A research paradigm (also referred to as ‘research methodologies’ [Neuman, 2014], ‘philosophical worldview’ [Cresswell, 2014], and ‘philosophical stance’ [Boucher, 2014]) refers to a theoretically informed approach to research, stemming from the underlying epistemological stance (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Ryan, 2006). A worldview is thought to consist of stances on each of the following elements: ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). It is commonly agreed that there are four research paradigms: positivism (and postpositivism), constructivism (or interpretivism), transformative, and pragmatism (Cresswell, 2014; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Positivism and its successor postpositivism assume that there is an objective reality that can be scientifically measured, and are closely aligned with quantitative research, whereas, constructivism encompasses a subjective approach which acknowledges the possibility of multiple interpretations of reality, and is commonly identified with qualitative research (Hall, 2013; van Griensven, Moore & Hall, 2014). Traditionally, psychological research utilises a single research paradigm (Alasuutari, Bickman & Brannen, 2008), usually that of positivism (utilising quantitative methods) or constructivism (utilising qualitative methods). However, mixed methods research has evolved as a third research approach over the past thirty years (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), which integrates both quantitative and qualitative data (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Greene, 2007), and aligns with the transformative and pragmatism paradigms (Cresswelll, 2014; Hall, 2013).
A positivist approach views reality as static (Bryman, 2004), believing that there is only one reality or truth that can be examined objectively, through cause and effect, providing generalisable results (Howitt & Cramer, 2005). It builds on deductive theory and is considered to be a reductionist approach in that it reduces ideas into a small, discrete set to test, such as the variables included in specific hypotheses (Cresswell, 2014). The greatest strength with this approach, and ultimately quantitative research, is that the methods used generate reliable data that can potentially be generalised to a wider
51
population (Howitt & Cramer, 2005; Marshall, 1996). In contrast to this, a constructivist approach is idiographic in nature, builds on inductive theory, and recognises that there may be multiple interpretations of reality and truth (Henn, Weinstein & Foard, 2005; van Griensven et al., 2014). Constructivism, and ultimately qualitative research, acknowledges that reality is a socially constructed phenomenon (Yilmaz, 2008), whereby individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, and these meanings may be varied and multiple. Therefore, it is the role of the researcher to reveal the subjective meanings that individuals use to interpret their world (Walliman, 2015), as well as seeking out the complexity of these, rather than narrowing meanings into a limited number of categories or ideas (Cresswell, 2014). Furthermore, Cresswell (2014) argues that under this approach, researchers recognise how their own backgrounds impact their interpretation of the data, and they position themselves within the research in order to acknowledge this.
Both quantitative (positivist) and qualitative (constructivist) approaches have received criticism, whereby quantitative research fails to recognise the subjectivity of the participants or the role of the researcher, and qualitative research is thought to lack theory and be overly subjective, meaning that it lacks validity and reliability (Easton, McCornish & Greenberg, 2000; Hall, 2013). As a way of overcoming the weaknesses of these approaches, some researchers suggest that the combination of quantitative and qualitative data (referred to as mixed methods research) provides a greater depth, understanding, and breadth of information which is not possible when using a singular approach (Almalki, 2016; Cresswell, 2014; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). For example, researchers may want to both generalise findings to a wider population, whilst also developing a detailed understanding of the meanings of a specific phenomenon for individuals (Cresswell, 2014). Some researchers argue that it is not possible to combine research approaches given their opposing epistemological stances (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), whereas, others suggest that research paradigms should be viewed as lying on a continuum, whereby emphasis should be placed on the similarities between the approaches, rather than the differences (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Mixed methods research draws from the strength of individual approaches, whilst also compensating for the weaknesses of each (Kelle, 2006; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). It has been suggested that, for complex research questions, it is important to integrate methods in order to provide a comprehensive understanding (Lund, 2012), with both idiographic and nomothetic perspectives being considered vital for research relating to human experience (Hindle & Franco, 2009). Furthermore, one of the strengths of a mixed methods approach is that it enables data triangulation (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2013), whereby the aim is to ‘map out, or explain fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint’ (Cohen, Manion & Marrison, 2007, page 254). Under the model of triangulation, equal value is placed on both the quantitative and qualitative components, with both being required to answer the research question (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2013).
52
In terms of research paradigms, the argument that mixed methods may not be possible due to the incompatibility of the underlying paradigms (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) has resulted in a range of alternative approaches (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007). According to Cresswell (2014), the first approach (a-paradigmatic stance) ignores these paradigmatic issues altogether, the second approach (multiple paradigm approach) suggests that multiple paradigms are compatible and can be used in one research project, and the third (single paradigm approach) asserts that both quantitative and qualitative research can be conducted under one paradigm. Two paradigms are thought to be contenders for the single paradigm approach approach, namely transformative and pragmatism (Cresswell, 2014). Pragmatism is advocated by a number of mixed methods researchers, has gained considerable support, and is the most frequently used paradigm within mixed methods research (Feilzer, 2010; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Maxcy, 2003; Morgan, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003). Pragmatism involves ‘solving practical problems in the ‘real world’’ (Feilzer, 2010, p. 8), and is concerned with ‘what works’ and finding solutions to problems (Patton, 1990). Rather than focusing on methods, the pragmatist approach emphasizes the research problem, encouraging the researcher to use all available approaches in order to better understand the problem (Rossman & Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Biesta (2010) argues that pragmatism disrupts the hierarchies between positivism and constructivism, providing a way of looking at what is meaningful from both paradigms, preventing the researcher from being limited to one worldview (Tebes, 2012).
The majority of research conducted with prisoners is of a quantitative nature, however, these studies fail to provide rich in-depth data about an individual’s life experiences. Therefore, among prisoners, there is still a need to focus on service user perspectives (Nee, 2004), whereby Liebling (1999, p. 8) argues that a mixed methods approach can enable the researcher to access both the ‘experience and emotion’ of the individual, as well as ‘structure and measurement’, resulting in a credible understanding of the individual. Given the relative lack of research exploring the relationship between PD and SP among IPSO, this research adopts a mixed methods approach, which is well aligned with the overarching aims of the thesis. Each empirical study has individual aims, therefore, it was important for the researcher to select the most appropriate method to achieve these aims, as opposed to being confined to a predetermined design that may not have been able to meet all of the aims of the research. It was decided that utilising both quantitative and qualitative research would offer the best contribution to the literature regarding this understudied area, whilst also affording the thesis an opportunity to triangulate the data. The overarching paradigm adopted within this thesis is therefore pragmatism, as it offers a flexible approach which accounts for both positivist and constructivist perspectives (Feilzer, 2010; Tebes, 2012), enabling the researcher to value the importance of both quantitative and qualitative research. This thesis acknowledges the usefulness of quantitative research methods throughout the first three empirical studies (enabling the prevalence of PD, SP, and ACEs to be assessed, as well as the relationships between these three phenomena), whilst also recognising the value of a qualitative element which enables us to learn subjectively about an individuals lived experiences, whilst
53
also being able to explore the deepest level of personality (McAdams, 1994). The qualitative element of this thesis draws largely on constructionism and phenomenology (discussed further in section 3.5), and the combination of both quantitative and qualitative data provides a more holistic and comprehensive understanding of the relationship between PD, SP, and ACEs among IPSO.
Regarding the research plan, the first empirical study assesses the psychometric properties of two PD scales in a UK male sample (prior to using these tools to screen for PD among IPSO), and the second study screens for PD and SP among a sample of IPSO housed in two UK prison establishments. The third study follows by inviting IPSO that demonstrated signs of PD to complete further psychometric scales focusing on PD, SP, and ACEs. Finally, the fourth study explores the life stories of IPSO that experienced ACEs, personality difficulties, and a preoccupation with sex throughout their lives, using a narrative psychological approach.