Different Paradigm Conceptions and Their Implications for Qualitative Research

Paradigms have been often presented as fundamental to how we should conceive of and conduct qualitative research. Some writers even hold that defining a researcher’s own paradigm, i.e., including defining their own ontology and epistemology, should be the starting point for conducting any qualitative project. Yet there appears to be little recognition of the uniqueness of the researcher-defined paradigm model often promoted within qualitative research or the existence of alternative paradigm conceptions. Based on an analysis of the original texts, I compare the researcher-defined paradigms proposed by Guba and Lincoln with paradigm conceptions proposed by Kuhn (1970) and Burrell and Morgan (1979), highlighting fundamental differences in their rationale, definition, who or what has a paradigm, how they arise, the positions that researchers can adopt, the scope of their ontological claims, their relation to specific research projects, examples of paradigm positions, and their tenets. The analysis shows that while the three sets of authors all refer to their constructions as paradigms, they present distinct, unrelated paradigm models. Recognizing the potential of distinct paradigm conceptions opens a space for qualitative researchers to reexamine their own commitments. Given the potential alternatives, qualitative researchers who continue to appeal to researcher-defined paradigms at the very least should be able to justify both their choice of paradigm conception and the position they have chosen within it. That there are viable alternatives should allow qualitative researchers to reconsider whether the researcher-defined paradigm model remains the best approach for presenting their assumptions related to a project.