Ethics in doctorate research: A journey through research paradigms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15282/jgi.7.2.2024.10558Keywords:
Doctorate research, Ethical research, Research methodology, Ontology, EpistemologyAbstract
This study aims to explore the ethical research elements that doctorate students need to comply with in their research journey. This study will elucidate five philosophical paradigms in management research which are, positivism, critical realism, post modernism, interpretivism, and pragmatism. Examining critical aspects of positivism, critical realism, postmodernism, interpretivism, and pragmatism involved reviewing information from publications as part of the contextual analysis process. The research findings show there are five paradigm shifts in Business management studies and each of the paradigm have their uniqueness which assist the doctoral study to adopt and adapt the ethical research value their research process. The implication of this study will enhance the mastery of knowledge about the research paradigms. Hence, the doctorate students may have proper guideline in bring out their research ideas until research discussion with a well direction. Research paradigms known as the best research procedures to use when doing research in each of the paradigms under discussion were identified, along with suggested solutions to obstacles in this regard. It was recommended that prospective researchers be provided with suitable direction on selecting research paradigms for doctoral studies that comply with ethical standards. The research paradigm as one of the ways to comprehend the clear whole research direction including research design, research methodology, statistical analysis and etc.
References
Alharahsheh, H. H., & Pius, A. (2020). A Review of key paradigms: positivism VS interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 39–43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338244145
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103–126.
Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (1998). Critical realism Essential Readings. Routledge, London and New York.
Bailey, D. J. (2009). The Political Economy of European Social Democracy A Critical Realist Approach. Routledge, London.
Bhaskar, R. (2020). Critical realism and the ontology of persons. Journal of Critical Realism, 19(2), 113–120.
Biedenbach, T., & Jacobsson, M. (2016). The open secret of values: The roles of values and axiology. Project Management Journal, 47(3), 139–155.
Brock, T., & Carrigan, M. (2014). Realism and contingency. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 18.
Brown, M. E. L., & Dueñas, A. N. (2020). A medical science educator’s guide to selecting a research paradigm: Building a basis for better research. Medical Science Educator, 30(1), 545–553.
Bunniss, S., & Kelly, D. R. (2010). Research paradigms in medical education research. Medical Education, 44(4), 358–366.
Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1997). Postmodern Management Theory. Routledge, London.
Collier, A. (1994). Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. London: Verso.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitatives, quantatives and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications Inc.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Scaratti, G. (2017). Embedding impact in engaged research: Developing socially useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking. British Journal of Management, 28, 29–44.
Derrida, J. (2016). Of Grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Drolet, M. J., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, J. C., Ruest, M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2023). Ethical issues in research: Perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 269–292.
Ellaway, R. H. (2020). Postmodernism and Medical Education. Academic Medicine, 95(6), 856–859.
Fard, H. D. (2012). Research paradigms in public administration. The International Journal of Humanities, 19(4), 55–108.
Fuyane, N. (2021). Research methodology choice dilemma: A conceptual note to emerging researchers. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(2), 29–43.
Greenhalgh, T., Humphrey, C., Hughes, J., Macfarlane, F., Butler, C., & Pawson, R. A. Y. (2009). How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole‐scale transformation in London. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(2), 391-416.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Sage Publications, Inc.
Hölbl, M., Kompara, M., Kamišalić, A., & Zlatolas, L. N. (2018). A systematic review of the use of blockchain in healthcare. Symmetry, 10(10), 470.
Irshaidat, R. (2022). Interpretivism vs. positivism in political marketing research. Journal of Political Marketing, 21(2), 126-160.
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 138–146.
Kankam, P. K. (2019). The use of paradigms in information research. Library and Information Science Research, 41(2), 85–92.
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social sciences, 8(9), 255.
Khatri, K. K. (2020). Research paradigm: A philosophy of educational research. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(5), 1435–1440.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26.
Laumann, K. (2020). Criteria for qualitative methods in human reliability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 194, 106198.
Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting Economics. London: Routledge.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(3), 213–231.
Makombe, G. (2017). An expose of the relationship between paradigm, method and design in research. Qualitative Report, 22(12), 3363–3382.
Management research: An introduction. (London: Sa). (2002). London: Sage Publications. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=463064
Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Nguyen, T. A. N., & Rozsa, Z. (2019). Financial literacy and financial advice seeking for retirement investment choice. Journal of Competitiveness, 11(1), 70–83.
Okesina, M. (2020). A critical review of the relationship between paradigm, methodology, design and method in research. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 10(3), 57–68.
Østern, T. P., Jusslin, S., Nødtvedt Knudsen, K., Maapalo, P., & Bjørkøy, I. (2023). A performative paradigm for post-qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 23(2), 272–289.
Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality, Planning and Development, 2(3), 191–206.
Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (1998). Paradigms and problems: The practice of social science in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 11(3), 279–295.
Pawson, R. (2013). The Science of Evaluation. SAGE Publications.
Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge University Press.
Price, L., & Martin, L. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: applied critical realism in the social sciences. Journal of critical realism, 17(2), 89-96.
Rehman, A. A., & Alharthi, K. (2016). An introduction to research paradigms. International. Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(8), 51–59.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th Edition). Pearson Education Limited, Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson, New York.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Sciences: A Realist Approach. Routledge, London.
Sayer, A. (1997). Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 473–488.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16.
Scrambler, G. (2007). Critical realism, sociology and health inequalities: Social class as a generative mechanism and its media of enactment. Journal of Critical Realism, 4(1), 35–42.
Siddiqui, S. (2019). Research paradigms: Their assumptions and relevance. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(5), 254–265.
Vass, D. E. (2010). The causal power of social structures (Issue June 2010). Cambridge University Press.
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 69–80.
Walker, T. (2017). Approaches to critical realism: Bhaskar and Lonergan. Journal of Critical Realism, 16(2), 111–127.
Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used for nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 459–469.
Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Greenhalgh, J., Manzano, A., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2017). Quality and reporting standards, resources, training materials and information for realist evaluation: the RAMESES II project. Health Services and Delivery Research, 5(28).
Xu, M., Chen, X., & Kou, G. (2019). A systematic review of blockchain. Financial Innovation, 5(1).
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on Blockchain technology? - A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(10), 1–27.
Zhang, T. (2023). Critical realism: A critical evaluation critical realism: A critical evaluation. Social Epistemology, 37(1), 15–29.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
