Interpretive Paradigm

For this thesis, the term ‘paradigm’ refers to a general set of beliefs which governs the choices made throughout a study by a researcher. This set of beliefs can also be described as a researcher’s ontological (beliefs about what knowledge is) and epistemological (beliefs about how we understand knowledge) standpoints (Brooke, 2013). McGregor and Murnane (2010) state “It is common knowledge that a paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them” (p. 419). They further this description by explaining that ‘paradigm’ encompasses a philosophical and technical aspect; however, for this thesis, it will be used exclusively in the philosophical sense.

In order to understand a study, it is necessary to consider the researcher’s beliefs in regard to paradigm. Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) affirm that “It is the choice of paradigm that sets down the intent, motivation and expectations for the research. Without nominating a paradigm as the first step, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or research design” (p. 194). Creswell (2003) also emphasizes the

importance of clearly stating a paradigm because the reader can understand the

researcher’s assumptions regarding how they expect to learn and what they expect to learn over the course of the investigation.

In addition to understanding what paradigm governs a study, it is also necessary to understand what the word (along with other words) actually represents and how it can be distinguished from other terms often used as synonyms by different researchers. Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) explain that “The most common definitions suggest that methodology is the overall approach to research linked to the paradigm or theoretical framework while the

method refers to systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data” (p. 198). Consequently, for this thesis, paradigm, methodology, and method are used with this interpretation in mind.

Paradigms can be divided into two expansive categories: positivism and interpretism. Brooke (2013) describes that “These research traditions and methods can be broadly

described as those pertaining to a scientific model or positivist approach preferring

quantitative research methodology and those of the naturalistic or interpretative approach, which predominantly apply qualitative techniques for study” (p. 430). A review of the

literature shows there is some conflict in the terms used to describe specific paradigms. For example, McGregor and Murnane (2010) divide paradigms into positivism (associated with quantitative research) and post-positivism (associated with qualitative research). However, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) align both positivism and post-positivism with quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they use the terms interpretivist, constructivist, transformative and pragmatic to further divide paradigm. In the following paragraphs, the positivism paradigm is first briefly described before a fuller characterization of the paradigm for this study, interpretism, is given. Additionally, the pragmatic paradigm (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006) is explained as it was also influential over the course of this investigation.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, positivism is associated in research with the quantitative methodology. Watson-Gegeo (1988) characterize this paradigm branch as a nomothetic (formulation of general or universal laws) science from an outsider perspective. Brooke (2013) expands on this by describing positivism as “centering on probabilities through the collection of (commonly) large scale, quantifiable data in an objective and controlled way” (p. 430). Furthermore, he distinguishes this paradigm from interpretism by saying the

findings are considered invalid if they cannot be applied to different contexts from which the research was conducted.

Researchers using interpretive paradigms, as used in this study, are equally concerned with the process (the why and the how) as they are with the facts (the where, what, who, and when) or outcome (Brooke, 2013). Interpretive paradigms offer an insider

perspective and are inherently subjective. The findings are an interpretation as opposed to universal truth. Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) characterize the research conducted under interpretive paradigms as representing a ‘slice of life’ that provides insight into human opinion and behaviour. A criticism of this paradigm (an more specifically of action research, the methodology used in this study) is that it does not attempt to validate its findings. When describing action research in TESOL, Brooke (2013) concedes this point by stating “Up to a point this may be true because action research does not posit that it holds assumptions regarding the value-free nature of its results” (p. 433). However, McGregor and Murnane (2010) support this quality by stating “research should not be value-free and unbiased but be value-laden, subjective and intersubjective, even value-driven within the critical paradigm” (p. 423-424). The findings can be considered trustworthy if the reader can audit the events and understand how the researcher’s background and experiences were accounted for. This trust is achieved through rich description of the research process. Additionally, interpretive paradigms can be distinguished from positivism by the importance placed on the participants’ views of the situation being investigated (Creswell, 2003).

As previously mentioned, the main methodology use in this investigation was action research; however, this study can also be characterized as employing aspects of a mixed method methodology which is associated with the pragmatic paradigm. The pragmatic paradigm prioritizes the research problem and uses all approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell, 2003). The research problem is addressed through “data collection and analysis methods … chosen as those most likely to provide insights into the question with no philosophical loyalty to any alternative paradigm” (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006, p. 197). The research problem is considered most important and all approaches are utilized to better understand the problem. Creswell (2003) explains that “Inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in their research” and

“Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar way, mixed methods researchers look to many approaches to collecting and analyzing data rather than

subscribing to only one way (e.g., quantitative or qualitative)” (p.12). Pragmatism shows how methodologies can be successfully mixed (Hoshmand, 2003) and that “research approaches should be mixed in ways that offer the best opportunities for answering research questions” (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.16).

Given the pedagogical nature of this study and the practical research questions, a paradigm which embraced subjective interpretation from an insider perspective was deemed appropriate. Furthermore, it was thought that the research questions could best be

addressed through the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. Consequently, the paradigm used for this study is largely interpretism; however, elements of the pragmatic paradigm were also influential.