Interpretivisim (Naturalism)

The ontological perspective of interpretive paradigm is based on relativism. As Crotty(2009, p.

43) touches on "what is said to be the way things are is really just the sense we make of them ."
In other words, an individual may interpret the same phenomenon differently.Interpretivists
believe that the reality is not a fact out there, needed to be found but it is constructed in peoples'
mind.
The epistemological view of interpretivisits is constructionism. This is what Crotty defines as
"the view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon
human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their
world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.
Naturalistic is neither deductive nor inductive in nature. Instead it is an interpretive process of
constructing a worldview regarding a specific issue based on how well he/she can individually
interpret it. This is what Greener (2011, p. 15) terms as "abductive". As it would suggest that
although the reality exists independent of our conceptions of it, our interpretation of it might be
different from individual to individual or group to group. It aims to advance personal knowledge,
to understand and make sense of the world or to interpret the social reality through individuals'
perspectives which is inductive in nature. Therefore, epistemologically speaking, interpretivism
bases itself on the "objective knowledge of an individual" rather than an "absolutism" in
positivism. To draw comparative conclusions, Grixs(2004, p. 82) sees the positivists seeking
objectivity while interpretivits believe in subjectivity; the positivists tending to model their
research on the natural sciences while the interpretivists believe there is a clear distinction to be
made between the natural and social world, and therefore we need methodology and methods of
gathering data that are more in tune with the subjects we are studying. In addition, a naturalistic
is different from a scientific one in terms of methodology, where the naturalists make use of
qualitative and case studies to respond sensitivity to individuals and contexts. In the following
their methodology is given in brief.

Pragmatism
The glass is half full or half empty? Either answer would make us fall under one specific
paradigm. Yet, to a pragmatist, the usage of the glass and its both empty and full portions matter.
This " logic in use" (Kaplan,1964) is what that mingles the theory and practice in order to reach a
more applicable approach towards the outside world. Not taken as a paradigm by many,
pragmatism, to my understanding, is more of a mixed-model nature that strives to maintain the
balance in theory so as to reach the most effective outcome practice-wise.
Paradigms are different in terms of their ontological and epistemological bases, which, in turn,
lead to different ways of understanding. To achieve a better understanding of a phenomenon, one
would want to adopt a number of different views rather than only one.

The necessity for a mixed model is also vivid in, Gage's (1989, p. 7) remark that the
"philosophical analysis resulted in a triumph of pragmatic resolutions of paradigm differences
over claims of exclusive possession of one true paradigm." In short, it is understood that nothing
about objective-quantitative research precluded the description and analysis of classroom
processes with interpretive-qualitative method. The researchers realized that they all share the
same ideal; that is social or educational development. Hence, no matter whether a research is
done based on positivism, interpretivism, or critical orientation, the importance is to achieve the
goal effectively. As Maxcy (2003) points out " taking a pragmatic and balanced or pluralist
position will help improve communication among researchers from different paradigms as they
attempt to advance knowledge." (qtd. in Burke, J., & Onweuegbuzie,A. 2004, p. 16).

Burke & Onweuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) believe that "if two ontological positions about the
mind/body problem (e.g. monism versus dualism), for example, do not make a difference in how
we conduct our research then the distinction is, for practical purposes, not very meaningful."
They believe that some philosophical differences may lead to important practical consequences
while many others may not. Although mixed model or pragmatism may not put an end to
philosophical debates, it could be productive because it offers an immediate and useful middle
position philosophically and methodologically. A major source of justification for mixed model
research is to "mix qualitative and quantitative approaches within or across the stages of research
process" in order to confirm and also to understand the phenomena at the level of
conceptualization. What still strikes many here about this conceptualization is that how on earth
it is possible to mingle two different entities at their conceptual level. It is up to researchers to
select monomethod, mixed method, or mixed model with respect to their underlying research
questions.