4.2. Research Methodology
4.2.1. Philosophical World View
4.2.1.4. Pragmatism and interpretivism aligned to this study
Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) identify the following characteristics of research conducted within a pragmatic paradigm, which aligns with the objectives of this thesis:
An epistemology where relationships are determined by what the researcher considers to be most suitable to the specific study being conducted;
The ontological belief that everyone interprets reality in unique ways;
A mixed methods methodology; and
A value-laden axiology of conducting research to benefit people.
The following characteristics of interpretivism as outlined by (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020) align with the objectives of this study:
The problem articulation and development of the research are informed by the researcher’s interest;
100
Participants’ individual experiences in a specific context are explored in depth via qualitative methods; and
Results are more sensitive to individual contributions and meanings.
Interpretivism and pragmatism share axiomatic elements. For instance, the axiology of both paradigms is value-driven, with the researcher’s interpretation of the results forming a core component of the research. Both paradigms require the researcher to reflexively question any underlying assumptions that could influence the outcome of the research. The similar characteristics of interpretivism and pragmatism, as outlined by Saunders et al. (2019), are depicted in Table 4-2. In alignment with the argument made by Saunders et al. (2009, p.109) that pragmatism is based on the notion that “the most important determinant of the epistemology, ontology, and axiology you adopt is the research question”, the operationalization of the research question articulated in Section 1.4 is depicted in Table 4-2 based on the epistemology, ontology, and axiology adopted in this study.
Table 4-2: Applicability of Interpretivism and Pragmatism
Interpretivism Pragmatism
Characteristics Operationalization Characteristics Operationalization
Ontology (nature of reality or being)
Complex, rich.
Socially constructed.
Multiple meanings, interpretations and realities.
The fluidity of processes, experiences, and practices (Saunders et al., 2019).
Moderators and teachers have different views based on their own subjective experiences of the moderation process.
Moderators and teachers thus construct their own realities based on their subjective experiences.
Complex, rich.
Reality is the practical outcome of ideas.
Fluidity of processes, experiences, and practices (Saunders et al., 2019).
The practical consequences of moderation processes
influence teacher and moderator views of the process. Based on their lived experiences of the moderation process, teachers are best placed to generate design ideas that will realistically enable them to conduct moderation.
Epistemology (what constitutes acceptable knowledge)
Focus on narratives, perceptions, and interpretations.
Contributions: new understandings and worldviews
(Saunders et al., 2019).
Teachers’ perceptions of current moderation practices were investigated via participatory design workshops. Teacher perceptions or viewpoints were used to gain an understanding of the important constructs to be used to evaluate the UX of an eModeration system.
Practical meaning of knowledge in specific contexts.
True theories and knowledge are those that enable successful action.
Focus on problems, practices, and relevance.
Contributions: problem- solving and informed future practice.
The design of a UX evaluation framework requires an evaluation of the requirements of teachers and moderators in the specific context of independent secondary schools.
Requirements were elicited by investigating researcher and participant beliefs. The requirements informed the development of a prototype.
101
Interpretivism Pragmatism
Characteristics Operationalization Characteristics Operationalization
Axiology (role of values)
Value-driven research.
Researchers are part of what is researched.
Subjective
researcher interpretations key to contribution.
Researcher is reflexive (Saunders et al., 2019).
The researcher is part of the community of teachers and moderators. The
researcher’s own experiences informed participant activities at the workshops. Because the researcher plays a vital role in the data collection process, it is important for the researcher to reflexively engage with the theory, data, and the interpretation of the data to question any assumptions which could unintentionally influence the outcome of the study.
Value-driven research.
Research initiated and sustained by the researcher’s values.
Researcher is reflexive.
The operationalisation of the axiology is exactly the same as the operationalization expressed in the interpretivism column.
Typical methods
Typically inductive.
Small samples.
In-depth investigations.
Qualitative methods of analysis, but a range of data can be interpreted (Saunders et al., 2019).
An inductive thematic analysis process was followed to analyse data collected from two participatory design workshops. Each workshop was designed to obtain qualitative data from a small sample of cluster, regional, and national moderators.
Following research problem and research question.
Range of methods:
mixed, multiple, qualitative, quantitative, action research.
Emphasis on practical solutions and outcomes.
Qualitative data informed the development of a prototype.
User interaction with the prototype preceded quantitative and qualitative data collection from an online survey. The prototype and evaluation framework are practical solutions to the research questions articulated in Section 1.4.
Lincoln and Guba (2000) argue that a combination of paradigms is possible, especially when the paradigms share similar axiomatic elements. Van Staden (2017) and Visser (2017) are examples of published literature that provide evidence of the use of both interpretivist and pragmatic philosophies in the design of IS used in HEIs in SA. Van Staden (2017) uses interpretivism and pragmatism to underpin the evaluation of an eModeration system from a user experience perspective. Visser (2017) uses pragmatism and interpretivism to propose a methodology for the evaluation of a Management Information System. Notably, those were not attempts at combining paradigms but rather using different paradigms as applicable to different problems addressed within the same study.
This study requires an understanding of the perspectives of educators and moderators in the evaluation of the UX of an eModeration system. Epistemologically, interpretivism is consistent with the intention of discovering the significance of events as experienced by research
102
participants so that worthwhile improvements can occur (Forbes & Khoo, 2015). This epistemology is congruent with the PD approach taken in the co-construction of knowledge through the interaction between individuals at the PD workshops and individuals and the prototype. Interpretivism was used for the qualitative analysis of the subjective meanings that participants ascribed to their interaction with the prototype eModeration system.
An important requirement in pragmatism is that knowledge should make a difference in action (Goldkuhl, 2012), which is what the present study attempted to do by using a DSR design (see Section 4.2.2). DSR encourages knowledge in the service of action. DSR thus supports pragmatism as the underlying epistemological belief (Mckenney et al., 2007). The pragmatist paradigm was used to design and develop the prototype.
The following section outlines the research design, which incorporates a Participatory Design data collection strategy and a Participatory Action Design Research approach to position the user and incorporate learning and reflection within an iterative DSR design.