In a study, I have used three paradigms i.e. critical, post structural and post modern in a single study. I have also selected theories to build theoretical framework accordingly, representing the all paradigms. Isn't it good or more reliable idea to view the subject as the epistemology and metaphysics of these paradigms are different?
I tink it can be possible (and maybe be interessting and useful) to analyze a phenomenon with three different paradigms, e.g. when comparing their results or in other words when comparing 'what (differences) one can see' with each paradigm. But it also seems to be very demanding and ambitious, because one has to have expertise in all of these paradigms and be able to compare them competently without losing the peculiarities of each paradigm. The comparison is even more interesting, when one realizes that each paradigm can only 'see' what the paradigm 'can see' - if you know what I mean.
But, and that's why I said it is very demanding and ambitious: what is poststructural analysis anyway? Are we talking about Foucault? Derrida? Deleuze? Lyotard? Butler? Rancière? Nancy? Each could be considerd 'poststructural' but all of their approaches differ in many ways and exclude each other in some ways (not to say that there aren't similarities as well). Same for post-modernism? It seems hard to 'definie' what post-modernism should be in the first place, when such definitions would be rejeceted from post-modernism or post-structuralisms as well, just to mention some of the difficulties that come to mind, when thinking about the topic.
Interesting but difficult and demanding idea. I would be curious how this could/would be implemented or realized.
Approaching research using three different epistemologies will undoubtedly yield interesting results and scope for comparison. It will also yield insights into the paradigms themselves and enhance your thinking about philosophy as practice. However, great care is needed here. Are you attempting to create one method, drawing on aspects of three distinct methodological bases? or are you creating three different and distinct methods to investigate the same phenomena? If it is the former, then you may have a very confused set of results and your conclusions may be flawed - like attempting to add apples, oranges and umbrellas. You would need an additional framework with which to make sense of the combined exercise. Dangerous territory involving a great deal of work.
I would look at a neo-integrative framework such as critical realism ( Bhaskar) if you want to include insights from idealist and realist streams of thought. It will be complicated though. You might also look at pragmatism if you dont wish to align with a polarised view.
Dear scholars,
Thank you for your opinion on my query. I also feel that it is not the easy task for me. Actually, my research methodology is critical ethnography and I want to interpret the subject politically. To do so, I used this mixed paradigms approach or political approach. It is like a bricoleur technique of Denzin and Lincoln. What do you suggest for me, please feel free to critique my query.
Thank You!
Of course, you can. You will observe the subject in more dimensions, "in 3d".
Thank you everyone for your advice,
Now, I decided to go ahead using multi-epistemological i.e. 3D approach
Am looking for publications that have based their work on critical paradigm. Thank you
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation