Paradigmas, enfoques y métodos de investigación: un análisis teórico y metodológico sistemático Paradigms, approaches and research methods: a systematic theoretical and methodological analysis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Contemporary scientific research is characterized by a diversity of paradigms, approaches, and methods that, while enriching our understanding of reality, also pose challenges in methodological coherence and the appropriate selection for each object of study. This article presents a systematic theoretical review and an in-depth methodological analysis of the main paradigms (positivist, interpretive, critical, pragmatist), approaches (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), and research methods (hypothetical-deductive, inductive, deductive, emergent). The aim is to offer conceptual clarification and guidance for the rigorous application of these tools in research. Through a systematic literature review, scientific articles published in high-impact databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO over the past 10–15 years were analyzed. The findings reveal trends in the adoption of mixed approaches and the emergence of innovative methodologies, highlighting the need for a contextualized and critical understanding of methodological options. It is concluded that the choice of paradigm, approach, and method should be a reflective and justified process, aligned with the nature of the research problem and the proposed objectives, thus contributing to the robustness and validity of scientific studies.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Babbie, E. R. (2016). The Practice of Social Research(14th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods(5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What Is This Thing Called Science?(3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., & Gilbert, N. (Eds.). (1995). Artificial Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Life. UCL Press.
Cath, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the 'good society': The social dimensions of AI ethics.AI & Society, 33(4), 503-518. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-017-0802-5
Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2016). Introduction to Logic(14th ed.). Pearson.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research(3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9882-y
De Franco, M. F. (2020). Paradigmas, enfoques y métodos de investigación: análisis teórico.Mundo FESC, 10(2), 1-15. Recuperado de https://www.atlantic.edu.ec/ojs/index.php/mundor/article/view/38
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research(5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X032001005
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt and Company.
Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research(6th ed.). Sage Publications
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. DOI: 10.3102/01623737011003255
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Sage Publications
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Beacon Press.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall.
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. Bloomsbury Academic.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
Kitchin, R. (2014). The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Smart Cities and Their Dark Sides. Sage Publications.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 279-310). Sage Publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.
Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015).Understanding Research: A Consumer's Guide(2nd ed.). Pearson.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Sage Publications.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ, 372, n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 86-99. DOI: 10.1177/1558689803251769
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods(3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed methods research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(2), 104-121. DOI: 10.1177/1558689813504826
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research(4th ed.). Sage Publications
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage Publications.
Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The Research Methods Knowledge Base(3rd ed.). Atomic Dog Publishing.
Wisdom, J. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Publication No. 13-0027-EF. Rockville, MD.