Methodology chosen for this study

Having reviewed the four paradigms indicated by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) as the main paradigms within educational research, it is

important to note that the categorization of educational inquiry paradigms based on these authors is arbitrary. Lincoln and Guba in 2000 identified five research paradigms: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, constructivism, and participatory (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Whereas, other authors identify other paradigms, for example, pragmatism, where researchers are not committed to a philosophical view, but rather focus on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of inquiry (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Patton (2002) captures the essence of the paradigm debate in educational research when stating “there is no definitive way to categorize the various philosophical and theoretical perspectives that have influenced and that distinguish types of [qualitative] inquiry” (p. 79).

From the perspective of the present study, the four paradigms presented here are relevant because, in one way or another, they are related to the present research. Positivism is at the very core of the scientific knowledge that permitted the technological development of ICT. Naturalism provides accounts of the learning process that occurs at the community level, under the view that knowledge is socially constructed. Elements of critical theory are intrinsically related to the purpose and objectives of EfS, like the promotion of a thinking shift towards socio-ecological sustainability at the societal level. Regarding complexity theory and systems thinking, these ontological worldviews are underpinning the design and use of ICT tools at the community level to promote such EfS goals.

As mentioned earlier, the selection of a particular research paradigm depends on the research questions to be addressed. In the case of the present study, for the investigation of the learning process related to the use of websites for community EfS, a naturalistic paradigm seems appropriate. This is because the ontological and epistemological standpoints of naturalistic inquiry fit the purposes of this study. In particular, constructivist and interpretive approaches from naturalistic inquiry were adopted to evaluate the learning process occurring among community members based on a socially-constructed EfS website regarded as an educational tool. Regarding complexity theory as a

potential paradigm for this study, complexity theory is said to overlook factors related to the historicity of systems, by only focusing on the here-and-now (Leadbetter, 2005), which does not fit aspects of this research, such as the importance of cultural and historical considerations when developing EfS websites. In the case of critical theory, this approach involves the adoption of a political agenda (Cohen et al., 2007), which is neither the intention nor the scope of this study.

As pointed out in the literature, the interpretivist/constructivist approach intends to understand "the world of human experience" (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 36), suggesting that reality is socially constructed (Mertens, 2005). Human beings have developed cognitive processes to interpret and construct their reality, with such reality being built and shaped based on cultural factors (Kelly, 1991; Piaget, 1955). Therefore, interpretivist/constructivist research focuses on the study of people’s constructed realities that determine their lives (Patton, 2002); for which it relies on the "participants' views of the situation being studied" to achieve a ‘thick’ description (Creswell, 2003, p. 8). As mentioned in the Chapter 2, community members possess unique cognitive frameworks determined by their individual backgrounds, expectations, needs, and motivations, which influence the learning process (Brookfield, 1990; Menzel & Bögeholz, 2008). In turn, social interaction, as well as the social context of such interaction, are said to be at the basis of socially constructed learning (Sterling, 2005; Sumara & Davis, 1997; Webler et al., 1995).

The methodological approach of interpretivist/constructivist research is centred in the interaction and consented negotiation between the researcher and respondents (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Methods such as open-ended interviews and observations are recommended for this process, and to capture the different perspectives of a particular phenomena existing within the individuals of a community, where attention to the context of social learning and research is critical (Patton, 2002). In summary, the interpretive and constructivist approaches of the naturalistic paradigm have been selected to address the research questions of this

study, related to the learning process occurring for community members using an EfS website. In turn, such a methodological approach defines the subsequent choice of methods and research design of this study. In the next section the methods used in this study are reviewed.

4.4 Methods

This section presents the research methods adopted in this study. A method is a procedure used or followed to accomplish a particular goal. In the present research, five different methods were chosen to address the research questions underpinning this study. The first part of the section discusses general aspects and issues related to the types and purposes of methods used in educational research. The second part of the section reviews the characteristics of the five methods used: questionnaire surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, and use of Google Analytics tools. This last method is not directly linked to the evaluation of the learning process with community members based on the website, as the other four methods are, but is related to the quantification of the visits made to the EfS website during the intervention period. Such a method is based on the use of Google Analytics tools, an analytical service provided by Google Inc. (2012).

Educational research literature highlights two types of inquiry methods:

quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are characterized by dealing with numerical data, i.e. quantitative data. As historically there has been a great emphasis on quantification in the ‘hard’

sciences (e.g. Mathematics and Physics), quantitative methods are generally linked to positivistic traditions (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). On the other hand, qualitative methods are rather characterized by accounting for participants’ subjective definitions of situations. This means that qualitative methods are appropriate to interpret, explain, and/or make sense of such types of sources of data (Cohen et al., 2007). Because of this, qualitative research methods are commonly associated with naturalistic and interpretive educational inquiry (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006).

Despite the predominant distinction in the literature between positivism being more related to quantitative approaches, and naturalism operating under qualitative methods of inquiry (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Lincoln &

Guba, 1985; Parlett & Hamilton, 1972), such a distinction is historically determined. It is recognized in educational literature that both quantitative and qualitative research methods can be appropriately used within any research paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Patton, 2002). In this sense, Parlett and Hamilton (1972) highlighted that it is the problem, or the research question, which ultimately determines the selection of a particular method. In fact, many researchers point out that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be complementary (Cohen et al., 2011;

Creswell, 2003; Patton, 2002; Thomas, 2003), with Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) stressing that “no one paradigm actually prescribes or prohibits the use of either methodological approach” (p. 201).

As described in the methodology section, the selection of a research method is intimately linked to the selection of a particular research paradigm and research methodology, which in turn is driven by the research questions of a study. In the case of the present research, a naturalistic inquiry paradigm has been adopted, with emphasis on constructivist and interpretivist approaches, to evaluate and understand the use of EfS websites for community education. Within such a research frame, qualitative methods of inquiry are recommended within the literature, although quantitative methods are also considered as being applicable in certain ways (Cohen et al., 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

But the common standpoint is that social phenomena need to be understood through the eyes of participants, where every individual constructs their own worldview of reality based on cultural factors. In this sense, qualitative methods of inquiry, such as questionnaires, interviews, and observations, contribute to the depth of understanding by providing detail of particular cases being studied; but reduce generalizability, this being regarded as a drawback from positivistic perspectives (Cohen et al, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002).

The following sections present in detail the different methods of inquiry chosen for this study, and their use of quantitative and qualitative data.