Selecting and designing paradigms

Every piece of social research or enquiry is guided by a set of beliefs, which is known as a paradigm. At a very early stage in an enquiry, the researcher needs to make assumptions about human knowledge and about the nature of reality s/he will encounter in her/his research. Accordingly, these assumptions determine the way the researcher understands her/his research questions, the research methods s/he uses, and how the researcher interprets her/his research outcomes (Crotty, 1998). Crotty (1998) argues that researchers need to adopt a philosophical paradigm to inform their methodology. Saunders et al. (2009) specify that the philosophical branches that every researcher needs to ponder are related to ontological, epistemological, and methodological expectations. Huberman and Miles (1998, p. 181) stress that it is a ‘healthy medicine’ for researchers to be aware of the philosophical expectations that guide their research.

The research design adopted in this study is largely influenced by Grotjahn’s (1987) classification of research paradigms in the L2 acquisition arena. According to him, the distinction between the qualitative and quantitative traditions in Applied Linguistics has been oversimplified, and research should be considered from three different angles: (1) the design or the method of data collection (whether it is experimental or non-experimental), (2) the type of data (whether it is qualitative or quantitative), and (3) the sort of data analysis (whether the analysis procedures entail statistical or interpretative analysis). In line with this distinction, Grotjahn (1987) suggests eight research paradigms. In order to answer the research questions stated below in section 4.7, this study used a mixed design, as is proposed by Grotjahn’s (1987) eighth paradigm (Experimental-Quantitative-Interpretive) as shown in Figure 4-1 below. According to this paradigm, research is conducted using both experimental methods, which entail quantitative data and statistical analysis, and qualitative data collection and its interpretation. Although the quantitative approach will

be the leading approach for data collection and analysis, a qualitative method will be utilised to enrich the data for the fourth research question.

Figure 4-1: Types of research design in the language learning field (from Grotjahn, 1987)

2 quantitative data 3 interpretive analysis

Paradigm 8: experimental-quantitative-interpretive

1 experimental or quasi-experimental design 2 quantitative data 3 interpretive analysis Paradigm 6: exploratory-quantitative-statistical 1 non-experimental design 2 quantitative data 3 statistical analysis Paradigm 7: exploratory-quantitative-interpretive 1 non-experimental design 2 qualitative data 3 statistical analysis Paradigm 5: exploratory-qualitative-statistical 1 non-experimental design 2 qualitative data 3 statistical analysis Paradigm 3: experimental-qualitative-interpretative

1 experimental or quasi-experimental design 2 qualitative data

3 interpretive analysis

Paradigm 4: experimental-qualitative-statistical

1 experimental or quasi-experimental design PURE FORMS MIXED FORMS Paradigm 1: exploratory-interpretive 1 non-experimental design 2 qualitative data 3 interpretive analysis Paradigm 2: analytical-nomological

1 experimental or quasi-experimental design 2 quantitative data

Cohen et al. (2008) note that the kinds of research questions that researchers address are controlled by their different ontological and epistemological positions. My research poses questions with causal explanations, which seek both an objective/positivist and subjective/interpretative understanding of the phenomenon. Given the vital aim of the present study, which is to investigate incidental EFL vocabulary learning from ER, I have employed the process- product paradigm (Shuell, 1996), which is concerned with how the process affects the product. This, as mentioned above, was achieved through adaptation of Experimental-Quantitative-Interpretive paradigm suggested by Grotjahn (1987). In L2 learning research, the experimental strategy has been one of the most powerful methods for discovering the strength of relationships between different variables. In classroom-based studies, researchers have typically explored the effect of innovative teaching methods or materials on students’ language learning (Nunan, 1992). This method is clearly implied in this definition of an experiment, which describes it as:

[a] test or series of tests in which purposeful changes are made to the input variables of a process or system so that we may observe and identify the reasons for changes that may be observed in the output response (Montgomery, 2005, p. 1).

The current study aims at exploring the cause-effect relationships between two variables: ER and L2 vocabulary development. Therefore, it is believed that the choice of the experimental design will allow me to maintain a control over the complex processes involved in the implementation of this enquiry, and the measurement of its outcomes. From the epistemological point of view of the objectivist, the reality investigated in this study is independent from the researcher and therefore it is believed that knowledge about the world can be acquired by objectively gathering facts in a systematic way. This can essentially be achieved, by implementing an experimental strategy and testing the hypotheses, with the purpose of building laws that would be applicable at a global level.

Although the objectivist paradigm is the leading approach, as most of research questions require the testing of hypotheses, the interpretivist approach is also involved in this study, as it also employs a non-experimental design, involving interviews with the participants. The aim of this is to gather qualitative data about the learners’ vocabulary learning experience of and their perception of the ER programme. In this respect, the forms of data collection and analysis used are largely dependent on how knowledge is constructed.

4.5 Objectives of the study