Part 1- Knowledge Paradigms Scientific and Naturalistic

The scientific paradigm (scientific knowledge) is a framework of thinking that emphasizes objectivity, measurability, and systematic inquiry. This approach commonly employs quantitative methods such as surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis using valid and reliable instruments. Its primary goal is to produce empirical data that can be verified and generalized to support decision-making, including in the field of educational management. Despite its strength in providing objective insights, the scientific paradigm has limitations as it is less capable of capturing subjective meanings and the social complexities inherent in educational phenomena.

In contrast, the naturalistic paradigm (naturalistic knowledge) views social reality as complex, plural, and meaningful. Research within this paradigm emphasizes understanding human experiences in a holistic and contextual manner, rather than focusing solely on numbers or final outcomes. Qualitative approaches are its main feature, using methods such as observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. Through this perspective, the naturalistic paradigm is able to explore school culture dynamics, teacher motivation, and social interactions within the educational setting in a richer and more authentic way.

The fundamental differences between these two paradigms can be examined through ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Ontologically, the scientific paradigm views reality as singular and objective, whereas the naturalistic paradigm perceives reality as multiple and contextual. Epistemologically, the scientific paradigm positions the researcher as a neutral party who maintains distance, while the naturalistic paradigm acknowledges the active involvement of the researcher in the research process. Methodologically, the scientific paradigm relies on surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis, while the naturalistic paradigm emphasizes case studies, interviews, and in-depth observations.

The implications of both paradigms in educational management research are highly significant. The scientific paradigm is more suitable when the research aims to measure variables, test hypotheses, and produce policy generalizations. Meanwhile, the naturalistic paradigm is better suited to understanding meanings, processes, and social dynamics occurring in the field. Therefore, the choice of paradigm should align with the research objectives and problem formulation. Moreover, combining both through a mixed methods approach can be an effective strategy to produce research that is comprehensive, relevant, and applicable in addressing real-world challenges in education. 

Sumary 

Scientific and naturalistic paradigms are two main approaches in educational management research. The scientific paradigm focuses on objectivity, quantification, and generalization, while the naturalistic paradigm emphasizes understanding meaning, context, and subjective experiences. Both have strengths and limitations, so choosing a paradigm must align with the research problem. Integrating the two through mixed methods can provide more comprehensive results.

*This paper is a review of Part 1: Paradigms of Knowledge from the teaching material of the Research Methodology in Management course, delivered by Prof. Dr. A. Rusdiana, M.M.