I'm glad you found it useful. You may also want to check this out - it is my preprint paper about paradigms which you can cite in your thesis. doi.org/10.26180/27013843
I don't understand why they would be mutually exclusive 🤔Because surely, people interpret the world differently BECAUSE they have constructed their knowledge differently? Maybe I am just misunderstanding.
While they are both ontologically the same (relativism - multiple realities), they are epistemologically different. Both understand that knowledge cannot be fully known because it exists in the minds of individual people, but constructivism sees this knowledge as socially constructed while interpretivism sees the knowledge as people's individual interpretations of their lived realities. Constructivists co-construct meaning with their participants in order to enact a change in their society by better understanding the ways a particular context is shaping individuals' experiences. Interpretivists focus on letting the participants speak for themselves in order to better understand that individual person's lived reality (not to change it). Since they have different epistemologies and purposes, they cannot be used together.
Either one would be suitable for decolonising research. The main thing would be to ensure that the theories/concepts you choose do not reinforce colonial thinking. For example, you may choose a theoretical framework that is based in a non-Western understanding of the world. Alternatively, you may choose to create a conceptual framework based on concepts from different theories to better reflect a non-colonial understanding of a concept or issue.
Regarding choosing a theoretical framework, you usually do this by exploring which other theories have been used in your field as well as based on your own view of the world. I've recently written about theoretical and conceptual frameworks and how you can choose them. You can see that here: www.lynettepretorius.com/the_scholars_way_blog/theoretical-and-conceptual-frameworks-in-research/ The video's concepts talked about the second part - how you see the world (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology) shapes your choice of research paradigm. You can read more about that here: www.lynettepretorius.com/the_scholars_way_blog/demystifying-research-paradigms/
Thank you for the wonderful clarification between the two paradigms.
You're very welcome :)
This just clarified so much for me! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful! :)
Thanks so much for this closer explanation! I was getting in a twist between the two for my dissertation
I'm glad you found it useful. You may also want to check this out - it is my preprint paper about paradigms which you can cite in your thesis. doi.org/10.26180/27013843
❤much appreciated ❤ thank you! 🙏
You are welcome :)
Thank you so much for the very clear and concise explanation :)
You're very welcome! :)
Really thank you , you are so cool, address an issue that confused me so many days
You are very welcome! :)
I still confused and I guess you are Chinese, so can I discuss with you about the differences between them
Thank you, very clear and concise.
I don't understand why they would be mutually exclusive 🤔Because surely, people interpret the world differently BECAUSE they have constructed their knowledge differently? Maybe I am just misunderstanding.
While they are both ontologically the same (relativism - multiple realities), they are epistemologically different. Both understand that knowledge cannot be fully known because it exists in the minds of individual people, but constructivism sees this knowledge as socially constructed while interpretivism sees the knowledge as people's individual interpretations of their lived realities. Constructivists co-construct meaning with their participants in order to enact a change in their society by better understanding the ways a particular context is shaping individuals' experiences. Interpretivists focus on letting the participants speak for themselves in order to better understand that individual person's lived reality (not to change it). Since they have different epistemologies and purposes, they cannot be used together.
@@LynettePretoriusMonash I see, thank you (:
@@LynettePretoriusMonash this one helped a lot.
Thanks for the question.
Which one do you think is more suitable for decolonising research?
Either one would be suitable for decolonising research. The main thing would be to ensure that the theories/concepts you choose do not reinforce colonial thinking. For example, you may choose a theoretical framework that is based in a non-Western understanding of the world. Alternatively, you may choose to create a conceptual framework based on concepts from different theories to better reflect a non-colonial understanding of a concept or issue.
@@LynettePretoriusMonash thank you for replying to my comment.
However, i am still a bit lost regarding the choosing of a theoretical framework.
Regarding choosing a theoretical framework, you usually do this by exploring which other theories have been used in your field as well as based on your own view of the world. I've recently written about theoretical and conceptual frameworks and how you can choose them. You can see that here: www.lynettepretorius.com/the_scholars_way_blog/theoretical-and-conceptual-frameworks-in-research/ The video's concepts talked about the second part - how you see the world (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology) shapes your choice of research paradigm. You can read more about that here: www.lynettepretorius.com/the_scholars_way_blog/demystifying-research-paradigms/
@@LynettePretoriusMonash oh wonderful. Thank you so much. I'll definitely give these a read. Thank you.
You are very welcome! :)
this is great. Thanks a lot!
Glad you liked it! :)
This is articulate 🎉 3:07
I'm glad you found it useful :D
this helped a lot, thanks
thanks alot ..
great, I have gained a lot I used to mix them up