The concept of paradigm developed by Kuhn allows diverse uses and a plurality of meanings, so it seems necessary to clarify how the concept will be understood and used in the development of this topic.
The term paradigm refers to the set of beliefs and attitudes, as a vision of the world "shared" by a group of scientists that implies, specifically, a specific methodology (Alvira, 1982, p.34)
Each community of scientists shares the same paradigm and forms, in this way, an intellectual community whose members have in common values, beliefs, norms, objectives, a specific language, etc.
Educational Research has been determined by conflicts and paradigmatic debates, it has moved from strongly positivist approaches to more open and pluralist approaches.
Several authors, analysts of this theme, (such as Popkewitz, Koerting, Morin and De Miguel, among others), argue that we can distinguish three major paradigms in Educational Research. They are (combining the diversity of designations used for them) the positivist, the interpretive and the socio-critical.
Ø Traditionally, research in education has followed the foundations and precepts that emerged from the positivist current. This current is related to the empiricist and positivist ideas of authors such as Comte, S. Mill, and Durkheim. Its basic assumptions are that the natural world has its own existence and that it is governed by laws that the researcher must discover objectively and with scientific procedures, in order to explain, predict and, therefore, control all phenomena. In addition, this knowledge acquired on the basis of hypothetico-deductive methodology (scientific and valid for all sciences) is assumed legitimate for all time and place, objective and factual.
From this conception, educational research is equivalent to scientific research applied to education and must be aligned with the norms of the scientific method in its rigorous sense. Value is given to the empirical nature of the research, based on the same principles and bases as the natural sciences. Only knowledge is accepted as such when it is subordinated to the norms of the scientific method and can, therefore, be used to construct laws that explain and predict phenomena.
From this perspective, the research in the educational field has the purpose of exposing the laws that govern the educational facts in order to formulate theories that guide and control the educational practice. All this through the use of quantitative research instruments and techniques.
Although this paradigm facilitates the use of criteria of methodological rigor in the educational field, it is accused of reductionism, since for the sake of such rigor, it sacrifices the study of other very important dimensions of the educational phenomenon such as the sociocultural, political reality, human, ideological, etc.
Ø The interpretive paradigm goes back to the ideas of authors such as Dilthey, Rickert and Weber, among others, added to schools of thought such as phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and qualitative sociology. These humanistic-interpretative currents concentrate on the analysis of the meanings of human actions and of life in society. For this, they use qualitative research techniques.
Research, rather than providing explanations of a causal nature, tries to interpret and understand human behavior from the meanings and intentions of the subjects involved in the educational scene. The followers of this orientation, focus on the description and understanding of what is unique and particular to the subject rather than to the generalizable; They seek to develop ideographic knowledge and accept that reality is multiple, holistic and dynamic. They aim to reach objectivity in the field of meanings, using the intersubjective pact in the educational context as an evidence criterion. They emphasize the interpretation and understanding of the educational reality from the meanings of the people involved and study their intentions, beliefs, motivations and other characteristics not directly manifest or susceptible to experimentation. (Del Rincon et al., 1994, p. 40-41.)
Ø The sociocritical paradigm originates as a response to the previous ones, since it accuses of reductionism to positivism and of conservatism to the interpretive current.
The basis of this paradigm is found in the Frankfurt school, in neo-Marxism, in the works of Freire, Carr and Kemmis, among others, and in Habermas's social critical theory.
In the methodological and conceptual aspects, they are similar to the interpretative paradigm, but they incorporate the ideology explicitly and the critical self-reflection criticism in the processes of knowledge. All this with the fundamental purpose of modifying the structure of social relations, in addition to describing and understanding them.
The supporters of this line of research try to know and understand reality as praxis; unite theory and practice; involve the educator through self-reflection and direct knowledge to emancipate man. (Popkewitz, 1988, p. 75.) In this sense, we see that this position negates the hypothetical neutrality of science.
This current currently has a very strong impact in various educational spaces, such as the study of educational administration, the curriculum, teacher training, etc.