Constructing Knowledge

Framing Reflection #1

As an emerging researcher trying to identify their most identifiable paradigm and the paradigm they favour most, one must participate or immerse themselves in the majority, if not all the paradigms. While in the Community Development and Social Change program here at Capilano University, I participated in a Community-Based Research course. In this course, I researched and planned a mock research project centred around First Nations youth and suicide. In this project, I questioned the extent to which youth programs decreased the susceptibility of Aboriginal/ First Nations youth to suicide. In order to gather the initial information for the written aspect of my project, I looked at peer-reviewed papers, and other research prose from those who conducted open-ended interviews, and focus groups within the interpretive paradigm. Upon reading James Scotland’s article, “Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms”, I am pleased I used the paradigm I chose back then.

If I were to follow-through with the mock research project proposed, I would hold one-on-one interviews to gather the initial, very personal information, and later for those who feel comfortable sharing their experiences, I would hold focus groups. I identify mostly with the interpretive paradigm because of its view that “reality is subjective and differs from person to person” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 110). Ergo, the interpretive paradigm can be used in majority of research cases alongside the scientific paradigm especially in this specific case where psychology, science and quantitative information is necessary to come to a conclusion.

This brings me to my last point where I find I am sometimes stuck at a crossroad. Comparable to almost everything in life, moderation is key and essentially fundamental. If we all live thinking on a one-track mind, there would be no room for growth or learning. As much as I agree and identify with the interpretive paradigm, I believe there are instances where the scientific paradigm compliments the others very well and provides an ontological position of positivism. The world would not be what it is without the scientific paradigm or positivism and that is why in their own way, along with the interpretive and the critical paradigm, they are necessary in our world and in today’s day and age.

At the end of it all, I would stick with the interpretive paradigm by virtue of life being different for each person walking this earth. “We need to remind ourselves here that it is human beings who have constructed it as a tree, given it the name, and attributed to it the associations we make with trees.” This being said, everyone sees things differently, lives different lives and interacts individually.