What Is a Research Paradigm?—Things to Consider Before Deciding Between a Survey and an Interview

When starting a research project, we often begin by thinking about research methods—such as “Let’s conduct a survey,” “Let’s conduct interviews,” or “Let’s try participant observation.”

However, there are some factors that should be considered before this.

To begin with, how do we perceive the “reality” that is the subject of our research? Furthermore, how can we know this reality?

For example, suppose we are conducting research on “children who do not attend school.”

Do you want to measure the factors related to not attending school and clarify the trends and relationships among them? Or do you want to understand how the children themselves perceive and make sense of the experience of not attending school?

Furthermore, do you want to reexamine the norms” of the school system and society that underlie that experience?

Even when studying the same phenomenon, the research questions and the approach to the research will vary depending on what you perceive as “reality” and what you aim to “know.”

The research paradigm relates to the underlying assumptions that form the basis of such research.

1. What is a research paradigm?

The concept of a “paradigm” was popularized by the historian of science, Thomas Kuhn. In the social sciences, including educational research, it can be understood as a “set of norms and a framework of thought” that defines how we view the societies or groups under study (Imafuku, 2019).

Ontology and epistemology are crucial for understanding a research paradigm.

Ontology is a set of ideas concerning “what reality is” and “what exists.”

In contrast, epistemology is a set of ideas concerning “how we can come to know that reality.”

Furthermore,  the methodology involves systematically considering approaches to achieve research objectives while incorporating these underlying assumptions.

Furthermore, the specific methods used to collect and analyze data—such as interviews, participant observation, and questionnaire surveys—are research methods.

As Imafuku (2019) points out, methodology and methods are not the same.

For example, ethnography is a methodology, and within it, research methods such as participant observation and interviews are employed.

As shown in Figure 1, the research question, philosophical premises, research paradigm, methodology, and research methods are interrelated. Therefore, research does not simply begin with the question, “Should I use a questionnaire or an interview?”. It is important not to view each of these as a mechanical procedure, but to consider whether they are consistent within the research as a whole.

Furthermore, thinking about research paradigms does not mean adding difficult philosophical terms to research design. It means establishing a foundation for explaining “Why are we researching this question using this method?”.

2. Positivism—Objectively Capturing Reality

One of the representative research paradigms is positivism.

Positivism holds that reality exists independently of how humans think and can be objectively observed and measured.

For example, let’s consider the question: “What is the relationship between a family’s socioeconomic background and a child’s academic performance?”

By measuring household income, parents’ educational attainment, and children’s academic performance, and analyzing data collected from a large number of people, researchers seek to clarify the relationships and patterns among these variables.

Imafuku (2019) summarizes that positivism treats the researcher and the research subject as independent entities; it emphasizes identifying causal relationships and patterns through objective observation and measurement to obtain generalizable knowledge.

This approach is well-suited for quantitative research, which employs hypothesis testing, measurement, and statistical analysis.

However, “quantitative research ≠ positivism.” Quantitative research encompasses various epistemological stances, and the research paradigm is not automatically determined solely by the methods used.

3. Post-Positivism—Reality Exists, but It Cannot Be Fully Known

One school of thought that emerged from critiques of positivism is post-positivism. Post-positivism also fundamentally maintains that reality exists independently of researchers.

The major difference lies in the question: “Can humans know that reality completely objectively?”

Researchers possess experience, knowledge, and values. Furthermore, the knowledge gained is influenced by the concepts measured, data used, and analytical methods chosen.

Therefore, rather than seeking to prove through a single study that “this is the absolute truth,” post-positivism critically tests hypotheses, emphasizes falsifiability, and examines the subject using different data and methods, all while striving to arrive at a more valid understanding of a reality that cannot be fully grasped (Imafuku, 2019).

To simplify, positivism holds that “an objective reality exists and can be known objectively,” whereas post-positivismholds that “an objective reality exists, but our knowledge of it is always incomplete.” 

This raises a question.

Is research about “uncovering the truth”? Or is it about moving toward a more valid explanation while recognizing its limitations?

Constructivism and interpretivism offer another perspective on this question.

4. Constructivism and Interpretivism: How Do People Attribute Meaning to the World?

Constructivism and interpretivism do not assume that the goal of research is to discover a “single reality” independent of the researcher.

People understand and attribute meaning to events based on their experiences, knowledge, and relationships with others. Therefore, even when people experience the same event, that “reality” is not necessarily the same for all.

For example, regarding school refusal, we can ask: “How does the individual perceive the experience of no longer attending school?” and “What does ‘going to school’ or ‘not going to school’ mean to that person?”

Rather than simply fitting experiences into categories predetermined by the researcher, we sought to understand how individuals interpret and assign meaning to their experiences within their specific context.

Imafuku (2019) explains that in constructivism, reality is constructed through people’s experiences, knowledge, and interactions with others. Furthermore, it is impossible to completely separate the researcher from the research subject; the knowledge gained through research is also considered to be constructed within the interaction between the two.

This is why reflexivity becomes so important.

Researchers possess specific experiences, knowledge, values, and social positions. They constantly question themselves—asking, “Why did I interpret this person’s narrative in this way?” and “How is my own position influencing the investigation and analysis?”—without placing themselves outside the research process.

However, constructivism does not mean that “since everyone thinks differently, any interpretation is acceptable.” Researchers are required to demonstrate the data they used and the process they followed to arrive at their interpretation.

So, is it sufficient to carefully understand the meanings people ascribe to their own experiences? For example, suppose a student believed that “College isn’t a place for people from families like mine.”

While understanding that experience and its meaning, we can also ask, “Why has society become a place where such a way of thinking arises?”

If we consider that social class, institutions, culture, and power relations are involved, a different research question emerges.

5. Critical Theory—How Is Its “Reality” Constructed?

Educational research grounded in critical theory focuses on these social structures, cultures, and power relations.

Here, the term “critical” does not simply mean rejecting existing education or research, or pointing out their problems.

Kemmis (1991) discusses critical educational research as research that is oppositional to existing practices in four senses: epistemological, cognitive, cultural, and political. It focuses on the possibility that people’s very understanding of society is shaped—and at times distorted—by language, culture, tradition, and socio-economic structures.

In other words, it reexamines not only “How do people understand the world?” but also “Why have they come to understand the world in that way?” and “What are the social and cultural conditions underpinning that understanding?”

Kemmis (1991) acknowledges the importance of interpretive educational research in understanding the meanings ascribed by the participants themselves but argues that this alone is not sufficient. This is because even the participants’ own understanding may be shaped by social structures and institutions over which they have no direct control. 

For example, regarding educational disparities, we can ask, “To what extent do academic achievements differ based on a family’s socioeconomic background?” Alternatively, we can ask, “How do children from economically disadvantaged families experience school life and the transition to higher education?”

Critical research poses questions such as the following:

“Why are such disparities created and maintained?”

“Are the school system and educational practices reducing these disparities, or are they reproducing them?”

“Whose knowledge, culture, and values are considered the ‘standard’ within schools?”

Furthermore, Kemmis’s critical educational research is driven not only by a desire to understand society but also by an aspiration to engage in its transformation. It views education not merely as a process of social and cultural reproduction, but also as one involved in social transformation. Therefore, after identifying inequalities and problems, is it sufficient for researchers to simply describe them?

6. Participatory Action Research: Who Conducts the Research and Who Brings About Change?

One research approach that addresses this question is  participatory action research (PAR).

In conventional research, there is often a distinction between “those who conduct the research” and “those who are the subject of the research” For example, the researcher defines the research question, collects data from research participants, analyzes it, and writes a paper.

PAR reexamines this relationship.

Kaukko and Fertig (2016) examine PAR in relation to global education and social justice. PAR places great emphasis on positioning the research participants not merely as “those being studied” but as the agents of research who identify, reflect on, and take action regarding issues that concern them.

In action research, for example, the following steps are repeated cyclically:

(1) Identify the problem

(2) Plan actions for improvement

(3) Implement

(4) Reflect on what happened

(5) Apply the lessons to the next action

The generation of knowledge through research and the improvement of practice are not separate processes. Furthermore, PAR does not simply arise from research participants having a minimal level of involvement in research activities.

Who determines the research topics? Who decides “what the problem is”? Who interprets the data? For whose benefit are the research findings used? 

These perspectives are crucial.

As Kaukko and Fertig (2016) explain, PAR has also developed as a counter-approach to top-down research in development studies, where external researchers or development agencies define problems and treat local people as research subjects.

Critical theory and PAR share many commonalities, such as a focus on social inequality and power relations; however, they are not the same. Kaukko and Fertig (2016) point out that PAR places particular emphasis on “change” and “action.”

It should be noted that opinions vary in the literature regarding whether PAR should be referred to as a “paradigm” in the same sense as positivism or constructivism. In the classification by Guba and Lincoln introduced by Imafuku (2019), participatory action research is listed as one of the paradigms, whereas Kaukko and Fertig (2016) position PAR as a methodology. 

It is important not only to consider where to classify the term but also to consider who sets the research questions, who generates knowledge, and what the research aims to achieve.

7. What Does This Mean for Educational Development Research—“Who Defines the Problem?”

The PAR approach is also important when considering research on educational development.

Kaukko and Fertig (2016) introduced a case study on  EdQual (Implementing Education Quality in Low-Income Countries).

EdQual was a collaborative project between universities in the United Kingdom and Africa carried out from 2005 to 2010, with the aim of improving the quality of education in low-income countries. The project focused not only on enrollment numbers and enrollment rates but also on the quality of teaching and learning in schools and classrooms.

In a study on school leadership conducted in Ghana and Tanzania, school administrators engaged in action research. Rather than having researchers determine school problems from the outside, school administrators themselves reflected on the situation at their own schools, identified specific challenges affecting children’s learning, and translated these insights into practical improvements. 

What is important here is not simply that “local people were invited to participate in the research.” Rather, who defines the problems, who generates the knowledge, and who uses that knowledge to improve education? This is the very nature of this approach to research that is being questioned.

In educational development research, we sometimes tend to ask, “How should we improve education in developing countries?” From a PAR perspective, however, we must also ask, “Who defines educational problems, and who determines the direction of improvement?”

Thinking about research methods is not merely about considering “how to collect data.” It also involves considering who is the agent of knowledge creation.

8. Which Paradigm Is “Correct”?

By now, you may be wondering, “So, which paradigm should I choose?” However, there is no need to view these as a hierarchy of “which is the best.” For example, suppose we are researching scholarships at universities in developing countries.

Table 1: Even for the Same Research Topic, the “Research Question” Varies Depending on the Research Paradigm—An Example from Scholarship Research

Perspective	Examples of Questions About Scholarships	Main Areas of Interest
Positivism/Post-positivism	Does receiving a scholarship increase the likelihood of attending college?	Effects, relationships, regularities
Constructivism/Interpretivism	How do students who receive scholarships make meaning of that experience?	Experience, meaning, context
Critical Theory	Who has access to scholarships and who is excluded?	Inequality, Institutions, Power Relations
PAR	How can we work with students to identify and address systemic issues?	Participation, Action, Transformation

Source: Author’s preparation.

Note: Created as an example to illustrate the relationship between research paradigms and research questions. In actual research, different combinations may exist depending on the research topic and theoretical stance

As shown in Table 1, even for the same theme—“scholarships”—research questions vary depending on what the researcher seeks to learn about it.

“Does receiving a scholarship increase the likelihood of attending college?” If this is the question, one might conduct research using data to examine the relationship between scholarship receipt and college enrollment. On the other hand, if the question is “How do students who have received scholarships interpret that experience?”The focus will be on understanding the reality of the students’ own experiences and the meaning they ascribe to them.

Furthermore, if we ask, “Who has access to scholarships, and who is excluded from them?”, we are compelled to look not only at individual experiences but also at the systems, social structures, and power relations that give rise to these experiences.

And if we ask, “How can we work with students themselves to identify and address problems in the scholarship system?”An approach similar to PAR comes to mind.

Even within the same theme of “scholarships,”

• We can formulate different research questions, such as:

• clarifying effects and relationships

• understanding experiences and meanings

• examining the structures and power relations that generate inequality

and working with those directly affected to identify and transform problems.

However, this should not be viewed as a linear progression of research stages: 

“measure → understand meaning → critique structures → transform.”

The appropriate questions and approaches vary depending on what is desired.

If one wants to determine the extent to which a particular policy is effective, there is great significance in estimating that effect as rigorously as possible.

However, if one wants to know how people are actually experiencing that policy, there are realities that cannot be captured by effect sizes alone. Reflecting on paradigms is not meant to force researchers to choose a specific stance.

Rather, it is meant to help researchers reexamine the premises of their own research by asking, “What am I trying to learn from this research? And why do I believe this method will allow me to learn it?”.

9. Don’t Start Your Research with “Methods”

When we begin a research project, we tend to think in terms of research methods first—such as “Let’s conduct a survey,” “Let’s conduct interviews,” or “Let’s perform statistical analysis.”

However, as Imafuku (2019) argues, when designing research, it is important to be mindful of the connections between philosophical premises, such as ontology and epistemology, research paradigms, methodology, and specific research methods.

For example, simply conducting interviews does not necessarily mean that the research is constructivist in nature.  Even the same interview can be used to understand how people make sense of their experiences or to reveal inequalities and power relations that are obscured within society.

What matters is not the method itself but the questions and way of thinking that underlie its use. When beginning research, it may be helpful to consider the following:

• What do I want to uncover?

• How do I perceive the “reality” in question?

• How can I gain knowledge about that reality?

• Are my thoughts consistent with the methodology and research techniques I have chosen?

• 
  

Learning about research paradigms does not involve adding more philosophical terminology to make research more difficult.

Rather, I believe it serves as the foundation for being able to explain in your own words: “Why am I researching this question using this method?”.

References

• Imafuku, R. (2019). Rironteki kōken ga dekiru kenkyū o dezain suru: Kenkyū paradaimu no rikai no jūyōsei [Designing research that can make a theoretical contribution: The importance of understanding research paradigms]. Igaku Kyoiku, 50(1), 53–60.

• Kemmis, S. (1991). Critical education research. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 5(Special Issue), 94–119.

• Kaukko, M., & Fertig, M. (2016). Linking participatory action research, global education, and social justice: Emerging issues from practice. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 7(3), 24–46.

Note

This paper simplifies and organizes key concepts regarding research paradigms to make them more accessible to beginners. The classifications and definitions of research paradigms and methodologies vary depending on the field of study and the scholar. In particular, regarding Participatory Action Research (PAR), there are arguments that position it as a paradigm and others that position it as a methodology. We would appreciate your feedback on any comments regarding the organization presented in this paper.