Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The ontological view or presumption that all human traits and acts are guided by one reality irrespective of context and individuals underpin the post-positivist paradigm, which is similar to the positivist paradigm. From it, four main directions can be determined transformational, pragmatic, constructivist, and post-positivistic. Additionally, there are mixed methods, which can be represented in cases where a researcher employs both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Because it is so versatile, a mixed methods approach is frequently employed in software evaluation (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Consequently, analyzing and highlighting certain paradigms is the critical point of this personal statement which will cover the main favorable and unfavorable directions for evaluation and coherence with my traits.
Directions regarding Coherence
First, it is essential to address the paradigm which suits my worldview and inner values the most. The transformational method is based on the understanding that inequality and injustice are widespread and that thorough evaluation is critical for combating these societal problems. This paradigm asserts that research and assessment may and should play an explicit role in recognizing and eliminating discrimination and marginalization, as described by researchers. Race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, sexual preference, socioeconomic position, age, and disability are all factors in the latter. The lead to innovation draws on various theoretical views to give an overarching framework for categorizing them (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Feminist, indigenous, imperialist, queer, legislation and critical theory scholars are primarily concerned with the concerns of specific populations. In the case of personal views, this paradigms principles correspond most closely to my views and perspectives on society and the evaluation of personal positions. Thus, the transformational paradigm is the one that resonates with my worldview the most.
On the other hand, the pragmatic paradigm is a way of thinking that focuses on what works rather than on what is absolutely and objectively true or real. The assumption that social inquiry might reach truths about the natural world through a single scientific technique was dismissed by early pragmatists. These pragmatists claimed that the effects of truth might be used to judge it. When a mixture of different methodologies is philosophically inconsistent, the pragmatic paradigm might help guide study design (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019, p. 255). When it comes to solving research challenges, pragmatism embraces a flexible approach. According to pragmatism, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to an issue, but a combination of approaches can assist solve an issue and uncovering the truth. Pragmatists think that there is no such thing as a single reality but that there are different realities. The pragmatic paradigm employs positivism and interpretivism to find solutions to issues. However, its overall ideology and the acceptance of truths effects do not correlate with my traits; consequently, this methodology is minor in corresponding to me and my criteria. As a result, this conceptual framework suggests a mixed-methods study methodology.
Evaluations Usage Methodologies
Nevertheless, when it comes to the evaluation process, different requirements have to be fulfilled. In this case, my choice is represented by constructivism, a hypothesis that addresses how people learn based on experience and scientific research. According to this theory, people develop their perspective and understanding of the world by exploring life and thinking about those experiences. When people come upon anything new, they must reconcile it with their previous beliefs and expectations, which may require them to change their principles or dismiss the new knowledge as irrelevant (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Constructivism is sometimes misunderstood as a learning philosophy that requires pupils to reinvent the wheel. Constructivism, in reality, feeds into and stimulates a students natural curiosity about the environment and how life works (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Students do not try to recreate the wheel; instead, they try to figure out how it works. Thus, they become engaged by using their foreknowledge and actual experiences, learning hypotheses, verifying their ideas, and forming conclusions based on their results. This, in turn, demonstrates the main reason for my usage of the described paradigm.
Though, there are additional benefits of constructivism that should be addressed. Through problem-solving, students learn to consider various perspectives on a topic or situation. Students diversity in thinking and reasoning skills grows as they examine and contrast a variety of possibilities to arrive at their conclusions. Students rely on their prior knowledge and experience when seeking to solve a problem. As a result, students regularly integrate new knowledge into their existing knowledge, providing context and constructing a personalized storage area of resources for future problem-solving needs.
People learn to develop links and associations by connecting the subject at hand to their own life experiences. They learn how to use statistics and logic to back up their stories and synthesize information from a range of sources to draw conclusions and evaluate them. Youths learn the question of expertise and suggestions by contrasting and comparing various concepts and situations. Individual reflection is promoted as a means for learners to organize and grasp their surroundings. Students develop insights and make conclusions when they ponder on a topic or an investigation project, allowing them to go over the simple gathering of knowledge and facts by understanding how to discern implications and use them in new situations.
On the contrary, the paradigm I would like to use least is the above-described pragmatism. As noted earlier, its understanding of truth and its effects seriously contradicts my internal views. Consequently, with this attitude, it becomes impossible to trust the evaluation results built based on the views represented by this orientation. Key disadvantages of pragmatism are an additional factor in favor of my lack of support. These factors include the time necessary to prepare and execute the investigations may be longer than the more standard paradigms. There may be difficult-to-interpret differences between multiple data sources.
Furthermore, these issues arise from the same issues linked to an integral part of the chosen topic. Specifically, pragmatists think that there is only one real universe, but multiple individuals can have different perspectives. Positivism, on the other hand, holds that there is only one truth that can be addressed in one manner. Pragmatists look at peoples behaviors in the context of their acts. The pragmatic one seeks knowledge based on the conditions around the phenomena.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the personal statement demonstrated my attitude and utilization of each of the paradigms. The transformational type, which best describes my views and attitudes, was considered, while its antipode, in this case, is pragmatism. Constructivism was identified as the most convenient method for evaluation due to the benefits listed in the previous section. In contrast to it, however, pragmatism was named again, as its fundamental rules connected with the interpretation of the notion of truth contradict mine. However, the prioritization may change the choice of methodologies to use in the future.
References
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255256. Web.
Martins & Wilson (2012). Paradigms & methods [Slides]. The Name of the Website Where the Presentation Is Hosted. The link to the website where the presentation is hosted
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.