Anda di halaman 1dari 7
‘Sponsored by Phi Dets Kappa Intemational and The Schoo! of Education, Indiana University a0 “ AU ‘SAGE Publications Iriemana! Eascatonal and Protssona! Puohar Newouny Pak Loncon” New Oey fu) The Alternative Paradigm Dialog EGON €. GUBA tis not surprising thst most persons asked to define the termpurdigm | ‘are unable fo offer any clea statement of te meaning. aay ie not ‘surprising becnase Thomas Kuhn, the person most responsible for ‘unging that concept into our collective awareness, has himself sed the term in no fewer than 21 diferent ways if Masterman 1970) can be beloved. Some persons view that lack of clear definition as a ‘unfortunate sent ofafnrs, Bt I beliove that it is important to leave ‘the term in such 2 problematic Hino, esse ita then posible reshape it as our understanding ofits many implications improves Flaving the term nt eat in stone ie intllactaly sel. Ths will "sete ter in hischapter only in ts most common or ener sense: 4 bask set of belles that guides action, whether of the everyday {garden varity or action taken in connection with a dizcptned i ‘Quiry. Refinernent ofthat definition canbe made by each wader while progressing though tie book. Tn thic opening chapter | propose to outline wha I ake to be the salient cieences between traditional positivism on the one hand, {and the thee paradigms that have emirge to challenge replace? parallel?) tom the other Ofcourse, have my ov preference amONg Fen it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge thal preference at once It costracts. One mmesiate consequence that [reco nize that what amabout tosay sy cunconstrcion, not neceeaty 2 obetioe (whatever that may be) analysis. Indeed, 2s we shall see, onstructivists not only abjure objectivity but celebrate subjectivity. ‘The reader should not thonefore ead this chapia in the mistaken notin that it epresents gospel orevena widely aged to postion. | ofertas ome way to understand the paradigm issue. shoul also point out that constnictvsts are relaiiss(a position that, Ieontend, fan be well defend see Gubo, 1930; hence it is quit possible for ime to enfentain eny constriction (incliing, of course, 2 paradign) that proposed by reasonable and wellintentioned persons. The reader shoul never forget that the only allerative to relativism absolutism. Asa rlcvist, I will ot reject any construction out of hand, Generating Inquiry Paradigms “There ate many paradigms that wo Use in guiding our actions the adversarial paradigm that guides the legal systery the judgmental [Paradigm that guide the scection of Olympic winners, the regions Pradigme thot guide spinal nd moral fe, and many others: Our Exncem here, however swith thee paradiges hat guste disciplined inguiry. Historically there have been maay such (Guba & Lincoln, 1080 Lincoln ée Gu, 1985), Put since the time of Descartes (1595. 1650), inguirers have tended to focus on what inlis latter-day version, ‘ame ta be known as postviem. Nevertheless, al these past para ‘ligme, ae well as the emergent contenders, can be characterized by the wey thelr proponents rexpond to Uzee basic questions which an ‘be characterize athe oobi the epsteologts], and the method lial questions, The questions are these: (0) Onaga Wha he nature ofthe aaa"? Or, what isthe ‘ture rely”? 2) Eyomslogit What isthe ature of te celationship beeen the ower enquire and the knven or enowable? (©) Meine: How should he ngutr go sbout Ending out not see? ‘The ansres that ane given to these questions may be termed 3 ses the basi ele systems or paradigms that might be adopted. They far the starting points or givens that determine hat ingury is and how itso be pracied. They cannot be proven or disproven in any Foundational sense f that tee posible there would be no doubt about how to practice Ingury. Bu all such belie systems or para "The Aerie Pein Dig » gas ae human constracions, and hence uj toa the eros and {olbles that inevitably sceompany human endeavors. "There are ceiinly many differnt ways oanswer these questions. Descartes, obsessed withthe dea that he might be gle ino belie {ng something aot trae seurched fora sure foundation indeed, his legendary pronouncoment °T think, therfore [ am,” was the only proposition that he fel that hecoald propose without himself imme intel doubtingit) His overidingeonceen foccertainknowedgehas ‘come lobe called Catsion anit, a disease that i ill reflected in the posivist end posipostvs search toFind oat “how things really tse? and “how things realy work” ‘The Basic Beliefs of Positivisn ‘The phases “how things rly are” and “how things ally work” ae ontological creeds The bass belie system of positivism is roted Inavedst ontology, thats, the ele that there exists 2 realy ou! Here, driven by immatrble natural lays. The Business of scioce i (| tiscover the "ruc nate of reality and how it "truly" works The ‘altimate aim of science to predic an ent natural phenomena. ‘Once committed #9 @ reli enteogy, tue postive scorstraned topracticean obits epistemology: It theresa rel world operating ‘setondingto maura las, then theaqurer rust behave ways thal ‘put questions diredly to nature and allow nature to answer back ‘Siretly The ingirer, 50 te speak. must stand behind 3 thick wal of ‘one-way glass bserving nature as “she does her thing.” Objectivity [sthe "Archimedean point (Archimedes isle have boosted that, fiven a long enough lever and a place whereon to stand, he could hove the earth) that pets the Inguver to wrest nature's secrets ‘without llering Sem in any way. ‘Bat how ea that be done, given the possibly of inquirer bias, on theone hand, and nature's propensity to confound, on the other? The postvist’s answer: by the use ofa manipulative methodology that Eontols for both and 31 methods tht place the point of decision with nature rather han with the inquirer The mest eppro- Drate methodology thus enphricl experimental, or as lose an pronation thereto as cin be managed

Anda mungkin juga menyukai