Abstract
The idea of a paradigm or worldview as an overarching framework which organizes our entire approach to being in the globe has become usual since Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. This paper therefore critically examined the positivist and a non positivist research paradigm in social science research. It was revealed that the two paradigms are opposing each other. The findings show that positivist and a non positivist research are conflicting paradigms and a researcher needs to cortically evaluate each and every paradigm before employing it in his research activities. Conclusion was eventually drawn based on the literature findings.
Highlights
The idea of a paradigm or worldview as an overarching framework which put in order our entire approach to being in the globe has become usual since Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962
It has been argued that the positivist and constructivist paradigm, as they express it, is uncertain about the association between created realities and the unique givenness of the universe, and that a world perception based on partaking and participative realism is more obliging and fulfilling
The perhaps most essential evaluation and\ critique of positivism in social sciences world is that the notion of an independent realism and the resulting unbiased observation and study of this realism does not guide to a sufficient comprehension of the happening in question (Adam, 2001)
Summary
The idea of a paradigm or worldview as an overarching framework which put in order our entire approach to being in the globe has become usual since Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. A fundamental predicament of positivist paradigm is that it cannot recognize the framing paradigm it has fashioned It puzzles the given universe with the world perception it has created to shape the given worldview. A predominantly graceful clarification of participatory observation and language and its insinuation for natural thoughts can be found in Phillips (2007) This structure of fundamental empiricism is not to be baffled with behaviourism, that has on no account been experimental enough, given that it preconceives and draw up the boundaries of experience in regards to its positivist paradigm. The experimental is based on understanding, and it stops to be empirical when knowledge is controlled by a restricting explanation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
