Life Science Journal 2013;10(4) http://www.lifesciencesite.com 3121 Critical Paradigm: A Preamble for Novice Researchers Jabreel Asghar English Language Institute, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. 21589 Saudi Arabia jabreel@hotmail.co.uk Abstract: The positive and constructive paradigms have typically been popular among researchers as two main approaches to scientifically investigate issues of life and social sciences. Particularly novice researchers unconsciously tend to fit their studies in one of the framework set up by either of these approaches. This paper develops arguments in the perspective of paradigmatic issues in research to highlight the comparatively young paradigm of critical theory which has not yet gained due projection. The discussion informs on how critical approach to research may gain equally, or even more, valuable insight not only by analyzing and exploring the situation but also by offering a change agenda for reformation. The paper also appraises one of the critical research tools, critical discourse analysis in depth, to elaborate the philosophical and theoretical basis of this research methodology in order to enhance awareness among novice researchers investigating under the umbrella of critical paradigm. [Asghar, J. Critical Paradigm: A Preamble for Novice Researchers. Life Sci J 2013;10(4):3121-3127]. (ISSN:1097-8135). http://www.lifesciencesite.com . 415 Keywords: constructivism, positivism, critical theory, ideology critique, critical discourse analysis 1. Introduction Selecting an appropriate paradigmatic framework is crucial for researchers because a paradigm, as Guba and Lincoln (1994) suggest, provides with the world of views that defines the nature of the world as well as the range of possibilities for its holders in relation to reality. In other words ontological, epistemological and methodological concerns shape the dimensions of any paradigm. Richards (2003) is also of the same opinion that a paradigmatic position can be represented in terms of ontology and epistemology which have to deal with the value of our beliefs about both of these. This reflects that any paradigm is not only different in term of methodologies but also in term of basic philosophies. The question of paradigmatic choice to determine the suitability of a research area has always been challenging for novice researchers. Researchers usually oscillate between the positivist and constructive paradigms as to form the background of their research in order to achieve valid data. This predominant popularity of positivistic and constructive fashion for investigating knowledge has led to ignoring a relatively newer but potentially stronger paradigm of critical theory. With the advent of critical paradigm, I believe that the bipolar era of constructive and positivistic approaches is likely to turn into critical and non- critical approaches. Non-critical paradigms only present what is observable in a situation, whereas critical paradigm, because if its inherent reformative fervour, goes beyond mere recording observations, and strives to reform for a better world. In order to elaborate the potential of critical paradigm, and to put the same in perspective, the following section gives an overview of non-critical paradigms. 2. Constructivist VS Positivist Categorization of quantitative and qualitative research has given rise to a considerable debate among the researchers. Positivism is thought of as a paradigm (also known as scientific paradigm) comprised of a series of beliefs about the nature of things (Mark: 1996). Differentiating between positivistic and constructive approaches, Holliday (2002) observes that the rigour of positivistic research is in the disciplined application of prescribed rules for instrument design whereas the qualitative research has a principled development of strategies to suit the scenario being studied. Positivists look at the issue in a predetermined way through certain measurable instruments (e.g. survey, questionnaire etc) to confirm or reject the hypothesis. Constructive research, Holliday (2002) observes, finds its channels to exploration while it develops its knowledge of the reality. It does not adopt pre-determined methods or instruments; rather it decides the course of action according to the needs of the situation. This indicates that qualitative research studies issues in their context and attempts to interpret the meaning out of it. Since qualitative research construct a world of its own on the hermeneutic pattern to achieve vershtein, it tends to follow the constructive paradigm. Rossuiau & Rallis (1998) mention four major paradigms as shown in figure 1. They have convincingly divided the paradigm of critical theory into further two that gives more flexibility to researchers to observe their