techniques and research sample; 4.7 Data collection instruments; 4.8 Data collection procedures; 4.9 Instrument validation and reliability testing; 4.10 Data analysis; 4.11 Ethical considerations; and 4.12 Summary.
4.2 Research Paradigm
Any research endeavour is largely shaped by philosophical assumptions or beliefs espoused by the researcher. These beliefs are commonly referred to as paradigms. A paradigm, according to Bryman (1988, p.4), is a “cluster of beliefs and dictates which for scientists in a particular discipline influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted”. Babie and Mouton (1998) look at a paradigm from a slightly different angle and context. The two scholars define a paradigm as “models or frameworks for observation and understanding which shape both what we see and how we understand it”
(p.645). Although the two definitions are largely stating the same thing, they differ in terms of the context within which these definitions were framed. Whilst the former exhibits a more positivist perspective by highlighting “scientists” as the drivers of research projects other than using “researcher” which is an all-encompassing term, the latter was framed from a constructivist or interpretivist angle. Concepts such as “observation” and “understanding”
(interpretation) are mainly associated with the constructivist paradigm. The two definitions, however, agree on the point that a paradigm is key to any study as it acts as a guide on the type of design to use (survey or case study), type of methods to be used (quantitative or qualitative), and how data will be collected and analysed.
94
The choice of research paradigms used in a particular study are themselves influenced by a set of ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions which one holds. Ontology is defined as the “nature of reality and its characteristics” (Creswell, 2013, p.20). In other ways, ontology represents a way of looking at social reality and ultimately how it should be studied (Morrison, 2012). Ontology presents two main divergent views pertaining to the study of social entities or phenomena which are objectivism and constructivism. Objectivism, also referred to as realism, is a position that “asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors” (Bryman, 2004, p. 16). Simply put, a
“real world” exists independent of humans and their interpretations of it (Neuman, 2011).
This being the case, realism advocates for an objective way of studying reality which is cognisant to that of the natural sciences. Constructivism, also referred to as interpretivism, on the other hand, states that “social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman, 2004, p.17). Constructivism, therefore, is mainly associated with the more subjective paradigms and methodological approaches (Connaway and Powell, 2010).
Axiological assumptions to research refer to the values or biases that the researcher brings to the study (Creswell, 2003). Scientific studies are supposed to be free from bias as they advocate for the elimination of bias in their conduct (De Vos et al., 2011). However, Bryman (2004) has pointed out the futility of this notion arguing that values can hardly be kept in check in any study. According to Bryman, biases are bound to intrude at one or a number of points in a study such as at the choice of research area, formulation of research proposal, interpretation of data or even the drawing of conclusions. Qualitative researchers, however, openly attest to the value-laden nature of their studies. Drawing on the findings of Denzin (1989), Creswell (2013) observes that the researcher’s presence is apparent in the text, more especially in interpretive biographies, where the author admits that the stories voiced represent an interpretation and presentation of the author. Although biases are hard to eliminate in almost all studies, the researcher should try as much as possible to minise them as these have the potential to affect the credibility of overall results and findings. The researcher triangulated methods (used quantitative and qualitative methods) with the aim of reducing bias. Further attempts to limit bias were achieved by paying careful attention to details in the interpretation of data and drawing of findings.
95
Epistemology is an area of philosophy that is concerned with the creation of knowledge (Neuman, 2011). It focusses on what is acceptable knowledge or what are the most valid ways to reach the truth and how persons come to know what they know (Connaway and Powell, 2010). Different epistemological paradigms exist. However, for the purposes of this study only four broad categories will be discussed. These are the positivist/post-positivist, constructivism/interpretivist, advocacy/participatory and pragmatism. The researcher will wind up the discussion by indicating the paradigm that is best suited for the current study, and the justification for the choice.
4.2.1 Positivist/Post-Positivist Paradigm
Denscombe (2008) defines positivism as an approach to research that seeks to apply the natural science model of research to investigations of social phenomena and explanations of the social world. The key principles of this paradigm include objectivity, distance and control (Greenwood and Levin, 2003). Positivism states that true knowledge is that which can be arrived at through use of the senses and gathering facts that provide the basis for laws (De Vos et al., 2011; Bryman, 2004). These attributes, coupled with the elimination of bias, go a long way in achieving objectivity which is considered to be the most important pillar of this paradigm.
Post-positivism, conversely, came about as a direct challenge to positivism as an epistemological method that must be universally applied in all fields or disciplines of study.
Whereas positivists argue that there is reality out there to be studied, captured and understood, post-positivists contend that reality can never be fully apprehended but only approximated (Guba, 1990). In other ways, post-positivists challenge the traditional notion of the absolute truth of knowledge (Phillips and Burbles, 2000). Moreover, post-positivists believe that not all methods are suitable or applicable in all contexts (Glicken, 2003).
Creswell (2003), for instance, gives an example of the study of human beings as an area that may require the use of other methods that may not necessarily be purely scientific in nature.
Consequently, post-positivists promote the use of multiple methods of inquiry which involve the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell, 2013; De Vos et al., 2011;
Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). In spite of the differences in the use of methods, post-positivists agree with positivists that research should comprise of a series of logically related steps,
96
employ rigorous methods and validity approaches, use multiple levels of data analysis, and where necessary employ computer programs to assist in data analysis (Creswell, 2013).
The positivist/post-positivist paradigms have been criticised for taking a narrow view to knowledge generation. The notion that there is only one way to doing credible research has been challenged but many scholars, particularly those engaged in qualitative forms of inquiry who have argued that “positivist methods are but one way of telling stories about society or the social world” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p.15). Neuman (2011) further argues that positivist approaches are not suitable for the study of humans and their behaviour because they fail to take into account context and respondents’ experiences.
Both the positivist and post-positivist approaches were deemed not suited to this study. The current study investigated the eReadiness of public university libraries in Malawi to use mobile phones in the delivery of library and information services. The study examined the preparedness of public university libraries in Malawi in terms of policy, infrastructure, capacity and acceptance to potentially adopt and use mobile phones in providing library and information services; and also investigated factors that are likely to influence the potential adoption and use of mobile phones in the provision of library and information services. The use of purely scientific methods as advocated for in the positivist paradigm in this study could not have helped in achieving its objectives. The nature of this study which involved examining policies and identifying available infrastructure made the use of the positivist paradigm unsuitable. Although the current study deployed a mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis, the approach used in analysis differed slightly with that used in the post-positivist approach in that qualitative data was not quantified as is implied in this paradigm (Creswell, 2003), but analysed and presented thematically. This approach favoured the use of other paradigms that are subsequently discussed.
4.2.2 Social Constructivist/Constructionism/Interpretive Paradigm
Social constructionism is an epistemological position that asserts that human beings do not find or discover knowledge (as is implied in positivism) but rather actively construct or make it (Schwandt, 2003). Schwandt goes on to say that human beings invent concepts, models, and schemes to make sense of experience, and continually test and modify these constructions in the light of new experience. Social constructionism further states that
97
knowledge generation is mediated by both social and historical perspectives (Creswell, 2013). Social constructivist researchers employ different kinds of interviewing techniques to get respondents’ accounts of a particular phenomenon or situation. The questions become broad and general signifying the use of both unstructured and semi-structured mode of interviewing aimed at enabling the participants to construct the meaning of a situation typically forged in discussions or interactions with other persons. It is also worthwhile to note that constructivist researchers “position themselves” in the study hence make subjective interpretations of the findings (Creswell, 2003). It is for this reason that studies of this nature are generally viewed as value-laden, implying that they are full of bias, a development that has drawn rebuke from positivist scholars (Neuman, 2011). Principally, studies modelled on this paradigm do not normally start with theories as is the case with positivist or post- positivist studies. On the contrary, researchers generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning at the end of the study (Creswell, 2003).
Constructivism has been criticised in other quarters as not a worthwhile form of inquiry.
Probably the biggest criticism, that is not only directed at this type of research but also other forms of qualitative studies, emanates from positivists who have described constructivism as an attack of reason and truth (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). It has further been argued that people’s accounts of themselves, of others, and of events, are incomplete in that research participants may be unaware of the broader structures that govern the interpretations they give or of the conditions that underpin their actions (Morrison, 2012). Therefore, relying heavily on these accounts, as is the case with the constructivist paradigm, may lead to misleading results and conclusions.
As already discussed, the current study made use of mixed methods, meaning that both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to study the research problem. This signifies that use of interviewing as the only data collection technique as advocated for in this paradigm may not have helped in achieving the study objectives. Furthermore, the questioning techniques used in this study were not similar to those used in other constructivist studies. According to Creswell (2013), narrative, ethnographic and phenomenological studies including grounded theory mostly use deep and repeated questioning techniques (structured and semi-structured interviews) in their research. Such questioning techniques were not used in this study as only semi-structured interviews were carried out. It can, therefore, be
98
concluded that the design of this study made the use of the social constructivist paradigm inappropriate.
4.2.3 Advocacy/Participatory/Critical Paradigm
This paradigm encompasses several stances that include conflict theory, feminist perspectives, racialised discourse, queer theory, disabled inquiry, and more (Grogan and Simmons, 2012; De Vos et al., 2011; Creswell, 2003). Scholars who use this sort of inquiry have found fault with the positivist/post-positivist and constructivist paradigms. Creswell (2013), for instance, argues that post-positivists impose structural laws and theories that do not fit marginalised individuals or groups, and the constructivists do not go far enough in advocating action to help individuals. Similarly, Neuman (2011) has criticised the positivist paradigm for failing to deal with the meaning of real people and their capacity to feel and think, for ignoring social context, and for being anti-humanistic. These sort of criticisms have made scholars to devise a way of studying issues that fall under the themes outlined above which they call the critical lens theory or paradigm. This paradigm mainly makes use of qualitative methods of inquiry (Grogan and Simmons, 2012), and focusses on how injustice and subjugation shape people’s experiences and understanding of the world (Patton, 2002).
The critical lens theory or paradigm is both emancipatory and collaborative in nature (Creswell, 2013; 2003). The paradigm is emancipatory in that it helps to free people from the constraints of irrational and unjust structures that limit self-development and self- determination. The aim, therefore, is to create political debate and discussions so that change can occur. The practicality and collaborative aspect of the lens stems from the fact that researchers tend to engage participants as active collaborators in their studies. Participants’
engagement in the study range from helping in the design of the questions, collecting data, analysing it, and shaping the final report.
The critical lens theory or paradigm has also been criticised by scholars in other fields. The fiercest criticisms have emanated from scholars in the social constructivist field. According to Neuman (2011), social constructivist researchers have criticised the critical paradigm for being too subjective and relativist, treating people’s ideas as more important than actual conditions (i.e. real poverty, oppression and violence). The paradigm has also been criticised for focussing too much on localised, micro-level short-term settings while ignoring the
99
broader and long-term structural conditions, and also for failing to take a strong value position or actively help people to see false illusions around them.
Just like the positivist/post-positivist and constructivist paradigms, the critical lens paradigm was not suitable for the current study. This is so because this study did not advance an action- oriented agenda related to gender, race, poverty, disability, sexual orientation, religious difference and/or other marginalising structures as is implied in the critical lens paradigm (Grogan and Simmons, 2012). On the contrary, the study examined the eReadiness of public university libraries to use mobile phones in the delivery of library and information services.
Furthermore, whilst the critical lens theory mainly relies on qualitative approaches, the present study deployed a mixed methods approach. This means that both the agenda and methodological approach of the critical paradigm run parallel to those used in this study.
4.2.4 The Pragmatic Paradigm
Pragmatism is an approach to research practice that calls to researchers to mix research components in ways that will work for their research problem, question and circumstances (Hibberts and Johnson, 2012). Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political and other contexts hence mixed methods studies may include a postmodern turn, a theoretical lens that is reflexive of social justice and political aims (Creswell, 2003). In practice, a researcher using this worldview uses multiple methods of data collection to best answer the research question, employs multiple sources of data collection, focusses on the practical implications of the research, and emphasise the importance of conducting research that best addresses the research problem (Creswell, 2013).
A critical analysis of the research questions revealed that they can best be answered by collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. For instance, variables that make up the first research question probing level of preparedness of university libraries in Malawi in terms of ICT infrastructure, policy framework and human capacity for the adoption and use of mobile phones in providing library and information services can best be addressed by conducting in-depth interviews with university or college ICT directors and/or university or college librarians. Conversely, to determine factors that may influence adoption and use of mobile phones by library staff, students and academic staff respectively in providing and accessing library and information services, as stated in the fifth research question, requires
100
administering a questionnaire to the three groups. It is for this reason that the pragmatic paradigm was preferred over the post-positivist, social constructivist and advocacy paradigms because it allows the researcher the flexibility of using methods that are best suited to the problem under investigation. In this particular case, mixed methodology.
This paradigm has been used in the work of a number of researchers (Chandhok and Babbar, 2011; McNeill et al., 2011; Paterson and Low, 2011). Paterson and Low (2011) assessed student attitudes towards mobile library services for smartphones at Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom. This study used a two-stage survey to collect data over an eight month period which was followed by two group discussions. The initial survey attracted 1,989 students whilst the follow-up survey attracted 1,716 participants. This was followed up with two discussion groups of six undergraduate and five postgraduate students. The focus group discussions were made up of eleven participants: Five post-graduate students and six undergraduate students. Similarly, McNeill et al. (2011) used the mixed methods approach to carry out a study that examined student uses of technology in learning. This study involved two phases: A photo ethnography to facilitate a detailed exploration of ten students’
technology uses, and a university-wide survey involving 1,104 student. In another mixed methods study, Chandhok and Babbar (2011) used questionnaires and interviews to collect data from distance learners of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) to explore the requirements for distance learners for various m-library services.