Rejecting Choices: The Problematic Origins of Researcher-Defined Paradigms within Qualitative Research

Paradigms are often presented as a way of distinguishing various qualitative and experimental research approaches. But carefully tracing their adoption through the work of Egon Guba, we can see that the model of researcher-defined paradigms used within qualitative research also arose from the replacement of a more open conception of naturalistic inquiry (N/I); the anthropomorphizing of ideal research types; the inclusion of the subject matter in the characterization of different types of researchers; that it is the inclusion of the subject matter in Guba’s conception of a naturalistic inquirer that necessitates his appeal to philosophy (i.e., ontology and epistemology) as the basis for selecting methodology; and that by doing so Guba violates his own concerns about researchers choosing their methodology before considering their subject matter, something that he referred to as the law of the hammer. The adoption of researcher-defined paradigms also rejects the position that the appropriateness of a methodological approach, including N/I and qualitative approaches, is primarily determined by the subject matter and researcher’s objectives, something Patton has referred to as the paradigm of choices. This review of the origins of researcher-defined paradigms problematizes and defamiliarizes this core concept within some models of qualitative research. Given that Guba’s model and its appeal to philosophy as the basis for selecting methodology still underlies a fundamental division within conceptions of qualitative inquiry, reconsidering its development and potential alternatives will allow current researchers to better appreciate the model of qualitative research they choose to work under.