Research paradigms

A paradigm is the interpretive framework in terms of 'knowledge claims'; epistemology or ontology; or even research methodologies (Creswell, 2003). The most common paradigms are positivism, interpretive (constructivism) and pragmatism.

• Positivism

In the positivism paradigm, the world is perceived as external and objective. Researchers in this paradigm focus on facts, and the data are generated through statistical probability using a quantitative method (Collins, 2010; Ramanathan, 2008).

• Interpretive (constructivism)

In the interpretive paradigm, the world is perceived to be socially constructed and subjective. Researchers in this paradigm focus on meaning, and knowledge is generated through theoretical abstraction using the qualitative method (Collins, 2010; Ramanathan 2008)

• Pragmatism

Pragmatism is the underlying philosophical framework for mixed-methods research, where there is a belief in the potential to have multiple views about a research problem, and qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined in a single study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Somekh & Lewin, 2005).

Methodology means the tools and methods used to understand and study a phenomenon. Although the positivist paradigm utilising quantitative methodologies was dominant from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, the period from the 1970s to the 1990s saw the emergence of the alternative constructivist paradigm, utilising qualitative methodologies. Subsequently, a third paradigm (pragmatism, or mixed-methods) has also emerged, resulting in the present situation where all three paradigms are in regular use (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).

Having briefly defined these terms, the researcher will now consider the appropriate paradigm for the current research.

- 63 -

There are various research paradigms that had been adopted in a wide array of empirical studies. One of particular importance and relevance to the current study is pragmatism because it has a strong foundation for the methodological backbone of the current research. 4.2.6.1 Adopting the pragmatism approach

Pragmatism was advanced as favourite to be ‘the philosophical champion’ of mixed-methods research by Green et al (2008). In simple terms, pragmatism identifies the empirical and practical consequences as being primary when considering the significance or value of any idea.

Pragmatism was pioneered by the American philosophers Peirce, James and Dewey as a response to the philosophical approach. In the latter, problems were addressed by reason alone while they sought to solve problems in the context of the real world. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) provided a clear guide regarding the principles and values of the pragmatic approach. They stated that the truth or value of an expression, such as ‘all reality has a material base’ or ‘qualitative research is superior for uncovering humanistic research findings’, is to be found in the credibility or usefulness of the expression in the world (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 16). In contrast to positivism or post-positivism and constructivism, pragmatism offers a different perspective that mainly focuses on the research problem and the consequences of the research (Brewer & Hunter, 1989, p. 74; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 26; Miller, 2006; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). On the one hand, positivists firmly believe in a singular reality, that is, the one and only truth that characterises any social phenomenon and that can only be investigated using objective and value-free inquiry by relying on quantitative research methods. On the other hand, constructivists believe that no single objective reality exists and that ‘subjective inquiry is the only kind possible to do’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 11).

Morgan (2007) stated that the pragmatic approach is heavily based on abductive reasoning that tries to operate by finding a balance between induction and deduction by first transforming observations into theories and then evaluating those theories through action. Morgan (2007) further noted that the abductive process is commonly recognised and used by

researchers who merge qualitative and quantitative methods in a sequential fashion (Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006; Morgan, 1998, 2006, in press), whereby the inductive outcomes emerging from a qualitative approach can act as inputs that contribute toward meeting the deductive objectives of a quantitative approach and vice versa. This is of direct relevance to the current study, which used findings from a qualitative method to serve as inputs for the quantitative section. Also, from a pragmatic perspective, it is strongly believed that the best way to explore inductive inferences is through action (Morgan, 2007).

There is evidence indicating that pragmatism allows researchers to develop a better understanding of the different ways in which research approaches can be successfully combined (Hoshmand, 2003) while ensuring that this process is carried out in ways that provide the best opportunities for the research questions to be answered (Johnson & Onwuegbozie, 2004). Other advantages of pragmatism are that it enables the researcher not to be trapped by mental and practical barriers usually imposed by the ‘forced choice dichotomy between post positivism and constructivism’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 27), and researchers are not obliged to ‘be the prisoner of a particular [research] method or technique’ (Robson, 1993, p. 291). Pragmatists also stick to an ‘ant representational view of knowledge’, claiming that research should move beyond the sole aim of accurately representing reality by merely providing an ‘accurate account of how things are in themselves’ but rather to be useful, that is, to ‘aim at utility for us’ (Rorty, 1999, p. xxvi).

Nevertheless, based on the literature, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the extent to which pragmatism is a research approach and its applicability. Mertens (2003) explained that choosing pragmatism over other research approaches can sometimes be problematic because the real reasons behind this choice very often remain unclear. In other words, pragmatic researchers sometimes fail to identify who actually benefits from a pragmatic solution. Johnson and Onwuegbozie (2004) also highlighted that pragmatism is strongly supported by arguments revolving around its usefulness or workability but these can be vague unless the researcher draws attention to these arguments by explicitly clarifying the underlying reasons as to why this approach is preferred. Moreover, it has also been pointed out that many empirical studies have combined methods but do not clearly state whether the practice refers to the mixed-methods approach or its practical and philosophical assumptions (Bryman, 2006; Gorard & Taylor, 2004; Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). The originality of the principles and nature of pragmatism have also been questioned, whereby empirical work

- 65 -

based on this largely overlaps with symbolic interactionists, such as Dewey, Mead, Blumer and Goffman (Cherryholmes, 1992; Maxcy, 2003), as well as sharing many similarities with the grounded theory, ethno methodology, conversational analysis and discourse analysis put forward by people such as Glaser, Strauss, Garfinkel, Cicourel and Foucault (Guignon, 1991; Rorty, 1982, 1991). Keeping in mind the aforementioned issues as potential barriers, the researcher intends to overcome some of them as much as possible.

Taking all the above into consideration, the current research has enough support to justify its reliance on a mixed-methods approach while also paying very careful attention to ensure that the imposed dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative methods and data are overcome and that data are not used and presented as ‘totally or largely independent of each other’ (Bryman, 2007, p. 8).

The discussion on methods and research designs and mixed-methods designs leads into the next area. To further emphasise the link between pragmatism and mixed-methods research, Johnson et al. (2007) pointed out that it is widely recognised that the main philosophy of mixed-methods research resides in the concept of pragmatism. That is, from a general perspective, any mixed-methods research approaches knowledge (theory and practice) by relying on not one, but various viewpoints, perspectives and positions (from both qualitative and quantitative lenses). In fact, in line with the views of the researcher, those who embrace pragmatism as a research paradigm could claim that just as research paradigms can undoubtedly remain separate, they can certainly be mixed into another research paradigm (Johnson et al., 2007).

Table 4-3: Research paradigms, methods and data collection’s tool.

Research Paradigms Research Methods Data Collection Tools

Positivism Quantitative Statistical probability

Interpretivism

(constructivism) Qualitative Theoretical abstraction

Pragmatism Mixed Methods _{complementary data sets} Combine findings from 4.2.6.2 Purposes of Mixed-Methods Research

a) Using mixed methods to enhance the accuracy of data

b) Employing mixed methods to combine findings from complementary data sets

c) Utilising mixed methods to counter biases intrinsic to single-method approaches, thereby balancing out the strengths and weaknesses of varied approaches

d) Using mixed methods to provide a means of enhancing and expanding upon initial findings with varied methods

e) Using mixed methods in the sampling process, for example, using questionnaires to provide an initial screening for an interview program.