RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.2 Research paradigms
94 and events observed. The field notes as well documented the researchers‟
perspectives/ role in the research process/ events observed.
Finally, the chapter further describes ethnography and the rationalisation for its use in the present study. As a result of research design choice, the study presented the researcher‟s positionality. Also, the chapter describes the participants and sampling methods; data gathering methods; credibility and trustworthiness of methods used; collection procedures and analysis. Ethical issues were as well examined.
95 research paradigms in research vary among researchers based on their choices and the nature of the problems to be explored. Accordingly, many philosophical paradigms exist today due to advancements in people‟s thinking and various means of expounding the incidences and implications of occurrences in the world (Adom, Yeboah & Ankrah, 2016). Additionally, the differences in the application of research paradigms in information research do not rely on philosophical assumptions alone but the practical effects of the investigation and the interpretation of the findings (Kwakukankam, 2019).
Guba and Lincoln (1994) categorised paradigms into positivism, post- positivism, constructivism, and critical theory. Grix (2004: 68) puts forward the main philosophical paradigms used in Social Science research as Positivism, Pragmatism, Critical-Postmodernism, and Interpretivism paradigms. Kwakukankam (2019) suggested that despite the usefulness of applying research paradigms in information research, researchers should be cautious of the limitations of the paradigm they would adopt for a study. With this in mind, the current research adopts the Interpretivism stance.
Interpretivism is a paradigm within an epistemological position that treats reality as frail. Knowledge as personal and the truth lies within the meanings of a person‟s reality as he/she interacts with that „reality‟ (Shisanya, 2019: 46).
According to Charmaz (2006), interpretivism assumes multiple realities, facts, and values linked to social life. Therefore, the ontological assumptions of interpretivism are that social reality is interpreted differently by various people, leaving multiple perspectives of an incident. The researchers‟
interpretations of the research are shaped by their experiences; personal, cultural, and historical experiences, and backgrounds (Willis, 2007). The researcher‟s intent, in that regard, is to make sense (or interpret) the meanings
96 others have about the world. Also, interpretive methodology tends to support qualitative methods such as case studies and ethnography (Willis, 2007: 90).
Interpretivist research has been critiqued to have abandoned the scientific methods of confirmation and thus, results cannot be generalised to other circumstances. For this reason, many positivists query the interpretivist research. Interpretivism has also been critiqued in that its ontological assumption is subjective rather than objective. But Shisanya (2019) responded that all research is subjective. According to the earlier cited scholar, when a researcher selects a paradigm, he/she is being subjectively oriented toward one way of doing research (49-50). The aforementioned author added that one cannot dissociate oneself from his/her own perspective as a researcher.
The reported limitations of the interpretive paradigm are minimised in the current study by adopting the approach by Scotland (2013). The approach takes a position that interpretive research approach is good since it provides rich evidence, offers credible and justifiable accounts and can be used by someone in another situation (transferability).
Ultimately, the interpretive paradigm was adopted based on its suitability to explore the questions in the present research. Since this study is concerned with academics‟ detailed experiences of using e-library databases to conduct research, the interpretive research paradigm is a suitable yardstick for understanding and exploring their beliefs, opinions and thoughts (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005; Thanh & Thanh, 2015). Besides, as the paradigm‟s assumption values the importance of context in which social phenomenon takes place, it matches the nature of the problem at hand. For that reason, it allows the researcher to understand academics‟ beliefs, practices and behaviours from
97 their perspectives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Dimitriadis, 2003; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005).
Also, in comparison with positivist, post-positivist and critical paradigms, the ontological assumptions of the interpretivist paradigm were more appropriate and well-suited with the research problem under inquiry. Positivist paradigm, for example, is detached from the social context in which a particular phenomenon is studied and it views social reality as completely objective (Shisanya, 2019). Additionally, the present study requires a methodological approach that allows both researcher‟s and participants‟ values, experiences and perspectives to be part of the research process. In essence, using the interpretivist perspective brought together the researcher‟s personal experiences and background as an ASL and the academic‟s values, experiences and views on the utilisation of e-library databases, to address the present problem. Again, the Interpretivists believe in fully engaging the learners in the teaching of study skills. In this regard, to provide access to e- library databases, academic staff require the skills (digital literacy) to navigate this new system. Academics‟ engagement with the e-library databases would enable them to discover their values and use them maximally for research.
Besides, the research problem and questions in this study required the researcher to align with the adopted paradigm. By this means, it allows for the social construction of meanings gathered from observation of academics‟
communication with the online library databases. That is, the interpretivist perspectives were apt to uncover the experiences, underlying patterns, context- specific issues, and barriers affecting the maximum use of e-library databases by academics. For instance, Lim‟s (2015) study underpinned by the interpretivism, explored how academics in the „School of the Future‟ in
98 Singapore engaged with information and communication technology (ICT) in teaching and research. The study discovered from the context of everyday classroom practices, academics‟ experiences, ICT adaptation and challenges faced in using the resources.
Furthermore, the paradigm is suitable for this research because it allows the researcher to apply multiple methods, divergent worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as diverse forms of data collection and analysis (Morgan, 2013). Again, the interpretive paradigm accepts multiple viewpoints of different individuals from different groups. As a result, it can lead to a better understanding of reasons for academic staff‟s low use of the e-library databases and ways the use can be maximised. Also, as a theoretical perspective, the interpretivist paradigm is useful for updating the blueprint toward enhancing the use of e-library databases. In short, the paradigmatic framework for the research is interpretive.