Section 1.7.2 discusses pragmatism as the study’s meta-theoretical paradigm, and Section 1.7.3 discusses the use of a concurrent triangulation MMR methodology as the methodological paradigm.
1.7.2 Meta-Theoretical Paradigm: Pragmatism
As I follow a concurrent MMR intervention design, I adopt a pragmatic epistemology. An MMR approach linked with a pragmatic epistemology entails the simultaneous collecting of data using methodologies from both the QUAN+QUAL disciplines to best address the RQs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Povee & Roberts, 2015). “In terms of ontology, pragmatism accepts that there exists both an objective reality and people's perceptions of reality” (Barnes, 2012, p. 8). MMR researchers have tried to build a suitable philosophical framework since their debut as a third methodological paradigm. (Cameron, 2011). The incompatibility thesis is at the centre of many criticisms of MMR. This criticism is based on the view that because QUAN+QUAL research methodologies have such diverse ontological and epistemological foundations, they cannot be combined in a single study (Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017). Many argue, however, that the incompatibility thesis has been largely debunked because studies have proved that an MMR approach may be used successfully (Biesta, 2010; Cameron, 2011;
Denzin, 2014; Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017). Furthermore, pragmatism posits that rich variation exists between quantitative and qualitative epistemologies. As a result, qualitative approaches do not need to be informed solely by interpretivism, and quantitative methods do not need to be guided solely by positivism. In truth, many approaches defy this categorisation, such as qualitative research, which is intrinsically positivist, and quantitative methods, which seek interpretation (Wagner, 2009).
“The challenges of using pragmatism as the meta-theoretical paradigm lie in the rationale behind the choice, epistemological relevance, methodological appropriateness and the proficiency of the researcher” (Leask, 2019, p. 70). Therefore, it is critical for the MMR researcher to recognise and vigorously defend pragmatic techniques and decisions in the face of these criticisms (Cameron, 2011; Guetterman et al., 2019; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016), as discussed next in Section 1.7.3.
1.7.3 Methodological Paradigm: Concurrent Triangulation MMR Intervention Design
1.7.3.1 Introduction
I used a concurrent triangulation MMR intervention design to generate both QUAN+QUAL data at baseline during the intervention and post-intervention with teachers. During the design
phase, researchers worked out a strategy for collecting both data types so that the data allowed integration of the QUAN+QUAL databases (Fetters et al., 2013). Integrating QUAN+QUAL methodologies in a study is an intentional procedure in which the researcher makes the data interdependent to address the RQs (Ivankova et al., 2019). Figure 1.5 shows an overview of concurrent MMR design. The sample size for pre- and post-test was 36 and 22 teachers, respectively. Following Figure 1.5, the benefits, limitations and criteria for selecting an MMR method was discussed.
Figure 1.5
Overview of Concurrent MMR Design
1.7.3.2 Advantages of MMR
MMR is regarded as the third methodological trend, and it has a lot to offer social science research as a methodology. It arose in reaction to the limits of using only QUAN+QUAL methods, and it is now widely accepted as a credible alternative to these two approaches (Doyle et al., 2016). By extending beyond a strictly descriptive study, research should, above all, lead to a greater understanding and interpretation of phenomena (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2014). MMR aids in addressing the RQs that cannot be addressed by using QUAN or QUAL approaches on their own by providing a more comprehensive toolkit to
Quantitative TR (ENTRÉE) and social connectedness (REPPSI)
scales
Pre-test n=36; Post-test n=22
Qualitative PRA posters and group presentations, visual data,
researcher journal Pre-test n=36; Post-test n=22
Non-parametric tests (WSR) and statistical analysis
Coding and theme development
Merge and interpret:
Interpretation based on pre- and- post intervention comparison of quantitative and qualitative results
MMR approaches have the advantage of providing stronger interpretations of research issues by allowing for more depth and breadth in solving complex social phenomena and allowing for the expression of different points of view (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2014). MMR combines diverse data analytic approaches to allow evidence to be transferred between qualitative and quantitative methodology. By seeking corroboration between QUAN+QUAL data, triangulation improves the validity and trustworthiness of a study (Doyle et al., 2016).
MMR can provide quantifiable data from quantitative analysis and rich, nuanced, contextualised narratives of human experiences from qualitative research (Guetterman et al., 2019). As a result, combining research methods yields a more complete and thorough idea of a study (Doyle et al., 2016; Johnson & Onwuegbuzi, 2014).
The ability to combine QUAN+QUAL methodologies within a transformative paradigm is another advantage of MMR (Barnes, 2012). Because of positivism's historical dominance, quantitative studies were frequently embedded with racist and gendered ideas (Duncan &
Bowman, 2009). As a result, it's no surprise that qualitative approaches are the preferred method for critical and transformational research (Barnes, 2012; Nwoye, 2018). While qualitative research has advanced our understanding of transformation concerns, there is still a need to comprehend the scope of these issues in post-colonial South Africa. “Pragmatism is a problem-solving, action-oriented inquiry method founded on a commitment to democratic values and progress” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). As a result, my MMR literature encourages us to use various methods to learn more about important social justice concerns in South Africa (Barnes, 2012; Nwoye, 2018). Social justice concerns in South Africa include not only material consequences for teachers working in a resource constrained and structurally disparate context like South Africa, but also the suppression of indigenous knowledge generation. In this regard, MMR research has the potential to give a platform to previously suppressed indigenous discourses that can explore the strengths operating in these communities that can be enriched with culturally appropriate professional development opportunities.
1.7.3.3 Limitations of MMR
An MMR study has both a QUAN+QUAL component, but the researcher often has trouble articulating how the two aspects relate to one another (Mengshoel, 2012). A pragmatic paradigm within the research process suggests that the general research approach is to mix data gathering methods and data analysis procedures. The goal of the study questions is directly linked to the approach chosen by pragmatists (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The eclectic nature of pragmatism can be seen as a drawback by relying on the virtues of both qualitative and quantitative methods while downplaying their flaws (Frels et al., 2013; Johnson
& Onwuegbuzie, 2014). MMR studies are deemed useful when numerous different but connected research problems are investigated (Mengshoel, 2012). My study was guided by
pragmatism due to the impact of the research aspects on the study rather than addressing the flaws of QUAN+QUAL research. Additionally, legitimation in MMR requires that multiple validities be considered for both the QUAN+QUAL research methodologies (Onwuegbuzie &
Johnson, 2006), which are discussed in Section 3.7 in Chapter 3.
Another limitation of MMR approaches is the practical difficulties of collecting QUAN+QUAL data concurrently. The data collection involved coordinating the administration of two different quantitative scales while concurrently facilitating and recording qualitative PRA poster presentations. In addition to the practical difficulties of data collection, the volume and skill required to capture and analyse both QUAN+QUAL may be challenged- a research team may be required in this instance (Doyle et al., 2009). Accordingly, I worked with a research team, and data collection and analysis took place with the help of various members to make multiple data collection procedures possible.
1.7.3.4 Criteria for Choosing MMR
Three characteristics determine the overall purpose of using MMR. These include intent (purpose of using the approach), timing (the sequence of collecting and analysing data) and integration of results (Ivankova et al., 2019). The purpose of concurrent triangulation in MMR design is to compare the two data types by merging the data sets and results during data analysis (Ivankova et al., 2019). “Three outcomes arise from triangulation: convergence, inconsistency, and contradiction” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 115). Whatever findings prevail, the researcher may have clearer explanations of the social phenomena observed. If the results differ, the cause must be determined and the results re-examined. If the findings converge, the integration may be a valid justification for the quality of the inference (Venkatesh et al., 2014). Furthermore, triangulation increases the researcher's confidence in their findings and encourages the development of novel data collection methods that can result in thicker, richer data (Denzin, 2012).
The overall intent of the research is to explore how an SC intervention may inform knowledge of TR. Accordingly, my study follows an MMR approach to understand TRs’
complexities within a high-risk context. The objective of the proposed school-based intervention study was to explore to what extent an SC intervention with teachers in primary schools can inform knowledge on TR and enable TR in a challenged educational context.It is hypothesised that SC has the potential to create enabling school environments by creating caring and sympathetic communities by implementing evidence-based policies (Ebersöhn, 2017).
Intervention research in a challenged educational context justifies the need for MMR as the complex social context demands analysis that is informed by several and varied
2005). In addition to this, “[s]ingle case studies are prolific in South African education research”
(Ebersöhn, 2016, p. 1). Current insights on what enables positive education outcomes are drawn “from fragmented, regional and mostly single case studies, using multiple conceptualisations, measures and indicators” (Ebersöhn, 2016, p. 1). This limitation is addressed in my study by using internationally recognised research constructs while incorporating qualitative research methods to account for the contextual differences in a post- colonial educational context. MMR is appropriate for research concerning minority groups that are difficult to study using quantitative measures alone, hence the need to use a range of methodologies to study oppressed groups extensively while representing in depth the perspectives of persons (Barnes, 2012).