Paper Example on the New Paradigm: A Better Alternative to Traditional Research Models

The new paradigm refers to a research model that has its base on modernism (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20). The new standard can also be termed as social constructionist, postmodern, critical and discursive psychology. This paper will describe what is new in this paradigm. The article will also dig deep into the variations that it has from the traditional research models and why it has a higher endorsement as compared to the traditional one. The paper will additionally provide reasons why it seems exciting and its practical way forward.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The new paradigm provides a platform for researchers to ask a variety of research questions. It allows a room for opening up to the diversity of the ranges of the new research methods. The new paradigm, compared to the old models of research, provides more efficiency in researching and learning the aspects of the experience that human beings portray (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20). It gives a chance to review the actions that are salient to how the lives of human beings are lived. Therefore, this standard provides a more applicable address to the types of practical challenges that matter to the lives of human beings.

In psychology, the new paradigm has an ability to make practical and visible critical variations to the contributions that provide improvement of the quality of lives among the people in psychology. It also shows the strength of the psychologists to hand a majority of social problems, economic and environmental issues that the people are facing in the 21st century (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20).It provides a platform for solving such problems as mentioned above. The new paradigm, therefore, has several reasons why it outweighs the traditional models of research as will be evident in this paper.

The primary foundation of the new paradigm is a fundamental design of challenging modernism. Modernism was vastly tailored with a set of values and practices. This came up from the historical happenings of the 18th century due to the enlightenment of the Europeans (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20). Therefore, modernism is severally referred to as the Post Enlightenment Project. The reason is that it was based on the motivation and belief that human beings can and critically should formulate a better world with their efforts. They should do it rather than over-relying on supernatural powers to make the world better for them. Therefore, the new paradigm in modern societies and researchers is essential as compared to the traditional research models. Some of the differences between the two models include the following:

The new paradigm research model, the study and teachings are conjoined and propelled by the students and the faculty. The old model, on the other hand, the research was solely the work of the students. The faculties would transfer the burden to the students (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20).This would be challenging as the student may fail to get a knowledgeable person to mentor and correct the student whenever they make mistakes. The new paradigm in research ensures there is the chance of the students to work closely with their tutors to adjust them throughout the studies and analyses.

The older paradigm viewed students as vessels that are passive and without any knowledge and therefore awaiting the faculty to impact the experience to them. This would, in turn, make the students significantly dormant as they would expect to get everything from the faculty and not by themselves. On the other hand, the new paradigm views the student as the most crucial builder of his knowledge, discoverer and a transformer of their experience (Prout, and James, 2015, p. 20).The students get a platform to drive themselves and find their ways of learning through researches and better their expertise with the assistance of the faculties.

Scale of Measurement

The scale of measurement refers to several means of measuring things. It also refers to the stratification that describes the kind and the nature of information or substance in comparison of variables (Kline, 2014, p. 190). These things can be data, elements and other materials. Measuring is a technique that assists a person to tell the quantity or the amount of matter in an object. Measurement can be used to determine the length, the weight and the amount of substance. The scale of analysis can also be referred to as the level of measurement. The levels of measurement as per Stanley Smith, who was a psychologist are four. He outlined these levels as nominal, ratio, ordinal and interval. The level of measurement originated in the field of psychology. It is however faced with severe criticism by scholar from other study disciplines. There are different categories, as outlined by Mosteller and Tukey.

The systematic Steven's categorization in 1946 in his article called, On the theory of scales of measurement contained the proposal. In this article, Stanley Smith proposed that all measurements in science were done using the four various types of scales named above. These means of measurement conjoin both quantitative and qualitative concepts (Kline, 2014, p. 190). The theory by Stanley Smith faced criticism. Smith's theory later received mathematical questioning that it failed to have at its establishment with the task of a mathematical psychologist by the name of Theodore Alper.

Stanley Smith later claimed that what mattered was having an interval and ratio scale. Consecutive studies later revealed the meaning to the assumption. With his attempts to bring about scale type theories, it was, however, doubtful if he was able to comprehend it himself. He continues to say that there is no measurement theorist he knows that can concede to his extensive description of measurement (Kline, 2014, p. 190). Below is the story in details about the levels of measures by Stanley Smith.

Interval Scale

The interval type of scale provides for the level of disparity between several items (Kline, 2014, p. 190). However, it's imminent knowing that this method does not give the difference of the ratios between the objects. For instance, the temperature is measured using the scale of Celsius. The Celsius scale has two definite points, namely the boing point and the freezing point of a liquid under particular provisions. It is then separated into one hundred intervals, the measuring date and time from an arbitrary epoch.

Additionally, it has locations in the Cartesian coordinates and the directions given in degrees from the original magnetic orientation of the north (Kline, 2014, p. 190). In this case, the ratio scale may not be applicable as 30 degrees Celsius cannot be considered as three times as hot as 10 degrees Celsius. Besides, division and multiplication may also not be carried out between any two provided dates directly.

Nevertheless, the ratios of differences can be indicated, and for instance, a given discrepancy can be twice or thrice as much or as fewer as the other. Therefore, other times, interval scales are often referred to as scaled variables. The formal term to apply mathematically would be an affine space. It is also essential to note that the mean, mode and median are permitted to measure the central tendency of the interval variables.

Nominal Scale

The nominal scale is among the four scales or levels of measurements as proposed by Stanley Smith in this article about the theories of measurement. The nominal level of measures attempts to differentiate between subjects basing them on their names or categories (Kline, 2014, p. 190). It also applies other classifications, qualitative and quantitative aspects. Bipartite information constitutes of the composition and classification of items. It is as well applicable in the stratification of subjects. The innovation of an exemplary rating can be perceived as advancement. Numbers may be useful in the representation of variables.

Nonetheless, the numbers may not have a relationship or any value numerically. A good example may be a globally unique identifier. Other instances of these categorizations may include biological species, styles, genre, gender, language, ethnicity, nationality language and more others (Kline, 2014, p. 190). Concrete examples may also include taxonomic ranks in biology, hard power and power projections in politics and parts of speech such as verbs and nouns in grammar.

Nominal levels of measurement are often regarded as qualitative scales. Any subjects measured and put into qualitative scales were commonly referred to as qualitative data. Nevertheless, the upcoming of qualitative studies made the usage a bit ambiguous. Numbers that are supposedly assigned as labels in the nominal scales may not possess any numerical meaning and value. It is imminent to know that there is no kind of mathematical computation can apply on the nominal scales. Nominal scales are, therefore, the lowest levels of measurement that uses in statistics. In central tendency, the mode is the only applicable parameter in nominal measurement scale. Median, on the other hand, has no sense in the theoretical type since ranking is useless.

Ordinal Scale

The ordinal level of measurement type allows for the ranking of subjects according to the positions they hold (Kline, 2014, p. 190). For instance, ranking objects as fifth, sixth, seventh, and so forth. In this type, the data can be categorized and sorted as per the ranks. However, this type does not permit the relative level of deviation between the subjects. Some examples may include the dichotomous information parameters such as rich vs poor when measuring the level of poverty, true or false when determining the level of the value of truth.

On the other hand, the data that comprises a broad spectrum of values such as 'completely true', 'fully compromised' when determining the measure of opinion. Such data is known as non-dichotomous information. In this type, the medial is applicable in central tendency. The mode is also appropriate in the central tendency. (Kline, 2014, p. 190). However, the mean is not suitable in this category.

Stanley Smith in 1946 found out that psychological measurements to include the measure of thought are usually applicable in the scale of ordinate. Therefore, averages and standard deviations are invalid. However, they are still useful in acquiring ideas on how to better operationalization of variables. Primarily, information that we obtain by psychological tests to measure various abilities such as cognitive are ordinal and can be measured using the ordinal scale.

Ratio Scale

Ratio scale is derived from perspective of measuring in an estimation of the ratio between the size of an increasing amount and a unit size of the similar type (Kline, 2014, p. 190). The scale of proportion consists of a valuable zero mark. A majority of physical sciences such as engineering apply this type of level. Examples of parameters measured using this scale may include angles, electric charge, energy, duration and mass. As compared to the range of intervals, the ratio scale becomes valuable since they possess a non-arbitrary zero mark. It is, therefore, appropriate to say, for instance, an object has' twice the width'. Primarily, the ratio scale often describes how much the magnitude of a subject is. In central tendency, mean is applicable in this type of level. The mode and median as well are relevant in this type.

The Validity of Measuring Scales

The quality of the scale of measurement as we have found out earlier is good. Therefore, the validity of scale measurement is given as long as the variables are measured using the appropriate scales as found more previously. The efficacy of these scales depends on what they are used to measure. When the correct subjects are estimated using the proper measuring scales as specified in this paper means that the outcome w...