Researcher’s worldview and methodological approach

The paradigm worldview of the researcher is what drives the researcher to choose their methodology. It is the basic set of beliefs or assumptions that the researcher approaches the study with and it is sometimes referred to as the researcher’s ontology and epistemology. Ontology is how the researcher views reality and epistemology relates to the relationship between the researcher and that which is being researched (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Creswell & Plano Clark (2011) describe four worldviews that a researcher may possess: postpositivist (also known as positivist), constructivist, participatory and pragmatist. The postpositivist worldview is most often associated with quantitative approaches and traditional science. The worldview is characterised by deterministic thinking, based on cause and effect and a focus on empirical observation and measurement with the overall aim of verifying theories (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Constructivist worldviews are typically associated with qualitative approaches. Researchers with this view derive meaning of phenomena through differing views of participants. Social interaction is an important aspect of research in a constructivist view. The research is usually inductive and forms broad findings and understandings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Paradigm worldview

Methodological approach

The researcher with a participatory worldview is more likely to use qualitative approaches but may also use mixed methods. The research is influenced by politics and aims to improve society by looking at issues surrounding empowerment and marginalisation. This view allows for collaboration with the participants of the research (those experiencing the injustice or other phenomena) (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

The pragmatist worldview is more likely to be associated with mixed methods research and importance is placed on researching a worthwhile question and the consequences of the research. The use of multiple methods (mixed methods), whichever are appropriate to the question, is typical (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Creswell (2014) describes three methodological approaches to research: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research approaches and these are dictated by the researcher’s worldview (Figure 2-1).

Quantitative approaches are used to test objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. Variables are measured to give numerical data that can be analysed using statistical procedures. The approach is generally deductive. The final written report has a set structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative research is based on the postpositivist worldview that objective reality exists and can be discovered or, at least, approximated by the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Examples of quantitative research designs include experimental designs and non-experimental designs, including data collection methods such as surveys (Creswell, 2014).

Qualitative approaches explore the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to phenomena, usually a social or human problem. The aim of the qualitative approach is to “represent the world” so data is usually collected in a real-life setting (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 3). Data analysis inductively builds from the specifics to the general. Qualitative approaches value the role of the researcher’s interpretations of data to describe a complex situation. The final report of findings is typically flexible and without a set structure (Creswell, 2014). Qualitative research is based on constructivist worldviews, where the premise is that objective reality can never truly be recaptured but rather interpreted by the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Examples of qualitative designs include narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and case study (Creswell, 2014).

Qualitative research may be criticised by those working in more quantitative research disciplines such as the “traditional” experimental sciences for being “unscientific” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). These critics are likely to have a positivist worldview and assume that there is a stable, unchanging reality or truth that can be studied using empirical methods such as traditional scientific processes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). However, qualitative research values

the individualised interpretations of the researcher and has processes in place to minimise subjective misinterpretations (Stake, 1995). Other criticisms of qualitative research are that it is too slow and expensive. Proponents of qualitative research would say that the phenomena themselves are slow to happen and to reach full understanding undeniably takes a long time (Stake, 1995).

Mixed methods approaches aim to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to obtain a more complete understanding of a research problem (Creswell, 2014). Mixed methods are typically associated with pragmatic and participatory worldviews, which choose the methodology based on suitability to the question.

Creswell & Plano Clark (2011) describe the core characteristics of mixed methods research:  Collects and analyses persuasively and rigorously both qualitative and quantitative data

based on research questions,

 Mixes the two forms of data concurrently by combining or merging them, sequentially by having one build on the other, or embedding one within the other,

 Gives priority to one or both forms of data,

 Uses these procedures in a single study or in multiple phases of a programme of study,  Frames these procedures within a philosophical worldview and theoretical lens,  Combines the procedures into a specific research design.

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 5)

Mixed methods are characterised by the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data, either simultaneously or separately. There is no expectation that both forms of data are given equal priority and it is likely that either qualitative or quantitative methods will take a lead role (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Creswell & Plano Clark (2011) describe a range of examples of mixed methods designs. Convergent designs are where quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously but analysed separately. Explanatory designs include the collection of quantitative data is first and then the results used to inform the design of qualitative data collection. Exploratory designs are the reverse of explanatory designs and qualitative data is collected first and the results are used to inform quantitative data collection. Embedded designs do not give equal priority to quantitative and qualitative approaches and one form of approach takes a lead role compared to the other. In studies with a transformative design, the research aims to address injustice or bring about change. In mixed methods multiphase design studies, qualitative and quantitative data is collected at different stages of the research and the studies are carried out over a number of years (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Mixed methods designs can use a combination of the approaches described, for example a design can be embedded, using a mainly qualitative design, and convergent, where data is collected simultaneously but analysed separately.

Mixed methods are suited to research questions where one data source may be insufficient. For example, results of a quantitative survey may need to be explained using findings from qualitative interviews or focus groups, or findings from qualitative research may need to be generalised using quantitative survey methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Denzin and Lincoln (2005) criticise mixed methods research methods for being too focused on gathering and analysis of quantitative data, stating that “mixed methods takes qualitative research out of its natural home”. They say it is incompatible with the participatory worldview because it excludes stakeholders from dialogue and active participation, which can only occur during in- depth qualitative data collection (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This criticism, however is unlikely to apply to embedded designs, where priority is given to qualitative data collection and analysis. A mainly qualitative, embedded design study would allow exploration of phenomena in-depth and give participants a voice, while also allowing some quantitative generalisation. An example of this may be an embedded, mainly qualitative case study design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Case studies are a methodological approach that spans quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. However, they are mainly associated with qualitative and mixed methods approaches (Luck, Jackson & Usher, 2006; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Case studies can be used to explore and evaluate interventions or phenomena in real-life contexts (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The role of the researcher in case study research is to observe directly, ask others (the participants) and examine records and documents (Stake, 1995).

Stake (1995) describes different types of case studies that are used by researchers for different purposes: intrinsic, instrumental and collective case studies. Intrinsic case studies are ones where the researcher is interested in the case, in its own right, and the particulars of the case form the research. Instrumental case studies are those where the case study is explored to examine a broader research question. The use of this case study is to understand something other than the particulars of the case itself. Collective case studies consist of several instrumental case studies that work together to answer a research question (Stake, 1995). Case studies are generally carried out over seven sequential stages:

1. “Identifying the research as an issue, problem or hypothesis 2. Asking research questions and drawing up ethical guidelines 3. Collecting and storing data

4. Generating and testing analytical statements 5. Interpreting or explaining the analytical statements 6. Deciding on the outcome and writing the case report 7. Finishing and publishing”

However, progression through the stages is flexible and at times cyclical. The research questions and methods of data collection and analysis are likely to change as the case study progresses. If early questions or data collection methods are not working or if new issues emerge then the design can be changed (Stake, 1995; Bassey, 1999). Luck Jackson & Usher (2006) argue that case study research is in a unique position to span research paradigms and data collection approaches due to this flexibility. There are no universally agreed set of methods for data collection and analysis, instead methods are chosen for their usefulness and appropriateness to the research question (Luck, Jackson & Usher, 2006). This flexibility allows the researcher to choose the most appropriate methods of data collection for the research question rather than being bound by a traditionally quantitative or qualitative approach (Luck, Jackson & Usher, 2006).

One criticism of case study research is the perceived inability to generalise findings. Even a number of collective case studies are unlikely to provide a large enough sample to be representative of others (Stake, 1995). However, this criticism misses the point of case study research because case study research should focus on the particulars not the generalisations and the emphasis is on describing the uniqueness of the case (Stake, 1995). This is not to say that you cannot generalise from case study research, it is just not the main purpose. In educational settings, generalisations are needed in order to inform policy and best practice. Case studies in educational settings, in particular, explore such a complex social situation that it is difficult to infer correlation from case study findings. Researchers cannot state that that teachers should “Do X and students will learn Y” because there are many more variables than just “X” that influence Y (Bassey, 1999, p. 51). Instead, Bassey (1999) describes “fuzzy generalisations” (p. 51) that can be drawn. Bassey changes the wording slightly to “do X and your students may learn more” to show the element of uncertainty and give teachers the opportunity to explore the approach in their own settings (Bassey, 1999, p. 51). The aim of the case study is to report that something has happened in one setting and it may happen elsewhere (Bassey, 1999). In mixed methods case studies, this “fuzzy generalisation” may then be explored more widely using quantitative approaches.