Critical Theory Paradigms

Assumptions of Critical Theory Paradigms

Critical Theory is a theoretical tradition developed most notably by Horkeimer, Adorno, Marcuse
at the Frankfort School. Their work is a critical response to the works of Marx, Kant, Hegel and
Weber.

Historical ontology - assumes that there is a 'reality' that is apprehendable. This is a

reality created and shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and genderbased forces that have been reified or crystallized over time into social structures that are
taken to be natural or real. People, including researchers, function under the assumption
that for all practical purposes these structures are real. Critical theorist believe this
assumption is inappropriate.

Modified transactional or subjectivist epistemology - we cannot separate ourselves

from what we know and this inevitably influences inquiry. What can be known is
inextricably tied to the interaction between a particular investigator and a particular
object or group.

Other assumptions about the research enterprise:

Critical theorists mark the 'linguistic turn' (associated with Wittgenstein) as a moment in
history where we could begin to see how our reality was interactively constructed
through language. Our conceptual system and how things are defined in society are
created through language. Language guides and limits the observational process. The
stability of the language system produces the stability of a shared reality.

Critical theorists believe the perpetuation of the subjective-objective controversy is

problematic. The objective-subjective label is socially contrived and not a natural fact.
Critical theorists have shown that 'objective' practices are those that have been shown to
be the most 'subjective.'

When it comes to the research enterprise, critical theorists recognize the positive
association of 'objectivity' to natural sciences and less positive association of 'subjectivity'
to interpretive sciences. This is seen as an artifact of a system defined to privilege the
'objective' label and the natural sciences. This is recognized as a linguistic construction.

The subject-object distinction affords identity protection and privileges for powerful
groups both in the academy and in other organization. This has led to misleading beliefs
about the presumed relation between qualitative and quantitative research.

If we elimininate the subject-object dualism, we see that objects in both quantitative and
qualitative research methods are socially shared, historically produced and general to a
social group.

Methodology

Critical theoretical approaches tend to rely on dialogic methods; methods combining

observation and interviewing with approaches that foster conversation and reflection.
This reflective dialogic allows the researcher and the participants to question the 'natural'
state and challenge the mechanisms for order maintenance. This is a way to to reclaim
conflict and tension.

Rather than naming and describing, the critical theorist tries to challenging guiding
assumptions.

Critical theorists usually do this by beginning with an assumption about what is good
(e.g. autonomy, democracy) and asking people in a social group, culture or
organization to reflect on and question their current experience with regard to the values
identified (e.g. To what extent are they an autonomous worker?)

Critical theorists are not just trying to describe a situation from a particular vantage point
or set of values (e.g. the need for greater autonomy or democracy in a particular setting),
but that are trying to change the situation.

Views on Criteria for 'Good' Research

Researchers need to discuss the meaning and implications of the concepts developed
Researchers need to attend to tensions in competitive research orientations
Criteria for research should be based on community agreement, and researchers have the
responsibility to justify their work and address and answer to any tension that manifests itself in
the research endeavor.
Generally, the complete philosophical grounds for the research decisions made during a research
project cannot be articulated in a manuscript, but some attempt should be make to articulate these
briefly.

Some general description of alternative research orientations, approaches or ways of seeing

should be discussed to foster accountability.
The research endeavor should have social import. This may include social change, expanding
people's discourses, ways of seeing and understanding the world (these are not mutually
exclusive).

Resources
Deetz, SA. (1996). "Differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and
Morgan and their legacy." Organization Science. 7 (2) pp. 191-207.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (C. Gordon ed).
New York: Pantheon.
Gadamer, HG. (1975). Truth and Method. Edited and translated by G. Barden and J. Cumming.
New York: Seabury Press.
Giroux, H. (1988). "Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse
of educational research." In Sherman & R. Webb (Eds.) Qualitative Research in Education:
Focus and Methods (pp. 190-210). New York: Falmer.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith,
transl). New York: International.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests (J. Shapiro transl). Boston: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and Practice (T. McCarthy transl). Boston: Beacon.
Kincheloe, JL & McLaren, PL. (1994). "Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research." In
NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 138-157.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms

The Interpretivist Paradigm

Assumptions and Beliefs of the Interpretivist Paradigm

Interpretivist views have different origins in different disciplines. Schultz, Cicourel and
Garfinkel (phenomenology/sociology), the "Chicago School of Sociology" (sociology), and Boas
and Malinowski (anthropology) are often connected with the origin the interpretivist paradigm.
The interpretivist paradigm developed as a critique of positivism in the social sciences. In
general, interpretivists share the following beliefs about the nature of knowing and reality.

relativist ontology - assumes that reality as we know it is constructed intersubjectively

through the meanings and understandings developed socially and experientially.

transactional or subjectivist epistemology - assumes that we cannot separate ourselves

from what we know. The investigator and the object of investigation are linked such that
who we are and how we understand the world is a central part of how we understand
ourselves, others and the world.

By positing a reality that cannot be separate from our knowlege of it (no separation of subject
and object), the interpretivist paradigm posits that researchers' values are inherent in all phases of
the research process. Truth is negotiated through dialogue.

Findings or knowledge claims are created as an investigation proceeds. That is, findings
emerge through dialogue in which conflicting interpretions are negotiated among
members of a community.

Pragmatic and moral concerns are important considerations when evaluting interpretive
science. Fostering a dialogue between researchers and respondents is critical. It is
through this dialectial process that a more informed and sophisticated understanding of
the social world can be created.

All interpretations are based in a particular moment. That is, they are located in a
particular context or situation and time. They are open to re-interpretation and
negotiation through conversation.

Methodology

Interpretive approaches rely heavily on naturalistic methods (interviewing and

observation and analysis of existing texts).

These methods ensure an adequate dialog between the researchers and those with whom
they interact in order to collaboratively construct a meanful reality.

Generally, meanings are emergent from the research process.

Typically, qualitative methods are used.

View of Criteria for 'Good' Research

Interpretivist positions are founded on the theoretical belief that reality is socially constructed
and fluid. Thus, what we know is always negotiated within cultures, social settings, and
relationship with other people.
From this perspective, validity or truth cannot be grounded in an objective reality.
What is taken to be valid or true is negotiated and there can be multiple, valid claims to
knowledge.
Angen (2000) offers some criteria for evaluting research from an interpretivist perspective:

Careful consideration and articulation of the research question

carrying out inquiry in a respectful manner

awareness and articulation of the choices and interpretations the researcher makes during
the inquiry process and evidence of taking responsibility for those choices

a written account that develops persuasive arguments

evaluation of how widely results are disseminated

validity becomes a moral question for Angen and must be located in the 'discourse of the
research community'

ethical validity - recognition that the choices we make through the research process have
political and ethical consideration.
o

Researchers need to ask if research is helpful to the target population

o seek out alternative explanations than those the researcher constructs

o ask if we've really learned something from our work

substantive validity - evaluting the substance or content of an interpretive work

o need to see evidence of the interpretive choices the researcher made

o an assessment of the biases inherent in the work over the lifespan of a research
project
o self-reflect to understand our own transformation in the research process

Resources
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening
the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Berger, PL & Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Company.
Blumer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the
Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cicourel, AV. (1964). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Enthnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Stragegies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Lyotard, J. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Theory and History of
Literature. Volume 10. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Malinowski, B. (1967). A Diary in the Strict sense of the Term. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collect Papers, Volume 1, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. See in particular:
"Commonsense and scientific interpretations of human action" pp. 3-47; "Concept and theory
formation in the social sciences" pp. 48-66; "On multiple realities" pp. 207-259.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations (GEM Anscome transl). Third Edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms

The Positivist Paradigm

The origin of positivist views are usually credited to Descarte. Others have traced these beliefs
back to Galileo. Both share the following beliefs about the nature of knowing and reality.

Assumptions and beliefs of the Positivist Paradigm:

realist ontology - assumes that there are real world objects apart from the human
knower. In other words, there is an objective reality.

representational epistemology - assumes people can know this reality and use symbols
to accurately describe and explain this objective reality.

By positing a reality separate from our knowlege of it (separation of subject and object), the
positivist paradigm provides an objective reality against which researchers can compare their
claims and ascertain truth.

Prediction and control - assumes that there are general patterns of cause and effect that
can be used as a basis for predicting and controlling natural phenomenon. The goal is to
discover these patterns.

Empirical verification - assumes that we can rely on our perceptions of the world to
provide us with accurate data.

Research has been assumed to be value-free; if strict methodological protocol is

followed, research will be free of subjective bias and objectivity will be achieved.

Methodology

Positivist approaches rely heavily on experimental and manipulative methods.

These ensure that there is a distance between the subjective biases of the researcher and
the objective reality he or she studies.

This generally involves hypothesis generation and testing.

Typically, quantitative methods are used.

View of Criteria for 'Good' Research

The positivist position is grounded in the theoretical belief that there is an objective reality that
can be known to the researcher, if he or she uses the correct methods and applies those methods
in a correct manner.
Research (typically quantitative and experimental methods) is evaluted based on three criteria:

Validity - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure gives the correct
answer (allowing the researcher to measure or evalute an objective reality)

Reliability - the extent to which a measurement approach or procedure give the same
answer whenever it is carried out

Generalizability - extent to which the findings of a study can be applied externally or

more broadly outside of the study context

Resources
Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening
the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.
Burell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS. (1994). "Competing paradigms in qualitative research." In NK
Denzin and YS Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. 105-117.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Click here to go back to Common Paradigms