The Paradigmatic Nature of Social and Human Research
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 17 August 2023

The Paradigmatic Nature of Social and Human Research

Jairo Eduardo Soto-Molina

Universidad del Atlántico

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.06.03.765

Pages: 94-104

Keywords: Research, Paradigmatic, Social Research, Human Research

Abstract

This article of reflection, theoretical and methodological, of an epistemological nature, presents relationships of commitment between universities and the productive sector through research. Society in general, unions and the state have understood that more and more professionals require scientific research processes. Therefore, advanced education must be supported by inquiry processes that transform these sectors. In general, investigative issues that generate epistemological contradictions are addressed due to the misuse of investigative techniques and procedures. Both the first and the second are more specific and inseparable from the investigative action. Techniques are the DNA of research: they condense the theoretical and methodological history of whoever has developed them and whoever chooses them. That history can be deconstructed from a technique. A strong presence of an orthodox positivism persists, anchored from the analytical empirical that invades the limits of qualitative research that requires an exhaustive review. On the other hand, according to the so-called mixed investigations, mixtures are made that are not coherent with the proposed paradigmatic models. This dispersion of the sciences, paradigms and types of research are limiting to understand, interpret or transform the contexts involved in the investigative processes. For this reason, for the researcher, the techniques are presented, in their pedagogical dimension, as the access door to the research experience, which enriches it, broadens it, and makes it more fruitful the more and better the instruments are handled articulated between the parts. and these integrated with the whole, highlighting that we are immersed in a productive process in which the researcher must make decisions at each step, which must be marked by the social conditions in which said process is carried out. The opposite produces paradigmatic blindness or obstacles.

References

  1. Boladeras Cucurella, M. (2001). Public opinion in Habermas. Anàlisi: quaderns de comunicació i cultura, (26), 0051-70.

  2. Dualde, F. J. (2021). Systemic thinking. Rehearsal. Organizational culture: a miniature society.

  3. Habermas, J. (2003). Discourse ethics and the question of truth. Barcelona: Paidós.

  4. Habermas, J., & Husserl, E. (1995). Knowledge and interest / Philosophy in the crisis of European humanity (Vol. 12). Universitat de València.

  5. HABERMAS, J (2001): Communicative Action Theory: complements and previous studies. Espana, Cátedra.

  6. Heidegger, M. (1994). Hegel's phenomenology of spirit. Indiana University Press.

  7. Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of social and evolutionary systems, 15(4), 371-385.

  8. Morin, E. (1995). Complex thought. Gedisa. Madrid.

  9. Morin, E. (1999). Organization and complexity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879(1), 115-121.

  10. Martínez, F. L., & Londoño, J. E. (2012). Systemic thinking as a methodological tool for problem solving. Revista Soluciones de Postgrado, 4(8), 43-65.

  11. Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2010). Complexity theory and the politics of education. BRILL.

  12. Salazar, I. C. (2004). The paradigm of complexity in social research. Educere, 8(24), 22-25.

  13. Soto- Molina, J. E. (2019). Social representations, systemic thinking, and intercultural approach to language teaching. Entretextos, 13(24), 45-55.

  14. Soto-Molina, J. E. (2016). Epistemological and cognitive foundations of social and human research. Revista Cedotic, 1(1), 114-138.

  15. Soto, J. (2017). From an ontology of language towards an intercultural ethics of otherness. Amauta, 15(30), 135-150.

  16. Soto-Molina, J. E., Molina, M. K. R., & Vanegas, W. J. (2021). Notion of alterity in education as an emancipating experience of intercultural dialogue. Revista de filosofía, 295.

  17. Valencia López, E. (2007). On the sphere of morality in Hegel. Universidad Javeriana

bottom of page