The Five Main Sets of Value Paradigms

According to text there are five major value paradigms. Value from the viewpoint of traditional reliability, value from the perspective of post modern relativeism, value from the environmental point of view, and new perspectives and values ​​from a compromise point of view. Let's examine the basics of each example and make it easy to see. The first of all paradigms may also be the most formal view of traditional certainty. This set of values ​​is inherently more or less religious, and most of its followers favor monotheistic or monotheistic beliefs.

From 1750 to around 1980, Western civilization was characterized by a so-called "modern" ideological paradigm. The paradigm is "a series of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way to observe the reality of the community and can be shared in particular in the field of intelligence." 1 The great philosophy including this paradigm is called modernity In this context, the concept of paradigm is closely related to the concept of world view. Therefore, "modern world view" refers to the reaction of the modern paradigm to how individuals are related to the world.

When deciding the design of a project, researchers must consider the main research paradigm and related methods. The paradigm is defined as the world view. Creswell (1994, p. 74) considers this to be "a basic belief or assumption leading to researchers' investigation." Cohen et al. (2000) We propose three main examples of educational research. These are positivism, interpretiveism and critical theory / postmodern. We first explain Positivism according to Baker (1979), the first thinker who used phraseological positivism as a philosophical position, French philosopher Auguste Conto (1798-1857). His interpretation of positivism see observation and reason as a means of understanding behavior; interpretation by scientific description

Like the biological philosophy that has developed over decades of physics philosophy (see eg Hull, 2000), the main paradigm of scientific interpretation still points to classical physics. The influential interpretation of Ernst Nagel (Nagel, 1959) on interpretation as general theoretical reasoning is inspired by the determinism of classical physics and may cause problems when applied to biological interpretation . . If the deduction rule is too strict, biological theory can not explain them, whereas if initial conditions and boundary conditions are too loose and / or provisional assumptions are tolerated as auxiliary hypotheses, You can explain everything. . This problem is ineffective for biological methodology, mainly because it uses non-deductive interpretation.