Prepare A 500-Word Discussion Posting That Answers ✓ Solved

Prepare A Discussion Posting Of At Least 500 Words That Answers The Fo

Prepare a discussion posting of at least 500 words that answers the following questions: Which of the six social science paradigms most closely matches your preferred research "style?" Does your research approach "bleed" into more than one? What makes you think so? Which business research methodology presented by Arbnor and Bjerke most closely matches your preferred research approach? Do your research background assumptions and beliefs overlap more than one? Explain. Resources: Arbnor and Bjerke: Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge 3rd Edition

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of social sciences, selecting an appropriate paradigm is essential for guiding research methodology and ensuring alignment with research goals. Among the six social science paradigms—positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, constructivism, pragmatism, and phenomenology—I find that interpretivism most closely matches my preferred research style. This paradigm emphasizes understanding the subjective meanings and experiences of individuals, which aligns with my inclination to explore social phenomena through qualitative, human-centered approaches.

My research approach tends to incorporate elements from more than one paradigm, primarily interpretivism and pragmatism. While interpretivism guides my focus on understanding participant perspectives and the contextual realities they inhabit, pragmatism influences my pragmatic choice of methods to address specific research questions effectively. I recognize that social phenomena are complex and often multifaceted, which necessitates a flexible approach that utilizes the strengths of multiple paradigms. This blending of paradigms allows me to adapt to the nuances of each research context, ensuring a comprehensive understanding.

The methodology presented by Arbnor and Bjerke that most closely matches my approach is the "productive-creative" methodology, which emphasizes understanding and developing business knowledge through iterative exploration and reflection. This approach aligns with my tendency to explore qualitative data deeply while remaining open to multiple interpretations, which is central to interpretivist research. Additionally, their "scientific" methodology, which emphasizes systematic inquiry and rigorous analysis, also resonates with my desire for clarity and coherence in research findings, especially when dealing with complex social constructs.

Regarding my research background assumptions and beliefs, I acknowledge that they often overlap with more than one paradigm. For example, I believe that human behavior is influenced by a multitude of subjective factors, which aligns with interpretivism. However, I also hold that understanding these behaviors can inform practical business solutions, reflecting pragmatic beliefs. My assumptions about the importance of context and the necessity of multiple perspectives support an integrated approach that involves interpretivist and pragmatic elements. This overlap enriches my research by enabling me to navigate complex social realities while maintaining a focus on applicable outcomes.

In conclusion, my research style is primarily interpretivist, emphasizing understanding subjective experiences, but it is flexible enough to incorporate pragmatic elements for practical problem-solving. The methodologies of Arbnor and Bjerke that resonate most with my approach are the productive-creative and scientific methodologies, which balance exploratory depth with systematic analysis. My assumptions about social phenomena indeed span multiple paradigms, allowing me to adopt an integrated approach that enhances the richness and applicability of my research. Embracing this multi-paradigmatic perspective enables a nuanced understanding of social dynamics within business contexts, aligning with my research objectives and personal beliefs about knowledge creation.

References

• Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications.
• Schwandt, T. A. (2014). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Sage Publications.
• Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
• Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, art-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.