Introduction
Almost all the scientific information and knowledge available globally is a product of research. However, not all such knowledge emanates from the same form of study or method of inquiry. The aspect results from the so-called paradigm wars, where various scientific inquiries fight one another. These aggressive facets maintain distinct positions and beliefs about research and knowledge development. For example, the quantitative scheme of social sciences uses measurable elements to generate knowledge. On the other hand, the qualitative paradigm assumes an interpretive approach to scientific investigation. The primary dissimilarities between the two paradigms are based on the ontological and epistemological aspects, as discussed in the present work.
Social Science Research Paradigms
There exist at least two paradigmatic models in the world of social sciences. Such include the quantitative or positivist paradigm and the qualitative or interpretive paradigm. Levitt et al. (2020) define ‘paradigm’ as research principles or culture with definite beliefs, assumptions, and values that a group of scholars shares concerning the nature and manner of doing research. The positivist (quantitative) paradigm focuses on observing, quantifying, and describing aspects under study. On the other hand, the qualitative paradigm mainly makes observations and interprets them. The point that these two social sciences paradigms differ introduces unending debate between scholars in the area. Some academicians believe the quantitative paradigm is superior to the qualitative one because the former involves measurable data (Levitt et al., 2020). However, understanding that each paradigm has its unique roles and capabilities is essential in viewing the two as complementing social science research techniques worth considering under different situations. Such an understanding is only possible by appreciating each paradigm’s ontological and epistemological aspects and how they fit various conditions.
Ontological Variations between Paradigms
The word ‘ontology’ results from two Greek terms onto and logia, meaning ‘being’ and ‘study’ or ‘science.’ Tzafestas (2017) defines ontology as a division of philosophy that investigates the nature and form of reality and the specific aspects that can be known about reality. Objectivism and constructivism are the two antagonistic ontologies in social sciences, primarily prevalent in business and management studies (Tzafestas, 2017). The following discussion thus covers the two ontological standpoints and their relationship to the quantitative and qualitative paradigms.
Objectivism or Realist Ontology
Objectivism ontology forms the basis of the quantitative paradigm in the realm of the social sciences. Therefore, objectivism views reality or knowledge as fixed, actual, acquirable, and hard to get (Clark and Fast, 2019). The ontological view further maintains that reality is independent and unchanging and can only be identified and never created by humans. According to objectivism ontology, research in social sciences takes place in the real natural world. Studies in the social sciences field based on this ontology thus assume the quantitative approach and mainly seek to identify a common law that affects humans behavior (Lukasiak, 2020). Scholars further conduct studies by determining a specific, measurable behavioral aspect to observe and quantify for generalizable findings and conclusions.
Constructionism Ontology
The constructionism ontology maintains that reality is the creation of social courses. The reality-searching approach further believes that reality can never exist without humans experience (Clark and Fast, 2019). This ontology forms the basis of the qualitative or interpretive paradigm in business and management studies. Moreover, constructionism ontology significantly opposes the existence of a single authentic route to standard knowledge. That is why the constructivism ontology further refutes the idea of correct and incorrect theories (Levitt et al., 2020). The scheme applies in-depth evaluations of social phenomena through reasoning and interpretation to realize the ordinary meaning of a social event or aspect. Therefore, observation, interpretation, and inferences from the constructionism ontology’s essential elements as scholars match the gathered information with abstract patterns to infer meaning.
Epistemological Variations between Paradigms
Epistemology refers to the form of human understanding and knowledge acquired via diverse examinations and alternate investigation procedures. Positivism and constructivism, or interpretivism, constitute the two broad classifications of epistemological issues in social sciences (Clark and Fast, 2019). The following discussion covers each and the relationship with the various social sciences paradigms.
Positivism Epistemology
The positivist epistemology informs the quantitative paradigm of social sciences research and primarily offers scientific justification. Lukasiak (2020) notes that positivist epistemology views social science as a systematized technique for uniting deductive rationality with clear-cut experiential observations of discrete behavior. The technique aims at discovering and confirming an established probabilistic contributory edict usable to envisage a universal array of human activities. Furthermore, the (positivism) epistemology insists on empirical facts distinct from individual thoughts or ideas, overseen by cause and effect laws leading to stable social reality patterns. Using positivism epistemology allows social researchers to quantitatively explain variables’ interactions and cause outcomes through experimental studies applying close-ended questionnaires.
Interpretivist or Constructivist Epistemology
Constructivist epistemology informs qualitative research, where humans view the world as constructed, explained, and interpreted. The interpretivist epistemology constitutes an inquiry system that seeks to distinctively comprehend an individual phenomenon instead of a generalized law. Manipulation is also not possible under constructive epistemology, as researchers investigate events as they occur naturally (Ransaw, Gause, and Majors, 2018). The epistemology aims to promote discovery and a deeper understanding of processes and inquiry problems in their distinctive settings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both qualitative and quantitative paradigms of social science inquiries exhibit unique differences in terms of ontological and epistemological issues. The ontology aspect looks at reality creation and acknowledgment, while epistemology concerns knowledge development. Ontology-wise, the quantitative paradigm features objectivism, whereas constructivism ontology informs the qualitative paradigm. Lastly, the quantitative paradigm uses positivist epistemology, while the qualitative paradigm applies interpretive or constructivist epistemology. Such paradigm variations make the two scientific research approaches diverse, complementary, and not antagonistic, as is often the case.
Reference List
Clark, W.W. and Fast, M. (2019). Qualitative and Quantitative Economics (Q2E): making economics into a science. Nova Science Publishers.
Levitt, H.M., Surace, F. I., Wu, M.B., Chapin, B., Hargrove, J.G., Herbitter, C., Lu, E. C., Maroney, M. R. and Hochman, A. L. (2020) ‘The meaning of scientific objectivity and subjectivity: from the perspective of methodologists’, Psychological Methods.
Lukasiak, P. (2020) Philosophies of research in business and management. A discussion of social science issues in terms of truthfulness, integrity and authenticity, GRIN Verlag.
Ransaw, T.S., Gause, C.P. and Majors, R. (eds.) (2018) The handbook of research on black males: quantitative, qualitative, and multidisciplinary. MSU Press.
Tzafestas, S.G., (2017) Systems, cybernetics, control, and automation. River Publishers.