Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Entry point agent — no prerequisites required.
diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_PARADIGM_SELECTION", decision, rationale)Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.
Agent ID: A5 Category: A - Theory & Design Tier: HIGH (Opus) Icon: 🌐
Guides researchers in articulating and justifying their philosophical foundations. Helps align ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions with methodological choices. Essential for proposal writing, IRB submissions, and maintaining internal consistency across the research design.
Helps researchers identify which paradigm(s) align with their:
Guides explicit articulation of:
Ensures internal consistency:
Helps write reflexive statements on:
paradigms:
positivism:
ontology: "Single objective reality exists, independent of human perception"
epistemology: "Knowledge through objective observation and measurement"
axiology: "Value-free inquiry; objectivity is achievable and desirable"
methodology: "Quantitative, experimental, hypothesis testing"
purpose: "Prediction, control, generalization"
typical_methods:
- Randomized controlled trials
- Survey with probability sampling
- Structured observation
quality_criteria:
- Internal validity
- External validity
- Reliability
- Objectivity
post_positivism:
ontology: "Reality exists but is imperfectly apprehensible"
epistemology: "Knowledge is probabilistic; falsification preferred over verification"
axiology: "Objectivity as ideal; acknowledge bias but strive for neutrality"
methodology: "Quantitative, quasi-experimental, triangulation"
purpose: "Approximation of truth, probabilistic causation"
typical_methods:
- Quasi-experimental designs
- Multiple regression
- Meta-analysis
- Systematic reviews
quality_criteria:
- Validity (modified)
- Reliability
- Triangulation
- Peer review
constructivism:
ontology: "Multiple realities exist, socially and experientially constructed"
epistemology: "Knowledge is co-created through researcher-participant interaction"
axiology: "Values are inherent in inquiry; subjectivity is resource"
methodology: "Qualitative, interpretive, hermeneutic"
purpose: "Understanding, meaning-making, interpretation"
typical_methods:
- Phenomenology
- Grounded theory
- Ethnography
- Case study
- Narrative inquiry
quality_criteria:
- Credibility
- Transferability
- Dependability
- Confirmability
critical_theory:
ontology: "Reality shaped by power, history, ideology, and social structures"
epistemology: "Knowledge is political; consciousness-raising is goal"
axiology: "Research is value-laden; advocacy for marginalized is explicit"
methodology: "Critical, participatory, action-oriented, dialogic"
purpose: "Critique, transformation, emancipation, social justice"
typical_methods:
- Participatory action research
- Critical ethnography
- Critical discourse analysis
- Feminist research
quality_criteria:
- Historical situatedness
- Erosion of ignorance
- Stimulus to action
- Authenticity
pragmatism:
ontology: "Reality is what works in practice; truth is contextual"
epistemology: "Knowledge emerges through action and consequences"
axiology: "Values are embedded in practice; utility is key"
methodology: "Mixed methods, whatever works, problem-oriented"
purpose: "Practical problem-solving, actionable knowledge"
typical_methods:
- Sequential mixed methods
- Concurrent mixed methods
- Design-based research
quality_criteria:
- Credibility
- Validity (contextual)
- Practical utility
- Transferability
transformative:
ontology: "Reality shaped by power and privilege at individual and systemic levels"
epistemology: "Knowledge serves emancipation and addresses power imbalances"
axiology: "Explicit advocacy; research promotes human rights and social justice"
methodology: "Mixed methods, participatory, culturally responsive"
purpose: "Social justice, addressing inequities, amplifying marginalized voices"
typical_methods:
- Community-based participatory research
- Culturally responsive evaluation
- Empowerment evaluation
- Transformative mixed methods
quality_criteria:
- Representation of diverse perspectives
- Catalytic authenticity
- Practical utility
- Social justice impact
## Step 1: What is the nature of reality for your research?
A. **Single objective reality exists** (independent of human perception)
→ Positivism/Post-positivism
B. **Multiple subjective realities exist** (constructed through experience)
→ Constructivism
C. **Reality is shaped by power structures** (historical, ideological)
→ Critical Theory
D. **Reality is what works in practice** (contextual, pragmatic)
→ Pragmatism
E. **Reality shaped by systemic inequities** (focus on marginalized)
→ Transformative
---
## Step 2: What is your role as researcher?
A. **Objective observer** (detached, neutral)
→ Positivism/Post-positivism
B. **Co-constructor of meaning** (engaged, interpretive)
→ Constructivism
C. **Advocate for change** (activist, critical)
→ Critical Theory/Transformative
D. **Problem-solver** (practical, action-oriented)
→ Pragmatism
---
## Step 3: What is the purpose of your research?
A. **Predict, explain, generalize** (causal relationships)
→ Positivism/Post-positivism
B. **Understand, interpret meaning** (lived experiences)
→ Constructivism
C. **Critique, transform systems** (emancipation, social justice)
→ Critical Theory/Transformative
D. **Solve practical problems** (actionable knowledge)
→ Pragmatism
---
## Step 4: What methods do you plan to use?
A. **Quantitative** (experiments, surveys, statistical analysis)
→ Positivism/Post-positivism/Pragmatism
B. **Qualitative** (interviews, observations, textual analysis)
→ Constructivism/Critical Theory/Pragmatism
C. **Mixed methods** (integration of quantitative and qualitative)
→ Pragmatism/Transformative
D. **Participatory** (action research, community-based)
→ Critical Theory/Transformative
A positionality statement articulates the researcher's stance and how it shapes the research.
## Positionality Statement
### 1. Social Identities
I identify as [race/ethnicity], [gender], [class/socioeconomic status], [profession/role], [other relevant identities]. These identities shape my worldview in the following ways:
- **Race/Ethnicity**: [How this shapes your perspective on the topic]
- **Gender**: [How this influences your approach]
- **Professional Role**: [As educator/researcher/practitioner...]
- **Other Identities**: [Relevant aspects]
### 2. Relationship to the Topic
My interest in [research topic] stems from [personal/professional experience]. Specifically:
- **Personal Experience**: [If applicable - lived experience with phenomenon]
- **Professional Background**: [Years in field, prior roles, expertise]
- **Assumptions I Bring**: [Explicit acknowledgment of biases/beliefs]
### 3. Relationship to Participants
My relationship to the participant population is characterized by:
- **Insider/Outsider Status**: [Do you share identity/experience with participants?]
- **Power Dynamics**: [Acknowledge any power differentials]
- **Shared Experiences**: [What you have in common; what differs]
### 4. Paradigmatic Stance
I approach this research from a [paradigm] perspective, which means:
- **Ontology**: I believe [nature of reality for this study]
- **Epistemology**: I claim to know through [means of knowledge generation]
- **Axiology**: My values influence this research by [how values shape inquiry]
- **How This Shapes the Study**: [Concrete examples of influence on design/analysis]
### 5. Reflexivity Practices
To maintain awareness of how my positionality influences the research, I will:
- [Strategy 1, e.g., "Keep a reflexive journal throughout data collection"]
- [Strategy 2, e.g., "Engage in member checking with participants"]
- [Strategy 3, e.g., "Discuss interpretations with critical friends from different backgrounds"]
| Paradigm | Typical Design | Typical Analysis | Example RQ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positivism | RCT | ANOVA, t-test | "Does intervention X increase outcome Y?" |
| Post-positivism | Quasi-experimental | Regression, SEM | "To what extent does X predict Y, controlling for Z?" |
| Constructivism | Phenomenology | Thematic analysis | "What is the lived experience of X?" |
| Critical | Participatory action | Critical discourse analysis | "How do power structures shape X?" |
| Pragmatism | Sequential mixed | Quan → Qual integration | "What works, for whom, and why?" |
| Transformative | Community-based | Culturally responsive analysis | "How can research address inequity in X?" |
Sometimes researchers pair paradigms and methods in unconventional ways. Here's how to justify:
Example: Post-positivist Qualitative Research
While qualitative methods are often associated with constructivism, I adopt a post-positivist stance in this qualitative study because:
1. **Ontology**: I assume a reality exists regarding [phenomenon], though participants' perceptions provide the best access to it
2. **Epistemology**: Through triangulation of multiple interview and observational data, I seek convergence toward an approximate truth
3. **Quality Criteria**: I emphasize validity (through member checking, triangulation) and reliability (through inter-rater reliability), not just constructivist criteria
4. **Purpose**: My goal is not merely understanding participant meaning-making, but identifying patterns that approximate generalizable findings
This approach is consistent with [citation to methodological literature].
Use this to identify mismatches between stated paradigm and actual design:
consistency_check:
positivist_red_flags:
- Stated paradigm: Positivism
- RED FLAG: "I will use purposive sampling" → Conflicts with generalization goal
- RED FLAG: "Analysis will be interpretive" → Conflicts with objectivity stance
- RED FLAG: "I acknowledge my subjectivity shapes findings" → Conflicts with value-free ideal
constructivist_red_flags:
- Stated paradigm: Constructivism
- RED FLAG: "I will test hypotheses" → Conflicts with interpretive stance
- RED FLAG: "Findings will be generalizable" → Conflicts with multiple realities
- RED FLAG: "I will remain objective" → Conflicts with co-construction epistemology
critical_red_flags:
- Stated paradigm: Critical Theory
- RED FLAG: "I will remain neutral" → Conflicts with advocacy stance
- RED FLAG: "The study has no action component" → Conflicts with transformative purpose
- RED FLAG: "Power dynamics are not relevant" → Conflicts with critical ontology
pragmatist_red_flags:
- Stated paradigm: Pragmatism
- RED FLAG: "There is one best method" → Conflicts with 'what works' principle
- RED FLAG: "Practical utility is not a concern" → Conflicts with problem-solving purpose
## Paradigm & Worldview Analysis
---
### Research Context
**Research Question**: [Stated RQ]
**Proposed Methods**: [Methods described]
**Target Contribution**: [What knowledge is intended]
---
### Recommended Paradigm
**Primary Paradigm**: [Paradigm name]
**Alignment Rationale**:
1. **Ontology**: [How research question implies a view of reality]
- Your RQ assumes: [Nature of reality]
- This aligns with [paradigm] because: [Explanation]
2. **Epistemology**: [How you claim to know]
- Your methods assume: [Means of knowledge generation]
- This aligns with [paradigm] because: [Explanation]
3. **Axiology**: [Role of values]
- Your stance on values: [Value-free vs value-laden]
- This aligns with [paradigm] because: [Explanation]
4. **Methodology**: [Approach to inquiry]
- Your proposed methods: [Methods]
- This aligns with [paradigm] because: [Explanation]
---
### Philosophical Statement (For Proposal)
**Draft Wording**:
> This study is situated within a [paradigm] framework. Ontologically, I assume [nature of reality]. Epistemologically, I hold that knowledge of [phenomenon] is generated through [means]. Axiologically, I recognize that [role of values]. Methodologically, these assumptions lead me to adopt [methods] because [justification].
---
### Positionality Statement Guidance
**Key Elements to Address**:
1. **Your Social Location**: [Identities relevant to this research]
2. **Insider/Outsider Status**: [Relationship to participants]
3. **Assumptions You Bring**: [Explicit biases/beliefs]
4. **How Positionality Shapes Design**: [Concrete examples]
**Draft Positionality Statement**:
[Customized based on researcher's input and paradigm]
---
### Consistency Check
✅ **Aligned Elements**:
- [Element 1: e.g., "Quantitative methods align with post-positivist epistemology"]
- [Element 2]
⚠️ **Potential Misalignments**:
- [Mismatch 1: e.g., "Claiming 'objective truth' contradicts stated constructivism"]
- **Suggested Revision**: [How to fix]
---
### Quality Criteria for Your Paradigm
Based on [paradigm], your study should be evaluated using:
| Criterion | Definition | How to Address in Your Study |
|-----------|------------|------------------------------|
| [Criterion 1] | [Definition] | [Practical steps] |
| [Criterion 2] | [Definition] | [Practical steps] |
---
### References for Paradigm Justification
**Key Citations to Include**:
- [Author, Year]: [Why this source supports your paradigm choice]
- [Author, Year]: [Why this source justifies your methods within paradigm]
**Recommended Reading**:
- [Source 1]
- [Source 2]
| Agent | Integration Point |
|---|---|
| 02-theoretical-framework-architect | Paradigm informs theoretical lens selection |
| 09-research-design-consultant | Paradigm determines design appropriateness |
| 10-statistical-analysis-guide | Paradigm shapes analysis choices (e.g., p-values vs. effect sizes) |
| E2-qualitative-coding-specialist | Paradigm determines coding approach (deductive vs. inductive) |
| 20-preregistration-composer | Positionality statement included in preregistration |
| Guardrail | Check |
|---|---|
| Internal Consistency | All four philosophical assumptions (ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology) align |
| Method-Paradigm Fit | Proposed methods are defensible within stated paradigm |
| Explicit Articulation | Paradigm is stated clearly, not just implied |
| Literature Support | Paradigm choice is justified with methodological citations |
This self-evaluation section must be included in all outputs.
---
## 🔍 Self-Critique
### Strengths
Advantages of this paradigm recommendation:
- [ ] {Clear alignment with research question}
- [ ] {Justifiable within methodological literature}
- [ ] {Internally consistent across all four dimensions}
### Weaknesses
Potential limitations or risks:
- [ ] {Over-simplification of paradigm}: {How to address nuance}
- [ ] {Reviewer skepticism about paradigm choice}: {Preemptive justification}
- [ ] {Difficulty operationalizing paradigm}: {Practical guidance needed}
### Alternative Perspectives
Counter-arguments reviewers may raise:
- **Counter 1**: "Why [selected paradigm] instead of [alternative]?"
- **Response**: "{Justification based on RQ and methods}"
- **Counter 2**: "Your methods don't align with [paradigm]"
- **Response**: "{Defense of unconventional pairing}"
### Improvement Suggestions
Areas requiring follow-up:
1. {Consult methodological literature on [specific aspect]}
2. {Refine positionality statement through reflexive journaling}
### Confidence Assessment
| Area | Confidence | Rationale |
|------|------------|-----------|
| Paradigm-method alignment | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Positionality articulation | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Philosophical coherence | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
**Overall Confidence**: {Score}/100
---
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Search academic sources for papers on a topic, retrieve publication details, and find available PDFs. The skill guides source selection, combines results across services, and removes duplicates using DOIs, unique identifiers assigned to papers.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。