quantitative research paradigm pdf

Research Paradigms, Methodologies and Methods

• First Online: 20 December 2016

Cite this chapter

• Peter Hassmén 4 ,
• Richard Keegan 5 &
• David Piggott 6  

1536 Accesses

The prevailing belief system, worldview, research tradition, or as it is also known paradigm influences what can be studied, who can study it, and how it should be studied—or using fancier words: the answers to the ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions. In the early days positivism ruled, slowly replaced by postpositivism, and complemented by critical theory and constructivism; the dominating quantitative methods were joined by qualitative methods and the nomothetic focus interspersed by idiographic efforts. As always when different belief systems exist, there is a risk for confrontations, possibly explaining the paradigm wars that some say still rages. The emerging audit culture, where more is always better—more peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals, more and bigger research grants—increases the risk for methodological fundamentalism and a preference for biomedical models of research. Unless we are aware of the danger and take action to prevent that sport and exercise psychology research once again will be conducted in a less than optimal way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Allport, G. W. (1937). The functional autonomy of motives. American Journal of Psychology, 50 , 141–156.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allwood, C. M. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity, 46 , 1417–1429.

Bairner, A. (2012). For a sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29 , 102–117.

Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., and Trimble, S.W. (2010). We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research. The Chronicle of Higher Education LVI, issue 38, back page Point of View, p. 80 , 10 June 2010.

Google Scholar  

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6 , 97–113.

Cronin, C., & Armour, K. M. (2015). Lived experience and community sport coaching: A phenomenological investigation. Sport, Education and Society, 20 , 959–975.

Crowe, S. F., & Samartgis, J. (2015). ERA 2012 versus ERA 2010: Like the curate’s egg … good in parts. Australian Psychologist, 50 , 186–193.

Cruickshank, J. (2012). Positioning positivism, critical realism and social constructionism in the health sciences: A philosophical orientation. Nursing Inquiry, 19 , 71–82.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Culver, D., Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research published in sport psychology journals: 1990–1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17 , 1–15.

Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W., & Sparkes, A. (2012). Qualitative research in sport psychology journals: The next decade 2000–2009 and beyond. Sport Psychologist, 26 , 261–281.

Darbyshire, P. (2008). ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’: The nonsense of ‘quality’, ‘excellence’, and ‘audit’ in education, health and research. Collegian, 15 , 35–41.

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9 (2), 139–160.

Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (6), 419–427.

Dowling, G. R. (2014). Playing the citations game: From publish or perish to be cited or sidelined. Australasian Marketing Journal, 22 , 280–287.

Doyle, J., & Cuthill, M. (2015). Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’? Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (3), 671–674.

Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27 , 926–944.

Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18 , 4–10.

Griffiths, P., & Norman, I. (2013). Qualitative or quantitative? Developing and evaluating complex interventions: Time to end the paradigm war. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50 , 583–584.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hansen, J. T. (2004). Thoughts on knowing: Epistemic implications of counseling practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82 , 131–138.

Haslam, N., & Koval, P. (2010). Possible research area bias in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft journal rankings. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62 (2), 112–114.

Hassard, J. (1988). Overcoming hermeticism in organization theory: An alternative to paradigm incommensurability. Human Relations, 41 (3), 247–259.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice . New York: Guilford Press.

Hollings, S. C., Mallett, C. J., & Hume, P. A. (2014). The World Junior Athletics Championships: New Zealand athletes’ lived experiences. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9 , 1357–1374.

Jackson, M. R. (2015). Resistance to qual/quant parity: Why the “paradigm” discussion can’t be avoided. Qualitative Psychology, 2 , 181–198.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133.

Keegan, R. (2015). Being a sport psychologist . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, S. (2003). Research paradigms in organizational learning and performance: Competing modes of inquiry. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21 (1), 9.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 87–138). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Krauss, S. (2008). A tripartite model of idiographic research: Progressing past the concept of idiographic research as a singular entity. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 , 1123–1140.

Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36 , 276–289.

Landrum, B., & Garza, G. (2015). Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches of quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 2 (2), 199–209.

Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth . Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles: The University of California Press.

Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 , 3–9.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lindahl, J., Stenling, A., Lindwall, M., & Colliander, C. (2015). Trends and knowledge base in sport and exercise psychology research: A bibliometric review study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8 , 71–94.

Lunde, Å., Heggen, K., & Strand, R. (2012). Knowledge and power: Exploring unproductive interplay between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7 , 197–210.

Madill, A. (2015). Qualitative research is not a paradigm: Commentary on Jackson (2015) and Landrum and Garza (2015). Qualitative Psychology, 2 , 214–220.

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakotos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–91). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

McGannon, K. R., & Schweinbenz, A. N. (2011). Traversing the qualitative-quantitative divide using mixed methods: Some reflections and reconciliations for sport and exercise psychology. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3 (3), 370–384.

Mill, J. S. (1843). A system of logic: Ratiocinative and inductive: Vol. I . London: John W. Parker, West Strand.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7 , 85.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 , 375–387.

Sparkes, A. C. (2013). Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health in the era of neoliberalism, audit and New Public Management: Understanding the conditions for the (im)possibilities of a new paradigm dialogue. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 5 , 440–459.

Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16 , 49–59.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 285–300). London: Sage.

Tourish, D. (2011). Leading questions: Journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of Leadership ? Leadership, 7 , 367–381.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia

Peter Hassmén

Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Canberra Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Richard Keegan

Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

David Piggott

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hassmén, P., Keegan, R., Piggott, D. (2016). Research Paradigms, Methodologies and Methods. In: Rethinking Sport and Exercise Psychology Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48338-6_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48338-6_5

Published : 20 December 2016

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-48337-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-48338-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Paradigms: Theory and Practice

2015, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

The Four Types of Research Paradigms: A Comprehensive Guide

5-minute read

• 22nd January 2023

In this guide, you’ll learn all about the four research paradigms and how to choose the right one for your research.

Introduction to Research Paradigms

A paradigm is a system of beliefs, ideas, values, or habits that form the basis for a way of thinking about the world. Therefore, a research paradigm is an approach, model, or framework from which to conduct research. The research paradigm helps you to form a research philosophy, which in turn informs your research methodology.

Your research methodology is essentially the “how” of your research – how you design your study to not only accomplish your research’s aims and objectives but also to ensure your results are reliable and valid. Choosing the correct research paradigm is crucial because it provides a logical structure for conducting your research and improves the quality of your work, assuming it’s followed correctly.

Three Pillars: Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

Before we jump into the four types of research paradigms, we need to consider the three pillars of a research paradigm.

Ontology addresses the question, “What is reality?” It’s the study of being. This pillar is about finding out what you seek to research. What do you aim to examine?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It asks, “How is knowledge gathered and from what sources?”

Methodology involves the system in which you choose to investigate, measure, and analyze your research’s aims and objectives. It answers the “how” questions.

Let’s now take a look at the different research paradigms.

1.   Positivist Research Paradigm

The positivist research paradigm assumes that there is one objective reality, and people can know this reality and accurately describe and explain it. Positivists rely on their observations through their senses to gain knowledge of their surroundings.

In this singular objective reality, researchers can compare their claims and ascertain the truth. This means researchers are limited to data collection and interpretations from an objective viewpoint. As a result, positivists usually use quantitative methodologies in their research (e.g., statistics, social surveys, and structured questionnaires).

This research paradigm is mostly used in natural sciences, physical sciences, or whenever large sample sizes are being used.

2.   Interpretivist Research Paradigm

Interpretivists believe that different people in society experience and understand reality in different ways – while there may be only “one” reality, everyone interprets it according to their own view. They also believe that all research is influenced and shaped by researchers’ worldviews and theories.

As a result, interpretivists use qualitative methods and techniques to conduct their research. This includes interviews, focus groups, observations of a phenomenon, or collecting documentation on a phenomenon (e.g., newspaper articles, reports, or information from websites).

3.   Critical Theory Research Paradigm

The critical theory paradigm asserts that social science can never be 100% objective or value-free. This paradigm is focused on enacting social change through scientific investigation. Critical theorists question knowledge and procedures and acknowledge how power is used (or abused) in the phenomena or systems they’re investigating.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Researchers using this paradigm are more often than not aiming to create a more just, egalitarian society in which individual and collective freedoms are secure. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used with this paradigm.

4.   Constructivist Research Paradigm

Constructivism asserts that reality is a construct of our minds ; therefore, reality is subjective. Constructivists believe that all knowledge comes from our experiences and reflections on those experiences and oppose the idea that there is a single methodology to generate knowledge.

This paradigm is mostly associated with qualitative research approaches due to its focus on experiences and subjectivity. The researcher focuses on participants’ experiences as well as their own.

Choosing the Right Research Paradigm for Your Study

Once you have a comprehensive understanding of each paradigm, you’re faced with a big question: which paradigm should you choose? The answer to this will set the course of your research and determine its success, findings, and results.

To start, you need to identify your research problem, research objectives , and hypothesis . This will help you to establish what you want to accomplish or understand from your research and the path you need to take to achieve this.

You can begin this process by asking yourself some questions:

• What is the nature of your research problem (i.e., quantitative or qualitative)?
• How can you acquire the knowledge you need and communicate it to others? For example, is this knowledge already available in other forms (e.g., documents) and do you need to gain it by gathering or observing other people’s experiences or by experiencing it personally?
• What is the nature of the reality that you want to study? Is it objective or subjective?

Depending on the problem and objective, other questions may arise during this process that lead you to a suitable paradigm. Ultimately, you must be able to state, explain, and justify the research paradigm you select for your research and be prepared to include this in your dissertation’s methodology and design section.

Using Two Paradigms

If the nature of your research problem and objectives involves both quantitative and qualitative aspects, then you might consider using two paradigms or a mixed methods approach . In this, one paradigm is used to frame the qualitative aspects of the study and another for the quantitative aspects. This is acceptable, although you will be tasked with explaining your rationale for using both of these paradigms in your research.

Choosing the right research paradigm for your research can seem like an insurmountable task. It requires you to:

●  Have a comprehensive understanding of the paradigms,

●  Identify your research problem, objectives, and hypothesis, and

●  Be able to state, explain, and justify the paradigm you select in your methodology and design section.

Although conducting your research and putting your dissertation together is no easy task, proofreading it can be! Our experts are here to make your writing shine. Your first 500 words are free !

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

2-minute read

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.