METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study set out to provide some basic epistemological considerations of meaning making, as approached through the use of qualitative and quantitative data analysis.

The diagrammatical illustrations (Figure 1.1 and Figure 5.1: Graphic Presentation of the Mixed Methods Approach) show a constructive alignment for the research paradigmatic and methodological considerations in this study.

The diagram highlights differences between the epistemologies of qualitative (constructivist/interpretivist) and quantitative (post-positivist) research paradigms. These two research paradigms are introduced and discussed in detail in Figure 5.1 in Chapter 5, highlighting their differences as reflecting unique ontological views about the nature of reality. Further, the realist paradigm is discussed as a “middle ground” between the poles of positivism and constructivism. For realists, the means to determine the reality of a social phenomenon is through the triangulation of cognition processes, which include elements of both positivism and constructivism rather than solely one or the other. A perception for realists is thus a window from which a picture of reality can be triangulated with other perceptions.

40

Figure 1.2 Constructive alignment of research paradigmatic and methodological considerations

1.7.1 Research paradigm

The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, meaning knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or how we come to know (Trochim, 2000).

Epistemology is intimately related to ontology and methodology; as ontology involves the philosophy of reality, epistemology addresses how we come to know that reality, while methodology identifies the particular practices used to attain knowledge of it.

Epistemology poses the following questions: What is the relationship between the knower and what is known? How do we know what we know? What counts as knowledge? In the positivist paradigm, the object of study is independent of researchers; knowledge is discovered and verified through direct observations or measurements of phenomena; facts are established by taking apart a phenomenon to examine its component parts. An alternative view, the naturalist or constructivist view, is that knowledge is established through the meanings attached to the phenomena studied; researchers interact with the subjects of study to obtain data; inquiry changes both

41

researcher and subject; and knowledge is context and time dependent (Coll& Chapman, 2000; Cousins, 2002; Gray, 2004). Understanding the differences in epistemology among research paradigms begins primarily as a philosophical exercise for, according to Olson (1995), the question of whether there is one knowable reality or that there are multiple realities of which some individual knowledge can be acquired is more a question of faith. According to Dobson (2002:2), “the researcher’s theoretical lens is also suggested as playing an important role in the choice of methods because the underlying belief system of the researcher (ontological assumptions) largely defines the choice of method (methodology).” Emanating from this statement, the research paradigms were introduced and are discussed in detail in Figure 5.1 in Chapter 5.

Despite many proposed differences between quantitative and qualitative epistemologies, ultimately the heart of the quantitative-qualitative “debate” is philosophical, not methodological. Philosophical assumptions or a theoretical paradigm about the nature of reality are crucial to understanding the overall perspective from which the study is designed and carried out. A theoretical paradigm is thus the identification of the underlying basis that is used to construct a scientific investigation or “a loose collection of logically held together assumptions, concepts, and propositions that orientates thinking and research” (Bogdan &Biklen, 1982:30).

Likewise, a paradigm may be defined as the “basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994:105).

The justification for choosing the realism philosophical paradigm for this study is its complementary nature which supports the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Realism, as a philosophical paradigm, has elements of both positivism and constructivism (Healy & Perry, 2000). Realism is also known as critical realism, and post-positivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1994) or neo-post-positivism (Manicas& Secord, 1982). While positivism concerns a single, concrete reality, and interpretivism multiple realities, realism concerns multiple perceptions about a single, mind- independent reality (Healy & Perry, 2000). The concept of reality embodied within realism is thus one extending beyond the self or consciousness, but

42

which is not wholly discoverable or knowable. Rather than being supposedly value-free, as in positive research, or value-laden as in interpretive research (Lincoln & Guba, 2000), realism is instead value cognisant; conscious of the values of human systems and of researchers. Realism recognises that perceptions have a certain plasticity (Churchland, 1979) and that there are differences between reality and people’s perceptions of reality (Healy & Perry, 2000; Bisman, 2002).

According to Dobson (2002), the critical realist agrees that our knowledge of reality is a result of social conditioning and, thus, cannot be understood independently of the social factors involved in the knowledge derivation process. However, it takes issue with the belief that the reality itself is a product of this knowledge derivation process.

The critical realist asserts that “real objects are subject to value-laden observation”; the reality and the value-laden observation of reality operating in two different dimensions, one intransitive and relatively enduring, the other transitive and changing.

Within this framework, the discovery of observable and non-observable structures and mechanisms, independent of the events they generate, is the goal of realism (Outhwaite, 1983). In other words, researchers working from a realist perspective observe the empirical domain to discover by a “mixture of theoretical reasoning and experimentation” (Outhwaite, 1983:332) knowledge of the real world, by naming and describing the generative mechanisms that operate in the world and result in the events that may be observed.

Within a critical realism framework, both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are seen as appropriate for this doctoral study.

1.7.2 Research methods

With reference to the realism philosophical paradigm, this study employs elements of both positivism and constructivism and a mixed-method approach for designing the research methods and data collection instruments. The research methods employed within this doctoral study were structured

43

questionnaires and open-ended interviews which were acceptable and considered appropriate within the paradigm (Bisman, 2002).

For the quantitative research approach (see Chapter 5 Research Methods), a four-point Likert scale structured questionnaire was designed and used to determine to what extent the instructional leadership role, quality management and assessment practices influence the assessment quality in Free State primary schools. On the other hand, for the qualitative research approach (see Chapter 5 Research Methods), semi-structured interview questions (interview schedule) were formulated and employed regarding assessment practices at school level.

De Vos (2005:361) is of the view that triangulation is used to designate a conscious combination of literature review, the quantitative and the qualitative data as both methods are applied to investigate a single research problem.

1.7.3 Sampling

The study was based on the role of the principal as an instructional leader regarding assessment competence. The target group for the qualitative study was principals who are directly involved in assessment. The structured questionnaires were sent to 250 principals in Free State primary schools. For the interviews, a purposeful sample consisted of only 10 principals (five males and five females) who were identified and only five were interviewed regarding assessment competence at their specific schools. Data was analysed and themes were identified for the purpose of conducting the study.

1.7.4 Reliability

Smaling (1994:78) regards reliability as the elimination of casual errors that can influence the results to a certain extent. Reliability is viewed as the absence of random errors; the research instrument can also be regarded as reliable if it reveals what it is supposed to reveal.

To calculate the reliability of the items in the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha (α=7) was used.

44 1.7.5 Content validity

Validity refers to the degree to which the research conclusions are sound. According to Neuman (2003:183), validity refers to how well the conceptual and operational definitions mesh with each other. The research findings in this study may be generalised across the population (Cooper & Schindler, 2006:318) because the diversity of the population of principals in the Free State will be sufficiently represented in the sample. Furthermore, the researcher predicated that principals’ leadership actions would have a positive influence on teachers’ perception of their assessment practices.

1.7.6 Ethical considerations

McMillan and Schumacher (2010) regard confidentiality to mean that no one has access to individual data or names of the participant’s except for the researcher. In this study the participants were guaranteed that they would remain anonymous. The participants were thus guaranteed confidentiality. The participants were given a letter of consent (see Appendix I). After the details were explained, the participants understood the significance of their role in this study and willingly agreed to participate.