Research Paradigm

Building the same research model as building a bridge where researchers must gather deep foundations, build a strong foundation, so that the flood compilation struck, the bridge was not deterred because the bridge must be sturdy buildings. To that end, discuss the thoughts and research models that were approved by researchers before the study. To get a strong building in this research, researchers need to start by exploring and solving scientific paradigms. The next stage is to choose the paradigm and determine the appropriate research as a model and the direction of the building of knowledge, within the framework that regulates the stages of research. Such a process is a response for every researcher so that research that is built strong, is able to reveal the meaning that is behind the reality of something, and which previously abstracted to be a bright light, something that is not possible to be certain and contain others (Basrowi and Sukidin, 2002) .

The research paradigm is a framework of thinking that explains how researchers look at facts of social life and researchers' treatment of science or theory. The research paradigm also explains how researchers understand a problem, as well as testing criteria as a basis for answering research problems (Lincoln and Guba, 1986). Related to the research paradigm in the philosophy of science, Muhajir (2000: 4) said:

"A researcher must be aware of three things namely; aware of the philosophical approach to science, aware of the theories used, and aware of appropriate research techniques ”

It is important to do so that the essence of a study in an effort to find the truth of science can be achieved. Without understanding the paradigms, methodologies and research methods, researchers can get lost and wrong in formulating conclusions or building theories.

The research paradigm refers to the view that to get the truth of science one must approach the philosophy of science that is correct, that is, the work procedure of seeking the truth or nature of science. According to Muhajir (2000: 19) scientific truth is built from a large number of facts or facts that can be distinguished from sensual empirical facts, logical empirical facts, ethical empirical facts and transcendent empirical facts. These facts can become science through an appropriate work process, namely the paradigm of science. If not, then it is not the truth of the knowledge gained but instead the legitimate lie.

According to Kuhn (1962) paradigm is a collection of research results which are concepts, values, techniques that are used together in a community to determine the validity of a problem and its solution. This definition sees the paradigm as an implementation of the nature of science at the level of epistemology and axiology, namely that the paradigm becomes the basis of thinking to get knowledge that is recognized as truthful and beneficial to the life of a community that accepts the paradigm.

Distinguishing scientific paradigms should not be seen as an attempt to favor a paradigm with other paradigms, but rather on the conceptual understanding and mindset formation of a researcher in determining the research paradigm used. According to Berg (2004: 2) these paradigms should not be contested which is superior, bearing in mind that a paradigm will remain alive as long as it can achieve its objectives, namely obtaining the truth or the essence of a science.

Through this paradigm division it is hoped that deep understanding will be obtained, because superficial understanding can obscure the meaning of the paradigm in research. The research paradigm is quite a lot of scientists, so that it becomes a debate and cause opposition. But the contradiction is natural because a paradigm will survive if there are adherents and will be extinguished when the paradigm is contradicted by the emergence of a new paradigm.

Burrell and Morgan (1979: 34) use vertical and horizontal lines to divide the plane into four quadrants. Horizontal lines are objective-subjective continuum lines. While the vertical lines describe the assumptions of the changing state of society, the sociology of radical change, at the top point, which moves down towards the assumption of a stable, orderly state of society, the sociology of regulation. The field is divided into four parts, each for the Functionalist, Interpretive, Radical Humanist, and Radical Structuralist paradigms.

According to Muhajir (2000: 22) paradigms can also be distinguished based on the development of mathematical logic to get to the truth namely the positivistic paradigm and the postpositivistic paradigm. Muhajir (2000: 22) understands the positivistic paradigm as an attempt to find truth in an empirically functional framework, while postpositivistically seeks the truth behind sensual empiricism. The search for meaning behind this sensual empirical is carried out with four approaches, namely: first, rational postpostivistic search for meaning based on the grand concept developed by Leibnitz. Second, postpositivistic interpretive phenomenology that seeks meaning from the grass root that was pioneered by Bertrand Russell. Third, pospositivistic critical theory that seeks meaning based on the view of justice developed by the Franfruct Institute and Habermas. Fourth, meta-ethical pragmatism, which is to look for meaning through action. The division of paradigms or approaches to the study of a social reality is also carried out by Chua (1986) and Sarantakos (1993: 33) which distinguishes the paradigm into three, namely positivist, interpretive and critical. These three approaches can be distinguished on the basis of perceptions about reality, perceptions about human activity, perceptions of nature of science, and the objectives of social research.