Chapter 3. Framing and positioning the research
3.1. Basic beliefs about knowledge
Initially in this work I was anxious not to stray into ‗epistemological inconsistency‘
(Racher and Robinson 2003 p.477) but I was aware that the paradigm, understood here as the ‗basic belief system that guided the investigation‘ (Guba and Lincoln 1994 p. 105) was consciously considered after the real world problem which stimulated this research was determined. This is considered acceptable practice by some commentators but not by others; given the practice related requirements of the EdD I felt comfortable with this sequence. As it is the choice of paradigm that sets down the intent, motivation and expectations for research (Mackenzie and Knipe 2006) this now required explicit consideration.
As introduced in Section 1.4, my initial intent was to establish if mentoring ‗worked‘ for those who participated in the process, but I became aware that what is meant by
‗working‘ is dependant upon the worldview held. Furthermore, as the research was conceptualised, I became more aware that the motivation for the research was not to establish one truth or evidential proof that mentoring worked through any single hypothesis but explore, seek understanding and test out claims and assumptions held about mentoring practice in the CSLA. The expectation for the research, as described earlier, was to generate knowledge about a complex professional and organisational issue which would have implications for the development of that practice and result in organisational change. Exploring the intent, motivation and expectation for this research helped frame the epistemological basis for the study.
3.1.1. An ontology of mentoring
Mentoring has been examined from different epistemological positions; researchers have situated themselves within different research paradigms and applied different methods to construct knowledge that has added to my understanding of the purpose and practice of mentoring. The theory base for mentoring research has strands from a range of disciplines and research on mentoring is published in journals with varied epistemological bases. As described in Chapter 2, the association of mentoring with theories of cognitive development, social capital, leadership and management, human capital, attachment, social exchange and social learning may all offer insight. I examined these in relation to the intent, motivation and expectation of my research and constructed a set of ways of knowing about mentoring that would be philosophically congruent with some approaches. As stated in 2.4.4 the socialisation and development conceptual framework (Daresh 2004) is used to explore mentoring in this study.
As a professional doctorate, with the researcher situated within practice, I felt it was important that this was empirical research - to hear from those who had experienced mentoring in the CSLA, to learn from their realities in order to make generalisations which could be used to influence future organisational policy. I found it difficult to align to one paradigm, but a question of testing claims and assumptions is one which could fit within a positivist/post-positivist frame. Commentators are in agreement that positivist/post-positivist research is an empirical, explanatory approach where observables are king. Research in such a framework seeks explanation, prediction, and control and involves making generalisations and cause-effect linkages.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) and Denzin and Lincoln (2000) stated that the positivist/post-positivist paradigm assumes an ontology of critical realism. Researchers working from a realist perspective observe the empirical field to discover by a ‗mixture of theoretical reasoning and experimentation‘ (Outhwaite 1983 p. 332) knowledge of the real world.
There is a belief that reality exists but is only imperfectly describable, theories are held to be provisional and new understandings may challenge the whole theoretical framework (Khun 1962). Looking at mentoring through a lens of critical realism requires objective epistemologies with both qualitative and quantitative methodologies considered appropriate (Healy and Perry 2000).
Much of what I expected from my research, in terms of being able to build knowledge that I could use to improve the policy arrangements for mentoring, fits this paradigm.
That I can align my research to the positivist/post-positivist paradigm is perhaps not surprising given my previous research in human mechanics and now, working within the policy environment, my views are in keeping with the epistemological view held by the majority in the policy community (Morcol 2001). However a purely positivist approach is problematic as mentoring involves human relationships and the exploration of social behaviour where interpretive paradigms have much to offer.
So for the reasons explored above, the positivist/post-positivist paradigm was attractive in framing the intent, motivation and expectations of this research, but there were limitations to this approach when exploring social interactions. There is much about understanding mentoring practice which defied a positivist frame. In seeking to understand interpersonal relationships which develop personal transformation through self-confidence, self-efficacy, leadership capacity and leaderly behaviour, mentoring could be examined through a nominalist lens. Researchers who work within a nominalist epistemological frame hold interpretive and constructivist beliefs with ontological assumptions that reality is complex, holistic, and context dependent (Monti
and Tingen 1999, Racher and Robinson 2003). Knowledge is created through seeking to understand the complex world of lived experience from the view of those who live it (Schwandt 1994). Although I sought to test the claim that mentoring built self-confidence and supported wellbeing in new leaders, I also sought description and meaning about the relationships through interpretation, which would be consistent with an interpretive paradigm.
In determining the framework to consider my research question, I came to understand that a socialisation and developmental perspective of mentoring could be examined within both post-positivist and interpretative paradigms but I was wary of having a lack of congruence between my epistemological and methodological assumptions. What was initially concerning was that I could equally frame my research in both traditions, and that there appeared to be overlap between the epistemological positions described by some authors. In contrast to the view of post-positivism which sits solidly within an ontology of realism as described above, Clark (1998) concluded that post-positivism acknowledges the complications of claims about universal knowledge. O'Leary (2005) went further suggesting post-positivism as an intuitive and holistic, inductive and exploratory approach acknowledging multiple realities where ‗what might be the truth for one person or cultural group may not be the 'truth" for another‘ (O‘Leary 2005 p.6).
If I accepted this belief methodologies which focus on the experiences or meanings of individuals such as phenomenology, grounded theory and other interpretive methodologies may be encompassed by a post-positivist paradigm; a view consistent with Racher and Robinson (2003).
As my previous work had been situated in what I now recognise as a positivist paradigm within an ontological framework of realism, I found the debate over definitions of competing or overlapping paradigms of postpositivism and interpretism initially frustrating and confusing. It was unhelpful that some literature did not make reference to the position of the researcher at all or when it was explicit, definitions differed or were even contradictory.
Work from nursing research helped me make sense of this predicament. Racher and Robinson (2003) present their view that phenomenology and post-positivism although appearing ‗strange bedfellows‘ (p.465) have shared perspectives, overlapping in their epistemological position. I began to understand the two main ontological positions of nominalism and realism (Cohen et al. 2007) as more of a continuum between subjective and objective conceptualisations of reality than opposing, neatly categorised, sets of rules.
The concept of paradigmic plurality (Weaver and Olson 2006) was also attractive as a solution to frame a complex real world question. Supporters of the use of a combination of several paradigms have argued that knowledge developed from one perspective could complement knowledge developed from another, that polarisation between approaches is not meaningful or helpful (Leddy 2000, Erickan and Roth 2006). Mixed methodology research allows a question to be approached from more than one perspective in order to explore the findings from more than one tradition or philosophy. Although debate exists whether there can be mutual tolerance of differing ideologies I felt there was a benefit in recognising the coexistence of paradigms in my work based research. In the inter-professional workplace such a blend of ideology can allow research findings to be interpreted and disseminated, and thus accepted, in the language and traditions of the participating professional groups. If knowledge about leadership in schools was of value to those working in Integrated Children‘s Services, paradigmic plurality which recognises the research traditions of nursing, social work, community learning and education, may suit an inter-professional audience.
Paradigmic plurality could be considered a pragmatic response to complex real world issues, placing as it does ‗the research problem‘ as the central focus (Weaver and Olson 2006). Kikuchi (2003) presented an argument for anti-paradigmatic inquiry although Weaver and Olson (2006) disagreed, considering her stance as positivism in another guise and a limiting position. With a similar aim to paradigmic plurality, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) describe the pragmatic paradigm as ‗not committed to any one system of philosophy or reality‘ (p.4). Pragmatic researchers focus on the 'what' and 'how' of the research problem (Creswell 2003 p.11) unguided, or unconstrained to one system of philosophy or reality. Both paradigmic pleurality (Weaver and Olson 2006) and the pragmatic paradigm (Creswell 2003, Mackenzie and Knipe 2006) are offered as ways of understanding mixed methodology research. With the research question central to both approaches, methodologies are chosen as those most likely to provide insights to the question posed. Such a stance was attractive to explore a real world problem in a work based doctorate.