Research paradigm, ontology, epistemology - Which one for YOUR STUDY?

TL;DR

Treat paradigms, ontology, and epistemology as assumptions revealed by research design choices, not as labels to pick before planning.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

The central takeaway is that research “philosophical” labels—paradigms, worldviews, ontology, and epistemology—aren’t something to pick first and then force onto a study. They should be inferred from the research questions, methods, and rationale after the study plan is in place, because those choices reveal what kind of reality the researcher assumes and how knowledge is meant to be accessed. That matters because academic writing often demands these assumptions early (commonly in methodology chapters), even though real understanding comes from reflecting on the decisions made during study design.

At the top level, paradigms and philosophies function as broad assumptions about the world: beliefs about what reality is like and how it can be studied. Two contrasting anchors dominate many discussions—positivism and interpretivism. Positivism aligns with a view of reality as stable and governed by universal laws, making it most appropriate to isolate variables and study patterns through controlled approaches. In that worldview, methods that measure or test—such as experiments, surveys, and structured observation—fit naturally, while asking individuals about their subjective perspectives is treated as less central.

Interpretivism flips the emphasis. It treats people as a core part of the reality being studied, meaning understanding beliefs, meanings, and feelings becomes essential. That leads to methods designed to access lived perspectives, including interviews, focus groups, and diaries. In practice, the choice of methods isn’t just technical; it signals what the researcher thinks counts as “real” knowledge and what the study is trying to uncover.

Ontology and epistemology sit inside these larger worldviews. Ontology concerns the nature of being and reality—what kind of world exists. Epistemology concerns how knowledge about that reality can be accessed—what counts as valid knowledge and how it is obtained. Together, they explain why different philosophical assumptions tend to produce different research questions and different methodological preferences.

A key practical warning follows: don’t start by adopting philosophical categories as the first step. Instead, begin with a workable research plan—research questions, rationale, and a sensible approach—then reflect on what those choices imply about underlying assumptions. After that reflection, it becomes easier to justify the philosophical alignment in writing.

When the fit between positivism and interpretivism feels messy—especially in mixed methods or when different methods point in different directions—pragmatism is presented as a unifying option. Pragmatism favors what works best for answering the research problem, while still acknowledging that reality has structures and that people help construct or interpret them. The advice ends with a pragmatic writing strategy: choose one classification system, stick with it, and attribute it to the relevant authors so the methodology chapter stays coherent rather than constantly switching frameworks.

Cornell Notes

The transcript argues that philosophical labels used in academic research (paradigms, ontology, epistemology) should not be selected as a starting point. Instead, researchers should design a study based on workable research questions and methods, then reflect on what those choices imply about their assumptions. Positivism treats reality as stable and law-governed, favoring controlled, variable-focused methods like experiments and surveys. Interpretivism treats people’s meanings as central to reality, favoring interviews, focus groups, and diaries. Pragmatism is offered as a practical middle ground when studies don’t fit neatly into either extreme, because it prioritizes what works best for the research problem.

What’s the difference between ontology and epistemology, and how do they connect to research methods?

Ontology concerns the nature of being and reality—what kind of world exists. Epistemology concerns how knowledge about that reality can be accessed—what counts as valid knowledge and how it is obtained. In practice, ontology shapes what the study treats as “real” (e.g., stable laws vs. socially constructed meanings), while epistemology shapes how the researcher thinks knowledge should be gathered (e.g., isolating variables vs. eliciting lived perspectives). Those assumptions then influence method choice, such as experiments and surveys under a positivist orientation versus interviews and diaries under an interpretivist orientation.

How does positivism typically justify method choices?

Positivism aligns with the idea that the world is stable and governed by universal laws. That makes it logical to study reality by manipulating, isolating, and separating variables in controlled settings. As a result, methods like experiments, surveys, and structured observation are treated as better routes to knowledge than approaches centered on individual subjective views.

How does interpretivism typically justify method choices?

Interpretivism treats people as a central part of the reality being studied, so understanding beliefs, meanings, and feelings becomes essential. That leads to methods designed to access individual perspectives—focus groups, interviews, and diaries—rather than relying primarily on controlled measurement of variables.

Why does the transcript recommend reflecting on philosophy after planning the study rather than before?

The transcript frames early philosophical writing as often frustrating because it’s demanded before conducting research. The practical claim is that relevance becomes clearer once the researcher can look back at the actual decisions made—research questions, rationale, and methods—and infer what those decisions reveal about underlying assumptions. Starting with philosophy first is described as a mistake; starting with a workable study plan and then justifying philosophical alignment is presented as more coherent.

When does pragmatism become especially useful, and what does it prioritize?

Pragmatism is recommended when it’s hard to choose cleanly between positivism and interpretivism—common in mixed methods or when different components suggest different worldviews. Pragmatism prioritizes what works best for answering the research problem. It also acknowledges both that reality has structures and that people develop or interpret those structures, helping unify otherwise conflicting methodological signals.

What’s the practical advice for writing the methodology chapter without getting lost in frameworks?

The transcript advises choosing one classification system and sticking to it. Instead of switching between multiple ways of labeling paradigms and assumptions, the researcher should explain which classification is being used, cite the relevant authors, and maintain consistency throughout the chapter to avoid a fragmented justification.

Review Questions

In your own study, what would your ontology imply about what counts as “reality,” and how would that shape your method choices?
If your methods include both surveys and interviews, how could pragmatism help justify the combination without forcing a single extreme worldview?
What steps would you take to infer your epistemology from your research questions and rationale rather than selecting philosophical labels first?

Key Points

1
Treat paradigms, ontology, and epistemology as assumptions revealed by research design choices, not as labels to pick before planning.
2
Positivism aligns with a stable, law-governed reality and typically favors controlled, variable-focused methods such as experiments and surveys.
3
Interpretivism centers people’s meanings as part of reality and typically favors methods like interviews, focus groups, and diaries.
4
Ontology addresses what reality is like; epistemology addresses how knowledge about that reality is obtained and what counts as valid knowledge.
5
Avoid starting with philosophical categories as the first step; build a workable study plan first, then reflect to justify philosophical alignment.
6
Use pragmatism when studies don’t fit neatly into positivism or interpretivism—especially in mixed methods—by prioritizing what works best for the research problem.
7
Keep your methodology chapter coherent by choosing one classification framework and sticking to it with clear attribution to authors.

Highlights

Philosophical assumptions should be inferred from the study’s questions and methods, then justified in writing—rather than chosen first and forced onto the research.

Positivism and interpretivism differ less in “topic” and more in what they treat as reality and how knowledge should be accessed.

Pragmatism is presented as a practical bridge when mixed methods or conflicting methodological signals make a single extreme worldview hard to defend.

Ontology (nature of reality) and epistemology (how knowledge is obtained) provide the internal logic connecting worldview to method selection.

Topics

Mentioned

Dr Kriukow