Sponsored by Phi Des Kappa Intemational and The Schoo! of Education, Indiana University a0 “ AU ‘SAGE Publications Iriemaoa! Eaucatonal and Protssona! PLohar Newouny Pax London” New Oeyfu) The Alternative Paradigm Dialog EGON €. GUBA nis not surprising thst most persons asked to define the term purdigm | ‘are unable to offer any clea statement of te meaning. aay ie no ‘surprising because Thomas Kuhn, the person mos responsible for ‘ungng that concept into our collective awareness, has himself deed the term in no fewer than 21 diferent ways, if Masterman 1970) can be beloved. Some persons view that lack of clear definition as a ‘unfortunate sent ofafnits, Bt I belive that i is important to leave ‘the term in such 2 problematic Hino, ecsuse i a then posible tO reshape it as our understanding ofits many implications improves Flaving the term nt east in stone ie intllctaly sel. Tas will ‘se the tern in his chapter only in ts most common or ener sense: bask set of Beles that guides action, whether of the everyday {garden varity or action taken in connection with a dizcptned i ‘Quir. Refinernent ofthat definition canbe mak by each wader while Drogresing through tie book. Tn thic opening chapter | propose to outline what I ake o be the salient ceences between traditional positivsiy on the one hand, {and the thee paradigms that have emerged to challenge replaco? parallel?) tom the other Ofcourse, have my ov preference amONg {heme it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge thal preference at once It constructs. One immesiate consequences that eco, nize that what amabout tosay omy cunsconstrcton, not neceeaty 2 objective (whatever that may be) analysis. Indeed, 2s we shall see, onstructivists not only abjure objectivity but celebrate subjectivity. ‘The reader should not thosefore ead this chapier in the mistaken notin that it epresents gospel or even a widely aged to postion. |ofertas ome way to understand the paradigm issue shoul also point out that constnictvsts are relaiiss(a position that, Icontend, fan be well defended, see Gubo, 1930; hence its quit possible for ime to enfetain eny constriction (inching, ofcourse, 2 paraign) that proposed by reasonable and wellintentioned persons. The reader shoul never forget that the only allerative to relativism absoluticm. Asa rlacvist, I will ot reject any construction out of| hand, Generating Inquiry Paradigms “There ate many paradigms that wo Use in ulin our actions the adversarial paradigm that guides the legal systemy the jdgmental [Paradigm that guide the scection of Olympic wines, he regions pradigme thot guide spinal and moral fe, and many others: Our Exncem here, however swith thee paradigis that guste disciplined inguiry. Historically there have been maa such (Guba & Lincoln, 108 Lincoln ée Guo, 1985), Put since the time of Descartes (1596. 1650) ,inguirers have tended to focus on what ins latter-day version, ‘ame ta be known as postviem, Neverteiess, al these past para ‘ligme, ae well as the emergent contenders, can be characterized by the way thelr proponents expond to Uzee basic questions which an Ibe characterized asthe oobi the epsteologtes], and the method lial questions. The questions are these: (0) Onno Wha he mature ofthe a wabe"? Or wha isthe ‘ture realy”? 2) Epcot What isthe otate of te celationship beeen the ower enquire and the knven or enable? (©) Metin: How should he agurr go about Ending out ot see? ‘The ansres that aze given to these questions may be termed 3 sets the basi ele systems or paradigms that might be adopted. They far the starting points or givens that determine hat ingury is and how itso be pracised. They cannot be proven or disproven in any foundational sense f that te posible there would be no doubt about how to practice Inquiry. Bur all such belie systems or para "Tae Aerating Pein Dig » gas are human constracions, and hence bjt toal the eros and {olbles that inewbly sceompany human endeavors. "There are ceiinly many differnt wavs to answer these questions. Descartes, obsessed withthe dea that he might be gle ino belie: ing something aot trae seurched fora sure foundation indeed, his legendary pronouacoment°T think, therfore [ am,” was the only proposition that he fel that hecoald propose without bimselt imme intel doubtingit) His overidingconceen foccertainknowdgehas ‘come lobe called Catsion anit, a diseace that i ill reflected in the posivist end posipositve) search tofind oat “how things really te" and “how things realy work” ‘The Basic Beliefs of Positivisn ‘The phases “how things rly are” and “how things ally work” axe ontological creeds The basic bli system of positivism is roted Inavedst ontology, thats, the ele that there exists 2 realy ou! Here, driven by immatrble natural lays. The Business of scioce i 6 iscover the “ruc” nate of reality and how it truly” works. The ‘aime aim of science to presi and ent natural phenomena, ‘Once committed #9 @ rill enteogy, tue postive s constrained topracticean obits epistemology: It theresa real world operating ‘setondingto maura las, then thesaqurer ust behave ways thal ‘put questions diredly t0 nature and allow nature to answer back ‘Siretly The ingiter, 20 te speak, must snd behind 3 thick wal of ‘one-way glass bserving nature a8 “she does her thing.” Objectivity [sthe "Archimeien point (Archimedes isle have boosted that, fiven a long enough lever and a place wherson to sand, he could ‘hove the earth) that pents the Ingulver to wrest nature's secrets ‘without allering Sem in any way. ‘Bat how ea that be done, given te possibly of inquirer bias, on theone hand, and nature's propensity to confound, on the other? The postvist’s answer: by the use ofa manipulative meehodolegy that Eontols for both, and 31 methods that place the point of decision with nature athe han with the inquirer The mest eppre- rate methodology thus enphricl experimental, or as lose an pprovmalion thereto as cin be managed» SETTING THE STAGE ‘Tho bos belief system (paradigm) of conventional (positive) Inquiry can thusbe summarized as fllows: Onto: Retitreaty exits out here ads driven by notable ature lns and mechs. Knowle ofthese ets, {Sn and mectunisns te convenonally summarand i he femal tines and conto fe genealations Some of hee [ater generalizations take the orm oes eet aes Epstemoogy Dualdabjectivatit fs bth pose and cael forthe inguiertoadopta distant onteractve posture Values ‘her Basing an oniounding ctr ar hey aura Ah cadre mecng he aoe Meade Eperimenatanpuline-susstions and hypotheses ae state in advance In propositional form and abyeted ca ahi one ceca nd ‘There are many ways in which this belie system can be under- ‘mined. Eachof the three emergent paradigms ase its own objections tnd proposes its owe solutions I wl examine each in turn, The Basic Beliefs of Postpostivism Postpositivism i best characteriza as a modified version of post tiviem: Having assessed the damage that posivism has incurred, Pstpostiviat strugse to limit that damage as wll as to adjust. Prediction and contol continue to the ai, (Onilogicaly postpositivism moves from what s now secognized as a “naive” rellst posture to one often termed ere! ration, The ‘essence ofthis position i that, although areal workd driven by real ‘natural causes Exit, ts impel for humans truly to perceive it ‘with their imperfect sensory and intellactve mechanisms (Cook de Campbell, 1979, p25) Inquiers new tobe critical about thle work predaly because of those human fates. But, although one con ‘ever be sure that ultimate truth hasbeen uncovered, there a Beno doubt that reality is “out ther.” Realism remains the central concept. Epstemolgialy,postpositivism recognizes the abd of assur ing that tis possible fora human ingulrer to step outside te pale of humanness while conducting inquiry. Workin the “hard” sciences has aptly demonstrated that “Sindings” merge from the infoton of Inguier and inguied nto as shown by, say, the Heenbeng Uncet- tainty Principle and the Bohr Complementarity Principle (Hes, 188; Zakay 179), To overcome theve problems postposivists evun- seta modified obtvityHewingtobjectvty aba “regulatory ideal” ‘but recognizing haticannotbeachieved in any absolutesense. Ian ‘beachieved nasanty cosy, by striving to beas neutral as possible, by “coming clan” about one’s own predispositions Gs di Tin the ‘iny paragraphs ths chapter sothat the reader can make whatever Adjustments tothe proffered interpretations of findings that seen appropriate, by relying on “erica tradition” that is, requiring the ‘of any inguiry to be consistent with the existing scholarly twadiion of thei and by subjecting every inquiry tothe judgment of poets in the “nical community” thats the editors and referees of ournals as well as their readers. Of cour, thelter two require ‘ments also make it vitully impossible for new paradigms to asser {hemecives, an advantage not lest on the power Brokers who protect and defend the (new hegemony of posipsiivis. ‘Methodlogaly, postpositvisen provides two responses to emer- gent challenges. isn the interest ofconferming tothe commitment {0 erica realism and modified subjecuviy, emphasis s placed on ntl ups (Cook, 1985, which might most usefully be thought of a6 a form of elabrated triangulation (Denzin, 1978). If human fentory and intellective mechaniams cannot be relied upon, i 6 tsendal thatthe “Findings” of an inquiry be based on as many Sources—of data, investigatory, eheorie, and methods—as possible Further if objectivity can never be entirely stained, relying on may itferent sources makes tes likly that distorted interpretations wil ‘emade. ‘Second, and perhaps mote important, postpostvism recognizes that many imbalances have been allowed t emerge in the 2eal for achieving realist objective inguiey A major parof the postpositivist [agenda hasbeen devoted to identifying these imbalances and propor: ing ways of redressing them. It & Beoved that if they can be r= dressed, positivism, In ts new postpositvist clothes, can be made ‘useful once again. Thre are four imbalances; of course, not al pst- postvits would agre that all exist are certainly not that they are equally critica ‘validity. The greater the contra established to achieve interaalvalide Iy.the less the generalizability of the ndings, for in thetinal analysis,laboratory results are generalizable ony to another laboratory. The Imbalance, created by excesive emphasis on contexbstripping con- luols i redressed by carrying outinguiry in more natura stings. The reader should note that the term ntl inquiry, often used in the [ast to denote wha, in this book, is ealled constructivist inguiy isnot ‘equivalent to this postposiivist proposal the term naturalistic klen- tid with a paratigs, while the tem natural i identified with @ imeadoogy the doing part of paradigm. (@) The inbalance ese preci artim. Prion cet to 2 scence that defines its major goal tobe prediction and contr. That {he pre for precision should lend toan overemphasison quantitative ‘methods—that epitome of precision—is not surprising, particularly in view of the impresivearay of mathematical and staetial met ‘ods that are available Tis imbalance i redress by including more (qualiative methods. The reader should again note the confusion engendered by this we of the term gualative metinds (or, if one chooses, ethnographic, Phenomenological, or eae study methods). ‘The term quaiative is a methodedevel term, nota paradignrievel term. The call for qualitative methods i by iaelf fot call for a aradigan sl. ©) The imbalance betwen elegance and appibilty. The press to predict and contol places great emphasis on the statement of formal theeries—and preferably, broadly based educhonistc( “grand”? the ‘ofl. The development and testing ofthese theories characterize ‘much of scenic activity But such grand theories, whe abetting generalizability, often are not found to “fit” or “work” (Glaser de Straus, 1967) in local contents Locality and specifi are incomsen “surable with generalizability This mbelancelsredrestedby "grind Ing” thoory in cal circumstances, that i, conducting the ingiry 50 ‘hat theory i the pdt ther than the precursor ofthe inquire (@ Thebans ets dicouery and wera, Diacovery, thats, ‘the processby which rir theories and hes implied questions and hypotheses emerge, is ota formal prt ofthe conventional paradigm. ‘Descovery Is merely a precursor rather than an integral part of the ‘dente proces, whose purpose is solely soferion (Alsifcation) Botthis prstonisimmediaely seen tobe absurd when one considers ‘hat most oF the important advances of science have been made via ‘the creative discovery route rathor than by the more mundane and plodding verification route. Clearly both processes are necessary: itis ot onlyuniair but also extremly shorughted to reserve Che mantle ‘The Atmmatve Paatgm Diao a of sence only for verifier. This imbalance is redrssed by defining {etna ofinguy, which ranges fom “pare” discovery ae one tendo “pure” verification atthe other: The reader should nee thatthe | tales tendency to relegate paradigms other than postpostivism to {the discovery end has boen replaced with a more ecumenical tance that seems to recognizethat both processes can goon nal paradigms. ‘But itshould be cer that making ths adjustment has nothing to do ‘with paradigm differences itsimply recognizes that postive ifnot Postporitvim, made an eror ints earl assessment ‘We may note then thatthe basic belief system of postposiivism ifr very ile from that of positivism. We may summarize the stances 35 llows COntogy Crital matty ets but can never be fly appee ‘Rd Tessdrven by natural ae hat can be ely Rita ote remains replay a Spates Mei remains restore but ‘Neamonly be approdmated wt apecia empl cel on ‘eral gnrdemeach crcl raiion an cre Sommorty Meade: Mole ipermentalianpstieenpasze ei ml ‘im rear laces by Sigur ual Elengs ang more uaiatve ethos depending meson rau ory ant remeron scorer) In Uw {tay proce ‘The Basic Belits of Critical Theory “The abel ciel hory ona doubt inadequate to encompass al the erative that can beset io this catagory of paradigm. Amore ‘ppropriate label would be “ideologically exented inguiy”inlud> ing ree Marsse, materialism, feinism, Frere, participatory in- (qty. and other similar movements as Well as cial theory isl. ‘These perspectives are propery placed together, howeves, because they converge in ecting the dim of value freedom made by posi- tists (and lrg continuing to be made by postpesitvsts). "Beeaose they are human costructions, paradigms inevitably elect the vals of their human constructors: They enter into inguiry at ‘choice points auch as the problem selected fr study, te paradigm | within hich to study the nstrumenteand theanalyiemodes wed, ld the interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations made,ce Nature cannot be sen as it “really i" or “rally works” except ‘trough a value window. If vale do enter into every inquiry then the question immediately areas to what values and whose values shall gover. ithe findings ‘of studies can vary depending an Ue vais chosen, then the choice ‘ofa prcalar vale system tends toempower and enfranchise certain persons while disempowering, and dienfranchsing others. Inquiry hereby becomes pla ae ‘Given that counterelaim, one might expect etal theorists (eo ‘gies to rect a ralit posture. Por if there areal state of affairs, thentscems unresonable tongue that value postions that inquires right take could inluence it: Moreover, real realty requires an ‘objective epistemological approach to uncover tas positivist and [postpositivists have claimed all along. Bu, for whatever reason, {atal theorists (ideokogsts) have elected to blieve in an objective reality—as the phrase commonly used by them, “false conscious ‘nes racily demonstrates (because timpic that there is “trae consciousness” somewhere “out there” or, more likly, possessed by the inguirer or some betterinforme elite). The task of taut i by fino, to raise people the oppressed) toalevelof“rueconscious- hess” Once they appreciate how oppressed they are, they ean act to {ransform tne wot The clove parallel between rarsfrming the word ‘and predicting nd controlling should not be lost. “Thus there appears tobe logicaljunction aris (but probably ‘withthe postpostvists, a cial realist) ontology coupled with @ “ube epistemoogy-—subjectost Becmise inquiry sts are int ‘ally relate to the valuesof theinquiter. The move a subjectvist epistemology no doubt represents forward step, but, so longs hat ‘pistemology i enlisted in the save ofa realist ontology, seems {lose much of ts fore, At the methadoogia level, critical theorists ideologists) seem more ‘consistent I the am of inguiy & to transform the (eal) word by ‘alsing the consciousness of participants so that they are energized ‘and lactated toward transformation, then something other than @ ‘manipulative, interventionist methodology is ruired. Cea theo tats (ideologists) take dalogicapproach that seks to eliminate false consciousness and rally participants around a common trae?) point ‘of view: In this proces, features ofthe real world are apprehended find fidginents are made about which of them can be altered. The result of effective concerted action is transformation “he Ahemane Prem Dislog Given this view, we may summarize the basi belie system ofthe tical theory GdeologicaD paradigm as follows: Onttgy rt mal, ain thease of poi Lgstmlly ‘jena inthe tons tre edt nly thot alge nnn ae cowsoueee ander ffaeund face wanton “The Basic Beliefs of Constructivism Xt is my tle that proponents of both the pstpsitst an the crcl wy deol paradigm lta herecanbean com trovation between ‘ele postons and nde, ith conventoal tiv Contructvis onthe ther ha, eta the posta Trapontpontinsd paradigms arebodly flawed and must beenttely replete "among the move teling arguments are thee (Cuba & {Then 190, Lincoln Gu, 195) {The they dere offs, empirical ets art be vali as arbiters of poposton hypothe a gustan) puto rater by ‘ues he ts cnn ht theoel an oterational a gongs be independent The face’ hat are cileced rust be ie Soinrof he proportional enc statement Bat posopers Bfacence now untormly bev hat as reat ony thin some ‘heorcteal umawork ee 18. Ths the bri for seen ‘Rowthings aly ar” andeally work ent "Realty" exisoonly imine conten of mnt famework conic forthinkingabot {2 Te anderdcemiator oy. No tory can eve be aly teed becuse ofthe problem of maton Oberg one millon ‘tite swane oes ot provide ndlapaablevidenc forthe asin, “Tl swane are wiles There ae alway alge numberof ores htm npr “expan 9 give body of acts” Ths m0 iculvoal explanation ever pee There om be may co rung aed tere foundational way to choose among hem “feat” canbe “zen nly Sugh a indo a hoy. wheter ‘mpl orexpic "ea lief fice Coravite conc wil te ee loge agument at ingot realty an seenh though a cory sino ican sual be Sen oy ‘rough avalae siadowe Many onsen are posable» serra Tu STAGE (4 The terete mateo he nguiernguied- info dyad. Even post postivists have conceded that objectivity is not posible the results Stan inquiry are alwaye shaped by the nection: of inquirer and Insjuired int. Thee iso Archimedean poi. And if theres such an Jitanae nerconnectedness inthe physical sciences, how much more likey iit thatthe results of eocalIiquiry ate similar shaped? This problem of interaction is devastating to both postvism and post positivism Fist, it render the distinction between ontology and Epistemology obsolete what can be known and the individual who {mes fo Kw It are fase into a coherent whole, Furtes, it makes the findings ofan inquiry nota report of what is “out there” but the residue of« proces that trl cats hem. Finally itdepct knowk ‘Ege as the outcome or consequence of hum activity; knowledge is [itn consincton, never certifiable as ultimately true but preblem- ‘ticand ever changing. ‘Given this ritigue, its apparent why constructivist feel that an entizely new paraligan ls needed. Onllgially f there are always ‘many interpretations that can be made in any inquiry. and there is to foundational process by which the ultimate trath or falsity ofthese Several constrctans an be determined, there ise alternative butt fakes postion often. Relativism isthe key to openness and the ‘continuing seach for ever moreinformed and sophisticated consis tions Reales ae multiple, and they extn people's minds. pistomalngcaly. the constructivist chooses to take a subjectivt position Subjectivity i not only forced on usby the human condition (Gs the postpostvit might adm but because itis the only means of Unlocking the constructions held by individuals. realities exist only Jnrespondents minds eubjctiveinteraction seems tobe theonly way ‘acres them, ‘Methodology the constrctivst proceeds in ways that ai to identity the variety of contractions that exist and bring them ino 2s much conseneusas posible. Tis proces has two aspects: hermeneu- ficsand dialectics. The hermeneutic aspect consists in depicting indi- ‘vidual constructions at accuatey as possible, while the dialectic {spect consis of comparing and contrating these existing ndivide tual Ginluding the inquirer’) constructions so that each respondent must confront the constructions of ethers and come to terms with them. The hermeneuli/ dialectic methodology aime to produce {normed and sophisticated a construction (or, more likey, construc tions) as possible. Simultaneously the methodology aims to keep ‘Te Abemaive Padi Dios 7 n “channels of communication open so that information and sophistice- tion can be continuously improved. Constructivism thus intends nether to predic and control the “real” work nor totransform it but to reamctrac the “word” at the oly pois at which ext: in the ‘minds of consructors Itisthe:nind that isto be ansformed, nol the “eal” word "Wemay thus summarize the consiuctivist beliefsystem allows (taining the threefold organization fr the sake of contrast spite having afgued that, in constructivism, the ontology /epistemology distinction i obliterated: Cnty etter nin he fm mile mel oe fenicston scaly demerit based, can ops Senko on pon ohh EpitemeigySubpcil—inqirer nd inquired nt ar fenton ingle (monic) wits. nang ae lel the coaton of the i train ete thea Matoicngy: Homentiedaste-individel enaructions are elicited snd refined hermeneuteal and compared and conrad ‘Sct, wh esi of gern oer ow Sm ‘Whats the Paradigm Dialog About? ‘must stress again that what have been outlined on the preceding page re my constructions about the nature of fur paradigms com“ Yrentional positivism and thre contenders for It "crow": post postivism, enical theory deology), and constructivism. We ar, ‘atlonaly and internationally engaged ina majordebate about which ‘ofthese isto be prefered Its my own position that a struggle for ‘primacy isimelevant. Asa constructivist | can confidently assert that rine ofthese four ith paradigm of choice. Each san liermativethat ‘eserves om ts merit (and Thave no doubt that al are meritorious), tobe considered. The dialog is not to determine which paradigm is, finally to win out, Rather, is to ake us to another level at which ll ofthese paradigms willbe replaced by yet another paradigm whose ‘outlines we can soe now but dimly, fat all. That new paradigm will ‘ot bea oserapprovimation otra twillsimply bemoreinformed fnd sophisticated than those we ae now "The readers Invite to enter into that dalogas he or he real the folowing pages