Justification for using mixed methodology

This section provides a justification and explanation of the mixed philosophical stance taken in the two phases. The interpretive research paradigm is primarily concerned with human understanding, interpretation, intersubjectivity, lived truth (i.e. truth in human terms). It uses ethnographic case study, largely qualitative forms of inquiry, and such things as triangulation (multiple viewpoints on the same object of interest, an in survey) to overcome the weaknesses of subjectivity. Of course quantitative methods can also be used, as and when appropriate. The overall design of the current study assumed an objectivist epistemology in the first, quantitative phase, and an interpretivist in the second, qualitative phase. Thus, the current study uses a sequential mixed methodology approach of both objectivist and subjectivist epistemology in their separate phases with greater emphasis placed on the second phase.

This study attempts to explore and describe the experience of inclusion of DHH students in order to understand it better within the particular context of Jeddah as representative of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is very different from the UK, not only because the former is a developing country, but in terms of culture, language, education, collective thoughts, lifestyles, world-view and thus potentially of attitudes towards DHH inclusion. Some contextual factors within the Saudi mainstream educational system are explored in the current study and found to contribute to the cumulative knowledge of this particular context. It aims to search for definitive patterns of meaning in order to reach an illuminative understanding of how educators of DHH students in Saudi Arabia construct their understandings (Radnor, 1994), of what it means to be a DHH student and what integrative/inclusive education entails, and their attitudes towards such students and their inclusion. The interpretive epistemology takes such subjective understandings and shared

124

meanings (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003), to be the sort of things that can be known and discovered by the researcher.

Methodology is defined in the Oxford Advanced Dictionary (2005, p. 190) as “a set of methods and principles used to perform a particular activity”. Crotty (2003, p. 3) indicates that methodology should be seen as:

“the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes.” In the process of analysing any social phenomenon, methodology and method should be located, after establishing the ontological framework, epistemology and theoretical perspectives. As there will be more emphasis on the second qualitative phase, the reader will notice that more information is provided in the interview analysis to build up rich description of the participants under study (Chapter Six). As the qualitative phase was concerned with Saudi educators and their interrelationship with DHH inclusion, this thick description allows for transferability (Merriam, 1998), and enables the reader to fully comprehend the case through identification (Lincoln and Guba 1985), and empathy and to live in the reality of DHH inclusion or as Ernest described what he called ‘the novelist’ perspective (1994, p. 25):

“The truth derived from identification with and living through a story with richness and complex inter-relationship of social, human life.”

While the quantitative data collected in the first phase fit well with an objective/realist stance, a social constructivist stance in the second has more potential to broaden the understanding of the complexities of the concepts under investigation (i.e. D/deafness, inclusion and attitudes). It provides ways to overcome barriers. Attitudes from a social constructivist view, as context dependent and responsive to factors within a particular sociocultural environment, also indicate directions for educational change. Eiser (1994) argues that in attitude studies there is an active interdependent relationship between the individual and the social. Therefore, teachers’ perceptions should be considered within the socio-cultural context where they usually live (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), interact, communicate, socialize and think in certain and unique ways which are strongly bound by cultural and social norms and parameters (Elshabrawy, 2010). The significance of qualitative data is that it focuses deeply on the holistic picture (Guba and Lincoln, 1991),

125

via small-scale personal contact with the people under investigation. The educational researcher in this type of enquiry perceives social reality as inter-subjective, relative, complex (Cohen et al., 2007; Crotty, 2003; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), and inductive (Bryman, 2008). Creswell (1998: 13) likens qualitative research to a fabric:

“I think metaphorically of qualitative research as an intricate fabric composed of minute threads, many colours, different textures, and various blends of material. This fabric is not explained easily or simply. Like the loom on which fabric is woven, general frameworks hold qualitative research together.”

As alluded to in the introduction in this chapter, it is essential for any researcher to be clear in each phase of a research project whether he/she is planning to follow a single research design of an interpretive subjective direction, scientific objective direction, a mixed methodology research design of a pragmatic orientation or other possible designs. Employing a mixed methodology design means having a positive attitude towards methodological pragmatism. The pragmatic educational researcher uses qualitative research to inform the quantitative portion of research studies, and vice versa (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). This is important for seeking to falsify or verify a set of hypotheses, to understand a social phenomenon interpretively from a new perspective that is context-driven, to use a multi-methodology research design that combined the strength of both objective and subjective epistemologies, or to constructively criticise a social problem in order to change the reality, as each one of these goals represents a different research paradigm. The review of the relevant literature indicated that a sequential multi- methodology quantitative/qualitative research approach that combines the strength of both objective and subjective epistemologies would improve the quality, integrity and trustworthiness of the findings (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Patton, 1990), and would make an essential contribution to a better understanding of educational practices and attitudes concerning the inclusion of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in Saudi Arabia.

Quantitative designs generally use large scale systematic surveys to generalise from a sample to a wider population. Educational research in this type of enquiry is mostly deductive, objective and detached. On the other hand, qualitative methodology yields data providing thorough and ‘rich and thick descriptions’ (Ernest, 1994, p. 25), in the form of words in order to gain better understandings of social (e.g. educational) phenomena. There are thus major differences between quantitative and qualitative data collection and

126

analysis, but they can be sequentially exploited in a mixed methodology research approach in order to produce rich and thorough data for the purpose of achieving rigour. Table 4.1 sets out some of these differences.

Table 4.1 Summary of major differences between quantitative and qualitative methodology Epistemological stance Quantitative Qualitative Philosophical foundation

Hypothetico-deductive reductionist Naturalistic, inductive, holistic

Aim To test pre-set hypotheses To explore complex human issues Study plan Step-wise, predetermined Iterative, flexible

Ontological position of researcher

Aims to be detached and objective Integral part of research process

Assessing quality of data

Direct tests of validity and reliability via statistical means

Indirect quality of trustworthiness

Measures of utility of results

Generalizability Transferability

Source: Adapted from Marshal (1996)

There are four principles to be acknowledged when employing sequential mixed methodology research, according to Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). First, the main theoretical purpose has to be recognized all the way through the research journey. Second, the role of each important element in the research thesis should be distinguished. Third, the methodological rules of the initial approach should be adhered to. Fourth, there should be an excerpt of a few data sets utilized in order to give the reader a good presentation.

D/deafness, inclusion and educators’ attitudes are complex and context-based constructs. To conceptualize them required a research framework able to deal with this complexity which a mixed methodology design could offer. The use of multiple sources of quantitative/survey data and qualitative/interview was believed appropriate to strengthen the research design (Dawson, 2009) and add depth to the findings (Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Patton, 1990), and interpretation of the data (Ernest, 1994; and Elshabrawy, 2010). This is because combining quantitative and qualitative designs (Creswell, 2003), helps to overcome a limited singular perspective (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003; Robson, 2002), the weaknesses of subjectivity (Ernest, 1994), utilizes different

127

elements of the social phenomenon under investigation and so to provide a coherent understanding of it (Creswell, 2003; Cohen et al., 2007; Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird & McCormick, 1992).

Thus, from a contextual viewpoint, it is important to employ an alternative research methodology to solely positivistic research, that is constructivist and pragmatic in nature and which reflects methodological pluralism, resulting in rich and thorough research findings (Johnson and Christensen, 2004). Therefore, an overview of the current approach would be to see it as a sequential mixed model research design (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).