Assignment 1

Ideas about paradigms for your proposal

Due: 27 April, 20%, 2,500 words
.........................................................................................................................

How do paradigms influence design?

There used to be an old saying: 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. The new turn is 'Beauty is in the eye of the computer'. According to Dasey (2006:3) two Sydney researchers have created computer software that can distinguish a beautiful female face from a less attractive one.

I wonder what research paradigm these researchers espouse?

What is a paradigm?
According to Tsamis (1997-2004) the word 'paradigm' derives from the Greek word 'paradhma' (paradigma) meaning a predominant worldview. 'Paradigm' was introduced into science and philosophy by Thomas Kuhn in his landmark book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' (1962). Essentially, in Tsamis' view, a paradigm is simply the predominant worldview in the realm of human thought.

There are many other definitions of the word paradigm. Some other definitions I find helpful are:

• a model of a reality from a specific collective awareness' viewpoint, including all root assumption parameters which define that reality


• coherent set of beliefs about cause-effect relationships within a given class of context


• an inter-related set of assumptions, values and practices that defines an organisations view of itself and the environment in which it operates.


• a conceptual model that is used to communicate descriptions of the component parts of a theory, a policy, a belief system or a worldview and how they interact and are interrelated


• model that links the elements of a theory together and shows, where possible, the nature of the relationships.

Inquiry paradigms

For the context of a research project there is a myriad of recognised inquiry (research) paradigms that have favour within the research community. Guba and Lincoln (2005:191-215) provide a useful consideration of the controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences relating to research paradigms. This paper builds on their earlier paper (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. They identified three main influences that paradigms have on design:

• Ontology


• Epistemology, and


• Methodology

In addition, they identified ten practical influences of paradigms: aim; nature of knowledge; knowledge accumulation; goodness or quality criteria; values; ethics; voice; training; accommodation and hegemony.

Originally, Guba and Lincoln (2005:193) identified four discernible paradigms. They termed these:

• Positivism


• PostPositivism


• Critical Theory et al., and


• Constructivism

Herron and Reason (1997), critique Guba and Lincoln's (1994) outline of competing paradigms and argue for a participatory worldview that extends beyond constructivism to account for experiential knowing. Subsequently, Guba and Lincoln (2005) have accepted the validity of the participatory paradigm. They also constricted the issues that influence (or are influenced) by particular paradigms to seven (dropping aim; voice, accommodation and hegemony from their original list - but adding 'inquirer posture'). In addition, in their 2005 version, Guba and Lincoln include a new table 'Critical Issues of Time' that includes:

• Axiology


• Accommodation and commensurability


• Action


• Control


• Relationship to foundation of truth and knowledge.


• Extended consideration of validity (goodness criteria)


• Voice, reflexivity, postmodern textual representations, and


• (Un-named) comment that 'textual representation practices may be problematic - i.e., "fiction formulas" or unexamined "regimes of truth".

Guba and Lincoln (2005:197) suggest that they now believe that 'axiology' should be grouped with 'basic beliefs'. I feel that they are correct, and that in fact the values, value judgement, ethics and aesthetics we, as researchers, bring to the table underpin teh ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies we are most comfortable with. I would go so far as to suggest the primacy of axiology on research design.

Where am I coming from (and going to)?

The research paradigm I most strongly identify with is Herron and Reason's (1997) Participatory Inquiry. The underlying 'value proposition' that a practical knowing about how to flourish with a balance of autonomy, cooperation, and hierarchy within a school culture is an intrinsically valuable end in itself (and one that I aspire to).

The knowledge domain (ontology) involved in a particiaptory paradigm is c0-created: in my case between myself and my co-creators (school colleagues) is likley to be dialectical in nature, coursing between collaborative subjective-objective realities.

The epistemology behind my research endeavours will be based on critical subjectivity and anchored in four ways of knowing (experiential, presentational, propositional and practical) with primacy of the practical.

The methodoloy employed will be based on political participation in a collaborative action inquiry using language grounded in shared experiential context.

Design and methodology

Design is generally considered to be an overall plan, scheme or outline . It is typically a 'simplistic' (lacking fine detail) statement, picture or plan of a desired outcome.

In many human endeavours, there are specific approaches to design. In architecture, plans and perspectives can be used; for a movie you use a storyboard; for a novel; chapter outlines and storyline; for production items, prototypes or visual schematics can be utilised.

What is the appropriate form of design for an EdD? What design elements should be considered?

One design element of Action Research (as well as Particiaptory Action Research) is the concept of the 'Action Research Cycle' (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000:596)

The 'planning' involved in ititiating the research cycle could consist (for instance) of a review of Mode 1 literature dealing with the topic cast for consideration. In its purest form, a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project could be initiated with a single question (with app;ropriate sub-questions) for consideration by the 'action circle' (a group of collaboratively-minded workplace-based practitioners). In the spirit of co-created political participation the members of the 'action circle' may see fit to progress and develop the inquiry. Alternatively, a PAR project may, by negotiation and agreement amongst the co-researchers move in a different direction.

A major difference between a PAR project and tradition Mode 1 research is that validation and 'truthing' is integral, ongoing and cyclical (unlike Mode 1 where truthing typically only starts when a proposition is propounded in the form of a reserach report).

References