Double Knowing: The Value of Bridging Dual Research Paradigms for Social Change.

Abstract

Abstract: Methodological choices carry political consequences and real-world effects in research that seeks to advance justice. The epistemic and ontological grounding of a study shapes what researchers can know, and what they can change. Scholars who produce research with an aim to improve the world for disabled people and other equity-denied groups have debated the utility of certain paradigms and approaches, often arguing that one is superior to another in order to realize these aims. In this research methods paper, the authors set out to offer another view. They discuss their recent approach to analyzing a single dataset of survey responses from a national sample of medical students with disabilities, using two different orientations to reflexive thematic analysis: critical realist/contextualist and relativist/constructionist. They illustrate how each orientation, operating from a different paradigmatic position, generates distinct interpretations and implications. Engaging with debates from disability studies, feminist research, and health professions education, the authors argue that our field of disability inclusion in health professions education research and social justice research more broadly needs pragmatic solutions and exploration of underpinning discourses to achieve a grand project of social change-only possible through the exercise of multiple paradigmatic positions.