Revisiting a Classic: Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained

In this issue, we turn back the clock and revisit an exceptionally influential methodological paper (8,292 citations as per google scholar) authored by David L Morgan in 2007. He is a ‘professor emeritus’ which is a synonym for ‘legendary,’ at the Department of Sociology, Portland State University. The first thing that catches your attention is the use of a creative title: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The first half of that title is what’s called a “creative title,” it brings curiosity to the paper and bypasses the use of technical and boring titles. Notice that the title is precise and specific, and you can instantly tell what this paper is going to contain. If you want to know more about study titles that work, check out this past issue right here!

This is a seminal methodological paper in the field of Mixed-methods research (combining the yin-yang aka qualitative and quantitative approaches together). Social science research has evolved over the years, and there are still arguments regarding the best methodological approach and how we go about doing our research. Hence, we need academicians who focus on studying, designing, and validating research methods and scientific frameworks across disciplines. Such academicians are referred to as methodologists, focusing on the very tools and broader approaches we use to carry out our empirical research. Thanks to their criticism, commentaries and expositions, new approaches develop. Now that the intro is done, let’s take a deep (& quick) dive into this paper.

Who the hell is a paradigm?

Paradigms were famously used by Thomas Kuhn, a historian and philosopher of science in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which was published in 1962. It was a massive hit (total citations: 2,20,000 and counting! pheww) and can be easily considered the godfather of modern scientific publications. Kuhn used the term ‘paradigm’ in multiple ways, but broadly wanted to convey how some researchers are bound together by a shared set of assumptions when they set out to do research, like an invisible force. Maybe not this dramatic, but it “refers to the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and shared assumptions held by members of a given scientific community.” Researchers across different social science disciplines interpreted what a paradigm means in four different ways: (1) worldviews, (2) epistemological stances, (3) shared beliefs in a research field and, (4) model examples. The first two interpretations became more popular than others…

The Rise of Metaphysical Paradigm

There’s a Guba & Lincoln book chapter that all postgraduate students of psychology have to read at some point. It’s the one that emphasizes metaphysics aka ontology, epistemology and methodology for comparing paradigms. Published in 1994, it helped articulate alternatives to the dominant quantitative research paradigm. The 1980s saw a shift towards an increase in qualitative research, this time referred to romantically as the paradigm wars (drama yay!!!). Most academicians and researchers looking to grow and stand by the qualitative and interpretivist/constructionist stance seem to have taken this metaphysical understanding of paradigm to heart.

The pro of this categorization was that it made positivism (the worldview commonly associated with the hard sciences and quantitative approaches) become just another paradigm in a series of paradigms. It no longer reigned supreme. Morgan emphasises that it did not “imply that larger numbers of practicing researchers shifted from Quantitative to Qualitative Research”. But the metaphysical paradigm succeeded in determining the terms for discussing the broad nature of social science research methodology. This legitimized conducting research within the larger purview of critical (research wherein social justice is valued) and constructivist (social realities as constructs) frameworks.

The Need for a New Alternative Paradigm

The way metaphysical understanding of the paradigm neatly categorises different assumptions about reality, there are some limitations with it. Guba and Lincoln, eager to make their pro-constructionist points, narrow the complexity of “positivism” and even post-positivism paradigms, ignoring their influential and robust developments (even researchers beef with each other). Additionally, an imp question: who makes these boundary conditions and where does one category end and the other begin? Like everything else, there’s politics involved in who gets to define and draw boundaries. Another major criticism raised is that “this belief system remains disconnected from practical decisions about the actual conduct of research.” How are these philosophical assumptions grounded in real-life research? More often than not, they are an afterthought during the writing of the methodology section.

Pragmatism for the WIN!

Pragmatism finds one of its roots in the writing of one of my fav psychologists: William James. It is in essence about, “what works,” focusing on the real-world context and adapting one’s methodological approach to suit the research question. Pragmatism has been favored by mixed-methods researchers because of flexibility in its approach and design. Rather than getting caught up in metaphysical ruminations, it provides a basis for reorienting the field of social science research methodology in a practical direction.

In conclusion, I’d like to quote David L Morgan (from the paper’s conclusion section obv):

“New paradigms offer new ways to think about the world—new questions to ask and new ways to pursue them. This is the essential nature of paradigms as “worldviews,” and those of us who value the possibilities that come from combining qualitative and quantitative methods need to promote a worldview that encourages others to share our beliefs.”

Please Note: This is a quick summary of a vv long paper, please head over to it if you want more tea. Please reply if you liked this and have any recommendation for future classic papers for us to unravel and summarize. Also, consider sharing this with someone you think would like it.

Your Fall Glow-Up Comes in Two Cups

Pique’s Radiant Skin Duo pairs antioxidant-rich Sun Goddess Matcha with B·T Fountain, a beauty electrolyte for hydrated, plump-looking skin. In a trial of B·T Fountain’s ceramides, hydration improved 37% and elasticity 36% by day 60. Subscribe for 20% off for life, backed by a 90-day money-back guarantee.

Claim Your 20% Savings