Paradigm of Inquiry

 A paradigm of inquiry refers to a basic belief system or worldview that guides how
research is understood and conducted.
 It provides the ontological (nature of reality), epistemological (nature of knowledge),
and methodological (how to study reality) assumptions for researchers.
 Different paradigms (e.g., positivist, post-positivist, constructivist, participatory, critical)
provide distinct lenses to study and interpret reality.
 In phenomenological perspectives, inquiry is linked to being-in-the-world and the idea
that humans have an inalienable presence.
 Example: A positivist scientist studying stress might measure cortisol levels (objective reality). A
constructivist researcher would instead explore how people experience and interpret stress in
their own lives.
What is a Paradigm of Inquiry?
 A paradigm of inquiry is basically a worldview or belief system that guides how
research is done and understood.
 It shapes:
o Ontology – what reality is believed to be.
o Epistemology – what counts as knowledge and how it is obtained.
o Methodology – how reality should be studied.
 Example: A positivist researcher might study human behavior with experiments and
statistics (believing in one objective truth), whereas a constructivist researcher would use
interviews to understand people’s lived experiences (believing multiple truths exist).

Introduction to Constructivist Paradigm

 Constructivism: reality is not fixed or external but locally constructed through shared
experiences, language, and interaction.
 Ontology: Relativist realism (or relative ontology) – multiple realities exist, shaped by
individuals and groups, and are subject to change. Example: “Success” might mean high
grades for one student, but creative freedom for another.
 Epistemology: knowledge is co-created by both the researcher and participants through
interpretations and consensus. A teacher-researcher studying classroom culture learns from
both their own perspective and the students’ perspectives.
 Theory: always relative and changeable, making prediction, causality, and
generalisation difficult.
 Navon (2001):
o Rationalist: mind unveils reality.
o Post-modernist: mind invents reality.
o Constructivist: mind creates reality, with facts produced by human consciousness.
Introduction to the Constructivist Paradigm
 Core Idea: Reality is not fixed or external but constructed by people in specific contexts,
through shared experiences, language, and interaction.
 Ontology: Relativist realism (multiple, shifting realities).
 o Example: In one community, mental illness may be explained medically (as a
brain disorder), while in another, it may be understood spiritually (as a soul
imbalance). Both are valid within their contexts.
 Epistemology: Knowledge is co-created by researchers and participants.
o Example: An anthropologist living in a village learns about rituals not just by
observing but by participating and listening to how locals interpret them.
 Theory: Relative and changeable, making predictions and universal laws impossible.
 Navon’s Analogy (2001):
o Rationalist: the mind unveils reality.
o Post-modernist: the mind invents reality.
o Constructivist: the mind creates reality.
o Example: For a rationalist, gravity exists whether or not we know it. For a
constructivist, “gravity” as a concept is meaningful only because humans named,
explained, and agreed upon it.

Constructivism vs. Social Constructionism

 Social Constructivism: meaning is developed by the individual. Focuses on how
individuals develop meaning
 Social Constructionism: meaning emerges through social negotiation and agreement.
Focuses on meanings negotiated within communities.
 Example: A person may “construct” their own idea of success, but in society, “success” is
often “constructed” as wealth or status through shared cultural norms.

 Both agree that reality is not external but arises through interaction between self and
community.
 Symbolic interactionism (Mead, Blumer): humans interpret actions and symbols, not just
react, which makes us capable of self-awareness and shared meaning.
Constructivism vs. Social Constructionism
 Social Constructivism: Individuals create meaning.
o Example: A child constructs meaning about fairness from personal experiences.
 Social Constructionism: Meaning develops through social negotiation.
o Example: The idea of “human rights” exists because societies collectively agreed
on it.
 Common Ground: Both reject external, fixed reality; instead, meaning arises from
interaction.
 Symbolic Interactionism (Mead, Blumer): Humans interpret symbols and actions
rather than just reacting.
o Example: A smile isn’t just muscle movement; it’s interpreted as friendliness,
sarcasm, or even mockery depending on context.
Core Assumptions of Constructivism
 Reality is constructed by humans, not objectively “out there.” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
 Knowledge is interpretive construction by active subjects.
 Social and cultural factors influence shared meanings.
 Knowledge is contextual, temporal, and value-bound.
 Cause and effect cannot be separated – phenomena mutually shape one another.
 Research involves continuous interaction between researcher and researched.
 Example: A study of parenting practices in India vs. Sweden may yield different realities; neither
is more “true,” both are context-specific.
Core Assumptions of Constructivism
 Reality is constructed by humans – not discovered.
o Example: “Money” has value only because humans collectively agree it does.
 Knowledge is interpretive and contextual.
o Example: A teacher’s effectiveness is understood differently in different cultures.
 Cause and effect cannot be separated.
o Example: In education, student motivation influences teaching style, and teaching
style influences student motivation simultaneously.
 Research is value-bound.
o Example: A feminist researcher studying workplaces will interpret data with
awareness of gender inequality.

Axioms of the Constructivist Paradigm (Guba & Lincoln,

1985)
1. Ontological: multiple, holistic realities exist.
2. Epistemological: researcher and participant influence each other (interactive, co-created
knowledge).
3. Methodological: findings are contextual; generalisations are limited.
4. Causal Linkages: all entities shape each other simultaneously (no clear causes/effects).
5. Axiological: inquiry is value-bound, involving subjectivity and researcher’s biases.
Axioms of the Constructivist Paradigm (Guba & Lincoln,
1985)
1. Ontological Axiom: Multiple, holistic realities exist
 Meaning: Reality is not a single, fixed truth. Instead, people experience and understand
the world in different ways depending on their background, culture, and situation. All
these realities are valid in their own context.
 Example: Climate change can be experienced as a scientific reality (measured in rising
temperatures), as a political reality (debates about policies), or as a spiritual reality (a
community may see it as a sign of imbalance with nature). Each version is meaningful
within the worldview of the people holding it.
2. Epistemological Axiom: Researcher and participant influence each other
 Meaning: In constructivist research, knowledge is co-created. The researcher doesn’t
just “collect” facts like a neutral observer; instead, their presence, questions, and
interpretations actively shape the knowledge that emerges.
 Example: During an interview about trauma, the participant may reflect on experiences
in new ways because of the questions asked. At the same time, the researcher may also
develop new insights or shift their understanding of trauma. Both sides change through
the process.

3. Methodological Axiom: Findings are contextual; no universal laws

 Meaning: Research outcomes in constructivism are always tied to the specific people,
culture, and setting studied. Unlike positivism, constructivism does not aim for universal
generalizations.
 Example: A case study exploring how one school fosters creativity may give deep
insights into that particular school’s culture. But those findings cannot automatically be
applied to all schools, because each has its own unique environment and values.

4. Causal Linkages Axiom: No clear separation of cause and effect

 Meaning: Constructivism rejects the idea of linear “A causes B.” Instead, phenomena
influence each other in a web of mutual shaping. Causes and effects are intertwined.
 Example: Poverty and education affect each other. Lack of education can lead to
poverty, but poverty can also limit access to education. It is not one-directional; both feed
into each other.

5. Axiological Axiom: Inquiry is value-bound

 Meaning: Research is never value-free. A researcher’s own values, cultural background,
and assumptions shape how they frame questions, interpret findings, and even choose
what to study in the first place.
 Example: A researcher studying gender roles may unconsciously highlight issues that are
especially important in their own culture. For instance, a Western researcher might focus
on equality of career opportunities, while someone from another culture might focus on
family roles.

✨ In short, these axioms emphasize that knowledge is not discovered but constructed. It is
always shaped by context, relationships, and values — making constructivist research rich in
meaning but less concerned with universal laws.

Criticisms of Constructivism
 Relativism Problem: if all realities are valid, how can truth be compared across different
constructions?
 Generalisation Issue: truths are context-bound; what is valid in one situation may not be
in another.
  Incommensurability: different social structures may have completely different
worldviews, making comparison difficult.
 Relativism: If all realities are valid, how do we compare truth?
o Example: Can both “the Earth is flat” and “the Earth is round” be equally true just
because communities believe them?
 Generalisation Problem: Findings are context-specific.
o Example: A study on parenting styles in Japan may not apply to the U.S.
 Incommensurability: Different worldviews may be impossible to compare.
o Example: Scientific medicine vs. traditional healing may be based on entirely
different logics.

Constructivism and Foundationalism

 Foundationalism: knowledge is based on basic, undeniable beliefs (e.g., Descartes’ “I
think, therefore I am”).
 Constructivists challenge this by arguing that:
o The mind actively constructs knowledge.
o Knowledge is not a mirror of external reality but emerges through interpretation.
o Naïve realism (belief in an objective, knowable external world) is rejected.
Constructivism vs. Foundationalism
 Foundationalism: Knowledge is built on basic, unquestionable truths (Descartes: “I
think, therefore I am”).
 Constructivism: Rejects universal foundations; knowledge is constructed through
interpretation.
 Example: Instead of saying “justice” has a fixed meaning, constructivists argue that
justice means different things in different times and cultures.

Types of Constructivism (Schwandt, 2000)

1. Weak Constructivism
 Acknowledges that knowledge is socially and ideologically influenced but still
considers some constraints from the real world.
 Associated with critical theory: reveals ideological influences in research.
 Emphasises contextuality and intersubjectivity (knowledge shaped by assumptions,
beliefs, culture).
 Longino (1993a, 1993b): proposed criteria for knowledge critique:
o Shared standards of evaluation.
o Community response to criticism.
o Equality of intellectual authority.
 Allows some space for objectivity and scientific procedures.
2. Strong Constructivism
 Emphasises that language and discourse shape knowledge completely.
 Different language systems create incommensurable realities.
 Leads to epistemological relativism: truth and knowledge are community-based and
ever-changing.
  Knowledge is political, ideological, and always value-laden.
 Advocates see this as fostering democracy of thought and critique (Gergen, 1994).
 Critics (e.g., Denzin, 1997) argue that experience still allows accurate depictions of the
world.
Weak Constructivism: Acknowledges some objectivity, allows scientific standards, but still
sees knowledge as socially influenced. Example: Researchers may agree on evaluation standards
in peer review while acknowledging subjectivity.
Strong Constructivism: Knowledge is entirely shaped by language and discourse, leading to
different “worlds” of meaning. Example: The concept of “family” means very different things
across cultures and cannot be universally defined.

Types of Constructivism (Schwandt, 2000)

1. Weak Constructivism
o Knowledge is socially influenced but still constrained by some external reality.
o Linked with critical theory, exposing ideology in knowledge.
o Example: Scientific research can reveal truths, but cultural values shape which
questions are asked and how results are interpreted.
o Longino (1993) proposed criteria for critique: shared standards, community
feedback, and equal intellectual authority.
2. Strong Constructivism
o Language and discourse fully shape knowledge; truths are community-based and
incommensurable.
o Example: The meaning of “family” differs so much across societies that there is
no single universal definition.
o Supporters (e.g., Gergen, 1994) say this allows democratic thought and critique.
o Critics (e.g., Denzin, 1997) argue that lived experience can still depict the world
accurately.

Constructivism in Research
 Rejects positivist notions of prediction, control, and universal truth.
 Focuses on understanding (verstehen) human actions, meanings, and interactions in
context.
 Methodologies: qualitative approaches like ethnography, narrative inquiry, discourse
analysis.
 Knowledge is produced through dialogue, negotiation, and reflection.
 Research results are co-created stories rather than universal laws.

 Rejects positivist goals of prediction and control.

 Focuses on understanding meanings and interactions (verstehen).
 Methods: Ethnography, narrative inquiry, discourse analysis, case studies.
 o Example: Instead of testing a hypothesis about “school success,” a constructivist
researcher might collect stories from students to explore what success means to
them.
 Outcomes: Research produces co-created stories and contextual insights, not universal
laws.

Symbolic interaction is distinct to human beings because it is part of what makes us human, rather than
simply reacting to human action we interpret or define it (Blumer, 1962). Humans have and are able to
act towards self. Mead (1962) consid ered that the ability to react to self was the central mechanism of
existence.
 Methodology: Qualitative, interpretive, naturalistic.
 Example: Using interviews, case studies, or narratives instead of experiments.
 Axiology (values in research): Research is value-bound, not value-free.