QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE PARADIGMS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

“In practice we end up acting as if the only acceptable knowledge were that which
obeys unique methodological principles”

(Perez, 1994)

1. INTRODUCTION

The controversy raised between qualitative and quantitative methods is not recent. The
established debate not only raises the existing disagreement, at the same time it
represents a basic clash between methodological paradigms.

Obviously, both have marked differences; While the quantitative paradigm uses a causal,
correlational analysis method, the qualitative paradigm uses a descriptive and interpretive
analysis method.

While the first gives more importance to the objective, understood as what is measurable,
the second is more interested in the use of VERSTEHEN, understood as “understanding ”.
In short, each research model has its own characteristics, its areas of use, its advantages
and disadvantages. It is worth mentioning that there is no paradigm that constitutes the
absolute solution to the problems posed in the research, but rather each of them
constitutes different ways of carrying out an investigation.

Here we present a conceptualization of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms, their

main characteristics, a contrast between both models and the possibility of coexistence
between them and their complementary use, constituting interdependent orientations.

However, it must be noted that we are faced with an epistemological problem regarding
scientific knowledge and access to it, as it is relative to each historical moment; This
relativism is a stimulus to continue researching in the search for broader and more stable
knowledge. However, it must be considered that scientific knowledge aims to overcome
“common sense”, seeking and generating founded, argued and reasoned justifications that
overcome intersubjectivities, so that it is accepted beyond the subject who presents them.

Scientific knowledge is cautious and avoids haste, that is, it suspends judgment until
evidence is found; In this sense it is separated from vulgar, non-scientific or pre-scientific
knowledge, e.g. the myth, therefore, for science there is nothing irrefutable. This
delimitation does not imply a value judgment about non-scientific knowledge. Even when
science does not explain everything, it aims to reach the deepest and ultimate reasons for
its object of study. Although myth or “popular” knowledge has historically been defeated, it
does not mean that this is always the case.

It is convenient to advance some characteristics of scientific knowledge, namely, its

provisionality , a condition that comes from applying criticism and which leads to scientific
knowledge being permanently revised and evolving; On the other hand, this quality means
a certain degree of humility, in that it recognizes that scientific knowledge is not definitive
and it is possible to deepen, improve, and specify the findings found; The history of
science and its development is full of examples in this regard. Even when the changes are

1
never radical and immediate, there is a succession of paradigms, that is, theories and
laws.

Another characteristic is its systematism , since scientific knowledge is intertwined with

each other; It is precisely these interrelationships that give meaning to theories, structure
laws and are represented by models.

Scientific knowledge is practical, in that it seeks to explain the phenomena under

study. Another characteristic is objectivity , about which we will refer extensively on
another occasion, since in itself it represents a focus for discussion, reflection and
more extensive and complex development.

Finally, we can say that the use of its own language is characteristic of scientific
knowledge; In this sense, it differs from vulgar knowledge because it uses a
language different from the common one; Scientific language is economical, since it
aspires to maximum communication - clear, precise and exact - in the minimum
number of terms. What's more, each discipline has been building and amassing its
own language.

2.- CONCEPT OF PARADIGM.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922 - 1996)

American historian and philosopher of science, known for his contribution to the changing
direction of scientific philosophy and sociology in the 1960s. He was born in Cincinnati,
Ohio, and received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Theoretical Physics in 1949. He
oriented himself toward historical science and the philosophy of science, which he would
teach at Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton, and Massachusetts.

In 1962, Kuhn published “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” where he explained the
evolution of basic natural sciences in a way that differed substantially from the most
widespread view at the time. According to Kuhn, sciences do not progress following a
uniform process through the application of a hypothetical scientific method.

Instead, two different phases of scientific development occur. At first, there is a broad
consensus in the scientific community on how to exploit the advances made in the past to
address existing problems, thus creating universal solutions that Kuhn called “paradigms.”
In a second moment, new theories and research tools are sought as the previous ones
stop working effectively. If a theory is shown to be superior to existing ones, then it is
accepted and a “scientific revolution” occurs. Such revolutionary ruptures bring with them a
change in scientific concepts, problems, solutions and methods, that is, new “paradigms”.
Although these paradigmatic changes are never total, they make scientific development at
these points of confluence something discontinuous; It is said that the old theory and the
new are incommensurable with respect to each other. Such incommensurability means
that the comparison of the two theories is more complicated than the simple confrontation
of contradictory predictions with respect to each other.

Kuhn's book has provoked extensive and controversial discussion in numerous disciplines
and has exerted enormous influence. In response to criticism, he has corrected and
expanded his theory, indicating that all science is shaped over time with the contributions

2
of the scientific community that contributes not only to new cumulative knowledge, but also
to qualitative changes, new changes of perspective with the creation of new paradigms
that open new horizons for science, conceived, therefore, as something open and under
evaluation.

To further clarify the term Paradigm, the following conceptualizations are presented:

From the Greek “for deigma”, example, model. The concept was introduced by JS Kuhn in
the field of the theory of science, to classify the eternal controversy about science.

“It is a cultural phenomenon, since behind this legitimacy there are evaluations that are
stipulated as assumptions that are taken for granted” (Kuhn, Thomas; The structure of
Scientific Revolutions, page 33).

“It represents a disciplinary matrix that encompasses commonly shared generalizations,

assumptions, values, beliefs, and examples of what constitutes the interest of the
discipline. (T. d. Cook, CH.S. Reichadt; Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation
research; p. 60).

“It serves as a guide for professionals in a discipline because it indicates what problems
and important issues it faces” (T. d. Cook, CH. S. Reichadt; Qualitative and quantitative
methods in evaluation research; p. 61).

“It is oriented toward the development of an explanatory scheme (that is, models and
theories) that can place these questions and these problems in a framework that will allow
professionals to try to solve them” (T. d. Cook, CH. S. Reichadt; Qualitative and
quantitative methods in evaluation research; p. 61).

“It establishes the criteria for the use of appropriate tools (that is, methodologies,
instruments and types and forms of data collection) in solving these disciplinary enigmas”
(T. d. Cook, CH. S. Reichadt; Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research;
p. 61).

“It provides an epistemology in which the preceding tasks can be considered as organizing
principles for carrying out the “normal work” of the discipline” (T. d. Cook, CH. S. Reichadt;
Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research; p. 61).

"Not only do they allow a discipline to clarify different types of phenomena, but they
provide a framework in which such phenomena can first be identified as existing" (T. d.
Cook, CH. S. Reichadt; Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research; p.
61).

In a very real sense, to understand a paradigm one must understand the processes by
which it was “discovered,” that is, how the paradigm came to be the model for considering
a given phenomenon.

2.1.- Characteristics of the Paradigm

 Optimality.

3
  Coherence.

 Stability.

 Constant possibility of transformation.

 Possibility of relationship with other fields.

3.- QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM

This approach to reality comes from the natural and agronomic sciences and has a great
tradition in the Anglo-Saxon and French spheres with repercussions in other countries.

Based on the positivist theory of knowledge that began in the 19th and early 20th centuries
with authors such as Comte and Durkheim.

It has been imposed as a scientific method in the natural sciences and later in education.

The quantitative nature is intended to ensure the precision and rigor required by science,
philosophically rooted in positivism.

Contemporary Positivism adheres, according to Landshere (1982), to the fundamental

principles.

 The unity of Science.

 The research methodology must be from the exact, mathematical and physical
sciences.

 Scientific explanation is causal in the broad sense and consists of subordinating

particular cases to general laws.

This Paradigm has received other names, such as:

 Rationalist.

 Positivist.

 Scientist - naturalist

 Scientific - technological and

 Managerial systematic.

3.1.- Characteristics of the Quantitative Paradigm

 Pay more attention to the similarities than the differences.

 Try to find the real causes of the phenomena.

4
  Model designed to explain, control and predict phenomena.

 It starts from a given and somewhat static reality that can be fragmented for study.

 Objectivity is the most important thing (what is measurable), the subjective is

outside of all scientific research.

 The researcher must be independent.

 The researcher's values should not interfere with the problem to be studied.

 The epistemological approach of this approach is based on the “unity of the

scientific method.”

 It adopts the hypothetical deductive model, uses quantitative and statistical

methods, and is based on observable phenomena susceptible to measurement,
mathematical analysis and experimental control. All social phenomena are
categorized into variables between which statistical relationships are established.

 Society is not studied one by one, with peculiarities; The starting point is a
representative sample, based on the laws of chance in order to generalize the
results to other populations.

 Scientific rigor and credibility are based on internal validity.

 The procedures used are:

 Experimental control.

 Systematic observation of behavior.

 The correlation of variables.

 It implies a restricted vision of reality.

 This paradigm adopts the generalization of processes.

 It rejects concrete and unrepeatable situational aspects of special relevance for the
explanation of certain phenomena and situations.

 It emphasizes the scientific verification of data and the search for effectiveness.

 The object of study adapts to the method.

 Seeks to increase knowledge.

4.- QUALITATIVE PARADIGM

5
It arises as an alternative to the rationalist paradigm since there are problematic issues
and restrictions that cannot be explained or understood in their entire existence from a
quantitative perspective, such as cultural phenomena , which are more susceptible to
qualitative description and analysis than quantitative one.

This new approach arises fundamentally from anthropology, ethnography, symbolic

interaction, etc.

Various perspectives and currents have contributed to the development of this new era of
research whose assumptions coincide in what has been called hermeneutic paradigm,
symbolic interpretation, etc. or phenomenological. The promoters of these assumptions
were, first of all, the German school, with Dilthey, Husserl, Baden, etc. Authors such as
Mead, Schutz, Berger, Luckman and Blumer have also contributed to the development of
this paradigm.

On the other hand, the qualitative paradigm has a decidedly humanist foundation to
understand the social reality of the idealist position that highlights an evolutionary and
negotiated conception of the social order. The qualitative paradigm perceives social life as
the shared creativity of individuals. The fact that it is shared determines a reality perceived
as objective, living and knowable for all participants in social interaction. Furthermore, the
social world is neither fixed nor static but changing, mutable, dynamic. The qualitative
paradigm does not conceive the world as an external force, objectively identifiable and
independent of man. On the contrary, there are multiple realities. In this paradigm,
individuals are conceptualized as active agents in constructing and determining the
realities they encounter, rather than responding in a robot-like manner to the role
expectations established by social structures. There are no series of blunt reactions to
situations but, on the contrary, and through a negotiated and interpretive process, an
accepted pattern of interaction emerges. The qualitative paradigm also includes an
assumption about the importance of understanding situations from the perspective of the
participants in each situation.

4.1.- Characteristics of the Qualitative Paradigm

 Theory constitutes a reflection in and from praxis, since reality is constituted not
only by observable and external facts, but by meanings and symbols and
interpretations developed by the subject himself through interaction with others.

 The object of research in this paradigm is the construction of practical theories,

configured from praxis itself and constituted by rules and not laws. (Identification of
the rules that underlie, follow and govern social phenomena).

 It insists on the relevance of the phenomenon, compared to the rigor (internal

validity) of the rationalist approach.

 It attempts to understand reality within a given context, therefore, it cannot be

fragmented or divided into dependent and independent variables.

 It describes the event in which the event takes place, that is, opting for a qualitative
methodology based on a rigorous contextual description of an event or situation
that guarantees maximum intersubjectivity in the capture of a complex reality

6
 through a systematic collection of data that enables a analysis and interpretation of
the phenomenon in question.

 It advocates the plurality of methods and the adoption of specific, singular research
strategies specific to human action. (Participatory observation, case study, action
research).

 Study a specific situation in depth and delve into the different reasons for the
events.

 Development of individual hypotheses that occur in individual cases.

 It does not seek explanation or causality, but rather understanding of the

phenomenon.

 For this paradigm, reality is global, holistic and multifaceted, never static nor is it a
reality that is given to us, but rather is created. As Pérez Serrano (1990) points out.
“There is not a single reality, but rather multiple interrelated realities.”

 The individual is an interactive, communicative subject that shares meanings.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE PARADIGMS

QUALITATIVE PARADIGM QUANTITATIVE PARADIGM

Advocates the use of qualitative methods. Advocates the use of quantitative methods.

Phenomenologism and Verstehen Logical positivism: “seeks the facts or

(understanding) “interested in understanding causes of social phenomena, paying little
human behavior from the actor's own frame attention to the subjective aspects of
of reference” individuals.”

Naturalistic and uncontrolled observation Penetrative and controlled measurement.

Subjective Aim.

Close to data; perspective “from within” Aside from the data; perspective “from
outside”.
Grounded in reality, discovery-oriented,
exploratory, expansionist, descriptive and Not based on reality, verification-oriented,
inductive. confirmatory, reductionist, inferential and
hypothetical-deductive.
Process oriented.
Result oriented.
Valid: “real,” “rich,” and “deep” data.
Reliable: “solid” and repeatable data.
Non-generalizing: study of isolated cases.
Generalizable: multiple case study.

7
Holistic Particularist

Assume a dynamic reality. Assume a stable reality.

Furthermore, Guba and Lincoln (1985) provide a clear distinction between the two
dominant paradigms of disciplined inquiry. They refer to the two distinctive paradigms as
Naturalist and Rationalist and point out five axiomatic differences between them.

RATIONALIST NATURALIST
 Existence of multiple realities, each one
representing different meanings and
different interpretations that people attribute
to a certain phenomenon. Intangible reality
and studied in a holistic way.

 Existence of a single reality decomposed  They stimulate interaction with the

into its component or variable elements. subjects of their research and suggest that
Each can be studied independently. the responses be interpreted in light of the
intention attributed to them by those who
 Objective researcher position towards the respond.
target population of the study, avoiding
intensive interaction with those who respond  Human behavior never occurs free of
or provide information. context, therefore there is no possibility of
producing generalizations. The evaluator
 Produce generalizations that have lasting should strive to describe a particular case
value beyond context. and produce working hypotheses that are
transferable from one context to another,
 They explore cause-effect relationships. depending on the similarity of the contexts.

 Objective and value-free research  The researcher must present “plausible

process. patterns of influence.”

 Everything implies an identification with

certain values (when selecting a research
problem, placing it in a theoretical
framework, preferring one methodology over
another, interpretation of results).

5.- QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS

The terms qualitative methods and quantitative methods mean much more than specific
techniques for collecting data. That is why quantitative methods have been developed
more directly for the task of verifying or confirming theories and that, to a large extent,
qualitative methods were deliberately developed for the task of discovering or generating
theories.

It is for this reason that each method is associated with these different paradigmatic
positions.

8
5.1.- Quantitative Methods

 Random experimental techniques.

 Quasi-experimental techniques.

 Test.

 Multivariate statistical analyses.

 Sample studies, etc.

5.2.- Qualitative Methods

 Interpretive analysis.

 symbolic interactionism.

 Ethnographic Research.

 Investigation action.

 Participant research.

 Sociocritical Analysis, etc.

6.- QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STUDIES

6.1.- Some categories of quantitative studies.

Exploratory Studies: Exploratory studies are generally carried out when the object is to
examine a topic or research problem that has been little studied or for which there is no
previous information. That is, when the review of the literature revealed that there are only
ideas vaguely related to the problem, for example, if someone wants to investigate what
the inhabitants of a commune think about the new mayor.

“Exploratory studies serve to familiarize ourselves with relatively unknown phenomena,

obtain information about the possibility of carrying out more complete research on the
particular context of real life, investigate problems of human behavior that professionals in
a certain area consider crucial, identify concepts or promising variables, establish priorities
for further research or suggest verifiable statements (postulates)” (Dankhe, 1986).

Descriptive Studies: Descriptive studies select a series of questions and each of them is
measured independently. From the scientific point of view, to describe is to measure. For
example, an organizational researcher aims to describe various industrial companies in
terms of their complexity, technology, size, centralization, and innovativeness.

“Descriptive studies seek to specify the important properties of people, groups,

communities or any other phenomenon that is subjected to analysis” (Dankhe, 1986).

9
Correlational Studies: Correlational studies aim to answer research questions such as:
do children who spend more time watching television have a larger vocabulary than those
who watch less television? That is, this type of study aims to measure the degree of
relationship that exists between two or more concepts or variables (in a particular context).

The main purpose of this type of study is to know how a concept or variable can behave by
knowing the behavior of other related variables.

Explanatory Studies: Explanatory studies go beyond the description of concepts or

phenomena or the establishment of relationships between concepts; They are aimed at
responding to the causes of physical or social events. Its interest focuses on explaining
why a phenomenon occurs and under what conditions it occurs. For example, if a survey is
carried out in a commune asking preferences for a candidate, an explanatory study would
be to point out why someone would vote for candidate x and not another.

6.2.- Qualitative Studies

This term is used to describe a wide variety of types of studies. Its feature is that the
summaries are not based on numerical manifestations of the quantified data, nor are they
presented in numerical terms. Nor are (the collected data) transformed into numerically
coded records.

On the other hand, there are qualitative studies that use quantitative data.

6.2.1.- Some categories of qualitative studies

Evaluative case studies: They can focus on one or a set of cases. The evaluator collects
a variety of types of data and studies the case in depth with the goal of helping the
decision maker judge the merit of an entity (institute, school, teachers, etc.). (Stenhouse,
1995).

Intrinsic evaluation studies: This type of evaluation studies are based on the analytical
examination of texts, documents, etc., concentrating on the merit of the final objectives, to
previously established standards. (Erant, 1995).

Judicial evaluation study (with judges): Method that combines court procedures and
administrative hearings. Concepts such as fact-finding data, human testimony,
interrogation, case preparation, evidentiary orders, and structured deliberation
procedures were taken from the legal system and modified for the purposes of the
evaluation. (Wolf, 1980).

Resume Critique: Here, the resume reviewer must describe the object of his or her
critique and make judgments about its qualities. As the description of an objective requires
the selection of a large number of details, the evaluator must select aspects or points of
view that contribute to the center of his criticism.

Photographic evaluation: Strives to record visual information that can serve as a basis
for describing programs and evaluating their merit.

10
For evaluation purposes, photography should serve as a recording instrument rather than
a documentary resource. (Templin, 1979).

6.2.2.- Examples of Qualitative Research

Case studies within the framework of Qualitative Research.

In the case study we can indicate, according to Cohen (1990: 164), that "although the
experimenter handles variables to determine their causal significance or the interviewer
asks standardized questions to large and representative samples of individuals, on the
contrary, the researcher of the “case studies look at the characteristics of a unit, a child, a
gang, a school or a community.”

The purpose of such observation is to deeply test and intensely analyze the diverse
phenomenon that constitutes the life cycle of the unit, in order to establish generalizations
about a broader population to which the individual observed belongs.

In general, the method consists of searching for solutions through discussion and analysis
of a problem within a group, whether real or simulated.

For Martínez Bonafé, case studies constitute a procedure that tries to delve deeper into a
map of problems or events through three phases: the first, called “pre-active”, the second
“interactive” and the third “post-active”.

PHASE WHERE IT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:

PREACTIVE - Our preconceptions.

- Theoretical fundament.

- Previous information.

- The intended objectives.

- Case selection criteria.

- Influences of contextual interactions.

- Materials, resources and techniques.

- What timing do we foresee?

STUDY PROCEDURES AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE:

INTERACTIVE - Research journal.

- Interview file (recordings and transcriptions).

- Documentary evidence file.

11
- Open interviews: making contact and business (mutual presentation of reasons and
commitments)

 Transcription and discussion with the subject.

 Interviews.

- Participant and non-participant observation.

 During the preparation and development of activities.

 Less systematic punctual monitoring.

- Analysis of documentary evidence: diary.

PHASE THE ETHNOGRAPHIC REPORT.

POSACTIVE 1. Preparation of the initial report.

 Discussion of the report (the initial report discussion interview and after its analysis were
recorded and transcribed).

 Preparation of the final report.

 Critical reflection on the results.

Martínez Bonafé.

1st Preactive Phase: This takes into account the epistemological foundations that
complete the problem or case, the intended objectives, the information available, the case
selection criteria, the influences of the context where the studies have been developed, the
resources and techniques that will be needed. In this phase, the planned timing and its
relationship with the follow-up to be done on the planned research are also considered
very important.

2nd Interactive Phase: corresponds to field work and the procedures and development of
the study, using different qualitative techniques: contact and negotiation that serve to
delimit the initial perspectives of the researcher, interviews, observation and documentary
evidence. In any case, in this phase the triangulation procedure is essential so that the
information from different sources can be contrasted.

3rd post-active phase: Refers to the preparation of the ethnographic and final report in
which the critical reflections on the problem or case studied are detailed. This personal
critical assessment of the researcher can be included in the final report or added as a
separate document, since, in this sense, the studies consulted in the preparation of these
points of the aforementioned report differ.

7.- THE QUANTITATIVE - QUALITATIVE CONTINUOUS

12
Seashore (1982) suggests that these two paradigms should not be considered as a
dichotomous division of actual studies, but rather as poles of a continuum on which a
variety of studies can be located.

In order to provide a systematic framework of reference, 3 dimensions are described in the

studies:

 Data collection.

 Database.

 Analysis of data.

The “database” dimension was added by the author (Seashore - Louis) due to the need to
have an intermediate step between data collection and data analysis, which would allow
adequate use of the data according to the method required for the investigation and its
final analysis.

Highly structured Numerical Statistical

Census Data Statistical Ratio Scale

Inferential

Causal models

Open survey Nominal scale

Transform- Transform-

mation mation

of of of

data data

Interviews Narrations Formal patterns Highly standardized

Coded

Techniques of

recognition and graphic techniques

Interviews Reports

Focused terrain analysis

Synthesized contents

13
Ethnography Field notes Informal patterns

of recognition/

Impressions.

Unstructured Narrative Journalistic

Data collection Data analysis

Dimensions of variation in Multiterrain Multimethod Studies.

Scashore-Louis (1982).

8.- CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

POINT OF INVESTIGATION
QUANTITATIVE
INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON QUALITATIVE
Quality (nature, essence).
Quantity (how much, how
many).
Phenomenology, symbolic
Research focus. (Center of interaction.
Positivism, logical
interest) empiricism.
Field work, ethnography,
Philosophical roots. naturalist.
Experimental, empirical,
statistical.
Associated concepts. Comprehension, description,
discovery, hypothesis
Prediction, control,
generator.
Research objective. description, confirmation,
hypothesis testing.
Flexible, enveloping,
Design features.
emerging.
Default, structured.
Framework or scenario.
Natural, familiar.
Unknown, artificial.
Sample.
Small, non-random,
Big, random, representative.
theoretical.
Data Collect.
Inanimate instruments
The researcher as primary
(scales, tests, surveys,
instrument, interviews,
questionnaires, computers).
observations.

9.- ON THE RECONCILIATION OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN

EVALUATION

The tradition of the controversy that exists between quantitative and qualitative research
methods is very long. Although it is true that until a few years ago the majority applied the

14
quantitative research method, it is no less true that recently interest has been born. for
seeking compatibilities and complements between both trends since strong criticism was
born of some quantitative methods that tended to distort or oversimplify complex social
realities. However, one should not think that by seeking mutual collaborations one is going
to leave aside the fundamental aspects that have distanced both conceptions, but on the
contrary, for example when a research deals with large samples of data and
mathematically interpretable and where measurable attributes can be identified and
instruments can be designed and developed to measure it, the quantitative method will be
most appropriate (Gardner, 1977; p. 591). Now, when seeking to understand the behavior
of the subjects involved in a process, trying to capture the process itself in its entirety, the
interactions and meanings of the subjects among themselves and the subjects with the
environment, the most appropriate approach will be the qualitative approach. .

Recommendation: Combine the methods

The article by Campbell and Fiske (1959) caused great impact as it introduced the concept
of triangulation, which is a metaphor for military and navigation strategy, which uses
multiple reference points to locate the exact position of an object.

According to this concept, qualitative and quantitative methods complement each other
more than they contradict each other.

As a result of this article, a demand has arisen for the simultaneous use of different
research models or paradigms to answer a single research question.

It is beginning to be believed that the convergence of the discoveries obtained through two
methods increases the belief in the validity of the results and that these are not the product
of a methodological artifice.

Denzin (1978) makes a complete presentation of cross-validation procedures, triangulation

techniques, etc.

Using diverse methods to evaluate a specific educational program would involve tasks
such as: conducting interviews with “people” who are the “pillars” of the program,
conducting evaluation studies of the materials used, measuring the implementation of the
program, collecting different data, etc and integrate and process the results through
various sources, through various methods.

Jick (1979) pointed out that triangulation provides evidence about validity; It also makes it
possible to obtain a more complete and holistic contextual graphic representation of the
entity or object under evaluation.

There is nothing, except perhaps tradition, that prevents the researcher from mixing and
accommodating the attributes of the two paradigms to achieve the combination that is
most appropriate to the research problem and the environment available.

There is no reason for researchers to limit themselves to one of the traditional paradigms
when they can get the best of both. If we remember the table by Cook and Reichard,
which points out the main differences between both paradigms, but are they really so
different? Is the researcher who uses quantitative procedures necessarily a logical

15
positivist and vice versa? For example, social psychological theories are
phenomenological since they aim to understand behaviors and beliefs from the
perspective of the actors themselves. However, most research is done in the laboratory
with quantitative methods.

 Are qualitative measures necessarily naturalistic and quantitative procedures

necessarily insightful? No, qualitative procedures, such as participatory
observation, can be insightful in some investigated situations.

 Are qualitative procedures necessarily subjective and quantitative procedures

necessarily objective? No. According to Scriven (1972), we would first have to
define what is meant by objective and subjective, often subjective meaning
“influenced by human judgment.” According to this, all methods are subjective.
Assigning numbers does not guarantee objectivity. Subjective is also understood
as the measurement of feelings and beliefs. That is, a measure or procedure is
subjective if it takes into consideration human feelings, which are not directly
observable, for example, a survey on the popularity of the current president.

 Are qualitative procedures necessarily grounded in reality, are qualitative

procedures exploratory and inductive, while quantitative procedures lack that
foundation and are necessarily confirmatory and deductive? Qualitative methods
have well-defined rules of evidence and verification to confirm theories.

 Should qualitative procedures be used exclusively to measure the process and

should quantitative techniques be used exclusively to determine the outcome?
Hollister and others describe a process using quantitative techniques and
Campbell (1970) goes so far as to suggest that experimental design would be
useful in studying the process because it could help rule out alternative
hypotheses.

 Are qualitative methods necessarily valid but unreliable and are quantitative
methods necessarily reliable but invalid? For example, participant observation
leads to invalid conclusions that can only be corrected through the use of
quantitative procedures. Neither reliability nor validity are inherent attributes of a
measurement instrument. Precision depends rather on the purpose the measuring
instrument is made to serve and the circumstances under which the measurement
is made.

 Are qualitative methods always limited to the isolated case and therefore not
generalizable? Qualitative studies do not have to be limited to isolated cases (Rist
1979). For example ethnographic studies of 60 places.

 Are qualitative procedures necessarily holistic and quantitative procedures

particularistic? No, a researcher can intensively study only a circumscribed aspect
of the consultation using, for example, the method of participant observation.

 Should quantitative procedures assume that reality is stable and does not change?
For example, it is often pointed out that random experiences are invalidated when
the treatment procedure is altered in the course of research.

16
The previous examples clearly indicate that neither is exclusive of the other, but rather
both complement each other.

The paradigmatic position of the researcher must be flexible and capable of adapting, in
this way the demands of the research problem with which he or she is faced can be better
met.

However, it is necessary to consider some recommendations when using both methods.

 The combination of both may be too expensive.

 It may take too long.

 Researchers lack sufficient training in both methods to use both.

Most studies that combine the two types of methods are based, usually on interdisciplinary
teams, which is not always fluid since researchers tend to maintain their traditional
methods.

11.- GLOSSARY

Epistemology: Doctrine of the foundations and methods of scientific knowledge.

Ethnography: Discover and study races and peoples. The term is generally used to
designate purely descriptive anthropological works. The basic technique is “participant
observation”, which consists of observing and recording behaviors participating in
activities. You get an “inside” view. (Research technique).

Phenomenology: Philosophical movement that appeared in Germany at the beginning of

the 20th century whose main “author” was Husserl. Method that involves the in-depth
study of how things appear in experience. It seeks to clarify the forms of human existence,
starting from man's being in the world. It also aims to provide a framework in which to
place the facts that are being verified.

Method: Literally, “path that is followed.” Therefore, acting with method is opposed to all
casual and disorderly acting. Computer of events to achieve a goal.

Methodology: Set of strategies, tactics and techniques that allow you to discover,
consolidate and refine knowledge. Therefore, it applies to the way research is conducted.

Positivism: It comes from the Latin “positivus”, which is imposed. The main formulator of
positivism was Comte, who manifests its pragmatic character: “Know to foresee, foresee to
act”; According to this, science serves to direct action. Positivism is a theory or set of
theories that do not admit any reality other than the facts or any other type of research
other than the existing relationships between positive facts.

Triangulation: It can be defined as the use of two or more data collection methods in the
study of some aspect of human behavior.

17
12.- CONCLUSION

As mentioned, the quantitative and qualitative paradigms constitute the two major research
models, the first being older than the second.

Regarding these two paradigms, Kuhn states that each of them explains a limited volume
of reality, in such a way that, to a certain extent, the areas that interest a discipline are, to
a greater or lesser degree, adequately covered by a certain paradigm.

This is why it is inappropriate to place one of the two models, with their types of research
and methods, in an inferior position since neither has a monopoly on “the correct
answers.”

However, for many years and, in fact, before the qualitative paradigm appeared on the
scene, the quantitative model had absolute primacy. Later, it was discovered that advance
or post-testing was not the only tool for program improvement since these could have a
wide variety of unsuspected effects.

In 1995 (Zellerberg), the hypothesis emerged that the quantitative approach and the
qualitative approach play different roles in the progress of knowledge and that both,
despite their structural differences, are essential and complementary since within research
it is not only It is necessary to quantify data and transform it into statistics, but it is also
necessary to understand the reality in which the programs or projects intervene to improve
practice, study and understand the processes and results from a Critical and Systematic
reflection.

13.- BIBLIOGRAPHY

Shuster, Felix G.; “Explanation and prediction. The validity of knowledge in Social
Sciences”; Latin American Council of Social Sciences, Bs. As., 1982.

Perez Serrano, Gloria; “Qualitative research: Challenges and Questions”; Editorial la

Muralla SA, Madrid, 1994.

Cook T.D. and Reichardt Ch. S.; "Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation
research"; Morata SA Editions, Madrid, 1986.

Ruiz Olabuénaga, José I.; “Qualitative Research Methodology”; 2nd Edition, 1999;
University of Deusto, Spain.

Hernández Sampieri, Roberto; "Investigation methodology"; Mc Graw Hill, 2nd edition,

1998.

Martínez Kein, Marcelo; Qualitative Research Program in Education; First Unit: The
Qualitative Paradigm; Note, 1999. Universidad Mayor, Santiago - Chile

Forner, Angel and La Torre, Antonio; “Terminological Dictionary of Educational Research

and Psychopedagogy”; 1st Edition EVB; SL 1996.

18
Sarramona, Jaume; “Fundamentals of Education”; Ediciones CEAC SA, Barcelona, 1st
Edition, 1989

Adapted from Herrera, Cecilia; Pacheco, Paula and Suazo, Jaime

Epistemology (from episteme , Greek means science, intellectually founded knowledge

(Plato) as opposed to doxa , opinion): philosophical discipline that reflects on the sciences;
It involves establishing the limits between scientific knowledge and that which is not,
analyzing the methodological validity used to produce - supposedly - scientific knowledge.
In your reflection on science it is important to answer questions such as, what is the object,
the method of science? What are their results and relationships?

Chart according to Cook and Reichard (1986, 29

19
 1. Summary
2.
3. Episteme
4. Paradigms
5. Quantitative investigation
6. Conclusion
7. References

SUMMARY
The need to study Educational, Social or Psychological problems from the angle of scientific
research was born in the 20th century.
Since then, the experimental method has not stopped developing in research and analysis
techniques based on criteria of objectivity, quantification and coherence. Quantitative research
whose epistemological, interactionist and dialectical foundations lead to the implementation of
a process that more broadly takes into account the complexity of situations, their
contradictions, the dynamics of processes and the points of view of social agents.
According to phenomenologists, in human sciences, it designates current perceptions
(behaviors, practices, opinions, interactions, etc.). These facts contain constructions,
abstractions, generalizations, formalizations and ideations that every researcher must take into
account if they do not want to jeopardize the authenticity of their research. The purpose of this
study is to expose the elements of the discussion between these three opposing currents. It
attempts an analysis of a basic component of scientific methodology, whose importance is
frequently underestimated, but which contains inevitable theoretical elements on which the
values of the research are based, that is, those of the researcher and those of an era.
INTRODUCTION
The present study deals with the themes Episteme, Paradigm and Quantitative Research.
Episteme is a general way of knowing or investigating, the way of arriving at events. To reach
this knowledge, it is necessary to go through a series of methods according to the approach of
each researcher or scientific knowledge.
Paradigm is a synthesis of beliefs, group commitments, ways of seeing, shared by a scientific
community, generating and controlling the theories and discourses of a community. Paradigms
operate in a manner, patterns, mental models or operating rules.
Quantitative research is understood as quantitative methodology that scientific methodology
that allows data to be examined numerically, and is partially used in the field of statistics. For
quantitative methodology to exist, it is required that a relationship of a linear nature exists
between the elements of the research problem.

20
The purpose or purpose of the topics already mentioned is based on understanding and
analyzing the characteristics, differences and similarities of said topics. In order to deepen
them and achieve greater knowledge of the points to be discussed and in this way we can
develop in the field of quantitative research.
The topics to be discussed are important since in our specialty we are always in constant
research, that is, investigating new ideas, to carry out a work or problem that arises, seeking
solutions and new hypotheses that allow the processes to reach a conclusion, to Obtaining the
named information was done through libraries, books, magazines, Encarta encyclopedia 1998
and 2000 and the Internet.
The following approaches will be addressed by chapters, which will be addressed as follows.
Chapter I: We will talk about the Episteme, its origin, its transcendence, the Episteme in the
social sciences, the classical period, the Episteme in the 20th century, its reason, the
reflections, its approaches, the research process and its key words. In Chapter II we will refer to
the Paradigm, where we will address its characteristics, its origin, the types of paradigms, its
evolution, where the term paradigm comes from, in modernity, its appearance, definitions, its
relevant aspects, paradigmatic triangle, and the keywords. And as Chapter III we have
quantitative research where we will talk about its origin, characteristics, the subject-object
relationship, the methodology, limitations, method, purposes, strategies, the setting, its
credibility and findings and key words.
And finally we will make tables, graphs, figures related to the work to be investigated.
CHAPTER I
EPISTEME
Origin
It arises from a whole structuring of elements – historical period, politics, economics,
geography, values, customs, social structure, etc. That are systematically related to create a
world of life in which men develop and where there will undoubtedly be an existential, ethical
praxis (way of being or being).
If we stop at this point and consider that all human activity occurs and is meant within an
Episteme and that this arises from a specific world, which brings with it an ethical imperative –
existential expression of the way of being, we will have that all human action It is impregnated
with that ethical imperative that makes it respond – coincide, adapt to that world of life.
Wittgens Tein. L. (1986). "He says that during the second quarter of the 20th century two
schools of thought emerged, both indebted. On the one hand, the school of empiricism or
logical positivism had its origin in Vienna, Austria, but soon spread throughout the world."
Concept of Episteme
The Episteme is not natural although inevitable, it is therefore, for the same reason, produced
in the process of history. At first glance it may seem natural and of Universal validity but, I
know throughout this study it is simply historical, linked to a way of life typical of a human
group in its temporary existence.
The Episteme lives, it exists in everyday understanding, in collective and singular everyday life,
as well as specialized discourses and practices (of intellectuals, politicians, religious people,

21
artists, etc.). Moreno (1993). "It also tells us that we must consider that if the Episteme is given
by a human group with a world of concrete ethical lives it can exist, and in fact it does exist."
The Episteme is at the same time History – past, History – present, and History – Project.
History – Past, as for a certain moment, she comes from behind.
History – Present, since they live in the entire cognitive reality of the moment.
History – Project, since it predicts, says now the future, its permanence in time in a general
way. Martínez (1992). It says that the Episteme is the base, receptacle, the source that
originates and governs the general way of knowing, typical of a certain historical period -
Cultural, in its essence in the own and peculiar way, that a human group has, of assigning
meaning. of things and events, that is, in their ability to symbolize reality.
The word Episteme in Greek means Science, knowledge, cognition, however in Attic use it
means: Art, Skill and on the other hand, through the verb Epistamia from which Episteme
comes, it means being able to understand oneself, being able to be valuable.
The Episteme resembles a particular making of the brain of men at a moment in history, it is
not necessary to blame GOD for it. Positively, Episteme in a general way of knowing.
The Episteme governs in the first place from and in its entirety by its being mode, but it also
governs in the second place by its components, which, although they are not autonomous,
exercise a function governed by their integration with the others.
The Episteme is assumed without having been previously represented. Representations are
used, they are formulated, they are criticized, but the representation does not reach a
reformulation or criticism of the matrix that governs them.
This sense, Kant's criticism as honest and implacable as it can be considered, does not go
beyond the criticism of a Paradigm; Episteme does not arrive.
A philosopher does not create or produce a new Episteme, he only rearticulates it. This allows
its assumption by the community to which that moment responds.
This process does not necessarily need a particularly intelligent and diligent philosopher or
scientist. Many times the subsequent criticism is not explained as a philosophical or scientific
system. On the other hand, a paradigmatic reform, within the dominant Episteme a father is
not easily found. Discussions about paternity often do not reach a consensus because there is
no father.
Episteme Bourgeois
The novelty of life – Episteme Burguesa has a successful development. The new social group
grows and is rapidly imposing itself in feudal society.
The Bourgeois Episteme begins to speak in "educated" discourse in the language of the
philosophers and theologians who are the owners of said discourse.
The Episteme Feudo – Aristocratica reads the new discourse from it and tries to subdue it, thus
reconsidering the new problems and new ideas.
The two Episteme that confront each other in the 11th century to the 13th century are very
different from each other. In the 14th century the fight was decided in favor of the Bourgeoisie.

22
The Fiefdom – Bourgeois world, in the 14th century, was already the modern world. Modernity
has begun with the origin of the Bourgeoisie. If in the 14th century the speeches clearly reveal
the Bourgeois Episteme, it has existed for a long time and can properly be called modern from
its beginnings.
The Episteme of modernity is the same Episteme Feudo – Bourgeois or simply Bourgeois.
Moreno, (1993). It focuses on the Bourgeois Episteme that belongs to modernity since the
Episteme, Fief – Aristocratic first existed and there was a fight between the two Epistemes that
in the 14th century was decided in favor of the Bourgeoisie, currently we live in the Bourgeois
Episteme.
Periodization of the Modern Episteme
At this point I believe that a periodization of the historical development of the Modern –
Bourgeois Episteme can be proposed.
Emerging Modernity: 11th and 12th Century. Modernity arises and grows within an
Aristocratic – Feudal world.
Epiphany Modernity: Second half of the 15th century and first half of the 16th century.
Modernity manifests itself in full and supersedes the Feudal world.
Dominant Modernity: 16th and 17th centuries the Bourgeoisie allies itself with the
Aristocratic and penetrates it, putting it at its service. The Aristocracy preserves its traditional
forms but assumes the Episteme and the culture of the Bourgeoisie.
Autonomous Modernity: From the 18th Century to the present day. The Bourgeoisie
detaches itself from the Aristocratic and suppresses it from its forms, and totally dominates the
accidental world.
Model of the Modern Episteme
The Modern Episteme, like all Episteme in its constitutive structure, is a system of
relationships that generates in matrix form, all the knowledge of our time. In both senses as a
system and as a generality, it can be defined as a matrix.
"What the author focuses on is that the Modern Episteme is the way to investigate everything
that happens in our days since in this way one topic can be related to another."
The imprint – Individual in this case is a way of knowing the world as an individual,
individualizing oneself from all reality. The complex and the simple are thus governed by the
individual insofar as the complexes are, one would say automatically, known as the aggregate
or interaction of simple ones; different conceptualization but the same Epistemic.
Moreno (1993). In this paragraph what is meant by the example of the individual, that to
search for a concept individually of Episteme and thus achieve the general definition of the
subject since there are too many types of Episteme.
The Epistemology of Social Sciences
In our times, the construction of scientific thought is being questioned, as well as the
procedures used by the Social Sciences should not be unexpected.
It must be admitted that the discussion on the Epistemological debate is more than justified, it
could begin with a scheme of the problems that threaten the new Paradigm and then try to

23
insert ourselves into the context of the known variables and try to read the reality that defines
alternatives for us. . Levi–Strauss (1962). It should be well understood that it is only for
convenience of exposition, since the transformations of the Social Sciences, when they are
profound, produce changes in the Episteme.
Classic Period of Epistemology
Until half a century ago, Epistemology created only a chapter of the theory of knowledge or
epistemology. The semantic, ontological, axiological, ethical and other problems that arise both
in the course of scientific research and in scientific reflection had not yet been noticed. During
this period, which we can call the classical period and which extends from nothing less than
Plato to Ruseell, Epistemology was cultivated mainly by scientists and mathematicians in their
leisure hours or while giving popular lectures and by philosophers without great scientific
training. , these thinkers were called: John Herschel, Auguste Comte, Adrián Marie Ampere,
Bernad Bolgano, William Whewell, etc.
None of the thinkers cited can be considered professional Epistemologists. His main
occupation was something else, scientific or mathematical research.
It must be recognized that these thinkers, almost all of them amateur Epistemologists, wrote
more interesting and forgivable books, as well as better written than most of the books on
Epistemology published today.
Salmerón (1978). "The classical period of Epistemology focuses on the fact that the majority of
people who talked about Epistemology were not really Epistemologists, they were just
amateurs of it, since they were proportionally scientific researchers or mathematicians. For
them it was only a theory and they did not give it scientific importance since they did not know
the ethical and other problems that could arise and they were also not scientifically prepared to
speak freely about Epistemology.
The Professionalization of Epistemology
The situation that we have just discovered in stark form changed radically with the founding of
Wiener Kreis in 1927, for the first time in history a group of Epistemologists met, some of them
professionals, in order to exchange ideas and even to collectively develop a new Epistemology,
logical empiricism. However, the Epistemology that the members of the Vienna circle that took
place in Paris in 1935 created and advocated had a fatal flaw: it was tied to the Empiricist and
Indectuist tradition of Bacon, Hume, Berkeley, Comte and Mach, a tradition that was
incompatible. With the realistic Epistemology inherent in the scientific approach, it is true that
the Logical Empiricists represented logic and strove to make scientific philosophy, that is, in
accordance with the spirit and in the letter of science. But none of them achieved it, precisely
because they were subject to a philosophy, Empiricism, incapable of accounting for scientific
theories, which are anything but a synthesis of Empirical data.
Salmerón (1978). "What the author is trying to say is that we do not have to be linked to a
tradition or rather to the same Paradigm, since that is why the Vienna circle had a fatal flaw.
This was reinforced by having the logic to do scientific Philosophy, but none of them achieved it
because they were linked to the same Philosophy (p.18).
Artificial Epistemology

24
This circle dissolved with the connection of Austria to Germany, most of the members of the
aforementioned circle emigrated and, upon emigrating, almost all of them lost contact with the
scientists and mathematicians with whom they used to exchange ideas.
"Ludwig Wittgentein", with his disinterest in mathematics and science and his obsession with
linguistic games, had a problematic influence on the Vienna circle to the point of making him
lose sight of his initial objectives.
According to Norman Campbell (1965). "People stopped talking about science to talk about the
language of science; they stopped being interested in the authentic problems posed by the new
scientific theories to ask trivial questions about the cases of expressions. In addition to
linguistic philosophy, he killed the Vienna circle from within before Nazism undertook its
Blizkrieg against reason."
Epistemology in the 20th Century
At the beginning of the 20th century, Epistemological problems were thoroughly discussed and
subtle shades of difference began to divide the different rival schools of thought. Special
attention was paid to the relationship between the act of perceiving something, the object
perceived directly and the thing that can be said to be known as a result of the perception itself.
Phenomenological authors stated that the objects of knowledge are the same as the objects
perceived. Neorealists held that one has direct perceptions of physical objects or parts of
physical objects rather than one's personal mental states. Crystal realists adopted an
intermediate position, maintaining that although they perceive only sensory data, such as
colors and sounds, these represent physical objects about which they provide knowledge.
A method for dealing with the problem of clarifying the relationship between the act of
knowing and the known object was developed by the German Philosopher Edmund Husserl. He
outlined an elaborate procedure, which he called Phenomenology, through which one can
distinguish how things are from how one thinks they really are, from the conceptual bases of
knowledge. The Logical Empiricists emphasized that there is only one kind of knowledge;
scientific knowledge; that any valid knowledge has to be verifiable in experience; And
therefore, much of what had been taken for granted by Philosophy was neither true nor false,
but meaningless.
Henssen T. (1991). A clear distinction had to be established between analytical and synthetic
statements. The so-called criterion of verifiability of meaning has undergone changes as a
result of discussions among the Logical Empiricists themselves, as well as among their critics,
but has not been discarded.
Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy that deals with the philosophical problems
surrounding the theory of knowledge. Epistemology deals with the definition of knowledge and
related concepts, sources, criteria, types of possible knowledge and the degree to which each
one is true; as well as the exact relationship between the knower and the known object.
Reason Versus Perception
From the 17th century to the end of the 19th century the main question in Epistemology
contrasts reason against the sense of perception as a means to acquire knowledge. For the
rationalists, among the most prominent the French Rene Descartes, the Dutch Baruch Spinoza
and the German Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the main source and final proof of knowledge was
deductive reasoning based on evident principles or axioms. For Empiricists, starting with the

25
English Philosophers Francis Bacon and John Locke, the main source and ultimate proof was
perception. "What the author focuses on in this part is that to acquire knowledge according to
the aforementioned Philosophers, everything had to do with reason and not with perception,
but for other Philosophers it was quite the opposite, the main source was perception." "Hume
means that knowledge is acquired from ideas and perceptions, the opposite of Berkeley says
that it is acquired through ideas. Knowledge is acquired through logic and perception."
Meta Psychology a New Episteme
It is known that Freud's aspiration was to create a new science that would account for psychic
facts beyond the conclusions provided by psychology that appeals to consciousness, will,
behavior, thought and feelings.
The birth of Psychoanalysis is closely linked to the relationship with Freud, this very special
relationship, with this "Character" so admired by him, in terms of transference.
He termed Episteme, which he also calls "Epistemological Field", the underlying and,
therefore, unconscious structure that delimits the field of knowledge, the ways in which objects
are perceived, grouped, defined. He states that man does not make his own history, but that the
Episteme makes such a name. Episteme is a structural notion. What it points out most
emphatically does not refer to supposed internal connections that reveal a pre-established
harmony.
Meta Psychological Texts
Freud later wrote and published a series of works of singular value for Psychoanalysis. He calls
them works on Meta Psychology, positions that aim to go beyond Psychology. All these texts
are found in volume XIV of the Amorrorto edition. Not all writings are part of Meta Psychology
but we must draw attention to the fact that the work is "Contribution to the history of the
Psychoanalytic movement."
"Freud brings out a book that talks about Meta Psychology, but also about the historicization of
the narcism of parents to the narcism of children, the field of passions, love, hate. Also about
autoeroticism, a common starting point for both series and phases: oral, anal, phallic –
castrated, lactation and genitality.
Thomas Kuhh (1981) says that "Particularly what it does to the possibility of comparing
Epistemes, or some of their elements. In the case of Psychoanalysis, pardon the redundancy, it
would be Paradigmatic in the sense that it talks about intelligibility, although at the same time
what is talked about is mainly what makes speech, words, discourse possible. ".(p.35)
For these Philosophers it was a bit difficult since they did not know whether to use the term
Meta Psychology for their Psychology that they called beyond consciousness.
What Does Freud Understand by Meta Psychology?
Both Archeology and Písteme are two concepts that come from the author Michel Foucault. In
the Archeology of Knowledge, the name Archeology of Knowledge is the examination of the
picture that forms a "generated history", not the global or totalizing history. It is a system made
up of a series or series of series, what they call discourses in which regularities are manifested.
"For Freud in his letter to Lou Andreas Salomé, he says that from the topical-dynamic point of
view that Meta Psychology as the exposition of Psychic events without considering some of the
processes of consciousness refers above all to the relationship in which this process becomes

26
conscious, what must be denied to genuine and naive narcism, the narcism in which it refers, is
the narcism discovered by Psychoanalysis, it is not apparent, it is not visible to the eyes, it is not
conscious. Dispensing with relationships of conscience and empathy are as difficult in the Meta
Psychological way of thinking as they are indispensable."
Reflections on Epistemological Approaches
It is necessary to clarify that Epistemological approaches have been identified as Basic
Paradigms in socio-educational research but, on the other hand, there has also been talk of
Quantitative Paradigm vs. Qualitative paradigm, which has resulted in confusion in the
educational field. Researchers and teachers are continually heard indicating that they identify
with the Quantitative Paradigm and Qualitative Paradigm, without considering that the
Paradigms respond to the most profound approaches. That is, to Epistemological –
Philosophical approaches or positions on scientific knowledge or way of conceiving the
production of knowledge.
Padrón (1992) says that "around the Quantitative – Qualitative dichotomy, I note that the
Quantitative Paradigm groups together the Empiricist – Inductive and rationalist – Deductive
approaches, which have a totally different Philosophical basis and the Qualitative Paradigm is
required for the Phenomenological approach. – Interpretative; ignoring that this has common
elements with the empiricist approach. They differ in the treatment of data and the conception
of reality, but in terms of the method of knowledge production, their basis is the same;
induction". (p.105 – 107).
Epistemological Approaches and the Research Process
Beginning to propose what theories of knowledge are, first leads us to define what knowledge
is.
Knowledge Etymologically comes from the Cutino verb "Cognosceré", a term that expresses the
reality of the Cognitive activity where the generation, conception and birth of ideas takes place,
which is not an isolated process, on the contrary, it refers to successive phenomena that must
produce ideas. Padrón (1993) It is the most representative and evolved variant of
institutionalized or systematic – socialized knowledge.
Now, as a production of scientific knowledge, it is important to manage the Epistemological
approaches that have occurred throughout history.
Rationalist – Deductive Approach
This approach arises parallel to Empiricism – Inductive, it is also offered as a revolutionary
way for the liberation of thought from its chains of Dogmatism and speculation. It responds to
the theoretical conception of knowledge in terms of the capacity for predictive and retrodictive
explanation, supported by a path strictly controlled by logical – mathematical forms.
For his part, Fodoseev (1975) "He maintains that at the beginning of the research process,
Empirical methods help to build new hypotheses and theories that at the end of the process
give the possibility of testing them; He emphasizes that neither systematic observation nor
experiments are carried out without prior theoretical consideration.
Even though the rationalist - deductive approach as a research paradigm has not had much
support in the Social Sciences, but in the hard sciences, its applicability in the field of

27
educational research is of great value; It is a source of refinement and development of scientific
ideas that generates new hypotheses and theories.
Empiricist – Inductive Approach
Empiricist emerges as critical – revolutionary thought in the 20th century, and as a proposal
for the production of scientific knowledge; has been the dominant model in the Social Sciences.
The Empiricist – Inductive has been identified with the word "Positivism". Padrón (1993) It is
based on rigorous control, validation; Its purpose is to discover, explain, control and perceive
knowledge.
The Inductive Empiricist approach is framed by a style of sensory thinking through a concrete
and objective orientation of things, through a numerical-arithmetic language through an
inductive path and by reference to the validation of objective reality.
Phenomenological – Interpretative Approach
This approach, also known as Historicist Socio, resurfaces in the seventies, beginning with the
approaches of Jun de Feyerabend and with the so-called "Frankfurt School", especially with the
"theory of communicative action" of Avernas.
It is important to highlight that Jun and Feyerrabend's approaches do not propose an
Epistemological orientation that replaces Grationalist Positivist approaches; However, the
Frankfurt school offers an option that distances several Philosophical positions from the past,
such as Husserl's Phenomenology, Hegel's historicianism, Heidegger's Existentialism, etc.
Séller (1977) refers to the fact that we call Phenomenological a method that understands the
vital world of man through a totalitarian interpretation of everyday situations.
For the author, what interests him is Phenomenology as a method and not as philosophy in the
strict sense; maintains that Phenomenological statements always rely on personal life
experiences on the part of the author in the environment where the researcher operates.
Basic Beliefs of Epistemology

Aspect Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory Constructivism

Dualist Dualism Objectivist Transactional

transactional; subjectivism; created
Epistemology Objectivist Modified objectivism;
values-mediated results.
probably true results.
Results outcomes.

True.

Source: Lincoln and Guba (1994). P. 109

Towards the Epistemological Renaissance
A philosophy of science does not deserve the support of society if it does not constitute an
enrichment of philosophy nor is it useful to science. And an Epistemology is useful if it satisfies
the following conditions:
a. It concerns science itself, not the childish and sometimes even caricatured image taken
from elementary textbooks.

28
 b. It deals with philosophical problems that actually arise in the course of scientific research
or in reflection on the problems, methods and theories of science, rather than with
phantom little problems.
c. It proposes clear solutions to such problems, in particular solutions consisting of rigorous
and intelligible theories, as well as adequate to the reality of scientific research, instead of
confusing theories or inadequate to scientific experience.
d. He is able to distinguish authentic science from pseudo-science, deep research from
superficial research, the search for truth from the search for daily bread.
e. He is able to criticize erroneous programs and results, as well as suggest promising new
approaches.

According to Mario Bugne (1986). "He says that we aspire to a renewal of Epistemology, and
that to characterize a discipline there is nothing better than exhibiting some of its problems,
let's make a short list of problems that the new Epistemology must address." Although some of
these problems are new, and the way to raise them and try to solve them is to adjust to the
criteria of usefulness.
The statements are the following: Logical, semantic, epistemological problems.
Popular Episteme
We are in an Episteme that consists of knowing not by individuals but by relationships. The
relationship is not a constructed derivative of the individual but the individual is a constructed
derivative of the relationship. The relationship is not an art – a necessary fact but the
foundation of all knowledge.
That this Epistemological foundation is not only a popular reality or a remnant of the past, but
a deeply human demand, beyond any historical product that has been superimposed on it and
has denied it as existing and lawful, may make you think.
According to Ignacio González Faus (1989), "They say that the testimony of the Latin American
theology of liberation, which, although it is not the only one made in our lands, is nevertheless
the most characteristic and original, the most properly ours, is not It is brought here but as an
expression of another way of making knowledge, not from the individual but from the
relationship. It contrasts symptomatically with the inability of the European world to get rid of
the Epistemic imprint of the individual in a type of knowledge called by its very nature to be a
measurement of the contrast of community." (p.427-428).
In an intuitive way, and as if in passing, González Faus himself attributes disability to the
cultural unconscious of the first world. This cultural unconscious, understood in the context of
the entire essay, is close to what I have been proposing here as Episteme.
CHAPTER II
PARADIGMS
Historical Background of the Paradigm
 According to the author, he reviews the historical background of the Paradigms indicated
according to his version, as follows:
 Smit in the year (1983) "The existing discrepancies between the Quantitative and
Qualitative Paradigms of Socio-educational research begin in the confrontation of the
supposed Philosophers of Positivism and Scientific Idealism." (p.203)

29
 In the historical reunion, research methodology as a way of facing problems and seeking
answers, in the educational field in particular and social research in general, has
experienced a crucial moment in the last century in which it is questioned whether Social
Sciences may or may not "borrow" the methodology of the so-called Physical Sciences, to
investigate the Social and Human world. Such a question raises concerns about the alleged
unities of the members of Science. In this context, the group identified as Positivists, (made
up of Comte, Mill, Durkheim), was working within the traditional Empiricist form
established by Newton and Locke. Elsewhere, the group that could be called Idealists (such
as Dilthey, Rickert, Weber), found a particular Philosophy based on the Kantian tradition.
 Taylor and Bogdan in the year of (1986) "Declared that two main theoretical perspectives
have mainly prevailed in the Social Sciences. The Positivists (Comte, Durkheim), who seek
the facts or causes of Social phenomena, have prevailed independently of the objective
states of individuals and the Phenomenologists." (p.10).
 The highest share of Positivism is raised in Comte's position and is developed through two
lines of thought: first, that society evolves from the Theological to the Metaphysical position
until reaching Positivism. The second line of thought is referred to the hierarchy of Sciences
that according to their best history correspond in this order to Mathematics, Astronomical,
Physicists and lastly Sociology supported by these approaches, positive ideas are developed
in a relevant way in the 19th century from a Quantification perspective. Later, the Positivist
thought proposed by Dukheim declares the Social elements or factors as cases (some
authors expressed this declaration as the "reification" of the Social Sciences).
 Dilthey's position consists of proposing Cultural Sciences to be more descriptive and
concentrated on interpretive or explanatory understanding. Interpretive understanding is
conceived by Dilthey as a Hermeneutic process in which human experience depends on its
context and cannot be decontextualized or used a mental scientific language.
 Bourdiev in the year (1987) "As long as there is no perfectly natural register, there is no
mental question" (p.11).

Paradigm Concept
A Scientific Paradigm can be defined as a principle of fundamental distinctions – relationships
– oppositions between some matrix nations that generate and control thought, that is, the
constitution of theories and the prediction of the discourses of the members of a given
Scientific community.
Morin in the year of (1982) "The Paradigm thus becomes the guiding principle of knowledge
and human existence" (p.11)

Author:
Paradigms are universally known scientific achievements, which during a certain period of time
offer us, in addition to problems, model solutions for the community that is involved in science.
Hurtado and Toro in the year (1997) "The paradigms show us, then, the discursiveness of the
ways of knowing of a time and each of them constitutes a common model outside of which it is
not possible to know." (p.11) .
Types of Paradigms

30
 a.
b. Metaphysical Paradigms or Meta Paradigms: When used as a set of beliefs, as a myth, as a
point of view or frame of reference.
c. Sociological Paradigms: When used as a scientifically recognized universal achievement,
such as a set of political institutions or a rule of law.
d. Constructor Paradigms: When used in a more concrete way, as an instrumentation or set
of artifacts, or as a grammar or language game.
e. Scientific (or Positivist) Paradigm: This Paradigm is oriented by the remains of logical
Positivist Paradigms, what Haberlas defines as "The faith of science in itself", this notion
of Paradigm corresponds to Masterman's Metaphysical or Paradigmatic Meta notion:
Science (physics) and Scientific Methodology as the only Paradigm. Philosophy as the
science of science.
f. Within this Paradigm we can mention the philosophy of science of Popper and Lakatos.

Other types of Paradigms

a.
b. (Post) Positivist Paradigm:

 Ontology Critical Realism, reality exists but is not completely understandable. We can only
approximate reality.
 Weak objectivism epistemology, objectivity as a regulative ideal. We can only get closer to
the truth.
 Methodology: Experimental and manipulative. It mainly pursues three ideas that interact in
the Scientific Methodology as regulative ideals in addition to objectivity: primacy of the
method of reality and progress. Promotes particular Methodologies.

a. Critical theory paradigm:

 Epistemology: Subjectivist, in the sense that values are fundamental for research Ideological
Dimension.
 Methodology: Dialogical and Transformative.

a. Ideological (or Critical) Paradigm:

 Here the word Paradigm has the second meaning of Masterman, that corresponding to
Sociological Paradigms, the scientific group and its values in research are included.

That is, Ideology is included. Within this Paradigm a consensus Paradigm is based through
human intersubjectivity, an example of this conception is Haberman's Communicative Theory,
this theory tries to coordinate through communicative rationality the different validity claims
of speech and action. human. The origins of this Paradigm are related to German Idealism and
the Frankfurt school.
 Guba in the year (1990) "Defines three main research paradigms, according to differences in
the following basic beliefs", (p.54).

o Ontological differences about the nature of reality.

31
 o Epistemological differences on the nature of the researcher-object relationship.
o Methodological Differences on the nature of legal statements.

In this way Guba differentiates the following Paradigms:

Constructivist Paradigm:
 Relativistic Ontology, reality only exists in the form of multiple mental and social
constructions. Reality as a social constructor.
 Subjectivist Epistemology, there is no differentiation between the subject and object of
knowledge. Both merge into a single Epistemological entity.
 Hermeneutic and Dialectic Methodology, Hermeneutic requirement and Dialectic contrast.
These methodologies are guided by fidelity to the object of study, complementarity, in the
sense that the researcher complements the research. And unlike scientific and critical
methodologies, it lacks the ideal of progress as a regulative criterion of instructive research
is solidarity.

Interpretive Paradigm
 In the interpretive tradition, the ideal theories of explanation, prediction and control are
replaced by those of understanding, meaning and action. Its purpose is not to seek causal or
functional explanations of social or human life, but to deepen our knowledge and
understanding of why social life is perceived and experienced as it occurs.

Paradigm Approach
First Approach
 We are going to start by stating that there are differences between the Quantitative and
Qualitative Paradigms of Socio-Educational research. This approach is contrary to the way
in which the divergence is seen from a very personal and sometimes simplistic point of view.
 Smith in the year (1983), Pérez Gómez (1985), Shulman (1986) "They discriminate against
paradigms in Socio-Educational research. To address an approach to each of these
"Traditional" or "Classical" research paradigms expressed through rationalist, Positivist,
Empiricist, and Quantitative tendencies; Predominant in Socio-Educational research since
the 1970s.
 Carr and Kemmis in the year (1988) "They differentiate a third Paradigm that they call the
Critical Paradigm, to group the tendencies of action research, of the production or discovery
of theories for improvement, change and transformation.

Second Approach
 The hidden or manifest differences between both Paradigms go beyond the theories and
methods used until they reach a Philosophical conception. The discrepancies between the
Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms in Socio-Educational research yield a
transcendental approach that separates the instrumental and theoretical aspects of a study.

Third Approach
 Each Paradigm Arises in a Historical Political context. Social – Cultural particular, where
interpreting García Guadilla in the year (1987) "The engine that drives creation in the

32
 dissatisfaction between the answers given by a Paradigm or question formulated about what
to do with the investigation." (p. 15).
 It is necessary to bring here the note on positions that consider there is no rupture and/or
discontinuity of Paradigms but rather complementarity.

Evolution of the Term Paradigm

 Given the historical and social nature of language, words and therefore all the elements that
comprise the lexical heritage of a culture, are repositories of the dynamism and adaptability
that reflect the progress of the speakers of the other users of a language. For this reason, it is
very unlikely that today a certain term is subject to the restrictions that predominated, such
as the case of the word Paradigm, which has reached such a degree of maturity that it has
become one of the most widely transferred words in the world. talks about the cultists of
scientific practice. In this part of the work, reference will be made to the historical
evaluation that this word has had since it was first used by the Greeks until the current era
when, thanks to the work of the North American physicist and philosopher of science
Thomas S. Jun, acquire notable relevance in the field of Epistemology and Psychology of
scientific work.
 González in the year (1993 / 1996) "The life of every referring term of a scientific concept
goes through three different ages: Age of Appearance, The Age of Reactivation, a system
that gives it a new meaning, and the Age of Recurrence. (p .eleven).

End Paradigm
 As a result of the Epistemological debate, the word Paradigm, in terms of linguistic
expression associated with the field of research, has conquered certain connotative spaces
that place it in a privileged place and that give it a certain character as an invoked, almost
obligatory concept, to the point that many people believe that when talking about Paradigm
we are talking about research or Philosophy of research. Actually it is not like that.
Paradigm is, in itself, a particular circumstance in which it was used by the Sociologist
Thomas Kuhn, who was interested in the radical changes of public acceptance that occurred
in the field of Social Sciences and who attempted to explain such changes from a historical
and socio-cultural perspective. .
 Kuhn in the year (1975) "Thomas Kuhn used the word Paradigm to refer to each of these
conquests of scientific knowledge that were imposed over time and as if they were "mute" or
artistic waves" (p.17).
 Its influence was so great that the word Paradigm became popular and became a true
conceptual reference.

Paradigm in Modernity
 As we already said, for the purposes of this work, we will understand as theoretical
alternatives – Epistemologicazo Paradigms in the Social Sciences in Modernity, in
Postmodernity or in any era, the different ways of conceiving and grasping the social.
 Gutiérrez in the year (1984 / 1994) says "The body of sciences, proposals, rules and
procedures that define how science should be done; proposals, rules and procedures that
define how science should be done." (p.32).
 Martínez in the year (1991) "That is to say, action models for the search for knowledge."
(p.32)

33
 According to this perspective and having established the previous pressures, we will carry
out a first arbitrary, but didactic, reductionism of the main Epistemological Paradigms or
theoretical alternatives in Social Sciences in Modernity.
 We could then, underlining the didactic approach, which we will carry out, of three
alternatives or fundamental Sociologies (Strimiskay 1979), which have coherent structures
of thought. Firstly, the dialectics (mainly Marxism) and thirdly the systematics (in which
they were located in Functionalism, Structuralism, Structural-Functionalism, systems
theory, etc.).

Paradigm Analysis
 Above it was said that scientific reevaluations (and, in this case, contrasts of investigative
approaches) could be seen either as events or as a process. In the first point of view, of a
historical, descriptive and inductive nature, the starting point is to examine how, over time,
scientific proposals succeed one another through the inoperative and displaced insurgent
clash.> Ptolemy > Copirnicus > Galileo , Kepler, Newton > Etntein > is determined by
defining an underlying structure of events (such as that of Normal science > Crisis >
Revolution > Normal science > Crisis Revolution > normal science. And so on). And
characterized each of the trends that have appeared in the historical chain (Positivism,
Phenomenological, etc.).
 This point of view has been sufficiently developed in multiple works, and does not seem to
have led to a unified curricular solution so far. In other perspectives of analysis such as the
one below, I could perhaps make more of a solution offer.

The Age of Apparition

The word Paradigm could be located by tracing its Etymology. Thus, Paradigm comes from the
Greek TTapasiva (which in Greek means example or better yet, model, pattern) and was used
mainly by Plato who uses this expression to designate his ideation; Thus, in the Platonic
version, a Paradigm constitutes not a simple model, as a "copy", "pattern" or "sample" of
something that is real; If not, much more than that; A Paradigm is an exemplary model, that is,
perfect in such a way that it must be considered worthy of being followed and imitated.
Definitions of the Term Paradigm by Different Authors

AUTHORS DEFINITIONS

Briones (cited by A research paradigm is a conception of the object of study of a science of the problems
Hurtado and Toro, for studies of Nature, its methods and the way of explaining or understanding the results
1997) of the research carried out.

Capra (1996) Scientific Paradigm, according to Kuhn, is a constellation of scopes, terms, values,
techniques, etc., that has a common scientific community and that are applied by that
community.

Contreras (1996) According to Kuhn, a Paradigm is a system of beliefs, principles, values and principles
that determine the scientific community of reality.

34
Damiany (1997) A Paradigm constitutes a system of ideas that guide and organize the scientific research
of a discipline, making it communicable and modifiable within a scientific community that
uses the same language.

A Paradigm constitutes a conceptual framework in which, as an assumption, underlying

basics, beliefs and values are written to which the members of the group that compose it
González (1997)
strongly adhere without always being implicit or conscious.

Source: González, F (1998). CIDIPMAR

Relevant Aspects of Paradigm Definitions Contributed by Various Authors.

AUTHORS RELEVANT ASPECTS

Briones cited by Conceptions about the object of study of a science, problems to be studied, ways of
Hurtado y Toro (1997) explaining, understanding and interpreting the results of the research.

Capra (1996) Scopes, terms, values, and techniques, shared and applied to define problems and
legitimize solutions.

Contreras (1996) System of sciences, principles, values and first vision of reality; types of legitimate
problems, valid methods and techniques to seek answers and solutions.

Damiani (1997) Systems of ideas that: guide and organize research, make it communicable and
modifiable within the community; shared language.

González (1997) Conceptual framework: basic assumptions, underlying beliefs and values to which the
members of the community that comprise it adhere.

Source: González F. (1998) CIDIPMAR

Basic Beliefs of Paradigms

Aspect Positivism Postpositivism Critical Theory Constructivism

Naive realism; Critical Realism; Historical Relativism; local and specifically

existence of a existence of a realism, virtual constructed realities.
graspable reality that can be reality shaped
reality. accessed only by social,
imperfectly and political,
Ontology probabilistically. cultural,
economic,
ethnic, and
gender values,
which
crystallize over
time.

35
 Dualist Dualism Objectivist Transactional
transactional; subjectivism;
Epistemology Objectivist Modified
outcomes created results.
objectivism;
Results mediated by
probably true
values.
True results

Experimental; Modified Dialogue Hermeneutics – Dialectics.

hypothesis experimental; Dialectic
verification; "hypothesis
Methodology manipulation of falsification";
variables; manipulation of
establishment of variables; may
laws; include
Quantitative Qualitative
techniques. techniques.

Source: Lincoln and Guba (1994). P. 109

Paradigm Characteristics
 The nature of Reality is multiple, intangible, divergent and holistic.
 The relationship between researcher and object of study is one of interrelation and influence
by subjective factors.
 There is influence of values and subjective aspects. The research emphasizes meaning, that
is, it gives importance to the actor's interpretation of their reality. (Value of the subject as a
constructor of knowledge).
 Qualitative research is naturalistic, that is, the natural environment is the source of all data
and the researcher is the main instrument. It is directly concerned with the context and the
description of the action in its natural environment of occurrence.
 The vision of the research is holistic, which is oriented towards the analysis of the whole.
The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Conception of the scenario, the participants
and the activities as a whole.
 Quantitative research is descriptive, that is, information is collected in the form of words or
illustrations instead of figures. Nothing is trivial, everything has importance within its
context. Take into consideration the culture, what the author does, what he knows, and
what things he builds and uses.
 It is also inductive, that is, it does not seek to prove or reject hypotheses, but rather builds
abstractions that are consequences of a progressive construction as the different pieces of
information are joined together.
 It is interested in processes rather than results, since it delves into the processes of
interaction and description. of multiple factors. Take into consideration the context, that is,
the aspects that are part of the social, cultural, historical, and physical life of the actor.
 The main activities according to a cyclical pattern in which they are repeated again
according to the information provided by the observations in each phase of the
investigation.

Thomas Kuhn's Paradigms

36
The disorganized and diverse activity that precedes the formation of a science is finally
structured and directed when a scientific community adheres to a single Paradigm. A Paradigm
is made up of the general theoretical assumptions, laws and techniques for their application
that are adopted by the members of a certain scientific community.

"NON-RATIONALIST" positioning of KUHN science

CATEGORIES INDICATORS

The Production of scientific Solve problems within current theory. Scientific development occurs when
knowledge new theoretical paradigms appear, replacing each other in non-cumulative
progress.

Scientific theories and the reality They are conceptual, provisional and relative bodies, a product of the
of the world environment, the social, the time, the economic and the political. Reality is
not even partially knowable.

The truth of the theories The truth of theories are themselves relative.

The cientific method Invalidation of a theory by revolutions, when there is an alternative

candidate available that can solve anomalies.

The criterion of science There is no criterion to know what is scientific, other than knowing by the
pure judgment of scientific communications.

Source: Kuhnian view of science

The characteristic that distinguishes science from non-science according to Kuhn is the
existence of a Paradigm capable of supporting a tradition of normal science. Much of Modern
Sociology lacks a Paradigm, and consequently does not qualify as a science. The existence of a
Paradigm of unsolved problems does not constitute the crisis. The severity of a crisis increases
when a rival Paradigm appears. The new Paradigm will be very different from the old and
incompatible with it.
Tomas S. Kuhn and Scientific Paradigms: "The New Science"
"The structure of scientific revolutions" reveals a new problem in the image of science, but no
longer as a product of Empiricism - Inductivism, but as a product of an exaggerated rationalist
conception originating from a normative and logical analysis that does not resist comparison.
with historical and sociological evidence.
According to Kuhn, (1975) "It articulates a radical challenge to the rationalist position of
Popper and later Lakatos, using the notion of "Paradigm." A Paradigm, for Kuhn, refers to:
"Universally recognized scientific relationships that, for a certain time, provide models of
problems and solutions to a scientific community. (p.15).
For Kuhn, mature science is governed by a single Paradigm that establishes the rules,
coordinates and directs the activity of solving problems, within periods called "Normal
Science." For a new science, this state appears to be an initial state or pre-scientific activity.
During the era of Normal Science the faith in the underlying theory is such that the

37
"Anomalies" are not considered as refutations of the theories, but as "Enigmas" to be solved.
Over time there may be an increasing number of Enigmas and anomalies to solve, as a
consequence of which the confidence that the community has in its theory is eroded and they
enter a period of "Crisis", the agreements that on the Paradigm manages the community of
researchers, Metaphysical and Philosophical discussions are established and as a consequence
of this whole environment, attempts to articulate Alternative theoretical structures are
produced.
"The "Crises" are resolved when a completely new Paradigm emerges that gains the support of
an increasing number of scientists until the old Paradigm is finally abandoned." According to
Kuhn, the new Paradigm will guide normal scientific research until it runs into problems and a
new crisis appears followed by a new revolution. This image of scientific progress, Kuhn's
discontinuist, which summarizes it with the following sequence. (Kuhn, T., 1975, p.30).
Source: Cycle of Scientific Revolutions.
Aspects to Distinguish Paradigms

ASPECTS

1.- Level of consensus and acceptance within the community.

2.- Validity, timeliness and contemporaneity of its approaches.

3.- Structural and systematic relatability of its different elements.

4.- Precision regarding the scope and limits of the scope of reality that it intends to cover.

5.- Methodological statute.

6.- Criteria for legitimizing the claims made within it.

7.- Linguistic code that subscribes.

8.- Organizational criteria for the professional work of community members.

9.- Methods of Production of duties that it privileges.

10.- Prescriptions related to the modes of action of the members of the community.

Source: Moreno and Morales (1993)

CHAPTER III
QUANTITATIVE INVESTIGATION
Origin
It emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, in the process of consolidation of Capitalism and
within Western Bourgeois Society. With the purpose of analyzing social conflicts and the
economic fact as a complex Universe. Inspired by Natural Sciences and Newtonian physics
based on Galileo's knowledge. With Claude Saint Simón and Augusto Comte, Sociology as a
Science emerged.
 Its rationality is based on Scientism and Rationalism, as Institutionalist Epistemological
positions. Deep attachment to the traditionality of Science and use of evaluative neutrality

38
 as a criterion of objectivity, so knowledge is based on facts, paying little attention to the
subjectivity of individuals.
 Its representation of reality is partial and atomized. The expert becomes a true authority.

Hurtado and Toro (1998). "They say that Quantitative research has a linear conception, that is
to say that there is clarity between the elements that make up the problem, that it has
definition, limit them and know exactly where the problem begins, it is also important to know
what type of incidence exists between its elements".
Characteristics
 Objectivity is the only way to achieve knowledge, which is why it uses exhaustive and
controlled measurement, trying to seek its certainty.
 The object of study is the singular Empirical element. He maintains that there is a
relationship of independence between the subject and the object, since the researcher has a
perspective from the outside.
 Theory is the fundamental element of Social research, it provides its origin, its framework
and its purpose.
 Explanatory and predicative understanding of reality, under an objective, unitary, static and
reductionist conception.
 Linear conception of research through a deductive strategy.
 It is a Hypothetical – Deductive method.

Subject – Object Relationship

Objectivity as the only form of knowledge. Search for knowledge that is unassailable, search for
the crust. Scientific knowledge is taken as synonymous with the discovery of the causal
relationships that exist and that make up a given reality. According to Gutiérrez (1990) he says
that "In quantitative research, there is a relationship of independence between the subject and
the object. The researcher (subject), by removing himself from his subjectivity, is able to
approach the object (Social Reality) "from the outside", as something independent of thought."
(p.52)
According to Hurtado and Toro (1998), it says that "The research subject is conceived as a
person capable of getting rid of his emotions and feelings. Study the object from an outside
perspective, without getting involved. Attributes objectivity in research. Therefore their
relationship is independent of each other." (p.54)
On the other hand he says:
Gutierrez L. And Denis L (1989), According to them they say that "The Quantitative Paradigm,
the subject of the research is a being capable of getting rid of his feelings, emotions,
subjectivity, in such a way that we can study the object, the Social and Human Reality" from
outside." The relationship between the object and the research subject is one of independence;
When Human aspects such as motivation, attitude, interests are investigated, we perceive the
Social object as something that is not directly observable, that is real but that exists
independently of thought." (p.56).
Quantitative Methodology
Quantitative Methodology is one that allows data to be examined numerically, especially in the
field of Statistics.

39
For Quantitative Methodology to exist, it is required that between the elements of the research
problem there is a relationship whose nature is linear. That is to say, that there is clarity
between the elements of the research problem that make up the problem, that it is possible to
define it, limit them and know exactly where the problem begins, in which direction it goes and
what type of incidence exists between its elements.
The elements constituted by a Linear research problem are called: variables, relationship
between variables and unit of observation.
Edelmira G. La Rosa (1995) says that for Quantitative Methodology to exist, there must be
clarity between the research elements from where it begins to where it ends, the data approach
is static, numerical meaning is assigned.
The approach to Quantitative data is statistical, it makes demonstrations with the separate
aspects of its whole, to which numerical meaning is assigned and makes inferences.
Quantitative Limitations
It continues as follows: "Regardless of the indicated possibilities of Mathematical treatment of
social phenomena reducible to scalar units, any abusive projection of Quantified techniques on
Sociology implies several risks of distortion, the least of which is certainly not the conversion
distorting the qualitative in quantities artificially calculated on data previously transmuted ad
hoc. From this point of view, we subscribe to Soroquin's lapidary judgment and Hayman's
prudent warnings."
González, Casanova (1975) "Mentions the Quantitative method of Social Sciences, as the
Quantitative perspective and emphasis that are related to many other characteristics of the
researcher. In general terms it can be said that Quantitative analysis is typical especially in
North American Sociology compared to other Nations, it is linked to Empiricism and the
Ideology of the process of the Social Sciences."
Sorokin has indicated the danger of: (a) Quantitatively disguised subjectivity. (b) Quantitative
conjugation of groupings to study Social systems. (c) take a part of the system as an
independent variable (cause) and all of the Quantitative data that can be observed in traditional
research.
The Induction of Quantitative Laws and its Stages
When the facts have been decomposed and the phenomena measured, the scientist attempts to
change them into general laws through the help of ideas and conceptions. However, there are
certain methods of proceeding which, in the eyes of the master (Whewell), can be of
considerable help in such investigations, and it is these methods which he will attempt to
expound.
The obligation of the facts that culminates a quantitative law involves the selection of a broad
ideal element, which is the first approximation to the colligative conception of the facts, and the
determination of the magnitudes, which is the stage in which the conception, or to the
conceptions, since, although for convenience of expression it is spoken in the singular, the act
of colligation can use one or more conceptions. According to Whewell (1986) "he says that to
establish any law by reference to the facts, we have to select the true idea and the true
conception."

40
Whewell refers to the induction of Quantitative laws, the English Philosopher adds that we can
speak of three stages described as the selection of independent variables, the construction of
formulas and the determination of coefficients; Although these are cases of elaborate
quantitative laws, where mathematical language and calculation are used to express the
connection between the general law and special facts.
The Selection of Independent Variables
Whewell points out some methods and methodological observations that can assist in the
fulfillment of each of these three stages in the induction of Quantitative laws.
The first stage, or selection of the idea, is the most important stage according to Whewell and at
the same time the one in which the rules can help us the least. "In these cases, certain
mathematical methods can be used to facilitate and give precision to the determination of the
formula by which the observations are connected into a law.
curves method,
"Wewell says that when a quantity undergoes a series of changes that depend on the progress of
another quantity, this dependence can be expressed by means of a curve."
The variable quantity, whose considerable changes become the ordinate of the curves and the
quantities depend on changes becomes the abscissa. The purpose and peculiar efficacy of the
method of curves depends on these circumstances, that order and regularity are more readily
and clearly recognized when they are stated."
It allows us to see, almost at a glance, the law of change and, with further attention, it can give
us a formula of great precision. According to Whewell, he points out two obstacles that prevent
the application of the curve method:
 Our ignorance of the increase of changes
 "The complication of several laws with each other."

In the first case, if we do not know how much of these changes we are studying, we may entirely
fail to discover the law of changes.
Secondly, when several laws are combined with each other, the curve method cannot be used
either.
Measurements method:
"Whewell determines between a number of unequal quantities, a quantity equally distant from
the largest and smallest."
The method is used to correct our observations or to give it the average value with which we
can work.
"Whewell points out that in many cases we have several laws of Nature operating at the same
time and that combine their influences to modify those quantities that are subjects of
observation."
Quantitative Method in Social Sciences
The adequacy of the basic assumptions of the "scientific method" (rigor, objectivity, reliability)
for the study of Social reality is questioned because the application of said method, by

41
simplifying and breaking down the entirety of reality into its intimate component parts ,
provides only an incomplete or distorted vision of the social reality addressed. In the field of
Social Sciences, it is fought against Positivism; This incorporates into the field of Social
Sciences, Paradigms and methods that serve quite effectively for the discovery of laws and
regularities in the Natural Social Sciences; Furthermore, it accepts that the form and type of
causal relationships found in Nature are essentially similar to those that govern the world of
Social Sciences.
(Torre Santomé) "says that such a foundation is what allows us to think that individuals can be
studied objectively through empirical analysis or experimental designs."
Quantitative Paradigms
a. Advocates the use of Quantitative methods.
b. Logical positivism.
c. Penetrative and controlled measurement.
d. Objective: García (1995): that first verb leads to the type of methodology that must be
assumed in combination with the other characteristics of the problem, objective is not the
same as saying, demonstrating, or observing, speaking, or applying.
e. Apart from the data.
f. It is not based on reality.
g. It is result oriented.
h. It is based on solid and repeatable data.
i. It is generalizable: it studies multiple cases.
j. It is particular.
k. Assume a stable reality.

Purposes
The basic purposes of the Quantitative Paradigm in Socio-Educational research is to make
accurate measurements and predictions of the regular behavior of Social groups. According to
(Taylor and Bogdan 1986) "The main search consists of explaining causes of phenomena,
confronting theories and praxis, detecting discrepancies, analyzing statistically, establishing
connections and generalizations, abstractions."
According to Reichardt, Ch. And Cook T. (1986) "Towards overcoming the confrontation
between Qualitative and Quantitative methods in research."
Positivists search for the facts or causes of Social phenomena independently of the subjective
states of individuals.
Research Strategy
The Quantitative Paradigm is deductive, where data is collected to evaluate models, hypotheses
or preconceived theories. The perspective emphasizes the exterior, that is, the valid or external,
which is possible to observe.
According to (Bourdieu, 1987) "They are Social facts that differ from the facts of the Physical
Sciences by considering the beliefs and opinions of those who participate. He points out that
they should not be defined according to what we could describe about them by the objective
methods of Sciences but rather by what the person who acts thinks. The Quantitative
researcher studies people in the context of their present and their past." (p.16)

42
The research strategy differs in both Socio-Educational Paradigms. The quantitative strategy
contemplates (the board from the outside), the observation is systematic and interview-based.
Quantitative Scenario
Quantitative research uses scenarios in which "the aim is to isolate and control intervening
situations", to abstract a series of variables, where the researcher and study subjects live in a
kind of laboratory-type environment. According to Villegas (1996), "The scenario is artificial, it
uses variables to control the phenomenon to be studied, it is part of a reality established a
priori. Use controlled, stable and objective observation. "It is interested in solid, repeatable
data in order to confirm its reliability."
The scenario is artificial and its purpose is nomothetic; it uses variables to control the
phenomenon to be studied, starting from an established reality. Establishes and cares about
robust, repeatable data in order to have secure reliability.
Credibility of Quantitative Findings
The results of Quantitative research are emphasized, in addition to validity, on reliability, that
is, the repeatability of the phenomenon until its generalization is found (through statistics).
Quantitative credibility is intended through validity, reliability and objectivity.
According to Montero (1984), "Quantitative Research is predetermined, and training and
specifications are used in the reagents, an example: the bibliography is extensively reviewed,
before guiding the research that is established "in writing", all possible predictions. The
discourse uses patterns in language and the story is not used." (p.18)
Sant` Anna (1983) and Smith (1983), "Suggest that the Quantitative Paradigm draws on the
alleged Philosophers of Realism, Rationalism, Positivism and the scientific Epistemology of
Comte and the Vienna Circle."
Quantitative Methods and Techniques of Research in Primary Care.
It is based on the measurement of facts and they study the frequency of diseases and their
causality and have always called research in all branches of Medicine. Research and teaching of
medicine is based on the Biologist's vision of the person and this conditions the methods used
in teaching and research.
It is informed and investigated to work on reality and try to change it, and improve it from a
health point of view, and for this we can understand it. As Lión Entralgo says, & Lagno; "The
complete total knowledge of reality will never be given to the Human mind, which moves closer
to it every day in an asymptomatic way. For this reason, medical professionals and researchers
cannot approach the numerical Paradigm and deny the contributions of other scientific
Paradigms. The vision of reality from a single perspective leads us to the simplification of our
understanding of it, to a shotgun vision, if not to a trivilization when trying to convert the
number of aspects of reality that are difficult to measure.
Characterization of the Quantitative Paradigm
The origin of this Epistemological Paradigm. It could be situated in the later Positivist
developments of the Vienna Circle.

43
This means that the basic patterns of obtaining new knowledge are exactly the same in all
Sciences, each of them differing solely and exclusively in the specific ways of achieving said
objectives.
Smith (1983) says that "Statements will be true or not depending on whether they can be
verified, which is the same, depending on whether they agree with the observations made
(objective knowledge)."
Quantitative Contracting
Contracts usually use the term Quantitative through the following characteristics:
a. Manipulation of variables.
b. Use of standardized procedures for data collection (questionnaires, observation, etc.).
c. Minimal interaction of the researcher in the study situation.
d. Use of operational definitions of variables.
e. Measurement of variables with ratio or interval scales.
f. Rigorous control of external variables.
g. Use of statistics and the linear model as measurement procedures for combinations
between variables.

Quantitative methods:
Experiments
a. Non-participant observation
b. Standardized interviews and surveys.

Investigation process
In the quantitative paradigm the research process follows a linear pattern.
The linear sequence in Quantitative research in the Social Sciences. From step 1 to step 4 the
researcher acts "from outside" the cultural scene.
To view the graph select the "Download" option from the top menu
Source: James P. Spradley (1980). Participant observation. New York: Rinehart
and Winston.
Key concepts
In the quantitative Paradigm, Socio-Educational research highlights elements such as variables
(Quantitative and Qualitative), reliability (Consistency and stability), validity (Free of
distortions), hypotheses (Training to be tested by checking the facts) and degree of statistical
significance (Level of acceptance or rejection and accepted margin of error).
Reliability, credibility, validity, objectivity, hypotheses, variables, generalizations.
Global Concept in Summary
Positivists, hypothetical - deductive, Particularistic, objective, results-oriented, typical of the
Social Sciences. Reliable, measurable, verifiable methods and techniques. Privilege of
mathematics and statistics. Formalization of hypotheses in operational phases. The theory that
serves as their basis ends up operationalized through standardized procedures. The Empirical

44
is privileged over the theoretical. Quantitative methodologies went hand in hand with
Empirical Sociology where the problem was variables or indicators, representability ended up
being a mathematical problem.
Quantitative Methodologies

Methodologies

Rationality Scientism, Rationalism, as an institutionalist Epistemological position. Adherence to

the traditionality of Science. Evaluative neutrality as a criterion of objectivity.
Knowledge is based on facts. Partial and atomized representation of reality. The
expert as a true authority.

Obtaining knowledge Objectivity as the only form of knowledge. Search for knowledge that is unassailable.
Search for certainty. Scientific knowledge as synonymous with the discovery of the
causal relationships that exist and that configure a given reality.

Role of Theory Theory is a fundamental element of Social research, it provides its origin (because it
is a source of new problems and hypotheses), its framework (because it provides the
conceptual system) that is applied to the observation, classification and
systematization of reality data. and its end (because research must lead to
increasingly more perfect theories.

Perception of Social Explanatory and predicative understanding of reality. Objective, unitary, static,
reality reductionist conception of reality. Approaching reality with a reliable, measurable,
verifiable method. It starts from a concept of reality established a priori. Scientific
theories explain Social reality.

Research conception Linear, finalist conception, starting from a beginning and ending in an end. Deductive
strategy. The object is pre-established theoretical verification or verification. The
investigative scenario is fundamentally artificial. The purpose or purpose is:
Nomothetic.

Unique method: hypothetical – deductive with its analytical, non-contradictory

deductive rationality. The logical reason for the method is the analytical reason, the
Method
reason that served as the foundation for Euclidean Geometry. This logical –
deductive – analytical reason is typical of mathematics.

Source: Hurtado y Toro. (1998). Research Paradigms

CONCLUSION
The topic discussed on the Evolution of the Episteme in the quantitative Paradigm refers to the
different study methods, which are based on their own theories, where each of these have
different ways of seeing the research.
We approach this work with the documentary research methodology, where the purpose is
based on the expansion and deepening of knowledge of its nature, where collecting information

45
from books, dictionaries, theses, projects or others; Recognizing the main idea of the topic,
which is the author's point of view, in the different chapters, referring to a way of investigating.
We understand by Chapter HI, the Episteme, which due to the readings and summaries
provided by each author, we can define it as a way of investigating the physical and social
sciences of the different approaches to scientific and educational knowledge.
Chapter II, we refer to the Paradigm that, according to what has been exposed to the different
authors, is evolving as the years have passed and improving the anecdotes presented by other
authors according to each point of view and improving the ideas of the authors. Paradigms
through the Paradigm that each individual possesses and the new Paradigms have exposed
practices that have been brought to a society.
The last Chapter III, we are based on quantitative research, which deals with numerical
methods, verifiable, measurable and that can be scientifically verified.
The knowledge that we were able to obtain through the different study methods is that the
Episteme and the Paradigm are always present in the research, which have verifiable scientific
recognition.
REFERENCES
- Bachelard, G., (1997). The formation of the scientific spirit. Publishers SA
Available in the Central University Library of Venezuela. Core -
Aragua.
- Bugne, M., (1980).. Epistemology Editorial Ariel. Caracas- Mexico
(Barcelona). Available in the Library of the Central University of
Venezuela.
- Carr, W and Kemmis, S., (1988). Critical theory of teaching. Madrid
Martínez Roca Editorial.
- Cook TD & Retechardt, Ch., (1986). Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
in educational research. Madrid – Morata.
- Damiani, L. F., (1997). Epistemology and Science in Modernity: The transfer
from the Rationality of the Physical-Natural Sciences to the Sciences
Social. Caracas. FACES – UCV Edition.
- Dictionary of Educational Sciences (1991). Vol. I and II. Editorial
Santillana. Mexico. Various Authors.
- Erazo, PM, (1999). Characterization of the Empirical Positivist influence
that guides the Thought of Science Teachers. Library

46
History of quantitative methods

The formal beginning of Operations Research took place in England at the end of
1939, when the Bawdsey research station, under the direction of A. Rowe, was
charged with developing optimal policies for the new military detection system
called radar. Shortly after, a study of the phases of night operations was presented
in what would be a model for subsequent studies of the same type.

Shortly after, due to the extreme personnel needs that arose during the war and the
complexity of the new defense and attack systems that were introduced, the use of
scientists in the global study of the problems posed seemed indicated. The goal was
to achieve the maximum possible efficiency. Thus, in August 1940, the physicist
PMS Blackett of the University of Manchester was charged with forming a working
group to study the radar-governed air defense system. This group was made up of
three psychologists, two mathematical physicists, an astrophysicist, an army
officer, a topographer, a physicist and two mathematicians. It was jokingly called
"Blackett's circus", and it is generally accepted that it contained all the
characteristics of the groups working in Operations Research:

Interdisciplinary working group

Use of mathematical models

47
Systems analysis point of view

One of the first efforts of this group was directed to the study of air attack on
submarines. The bombs were programmed to explode at a depth of about thirty
meters, as it was argued that when the submarine saw the bomber it would
submerge; and given that approximately two minutes would pass from the moment
the bomber was located to the moment the bomb was dropped, approximately
thirty meters was the depth reached by the submarine in its hasty immersion. But
although the reasoning was valid, the results obtained with this policy were very
limited. When Blackett's group was commissioned to study, their first decision
consisted of direct observation of the situation, climbing on bombers on their
missions to attack submarines. After a large number of observations, they
concluded, with the analysis of the attack data, that the following circumstances
occurred:

a) Due to the lack of precision of the bombing, very few of the bombs exploded near
their target, thirty meters deep.

b) Accuracy increased when the submarine had not had time to submerge, but in
that case the bombs exploded at too deep a depth and did not cause major damage.

In short, the depth of thirty meters was adequate when the submarine spotted the
bomber in advance, but the lack of precision prevented results from being
obtained. And when the precision was good, the depth at which the explosion was
programmed was inadequate, since this only occurred when the submarine
remained close to the surface.

In view of the statistical data on the accuracy of bombing and submerging of

submarines, it was concluded that the most appropriate alternative was to choose
to cause damage when the submarine was on the surface. This was done and the
results improved dramatically. This work already included the aspects that
characterize Operations Research studies:

1. Direct data collection.

48
2. Use of mathematical models to analyze the situation, which in this case was
simply statistical.

3. Obtaining the optimal policies that correspond to the model.

4. Modification of said policies according to real factors not considered in the

model: in this case fuzes that exploded at a depth of ten meters were used, since
others that did so closer to the surface were not available. One result of the study
was to begin manufacturing it.

As a consequence of the results obtained by this and other studies on military

problems, the British Admiralty created the "Naval Operational Research"
functional group. The point of view used to analyze problems by this group, and
those that immediately followed, was called Operational Research. This meaning
was modified in the United States by Operations Research. According to English
authors, such as Sir Robert Watson-Watt, it was at his suggestion that the
Americans also introduced groups of scientists to study military operations after
the beginning of their participation in the war. By April 1942, the Air Force, Army,
and Navy had functional groups known as Operations Analysis, Operations
Research, and Operations Evaluations, respectively. The last of these groups was
led by Philp M. Morse [MOS55], from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
who years later would be the first president of the North American Operations
Research Society (ORSA) and one of its main disseminators.

During the war, other allied countries such as Canada and France also introduced
Operational Research groups into their respective armies. At the end of the war,
circumstances in Britain and the United States were different for these groups. In
the United States, funds for research in the military field increased, so most groups
consolidated, increasing their number and size. Because of this, North American
industry and administration remained indifferent to Operations Research for the
rest of the decade. One of the first research establishments, dependent on the Air
Force and which had great influence on the subsequent development of this
discipline, was the RAND Corporation founded by Donald Douglas in 1946. At the
first conference on Operations Research in Industry, which took place at the Case
Institute of Technology in Cleveland in 1951, it was almost impossible to find non-
military industrial applications. Perhaps the causes of this slow development in the

49
United States need to be sought in the situation of the traditional Industrial
Organization, which was fully established, widespread and reputed. Operational
Research was perceived as a dubious competitor to it, to which must be added the
jealous secrecy with which the limited experiments carried out were maintained.

On the other hand, in Great Britain, the components of the groups that had
developed in the military environment passed into civil society. The new problems
that arose for the new English Labor administration, with the nationalization of
important sectors of its economy and the reconstruction of a large part of its
industrial facilities, stimulated the implementation of Operations Research. Sir
Charles Ellis, head of the Army's Operational Research group during the war, was
appointed scientific adviser to the Coal Committee, creating an Operational
Research group. Similar circumstances occurred in the nationalized electricity and
transportation sectors. In the private sector, English industry maintains
cooperative research institutions, so the diffusion of new methods is less mediated
by industrial secrecy. Perhaps because of this, almost immediately the steel and
textile industries introduced Operations Research groups. Another important
aspect in this context is that the development of traditional Industrial Organization
in Britain had been more limited, and with the exception of Work Study, was still a
novelty in industrial circles. For this reason, certain fields such as inventory
management are still identified with Production Organization in the United States
and with Operations Research in England. Thus, a whole series of quantitative
methodologies were disseminated in the industry of the latter country under the
name and with the prestige of Operations Research.

Simultaneously, the development of computers and their implementation in

industry made it possible to treat and study highly complex problems, which is why
in the mid-1950s, Operations Research was already established in the industrial
world. The first courses on Operations Research were taught at MIT in Boston in
1948, and a year later there was a series of lectures at University College London.
Shortly after, the Case Western Reserve, Johns Hopkins and North-Western
Universities in the USA offered complete specific programs; and at Imperial
College and the London School of Economics in England.

The group of English scientists who came from military establishments formed the
Operational Research Club in 1948, which would give rise, in 1954, to the

50
Operational Research Society. A few years earlier, in 1950, the Operations Research
Society of America had been founded. Both immediately began the publication of
monographic scientific journals for the public presentation of the results of ongoing
research and the dissemination of the discipline. The first students in the graduate
program to obtain the degree of Doctors in Operations Research graduated from
the Case Institute of Technology in 1957, with Professors Russell Ackoff and West
Churchman being responsible for the program.

With Operational Research already firmly established, its rapid evolution dragged
with it that of Production Organization, in such a way that there is a deep and
complete correlation between both subjects. To highlight the overlap, the recent
evolution of Quantitative Methods to the situation in which they are currently
found is now introduced.

Every scientific discipline emerges from the convergence of a growing interest in

some class of problems and the development of scientific methods, techniques and
instruments suitable for solving those problems. The IoT It uses results from many
scientific areas, although its fundamental basis is found in mathematics, economics
and the calculation of probabilities and statistics. From a mathematical point of
view, the origins could be established in different works on linear models due to
Jordan, Minkowsky and Farkas at the end of the 19th century. In relation to
statistics, its origins are found in Erlang's work on waiting phenomena in the
1920s. In economics they are due to Quesnay (XVIII) and Walras (XIX), who
proposed the first mathematical programming models, which were later perfected
by authors such as Von Neumann, Kantorovich and Dantzig.

As can be seen in the first studies that were labeled as Operational Research, the
most characteristic technical aspect consisted of the statistical structuring of the
data and the use of probabilistic descriptive models. However, the prestige and
dissemination of Operations Research is based on Linear Programming, although
this corresponds to a simplification of reality.
The mathematical foundations of discrete linear models are found in the theory of linear
inequalities developed in the last century. Other concepts that are parallel to those of
Linear Programming were formulated by von Neumann in 1928, with the application of the
minimax theorem to strategy games . As an immediate antecedent, there is the approach
to the transportation problem, by F. L. Hitchcock [HIT41], in 1941 in the United States. In
the context of optimal planning of the allocation of productive obligations , the same model

51
had been studied and solved by Kantorovich in the Soviet Union in 1939, using what can
be interpreted as dual variables . Also, in a specific context, Stiegler posed the linear
problem of obtaining an adequate diet with minimum cost from seventy-seven foods and
considering nine nutrients, recognizing in it the structure of optimizing a linear function
subject to linear restrictions. But the project for formulating and attacking the linear
problem in general was proposed by the Air Force department under the name of the
SCOOP project in 1947. The immediate result was the simplex solving algorithm , due to
George B. Dantzig, and its implementation on a UNIVAC computer for the resolution of
large linear models.
In the rest of the 1950s, Linear Programming was fully established, with the work of
Charnes [CHA52A-54] on degeneration, of Lemke on duality, of Dantzig, Orden and Wolfe
on compact form and the decomposition of large programs. In these same years, Ford and
Fulkerson, also hired by the RAND Corporation, established results on flows in graphs and
the primal-dual method for distribution problems. However, Integer Linear Programming
does not receive attention until the end of this decade, when Gomory [GOM58-60C]
obtains the general expression to approximate the convex hull of the admissible set using
only and exclusively secant planes. Despite the hopes that the procedure generated, it
continues to be a field with limited and unsatisfactory methods, where the partial and
intelligent enumeration of possible solutions is the last resort that is necessary in a
multitude of situations.
In nonlinear models, the fundamental results come from the development of mathematical
calculation in the 18th century, the basic concept being that of the Lagrangian. The
characterization of the necessary optimality conditions in restricted problems is
generalized from Lagrange's results in the well-known Kuhn-Tucker theorem [KUH51],
which compiles and structures a set of research carried out by numerous authors over the
years. forty, among whom Dantzig and Fritz John must also be mentioned. Nonlinear
Programming progressed during the sixties and seventies, being able to tackle the
resolution of medium-sized problems with several dozen restrictions and a few hundred
variables. However, research in the search for efficient algorithms was still very active,
since the existing ones were not fully satisfactory.
As for Dynamic Programming, its beginning and basic development is due to Richard
Bellman in the early fifties. The significance of this methodology is not limited to
Operational Research, but is also of great importance in the Theory of Optimal Control , in
close relationship with the principle of Pontryagin's maximum. As far as we are concerned
here, the development of Dynamic Programming has been limited in its specific
applicability due to the computational complexity that accompanies it, both due to the
cardinality of the state space and the number of periods involved. In this sense, Larson's
work has contributed to its treatment, but many authors still consider Dynamic
Programming as a conceptual point of view and theoretical background for problem
analysis; and not as a method or set of them, implementable in general algorithms. In this
direction, Denardo's work, identifying the structure of sequential decision processes ,
represents progress in establishing them.
Queuing Theory begins with the work of the Danish engineer A. K. Erlang in the telephone
industry at the beginning of the century. The detailed study of the most common models, in
which both the distribution of arrivals to the system and the service time are known, and
belong to well-established categories, is completely characterized. But the mathematical

52
technical resources required to carry out these analyzes make simulation the usual study
method when queuing processes are of a certain complexity. It should be highlighted the
existence of a multitude of simulation languages available to computer users of the most
important companies in the sector.
Game Theory begins with von Neumann's first results on the minimax theorem in 1926.
Especially after the publication of his basic work in conjunction with Morgenstern,
establishing the theory of matrix games . Subsequently, and as a consequence of the
contributions of the Theory of Optimal Control, it bifurcates into Differential Games, which
do not concern us now, and into the study of cooperative games. Within the latter, the
development is based on the study of the kernel theory, including the concept of Shapley
value and Nash results. In any case, the influence of this theory on the Organization of
Production has been very limited. As for Decision Theory under conditions of uncertainty, it
is all based on Bayesian statistics and the subjective estimation of the probabilities of
events. The structuring of the axiomatic theory of utility is more recent, being in a phase of
full development, as shown in the publications of Schlaifer and Raiffa. Currently it is
considered a valid instrument for structuring decision making with uncertainty when the
information is not complete. The applicability to the Production Organization is reduced
because the situation there is quite structured, and satisfactory information about the
context can be accessed. If anything, in the strategic approaches that may occur in the
design phase in which the information is less or even does not exist, these methods can
be used.
Since its origin, Operations Research has been faced with problems for which there is no
analytical method that allows obtaining, safely and in a convenient time, the theoretical
optimum. This is, for example, the case of combinatorial problems in which common sense
considers enumeration impossible. It is more than normal that the size and nature of
certain combinatorial problems prohibited us from addressing them through common
sense. Our good sense, educated by science , knows how to distinguish particularly NP-
complete problems, for which there is no algorithm that in polynomial time is capable of
finding the solution (Garey and Johnson). For these reasons, operations research has
always established so-called heuristic methods, incapable of providing the formal
optimum, but capable of arriving at good solutions, all the more reliable in that they allow
the determination of a bound (upper or lower) at the same time. ) of the theoretical
optimum with which they are compared. With the rise of microcomputers, towards the
beginning of the eighties, these methods have been gaining ground, since it was becoming
increasingly feasible and easy to try different heuristics and judge their relative
effectiveness .
It is also worth highlighting the great diffusion that optimization " software " has suffered
due to the increase in the computing power of computers and the lowering of the cost of
applications and " hardware ". Among some of them we can mention names of
mathematical programming applications (for solving linear, mixed and non-linear models)
such as GINO, MINOS, IMSL, XA, GPSS and CPLEX. Other pre- and post-processing
applications of the above can also be mentioned: ANALYZE, GAMS, AMPL, etc. that allow
you to generate models and analyze their results in a friendly way.
In recent years, a series of methods have appeared, called metaheuristics, whose purpose
is to find good solutions to optimization problems (linear or nonlinear and with or without
restrictions). Among them can be listed genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, tabu

53
search and neural networks . Its application to sequencing problems of all types is a typical
and classic purpose. What's more, practically all of them are based on trying to solve, in
the best possible way, typical Production Organization problems. Thus, the typical
problems of sequencing work on machines , balancing assembly lines, assigning routes,
production planning, etc. They have been, are and, almost certainly, will be the test bed for
the most modern techniques for searching for solutions to problems in which, from the
outset, the possibility of finding the optimal solution is declined.
Genetic algorithms were introduced by Holland to imitate some of the mechanisms
observed in the evolution of species. The mechanisms are not known in depth but some of
its characteristics are: evolution occurs in the chromosomes ; one living being gives life to
another by decoding the chromosomes of its parents, crossing them, and coding the new
chromosomes forming the descendants; The best characteristics of the parents are
transferred to the descendants, progressively improving the generations.
Based on these characteristics, Holland created an algorithm that generates new solutions
from the union of parent solutions using operators similar to those of reproduction , without
needing to know the type of problem to be solved.
Simulated annealing algorithms were introduced by Cerny and Kirkpatrick et al. for the
optimization of combinatorial problems with local minima. They use non-deterministic
optimization techniques: they do not look for the best solution in the environment of the
current solution but rather they randomly generate a close solution and accept it as the
best if it has the lowest cost, or otherwise with a certain probability p; This probability of
acceptance will decrease with the number of iterations and is related to the worsening of
the cost.
These algorithms derive from the thermodynamic analogy with the metallurgical process of
annealing: when a molten metal is cooled slowly enough, it tends to solidify into a
minimum energy structure (thermal equilibrium ); As the temperature decreases,
molecules are less likely to move from their energy level; the probability of movement fits
the Boltzmann function.
Among the different heuristic methods and techniques for solving combinatorial problems,
the tabu search algorithm, Glover, emerges in an attempt to provide " intelligence " to local
search algorithms.
Tabu search, unlike other algorithms based on random techniques for searching for
nearby solutions, is characterized by the fact that it uses a strategy based on the use of
memory structures to escape from local optima, which can fall into when "moving" from
one solution to another through the solution space. Like local search, tabu search
aggressively selects the best of the possible moves at each step. Unlike what happens in
local search, movements to solutions in the environment are allowed even if the objective
function worsens, so that it is possible to escape from local optima and strategically
continue the search for better solutions.
Neural networks (<neural networks>) are analogue models that aim to reproduce, as far as
possible, the characteristics and information processing capacity of the set of neurons
present in the brains of living beings. The main characteristics of these models are their
robustness, fault tolerance , ability to adapt and learn , and the ability to process faulty
information.

54
Neural network models try to achieve good results based on a dense interconnection of
simple computational nodes called neurons. Aleksander and Morton define a neural
network as a "parallel distributed processor that possesses a natural propensity for storing
experimental knowledge making it available for use. It is reminiscent of the human brain in
two aspects: knowledge is acquired through a learning process, and interneuronal
connection is used for knowledge storage.
An important advantage that heuristics have over techniques that seek exact solutions is
that, in general, they allow greater flexibility in handling the characteristics of the problem.
It is not usually complex to use heuristic algorithms that use nonlinearities instead of linear
functions . Heuristics usually propose a set of solutions, thus expanding the decision-
maker's choice possibilities, especially when there are non-quantifiable factors that could
not be reflected in the model but must be taken into account.
In summary, it could be said that the use of these techniques represents the possibility of
solving, in a practical way, highly complex problems that were intractable using exact
techniques.

Author:

OPTIONS OF METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNICAL APPROACHES

QUALITATIVE

55
METHODS
*Field observation
*Study of cases
*Open interviews
*Interpretive surveys
*Documentary film
*Descriptive
*Theorizations
*Inductive
*Historical
*Group or individual telephone interviews

QUANTITATIVE METHODS
*Surveys
*Experimental
*Observation
*Statistical
*Hypothesis testing
*Large universes: population sampling
*Hypothesis statement
*Statistical formulas

QUALITATIVE TECHNIQUES
*Measuring scales
*Sociograms (social acceptability analysis methods)
*Written projective tests
*Thematic apperception
*Group sections
*Depth interviews
*Discussion groups
*Disguised and undisguised group dynamics
*Intention measurement
*Questionnaires with open questions
*Audiovisual material for subject observation
*Image analysis
*Tests to establish hypotheses
*Generic problems
*Laboratory study: cabinet; clinical
*Field observation
*Ethnography (population study)

QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES

56
*Questionnaires with closed questions of facts or opinion
*Closed and semi-closed responses
*Numerical data
*Tabulation of questionnaires with measurable statistical results
*Quantifications
*Structural questions
*Experimental design
*Observation records
*Interview schedules
* Population sampling

57