Perspective | Positivist | Constructivist | Realist | Critical | Performative |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assumptions about what [research] knowledge is | Facts (especially statements on relationships between variables), independent of researchers and transferable to new contexts | Explanations/interpretations of a situation or phenomenon, considering the historical, cultural and social context | Studies of how people interpret external reality, producing statements on ‘what works for whom in what circumstances’ | Studies that reveal society’s inherent conflicts and injustices and give people the tools to challenge their oppression | Knowledge is brought into being and enacted in practice by actor-networks of people and technologies |
Assumed purpose of research | Predictive generalisations (‘laws’) | Meaning: perhaps in a single, unique case | Theoretical generalisation (what tends to work and why) | Learning, emancipation, challenge | To map the changing dynamics of actor-networks |
Preferred research methods | Hypothesis-testing; experiments; modelling and measurement | Naturalistic inquiry (i.e. in real-world conditions) | Predominantly naturalistic, may combine quantitative and qualitative data | Participatory [action] research | Naturalistic, with a focus on change over time and network [in]stability |
Assumed way to achieve quality in research | Hierarchy of preferred study designs; standardised instruments to help eliminate bias | Reflexive theorising; consideration of multiple interpretations; dialogue and debate | Abduction (what kind of reasoning by human actors could explain these findings in this context?) | Measures to address power imbalances (ethos of democracy, conflict management); research capacity building in community partner(s) | Richness of description; plausible account of the network and how it changes over time |
Assumed relationship between science and values | Science is inherently value-neutral (though research can be used for benign or malevolent motives) | Science can never be value-neutral; the researcher’s perspective must be made explicit | Facts are interpreted and used by people who bring particular values and views | Science must be understood in terms of what gave rise to it and the interests it serves | Controversial; arguably, Actor-Network Theory is consistent with a value-laden view of science |
Assumed mechanism through which impact is achieved | Direct (new knowledge will influence practice and policy if the principles and methods of implementation science are followed) | Mainly indirect (e.g. via interaction/enlightenment of policymakers and influencing the ‘mindlines’ of clinicians) | Interaction between reasoning (of policymakers, practitioners, etc.) and resources available for implementing findings | Development of critical consciousness; partnership-building; lobbying; advocacy | ‘Translations’ (stable changes in the actor-network), achieved by actors who mobilise other actors into new configurations |
Implications for the study of research impact | ‘Logic models’ will track how research findings (transferable facts about what works) are disseminated, taken up and used for societal benefit | Outcomes of social interventions are unpredictable; impact studies should focus on ‘activities and interactions’ to build relations with policymakers | Impact studies should address variability in uptake and use of research by exploring context-mechanism-outcome-impact configurations | Impact has a political dimension; research may challenge the status quo; some stakeholders stand to lose power, whereas others may gain | For research to have impact, a re-alignment of actors (human/technological) is needed; focus on the changing ‘actor-scenario’ and how this gets stabilised in the network |