derive from their respective scientific philosophy or paradigm. Each paradigm has its own ontology and epistemology. The ontological position states how the paradigm perceives the reality and the epistemology is concerned with the nature of and the scope of knowledge (Slevitch, 2011). This, the logic of justification, not only differs between the qualitative and quantitative paradigm but is opposites (ibid). The ontology of the quantitative paradigm states that there is an objective reality and that
This paper begins with a discussion of quantitative and qualitative paradigms and how it can have an effect on the way research is conducted followed by the researchers own choice of paradigm. Next, the paper offers an opposing view of the philosophical framework chosen. Qualitative approach is used to research the reasons, opinions and motivations. It is seen as exploratory research that could provide insights for the problem at hand. It also allows to find trends and more in-depth knowledge of
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents research methodology that was tracked in data collection it involves description of the study area, research design, research methods, sample and sample size, reliability and validity, data management and analysis. 3.2 Research Paradigms Research paradigm is the way of examining social phenomena from which particular understandings of their phenomena can be gained and explanations attempted. Research philosophy adopted contains
accurately. However, this view may be a sensible method to test cause and effect but it does not address the person from a holistic perspective which is a foundation of nursing practice. Historicism takes into account the social context of the research, recognizing that historical circumstances and the researcher's subjective understanding influence processes. Historicism recognizes that concepts evolve from cultural and social contexts (Hjorland, 2009). Just as a word may have different meanings
Archaeology and Theory: A Tale of Three Paradigms: This ArchBlog outlines and discusses theory and relativism, in order to understand the three different paradigms in archaeology. Theory is a testable principle or set of principles. In archaeology, the Law of Superposition is a theory used to properly date layers of soil. Within High Culture, Mythos of the West entails two different systems of thought. Mythos I focuses on emotion, religion, and irrationality. Mythos II focuses on political and
Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution and the paradigm are often applied only to the sciences. However, Kuhn’s theory can also be applied to the court of law. Kuhn’s paradigm lays the foundation as to how the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick was over turned in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. When this event took place a paradigm shift occurred. In order for a paradigm shift to occur there must first be an original paradigm or an accepted norm. There must then be an instance that deviates
subcultures supporting their otherwise frowned upon behavior. Although I have not set in stone which paradigm I will be using, the previous final-project check in I had chosen positivism. After this week’s readings and lecture I am debating whether or not the critical paradigm will be more beneficial when explaining my crime and creating a plan to reduce domestic violence. In regards to using the positivism paradigm I would focus on factors out of the control of the offender. If I were to use this
performed and rigid box that the paradigm provides and the aim to stay within box. So mature science is consist most of the time. In science the paradigm provide a means for identifying puzzles and likely solution normal sciences is puzzles and solving specifically puzzles about the nature of the world. Kuhn used puzzle solving his demarcation creation between science and non-science. He told scientists do not seek the refute the paradigm the fact that a paradigm exist means it has proven itself
A research paradigm could be considered as a framework based on people´s philosophies and assumptions about current knowledge. The paradigm guides how research should be accomplished and there are mainly two fundamental paradigms that are used; positivism and interpretivism (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Positivism is associated with deductive theory and quantitative methods whereas interpretivism is associated with findings being derived from qualitative methods. This motivates the reason to choose
The evolution of epidemiology is exhibited in three eras, each with its own dominant paradigm. The sanitary statistics, during the greater part of the 19th century focus on miasma, which basically attributes to the environmental factors from the foul stench stemming from the soil, water and air. These elements were believed to have demonstrated the morbidity and mortality in the city slums of England, France, Germany, Scandinavia and even in the United States. The second era is revolved on infectious