Methodological paradigms

Research methodology refers to the methods a researcher may use in making an investigation. The choice of methodology is closely connected to and influenced by the belief system that guides the investigator. Harrison and Gough (1996) argue that every research project, every researcher and everyone who evaluates the results of research operates within a personal and professional belief system (see also Vidich & Lyman, 2000). The argument implies that behind each

research methodology lie the researcher’s personal philosophical assumptions and value systems. Before the project’s onset, a number of paradigm issues need to be considered. These issues are crucial to the understanding of the rationale behind the current research design.

Paradigms in the human and social sciences advance assumptions about the social world, ways in which research should be conducted and what constitute legitimate problems, solutions and criteria of proof (Creswell, 1994; Firestone, 1987). As such, a paradigm can be described as a patterned set of philosophical assumptions concerning reality (ontology), knowledge of that reality

(epistemology), and the role of values (axiology) (Creswell, 1994; Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002). The most widely discussed paradigms in human and social science are the qualitative and quantitative paradigms. The ontological position of the quantitative paradigm is that there is an objective reality that can be described as it really is (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002; Guba, 1981; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), whereas the qualitative paradigm deals with supposed multiple realities

constructed by individuals and is therefore interpretative (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1994, 1985; Smith & Heshusius, 1986). The typical goal of a quantitative methodology is to measure and analyze within a value-free framework (Carey, 1993; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Techniques to ensure this include large sample size, randomization, blinding, highly structured protocols, and written or orally administered questionnaires with a limited range of

predetermined responses (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002). Qualitative methodology on the other hand seeks the emergence of non-predetermined categories and patterns based on extended engagement in the field (Creswell, 1994).

The dichotomies between qualitative and quantitative approaches have created situations where researchers who subscribe to either of the methodological

approaches are believed to be advocating a corresponding ideological and philosophical commitment, and there is much debate over whether quantitative research and qualitative research methods can be complementary. The purists of qualitative and quantitative paradigms argue that the incompatibility of both is evident as the belief of one (i.e. the existence of an objective reality) naturally precludes the truth of the other (ie. multiple realities) (see Guba, 1987). In addition, as the epistemologies that underpin each of the approaches are so divergent, some believe that they cannot be reconciled within a research project (Smith & Heshusius, 1986). Nonetheless, despite continued defense of the incompatibility between paradigms, numerous attempts have been made to legitimize a mixed methods approach.

Howe (1992) argues that although many research procedures or methods have been linked to certain paradigms, this linkage between research paradigm and research methods is neither inviolable nor essential. He distinguishes between method and logic of justification (epistemology) and stresses that differences in epistemological beliefs do not dictate what specific data collection and data

analytical methods researchers must use (see also Brannen, 2005; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005); hence, paradigmatic differences should not prevent a qualitative researcher from utilizing data collection methods more typically associated with quantitative research and vice versa.

that the paradigmatic assumptions one adopts, the perceived nature of the

phenomenon to be studied, the questions to be asked and the methodology to be used are interdependent and hence the kind of questions asked and phenomenon selected for the study determines the paradigms adopted and vice versa. As each of the paradigms serves a different purpose, addresses different issues, asks different questions (i.e. confirmatory or exploratory) and employs different methodologies, Salomon argues, it is evident that they yield different kinds of knowledge and need to be seen as complementing and enriching each other (see also Hammersley,1992; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). It is likely for a researcher to ask a number of questions in a single project, each of which may have different

methodological implications; hence, within the research process it is possible to adopt a particular position on one issue and another on other issues (Gage, 1989). Approaching a subject from different perspectives or paradigms may help to gain a holistic perspective through which to view data.

Another line of justification for a mixed methodology research design centers its argument on the fact that both single methodology approaches (qualitative only and quantitative only) have strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative inquiry is useful in investigating causal relations among selected variables and allows the collection of data on a large scale. However, it fails to provide any explanation or analysis beyond the descriptive level (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A

qualitative approach, on the other hand, provides rich and in-depth descriptive and documentary information of the phenomenon investigated, whereas it falls

short of means of validating and generalizing research outcomes (Miles & Huberman, 1984). The notion that qualitative inquiry needs certain standard criteria of validity and reliability has met with some resistance. For instance, Smith and Heshusius (1986) hold that concepts such as valid, real, dependable, and trustworthy are defined differently in different paradigms and that any attempt to standardize validation procedures for qualitative inquiry would unwisely transform the paradigmatic debate into a discussion of methodological variations within a realist philosophical temperament. However, without certain standard means of validation, as Salomon (1991) pointed out, how should scholarly interpretations of a classroom event be distinguished from those of "a delirious observer"? The notion that qualitative research needs some means of facilitating generalizability is similarly opposed by some qualitative purists. For instance, Cziko (1989)

stressed that as the phenomena studied in the social and behavioral sciences are essentially unpredictable and indeterminate, educational research should limit itself only to portray, appreciate, interpret and explicate social and individual behavior and reject the possibility of formulating laws of behavior. However, he nevertheless expresses wishes to see research ‘lead to the implementation and dissemination of innovative educational practices’ which is, as Salomon pointed out, impossible in the absence of any agreed-upon criteria for representativeness and some pretension for generalizability. The solution, as Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004) pointed out, lies in a mixed methods research which

combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches and concepts.

The belief underpinning the present research is that some social phenomena are directly observable and some are not and that important relationships between social phenomena cannot always be easily established. It is also believed that to have a thorough understanding of any social phenomenon requires that it is studied at all levels (i.e., cultural, psychological, cognitive, etc). Methodologies based on quantitative and qualitative investigation may have particular strengths and weaknesses with respect to these levels and to the description of social phenomena. While a quantitative approach may be appropriate for directly observable relationships, a qualitative approach enables the collection of more in-depth descriptive information of relationships that are not directly observable. Consequently both quantitative and qualitative methods are utilized in the present study in the expectation that this will add flexibility to the analysis, allow the

collection of complementary data, and ultimately offer a better chance of competently answering the research questions.