Research Paradigms in Solving Complex Human Problems: Will It Be Enough?

A research paradigm is a belief system that guides research and interpretation. It follows the researcher's ideology and values. When studying human problems, the research paradigm is fundamental because it sets the stage for the research plan and methodology. To find the best approach for their study problem, researchers must carefully think about the different paradigms that are out there, such as positivism, constructivism, critical theory, and realism (Wong, 2014). In addition, the research paradigm reflects the researcher's ontological and epistemological perspectives and influences their methodology (Ragab & Arisha, 2017).

The four pillars of a research paradigm (positivism, critical realism, interpretivism, and pragmatism) help researchers assess and interpret their work and create a shared understanding of how to interpret research findings (Dudovski, 2011). In relating how the researchers approach human problems, the following four researchers' postures will be described further. First, positivist researchers often consider problems with people as ones that can be fixed using scientific methods and general rules. On the other hand, critical realism says that there is an objective reality, but it also says that how we understand reality is affected by our views and points of view. When applied to human problems, critical realism encourages researchers to explore the relationship between individual agency, social structures, and historical context.

In contrast to positivism and critical realism, the interpretivism paradigm stresses the importance of understanding how people feel and make sense of the social world. In addition, The pragmatism paradigm is a unique way to think about solving problems because it focuses on how research results can be used and how they affect people in the real world.

In the corporate context, applying these different paradigms can lead to significantly different research approaches and outcomes. Positivist studies may focus on identifying causal relationships and testing hypotheses, while critical realist research might explore the underlying mechanisms and structures that shape organizational behavior. Interpretivist studies, in contrast, may delve into the subjective experiences of employees, customers, or stakeholders to better understand of their perspectives and decision-making processes.

In conclusion, there are several schools of thought in the research paradigm. Each one offers a different way of looking at how to find information and solve problems. Positivism, Critical Realism, Interpretivism, and Pragmatism are four philosophical methods still being discussed and researched in terms of how well they solve problems for people. Will the researchers propose another additional paradigm out of the current four paradigms to solve complex human problems in this disruptive and digital world?

References

WONG, P W. (2014, March 10). A snap shot on qualitative research method. Academic Journals, 9(5), 130-140. DOI 10.5897/err2014.1801

Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2017, December 12). Research Methodology in Business: A Starter’s Guide. Sciedu Press, 5(1), 1-1. DOI 10.5430/mos.v5n1p1

Dudovski, J. (2011). BRM. (n.d.). Research philosophy. Retrieved from https://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy