2 Paradigms, Theories, and Research

As discussed in Chapter 1, scientists begin their research by asking questions. Research questions can be motivated by all types of knowledge, but scientists’ perceptions of how the world works will shape the questions they ask and the strategies they use to answer those questions. During the research process, scientists constantly move back and forth from a theoretical level (abstract, generalizable ideas) to an empirical level (the level of actual observations and data analysis). Scientists learn to visualize the abstract from actual observations, connecting the dots to identify hidden concepts and patterns, and synthesizing those patterns into generalizable ideas that apply to contexts outside the initial observations. While these skills take many years to develop, learning some basic elements of the theoretical level is a useful first step toward understanding how to think like a researcher. This chapter discusses how social science paradigms and theories inform the scientific research process.

Paradigms of Social Science Research

The word “paradigm” was popularized by Thomas Kuhn (1962) in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he identified patterns of activities that shape the progress of science. For our purposes, we’ll define a paradigm as a way of viewing the world or the frames of reference we use to organize our thoughts and observations. Think of paradigms as mental models that we use to understand our human experiences; different people perceive social issues and institutions in different ways, which may constrain their thinking and reasoning about the observed phenomenon. For instance, people tend to have different perceptions of the causes of crime, which contributes to different opinions on how to solve crime-related issues. Some people believe that moral failings or a lack of social control contributes to crime, leading to support for higher arrest rates and harsher punishments. Other people believe crime stems from larger social issues, such as poverty and racial discrimination, which may lead to support for social programs to provide a basic safety net, reducing inequality as crime-reduction strategies.

It can be difficult to fully grasp paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our everyday ways of thinking. Chances are, if you have an opinion about the best ways to reduce crime, you are pretty certain about the truth of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion, yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Which of you is correct? You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world does—or at least should—work. Perhaps your assumptions stem from your political perspective, which helps shape your view on various social issues, or your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, a paradigm shapes your stance on the issue.

Our personal paradigms are like “colored glasses,” governing how we view and structure our thoughts about the world. Paradigms are often hard to recognize because they are implicit, assumed, and taken for granted. However, recognizing these paradigms is key to making sense of and reconciling differences in people’s perceptions of the same social phenomenon. For instance, why might a rehabilitation program be successful in one community but fail miserably in another? A researcher looking at the world through a rational lens will look for explanations of the problem such as inadequate programming or a poor fit between the program and the context in which it is being implemented. Another researcher looking at the same problem through a social lens may seek out social deficiencies such as inadequate training for program facilitators or lack of management’s support for the program. Researchers examining the problem through a political lens may look for organizational politics that may change the implementation process.

As these examples illustrate, subconscious paradigms often constrain the concepts researchers attempt to measure, their observations, and their subsequent interpretations of a phenomenon. Given the complex nature of social phenomena, many paradigms may be partially correct, and researchers may need to operate from multiple paradigms to fully understand a problem and potential solutions. Social scientific researchers often operate from one of four paradigms: positivism, social constructionism, criticalism, and postmodernism.

Positivism

When you think of science, you most likely consider it through a positivist paradigm. Positivism operates according to the principles of objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic. This paradigm calls for value-free social science research in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth. It holds that the creation of scientific knowledge should be restricted to what researchers can observe and measure. The works of French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) spurred the positivist paradigm as an attempt to separate scientific inquiry from religion (where the precepts could not be objectively observed). He argued that theories created via reasoning are only authentic if they can be verified through observations. As a result, positivism led to empiricism (or blind faith in observed data), and a rejection of any attempt to extend or reason beyond observable facts. Since human thoughts and emotions could not be directly measured, they were not considered legitimate topics for scientific research.

Social Constructionism

In the late 1960s, two sociologists, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, developed the social constructionist paradigm in their book, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. While positivists seek to discover “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” is varying, socially constructed, and ever-changing. In other words, no truth simply exists, waiting for researchers to discover it. Instead, we create reality through our interactions and our interpretations of those interactions. Key to the social constructionist paradigm is the idea that social context and interactions shape individual and social realities. Consider the evolution of face masks before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a simple square of material edged with elastic bands transformed from an innocuous piece of protective equipment to an emotionally charged political symbol. Researchers who operate in the social constructionist paradigm would investigate how and why the meanings associated with face masks changed over time.

Critical Paradigm

At its core, the critical paradigm focuses on power, inequality, and social change. Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Researchers are human beings located within specific social structures in various positions of power. The inherent biases that inform and are reinforced in everyday interactions influence the types of questions researchers ask, how they ask, and their methods for investigating and answering those questions. Researchers who work within this paradigm believe that scientists must evaluate and be transparent about how their biases impact their work in every phase of the research process. Researchers within this paradigm also operate from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change.

Postmodernism

In its briefest form, the postmodernist paradigm asserts that truth in any form may or may not be knowable. Whereas positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists say there is not. Social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder (or in the eye of the group that agrees on it). However, postmodernists may claim that we can never really know such truth, because in studying and reporting others’ truths, researchers stamp their own truth onto the investigation. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may ask, whose power, inequality, change, reality, and truth?

As these examples suggest, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for social scientific researchers. How does one study something that may or may not be real, or is only real in your current and unique experience? Consider this question in relation to the definitions of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method discussed in Chapter 1. Underlying these concepts is the assumption of some true explanation of a phenomenon or behavior that we can discover using appropriate methods. The postmodernist paradigm challenges this basic assumption of science. Instead, postmodernist researchers suggest that by studying a phenomenon or behavior, researchers create the phenomenon by using human language to describe and investigate it.

Theories

Much like paradigms, theories provide a way of looking at the world and understanding human interaction. Like paradigms, theories can be broad, but unlike paradigms, theories might be narrower in focus, perhaps just aiming to understand one phenomenon, without attempting to tackle a broader level of explanation. In the social sciences, theories are sets of systematically interrelated ideas intended to explain a social phenomenon or behavior. They help us answer the “why” and “how” questions about the patterns we observe in social life. For example, criminological theories can help answer the question of why and how some people stop committing crimes as they become adults while others continue to commit crimes throughout their entire lives. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction concerning our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why”. A good scientific theory should be well supported using observed facts and have practical value, which means that an essential challenge for researchers is to gather and analyze data to build strong and more comprehensive theories to explain social phenomena.

Some crime-related theories include conflict, differential association, labeling, life course, rational choice, routine activity, social control, social disorganization, social learning, and strain theories. This textbook does not cover these theories in detail. Still, I encourage you to conduct keyword searches online to learn more about these theories or revisit your notes from theory classes you may have taken. From a research methods standpoint, these theories are important because they propose answers to the “why” and “how” questions of crime. Many have changed over time as scientific studies have provided new insights from data that researchers have scientifically collected and analyzed, as well as studies that approach the same questions from different paradigms of social science research.

Summary

• A paradigm is a mental model we use to understand our social world. Our paradigms are often difficult but important to recognize because they constrain researchers’ measurements and observations, and we often need research conducted in more than one paradigm to understand complex social phenomena fully.
• Four paradigms found in the social sciences include the positivist, social constructionist, critical, and postmodernist paradigms. The latter three are distinct from the first paradigm in their critique of the idea that social science research can and should be objective and value-free.
• Theories are explanations of the social world that attempt to answer “how” and “why” questions. Theories are generally narrower than paradigms.
• Social scientific research aims to use empirical data to build stronger and more comprehensive theories about the “hows” and “whys” of the social world.

Discussion Questions

1. What do you think should happen to people who commit murder? How might your thoughts differ from another person’s answer to this question? What do those differences tell you about your personal paradigms?
2. Which of the four paradigms described in this chapter do you find most and least compelling? Why?
3. Look online for a brief explanation of one of the criminological theories listed in this chapter. Use the definition of a theory to explain how we know that the theory you chose is a theory.
4. Refer to the theory you chose in question 3. What question does the theory you chose to attempt to answer? What explanation does the theory give for that question?