			Home About us Contact

Positivist Paradigm (positivist + paradigm)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001

INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOURNAL, Issue 3 2004
WenShin Chen
Abstract., The field of information systems (IS) has evolved for more than three decades. Although many schools of thought have emerged and even become well established, few historical analyses of research paradigms and methodologies have been undertaken. One of the rare exceptions is Orlikowski & Baroudi (1991). Yet, the IS research community has evolved substantially since 1991 in many aspects. A variety of journal outlets have emerged and become well established. More attention has been paid to paradigmatic and methodological issues. Political and professional contexts have also changed noticeably. Therefore, it should be an opportune time for the field to ask: ,What changes are manifested in journal publications?',Is the field making progress regarding pluralism in IS research?',How will the field's publications practices change in the future?' The purpose of this paper is to investigate these questions and, in turn, reflect on the paradigmatic and methodological progress made since 1991. We examined 1893 articles published in eight major IS publication outlets between 1991 and 2001. Our findings suggest that the long-term endeavours of interpretivist researchers might need to continue because the paradigmatic progress appears somewhat inconsequential; positivist research still dominates 81% of published empirical research. In particular, US journals, as opposed to European journals, tend to be more positivist, quantitative, cross-sectional and survey oriented. With respect to research design, survey research is still the most widely used method (41%), although case studies have gained substantial recognition (36%). Further, the increase of qualitative research (30%), empirical studies (61%) and longitudinal cases (33%) at the expense of laboratory experiments (18%) might suggest that IS researchers have become more interested in obtaining scientific knowledge in real world settings. In summary, we suggest that the field has been dominated by the positivist paradigm, despite calls to the contrary. Indeed, if the field was to truly embrace pluralism, it would have to find ways to fundamentally change the publication practices of the journal system, including the current tenure and promotion system, which pose considerable obstacles for the acceptance of alternative paradigms. [source]

Researching human resource development: emergence of a critical approach to HRD enquiry

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 1 2006
Claire Valentin
This paper argues that mainstream research in management and human resource development (HRD) is dominated by a positivist paradigm. In a theoretical discussion and review of literature on management, human resource management, HRD and organization studies, it explores critical perspectives in research, which draw on postmodernism and critical theory. It examines how they have contributed to the emergence of a critical HRD and discusses the features of a critical HRD research. [source]

Developing best practice in critical care nursing: knowledge, evidence and practice

NURSING IN CRITICAL CARE, Issue 3 2003
Paul Fulbrook
Summary ,Because the current drive towards evidence-based critical care nursing practice is based firmly within the positivist paradigm, experimentally derived research tends to be regarded as ,high level' evidence, whereas other forms of evidence, for example qualitative research or personal knowing, carry less weight ,This poses something of a problem for nursing, as the type of knowledge nurses use most in their practice is often at the so-called ,soft' end of science. Thus, the ,Catch 22' situation is that the evidence base for nursing practice is considered to be weak ,Furthermore, it is argued in this paper that there are several forms of nursing knowledge, which critical care nurses employ, that are difficult to articulate ,The way forward requires a pragmatic approach to evidence, in which all forms of knowledge are considered equal in abstract but are assigned value according to the context of a particular situation ,It is proposed that this can be achieved by adopting an approach to nursing in which practice development is the driving force for change [source]

Critical inquiry and knowledge translation: exploring compatibilities and tensions

NURSING PHILOSOPHY, Issue 3 2009
Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham PhD RN
Abstract Knowledge translation has been widely taken up as an innovative process to facilitate the uptake of research-derived knowledge into health care services. Drawing on a recent research project, we engage in a philosophic examination of how knowledge translation might serve as vehicle for the transfer of critically oriented knowledge regarding social justice, health inequities, and cultural safety into clinical practice. Through an explication of what might be considered disparate traditions (those of critical inquiry and knowledge translation), we identify compatibilities and discrepancies both within the critical tradition, and between critical inquiry and knowledge translation. The ontological and epistemological origins of the knowledge to be translated carry implications for the synthesis and translation phases of knowledge translation. In our case, the studies we synthesized were informed by various critical perspectives and hence we needed to reconcile differences that exist within the critical tradition. A review of the history of critical inquiry served to articulate the nature of these differences while identifying common purposes around which to strategically coalesce. Other challenges arise when knowledge translation and critical inquiry are brought together. Critique is one of the hallmark methods of critical inquiry and, yet, the engagement required for knowledge translation between researchers and health care administrators, practitioners, and other stakeholders makes an antagonistic stance of critique problematic. While knowledge translation offers expanded views of evidence and the complex processes of knowledge exchange, we have been alerted to the continual pull toward epistemologies and methods reminiscent of the positivist paradigm by their instrumental views of knowledge and assumptions of objectivity and political neutrality. These types of tensions have been productive for us as a research team in prompting a critical reconceptualization of knowledge translation. [source]