Summary
The purpose of this research was to discover the convenience of the complementarity of paradigms in the investigative process of postgraduate studies. Phenomenology was used, with a hermeneutical approach and a critical-reflective method.
Based on a documentary investigation. Reflection on the intended renewal has been reflected, making the effects of the complementary combination of positivist and phenomenological paradigms on research and its methods felt in the field of science. Although the most important effect in research is the transformation in terms of freedom and the possibility of expanding the spectrum of procedures to be used, rather than in specific procedures. It does not refer to the technical aspect, which has never stopped innovating, but rather to what is allowed and what used to be prohibited. What belonged to one and the other field has begun to mix, discovering common points, common weaknesses, shared strengths. And as usually happens, they operate faster and with greater reach in some fields,leaving sectors or areas clinging to previous conceptions.
That complex character can be puzzling and the reactions to it are as varied as its effects. It was determined that the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology is well documented in the literature. Using both positivist and phenomenological methods is part of the triangulation procedure; fundamental technique for establishing the trust attributable to qualitative research.
Complementary paradigmatic research
Summary
This research was aimed to discover the convenience of the complementarity of paradigms in the research process of graduate studies. Phenomenology was used, with a hermeneutic approach and a critical method - reflexive. Based on a documentary inquiry, they have reflected on the renewal that is claimed, being felt in the field of science the effects of complementary combination of positivist and phenomenological paradigms in research and methods. I fact the most significant impact on research is the transformation, in terms of freedom and the possibility of extending the range of procedures to be used, rather than specific procedures. It does not refer to the technical aspect, which has never ceased to innovate, but rather to what is allowed and what used to be banned. What belonged to one to the other field has begun to mingle,discovering common ground, common weaknesses, strengths shared. And as often happens, they operate faster and with greater scope in certain areas, sectors or areas left clinging to preconceptions. This complexity can be baffling and reactions to it are so varied in its effects. It was determined that the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology is well documented in the literature. Using both positivist and phenomenological methods is part of the triangulation procedure; fundamental technique for establishing the trust attributable to qualitative research.It was determined that the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology is well documented in the literature. Using both positivist and phenomenological methods is part of the triangulation procedure; fundamental technique for establishing the trust attributable to qualitative research.It was determined that the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology is well documented in the literature. Using both positivist and phenomenological methods is part of the triangulation procedure; fundamental technique for establishing the trust attributable to qualitative research.
Introduction
Defining and explaining some of the key concepts that revolve around scientific research, be it called science, method, paradigms, hypotheses, variables or categories, is a complex and difficult task to solve, since there are always risks of assuming wrong formulas and schemas. that are far from explaining the true meaning of scientific research.
In the current moments, the methodology with qualitative and quantitative characteristics have become the true myths of scientificity, since many schools, trends, philosophical and epistemological paradigms have been built around them, which have contributed to feeding numerous concerns about its true meaning and usefulness.
Like it or not, most of the sciences and disciplines that study them, continue to have as their basic concern that of formulating a method of a universal nature by which the mere personal ability of the researcher can be replaced, thanks to which they can be discovered and not just demonstrate truths.
In practice, the paradigm is constituted in the ordered and systematic way of doing research. The order here refers to the way in which things are located and the elements that are part of a whole. To “put in order” a thing, is to place it in its rightful place. The "systematic", to all that set of rules and procedures that contribute to achieving certain ends.
In its most general sense, it is the way to achieve an objective and a certain procedure to order the investigation that is carried out. In the specific field of natural, social, mathematical sciences, in logic, philosophy, art, literature, in general in all the arts, techniques, and sciences, the variety of methods that exist constituting their own paths is endless. who have adopted each of the disciplines and areas of knowledge.
These reflections invite us to inquire about the different positions on the possibility of using a specific research methodology or the combination of both in a complementary way.
Description of the situation
Given the diversity of methods that have existed throughout history to carry out scientific research, it has been interesting for me to confront with my students the paradigmatic debate with which we have had to face in the educational field. However, it seems that the concern centers on the decision to use numbers or words and not on how to analyze, interpret, describe, explain the data and the information obtained.
In this framework of thought, concerns have emerged in different researchers when presented with the opportunity to use the methodology of the positivist or phenomenological paradigm as a complement. Most consider the usefulness of the methodologies separately since both have responded to the expectations raised by the researchers, envisioning themselves as an easy route to reach reality.
It seems that researchers are willing to accept the idea that positivist and phenomenological methodologies complement each other but their attitude is adverse to the practice of complementarity. I consider that nothing prevents me from posing a problem and solving it qualitatively and quantitatively, establishing convergence between the results and recognizing that complementarity makes triangulation possible in research. We must remember that the quantitative methodology is not exclusively objective nor the qualitative purely subjective since both are influenced by the researcher's beliefs, values and attitudes.
Therefore, quantitative research is valuable for education because it studies particular aspects and generalizes from a single perspective, generating solid and repeatable numerical data, enhancing the statistical possibility of obtaining information in large groups of students with low academic performance.
Whereas, with qualitative research in the area of the curriculum, you can provide relevant solutions of a merely qualitative nature with an interpretive / comprehensive method that allows global analysis in specific cases.
It is worth noting that complementarity consists of recognizing that in both qualitative and quantitative research, concepts play a role between ontological, epistemological and methodological dimensions. Similarly, both enjoy the possibility of validation, reliability and confirmation. Paradigms with qualitative or quantitative methods depend on the way the researcher formulates the question and the concepts that support it.
The most important thing is to be clear that there are investigations that require a quantitative method, others of a qualitative one or a complementary method where techniques, procedures, analyzes, concepts and interpretations of both methods are combined. This reality, together with the complex educational context, the investigations whatever the chosen paradigm, constitute a significant contribution to scientific knowledge.
Reflections on the complementarity of positivist and phenomenological paradigms
It would be illogical to think that qualitative and quantitative research is particularly exclusive. Such an appreciation is nothing more than a simplification of the research paradigms in terms of techniques, procedures and ways of interpreting information. Although it is true, that the qualitative character refers to an epistemological, ontological and methodological position that is usually contrasted with positivist and phenomenological conceptions regarding the considerations of objectivity and subjectivity; of experimentation and manipulation of the object of study. However, it must be clear that the figures do not replace the evaluations of a global theoretical nature, nor the construction of meaning in relation to the object of the research.
In this sense, Banister et al. Cited by Montero (1995), it is incorrect to suppose that a qualitative researcher refuses to summarize the data numerically or that she should always discard material that has been collected through rigorous sampling techniques or that is statistically represented.
Nor, it should be thought, that any investigation in which arithmetic or statistical operations are not carried out, is purely qualitative. The qualitative does not follow from the presence or absence of the number, since it derives from the dynamic, interpretive and contextual holistic consideration of the studied phenomenon, oriented towards the study of the processes involved, without the pretension of excluding the subjective perspective.
The hermeneutical process in research is another source of myths, since there is a false belief that quantitative research is exempt from any qualitative interpretation and analysis, that it does not go beyond numbers. In fact, it would lack scientific validity, the investigations that are structured just statistical operations, without going on to interpret and search for the meaning of those numerical data. A good quantitative research involves a complete discussion of the data obtained, in light of the state of knowledge in the field concerned, thus overcoming the simple repetition of the figures in words.
It would also be a myth to believe that, since it is a quantitative investigation, the interpretations presented do not need any epistemological foundation. If the research were done without a theoretical basis, it would not be more than a more or less intellectual or creative exercise, which could not be described as research. In fact, much qualitative research seeks to produce what Glaser and Strauss (1967) have called “grounded theory”, which has not only direct but also close contact with the facts studied. Likewise, Latin American community social psychology, which usually uses methods such as participatory action research, considers among its fundamental principles, the union between theory and practice.
This leads us to consider the myths regarding rigor and control in scientific research. Only quantitative research is thought to be rigorous and controlled, due to the presence of numbers and the follow-up of a more or less exhaustive procedure. On the other hand, qualitative research is also subject to procedures designed to guarantee scientific rigor, although they are of a different nature from that of quantitative methodology. And at the same time, and as is clear from the previous point, not any interpretation is valid.
In this same order of ideas, Cook and Reichardt (1979) refer to what can be considered an error, the belief that researchers who use quantitative methods will be logical positivists. “And nothing is further from reality, nor is it more ignorant of the demands, scope and epistemological position of such a current. As said authors "(1979, p. 12): many social researchers who use quantitative methods ascribe to a phenomenological position, citing as an example much of what is done in the field of attribution theories or in that of introspection studies.
Regarding research design, there is a false belief that it should be absent from qualitative research because it does not require any design. It is stated that it is done according to how the events are presented. However, the experience with my students in the doctorate tells me that we must be careful when planning the course, agreements with the members of the group involved to carry out the interviews, the observations; the audiovisual resources to be used, that is, each detail, as well as the immediate objectives and ultimate goals, must be perfectly defined by the group, otherwise it could be lost in exhausting and useless activities.
On the other hand, the myth must also be denounced that once defined, a research design is immovable. Even in laboratory research, changes are made, and something a good researcher should be on the lookout for is detecting errors and unexpected events that introduce unforeseen changes in the designed procedure and must be corrected, altering the original design..
Finally, it seems to be widespread in the scientific environment that the quantitative and qualitative cannot be mixed in the same investigation. That they are in fact incommensurable and that the data from one field and the other cannot be related. However, the history of psychology itself, and of the other social sciences and natural sciences in general, illustrates the opposite: despite the hegemony of one paradigm, others have coexisted and the case of qualitative methods is a good example, because they began to be produced and used in parallel to the quantitative ones.
There are different moments in the search for knowledge depending on the scope you want to give to that search. Furthermore, scientific research involves going through both fields, since they complement each other.
Complementarity in research as an alternative
Thanks to positivism, I learned to research because through this current I discovered scientific knowledge and I never felt pressured in an inflexible methodological framework since it has led me to discover that there are other methods that help the research process based on variability.
In such a way, that I do not admit controversies in the deepening of the qualitative and quantitative paradigms, that is to say, I fervently believe in the paradigmatic complementarity since it presents a series of possibilities from the epistemology of human nature. In this sense, Padgett cited by Kelinger and Lee (2001) presents three ways to combine both paradigms in a study, calling it "multi-method research":
The first of the three ways of doing this type of research is to start the study qualitatively and finish it quantitatively. The qualitative method explores and identifies the ideas and variables of interest of the researcher. This can be done through direct observation, interviews, or focus groups.
The concepts derived from the qualitative portion of the study can be studied through the use of quantitative methods.
The generalization of the concepts, proven through qualitative research, can provide greater credibility by obtaining a better link with the real world. Qualitative methods will provide more credibility by getting a better link to the real world.
The second way of doing multi-method research is done initially using the quantitative method followed by the qualitative one. The results of the quantitative portion of the study are used as a starting point for the qualitative portion. Padgett (cited by Kelinger and Lee 2001) believes that many quantitative studies can benefit from a quantitative analysis of the results. Qualitative methods can help provide understanding and information regarding questions that were not answered or could not be answered through the quantitative study.
The third way of doing multi-method research differs slightly from the previous two. Here, the two qualitative and quantitative paradigms are used simultaneously. However, one method may prevail over the other. If so, the least dominant method immersed in the most dominant which Padgett calls studies with a nested nature. The author reports that there are more studies of this nature than true research of the two methods in the study.
In case you are applying a quantitative method with a qualitative finding, it is said that the latter is complemented without altering the former. In the opposite case, where the qualitative method is the dominant one, you should consider that you are conducting a survey or interview; using standard scales and measurement instruments in the process, which includes alternative scales and census data to complement those obtained from intensive interviews. Here quantitative information does not interfere with the inductive and holistic nature of qualitative methods.
However, we can find studious and flexible teachers who respect the autonomy and freedom of their tutors so that they dare to be creative in the development of their research. Unfortunately this does not happen in most cases and I agree with the reflections of García La Rosa (2002) as she believes that in the investigations:
The conflict appears, when hegemonic paradigms in the hands of orthodox researchers, try to impose themselves on problems that are not their own, and cause damage to researchers and science; when the nature of the research problem imposes a mixed or qualitative methodology, since they are the most extensive, versatile, difficult and unknown by the majority, they are not the domain of the juries or tutors (p. 18)
The author emphasizes that if we try to gather the authors of investigations that use the qualitative methodology we would not add even 5% and if we go to the mixed one we would find less, since both the authors and the tutors and juries have a high level of ignorance from the benefits of these combinations of paradigms, hence the explanation, that they try to impose models and styles inflexibly because they are the only ones they know.
Hence the explanation, that many new researchers prefer to continue using the best-known paradigm (positivism) instead of daring to innovate with phenomenological paradigms or the complementarity of paradigms for fear of reprisals from members of the jury, academic committee and even from Your tutor at the time of the presentation of your doctoral thesis or promotion work. When this happens, it seems that you are forced to think with an "iron hat", that is, you prefer "mental inertia".
Conclusions
- Obviously, if we think about the multiplicity of human nature where intrinsic and extrinsic factors interact, it is easy to understand that all the paradigms used to approach scientific knowledge are equally important to travel the knowledge path that leads us to solve research problems. But independently of the analysis that we carry out separately of both modalities, there is no doubt that we cannot refer to one without mentioning the other, since both are an inseparable body. In social and natural life there is not a single object that has only a quantitative or qualitative aspect. Each object or phenomenon represents a unit of a certain quality or quality that is characterized by the measure, a philosophical category that expresses the organic unit of quality and quantity.The freedom to use both methods interchangeably, does not usually find institutional support, nor is it highly regarded in research centers that are usually restrained by commitment to one or another methodological line, which is difficult to change. It is difficult for many novice researchers to escape two difficulties: first, the influence of the methodologies that are in vogue, whose influence and weight is focused on experienced researchers. This is something that is only achieved with time, experience and progress in such research, which will allow us to know, what we want to do, how, why and why we want to do it. Qualitative and quantitative research are not incompatible,because in them there is a complementarity, however it must be clear that each one can serve different purposes. Therefore, they have different applications.
recommendations
I do not dare to recommend the most suitable paradigm because there are no pre-established rules or norms that guarantee the success of research work, nor are there teachers, consultants or tutors who possess magic formulas to carry out such work without any difficulty. Each investigation is a particular case, therefore it needs a well-studied and planned decision.
- You must bear in mind that knowledge does not depend on reducing the complexity of the world of mathematics, but neither does it suppose the numerical exclusion that they are part of that same world.
Bibliographic references
COOK, T. AND REICHARDT, T. (1979) Towards overcoming the confrontation between qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluative research. Madrid. Spain. Editorial. Morata.
GARCIA LA ROSA, E. (2002) The Versatile Man of Science Today. Caracas. The Editors Science Game.
GLASER, R, and STRAUSS (1967) The Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago. Aldine. New York.
KERLINGER, F. and LEE, H. (2001) Behavioral Research. Mexico. MC GRAW HILL. Fourth edition.
MONTERO, M. (1995 Myths of qualitative and quantitative research. Caracas. Mimeographed material.
