Do Research? Know The Research Paradigm

Observing Educational Reality: Why Are Research Paradigms Important?

In the world of research, especially in the field of educational management, two major approaches often serve as the foundation of thought: the scientific and naturalistic paradigms. These two paradigms, although born from different epistemological traditions, both play a crucial role in helping us understand complex phenomena in education. Understanding their differences is not just a matter of theory, but a key to determining the direction, methods, and results of a study.

The scientific paradigm emphasizes objectivity and rationality. Within this framework, researchers must maintain a distance from their research subjects, ensuring that the data collected is measurable and can be generalized. Quantitative logic is the spearhead of this approach, where hypotheses are built, variables are measured, and cause-and-effect relationships are sought. An example is a study on the influence of a school principal's leadership style on teacher motivation, where data is collected through questionnaires and analyzed statistically. The strength of this paradigm lies in its ability to produce findings that are systematic, reproducible, and offer broad generalizations.

In contrast, the naturalistic paradigm focuses on a deep understanding of social reality. This approach believes that truth is plural and context-bound. The researcher is no longer a neutral observer, but the main instrument who interacts directly with the research subjects. Through qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, participant observation, or case studies, researchers try to capture the essence and meaning behind a phenomenon. For example, a study that explores the experiences of teachers in managing an inclusive classroom. The goal is not to generalize, but to provide a holistic understanding of those experiences.

Fundamentally, the difference between these two paradigms can be summarized in three aspects: ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the relationship between the researcher and the researched), and methodology (the way data is collected). The scientific paradigm views reality as singular and objective, while the naturalistic paradigm sees it as a diverse social construct. In terms of epistemology, the scientific paradigm separates the researcher from the subject, while the naturalistic paradigm places the researcher in the midst of the research subjects. Lastly, the scientific methodology tends to use a quantitative approach, while the naturalistic methodology prefers qualitative methods.

The implications of choosing a paradigm are highly significant for educational management research. If your goal is to test the effectiveness of a program or measure the impact of a policy, the scientific paradigm is the right choice. However, if you want to understand interpersonal dynamics, organizational culture, or individual experiences within a school, the naturalistic paradigm will be more relevant. By combining these two perspectives, we can gain a more complete and comprehensive picture of the challenges and opportunities in advancing educational management.

There are two main paradigms in research: the scientific paradigm and the natural paradigm. The scientific paradigm focuses on objectivity and measurement, a single and systematic reality, and avoids bias. The natural paradigm views reality as complex and socially constructed, requiring researchers to be actively involved in the research. The choice of paradigm must be tailored to the research objectives.

This article is a review of Part 1 Knowledge Paradigm Management Research Method Learning Module by Prof. Dr. H. A. Rusdiana, M.M. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YuM_qGC-fl4ENMpby0eHLUyQ9HyfEdrA/view?usp=sharing