Lopez’s (2003) paradigm is most closely linked to that of the constructivists because she clearly adopts a ¨relativist” approach to her research and view of the world.  Immediately placing herself into the research by disclosing that she is a ¨second generation Caribbean youth,¨ we as the reader understand that she is in a very unique position.  It is the opposite of a positivist view where one single answer can be found by any researcher, but she emphasizes the merit that can come from utilizing her very unique circumstance. Additionally, there is ¨trustworthiness¨ and ¨credibility¨ - using Denzin and Lincoln’s (2011) words - that allows her interviewees to feel as though the process is special. Her ¨lived experience” and ¨caring¨ that come from her race, class, and gender fit perfectly into Denzin and Lincoln’s (2011) description of the ethnic paradigm as well. (p. 13) These two paradigms have some similar points and their descriptions might use the same words in their description.

Lopez hopes to find further understanding of:

• Why gender gap disparity exists within the New York City public school system

• Why this gender gap is even more pronounced in the minority - primarily black and latino - communities within this school system.

On a larger scale, Lopez (2003), in her own words, states that she hopes to find answers to the ¨very important questions [that] will guide us in unraveling and dismantling race and gender disparities in education and beyond.¨ (p. 14)

• Why are there gender gaps in ¨racially stigmatized groups?¨ (Lopez, 2003, p. 3)

• The race gender gap is already apparent within second generation (post 1965) immigrants. Why?

• How do these educational trajectories affect children’s future incorporation into US society?

• What are the possible paths taken from these different trajectories?

It seems as though Lopez works within a ¨subjectivist epistemology¨ as stated by Denzin and Lincoln. They argue that in this epistemology the ¨knower and the respondent co-create understandings¨ which is exactly what happens with Lopez's interviews; they become ¨friendly conversation between co-ethnics.¨ This would not be possible without Lopez’s specific background.

Ontology

She approaches this research from one specific reality, though she is aware there may be many realities that could be understood from the same studies that were conducted. Again, her reality is informed by her past, it means something more than it would to someone with a different background, and this will deeply inform the outcomes and approaches.

Methods

Lopez presents a background to the problem of gender disparity and the size of this problem within the minority community. She uses her understanding of how groups such as ¨latinos and blacks¨ may be more deeply separated into further categories to add even deeper understanding  to this often ¨boxed¨ problem. From here, she begins to question why these problems exist through personal interviews that are perhaps made more fruitful with her background.

Methodology

Maxwell (2013) lists a number of methodological imperatives; Lopez seems to connect with most of them. She very clearly describes her personal involvement in the research and her apparent bias. Though those that follow different paradigms - namely positivists- might not take kindly to this, in a paradigm such as constructivism that Lopez is more closely linked to, this discussion and presentation of research bias is necessary.