Explainer · Plain-language

What Is a Research Paradigm? Positivism, Interpretivism & More | CASRAI

A research paradigm is an overarching framework of shared assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and the practice of research. It integrates ontological, epistemological, and methodological commitments into a coherent worldview that shapes how researchers in a field define problems, design studies, and interpret findings.

CASRAI plain-language explainers — clear answers to recurring research-administration questions

The step most authors miss

Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.

A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.

Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.

Kuhn's concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts

Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), argued that science does not progress by simple accumulation of facts. Instead, scientists work within a dominant paradigm — a set of exemplary problems and solutions that define what counts as good science in a field. Most scientific work is "normal science": puzzle-solving within the paradigm's accepted rules. Anomalies that the paradigm cannot explain accumulate until a crisis triggers a paradigm shift — a revolutionary change to a new, incompatible framework. Examples include the shift from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity, and from Lamarckian to Darwinian evolution. In social research, paradigms are often contested simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Positivism and post-positivism

Positivism holds that an objective, knowable reality exists, that knowledge comes from observable, measurable facts, and that research should use quantitative methods and deductive reasoning to discover universal laws. August Comte's founding vision assumed that social phenomena could be studied scientifically in the same way as natural phenomena. Post-positivism modifies this: reality exists but can only be approximated, never perfectly known, because observation is theory-laden and measurement is fallible. Post-positivists still favour quantitative methods but acknowledge the role of the researcher and the importance of replication and triangulation.

Interpretivism, constructivism and critical paradigms

Interpretivism holds that social reality is inherently meaningful and that understanding requires interpreting the meanings actors attach to their actions, resisting the reduction of human experience to variables and numbers. Constructivism (as a paradigm, related to but distinct from social constructionism as an ontological position) holds that knowledge and reality are co-constructed between researcher and participant. Critical and transformative paradigms go further: they argue that research is inevitably political, that knowledge claims reflect power relations, and that research should aim to challenge oppression and produce social change — positions associated with critical theory, feminism, and participatory action research.

Pragmatism and mixed methods

Pragmatism avoids fixed ontological and epistemological commitments, judging knowledge by its practical consequences. Rather than choosing between positivism and interpretivism, pragmatists ask: what method best answers this question in this context? Pragmatism is the philosophical foundation most commonly associated with mixed-methods research, which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single study. Mixed methods are not just about using both numbers and words; they require a coherent design in which quantitative and qualitative strands are integrated to answer questions that neither approach could address alone.

Key facts

At a glance

Definition: A set of assumptions about reality, knowledge, and research practice
Kuhn: Introduced the concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts (1962)
Positivism: Objective reality, quantitative methods, deductive reasoning
Interpretivism: Subjective meaning-making, qualitative methods, inductive reasoning
Critical: Research as political; aims to challenge power and produce social change
Pragmatism: Knowledge judged by utility; underpins mixed-methods research

Common misconceptions

What people often get wrong

Often heard: A research paradigm is the same as a research method.

Actually: No — a paradigm is the philosophical framework of assumptions within which methods are chosen. The same method (such as a survey) can serve different paradigms depending on how it is designed, analysed, and what claims are made.

Often heard: Choosing a paradigm is just an academic formality in a dissertation.

Actually: No — a researcher's paradigm determines what counts as a valid finding, what methods are appropriate, and how conclusions can be interpreted. Examiners assess whether the methodology is internally consistent with the stated paradigm.

Often heard: Positivism is outdated and only interpretivism is valid in social research.

Actually: No — both positivist/post-positivist and interpretivist research produce valuable, rigorous knowledge. Different research questions call for different paradigms, and the dominance of one approach over another varies by discipline and national context.

Going deeper