Methodological paradigm

Punch (2009) defined a paradigm as “a set of assumptions about the world, and about what constitute proper techniques and topics for inquiring into the world.” (p.16). A paradigm takes in epistemology, ontology and methodology. Punch provided more detail by identifying three main questions associated with a paradigm:

1. The ontological question that asks about the form and the nature of the reality. 2. The epistemological question that focuses on the relationship between the

researcher and the reality.

3. The methodological question that is based on what methods the researcher can use to find out more about the reality (Punch, 2009).

These fundamental questions refer to the relationships between underlying philosophical issues and the methods used. Paradigms have generally been covered in terms of positivism and interpretivisim (Punch, 2009). In more detail, positivists believed that “the objective accounts of the world can be given” (Punch 2009, p.18) and believed that the techniques of natural science could provide objective knowledge in the form of modules and even laws. Such a paradigm is likely to be related to quantitative methods. Positivism is characterized by its emphasis on the scientific method, generalizable findings and statistical analysis. Interpretivism, on the other hands, is most likely associated with qualitative methods and a concern for the meanings people bring to a situation (see for example, Oates (2006)). Thus, researchers need to understand and interpret human actions through deep involvement in the social realities of their field of study. This paradigm favours the study of people in their natural social setting rather than in unnatural, including laboratory, ones. Interpretivists believe that there are multiple interpretations rather than a fixed generalizable law.

89

Each of these two paradigms has strengths and limitations. One of the main differences between them lies in assumptions about the researcher’s objectivity. In positivism, researchers claim to be objective and seek not to influence the environment they

investigate. Positivists might be more interested in undertaking large-scale surveys to obtain a general overview about society as a whole. They are also concerned to find out more about social trends. For example, they might investigate the relationship between social class of the learners and their achievements in school. In other words, they are investigating trends, patterns, factors, causes and correlation. In contrast, interpretivists believe that human being are not blank pages who are formed only by external social forces but they have a consciousness and can seek to understand reality and make individual choices about their lives. Grey (2011) proposes that researchers with interpretivist beliefs are interested in investigating the context of the research study and are willing to accept the subjectivity of their judgements. Grey further points out that if the researchers understand the

environment under investigation very well, they will be able to provide valuable interpretations.

The adoption of a particular paradigm depends on the context of the study, the nature of the research questions and the researcher’s philosophical understanding, experience and personal beliefs (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). For example, my philosophical understanding of the world is that people (myself included) have relative autonomy to make decisions. However, their actual choices and activities are heavily structured not just by culture but also by the available tools and resources. This resonates with the literature on the take up of ICT, where there is a strong interest in the characteristics of people who take up ICT. For example, the interest in early adopters who seem to exercise a great deal of agency in the use of ICT. However, the literature also shows the strong constraints related to leadership and ICT resources. What seems clear is that we need both an understanding of

90

people and of the context they live and work in. This has often led to an interest in mixed method research. In order to investigate the use of Classera, I have adopted a mixed

methods paradigm as this enables me to understand the motivations of people in using ICT or not using ICT as well as to grasp the more general issues that would become observable in the classroom and be found more generally within the surveys.

According to Johnson et al. (2007), mixed methods is “an intellectual and practical synthesis based on qualitative and quantitative research; it is the third methodological or research paradigm (along with qualitative and quantitative research). It recognizes the importance of traditional quantitative and qualitative research but also offers a powerful third paradigm choice that often will provide the most informative, complete, balanced, and useful research results” (p.129). This shows that comparison of data from different sources is a really important aspect of mixed method research and it also shows the

decisions about methods can be made depending on what is most appropriate for a context rather than having a fixed idea that quantitative or qualitative is best by itself.

My study explored Classera use by accessing a VLE in schools, through exploring the perspectives of the heads and teachers and then assessing the factors that encouraged or discouraged teachers to use it. This then is a classic mixed method study looking at the decisions taken and pattern of use. Thus, the nature of the research questions of the study required a deep understanding of school context in terms of school community,

headteachers’ role and leadership styles, the infrastructure of ICT, teachers’ roles, practices, their actual use of Classera, their beliefs about Classera integration in their daily teaching practices, and the nature of ICT support. These questions could be addressed by qualitative and quantitative data. Through using surveys, interacting with heads and teachers and observing some lessons; I gained access to a holistic picture of

91

VLE use including the opportunities and difficulties teachers experienced. Using a single method would not provide the comprehensive understanding for this study. I agree with Sachdeva (2009) that using qualitative methods with quantitative ones provides a fuller understanding of a research situation. Sachdeva felt that the results of qualitative research could offer some indication as to “why”, “when” and “how” but cannot show “how often” or “how many” (Sachdeva, 2009). Thus, combining the strength of both methods supports triangulation to increase the validity and reliability of the data. Additionally, Punch (2009, p. 290) points out that “we can learn more about our research topic if we can

combine the strengths of qualitative research with the strengths of quantitative research while compensating at the same time for the weakness of each method.”