According to Weaver and Olson (2006), paradigm is defined as the patterns of beliefs which regulate inquiry within a discipline while Taylor, Kermode and Roberts (2007) stated that a paradigm is a broad view or perspective of something. A paradigm consists of three fundamentals including the belief about the nature of knowledge, a methodology and the criteria for validity (Mac Naughton, Rolfe and Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). Overall, the function of paradigm is to express an idea and act as a tool to conduct normal science which allows it to be applied by
A vital ideology of participatory research is that it is research approach ‘with people’ rather than conducting ‘research on people’(Heron & Reason, 1997). Chamber (2012: 167) mentions “[Participatory paradigm ] can be drivers and means to personal, institutional, professional and social change [……] Practical priorities are: to foster methodological diversity and enrich the repertoire; […..] to institutionalize critical reflection and focused brainstorming”. Participatory paradigm allows understanding of people’s perspective as it is based on social reality and tries to find out a real solution of an original problem to ensure desirable change. In addition, it deals with the complexity of social settings and can promote a culture of social dialogue and influence policy to changing attitude. So it is applied, exploratory and action oriented.
From the definition of Miller (1998), the deductive argument is an argument intentional to be deductively valid, which means that, its role is to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the arguments premises or assumptions are true. In other way, a deductive argument, are intended to have a firm support for the conclusion. In constructing a deductive text, Fall (2004) cited ways to identify the deductive arguments. In a deductive argument, factual information are used to draw the conclusion. The premises are major assumptions of deductive reasoning, it may be assumptions the argument is built on; or to look at it in another way, and the reasons for accepting the argument.
CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Amidst the many issues that relate to knowledge, epistemology ask questions about how we acquire knowledge of the world, by analyzing the sources by which we acquire such knowledge . An ideal epistemology would be comprehensive and maximally explanatory of the concepts that are involved in the understanding of what knowledge is, how knowledge is acquired and how knowledge is justified. Epistemology, as the study of the theory of knowledge, asks three basic questions (i) what are the sources of knowledge? (ii) What is the nature of knowledge? (iii) Is our knowledge valid ?.
Systems Thinking for Project Management: A theoretical perspective for better understanding of its benefits Abstruct A system thinking is a holistic problem solving method in which system behavior emerges from the interaction of system components. The systems thinking, has been intimately connected with the development of OR and management science but limited effort made to integrate project management and system thinking to date. In spite of several developed methodologies, tools & techniques in project management still project fails. This paper aimed to investigate how the use of systems thinking in project management can help projects be more successful. Objectives:To summarize system thinking principles and tools and the criticisms of
Best outcomes are created when theories and methods are adopted to the context of the service user’s experience and understand what how they make meanings of those experiences. Good practice involves having a courage to challenge dominant beliefs, motivating users to initiate change in their behaviours and beliefs, delivering advocacy, practical and material support,
Furthermore, positivist researchers are believed to be impartial observers who can evaluate and predict actions or processes objectively. The criteria for judging the quality of such positivist studies as opposed to the interpretive and critical case studies, involve the traditional validity and reliability tests used in the natural sciences (Yin, 2003). Sixthly, Archer (1995) argued that social ontology plays a powerful regulatory role vis-`a-vis the explanatory methodology for the basic reason that it conceptualises social reality in certain terms, such that it helps identifying what there is to be explained and also ruling out explanations in terms of entities or properties which are deemed non-existent. Such consistency between the social ontology and explanatory methodology is a general requirement usually requiring two-way adjustment. This two-way adjustment requires a contingent ontology or philosophy in order to
Having a program theory can help understand the status of a program and can assist in identifying the type of evaluation that can be done and also if it is in the beginning of a program the design phase can use the program theory to ensure that preconditions for its success is put in place. It also helps in selecting the hypothesis to explore and measure in a systematic manner A sound program theory can help identify problems in the design whether in the theory of action or theory of change and help identify stages of implementation where monitoring and evaluation needs to be done by looking at critical aspects that are to be monitored with respect to inputs process outcomes and any key factors that may affect the outcome and to ensure that the program is working well and on track. It can also help identify key evaluation questions regarding the program. Thus, having a sound program theory will help us identify which part of the causal links failed and the reasons. It will help judge assumptions that were made during the design phase and help make judgements of whether a particular outcome needs to be evaluated as the activities were designed during the program theory and the various success criteria were defined along with the program and non-program factors for the intended outcome and since
The overall success of information security the system relies on the analysis of risks and threats so that appropriate protection mechanisms can are in place to protect them. However, the lack of appropriate risk analysis may potentially result failure of information security systems. The existing literature does not provide sufficient guidelines for a systematic process or the modeling language to support the analysis. This work aims to fill this gap by introducing the process and reasons for considering the risk of human