02-16-2014, 03:09 PM
The modernist, deductive research paradigm is not the only paradigm in social science research (and I'm referring mainly to the OP of this thread which was comparison between biologically based and bio+environmentally based investigation of a phenomenon called addiction). There are postmodern, inductive research paradigms that attempt to capture the complexity of a phenomenon like addiction. Biologically based, statistically based, modernist research misses out on the complexity of the whole addiction phenomenon bc it is reduced to several factors only (brain/neurochemistry, etc).
The problem is that it's difficult to learn - you either get postmodern/post-postmodern paradigms or you don't. I dunno why the schism but something as simple of observing how one's biases influences interactions with others is a difficult task for most. I've observed this among graduate students I've mentored as a teaching assistant and in the professional world. In postmodern research paradigms you have to basically lay out your biases, agendas, assumptions, - all the good stuff- and begin to notice how even asking certain questions to others can affect your findings. It recognizes that the person collecting data is a part of the result, too.
The problem is that it's difficult to learn - you either get postmodern/post-postmodern paradigms or you don't. I dunno why the schism but something as simple of observing how one's biases influences interactions with others is a difficult task for most. I've observed this among graduate students I've mentored as a teaching assistant and in the professional world. In postmodern research paradigms you have to basically lay out your biases, agendas, assumptions, - all the good stuff- and begin to notice how even asking certain questions to others can affect your findings. It recognizes that the person collecting data is a part of the result, too.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)