Introduction
In the first part of this post I will be using Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart as a framework for exploring a number of approaches commonly used in educational research. While Lather (2006) recognises that discussion of research paradigms involves “multiplicities and proliferations” (p. 35), with shifting permeable borders, she usefully categorises current research as being; positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, or deconstructivist. I will frame my own research question in an approach from each of these paradigms: quantitative ex post facto research (positivist); ethnographic case study (interpretivist); action research (critical theory); and poststructuralism (deconstructivist), and will then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of conducting my research in each of these ways. In the second part of this post, I will make a case for what Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) call ‘methodological pluralism’ and explore ‘mixed methods’ as my chosen approach, together with its paradigm, design and methods. Prior to engaging in these discussions I will define ‘methodology’ and contextualise my research.
Crotty (1998) defines methodology as: “the strategy, plan of action, process of design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (p. 3). Here, I have taken a slightly broader view to include ‘research paradigms, approaches, methods and instruments’. Research Context
I am currently employed by an institution preparing to provide a teacher education programme to New Zealanders and Malaysians; I believe that research into the culturally informed beliefs about the practice and purpose of primary education of these two groups could enhance the teaching and learning of both. This is supported in the literature where Korthagen (2004) has shown the importance of teachers pre-training beliefs, and Hofstede (2001) has found significant difference in beliefs about education between cultures. This is further underlined by Prescott and Hellsten’s premise that cultural difference can disrupt learning. It is my intention to be able to present colleagues with a valid and useful body of information with regard to this topic.
Part One: A brief exploration of four approaches to research
1. Positivism - Ex post facto research
Morgan (2007) has argued that what is often referred to as ‘positivism’ is in fact a construct devised by the opponents of quantitative research methods as an epistemological ‘straw man’ to knock down in order to legitimise a new research order. Similarly, Shadish (1995) has claimed it is used as a ‘rhetorical device’ aimed at discrediting opponents. Schrag (1992) has suggested that such use has resulted in, “the term long been emptied of any precise meaning” (p. 5). This issue notwithstanding, the label remains useful for exploring the themes associated with the paradigm which are often recognised by “friends and foes alike” (Schrag, 1992 p. 5). For the purposes of this essay I will follow Ary et al. (2006) in defining positivism as a philosophical view that posits that the social world is governed by principles which are ‘out there’ and discoverable by means of the “traditional scientific approach” (p. 25).
Exploring the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers within the positivist tradition would not lend itself to experimental or quasi experimental research; however, similar studies have used non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Hofstede’s (2001) landmark exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees is a good example of this. He adopted a realist ontology and with careful use of large questionnaire samples and statistical analysis, he portrayed dimensions of culture which he deemed to be universal (Williamson, 2002).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions could be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. A hypothesis might be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference as compared to New Zealand pre-service teachers.
Using standardised surveys administered to both populations of students measuring attitude, numerical responses such as on Likert scales would be used to generate data for statistical analysis (Burns, 1997). This would be used to test the hypothesis, and to check for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al. 2006).
This approach would, in some respects, lend itself to elements of this study, offering a number of advantages, but would also present a number of disadvantages. Lather (2006) reports a resurgence of positivist methodologies, reporting that the National Research Council see them as the ‘gold standard’. Indeed, Fairbrother (2007) has reported a shift away from “explanatory studies towards studies employing statistical information and quantitative data analysis procedures” (p. 45) within the field of comparative education. It is therefore likely that such an approach and its related methods would give greater credibility to its finding in the eyes of some audiences. Moreover, there is an academic security and wisdom in using an established model for examining culture which has been used in highly regarded studies such as those by Hofstede (2001), Schwartz (1992), and Trompenaars (1993).
The arguments against the use of such an approach for this study are significant both at an epistemological and a methods level. While the generated data may been viewed as a credible picture of the beliefs of the two cohorts of students, it may prove to be lacking in richness and inadvertently lead to a diverse group of students being seen as a homogenous unit and so labelled, perpetuating what Singh (2005) calls the, “psychosocial imaginings of absolute difference” (p. 10).
A further objection to my use of such a methodology could be its epistemological foundation of objectivity. In a study of this nature “there is no Archimedean point” (Guba, 1990, p. 19), as every stage of the process involves my subjective, culturally formed assumptions (Crotty, 1998) (It is not possible to fully engage with this complex and contested argument here).
Some of these ideas will be returned to at a later stage in this essay, where I will argue that mixed methods research could simultaneously take advantages of the strengths of this approach while compensating for some of its shortcomings.
2. Interpretivism - Ethnographic case studies
While it could be argued that quantitative methods are synonymous with positivism, qualitative methods are identified with interpretivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Interpretivism has been described as ‘anti positivism’ as it is antithical to positivism’s ‘normative paradigm’ (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Cohen and Manion (1994) argue that, “the central endeavour in the context of the interpretive paradigm is to understand the subjective world of human experience” (p. 37). Within this tradition ‘realities’ are multiple and created by discourse (Lather, 2006). Interpretivism offers a wide array of approaches. A popular choice amongst similar studies to mine is an ethnographic case study of a people group (Hammersley, 1992). A comparative investigation of the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers could be achieved by exploring both the convergence and divergence of groups. These case studies would employ non-participant observation as the method, ideally observing pre-service teachers and primary pupil interaction during initial practicums. Observations would be supplemented by semi-structured interviews (Burns, 1997).
Proponents of such an approach may argue that it offers a number of advantages over the previous one: firstly it makes no pretence at achieving objectivity. Acknowledging its subjectivity, it seeks to construct a picture of the beliefs of the two groups of pre-service teachers. Readers of the research are invited to interpret it as such and would be provided with autobiographical and bracketing material which would allow them to build a picture of the researcher as an instrument of data collection (Guba et al., 1994).
However, a number of practical issues could potentially reduce the success of this approach. Firstly, gaining access to classrooms in order to observe is likely to be difficult. Secondly, the volume of data collected in an ethnographic case study is large and requires significant time spent in observation and data processing (Burns, 1997).
Furthermore, such an approach has an unfortunate legacy, closely associated with colonialism and oppression. Consequently, Crozier (2005) has asked, “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (p. 95) Moreover, the history of white, middle class males investigating the ‘Other’ has led to Linda Tuiha-Smith (1999) to suggest that “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). While she argues that researchers must critique their own ‘gaze’ as they view the ‘Other’ through imperial eyes and then represent them, this approach, like the previous one, may still lead to the stereotyping of the exotic other and not acknowledging the potential heterogeneity evident amongst the populations examined.
3. Critical Theory - Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Critical theory builds upon the interpretivism’s key tenets of subjectivity, multiple truths and constructed reality by arguing that such truths are constructed politically (Lather, 2006). PAR is one of a number of approaches with an emancipatory agenda. (For a detailed discussion on an epistemology for PAR see Schӧn (1995)).
Carr and Kemmis (1986) have defined PAR as:
A form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understandings of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (p. 162).
Practitioner research has explicit intentions, and involves, “recursive cycles of plan, act, observe, and reflect” (Zeichner & Nofke, 2001, p. 159). These cycles present a way of systematically investigating aspects of practitioner experience, in a range of areas and levels of critique. The scope of action research is wide-ranging as are the multiple methods available for practitioners to investigate questions that are unique to their circumstances.
PAR warrants careful consideration as it is aligned to the purposes of my study and speaks directly to some of the weakness of the ethnographic method as the researcher becomes in a real sense the subject of their own research (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). Within this framework the research question would investigate an intervention.
The complexity of delivering a teacher education programme to Malaysian and New Zealand students presents lecturers with significant challenges; amongst these are overcoming potential cultural barriers, avoiding the seeing of difference as ‘deficit’ and encouraging interaction between the nationals of the two countries. In addressing these challenges PAR would present interventions which encouraged the challenging of current assumptions and facilitated efforts towards resolution and equity. A possible (PAR) hypothesis might be:
The formation of mixed culture study groups would facilitate integration and communication between the Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers.
If employed, Lewin’s recursive cycles of action and evaluation (Burns, 1995) could result in an ever improving model of education involving not just one lecturer/researcher, but a team of lecturers/researchers and the pre-service teachers themselves. The value of such has been established in the literature (Elliot, 2001; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998).
However, once again practical considerations present significant barriers to my effective employment of this approach. While I am indirectly involved with the Malaysian programme, I am not a member of the teaching staff and would not be in any position to engage with the programme while it was running. Furthermore, the Malaysian students will not be arriving at my university until 2010, whereas I intend to begin my research during 2009.
My own professional development issues have also been a significant factor in my decision to reject it. Despite valuing the tacit knowledge of educators found in the ‘swamps of practice’ (Schӧn, 1995), and finding agreement with the goal of a producing a localised study with the intention of improving practice (Ary et al. 2006), I believe it is important for me to engage with an approach more likely to, “produce knowledge that is testably valid, according to the criteria of appropriate rigor, ...(as) claims to knowledge must lend themselves to intellectual debate within academic (among other) communities of inquiry” (Schӧn, 1995, p. 27).
4. Deconstructivist- post structuralism:
Deconstructivism is based on the premise that ‘reality’ cannot be known and socially constructed ‘truths’ contradict themselves (Lather, 2006). Within this paradigm, post structuralism offers a highly subjective approach to research, which not only rejects the possibility of objectivity, but views its pretence as ‘violence’ visited on the marginalised ‘other’ (Davies, 1994). Thus ‘objectivity’ represents a hegemonic subjectivity. Based on the ideas of the French post-structuralists, notably; Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (Ninnes & Burnett, 2003), this approach challenges what might appear to be “common-sensical, obvious, natural, given or unquestionable” (MacLure, 2003, p. 12) by deconstructing the discourses, which according to the post-structuralists, create the ‘truths’ of which they speak.
My investigation of difference and similarity between two cohorts of students would need to be adapted to fit a post-structuralist approach such as critical discourse analysis. Luke (1995) argues that critical discourse analysis, “departs from much mainstream research with its focus on how power and identity are legitimated, negotiated, and contested toward political ends” (p. 12). In this guise my study could become an exploration of power relations and agency amongst Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers and their New Zealand lecturers, or perhaps could expand to critically examine globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education. However, in my opinion, neither meets my objective of providing colleagues with findings which can enhance their provision for pre-service teachers.
Researching the macro issues of globalisation and international issues, could create a fascinating study as previous work by Singh (2005), Ninnes (2005) and Doherty and Singh (2005) have shown. However it is unlikely to be of immediate value to colleagues and pre-service teachers participating in the teacher education programme. Researching power relations and, destabilising ‘authoritative discourses’ (Luke, 1995) in the micro context of my university would be arguably unethical and counter-productive. This degree programme is in its infancy and undergoing a time of construction, once it is established and running, deconstruction may prove to be of value in evaluating the programme, but not now. Even at that stage this approach may prove to be unwelcome as it would be examining colleagues, viewing them as ‘colonizers’ (Davies, 1994).
While the reasons for rejecting this approach for my study are robust, post-structuralism does offer up some valuable insights that will inform my research. These include the examination of teacher education “as an arena where dominant sociocultural discourses compete to construct and position teachers and students” Luke, 1995, p. 10). An awareness of culturally informed ‘discourses’ about effective primary education could enhance my study.
Part Two: My chosen approach- mixed methods
In the remainder of this essay I will explore my chosen approach: mixed methods, and justify my choice of it to engage with my research questions. I will begin by briefly discussing quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, next I will argue that pragmatism provides a robust philosophical framework that supports mixed methods. Following this, I will describe the mixed methods approach and how it is a rich resource for the educational researcher. Finally, I will consider how my choice of this method aligns itself to the approach and will be used to collect and process the relevant data.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research
In the first section of this essay I followed Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart in dividing research into four paradigms, while a simpler distinction could have separated quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative research has been briefly explored under positivism and qualitative research under the following three paradigms. For purposes of clarity the remainder of this essay explores mixed methods against a background of qualitative or quantitative research.
Mixed methods - paradigms
Lather (2006) has argued that: “paradigm talk is a good thing to think with” (p. 35). Indeed, Morgan (2007) makes good use of it in his justification of mixed methods research where he claims the ‘metaphysical paradigm’ is ‘exhausted’. Critiquing Lincoln and Guba’s iconic trilogy of concepts: ontology, epistemology and methodology, he questions both the boundaries imposed on different research paradigms and the interpretation of Kuhn’s ‘incommensurability’. He maintains that dialogue between paradigms is not nearly as problematic as ‘methodological purists’ would suggest. One such ‘purist’, Guba (1990) has written, “Accommodation between paradigms is impossible... we are led to vastly diverse, disparate and totally diverse ends” (1990, p. 81).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) respond to this by suggesting that there is now considerable agreement between many qualitative and quantitative researchers who share a consensus over the following seven points:
1. The relativity of the “light of reason” (reason is relative and varies among people)
2. The theory ladenness of facts (we attend to ‘facts’ according to our worldviews and experiences)
3. Underdetermination of theory by evidence (alternative theories may also fit the data)
4. The Dunhem-Quinne thesis (tests cannot be isolated from our assumptions)
5. The problem of induction (we are not able to prove something absolutely only suggest what is probable)
6. The social nature of the research enterprise (research communities impact on the beliefs of the researcher)
7. The value-ladenness of enquiry (objectivity is an impossible ideal as researcher values are present at all stages of an enquiry)
(p. 16. NB words in brackets my own paraphrases of original explanations)
Morgan (2007) posits that pragmatism offers a richer alternative to the ‘metaphysical paradigm’s’ ontologically driven enquiry, as practicality is more important than philosophy in educational research. He argues that the currently dominant use of ‘paradigm’ as an epistemological stance was not favoured by Kuhn and is less helpful than Kuhn’s preferred definition of ‘paradigm’ as the shared beliefs of researchers. He points out that the latter definition is easier to study by examining the work of researchers. Denscombe (2008) also favours this view and relates it to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) on communities of practice (COP).
The shared beliefs of researchers within a community of practice about what questions to ask and how to answer them would seem to be a more helpful starting point for the novice researcher than attempts to align their own ontological and epistemological beliefs with those of the major research traditions. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the latter view is commonly held by would be academics that are: “left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other” (p. 14).
In contrast, Bryman (2007) has suggested that “Mixed methods researchers seem not to dwell on epistemological and ontological issues and exhibit a clear pragmatism in their work” (2007, p. 17). While I acknowledge that as Denscombe (2008) has pointed out the use of the term ‘pragmatism’ here could well refer to ‘expediency’ rather than the philosophy, pragmatism is a philosophy which is seen as “an attractive philosophical partner for mixed-methods research” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and needs exploring here in terms of its justification and warrant.
In her ‘Revised Paradigm Chart’ Lather (2006) suggests that neo pragmatism may feature in the next wave of research paradigms. The precise nature of neo pragmatism is contested, though it is built on the work of the classical pragmatists; Dewey, Pierce and James (Sudin & Johannisson, 2005). While a focus on Neo-pragmatism would bring about a structural neatness for this essay with each approach grounded in Lather’s chart, I will follow Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Morgan (2007), Denscombe (2008), and others, by using the term pragmatism as it is an established and credible philosophy within social science (Morgan, 2007).
Denscombe (2008) argues that while positivism supports quantitative methods and interpretivism underpins purely qualitative studies, pragmatism is the preferred philosophical partner for mixed methods research. It should be noted that both the classical pragmatists such as Dewey and the neo pragmatists such as Rorty, espouse a view of the world that is not dissimilar from the interpretivists, critical theorists, and deconstructivists: “The world is not something found, but made by human kind” (Sudin & Johannisson 2005, p. 25). Yet, pragmatism rejects what Denscombe (2008) refers to as “sterile and unproductive dualisms” (p. 273) and seeks common ground between research traditions.
Pragmatism allows approaches to be seen as tools that can help us to understand the world and are driven by the research question rather than quests for ‘epistemological purity’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). This is consistent with both my needs as I attempt to seek answers to complex questions and my failed attempts to align myself with a range of ‘epistemological orthodoxies’, in the mistaken belief that this was the starting point of a novice researcher. I want to find a ‘workable solution’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) to a real problem and the mixed methods paradigm underpinned by philosophical pragmatism would allow me to do that with a methodological pluralism. It is reassuring that Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest that mixed methods present the opportunity: “for methodologists to describe and develop techniques that are closer to what researchers actually use in practice” (p. 15).
Mixed methods- approach
The mixed method approach is deeply practical and presents a number of advantages, not least in the fact that it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each, thus offering ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). Morgan (2007) argues that by rejecting the binaries of qualitative/ inductive/ subjective/ context specific research and quantitative/ deductive/ objective/ universal findings, a richer methodology becomes available that is pragmatic/ abductive/ inter-subjective/ transferable.
This approach allows abductive reasoning to create a dialogue between deduction and induction, each informing the other. Recognising the impossibility of objectivity, together with the “self refuting logic” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, p. 16) of subjectivity, the researcher is encouraged to be inter-subjective, that is to work back and forth between several ‘frames of reference’. Furthermore it presents findings that are transferable, denying the idea that social research tends to have findings which are applicable to every culture and circumstance and equally contesting the likelihood of research being so context bound that its findings cannot be related to other situations in some way (Morgan, 2007).
Methods
Since we have established in previous sections that by using a mixed methods approach we are subsequently released from the shackles of the metaphysical paradigm, we are permitted to explore methods in the spirit of methodological pluralism. The research question now becomes the driver of the methods (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Based on the premise that a research design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods is best placed to answer my questions by offering both an accurate overview and individual detail, I need to answer two questions posed by Johnston and Onwuegbuzie (2004). The first is if I intend to favour a dominant paradigm (qualitative or quantitative). I don’t, rather I intend to place equal emphasis on both in order to bring about a synthesis in my findings. Their second question relates to the order of data collection; I intend to first conduct a quantitative survey and then qualitative semi structured interviews.
Quantitative phase:
A mixed methods methodology and philosophy allows me to return to my discussion about non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Compensated for by the qualitative element of the design, its weaknesses in regard to my study no longer represent a barrier to using it, while it allows me to “systematically measure certain factors considered important in the relevant research literature” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 19). Literature relevant to my study such as Hofstede’s (2001) exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees in over 70 countries is of great importance because it presumes to make generalisations about the implications of national culture on schooling in both New Zealand and Malaysia. Key areas for study in which Hofstede (2001) found significant difference were individualist/collectivist approaches and tolerance of inequality (power difference).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions would be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. As already mentioned a possible hypothesis could be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference than their New Zealand peers.
A second might be:
Malaysian pre-service teachers place more emphasis on the needs of society than their New Zealand peers.
Data would be collected using questionnaires administered to both populations of students (after being piloted) involving numerical responses on a likert scale. Statistical analysis would then be used to test the hypothesis, as well as testing for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al, 2006).
Qualitative phase:
In order to complement and potentially critically examine the survey findings, interviews could be used which while following a semi-structured interview guide (Bryman, 2007), allow the interviewer to “probe and clarify” (Bell, 1987, p. 70). Hence, a deeper understanding of the different beliefs of students can be ascertained, telling both a richer story and allowing the heterogeneous voices of diverse students to disrupt any notions of uniformity. Pre-service teachers would be asked to share their beliefs about issues including; the role of the teacher, characteristics of an excellent/ poor teacher, and the purpose of primary education. Pilot interviews would be used beforehand to establish the effectiveness of questions in addressing key themes.
This approach has a number of advantages for a study such as mine including: increased rapport; a reduced risk of imposition of researcher’s opinion; interviewee using their own language; together with equality of status of interviewer and interviewee (Burns, 1997).
Data analysis in mixed methods research
In analysing my data I will be using Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003) seven stage conceptualisation of the mixed methods data analysis process involving: data reduction, display, transformation, correlation, consolidation, comparison, and integration.
All stages of the research process will involve checking of the validity and trustworthiness of the research. While the discussion and debate surrounding these concepts are beyond the scope of this essay (see Burns, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), the credibility of my research finding will need to be explored. Onwuegbuzie and Johnston (2006) have argued that this is complicated in mixed methods research. They suggest that the term ‘legitimation’ be used as it speaks to both quantitative and qualitative research traditions. I will evaluate my research using a legitimation frame work such as Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2006), or Onwuegbuzie and Johnston’s (2006).
Conclusion
In this essay I have used Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart to explore how my research question might be answered from within a variety of research traditions. I have argued that mixed methods research is better aligned to my research needs than the considered alternatives, as it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each. Thus, it offers both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
This approach is also of significant value to me as a novice researcher as I find its philosophical underpinning by pragmatism a more effective starting point than the pursuit of ‘epistemological purity’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Moreover, it allows me to become familiar with both quantitative and qualitative research. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, (2004) have argued:
Today’s research world is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, complex and dynamic; therefore, many researchers need to complement one method with another, and all researchers need a solid understanding of multiple methods used by other scholars to facilitate communication, to promote collaboration and provide superior research (p.15)
References
Ary, D. Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Bell, J. (1989). Doing your research project. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 8-22.
Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Sydney: Longman
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Christofi, V., & Thompson, C. (2007). You cannot go home again: a phenomenological investigation of returning to sojourn country after studying abroad. Journal of Counselling and Development, 85, 53-63.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research, methods in education (4th ed.), London: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage
Crozier, G. (2005). Is ethnography just another form of surveillance? In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford, (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. London: Elsevier
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Victoria: Deakon University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: a research paradigm for mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (3), 270-283.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. London: Sage.
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliot, J. (2001). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fairbrother, G.P. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative Approaches to Comparative Education. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: approaches and methods (pp. 39-62). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed), The Paradigm Dialog. (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park. CA: Sage
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). London: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks, (Eds.), Action research in practice. London: Routledge.
Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (1), 77-97.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19 (1), 35-57.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48.
Morgan. D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48-76.
Maclure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Buckingham: Open University press.
Ninnes, P., & Burnett, G. (2003). Comparative education research: poststructuralist possibilities. Comparative Education, 39, (3), 279-297.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 48-63.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Social Research Methodologies, 8 (5), 375-387.
Prescott, A., & Hellstén, M. (2004). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: the international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 37-52). Hong Kong: Springer.
Schӧn, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: the new scholarship of requires a new epistemology. Change, Nov/Dec, 27-34.
Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21 (5), 5-8.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 1-65.
Shadish, W.R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 18 (1), 63-75.
Singh, M. (2005). Enabling transnational learning communities: Policies, pedagogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Sundin, O., & Johannisson, J. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural theory. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 23-43.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 12-8.
Trompenaars. F. (1993). Riding the Waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.
Tuiha-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books: London.
Williamson, D. (2002). Critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 53 (11), 1373-1395.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (14th Ed.), Washington DC: American Education Research Association.
In the first part of this post I will be using Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart as a framework for exploring a number of approaches commonly used in educational research. While Lather (2006) recognises that discussion of research paradigms involves “multiplicities and proliferations” (p. 35), with shifting permeable borders, she usefully categorises current research as being; positivist, interpretivist, critical theory, or deconstructivist. I will frame my own research question in an approach from each of these paradigms: quantitative ex post facto research (positivist); ethnographic case study (interpretivist); action research (critical theory); and poststructuralism (deconstructivist), and will then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of conducting my research in each of these ways. In the second part of this post, I will make a case for what Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) call ‘methodological pluralism’ and explore ‘mixed methods’ as my chosen approach, together with its paradigm, design and methods. Prior to engaging in these discussions I will define ‘methodology’ and contextualise my research.
Crotty (1998) defines methodology as: “the strategy, plan of action, process of design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (p. 3). Here, I have taken a slightly broader view to include ‘research paradigms, approaches, methods and instruments’. Research Context
I am currently employed by an institution preparing to provide a teacher education programme to New Zealanders and Malaysians; I believe that research into the culturally informed beliefs about the practice and purpose of primary education of these two groups could enhance the teaching and learning of both. This is supported in the literature where Korthagen (2004) has shown the importance of teachers pre-training beliefs, and Hofstede (2001) has found significant difference in beliefs about education between cultures. This is further underlined by Prescott and Hellsten’s premise that cultural difference can disrupt learning. It is my intention to be able to present colleagues with a valid and useful body of information with regard to this topic.
Part One: A brief exploration of four approaches to research
1. Positivism - Ex post facto research
Morgan (2007) has argued that what is often referred to as ‘positivism’ is in fact a construct devised by the opponents of quantitative research methods as an epistemological ‘straw man’ to knock down in order to legitimise a new research order. Similarly, Shadish (1995) has claimed it is used as a ‘rhetorical device’ aimed at discrediting opponents. Schrag (1992) has suggested that such use has resulted in, “the term long been emptied of any precise meaning” (p. 5). This issue notwithstanding, the label remains useful for exploring the themes associated with the paradigm which are often recognised by “friends and foes alike” (Schrag, 1992 p. 5). For the purposes of this essay I will follow Ary et al. (2006) in defining positivism as a philosophical view that posits that the social world is governed by principles which are ‘out there’ and discoverable by means of the “traditional scientific approach” (p. 25).
Exploring the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers within the positivist tradition would not lend itself to experimental or quasi experimental research; however, similar studies have used non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Hofstede’s (2001) landmark exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees is a good example of this. He adopted a realist ontology and with careful use of large questionnaire samples and statistical analysis, he portrayed dimensions of culture which he deemed to be universal (Williamson, 2002).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions could be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. A hypothesis might be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference as compared to New Zealand pre-service teachers.
Using standardised surveys administered to both populations of students measuring attitude, numerical responses such as on Likert scales would be used to generate data for statistical analysis (Burns, 1997). This would be used to test the hypothesis, and to check for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al. 2006).
This approach would, in some respects, lend itself to elements of this study, offering a number of advantages, but would also present a number of disadvantages. Lather (2006) reports a resurgence of positivist methodologies, reporting that the National Research Council see them as the ‘gold standard’. Indeed, Fairbrother (2007) has reported a shift away from “explanatory studies towards studies employing statistical information and quantitative data analysis procedures” (p. 45) within the field of comparative education. It is therefore likely that such an approach and its related methods would give greater credibility to its finding in the eyes of some audiences. Moreover, there is an academic security and wisdom in using an established model for examining culture which has been used in highly regarded studies such as those by Hofstede (2001), Schwartz (1992), and Trompenaars (1993).
The arguments against the use of such an approach for this study are significant both at an epistemological and a methods level. While the generated data may been viewed as a credible picture of the beliefs of the two cohorts of students, it may prove to be lacking in richness and inadvertently lead to a diverse group of students being seen as a homogenous unit and so labelled, perpetuating what Singh (2005) calls the, “psychosocial imaginings of absolute difference” (p. 10).
A further objection to my use of such a methodology could be its epistemological foundation of objectivity. In a study of this nature “there is no Archimedean point” (Guba, 1990, p. 19), as every stage of the process involves my subjective, culturally formed assumptions (Crotty, 1998) (It is not possible to fully engage with this complex and contested argument here).
Some of these ideas will be returned to at a later stage in this essay, where I will argue that mixed methods research could simultaneously take advantages of the strengths of this approach while compensating for some of its shortcomings.
2. Interpretivism - Ethnographic case studies
While it could be argued that quantitative methods are synonymous with positivism, qualitative methods are identified with interpretivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Interpretivism has been described as ‘anti positivism’ as it is antithical to positivism’s ‘normative paradigm’ (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Cohen and Manion (1994) argue that, “the central endeavour in the context of the interpretive paradigm is to understand the subjective world of human experience” (p. 37). Within this tradition ‘realities’ are multiple and created by discourse (Lather, 2006). Interpretivism offers a wide array of approaches. A popular choice amongst similar studies to mine is an ethnographic case study of a people group (Hammersley, 1992). A comparative investigation of the beliefs of New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers could be achieved by exploring both the convergence and divergence of groups. These case studies would employ non-participant observation as the method, ideally observing pre-service teachers and primary pupil interaction during initial practicums. Observations would be supplemented by semi-structured interviews (Burns, 1997).
Proponents of such an approach may argue that it offers a number of advantages over the previous one: firstly it makes no pretence at achieving objectivity. Acknowledging its subjectivity, it seeks to construct a picture of the beliefs of the two groups of pre-service teachers. Readers of the research are invited to interpret it as such and would be provided with autobiographical and bracketing material which would allow them to build a picture of the researcher as an instrument of data collection (Guba et al., 1994).
However, a number of practical issues could potentially reduce the success of this approach. Firstly, gaining access to classrooms in order to observe is likely to be difficult. Secondly, the volume of data collected in an ethnographic case study is large and requires significant time spent in observation and data processing (Burns, 1997).
Furthermore, such an approach has an unfortunate legacy, closely associated with colonialism and oppression. Consequently, Crozier (2005) has asked, “Is ethnography just another form of surveillance?” (p. 95) Moreover, the history of white, middle class males investigating the ‘Other’ has led to Linda Tuiha-Smith (1999) to suggest that “research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). While she argues that researchers must critique their own ‘gaze’ as they view the ‘Other’ through imperial eyes and then represent them, this approach, like the previous one, may still lead to the stereotyping of the exotic other and not acknowledging the potential heterogeneity evident amongst the populations examined.
3. Critical Theory - Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Critical theory builds upon the interpretivism’s key tenets of subjectivity, multiple truths and constructed reality by arguing that such truths are constructed politically (Lather, 2006). PAR is one of a number of approaches with an emancipatory agenda. (For a detailed discussion on an epistemology for PAR see Schӧn (1995)).
Carr and Kemmis (1986) have defined PAR as:
A form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understandings of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (p. 162).
Practitioner research has explicit intentions, and involves, “recursive cycles of plan, act, observe, and reflect” (Zeichner & Nofke, 2001, p. 159). These cycles present a way of systematically investigating aspects of practitioner experience, in a range of areas and levels of critique. The scope of action research is wide-ranging as are the multiple methods available for practitioners to investigate questions that are unique to their circumstances.
PAR warrants careful consideration as it is aligned to the purposes of my study and speaks directly to some of the weakness of the ethnographic method as the researcher becomes in a real sense the subject of their own research (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). Within this framework the research question would investigate an intervention.
The complexity of delivering a teacher education programme to Malaysian and New Zealand students presents lecturers with significant challenges; amongst these are overcoming potential cultural barriers, avoiding the seeing of difference as ‘deficit’ and encouraging interaction between the nationals of the two countries. In addressing these challenges PAR would present interventions which encouraged the challenging of current assumptions and facilitated efforts towards resolution and equity. A possible (PAR) hypothesis might be:
The formation of mixed culture study groups would facilitate integration and communication between the Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers.
If employed, Lewin’s recursive cycles of action and evaluation (Burns, 1995) could result in an ever improving model of education involving not just one lecturer/researcher, but a team of lecturers/researchers and the pre-service teachers themselves. The value of such has been established in the literature (Elliot, 2001; Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998).
However, once again practical considerations present significant barriers to my effective employment of this approach. While I am indirectly involved with the Malaysian programme, I am not a member of the teaching staff and would not be in any position to engage with the programme while it was running. Furthermore, the Malaysian students will not be arriving at my university until 2010, whereas I intend to begin my research during 2009.
My own professional development issues have also been a significant factor in my decision to reject it. Despite valuing the tacit knowledge of educators found in the ‘swamps of practice’ (Schӧn, 1995), and finding agreement with the goal of a producing a localised study with the intention of improving practice (Ary et al. 2006), I believe it is important for me to engage with an approach more likely to, “produce knowledge that is testably valid, according to the criteria of appropriate rigor, ...(as) claims to knowledge must lend themselves to intellectual debate within academic (among other) communities of inquiry” (Schӧn, 1995, p. 27).
4. Deconstructivist- post structuralism:
Deconstructivism is based on the premise that ‘reality’ cannot be known and socially constructed ‘truths’ contradict themselves (Lather, 2006). Within this paradigm, post structuralism offers a highly subjective approach to research, which not only rejects the possibility of objectivity, but views its pretence as ‘violence’ visited on the marginalised ‘other’ (Davies, 1994). Thus ‘objectivity’ represents a hegemonic subjectivity. Based on the ideas of the French post-structuralists, notably; Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard (Ninnes & Burnett, 2003), this approach challenges what might appear to be “common-sensical, obvious, natural, given or unquestionable” (MacLure, 2003, p. 12) by deconstructing the discourses, which according to the post-structuralists, create the ‘truths’ of which they speak.
My investigation of difference and similarity between two cohorts of students would need to be adapted to fit a post-structuralist approach such as critical discourse analysis. Luke (1995) argues that critical discourse analysis, “departs from much mainstream research with its focus on how power and identity are legitimated, negotiated, and contested toward political ends” (p. 12). In this guise my study could become an exploration of power relations and agency amongst Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers and their New Zealand lecturers, or perhaps could expand to critically examine globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education. However, in my opinion, neither meets my objective of providing colleagues with findings which can enhance their provision for pre-service teachers.
Researching the macro issues of globalisation and international issues, could create a fascinating study as previous work by Singh (2005), Ninnes (2005) and Doherty and Singh (2005) have shown. However it is unlikely to be of immediate value to colleagues and pre-service teachers participating in the teacher education programme. Researching power relations and, destabilising ‘authoritative discourses’ (Luke, 1995) in the micro context of my university would be arguably unethical and counter-productive. This degree programme is in its infancy and undergoing a time of construction, once it is established and running, deconstruction may prove to be of value in evaluating the programme, but not now. Even at that stage this approach may prove to be unwelcome as it would be examining colleagues, viewing them as ‘colonizers’ (Davies, 1994).
While the reasons for rejecting this approach for my study are robust, post-structuralism does offer up some valuable insights that will inform my research. These include the examination of teacher education “as an arena where dominant sociocultural discourses compete to construct and position teachers and students” Luke, 1995, p. 10). An awareness of culturally informed ‘discourses’ about effective primary education could enhance my study.
Part Two: My chosen approach- mixed methods
In the remainder of this essay I will explore my chosen approach: mixed methods, and justify my choice of it to engage with my research questions. I will begin by briefly discussing quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, next I will argue that pragmatism provides a robust philosophical framework that supports mixed methods. Following this, I will describe the mixed methods approach and how it is a rich resource for the educational researcher. Finally, I will consider how my choice of this method aligns itself to the approach and will be used to collect and process the relevant data.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research
In the first section of this essay I followed Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart in dividing research into four paradigms, while a simpler distinction could have separated quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative research has been briefly explored under positivism and qualitative research under the following three paradigms. For purposes of clarity the remainder of this essay explores mixed methods against a background of qualitative or quantitative research.
Mixed methods - paradigms
Lather (2006) has argued that: “paradigm talk is a good thing to think with” (p. 35). Indeed, Morgan (2007) makes good use of it in his justification of mixed methods research where he claims the ‘metaphysical paradigm’ is ‘exhausted’. Critiquing Lincoln and Guba’s iconic trilogy of concepts: ontology, epistemology and methodology, he questions both the boundaries imposed on different research paradigms and the interpretation of Kuhn’s ‘incommensurability’. He maintains that dialogue between paradigms is not nearly as problematic as ‘methodological purists’ would suggest. One such ‘purist’, Guba (1990) has written, “Accommodation between paradigms is impossible... we are led to vastly diverse, disparate and totally diverse ends” (1990, p. 81).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) respond to this by suggesting that there is now considerable agreement between many qualitative and quantitative researchers who share a consensus over the following seven points:
1. The relativity of the “light of reason” (reason is relative and varies among people)
2. The theory ladenness of facts (we attend to ‘facts’ according to our worldviews and experiences)
3. Underdetermination of theory by evidence (alternative theories may also fit the data)
4. The Dunhem-Quinne thesis (tests cannot be isolated from our assumptions)
5. The problem of induction (we are not able to prove something absolutely only suggest what is probable)
6. The social nature of the research enterprise (research communities impact on the beliefs of the researcher)
7. The value-ladenness of enquiry (objectivity is an impossible ideal as researcher values are present at all stages of an enquiry)
(p. 16. NB words in brackets my own paraphrases of original explanations)
Morgan (2007) posits that pragmatism offers a richer alternative to the ‘metaphysical paradigm’s’ ontologically driven enquiry, as practicality is more important than philosophy in educational research. He argues that the currently dominant use of ‘paradigm’ as an epistemological stance was not favoured by Kuhn and is less helpful than Kuhn’s preferred definition of ‘paradigm’ as the shared beliefs of researchers. He points out that the latter definition is easier to study by examining the work of researchers. Denscombe (2008) also favours this view and relates it to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) on communities of practice (COP).
The shared beliefs of researchers within a community of practice about what questions to ask and how to answer them would seem to be a more helpful starting point for the novice researcher than attempts to align their own ontological and epistemological beliefs with those of the major research traditions. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the latter view is commonly held by would be academics that are: “left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other” (p. 14).
In contrast, Bryman (2007) has suggested that “Mixed methods researchers seem not to dwell on epistemological and ontological issues and exhibit a clear pragmatism in their work” (2007, p. 17). While I acknowledge that as Denscombe (2008) has pointed out the use of the term ‘pragmatism’ here could well refer to ‘expediency’ rather than the philosophy, pragmatism is a philosophy which is seen as “an attractive philosophical partner for mixed-methods research” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), and needs exploring here in terms of its justification and warrant.
In her ‘Revised Paradigm Chart’ Lather (2006) suggests that neo pragmatism may feature in the next wave of research paradigms. The precise nature of neo pragmatism is contested, though it is built on the work of the classical pragmatists; Dewey, Pierce and James (Sudin & Johannisson, 2005). While a focus on Neo-pragmatism would bring about a structural neatness for this essay with each approach grounded in Lather’s chart, I will follow Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Morgan (2007), Denscombe (2008), and others, by using the term pragmatism as it is an established and credible philosophy within social science (Morgan, 2007).
Denscombe (2008) argues that while positivism supports quantitative methods and interpretivism underpins purely qualitative studies, pragmatism is the preferred philosophical partner for mixed methods research. It should be noted that both the classical pragmatists such as Dewey and the neo pragmatists such as Rorty, espouse a view of the world that is not dissimilar from the interpretivists, critical theorists, and deconstructivists: “The world is not something found, but made by human kind” (Sudin & Johannisson 2005, p. 25). Yet, pragmatism rejects what Denscombe (2008) refers to as “sterile and unproductive dualisms” (p. 273) and seeks common ground between research traditions.
Pragmatism allows approaches to be seen as tools that can help us to understand the world and are driven by the research question rather than quests for ‘epistemological purity’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). This is consistent with both my needs as I attempt to seek answers to complex questions and my failed attempts to align myself with a range of ‘epistemological orthodoxies’, in the mistaken belief that this was the starting point of a novice researcher. I want to find a ‘workable solution’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) to a real problem and the mixed methods paradigm underpinned by philosophical pragmatism would allow me to do that with a methodological pluralism. It is reassuring that Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest that mixed methods present the opportunity: “for methodologists to describe and develop techniques that are closer to what researchers actually use in practice” (p. 15).
Mixed methods- approach
The mixed method approach is deeply practical and presents a number of advantages, not least in the fact that it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each, thus offering ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). Morgan (2007) argues that by rejecting the binaries of qualitative/ inductive/ subjective/ context specific research and quantitative/ deductive/ objective/ universal findings, a richer methodology becomes available that is pragmatic/ abductive/ inter-subjective/ transferable.
This approach allows abductive reasoning to create a dialogue between deduction and induction, each informing the other. Recognising the impossibility of objectivity, together with the “self refuting logic” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, p. 16) of subjectivity, the researcher is encouraged to be inter-subjective, that is to work back and forth between several ‘frames of reference’. Furthermore it presents findings that are transferable, denying the idea that social research tends to have findings which are applicable to every culture and circumstance and equally contesting the likelihood of research being so context bound that its findings cannot be related to other situations in some way (Morgan, 2007).
Methods
Since we have established in previous sections that by using a mixed methods approach we are subsequently released from the shackles of the metaphysical paradigm, we are permitted to explore methods in the spirit of methodological pluralism. The research question now becomes the driver of the methods (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Based on the premise that a research design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods is best placed to answer my questions by offering both an accurate overview and individual detail, I need to answer two questions posed by Johnston and Onwuegbuzie (2004). The first is if I intend to favour a dominant paradigm (qualitative or quantitative). I don’t, rather I intend to place equal emphasis on both in order to bring about a synthesis in my findings. Their second question relates to the order of data collection; I intend to first conduct a quantitative survey and then qualitative semi structured interviews.
Quantitative phase:
A mixed methods methodology and philosophy allows me to return to my discussion about non-experimental, ex post facto designs. Compensated for by the qualitative element of the design, its weaknesses in regard to my study no longer represent a barrier to using it, while it allows me to “systematically measure certain factors considered important in the relevant research literature” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 19). Literature relevant to my study such as Hofstede’s (2001) exploration of the cultural understandings of IBM employees in over 70 countries is of great importance because it presumes to make generalisations about the implications of national culture on schooling in both New Zealand and Malaysia. Key areas for study in which Hofstede (2001) found significant difference were individualist/collectivist approaches and tolerance of inequality (power difference).
Following research guidelines as proscribed by Ary et al. (2006), research questions would be formulated and hypotheses tested after a thorough exploration of similar studies. As already mentioned a possible hypothesis could be:
Malaysian pre service teachers are more accepting of teacher/ pupil power difference than their New Zealand peers.
A second might be:
Malaysian pre-service teachers place more emphasis on the needs of society than their New Zealand peers.
Data would be collected using questionnaires administered to both populations of students (after being piloted) involving numerical responses on a likert scale. Statistical analysis would then be used to test the hypothesis, as well as testing for ‘other causes’ and spurious relationships’ (Ary et al, 2006).
Qualitative phase:
In order to complement and potentially critically examine the survey findings, interviews could be used which while following a semi-structured interview guide (Bryman, 2007), allow the interviewer to “probe and clarify” (Bell, 1987, p. 70). Hence, a deeper understanding of the different beliefs of students can be ascertained, telling both a richer story and allowing the heterogeneous voices of diverse students to disrupt any notions of uniformity. Pre-service teachers would be asked to share their beliefs about issues including; the role of the teacher, characteristics of an excellent/ poor teacher, and the purpose of primary education. Pilot interviews would be used beforehand to establish the effectiveness of questions in addressing key themes.
This approach has a number of advantages for a study such as mine including: increased rapport; a reduced risk of imposition of researcher’s opinion; interviewee using their own language; together with equality of status of interviewer and interviewee (Burns, 1997).
Data analysis in mixed methods research
In analysing my data I will be using Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003) seven stage conceptualisation of the mixed methods data analysis process involving: data reduction, display, transformation, correlation, consolidation, comparison, and integration.
All stages of the research process will involve checking of the validity and trustworthiness of the research. While the discussion and debate surrounding these concepts are beyond the scope of this essay (see Burns, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), the credibility of my research finding will need to be explored. Onwuegbuzie and Johnston (2006) have argued that this is complicated in mixed methods research. They suggest that the term ‘legitimation’ be used as it speaks to both quantitative and qualitative research traditions. I will evaluate my research using a legitimation frame work such as Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2006), or Onwuegbuzie and Johnston’s (2006).
Conclusion
In this essay I have used Patti Lather’s (2006) Revised Paradigm Chart to explore how my research question might be answered from within a variety of research traditions. I have argued that mixed methods research is better aligned to my research needs than the considered alternatives, as it bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative studies, attempting to utilise the strengths of each and compensate for the weaknesses of each. Thus, it offers both ‘empirical precision’ and ‘descriptive precision’ (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
This approach is also of significant value to me as a novice researcher as I find its philosophical underpinning by pragmatism a more effective starting point than the pursuit of ‘epistemological purity’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Moreover, it allows me to become familiar with both quantitative and qualitative research. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, (2004) have argued:
Today’s research world is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, complex and dynamic; therefore, many researchers need to complement one method with another, and all researchers need a solid understanding of multiple methods used by other scholars to facilitate communication, to promote collaboration and provide superior research (p.15)
References
Ary, D. Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Bell, J. (1989). Doing your research project. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 8-22.
Burns, R.B. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd ed.). Sydney: Longman
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Christofi, V., & Thompson, C. (2007). You cannot go home again: a phenomenological investigation of returning to sojourn country after studying abroad. Journal of Counselling and Development, 85, 53-63.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research, methods in education (4th ed.), London: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage
Crozier, G. (2005). Is ethnography just another form of surveillance? In G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & G. Walford, (Eds.), Methodological issues and practices in ethnography. London: Elsevier
Davies, B. (1994). Poststructuralist theory and classroom practice. Victoria: Deakon University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: a research paradigm for mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (3), 270-283.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. London: Sage.
Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E. G., Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliot, J. (2001). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fairbrother, G.P. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative Approaches to Comparative Education. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: approaches and methods (pp. 39-62). Hong Kong: Springer.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed), The Paradigm Dialog. (pp. 17-27). Newbury Park. CA: Sage
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). London: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What is wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks, (Eds.), Action research in practice. London: Routledge.
Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (1), 77-97.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19 (1), 35-57.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48.
Morgan. D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48-76.
Maclure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Buckingham: Open University press.
Ninnes, P., & Burnett, G. (2003). Comparative education research: poststructuralist possibilities. Comparative Education, 39, (3), 279-297.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 48-63.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Social Research Methodologies, 8 (5), 375-387.
Prescott, A., & Hellstén, M. (2004). Hanging together even with non-native speakers: the international student transition experience. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 37-52). Hong Kong: Springer.
Schӧn, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: the new scholarship of requires a new epistemology. Change, Nov/Dec, 27-34.
Schrag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21 (5), 5-8.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 26, 1-65.
Shadish, W.R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 18 (1), 63-75.
Singh, M. (2005). Enabling transnational learning communities: Policies, pedagogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.) Internationalizing higher education: critical perspectives for critical times, (pp. 53-74). Hong Kong: Springer.
Sundin, O., & Johannisson, J. (2005). Pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and sociocultural theory. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 23-43.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 12-8.
Trompenaars. F. (1993). Riding the Waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.
Tuiha-Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books: London.
Williamson, D. (2002). Critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human Relations, 53 (11), 1373-1395.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (14th Ed.), Washington DC: American Education Research Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment