Paradigms and Methodologies for Knowledge Building

Josep Gallifa (FPCEE Blanquerna, Ramon Liull University)

Abstract


A diversity of methodologies can be utilized for knowledge building in social sciences, particularly in education. Nevertheless, in order to give meaning to the research fndings and progressively create theories, an awareness of the epistemological framework appears to be necessary. The aim of this article is to present the main epistemological paradigms and their coherent correspondence with respective ontologies and corresponding methodologies. This article supports and describes four paradigms or epistemological traditions: logic empiricism, constructivism, conceptualism or Aristotelian tradition, and phenomenology. Understanding the diverse possible epistemologies as well as the coherence with methodologies is a necessary step for presenting well-informed research. Knowledge building requires comparison, replication, generalization or integration of results in theories, and all these processes need the critical instance of the epistemological and methodological coherence. Additionally some concrete examples of methodologies have been detailed to illustrate the diversity of available ways of knowledge building in education. The Review of Educational Theory, as a new journal that aims to create a scientifc community, will increase the research quality by enhancing the epistemological and methodological awareness of their pieces of research.


Keywords


Knowledge building; Epistemologies; Research methodologies; Ontologies; Logic empiricism; Constructivism; Aristotelian tradition; Phenomenology

Full Text:

PDF

References


[1] Wilber K. Introduction to Integral Theory and Practice IOS basic and the AQAL map. AQAL Journal of Integral Theory and Practice 2005; 1(1): 1-38.

[2] Wilber K. The theory of everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala; 2001. Wilber K. The integral vision: A very short introduction. Boston, MA: Shambhala; 2007.

[3] Gallifa J, Botella L. The Structural Quadrants Method: A new approach to the Assessment of Construct System Complexity vía Repertory Grid. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 2000; 13(1): 1-26.

[4] Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln IS (editors) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1994.

[5] Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and

[6] mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks:Sage; 2003.

[7] Mackenzie N & Knipe S Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in educational research, 16(2), 193-205; 2006. Mertens DM Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005.

[8] Creswell JW. op. cit.; 2003 and Mackenzie N & Knipe S. op.

[9] cit.; 2006.

[10] Aristotle. Metafsica (6a. Ed.) (Spanish) [Metaphisics]. Barcelona: Iberia; 1984.

[11] Gallifa J. The Tekhne-logic revolution. Rethinking the 'interobjective' dimension of the Integral Theory. Consequences

[12] and relevance to Education. Creative Education 2018;9(7): 1084-1104.

[13] Helfrich PM. Ken Wilber's AQAL metatheory: An overview. Castaic, CA: Wildfre Media; 2008.

[14] Brown AL. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1987.

[15] Helfrich PM. op. cit.; 2008; p 21.

[16] Koestler A. The ghost in the machine. New York, NY: MacMillan; 1967.

[17] Wilber K. Sex, ecology and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala; 1995. p 41.

[18] Piazenza G. El Holón: Dualidad inicial de la complejidad y

[19] de la Teoría Integral en relación a un Kosmos Vivo (Spanish) [Internet]; 2013 [updated 2017Aug 10; cited 2018

[20] Jun 22]. Available from: http://www.monografias.com/

[21] trabajos94/holon-dualidad-inicial-complejidad/holon-dualidad-inicial-complejidad.shtml#brevesrefa

[22] Wilber K. op. cit.; 1995. p. 48-52 and 132-134.

[23] Wilber K. op. cit.; 1995. p. 54.

[24] Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative

[25] research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln IS (editors) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage;1994. p. 108.

[26] Guba EG, Lincoln YS. op. cit.; 1994. p. 108.

[27] Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press; 1970.

[28] Salvador F, Gallifa J. Introducció al disseny d'experiments en Psicologia (Catalan) [Introduction to experimental research in psychology]. Barcelona: Fundació Enciclopèdia Catalana; 1997.

[29] Slavin RE. Perspectives on evidence-based research in education—What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational researcher 2008; 37(1):5-14.

[30] Harris M. Antropología cultural (Spanish) [Cultural anthropology]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 1990.

[31] Creswell JW. Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In: Creswell JW, Poth, CN (editors) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications ; 2007. p. 69.

[32] Van Maanen J. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.

[33] Thomas J. Doing critical ethnography. London: Sage publications; 1993.

[34] Creswell JW. op. cit; 2007. pp. 71-72.

[35] Gallifa J. op, cit.; 2018.

[36] Spence D. The Rhetorical Voice of Psychoanalysis. Displacement of Evidence by Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; 1994.

[37] Akker JVD, Gravemeijer K, McKenney S, Nieveen N. Educational design research. NY: Francis & Taylor; 2006.

[38] Plomp T, Nieveen N. An introduction to educational design

[39] research. Enschede, the Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for curriculum development (SLO); 2009.

[40] Reeves TC, McKenney S, Herrington J. Publishing and perishing: The critical importance of educational design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2011; 27(1): 55-65.

[41] Bereiter C. Design Research for Sustained Innovation. Cognitive Studies 2002; 9(3): 321–327.

[42] McKenney S. Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: Exploring potentials [PhD thesis]. University of Twente, Enschede; 2001.

[43] Nieveen N. Prototyping to reach product quality. In: Dalam J. Van Den Akker J, et. al. (editors). Design approaches and tools in education and training. London: Kluwer academic publishers; 1999.

[44] van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1990.

[45] Toulmin SE. Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda of modernity.New York: Free Press; 1990.

[46] Merleau Ponty M. Phénoménologie de la perception (French). París: Gallimard; 1945.

[47] Giorgi A. The Descriptive Phenomenological Psychological

[48] Method. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 2012;43(1):9-10.

[49] Giorgi A. The Phenomenological Psychology of J.H. van den Berg. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology2015;46(2):141.

[50] Giorgi A. The Theory, Practice, and Evaluation of the Phenomenological Method as a Qualitative Research Procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 1997;28(2):235.

[51] Starks H, Brown TS. Choose your method: A comparison of

[52] phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative health research 2007; 17(10): 1374

[53] Hostie R. Religion and the psychology of Jung. London:Sheed & Ward; 1957.

[54] Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In: Smith JA, Harré R, Van Langenhove L. (editors). Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage Publications; 1996. p. 29.

[55] Starks H, Brown TS. op. cit.; 2017. p. 1374.

[56] Charmaz K. op. cit.; 1996. p. 30.

[57] Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Aldine transaction; 1967. p. vii.

[58] Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage publications; 1994.p.273.

[59] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 276.

[60] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 276.

[61] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 279.

[62] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 280.

[63] Charmaz K; 1996 and Strauss A, Corbin J; 1994.

[64] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 277.

[65] Charmaz K. op. cit.; 1996. p. 28.

[66] Charmaz K. op. cit.; 1996. p. 31.

[67] Charmaz K. op. cit.; 1996. p. 28.

[68] Strauss A, Corbin J. op. cit.; 1994. p. 278.

[69] Hutchinson SA. Education and Grounded Theory. In Sherman RR & Webb RB (Eds.). Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. London: Falmer Press; 1988,、p.122-139.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/ret.v1i3.70

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2018 Josep Gallifa


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.