Q & A: (Post-)Positivism, Critical Theory & Constructivism

(Updated 17th September 2024)

Today I am going to write a reflection on questions I had about paradigms and critical realism. The basis for this is an article written by Guba and Lincoln, however, there are several versions. The version that I read looks primarily at 4 different paradigms; positivist, post-positivist, critical theory and constructivist.

This is the article I refer to: Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Link

There is a ‘newer’ version (from early 2000s, so, it’s new, but still old), which for example also talks about axiology and a participatory paradigm (Link)

I was already quite familiar with the distinction of paradigms (if you want to know more have a look here), but the article (and the reflections I had afterward) clarified a couple of questions I had a long time:

1. Q: What’s the connection between middle range and ‘grand’ theories? A: Middle-range theories are a concept, used as a reaction to “grand” theories. Grand theories, such as Marxism, apply to all situations and generate middle-range theories, more specifically: how grand theories apply/ can apply to a local circumstance. Most theories in social science are middle-range theories. A characteristic of middle-range theory is transferability.
2. Q: Why is there no critical paradigm? A: It is critical theory and not a critical paradigm because critical theory groups a couple of theories under an umbrella term.
3. Q: What’s the difference between constructivism and interpretivism? A: They “act” on slightly different levels and cannot be used interchangeably (but it depends, of course, as everything in social science). Interpretivism refers to how people analyze data, constructivism is most often about how people make knowledge, so constructivism as an epistemological stance. Also, in education/learning sciences constructivism is quite often not taken as an ontological stance, but an epistemological stance
4. Q: What are value-mediated findings? A: Value-mediated findings: findings are not neutral! In a positivistic view, results have/are truth, their value is irrelevant because they are true, the values that people might attach to them do not matter. In critical theory, however, all data generations are value-laden, all findings are value-laden since they are based on the values and positions of the researcher. When findings are produced researchers “decide” what to highlight, what to omit and that in turn creates value. Therefore, it is a value-laden decision, you as a researcher are producing discourse, you make meaning, you’re adding to the discourse, which produces certain effects in the world.
5. Q: What is dialectic methodology? A: In the positivist paradigm, one APPLIES methods, whereas in “after” positivist paradigms one “creates” methodology. In post-positivism, methodology is also not just applying methods but it is a conversation between the stance that is taken, the questions asked and the theories used. Dialectic here means something is created, the combination of the methods chosen create something.
6. Q: What do the authors mean by “Both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm”? What’s an example of a quantitative method in the constructivist paradigm?  A: Constructivist paradigm with quantified content analysis (e.g.  Mayring Content analysis)
7. Q: Can social-constructivism be critical realist? A: Social-constructivism can count towards critical realism if constructivism is understood in a more radical sense, as it is done in the article. This is also a critique of the article. Understandably it is difficult to map paradigms, as they overlap and a table always leads to reductionism. Nevertheless, I think the article creates an artificial division between positivism/ post-positivism vs. critical theory and constructivism. Critical Realism is partially inadequately represented, in my opinion.