Record Detail Back
Paradigm, methodology and method: Intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship
- Share to:
The intellectual integrity, trustworthiness and diversity of consumer scholarship depends on researchers accounting for the methodological (philosophical) underpinnings of their work. The discussion is predicated on the assumption that many scholars do not clearly differentiate between methodology and method. To address this issue, the paper distinguishes between these two concepts, identifies four axioms of methodologies, identifies and describes two overarching research paradigms (positivism and post-positivism), contrasts quantitative/qualitative with positivistic/post-positivistic, and positions consumer scholarship with three dominant research methodologies: scientific, interpretive and critical. Suggestions are offered about what various actors can do to better ensure responsible consumer scholarship through methodological accountability.
Knowingly or not, scholarship intended to generate new knowledge, in each of natural, social and human sciences, is informed by research paradigms. Within the academy, it is common knowledge that a paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline like consumer studies. Each paradigm is accompanied with attendant methodologies (assumptions about knowledge, values, reality and logic, to be discussed shortly). As a caveat, this paper is not about changing paradigms, the prevailing patterns of thought within a science or discipline (Kuhn, 1962); rather, it is about being conscious of which paradigm and attendant methodologies are being applied when conducting and evaluating research. To reiterate, a paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality. Although the three main sciences accept this basic notion of what constitutes a paradigm, the actual paradigm embraced by each science is often different. The natural sciences tend to use the positivistic paradigm and the human and social sciences tend to use the post-positivistic paradigm, to be discussed shortly. However, what constitutes a paradigm does not change, nor does what constitutes a methodology. As well, the authors are not advocating any particular paradigm. They are, instead, making the case that if people consciously self-identify with a respective paradigm and properly apply its methodological tenets and principles, they minimize the risk of relinquishing their responsibility to account for the philosophical underpinnings of their work, thereby enhancing
the integrity of consumer scholarship. The rigour of the consumer studies discipline depends on scholars being able to address deep questions about the integrity of their work. The common practice of using the heading Methodology, but then describing the methods used in the research design, is the stepping stone for introducing the main idea shared in this paper - the intellectual integrity, trustworthiness and diversity of consumer scholarship depends on researchers accounting for the methodological (philosophical) underpinnings of their work, not just the methods used to sample, collect and analyze data and report the results
McGregor S.L.T. & Murnane J. A. - Personal Name
NONE
Research Method
English
2010
1-16
LOADING LIST...
LOADING LIST...