PARADIGMS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

Social science research is steered less by “methods” alone and more by the beliefs researchers carry about reality, knowledge, values, and acceptable ways of studying people. Those underlying assumptions—often grouped under the umbrella term “paradigm” or “research philosophy”—shape everything from what topic feels worth investigating to whether data should be numerical, narrative, or both. The practical takeaway is straightforward: no paradigm is automatically better, but the chosen paradigm must fit the research problem and the assumptions behind it.

To make the idea concrete, the class uses everyday choices as an analogy: people shop at certain supermarkets and buy specific brands not because alternatives are objectively worse, but because personal beliefs about quality, price, layout, and service make one option feel “right.” Research works the same way. Researchers select problems and methods based on what they treat as valid knowledge. For example, governments often report success through statistics—percentages, GDP growth, loan counts—because numbers are assumed to communicate progress effectively. Researchers who share that belief tend to favor numerical data; those who prioritize lived experience tend to favor narrative accounts.

A paradigm is defined as a system of beliefs and assumptions guiding how knowledge is developed and how research should be conducted. Two cited definitions emphasize that paradigms function as shared worldviews: they represent beliefs and values that guide how problems are solved within a discipline. In social science, paradigms are described through four components. Ontology addresses the nature of reality (what exists and how it exists). Epistemology concerns what counts as valid knowledge and how researchers justify claims. Axiology focuses on values, ethics, and bias—how researchers handle their own standpoint and their respondents’ perspectives. Methodology specifies the methods and procedures used to study and interpret social phenomena.

The class then lays out four major paradigms commonly used in social science: positivism (and postpositivism), interpretivism (constructivism), emancipatory (advocacy/liberatory/transformative), and pragmatism. Positivism assumes a single, objective reality independent of the observer; it seeks explanation, prediction, and control, often turning social life into measurable variables. Interpretivism assumes multiple, subjective realities constructed through experience; it reduces the distance between researcher and participant and relies on insider perspectives through approaches such as in-depth interviews and observation. Emancipatory research also accepts multiple realities but adds a moral purpose: research should empower marginalized groups and enable social change, often through participatory collaboration. Pragmatism is “fitness for purpose,” treating the best approach as the one that works for the research question—frequently motivating mixed methods that combine strengths of different paradigms.

A key warning closes the lesson: paradigms must be matched to their philosophical assumptions and to the research problem. The class also notes that universities may require different levels of explicit discussion of paradigms in proposals, but the underlying paradigm still shapes the work even when it is not written into the document. The next session is expected to move from paradigms to research approaches and how they borrow from these worldviews.