Methodological approach

Social and educational researchers need to select the research methodology that will enable them to find answers to their research questions (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). The selection of the methodological approach, involves analysing the paradigm through which the researcher is approaching the study of a problem or some phenomenon, and therefore involves making decisions in relation to the procedures and techniques that seem most suitable to achieve the aims of the research (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005; Robson, 2011).

Philosophers of science and social researchers have been involved in debate concerning the differences and merits of the research paradigms that have been used in the natural and social sciences (Gage, 1989; Patton, 1990). A paradigm is "the entire constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a given scientific community" (Kuhn, 1970, p. 75). Paradigms are frameworks of reference that guide scientific communities as to what kind of problems to investigate and which theories, methods and techniques are acceptable within that paradigm.

Research methods are informed by commitments to particular ontologies or worldviews and epistemologies, or ways of knowing that world. “These commitments are always held by the researcher, mostly tacitly. The researcher brings to the research process a “set of

interlocking philosophical assumptions and stances” (Greene & Caracelli, 1997, p. 6). This means, “no method is self-validating, separable from an epistemology and ontology” (Scott

& Usher 1996, p. 13).

Quantitative research methodology, identified with logical positivism, uses experimental methods and quantitative measures to test hypothetical generalizations (Scott &Usher, 1996).Phenomenological inquiry, or qualitative research, on the other hand, uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. Each

methodological approach represents a fundamentally different inquiry paradigm, and the researcher’s actions are based on the underlying assumptions of each paradigm (Hoepfl, 1997).

The positivist/empiricist approach calls for description, prediction and control whereas the qualitative interpretive approach is oriented towards understanding and explanation.

(Scott & Usher, 2011).Exponents of the qualitative approach assume that in social research knowledge is concerned with interpretation and meaning and not with generalization, prediction and control (Usher, 1996). Human action is meaningful and hence has to be interpreted and understood within the context of social practices (Scott & Usher, 2011).

Gadamer (1975) argues that within the social sciences understanding an object is always prejudiced in the sense that it can only be approached through an initial projection of meaning that comes from the researcher’s situatedness, his or her standpoint in history, society and culture. In Usher’s words:

“Human action is given meaning by interpretive schemes or frameworks. It follows from this that as researchers (engaged in the human action and social practice of research) we too seek to make

sense of what we are researching and we do so through interpretive schemes or frameworks. This process of double sense/making is referred to as the double hermeneutic (…) in social research both

the subject (the researcher) and object (other people) of research have the same characteristic of

being interpreters or sense/seekers.” (Usher, 1996, p. 19).

Hence, the approach to research for the study and understanding of a phenomenon of the quantitative and the qualitative paradigms differ. For Murray (2003) the division between paradigms tends to disappear in the social sciences, since many studies tend to mix both methods. According to Patton (2002) the paradigm wars are over, since instead of fighting

for the superiority of quantitative versus qualitative approaches, the challenge is to match research method and paradigm to the purposes and questions raised in the research.

From Patton’s view point, researchers “need to know and use a variety of methods to be responsive to the nuances of particular empirical questions and the idiosyncrasies of specific stakeholder needs” (Patton, 2002, p. 585).

Considering that human phenomena are highly complex, an option, instead of selecting one of these two approaches is to search for certain complementarities between them in order to have a more holistic view of the phenomenon studied. Therefore, within a research methodology a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods can be included.

Mixed methods characterize as research that contains elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Patton, 1990).

One of the benefits of mixing methods and approaches is that

“Mixing makes room for both the initial inductive process that begins with empirical evidence of the

particular and proceeds to a level of abstracting/theorizing/generalizing and the confirmatory deductive process of hypothesis testing of theories”. (Rocco et al. 2003, p. 22).

In this way the strengths and weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative methods can be considered in relation to their possible contribution to research. As stated by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983), both methods may be combined to illuminate the research question in detail.

5.2.1 Selection of research methods

In formulating the design for the present research, a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods was considered adequate to seek for answers to the research questions and to achieve the aim of the study, which was to develop a self-assessment tool that could help teachers to reflect on their teaching practices and thereby foster creativity through their teaching. Using Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (1998) typology, the approach followed in this study was a mixed method Type IV using qualitative data, statistical analysis and inference.

In selecting a mixed methodology approach, the goal of the initial study was to understand the experience and perceptions students and teachers have, in relation to the conditions that facilitate or hinder their creativity and the meaning of such experiences for the participants and to use the findings to develop a self-assessment tool grounded in students’ and teachers’ experiences.

To develop the self-assessment tool, the creative teaching, knowledge, skills and attitudes for ‘creative teaching for creativity’ needed to be defined. Previous studies have analysed some of these elements (Fryer, 1996; Torrance, 1987).

The research design contains two distinct stages: 1) an initial study, exploring student’ and teachers’ perceptions of issues relating to creativity and 2) piloting the self-assessment tool developed to enhance teachers’ awareness of their teaching practices. This section will present a general description of the procedures and techniques (from the mixed approached selected) on both stages. Further in this chapter a more detailed description of the initial study will be presented and in chapter 9, the methodology used in piloting and evaluating the self-assessment tool.

1) Initial study. Understanding how students and teachers experience the conditions that