Research methodology

This research methodology section outlines the theoretical ideas relevant to the research method and justifies the use of the method that follows in the next section. The methodology favoured by the researcher is one that negotiates a winding but deliberate path along the continuum that bridges the extremes of the two dominant research paradigms-objectivist/quantitative versus constructionist/ qualitative. Indeed, few social research projects fit neatly into one of the research paradigms and in recent years there has been a growing understanding that research methods, data collection and analysis techniques do not have to be so constrained by epistemological and ontological ‘baggage’ (Bryman & Bell 2011). Table 3 below provides a neat, simplistic

representation of the research affinities associated with the two dominant research paradigms. The general approaches chosen for this research are identified by being underlined.

Table 3. Dominant research paradigms

Research paradigm affinities

Ontology Objectivist Real Mechanistic Constructionist Subjective Abstract Epistemology Positivist Natural Science Deductive-Tests Theory Capable Of Being Defined

Empiricism Focus On Parts

Reductionism

Interpretivist Social Science Inductive -Generates Theory

Difficult To Define Relationships Patterns Holism Research Quantitative Numbers Theory Testing Qualitative Words Theory Emergent

33 Research paradigm affinities

Static Structured Generalisable Hard Reliable Data Experimental Design Statistical Analysis Replication Possible Process Unstructured Contextual Understanding

Rich, Deep Data Case Studies And Observation

Analysis Of Language Replication Unlikely Application In industry Manufacturing Industries Service Industries (Adapted from literature, especially Grix, 2002, Bryman & Bell, 2011, and Bryman, 2012)

Ontology is the starting point of all research, being the image of social reality upon which theory is based (Grix, 2002). The ontological starting point for the research described here is an

acknowledgement of both competing ontological perspectives- objectivist and constructionist. The ‘classic’ ontological approach to dealing with social phenomena is objectivist. This approach views social phenomena as external facts, so an organisation, an institution, is perceived as a tangible object with a hierarchy, processes, procedures, mission statements, etc. that can all be viewed, and understood as real (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The main alternative to this classic ontological approach is constructionism. Rather than perceiving an organisation as a tangible externality, an organisation is seen as emergent, it is in a continuous state of construction and reconstruction as the social actors that make up the organisation negotiate and renegotiate their relationships, socially constructing the organisation (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

Following the classic research agenda, this researcher views the organisation under study as a tangible entity with real students engaged in the purposive activity of education for the benefit of both the students and society. This researcher does however acknowledge that the educational experience of the students is co-constructed, being built on the social relationships between the students, their peers and the staff of the institution and it is this co-construction that results in the nexus of the learning experience.

Whilst ontology addresses what the world consists of, epistemology, meanwhile, deals with what we can know about the world, or more precisely what we believe we can know, and how we can find it out (Grix, 2002). Here, again, there are two dominant paradigms- the positivist approach has been inherited by social researchers from the natural sciences, which sets out to test theory (deduction) and is associated with quantitative research techniques, it contrasts with the interpretivist approach which acknowledges the subjectivism associated with research activities, sets out the build theory (induction) and is associated predominantly with qualitative research techniques (Grix, 2002).

34 Despite qualitative research having a natural affinity with the social sciences, it is quantitative research that has dominated business research (Bryman & Bell, 2011) and educational research, often in an attempt to gain legitimacy (Heertum & Carlos, 2011). A content analysis of three major higher education journals has identified that in the period from 2006-2010, 75% of published articles used quantitative methods, whilst 20% used qualitative methods and 5% used mixed methods (Wells, Kolek, Williams & Saunders, 2015). Indeed, mixed methods research has become increasingly common in business and social research as utilising both quantitative and qualitative data can maximise reliability and validity (Bryman & Bell 2011).

Somehow it is felt that both research paradigms are fundamentally flawed, at least in regards social research. Nevertheless, one overarching paradigm had to be chosen to apply to this research project, and in the end, the opportunity to test and corroborate theory via hypothesis testing was ultimately beguiling. As such, this researcher followed the general trend of the business and educational research identified above and opted for the positivist research approach albeit with some qualitative data. Even if the data gathered as part of this research project provides only one snippet of evidence in support of one of the research hypotheses, then that is one more snippet to advance the robustness of that hypothesis. Over time such snippets of evidence accumulate and corroborate some hypotheses whilst falsifying others, guiding researchers and managers as they continually address the needs of international students.

The shortfalls of using a positivist research method in the social sciences are accepted, especially the difficulty in replicating results (Loken & Gelman, 2017) which is such a fundamental

requirement for objectivist/quantitative research, however the shortfalls in constructionist/ qualitative research, especially the subjectivity in interpretation and the reliance on anecdotes were considered more egregious.