Paradigms

TL;DR: The author is experiencing a complex methodological and philosophical dilemma due to the apparent incompatibility of their methodologies and beliefs with various paradigms. They believe that their unique approach to research integrates aspects of different paradigms while also incorporating personal perspectives.

Abstract: The feature articles in the August/ September 1989 issue of JLD (Volume 22, Number 7) have been much on my mind these past few months. As you will recall, the articles (by Drs. Heshusius, Iano, Licht and Torgesen, and Adelman) dealt with issues and principles involved in the choice between the natural science (objective-quantitative) and holistic (interpretive-qualitative) paradigms. As a result of reading these articles (as well as earlier articles in the journal and articles published elsewhere regarding the objective-quantitative, interpretive-qualitative, and critical-theoretical paradigms) and discussions with several colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that I am suffering from paradigmatically/methodologically induced schizophrenia. I seem to be harboring personalities that are not only different, but fundamentally incompatible. I hope that you will bear with me while I explain my condition. A colleague recently approached me and indicated that in my new course on "Theory and Design in Special Education Research," I really should teach the students that a researcher's choice of methodology necessarily indicates the researcher's beliefs regarding children, teaching, education, knowledge, and society (i.e., the use of a certain methodology indicates the paradigm/belief structure of the researcher). Interestingly enough, in this individual's opinion, many of the views of teaching and children that I find compelling seem to belong exclusively to one paradigm. I was at that time fairly well aware of my own values, beliefs, perceptions, and practices (in Heshusius's terms, the paradigm by which I live), as I have frequently examined, challenged, and revised them in the 16 years since I became a certified teacher. What I wasn't aware of, and what the literature was making me increasingly cognizant of, was the impossibility of one person holding the views/paradigm by which I live. For instance, over the past 12 years I have conducted systematic research, much of which has involved empirical design and quantitative methodology. According to the literature and some of my colleagues, my underlying paradigm/wayof-seeing must therefore necessarily be positivistic, mechanistic, obtrusive, objective, reductionistic, deductive, and particularistic (see Cook & Reichardt, 1979). Thus, my beliefs and practices concerning students, learning, and teaching are quite predictable (see Heshusius, 1989). I begin to become confused, however, because some of my viewpoints are not on the list above, some on the list do not seem to fit my understanding of myself, and quite a few of the beliefs and practices on Heshusius's synchronized list of mechanistic assumptions translated into special education theory and practice do not seem to fit my behavior at all. I then consider my frequent use of applied behavior analysis research methods during the past 12 years. Many would say that my use of such methods is consistent with the underlying paradigm/wayof-seeing described above. Strict behaviorists, however, would view my use of quantitative methods as necessitating an underlying paradigm significantly different from theirs, and vice versa. Individuals operating from the criticaltheoretical paradigm have more to say, however. From their way of seeing things, my choice of these two methodologies necessarily indicates that my paradigm/ way-of-seeing neglects the relationship between society and schools, the function of schools in defining social reality, the importance of power in society, and the need for a reconsideration of the whole societal structure in which education is embedded and which perpetuates inequalities and injustices (see Gage, 1989). Once again, this doesn't sound much like me to me, and doesn't seem to fit my behavior very well. Although I might be able to disregard the possibility of a split personality inherent in my use of both quantitative and applied behavior analysis methods, there is evidence that I am harboring at least three personalities (not merely two). In the past couple of years I have been studying qualitative procedures (they appeared to me to offer the possibility of additional insights and further progress in my areas of research) and am currently involved in my first qualitative research project. According to the literature and to some of my colleagues, the use of qualitative methods indicates that my underlying paradigm/way-of-seeing must necessarily be phenomenological, naturalistic, holistic, subjective, and inductive (see Miles & Huberman, 1984). Such a paradigm is incompatible with that necessitated by the use of quantitative/ behavioral methodologies; here again the assumptions underlying my use of qualitative methods indicate certain beliefs and practices. However, once again there are items on the list that do not seem to fit either my understanding of myself or my behavior well at all. When you add to all of this the fact that I am not only currently involved in a qualitative research project, but also simultaneously involved in research projects utilizing quantitative and applied behavior analysis methods, it becomes evident that I am not simply experiencing a paradigm shift, and the diagnosis of schizophrenia seems imminent. Yet perhaps this must not necessarily be so. Writing this letter has been almost therapeutic, and a new avenue of thought occurs to me. I am reminded of Salvia and Ysseldyke's (1981) illustration of how logical fallacies can occur due to criterion keying (e.g., all canaries eat birdseed; Tina eats birdseed; therefore, Tina is a canary). While perhaps it can be established that certain paradigms necessarily result in the choice of particular methodologies, confusion sets in when we conclude that, therefore, the use of a particular methodology necessarily requires a certain paradigm. Simply put, I do not subscribe to any of these three paradigms; rather, my education, learning, and experiences over the years have resulted in a paradigm that integrates values, beliefs, perceptions, assumptions, and practices inherent in each of these paradigms. Further, my way of seeing includes some views not inherent in any of these paradigms. (Some of my views are discussed in other papers; see Harris, 1988, and Harris & Pressley, in press.) Perhaps I am experiencing a phenomenon similar to what I experienced during my years in the classroom when I integrated affective, behavioral, cognitive, social, developmental, and other theories, models, and practices in a way that worked well for myself and my students. I am relieved to realize that I am not schizophrenic at all; rather, my person-