I haven’t posted anything for a month! For some of that time I’ve been wrestling with an essay that I need to write in the next few weeks which should prove to be really important for my doctoral research. The purpose of the assignment is for me to show that I have a good understanding of research methodologies used in educational research and in particular the one that I plan to use for my thesis (a comparative study considering the beliefs about the purposes and practices of primary teaching held by Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers).
It sounds easy enough, but once again it has left me exploring the meaning of life – well, the nature of reality. I have figured that I need to align my methodology with a consistent world view. So I went back to all my readings on the ‘paradigm wars’ and the various research paradigms: positivism (post-positivism); constructivism; subjectivism and poststructuralism. The problem is the readings are messy and the authors all seem to disagree on just about everything!
However, they have brought me to a position where I recognise that while I do believe in realist ontology – (reality does exist out there) - I would side with the critical realists and agree that because we are limited by our humanity, we can never truly perceive reality. Consequently, I sympathise, but disagree with the relativists who see reality as being multiple and existing in people’s minds (For anyone not used to the jargon, ignore the paragraph and read, ‘I’m sitting on the fence’!).
The problem with me assuming a critical realist ontology is that leads to an objectivist epistemology and a positivist or post-positivist theoretical framework, which I think is deeply flawed as it assumes that I can be objective as a researcher – I can’t; I bring all sorts of baggage with me and will design the study and interpret the results in the light of such theory. Even with the use of quantitative data, that data will be selected and interpreted subjectively.
So at this epistemological level, I find constructivism (we construct meaning through engaging with the object) more reasonable. The other alternative, subjectivism (meaning is placed on the object by the subject) is still less convincing – it seems to imply that we create meaning independently of the essence of the subject – mmm!
Just in case anyone is still reading... having ruled out positivism, I am left with a choice between interpretism and critical inquiry in their many guises. The nature of my study lends itself to the former rather than the latter as I intend to collect and interpret data rather than emancipate anyone (though I do hope that the research will benefit people in a number of ways).
Within this constructivist perspective, a number of research methodologies are open to me including ethnography and phenomenological research. However, I have been most impressed by the theoretically impure, but pragmatic mixed methods methodology. If I build a study using both quantitative and qualitative instruments, it might prove to be richer and convincing to a wider audience. Using data from questionnaires I might be able to portray a bigger picture of attitudinal difference between New Zealanders and Malaysians in regard to their beliefs about teaching. However by using semi-structured interviews, I should be able to provide a richer account of those differences. As I begin to write the essay I will explore all the alternatives in more detail, framing my study in each of them – it will be interesting to see if I change my mind!
It sounds easy enough, but once again it has left me exploring the meaning of life – well, the nature of reality. I have figured that I need to align my methodology with a consistent world view. So I went back to all my readings on the ‘paradigm wars’ and the various research paradigms: positivism (post-positivism); constructivism; subjectivism and poststructuralism. The problem is the readings are messy and the authors all seem to disagree on just about everything!
However, they have brought me to a position where I recognise that while I do believe in realist ontology – (reality does exist out there) - I would side with the critical realists and agree that because we are limited by our humanity, we can never truly perceive reality. Consequently, I sympathise, but disagree with the relativists who see reality as being multiple and existing in people’s minds (For anyone not used to the jargon, ignore the paragraph and read, ‘I’m sitting on the fence’!).
The problem with me assuming a critical realist ontology is that leads to an objectivist epistemology and a positivist or post-positivist theoretical framework, which I think is deeply flawed as it assumes that I can be objective as a researcher – I can’t; I bring all sorts of baggage with me and will design the study and interpret the results in the light of such theory. Even with the use of quantitative data, that data will be selected and interpreted subjectively.
So at this epistemological level, I find constructivism (we construct meaning through engaging with the object) more reasonable. The other alternative, subjectivism (meaning is placed on the object by the subject) is still less convincing – it seems to imply that we create meaning independently of the essence of the subject – mmm!
Just in case anyone is still reading... having ruled out positivism, I am left with a choice between interpretism and critical inquiry in their many guises. The nature of my study lends itself to the former rather than the latter as I intend to collect and interpret data rather than emancipate anyone (though I do hope that the research will benefit people in a number of ways).
Within this constructivist perspective, a number of research methodologies are open to me including ethnography and phenomenological research. However, I have been most impressed by the theoretically impure, but pragmatic mixed methods methodology. If I build a study using both quantitative and qualitative instruments, it might prove to be richer and convincing to a wider audience. Using data from questionnaires I might be able to portray a bigger picture of attitudinal difference between New Zealanders and Malaysians in regard to their beliefs about teaching. However by using semi-structured interviews, I should be able to provide a richer account of those differences. As I begin to write the essay I will explore all the alternatives in more detail, framing my study in each of them – it will be interesting to see if I change my mind!
3 comments:
Oh my! You really have thought this through! When you choose your methodology you will be totally sure of why you chose it and how it sits with your world view. I, on the other hand, did not go that deep. I didn't feel like I had the time to find out what my world view is!!! I've enjoyed reading this post, very thought provoking.
Thanks for the comment - I think I've come to the conclusion that you don't really need to know it - you just need to work within the shared belief system of a community of researchers as to what and how to do research.
Dave
I think you're right to adopt an interpretivist approach--as you say, our humanity prevents us from accessing the ultimate reality. I was reading a comment by Lyle Bachman (UCLA) to the effect that a researcher can never claim the truth, but we can do ou best to present a convincing case (i.e. the overwhelming weight of evidence points to xyz). Thus so long as our interpretation remains faithful to the evidence, then we can sleep well at night. I don' know if that helps!
Post a Comment