The A Priori Paradigm Fallacy: Why the Goal Must Dictate the Method

In social science research—and I would venture to say in science in general—there is a widespread yet methodologically questionable practice of obsessing over classifying research strategies into rigid categories. One only needs to open most academic manuals, articles, or blogs (I’ll refrain from including references here… lest the authors get angry) to find a highly counterproductive premise such as that, to conduct research, the first thing one must do is situate oneself within an approach or paradigm, choosing beforehand whether one will be “qualitative” or “quantitative” (or socio-critical, empirical-analytical, positivist, etc.).

From the perspective of scientific argumentation, this is an aberration. The development of research cannot and should not start from an immovable epistemological positioning, but rather should be designed based on a single governing beacon: the goal intended to be achieved.

The Journey from Lima to Quito: A Question of Means, Not Dogmas

To illustrate the absurdity of choosing the paradigm before the goal, I propose a geographical thought experiment. Let us imagine that our research purpose is, metaphorically, to travel from Lima to Quito.

If we operate under the logic of the “a priori paradigm,” before looking at the map or understanding the nature of the journey, we would dogmatically decide our means of transport: by land, by air, or by sea.

If we decide to go by land: We will arrive, sooner or later, depending on whether we go on foot or in a vehicle. It is a viable means, although heavily conditioned by resources and time.
If we decide to go by air: We will take a plane or a helicopter and, almost with total certainty, we will reach the goal directly and efficiently.
If we decide to go by sea: Here the methodological trap is revealed. However committed we may be to our “maritime approach,” it is geographically impossible to reach Quito (an inland Andean city) by sailing. Our failure is guaranteed 100%, unless we betray the dogma and combine it with other means.

In research, exactly the same thing happens. If we start from a prior epistemological or paradigmatic approach, it is possible that, by pure methodological coincidence, we achieve our goal investing more or less time and resources. But it is also highly probable that we remain on the road, simply because the chosen paradigm is structurally unviable for the question we have posed for ourselves.

Methodological Classification Must Be A Posteriori

What is truly important in empirical work is not the paradigm, the approximation, nor the trench of the quantitative approach against the qualitative one. The fundamental thing is to answer the research problem.

Any epistemological means that is viable for resolving said problem must be applied without hang-ups. The work that we carry out can—and perhaps should—be classified within one paradigm or another a posteriori, for descriptive purposes or of academic ordering. However, using that classification as a restrictive framework a priori is starting the house by the roof.

Method is a slave to the goal, not the reverse. To constrain research to the rigidity of an initial paradigm is to limit science’s capacity to understand the complexity of reality.

Assuming this stance allows us something key in contemporary research: making viable the compatibility of paradigms, techniques, and approaches. It breaks with the perspective of immovability and frees us from that reductionist vision that assumes that the researcher must swear loyalty to a method before knowing what mystery they are trying to solve.