According to Mertens (2015:8), ‘a paradigm is a way of looking at the world’. In line with this, Feilzer (2010:7) defines a paradigm as ‘a deeper philosophical position relating to the nature of social phenomena and social structures’. Mertens (2015:8) claims that the philosophical assumptions of a paradigm ‘guide and direct thinking and action’. In relation to social science research, it might be argued that a paradigm directs the choice of research questions and methods. In order to identify a paradigm to conduct a research study, Guba and Lincoln (2005 in Mertens, 2015: 10-11) suggest that a researcher should
answer four questions based on the ‘four basic beliefs’ i.e. axiology (the nature of ethical behaviour), ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge and its relationship with the knower) and methodology (the approach to obtain the desired knowledge). This is in line with Biddle and Schafft (2014:2) who call the four basic beliefs ‘four fundamental concepts’ which construct ‘a philosophy of knowledge’. In the following, the consideration of the four basic beliefs (Guba and Lincoln, 2005 in Mertens, 2015: 10) or also known as the four fundamental concepts (Biddle and Shafft, 2014: 2) will be
72
presented to explain pragmatism as the most appropriate research paradigm for the present study.
4.2.1.
Axiology
Sandelowski (2000: 247) defines axiology as a ‘view of what is valuable’. Pragmatists stress ‘an ethics of care’ (Mertens, 2015:37). According to Hall (2013 in Mertens, 2015:37), this ethical behaviour is particularly given to ‘the youngest members of society’. In addition, pragmatists care for the
engagements from several groups of people to obtain understandings from different points of view. The ethics of care in the present study is given to Thai pre-service teachers who are supposed to be the youngest members of a teacher development community through highlighting their different perceptions about their learning programme. Within the pragmatic paradigm, an ethics of research goal is to obtain knowledge in order to pursue the desirable
consequences (Morgan, 2007 in Mertens, 2015: 37). This ethical behaviour is also emphasised in the present study which is the practical orientation in terms of tackling problems of the English teacher education programme with a view to solve its problems.
4.2.2.
Ontology
An ontological question asks what the nature of reality is (Mertens, 2015: 10). Pragmatists oppose the dualism in which the mind and the matter are set apart (Biesta and Burbules, 2003: 10). In a pragmatic approach, a single and multiple realities are possible and ‘all individuals have their own unique interpretation of reality’ (Mertens, 2015: 10; Feilzer, 2010: 8). This partly emerged from Dewey’s view on intersubjectivity (in Biesta and Burbules, 2003:12) that people construct their own individual world which is individually meaningful to themselves. From Dewey’s (1925: 40 in Feilzer, 2010:8) viewpoint, pragmatism is related to an ‘existential reality’ which sometimes is objective, subjective and mixture of the two. However, Dewey (in Biesta and Burbules, 2003: 12) argues that their ‘approaches’, ‘perspectives’ and ‘patterns of actions’ towards their individual world will be adjusted when individuals ‘act together’ with the aim of achieving ‘a common goal’ also called ‘a intersubjective world’ and finally ‘a coordinated response’ is possibly created.
73
This is in line with Morgans (2007:72 in Mertens, 2015:37) who claims that pragmatists emphasise on the creation of knowledge with ‘lines of action points’ in the form of ‘joint actions’ or ‘projects’ which can be accomplished by the coordination among different people. In addition, pragmatists are keen on ‘the notion of utility’ (Feilzer, 2010:8) and aim to provide the workable and useful results responding to the particular problem being of interest to researchers (Rotty, 1999: xxvi in Feilzer, 2010: 8; Mertens, 2015:37). This is supported by Feilzer (2010: 8) who claim that pragmatists are open to both singular and multiple realities with the orientation toward solving practical problems in the real world. Because of the practical orientation within pragmatism, the value of the research is judged by considering the ‘effectiveness’ (Maxcy, 2003 in Mertens, 2015: 37).
It might be argued that the present study is composed of certain ontological perspectives which are in line with the pragmatic paradigm. Firstly the study stresses the importance of both subjective and objective perceptions held by pre-service teachers of an English teacher education programme. Their
perceptions will be taken into account in the data analysis so as to see how the subjective and objective perceptions ‘act together’ to achieve ‘a common goal’ which is to answer research questions of the present study. Secondly, the study has stressed the practical orientation as it is based on the assumption that the perceptions are useful to reflect the degree of the programme effectiveness. Finally, the study emphasises the notion of utility. Their intersubjective worlds and problems are examined for the purpose of the programme evaluation and improvement.
4.2.3.
Epistemology
An epistemological question asks what the nature of knowledge and the
relationship between the knower and the would-be-known (Sandelowski, 2000: 247; Biddle and Schafft, 2014: 2; Guba and Lincoln, 2005 in Mertens, 2015: 10). From Dewey’s epistemological perspective (Morgan, 2007; Hall, 2013 in
Mertens, 2015:38), ‘research takes place in communities’. This is in line with Maxcy (2003 in Biddle and Schafft, 2014:4) who claims that the meaning of knowledge is created in the community.
The epistemological perspective of the present study is presumably in line with the pragmatic approach. Based on the view of social endeavour, the study aims
74
to understand context of an English teacher education programme, understand a problem and address the problem within the context. In line with pragmatism, I do not believe that a position as a distanced observer will bring the results workable with respect to the problem. I believe that a variety of methods should be employed in order to achieve the research purpose. As a result of this, I interact with the pre-service teachers of the programme through the interviews in order to add my ability to interpret the numeral results from the
questionnaires.
4.2.4.
Methodology
In relation to the methodological questions, a researcher asks oneself how he/she can gather ‘the desired knowledge and understandings’ (Guba and Lincoln, 2005 in Mertens, 2015:10). Feilzer (2010: 7) and Biddle and Schafft (2014: 7) claim that a pragmatic paradigm is most commonly associated with mixed methods research, in accordance with other scholars (e.g. Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, 2010; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Maxcy, 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005; Bryman, 2007; Biesta and Burbules, 2010; Denscombe, 2008; Greene, 2008; Greene and Hall, 2010; Johnson and Gray, 2010; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). ‘A convergence of quantitative and qualitative methods’ has grown its reputation among pragmatic researchers (Feilzer, 2010:8).This is due to a methodological question posed by pragmatists about how a phenomenon can be measured or observed if it
contains ‘different layers’ (Feilzer, 2010:8). Nonetheless, pragmatists are not always constrained by the mixed methods (Feilzer, 2010:13). In fact, a methodological choice is oriented by the methods’ potential of pursuing the desired consequences. As Feilzer (2010:13) claims, ‘Pragmatists do not “care” which methods they use as long as the methods chosen have the potential of answering what it is one wants to know.’ In line with this, the pragmatic
researchers allow themselves to choose a method or methods that ‘work best’ in response to their research questions (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004 in Mertens, 2015: 38) and contribute to the purpose of the research (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010 in Mertens, 2015:38). In short, the pragmatists choose the methods which match to specific questions (Mertens, 2015:11) in order to obtain data aiming to answer those questions (Feilzer, 2010:14). The
75
‘Research as a social endeavour’ (Biddle and Schafft, 2014:4) is a rationale for using mixed methods. The rationale stresses the practical orientation and knowledge creation; therefore, the mixed methods are necessary to pursue the answer for each research question and the purpose of the study.
4.2.5.
Summary
Section 4.2 presented the origin of the pragmatic paradigm which is concerned about axiology, ontology, epistemology and methodology. The pragmatic paradigm suggests the research design of the research in this thesis as shown in Appendix 1. The axiological perspective of this study shows an ethics of care for Thai pre-service teachers who have enrolled in an English teacher education programme of a university in Bangkok. In terms of the ontological perspective, the present study is not constrained by either singular reality or multiple realities Rather, it is based on the assumption that singular reality and multiple realities are possible and are uniquely constructed and interpreted by each individual (Mertens, 2015:37). In the pursuit of this assumption, the focus of the study is on investigating the different perceptions held by the pre-service teachers in different year groups. In line with pragmatism, the present study stresses the practical orientation, rather than correspondence of findings realities. Each perception counts and aims for improving their English teacher education programme and shedding light into bilingual teacher education in Thailand. This ontological position brings about an epistemological view that knowledge exists in the communities and researchers need to interact with people living there to understand and address their problems (Merten, 2015:38). I believe that subjectivism is one of the appropriate approaches to explore and
understand multiple explanations and understandings. Moreover, the
relationships between the pre-service teachers and their study programme are a subjective experience and the individual perception is worth a respect. As a result of this, I have decided to interact with the student teaches rather than positioned myself as a distanced observed. The interaction will enable me to deeply and clearly understand their context and problems. This is in line with Clarke and Dawson (1999: 39) who claim that researchers necessarily attach themselves to data in order to gain an insight into the participants’ perceptions toward their living experiences.
76
Pragmatism sheds light on the combination of research approaches in
particularly between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Hoshmand, 2003 in Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:16) based on the view that the two should be combined in a way that ‘offer the best opportunities for answering important research questions’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:16). It is suggested by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:17) that when it comes to choose a method or methods, researchers should consider ‘their empirical and practical
consequences’. In accordance with my overall belief about pragmatism, the present study is not constrained by either qualitative or quantitative methods. The effectiveness of the research method is taken into the consideration. In short, a method or methods are chosen based on its’ potential of answering the research questions. Based on the research questions, the investigation of the present study obviously involves pre-service teachers (human-beings) and their study programme of English teacher education (the environment). Each
research question reflects the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about their teacher education programme in different aspects. Therefore, the convergence of quantitative and qualitative data will support each other and are thus
designed to bring about the ‘best results’ for improving the teacher education programme which well prepares its pre-service teachers for teaching in bilingual schools. The most appropriate research method is chosen based on the aim of a particular question. Therefore, the present study employed a mixed methods approach which will be discussed in detail in the following Section (4.3).