Post positivist paradigm idea – UGC NET Question

Post-positivism recognises that an external reality exists independently of the researcher but argues that our knowledge of it is always partial and fallible. It retains the use of scientific methods, such as hypotheses and empirical testing, while emphasising critical reflection, triangulation and openness to revision. Knowledge claims are treated as probabilistic rather than absolutely certain. Because the stem stresses an objective reality that is knowable only probabilistically through critical scrutiny, the paradigm described is post-positivism.

Option A:
Positivism assumes that reality is fully knowable through observation, measurement and logical analysis, often downplaying the role of interpretation and fallibility. It tends to treat knowledge claims as close to certain if methods are properly applied. The stem, however, emphasises limits to certainty and the probabilistic nature of knowledge, so pure positivism does not fit.

Option B:
Post-positivism shifts from naive realism to critical realism, acknowledging that theories are human constructions tested against evidence. It encourages researchers to look for disconfirming cases, report limitations and use multiple methods to reduce bias. This cautious, probabilistic stance aligns closely with the description in the stem, making post-positivism the correct answer.

Option C:
Constructivism holds that reality is socially and mentally constructed by individuals and groups, so there is no single objective reality to be approximated. Research in this paradigm emphasises understanding meanings rather than estimating probabilities of truth about an external world. Since the stem presupposes an objective reality, constructivism does not match.

Option D:
Interpretivism prioritises understanding the subjective meanings and lived experiences of participants, often rejecting the search for general laws about an objective world. It does not normally frame knowledge claims in terms of probabilistic approximation to an independent reality. Therefore, interpretivism is not the paradigm referred to in the question.