4.2 Research Paradigm
4.2.3 Participatory Paradigm
The participatory paradigm goes by several labels in literature, including: feminist, transformative, emancipatory, critical race theory, neo-Marxist, advocacy and interventionist (Mertens, 2007; Creswell, 2003). The origin of this thinking was in the 1990s, when individuals felt that post-positivist assumptions did not well fit the marginalised individuals in society and issues of social justice were not fully addressed. The need for an action agenda to help the marginalized people was missing in existing worldviews. Participatory worldviews are strongly
107
influenced by political concerns and tend to associate more with qualitative data collection and analysis approaches (Creswell & Clark, 2011:41). Issues addressed include social justice and oppression of the marginalized in society. Participatory approaches involve a plan that seeks to make positive changes in the lives of participants, institutions and researchers as well (Creswell, 2003:9, 10), by empowering them (Rubin & Babbie, 2008:45). Thus, participants may assist in designing questions, data collection and analysis and finally benefit from the findings. This approach provides the opportunity to have the voice of participants heard, which may lead to reform and change that finally might improve the lives of the participants (Creswell, 2008:9). Participatory worldview therefore focuses on needs of individuals or groups of people who may be marginalized or side-lined in society intending to bring change in their lives for the better (Creswell & Plano & Clark, 2007:23)
The participatory paradigm was found unsuitable as a lead paradigm for this study because its emphasis on seeking to empower participants and researchers is contrary to the focus of this study, which is to investigate the information literacy learning experiences of students. This study focuses less on issues of politics of marginalisation and oppression and this makes the participatory paradigm not suitable.
4.2.4 Pragmatist Paradigm
Researchers can approach their work based on a single or multiple paradigms, depending on the nature of the study in question. In such cases of using multiple paradigms, one becomes primary as the other(s) remain secondary, only providing guidance in particular aspects of the study. This study was underpinned by the pragmatic paradigm as the primary guide. The pragmatic paradigm emphasizes the research problem and allows researchers to use available methods that enable them to address the problem (Creswell, 2009:10), and is usually associated with a mixed methods approach (Creswell & Clark, 2011:41). The pragmatist paradigm is also referred to in literature as pluralistic or problem-centred (Creswell, 2003:19). Badley (2003:307) noted that pragmatism in an educational research setting does not see results of research as actual descriptions of reality, but, rather, possible connections between actions and consequences.
108
Creswell pointed out that pragmatism is not fixed on any system of philosophy or reality, which leaves the researcher focused on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the research problem (2003:11).
Similarly, Badley (2003:300) observed that pragmatists view all forms of inquiry as ways of helping people cope with aspects of the world, with no one approach to research being superior to the other. Badley further noted that pragmatism does not view truth as absolute, but provisional and focuses on the ‘what and how’ to research in order to meet the intended purpose, with research outcomes being possible connections between actions and consequences (2003:307). The focus on the research problem releases the study from being limited by provisions of any one given methodology, thereby allowing the researcher flexibility in seeking appropriate approaches that provide insights into the question.
Pragmatists further believe that research is contextual and that historical, social and political aspects must be considered in research (Creswell, 2009:11). The focus on what is being studied and not the methodology gives researchers an easy time to select the most appropriate methodologies for their studies, since the problem is the focus (Falconer & Mackay, 1999).
According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009:99), the focus on what works and not methodology gives pragmatists the opportunity to apply more than one method to a single study. Morgan (2007) describes abduction, transferability and inter-subjectivity reasoning as the three attributes of pragmatism. Abduction includes moving back and forth when applying induction and deduction reasoning research methods. Transferability explains that methods used in one research can be applied to another context, with or without the possibility of generalisation; and that the knowledge can be transferred and applied in another setting. Inter-subjectivity reinforces the notion that absolute objectivity in research is not tenable and so a researcher using the pragmatist approach must continuously refer to their frames of reference. According to Badley (2003), the pragmatic approach to research leads to a temporary equilibrium, where the researcher reflectively moves from doubt to solution that might generate new doubt. In his view, reflection, which characterizes all inquiry, is a continuous process.
In summary, pragmatism is a problem-focused philosophy of personal experience that encourages people to seek the best ways to achieve their desired goals. Focus on the problem and not methodology or research philosophy allows a researcher to employ appropriate approaches that could lead to possible solutions to the problem at hand. Pragmatism concerns
109
one’s response to life’s processes, believing that there is no absolute reality, but only possible connections between actions and consequences that are context-specific. In applying pragmatism to the current study the researcher understood that IL learning experiences of students were not fixed and would vary from case to case, and would require different approaches to establish them.
The pragmatist paradigm was found appropriate for the present study because it gave the researcher the flexibility needed to select investigative techniques that adequately addressed all the research questions. For example, the inclusion of quantitative data helped compensate the general understanding that typically qualitative data cannot be generalized. Onwuegbuzie (2003) adds that the triangulation that results from combining quantitative and qualitative findings is a great motivation for such a study. This enabled cross-checking of the consistency of data and facts on specific items, thus validating the data collected. For example, sets of data from lecturer and librarian demographics were used to validate and analyze data from interviews. Data consisting of the participants’ views from interviews and pre-determined data from questionnaires are better merged in a single investigation by use of the pragmatic approach.
According to Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003) and Somekh & Lewin (2005), pragmatism is the paradigm that provides the underlying framework for mixed methods research. For this study the pragmatist paradigm ensured that all the required information was collected by allowing for adoption of the mixed methods approach. Using the pragmatic approach, Belshaw (2011:206) investigated the concept of digital literacy and arrived at eight essential elements of digital literacies from the research literature which can lead to positive action. They include cultural, cognitive, constructive, communicative, confidence, creative, critical and civic elements (see Section 3.3.3, paragraph 4).
Kuhlthau (2004) is among researchers in LIS that have applied pragmatism in relation to information seeking and learning, although her study was not explicitly anchored on pragmatism as a framework. Other researchers that have applied the pragmatist worldview in their studies include Hjorland (1997; 2004), who combined pragmatism with realism in his studies on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge organization in the US. Sundin (2002)
110
applied pragmatism in studying nurses’ information strategies as related to their occupational identities. Pawley (2003) used pragmatism to examine the language librarians used to define and discuss information literacy. Johannisson and Sundin (2007) used the pragmatist approach in studying nurses’ information seeking behaviour in Sweden.
4.3 Research Approaches
Choice of methodology and methods for research is largely dependent upon the research questions a particular study sets to address. The three main research approaches or strategies of inquiry (Creswell, 2003:13) in the social science research include: i) quantitative research; ii) qualitative research (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:49; Creswell, 2003:20,21; Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003:155,156); and iii) mixed methods research (Creswell, 2003:20,21; Creswell & Clark, 2007:4; Creswell, 2013:3,4; Greene, 2008:20; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009:15). However, Creswell (2013:3) observed that the three approaches should not be viewed as discrete, dichotomous and exclusive, because they can be applied together, with one being more prominent than the other, or a mixture of the two. Differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches include the use of figures (quantitative) and the use of words (qualitative); use of closed-ended questions (quantitative) and open-ended questions (qualitative); and the philosophy behind use of instruments to collect data (quantitative) or observation and questioning (qualitative) (Creswell, 2013:4). The mixed method approach utilizes both quantitative and qualitative data, on the understanding that using both approaches in one study enhances understanding the problem and obtaining better data than either of them (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003:156; Greene, 2005:275). The following is a brief description of the three approaches, including a rationale for the adoption of the mixed methods approach that guided this study.
The methodological approach applied for the present study included both qualitative and quantitative techniques.
4.3.1 Qualitative Methodology
Various authors (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:4; Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:22; Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009:6; Creswell, 2013:3) have described qualitative methodology as an approach adopted where in-depth investigation is required, involving the collection and analysis of textual or verbal data. The emphasis in qualitative methodology is on words with data collected including
111
what people said or how the researcher described what he or she saw or experienced (Babbie &
Mouton 2001:49,53; Bryman, 2004:542; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005:3; Durrheim, 2006:47).
Methods for collecting qualitative data include observation, participant observation or through interviews using an interview schedule (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003:155). Others include narratives and analysis of documentary sources, artefacts and group discussions (Ritchie 2003:35).
Analysis of qualitative data is inductively done to generate themes that seek to give meaning to the data describing the problem under study. Creswell (2013:4) defined qualitative research as
“an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”, which, according to Leedy and Ormrod (2005:94), uses complex descriptions to describe phenomena. Leedy and Ormrod (2005:94) agreed with Creswell (2003:20) that qualitative research followed a constructivist or participatory approach and added that it also had interpretive or post-positivist leanings. Babbie (2004:53) observed that qualitative methodology was a best-placed approach to study processes, beliefs and perceptions of participants in a study and give them meaning.
Kraus (2005:764) stressed that the value of qualitative investigation is to understand the complex world of human experience and behaviour, as given by the participants. This captures the point of view of the respondents, including their own words. Therefore there must be several interactions between the investigator and the participants throughout the process, to enable the investigator to conceptualize the phenomenon under study and not to impose their ideas on the participants.
Similarly, Durrheim (2006:47) observed that qualitative methodology gave more information on people’s experiences and perceptions because of the in-depth interviews and data analysis approaches, compared to quantitative methodology. Lieber (2009:219) observed that qualitative approaches take researches closer to the phenomenon being investigated. Krauss noted that, through qualitative data analysis, meaning is constructed in a variety of ways. Bryman (2004:399- 404) summarised the main preoccupation of the qualitative researcher to include seeing through the eyes of the people being studied, description and emphasis on context, emphasis on process, flexibility and limited structure and that concepts and theory are grounded in data.
Easterby-Smith and Thorpe and Lowe (2002) observed that qualitative methodology was limited in terms of getting access to private experiences of those under study. According to Bryman
112
(2004:405), quantitative researchers criticize the quantitative approach as being too subjective and difficult to replicate, often relying too much on the researchers’ views about what is significant.
Bryman added that the unstructured nature of qualitative research relies too much on the investigator’s abilities to make judgements, which make it impossible to conduct a true replication of the study.
The present study found qualitative methodology suitable, as it gave the researcher the opportunity to probe the participants in order to understand their perceptions and feelings. By requiring the researcher to be present at the site where investigation was taking place, this approach also enabled the researcher to compare what was said with what documents were showing and probe participants further.
4.3.2 Quantitative Methodology
Quantitative methodology refers to the research approach that collects and produces discreet numerical data (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003:156; Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:20). According to Durrheim (2006:47) and Sapsford and Jupp (2006:20), emphasis in quantitative methodology is placed on numbers and statistical data. Creswell (2013:4) observed that the quantitative approach aims to “test theories by examining the relationship among variables” that are measurable.
Techniques in collecting quantitative data include survey methods, experiments (Mugenda &
Mugenda, 2003:156), questionnaires, tests/measures and observation (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe
& Lowe 2002:130). When we want to establish a general effect of a particular cause, the likely methodology to use will be quantitative (Rubin & Babbie, 2008:62). Surveys include studies that apply questionnaires or structured interviews for data collection, with the intention of generalizing the findings from a sample to the population under study (Babbie, 1990).
Experiments include true experiments, with subjects randomly assigned. Strengths attributed to quantitative methodology include production of data that is systematic and standardized, leading to findings that are considered more objectively measured and can be generalised to a broad population (Durrheim, 2006:47; Durrheim & Painter, 2006:132). Lieber (2009:219) observed that quantitative methods were cheaper in terms of data collection and analysis and more confirmatory in nature. Furthermore, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007:501) concluded
113
that statistical analysis of quantitative data easily explains concepts by using numerical analysis and statistical tests.
The present study found the quantitative methodology useful, with the anonymity of respondents ensuring objective responses and thus more reliable data. The results from the quantitative approach were easy to represent in the form of graphs and tables, which made it easy to communicate them efficiently.
Creswell (2003:4) cautioned that current research problems in social and human sciences may not be answered fully by a purely quantitative or qualitative approach; thus the need for a third methodology, the mixed method. Thus, Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) stated that there was a need to develop one that would utilize the strengths of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in one approach. This resulted in the development of the mixed method approach that is discussed below.
4.3.3. Mixed Methods
The mixed method approach is underpinned by the principle of triangulation, which requires a researcher not to overly rely on a single research approach. The researcher employs more than one approach in a single study (Johnson & Christensen, 2008:441; Bryman, 2004:668, 2008:15;
Creswell & Clark, 2011:1), in what Greene (2007:20) called, “multiple ways of seeing and hearing.” It could as well refer to using multiple qualitative or quantitative approaches to investigate the same phenomenon (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003:10-11). In the mixed methodology, the combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches involves viewpoints, data collection, analysis and interpretation (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007:123). Greene described mixed methodology as:
an orientation toward social inquiry that actively invites us to participate in dialogue about multiple ways of seeing and hearing, multiple ways of making sense of the social world, and multiple standpoints on what is important and to be valued and cherished (2009:20).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:17) defined mixed methods research as “the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines qualitative and quantitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” They added that it can be
114
rightly referred to as the third methodology in research, after the commonly known qualitative and quantitative approaches. Summing up several definitions in the literature, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007:123) fully agreed with Johnson and Onwuegbuzie’s (2004:17) definition and added a purpose statement, “for broader purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.” In this definition the authors looked further than the method and methodological characteristics of the approach to include the rationale and purpose for its adoption. The various definitions are clear that mixed methods research involves philosophical assumptions of both qualitative and quantitative approaches and their various methods of investigating a phenomenon.
Combining more than one research approach was said to offer a better understanding of the research problem, as each approach added a unique perspective to understanding the phenomenon under investigation (Mertens, 2011:195; Creswell, 2013:4). Mixed methodology aims to benefit from the strengths of qualitative and quantitative approaches, while minimizing their weaknesses in a single study (Creswell, 2003:22; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004:14, 15).
Various authors (Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan & Wilson, 2010:193-214; Mertens, 2011:195) stressed that, if adopted by researchers, the approach could be useful as a tool for social transformation. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007:96) found that mixed methods facilitated collection of data that was more comprehensive and reliable. The mixed method approach yields integrated knowledge that is supported by numbers, images, words and narratives. This gives more deeper and meaningful answers that other methodologies would not be able to give (Johnson and Christensen, 2008:444).
Two main factors that can determine how mixed methods is applied in a given study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003; Onwuegbizie et al. 2009; Lopez-Fernandez &
Molina-Azorin, 2011:1460-1461) include the weight/emphasis approach, where the researcher gives the same weight to quantitative and qualitative aspects or greater weight to one of them.
The second factor is the implementation of date collection/time orientation, which refers to the order in which each method is used to collect data. In this case, the researcher either collects data using both methods at the same time (simultaneous), or uses one method first, followed by the other (sequential). Whichever method a researcher chooses will have implications for the research design.
115
Some critics of mixed methods have observed that this approach can be expensive in terms of the time and resources needed to complete the research process (Lieber, 2009:222; Creswell 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2007:10; Johnson & Christensen, 2008:444) and that the investigators might not have the needed skills for a mixed method approach (Mugenda & Mugenda 2003:156).
Among authors who have used mixed methodology in studying student learning experiences is Bowles-Terry (2012), who used the methodology to examine the connections between student academic success and information literacy instruction. She used a quantitative approach and added the student perspective from focus groups to support and fill gaps from the quantitative analysis. She found students appreciated both orientation and discipline-specific library instruction, which made positive differences, as was evidenced in their academic results.
Wakimoto (2010) studied how first-year students at California State University learnt and also their satisfaction, in a required IL course using the mixed methods methodology. Results from questionnaires, pre- and post-tests and focus groups allowed in-depth discussions and evaluation and reflection on their IL experience. Kwon (2008) studied the relationship between critical thinking and library use anxiety at the University of South Florida in the United States.
Surveys were used to capture library use experience and provide quantitative data, while analysis of student essays provided qualitative data. Results of the study revealed a negative relationship between critical thinking and library use anxiety. IL therefore helped reduce levels of library anxiety and improved critical thinking skills among the students.
Selection of the type of methodology for any research is fundamental and has implications for research design, including sampling, data collection and analysis (Durrheim, 2006:47).
Durrheim stated that the decision is informed by the research purpose and the type of data, expected to achieve this purpose. Creswell (2003:21; 2008) noted that choice of methodology depends on the research problem, the personal experiences of the researcher and the audience to whom the report will be presented.
The methodological approach applied for the present study included both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The mixed method approach was found appropriate, because there is a strong move towards using different research approaches to understand information behaviour more clearly (Edwards, 2005:58; Bryman:2006). This researcher adopted the mixed method