The Emerging Researcher – Opening Reflections
As an emerging researcher, I feel most strongly affiliated with the critical paradigm as outlined by James Scotland in his paper entitled : “Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research…” (2012). One of the reasons for this is that, as an undergraduate student, I have found myself most engaged and aligned with works by Marxist, Queer and Feminist theorists. I would also consider decolonizing methodologies (as outlined by Indigenous scholar Linda Smith in her book by the same name) within this paradigm and I find the concept of these and other alternative approaches to knowledge and conducting research both necessary and exciting.
I believe that the objectivity that the scientific paradigm seeks is ultimately unattainable to humanity because of the inherent subjectivity of our consciousness. For this reason, I align myself more with the interpretive and critical paradigms. While I find there is an appealing humility and wisdom in fully embodying the interpretive framework, I have seen the way that “reality is alter[ed] by [my] actions” (Scotland, 2012, p. 13) and this compels me to “address issues of social justice and marginalization” (Scotland, 2012, p. 13) that I observe in my life and in my community’s (both locally and globally speaking).
I am “clear about [some of the ways that] cultural, historical, [and] political influences” (Scotland, 2012, p. 13) have shaped the reality I’m experiencing and I embrace the opportunity to learn more about them and to understand their effects on societies. It is the “catalytic validity” (Scotland, 2012, p. 14), the desire “to enhance the lives of participants” (Scotland, 2012, p. 13) and the embracing of “the emancipatory function of knowledge” (Scotland, 2012, p. 13) of this paradigm that make it preferable to the interpretive framework for me, personally.
I do also have some major concerns about the challenges that this paradigm poses. I have experienced the “despondency when no change occurs” (Scotland, 2012, p. 14) that Scotland aptly points out can be a negative side effect for researchers. Another potential harm of this approach that is not felt by the researcher, but the very people the researcher’s work aims to uplift and empower stems from the paternalistic nature of some research done within this paradigm that “stereotype[s]…participants whose lives [researchers] are claiming to want to enhance” (Scotland, 2012, p. 14) by lumping them into a homogenous group and/or “maintaining [the] status quo” (Scotland, 2012, p. 14) by continuing to approach knowledge in the same way through methodologies that further entrench social inequities as opposed to resolving them.
In closing, I have found abandoning the relativism of the interpretive framework, during critical thinking courses here at Capilano University, quite freeing because it allows for a sort of robust debate that I haven’t observed in my other classes. I came closer to clarifying my positions on various important matters than ever before, in this context, and I believe this was due, in part, to my being forced to listen to opposing points of view and to consider them with great seriousness. I also experienced realizations while arguing a position (some which I thought I would hold permanently) that radically shifted my perspective. The value of these experiences, for me, has been tremendous and I look forward to having more similarly enriching and dynamic experiences while working within this paradigm
Citations :
Scotland, James. “Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, an d Critical Research Paradigms” English Language Teaching, vol. 5, no. 9, 2012, pp. 13-14.