Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Problemsandpossibilities

    Uploaded by

    Sitinur Kerjainplis
    This document summarizes a conference paper that explores paradigms for mixed methods research. It outlines 5 stances on combining methods and paradigms: binary, a-paradigmatic, dual/dialectical, pragmatist, and holistic/single-paradigm. The author's own doctoral research is discussed as an example of a mixed methods study underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm. Key recommendations are to explicitly state the paradigm, ensure methods allow objectives to be met, and demonstrate how the study reflects the chosen paradigm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Problemsandpossibilities

    Uploaded by

    Sitinur Kerjainplis
    9 views19 pages
    This document summarizes a conference paper that explores paradigms for mixed methods research. It outlines 5 stances on combining methods and paradigms: binary, a-paradigmatic, dual/dialectical, pragmatist, and holistic/single-paradigm. The author's own doctoral research is discussed as an example of a mixed methods study underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm. Key recommendations are to explicitly state the paradigm, ensure methods allow objectives to be met, and demonstrate how the study reflects the chosen paradigm.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a conference paper that explores paradigms for mixed methods research. It outlines 5 stances on combining methods and paradigms: binary, a-paradigmatic, dual/dialectical, pragmatist, and holistic/single-paradigm. The author's own doctoral research is discussed as an example of a mixed methods study underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm. Key recommendations are to explicitly state the paradigm, ensure methods allow objectives to be met, and demonstrate how the study reflects the chosen paradigm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    9 views19 pages

    Problemsandpossibilities

    Uploaded by

    Sitinur Kerjainplis
    This document summarizes a conference paper that explores paradigms for mixed methods research. It outlines 5 stances on combining methods and paradigms: binary, a-paradigmatic, dual/dialectical, pragmatist, and holistic/single-paradigm. The author's own doctoral research is discussed as an example of a mixed methods study underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm. Key recommendations are to explicitly state the paradigm, ensure methods allow objectives to be met, and demonstrate how the study reflects the chosen paradigm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 19

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

    net/publication/343601466

    Problems & possibilities: Exploring paradigms for mixed methods


    research

    Conference Paper · August 2020

    CITATION READS

    1 413

    1 author:

    Katrina McChesney
    The University of Waikato
    42 PUBLICATIONS   456 CITATIONS   

    SEE PROFILE

    Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

    Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities View project

    School improvement - learning environment focus View project

    All content following this page was uploaded by Katrina McChesney on 12 August 2020.

    The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


    Problems &
    possibilities: Exploring
    paradigms for mixed
    methods research
    KATRINA McCHESNEY
    UNIVERSIT Y OF WAIKATO
    S PEC I AL I S S UE :
    “A kale id osc ope o f p e r sp ec tives o n th e p ote n tial, c o n tr ib ution s, an d g r an d
    v isio n o f a m ixe d m eth od s ap p ro ac h to e d uc atio n al in quir y ”
    4 relevant problems
    Unresolved debate re relationships between methods & paradigms in mixed-methods research
    (Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007; Bazeley, 2009;
    Bergman, 2010; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Mertens, 2012; Shannon-Baker, 2016;
    Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017b; Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017)

    Mixed methods research seen as “insufficiently rigorous” (Bergman, 2010)

    Reporting of studies often omits discussion of paradigm / positioning (Alise & Teddlie, 2010)

    Lack of exemplars of robust mixed methods research (Bryman, 2007)


    Paradigms & methods
    Paradigm = “a worldview, together
    with the various philosophical
    Paradigm /
    philosophical
    assumptions associated with that positioning
    point of view”
    (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)
    Methodology

    Method/s = “tools and techniques”


    for data collection and analysis Methods
    (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
    (Creswell, 2010; Guba & Lincoln,
    1989; Mackenzie and Knipe 2006)
    Combining methods & paradigms:
    5 stances
    1. Binary stance – particular methods belong with particular paradigms

    Problems for mixed-methods research:


    ◦ Incommensurability (Kuhn 1970; Lincoln 1990) – mixed-methods impossible?
    ◦ Lack of genuine qual-quant integration (Yin 2006; Tashakkori & Creswell 2007b).
    Combining methods & paradigms:
    5 stances
    2. A-paradigmatic stance – side-stepping paradigms in favour of ‘what works’
    “Paradigms could be important for methodology but should not be used to inform the
    inquiry process’ (Shannon-Baker, 2016)

    Problems for mixed-methods research:


    ◦ Credibility
    ◦ Validity
    ◦ Coherence
    Combining methods & paradigms:
    5 stances
    3. Dual / dialectical stance – combining 2 paradigms (1 for Qual, 1 for Quant) in one study

    Problems for mixed-methods research:


    ◦ Incommensurability again
    ◦ Reduction of one paradigm in favour of the other
    ◦ Two parallel but distinct studies on same topic (qual / quant)
    Combining methods & paradigms:
    5 stances
    4. Pragmatist stance (subset of dual / dialectical) – paradigms are logically independent so can
    be mixed and matched harmlessly based on what suits the research question/s

    “The pacifier in the paradigm war” (Bergman, 2010)


    “It is one thing to endorse pluralism [or dialecticalism] … but it is quite another to build a social science
    on a what-works pragmatism. It is a mistake to forget about paradigm, epistemological, and
    methodological differences between and within QUAN/QUAL frameworks. These are differences that
    matter.” (Denzin, 2012)

    Problems for mixed-methods research:


    ◦ Incommensurability
    ◦ Reduction of one paradigm in favour of the other
    ◦ Two parallel but distinct studies on same topic (qual / quant)
    Combining methods & paradigms:
    5 stances
    5. Holistic / single-paradigm stance – one paradigm for the whole of a mixed-methods study

    “If it suits their purposes, any of the theoretical perspectives could make use of any of the
    methodologies”
    (Crotty 1998, 12; see also Guba & Lincoln 1994; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004;
    Mackenzie & Knipe 2006; Gray 2013)

    Not a new idea – BUT to date most mixed-methods research using this stance has taken an
    overarching positivist or post-positivist stance
    (Giddings 2006; Alise and Teddlie 2010; Hesse-Biber 2010; Denzin 2012; Torrance 2012)
    My doctoral research
    “Investigating teachers’ experiences of professional development within a major education reform
    in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi” (2017; http://hdl.h&le.net/20.500.11937/57566)

    Interpretivist paradigm underpinning all aspects of a mixed-methods study

    Interpretivism (Willis 2007):


    ◦ understanding (not explaining, generalizing or critiquing) the fundamental aim of research
    ◦ understanding-in-context – situatedness of knowledge
    Research objectives
    Focus on teacher perceptions

    Verbs – investigate, examine, compare (not measure, evaluate, determine …)

    Extra objective added in response to teachers’ voices


    Interpretivism: “Approaches that leave open the opportunity to discover things as the
    research progresses” (Willis, 2007)
    Data sources
    Teacher perceptions = data from teachers (no attempt to “triangulate” via other stakeholders)

    Qual & quant interwoven

    Sample Quant Qual

    Survey × 2 Open response item Gathered


    393 teachers
    786 sets of responses 96 comments together

    Survey × ~8.5 Gathered


    35 teachers In-depth interviews
    297 sets of responses together
    Sampling
    Main focus = capturing the diverse range of experiences in the wider target population

    Larger sample:
    ◦ Invitation to all teachers in target population
    ◦ Targeted data gathering to improve representation

    Smaller sample:
    ◦ Purposive + snowball sampling

    Interpretivism: seeking to capture “the multiple perspectives that are inherent in most human
    endeavors” (Willis, 2007)
    Data analysis, interpretation, &
    reporting (1)
    Most objectives – separate qual & quant analyses then brought together to draw holistic
    conclusions (Bryman, 2007).
    ◦ Quant: Means, standard deviations, confidence intervals, correlation, multiple regression, ANOVA
    ◦ Qual: Thematic analysis, constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz)

    Reporting for individual objectives – some sequential, some interwoven

    Cross-study reporting / synthesis

    “In genuinely integrated studies, the quantitative and qualitative findings will be mutually informative. They
    will talk to each other … and the idea is then to construct a negotiated account of what they mean
    together … Mixed methods research … is about forging an overall or negotiated account of the findings
    that brings together both components of the conversation or debate.” (Bryman, 2007)
    Data analysis, interpretation, &
    reporting (2)
    Alert to possible impact of
    cultural differences in
    communication (e.g.
    Hofstede et al., 2010)
    Key idea: all data reflected
    teachers’ constructions of
    meaning – not absolute
    truth
    Example: Arab vs Western
    teachers’ perceptions of
    different forms of PD
    Quality considerations
    Existing quality criteria for mixed-methods research (Howe 2012; Torrance 2012):
    ◦ Post-positivist worldview
    ◦ Qual & quant being used to develop a single definitive / generalisable understanding of the research topic

    Instead: Specific practices to enhance quality & validity in interpretivist / social constructivist
    research
    ◦ Creswell & Miller (2000)
    ◦ Willis (2007)
    ◦ E.g. member checks; extended researcher experience in the research environment; peer review;
    researcher journaling; audit trails; disconfirming evidence; thick, rich qualitative description …
    Zooming out – paradigms &
    methods
    Whichever is chosen first (methods or paradigm/s) does not predetermine the other

    Not all method/paradigm combinations may make sense – but certainly interpretivism can work
    for single-paradigm mixed method studies

    3 recommendations (McChesney & Aldridge, 2019):


    1. That the paradigmatic or philosophical underpinnings of any research study be explicitly stated
    2. That both the paradigm(s) and methods selected be suitable to allow
    the aims and objectives of the study to be met
    3. That researchers demonstrate how the research methods and the
    overall conduct of the study reflect or acknowledge the chosen
    paradigm(s), making explicit and justifying design decisions
    “Using multiple and diverse methods is
    a good idea, but is not automatically
    good science … Lacking justification and
    planning, mixed method decisions may
    not be defensible.”
    GREENE AND CARACELLI, 1997

    View publication stats

    You might also like