Reply to at least 2 Discussions, in at least 250 words each, building upon the original thread or offering a contrasting viewpoint.
The replies must be substantive, using at least two scholarly resources, 1 biblical integration, and must further the discussion for each response.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to;
Key Concepts
People have different perceptions and experiences that shape their beliefs about the world. Scientists have categorized these worldviews into four paradigms: positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and pragmaticism. For many years, positivism had been the standard philosophical view of natural science. Its features include belief in observation and experience as the real sources of objective knowledge, separation of science and values, basing science on quantitative data, and the founding of scientific propositions on facts, among other things (Robson & McCartan, 2016). Post-positivism is an improvement to positivism. It relies heavily on quantitative methods. Constructivism expresses those interactions between people (not separate experiences) construct social properties (Robson & McCartan, 2016). That is, meaning does not exist in its own right; humans construct it as they engage and interact with each other, interpreting their collective experiences. This view suggests that meaning can change as people’s interactions and interpretations of events are dynamic. Pragmaticism is another view of the earth. The general use of the word suggests a concern for practical matters or being guided by practical experience instead of theory (Robson & McCartan, 2016). In most cases, this approach is congenial to real-world researchers concerned with completing a job (that is, answering the problems they face). Stakeholders and funders can also enforce and push pragmaticism onto a researcher involved in real-world phenomenon investigations.
Comparison
There are some similarities and differences between the four perspectives about the world highlighted in the previous paragraph. One of these similarities is that these perspectives are utilizable in research (the scientific process of seeking knowledge objectively). Another similarity between these approaches is that they are subject to change with time (Keller & Alsdorf, 2014). In the past, positivism was the main process researchers sought and found information. As more information has become available, positivism is no longer the dominant perspective. In its place stands post-positivism. The main difference between the four perspectives is their core elements and features. Some dominant features include believing that people can only find objective knowledge through observation and experience in positivism. In post-positivism, the main feature is that people can only know reality probabilistically and imperfectly (Keller & Alsdorf, 2014). Although a single objective reality might exist, people will never fully understand it. In constructivism, the main idea is that people actively construct knowledge rather than passively take in information. In this regard, constructivists believe that individuals determine their reality. Lastly, pragmaticism focuses on the problem rather than the view of reality.
My Philosophical World View and Impact on Research Approach
Constructivism most closely aligns with my worldview. I believe that people construct knowledge rather than passively take the information. I have used the information I gain from external sources to build my understanding of the world for most of my life. This construction of knowledge occurs through experience and is perhaps the most important occurrence in one’s life (Keller & Alsdorf, 2014). Without a constructivist approach, people’s information from the world is useless because it is rigid and unbendable. Constructivism makes it possible to contextualize information and adjust depending on personal experiences. The impact of this personal belief on research is that it makes me focus on using the information gained to expand on my understanding of the world. When I conduct research, my hope is not to find new information for the sake of it. Instead, I hope to find information that I can utilize and comprehend the things that happen around me. If the information I gain from a field study is difficult to consume, then that information is not helpful. I also believe that as a researcher, the information I gain depends on me (due to subjectivity). No matter how objective one tries to become, there is always a risk of becoming biased while collecting and analyzing information. For this reason, the outcomes of two similar types of research will never be 100 percent similar.
Biblical Integration
Constructivism resonates with the scriptures in various ways. For example, the Bible in Genesis 1:26 says that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. It means that humans can create and change the world to make it more comfortable for their habitation. This process of creating anything resonates with the constructivist idea of humans creating knowledge rather than passively utilizing information. In Romans 8:29, the Bible says, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Thus, from a Biblical perspective, humans are creative beings capable of synthesizing information and creating a new reality from them.
