article that, “social phenomena are consist of the meaning-making activities of groups and individuals” (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). As such, social inquiry is consists of understanding the meaning-making activities happening. The authors believe that there is the possibility of ‘confluence,’ of ‘shifting boundaries of paradigms,’ the ‘blurring of genres.’ And so different methodologies can be used, depending to what is responsive to the problem. With this in mind, there should be no issue on commensurability.
The second issue raised is on the role of action in research. It is interesting to note that hard-line positivists believe actions as ‘taints’ in research outputs. On this matter, I would be inclined to side with post-positivists that actions are part and parcel of research results and process (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). Studying social phenomena is different from analyzing natural occurrences. Actions of people are fluid. It varies from one to another, from time to time. Thus, it is hard to generalize results as opposed to the static and consistent results drawn from molecules or mathematical equations for that matter. Nuances and peculiarities will always surface in the study of social phenomena that question the validity of results when employing positivist’s axioms as yardstick.
Another controversy is regarding control. When control means participants having active role, of communities taking control of their futures, of actions controlled by community members, this should be seen as a good thing since it promotes social development. It also reiterates that knowledge cannot be separated from the knower as opposed to the positivist’s view of a taint-free objectivity.
This leads to the issue on reality coupled with validity. Of whether reality is an entity outside human experiences that are tested using absolute criteria, or whether knowers are not separate from objective reality. Contradictions on foundational, antifoundational or nonfoundational perspectives of truth and knowledge are currently of discussion in the social sciences. Arguments on the application of rigorous scientific method against the use of interpretative processes are taking place. Yet, it seems that views under new paradigms already surpass explanations against the foundational view of reality.
In terms of voice, reflexivity, and postmodern textual representation, the struggle is on whose voice is being heard. Is it of the author, of the respondents or of the inclusion of the self? This holds true with reflexivity. Different categories of the selves were mentioned by Reinharz (1997) in the text, the research-based selves, brought selves and the situationally created selves. It is a discussion on reflecting and questioning oneself in the process of social inquiry/data gathering, a subjective action yet fruitful in terms of application. Voice is also linked with textual representation, the “messy texts” of Marcus & Fisher (1996) mentioned in the article. However, such texts seek to break boundaries, to decentralize and focus inquiries on human experience, at the same time freedom to choose alternatives in doing social inquiry. In addition, such representations, is not necessarily for the sole purpose of academic arguments, but are utilized and are applicable for the consumption of the non-academic audiences or in the context of which the research result was based.
Following the discussions in the article, I would say that I would ascribe to constructivism and participatory paradigm. However, this inclination does not mean ruling out positivist view and other paradigms. Depending on the kind of research there is, ascribing to rigorous scientific method and/or interpretative process can be used. In the search for understanding human behavior, different method of inquiries can be employed.
No comments:
Post a Comment