Review The Rubric To Understand The Criteria 676262

Review The Rubric To Make Sure You Understand The Criteria For Earning

Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade. 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. Please respond to at least two other learner's discussions. Feel free to use as many "lenses" as necessary (as the discussion and responses may provide). Your response should engage your classmate in critical discussion about the topic.

Paper For Above instruction

The discussion prompt encourages students to critically analyze their research orientation within the framework of social science paradigms and business research methodologies, emphasizing self-reflection and engagement with peers. To approach this assignment comprehensively, it is essential to first understand the six social science paradigms, which typically include positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, pragmatism, constructivism, and post-positivism. Each paradigm represents a different lens through which research questions are approached, data is interpreted, and knowledge is constructed. Identifying the paradigm that most closely aligns with one's research style requires reflection on personal beliefs about knowledge, reality, and the research process.

Positivism, for example, advocates for an objective, measurable approach grounded in empirical evidence, often aligning with quantitative research methods. Interpretivism, in contrast, emphasizes understanding the subjective meanings and social constructs behind human behavior, leaning towards qualitative approaches. Critical theory seeks to challenge existing social structures and advocate for emancipation, whereas pragmatism values practical solutions derived from the research. Constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed through social interactions and contexts, influencing research that seeks to interpret complex human phenomena. Post-positivism, while similar to positivism, recognizes the limitations of absolute objectivity and emphasizes a more nuanced understanding of reality.

In my case, I find that interpretivism most closely matches my preferred research style. I am inclined towards qualitative methods that explore human experiences, perceptions, and social contexts deeply rather than focusing solely on quantifiable data. However, I acknowledge that my approach sometimes "bleeds" into pragmatism, especially when I emphasize practical implications of my findings and adapt to research constraints. This blending occurs because in real-world research, strict adherence to a single paradigm is often impractical, and integrating multiple perspectives can yield richer insights.

Regarding methodology, Arbnor and Bjerke present several business research approaches, including analytical, systems, and social constructionist methodologies. Of these, I find the social constructionist approach most aligned with my research stance. It emphasizes understanding how social realities are constructed through interactions, aligning with interpretivist beliefs about subjective meaning-making. This methodology supports exploring complex human behaviors in organizational contexts, acknowledging multiple realities and perspectives rather than seeking an absolute truth.

My research background also influences my paradigm choice. I come from a background that values contextual understanding and qualitative inquiry, which overlaps with interpretivism and social constructionism. Although I recognize the utility of quantitative methods, I prioritize depth over breadth, focusing on the meaning-making processes within social settings. This overlap means my research beliefs are flexible enough to incorporate multiple paradigms and methodologies when necessary, especially in explorative or case study research, which benefits from a multidimensional perspective.

Responding to peers involves engaging in critical discourses about their paradigmatic choices, research methodologies, and how these influence their understanding and interpretation of data. Emphasizing critique and dialogue fosters a comprehensive understanding of diverse research orientations and their practical applications in business contexts.

References

• Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th 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.
• Johnson, P., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Schwandt, T. A. (2014). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE Publications.
• Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. (2017). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. SAGE Publications.
• Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. SAGE Publications.
• DeVault, G., & Fontana, A. (2016). The Four Paradigms of Qualitative Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 97-113). SAGE Publications.