RESEARCH PARADIGM AND METHODOLOGY
A researcher’s philosophical ideas about the world, and in particular, research; are important factors that need to be considered when planning and conducting research. It is necessary to identify such ideas because they influence the practice of research (Creswell, 2009). Such ideas and views are referred to as paradigms. Without nominating a paradigm as the first step in planning research, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or research.
Many definitions for a paradigm and ‘what a paradigm is’ exist. The broadest version treats paradigms as a worldview or all-encompassing way of experiencing and thinking about the world, including beliefs about morals, values and aesthetics (Morgan, 2007). Creswell (2009) defines worldviews/paradigms as a general orientation about the world and the nature of research that a researcher holds. Morgan (2007) explains that in the science studies a paradigm refers to the consensual set of beliefs and practices that guide a field. Morgan (2007) goes further to define his version of a paradigm as being a system of beliefs and practices that influence how researchers select both the questions they study and methods that they use to study them.
The paradigm identified for this study is the Pragmatic paradigm. Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy or reality (Creswell, 2009; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). The pragmatic paradigm places the research question central, and data collection and analysis methods are chosen as those most likely to provide insight into the question and understanding the problem (Creswell, 2009; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006) i.e. pragmatist researchers focus on the ‘what and ‘how’ of the research question (Creswell, 2009).
Pragmatism is seen as the philosophical partner for mixed methods research (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) define mixed method/model studies as studies that are products of the pragmatist paradigm and that combine the qualitative and
21 quantitative approaches within different phases of the research process. Creswell (2009) suggests that the pragmatic paradigm implies that the overall approach to research is that of mixing data collection methods and data analysis procedures within the research process.
Creswell (2009) explains that the pragmatic paradigm applies to mixed methods research in that inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in their research. Onwuegbuzie and Leech, (2009) state that mixed methods research represents research that involves collecting, analyzing and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon. Research is often multi-purpose and a ‘what works’
tactic allows the researcher to address questions that do not sit comfortably within wholly a qualitative or quantitative approach to design and methodology (Armitage, 2007).
Pragmatic investigators use both quantitative and qualitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of a research problem (Creswell, 2009) i.e. research approaches should be mixed in ways that offer the best opportunities for answering important questions (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
The mixed methods approach is associated with the pragmatic paradigm (Armitage, 2007) and is thus the chosen methodology for this study. Both qualitative and quantitative research, associated with the constructivist and positivist/post-positivist paradigm respectively, have advantages and disadvantages as pure research approaches. The strengths and weaknesses are well documented by Amaratungo et al., (2002) and Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The combination of methodologies can, however, focus on their relevant strengths (Amaratunga et al., 2002). Hallie Preskill explains that mixed methods research acknowledges that all methods have inherent biases and weaknesses; that using a mixed method approach increases the likelihood that the sum of the data collected will be richer, more meaningful, and ultimately more useful in answering the research questions i.e. It is used in a single study for purposes of obtaining a fuller picture and deeper understanding of a phenomenon by combining the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research.
22 Leech (2005) explains that by having a positive attitude towards both techniques, pragmatic researchers are in a better position to use qualitative research to inform the quantitative portion of research studies, and vice versa. For example, the inclusion of quantitative data can help compensate for the fact that qualitative data typically cannot be generalized.
Similarly, the inclusion of qualitative data can help explain relationships discovered by quantitative data (Leech, 2005). Alternatively the quantitative and qualitative data can be merged into one large database (Creswell, 2009). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) point out that there are 3 areas where a mixed methods approach is more beneficial than using either qualitative or quantitative methods on their own: firstly, mixed methods have the ability to answer confirmatory and exploratory questions simultaneously (answers research questions which other approaches cannot). Secondly it provides deeper and wider answers for complex social phenomenon; and thirdly it provides the possibility for expression of differing viewpoints.
Green et al., (1989) outlined the following five broad purposes of mixed methodological studies:
a) Triangulation – seeking convergence and corroboration for results from different methods studying the same phenomenon.
b) Complementarity – seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of results from one method with the results from another.
c) Development – seeks to use the results from one method to help develop or inform the other method, where development is broadly construed to include sampling and implementation, as well as measurement decisions.
d) Initiation – seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, and new perspectives that lead to reframing of the research question.
e) Expansion – seeks to extend the breadth and range of enquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components.
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) state that becoming a pragmatic researcher offers a myriad of advantages for individuals. It enables researchers to be flexible in their investigative
23 techniques, as they attempt to address a range of research questions; and they are able to delve further into a dataset to understand its meaning and to use one method to verify findings from the other method. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) describe it as an expansive and creative form of research that is inclusive and complementary. A pragmatic paradigm using a mixed methodology thus best suits this study because it is unlimiting and does not restrict the researcher.
24