Article Title :
Understanding Research Paradigm War

Author Name :
Prof. Lalit Kumar

Keyword :
Research paradigm, Positivist, Interpretivist, Critical, Pragmatism, Ontology, Epistemology, Research Methodology, Axiology, Paradigm War

Publisher :
Politic India Publication

Download URL :

Abstract :
Research and its methodology are governed by the research paradigm. The research paradigm is a guide to the research work and researcher as it directs the investigator to define and delimit the problem, decide its design of work and conclude the way the selected research paradigm is directed. As a concept, it started its journey with the Positivist paradigm followed by the Interpretivism paradigm which emerged as an opponent to Positivism. Now we have Pragmatic and Critical research paradigms as well. There continues a war among different aspects of paradigm and even about their category and their relative relevance. Some researchers find other paradigms as well, though most of the available literature talks only in terms of these four research paradigms. There is also differing opinion on the concept of paradigm, especially about the Pragmatic paradigm. Some literature claims about three methodologies within the pragmatic paradigm Mixed Method, Q-Methodology, and Generic Qualitative Inquiry; whereas most of the research interchangeably uses either the pragmatic paradigm or mixed method paradigm. There is differing opinion about the elements of the paradigm as well. Some researchers believe only in three elements Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology, others add Axiology to make the number four. Research has research ethics and it is being undertaken to help man and mankind in some way or other, so the list of research elements cannot be considered complete without including Axiology as the fourth element. No doubt, the two paradigms-Positivism and Interpositivism are the main research paradigms as they are opposite to each other in a complete sense. As they are opposite to each other they complete the circle of the research demand of the investigators. Pragmatism claims that by mixing and integrating these two paradigms by employing their strengths together the research work may be done in a better way. Can we think of research where we use the strength of both paradigms and simultaneously remove their limitations? How one can use any two approaches or systems by removing their limitations to go with their strength only and that too without sacrificing their originality? The maximum conflict among the researchers is on this issue of mixing and integrating positivism and anti-positivism. N. L. Gage may not be completely right in their intense war-like concepts in terms of paradigm war, but he cannot be found at any juncture of research work completely wrong. Paradigm war is there, and it needs to be. It is good for the development of the research world, researchers and the academia. A critical research paradigm with the objectives to study and fight for the improvement of humans and humanity may not be practical, but it has logic in it. We need academic activists to work as social activists. Gandhi, Bose, Mandela, and Jaiprakash are there in history and their success story is not without the support of the academic world and academic institutions. A group of researchers claims that days are to come when the dual pole of Positivism and Interpretivism will shift as Critical and Non-critical paradigms only. This claim may not be reliable and valid, but the thought war is for the development of the research world and the larger academic audience. Let us continue with this ongoing paradigm war for the betterment of the academic world and the development of mankind at large.