the paradigms have on the structure of research projects. An exploration of epistemology, ontology

Transcription

1 Abstract: This essay explores the dialogue between research paradigms in education and the effects the paradigms have on the structure of research projects. An exploration of epistemology, ontology and methodology associated with the paradigms reveals the ways in which different educational research projects can be shared and account for the diversity of projects in the field. To show this comparison, a journal article by Mitra and Dangwal (2010) is analysed and placed into a post- positivist paradigm, and then converted to a constructivist paradigm. This contrasts the study designs and the way that beliefs about knowledge, truth and methods influence the creation of a research project. Keywords: paradigm, research, ontology, epistemology, methodology Within the world of social science research, there is intense debate between advocates of different paradigms about the ideal way to conduct it, due to differing beliefs about the nature of truth and what constitutes valid research. This essay will focus on the conflict within educational research in particular by identifying the post- positivist paradigm driving Mitra and Dangwal s (2010) research in Limits to self- organising systems of learning the Kalikuppam experiment, and later contrasting this with a constructivist perspective by exploring how this research would be designed when viewing the world through a different lens. By doing so, this will not only reveal the debate surrounding the merits and weaknesses of the educational paradigms, but also identify the ontological, epistemological, and methodological beliefs that shape the way research in the different schools of thought is designed and interpreted. This essay will also infer that due to different beliefs in how knowledge can be discovered and created, each paradigm has its merits as long as the methods used for research reflect the knowledge philosophy. The field of educational research is diverse and contentious with a wide community of academic researchers who subscribe to various research paradigms. It has four dominant paradigms that researchers subscribe to; positivism, post- positivism, critical theory and constructivism. Each paradigm carries with it a unique ontological belief; a basic summary places positivists and post-

2 positivists as believers of a reality or truth independent of the human mind while critical theorists and constructivists assert that reality is constructed by the individual (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Due to the ontology of the paradigms, epistemology and methodology is also influenced and this shapes the way they carry out their research and what they consider to be valid, worthy data in their field (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Thus, there is intense debate among the paradigms and this is embodied by Hawkesworth (2012), a feminist critical inquirer, when she critiques the objectivity of positivist and post- positivist researchers by speculating that their supposed objectivity is actually a white male dominated stance, which forcibly questions the contributions of women in the field. When looking back through history, each paradigm was developed as a result of researchers deeming the previous paradigms incorrect in their assumptions of knowledge and ways of discovering what is true (Nisbet, 2005). Due to the brevity of this essay, only post- positivism and constructivism can be studied at a deeper level, but this does not mean that the other two paradigms are any less influential or important in the inquiry research field. Guba and Lincoln (1994) define the ontology of post- positivism as critical realism; reality can exist but as humans we will never be able to perfectly understand it. The best that a post- positivist researcher can do is observe humanity from a detached position and attempt to identify the flaws that are preventing us from accessing the true reality. Hammersley (2008, pp. 7-8) outlines the subsequent epistemology of a post- positivist by stating it recognises that we can never be absolutely certain about the validity of any knowledge claim it does not deny that we can be justifiably certain about many things, even at the risk of subsequently discovering we were wrong. This in turn has an affect on the methodological practices utilised in post- positivist research inquires as their aim to falsify their hypotheses is best accomplished through quantitative studies with qualitative elements incorporated. This is to ensure that their results are as close to a real interpretation of the world as possible in order to acknowledge the individuality of human beings (Charney, 1996). Post- positivists also aim to create generalisations that apply to all humans, but

3 realise that it would need to be context- dependent and that it may not apply to all humans in a sample due to our unpredictability (Charney, 1996). Mitra and Dangwal s (2010) research is a post- positivist study which aims to identify how competently children can learn when they do not have a teacher or are partaking in self- organised learning. This was tested by placing information on molecular biology on a Hole- in- the- Wall computer in a remote Indian village and quizzing children before and after they had engaged with the content (Mitra & Dangwal, 2010). It is evident in Mitra and Dangwal s study that a post- positivist paradigm has framed their research due to the design of their experiment. Foremost is the aim of Mitra and Dangwal s (pp ) research which attempts to predict and control how well children will learn when they are self- organised in an attempt to level the playing field ; a key feature of post- positivist research is the ability to predict and control phenomena (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Clearly the ontological and epistemological beliefs of Mitra and Dangwal also lead them to design an experiment that placed them in an objective position of power over their test subjects. The participants in the research were not fully informed of the purpose of the study, which places Mitra and Dangwal in the role of detached, disinterested expert which is also common in positivist and post- positivist inquiries. This is exemplified when the researchers asked the children to view the new information on the Hole- in- the- Wall computer, but did not inform them they were to be part of a study (Mitra & Dangwal, 2010, p.678). This research also tested sample groups within a remote village and two different schools and used the average of their test scores in the research findings to prove the experiment had worked (Mitra & Dangwal, 2010, pp ). This larger scale study and focus on the group as a whole, rather than on individual performance, is also aligned to the post- positivist paradigm as researchers operating under this paradigm aim to create generalizable findings that will apply in similar contexts (Taylor & Medina, 2013). By focusing on the experience of the group as a whole, they can say that most children in the sample improved, so this should be the case for other children who are exposed to self- organised learning.

4 However this is a technique that would be challenged by a researcher operating in the constructivist paradigm. For example, Downs, James and Cowan (2006), and Ronai (1992) both studied the impact that being employed as an erotic dancer has on a woman s self- esteem and relationships. Downs, James and Cowan (2006) conducted their research in the post- positivist paradigm using quantitative methods in their study, while Ronai (1992) took a constructivist approach by immersing herself in the erotic dance scene and using a stream of consciousness narrative to present her data. Cooper (1997, pp ) describes the difference by stating the impersonal and distant stance of the post- positivist researcher reflects that paradigm s valuing of context- dependent generalizations, just as the interaction of critical researcher with participants reflects that paradigm s valuing of the understanding of the cultural and individual difference. While both would be considered valid data in their chosen paradigm and research field, the methods used were vastly different, and this is a consequence of their differing views on ontology. Sparkes (2001, p.550) further describes this by stating different validation procedures or sets of criteria may be better suited to some situations, forms of representation, and desires for legitimation than others. For a post- positivist research inquiry to be considered valid, it should be generalizable and objective, whereas constructivist research is considered valid if it is trustworthy and authentic (Taylor & Medina, 2013). While there is much debate among the paradigms as to the actual definition of these term, if a constructivist researcher has spent a large amount of time immersed in the research and attempted to develop their own construction of the phenomena as well as influence that of others, their research can be considered valid (Moss et. al, 2009). Erikson in Moss et.al (2009, p.504) describes it as becoming both tree- wise and forest- wise. Therefore, if Mitra and Dangwal s (2010) work were designed with a constructivist paradigm framework, the research would have had a different aim, structure and presentation of results. Due to the nature of ontological belief in constructivism, the purpose of this research inquiry would have been to widen the field of knowledge on self- organised learning and thereby create a more informed construction of this concept. Constructivists believe that it is incredibly important for a researcher to

5 be willing to transform their standpoint and that of others when presented with new information, while also accepting that there can be numerous constructions of reality (Smith & Hodkinson, 2009). Epistemologically, constructivists believe that we all have our individual construction of concepts, but when consensus does occur, it is not because of a true reality, but due to people agreeing for various reasons that they see the world in the same way (Smith & Hodkinson, 2009). Consequently, if Mitra and Dangwal were operating under this worldview, their research would have taken a much more personal approach. Central to constructivism is the idea of the researcher interacting with the participants to get an intimate, detailed account of their understanding of a concept (Cooper, 1997). As there would be a change in the purpose of the study and the knowledge claims, there would also be a shift in design to match this (Creswell, 2003). An appropriate revision would be an interview process over an extended period of time on one of the participants that focused on their individual experience with the Hole- in- the- Wall computers, rather than on the group as a whole. The researchers could have participated in the research alongside the children and used open- ended questions in interviewing to try and comprehend the views and knowledge constructions of the children in the experiment (Creswell, 2003). Finally, the presentation of the data would also drastically change. Qualitative data formats are often presented in the form of ethnography or narrative and these formats would be appropriate for providing an insider s view of the experience (Creswell, 2003). The researchers would also not aim to apply the findings to all children, but would present it as a valuable contribution to the field of education research. Mitra and Dangwal s research inquiry is presented as a quantitative data set on the merits of self- organised learning with the aim of implementing it as a possible pedagogical strategy in other classrooms around the world. The design of this study and its interpretive choices are framed by the post- positivist paradigm with the intention of acquiring findings that are generalizable to other humans in a similar context. This essay demonstrated how a paradigm shift from post- positivism to constructivism would drastically alter the design of a research inquiry from an objective survey

6 format to a values- laden interview process. This significant change in design is due to the ongoing discourse the paradigms have regarding ontology, epistemology, methodology and validity.

7 References Charney, D. (1996). Empiricism is not a four- letter word. College Composition and Communication, 47(4), Cooper, M. M. (1997). Distinguishing critical theory and post- positivist research. College Composition and Communication, 48(4), Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Downs, D. M., James, S., & Cowan, G. (2006). Body objectification: self- esteem, and relationship satisfaction: A comparison of exotic dancers and college women. Sex Roles, 54, Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hammersley, M. (2008). Challenging relativism: The problem of assessment criteria. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), Hawkesworth, M. (2012). Truth and truths in feminist knowledge production. In S. N. Hesse- Biber (Ed.), The handbook of feminist research (2nd ed., pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mitra, S., & Dangwal, R. (2010). Limits to self- organising systems of learning - the Kalikuppam experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A., & Schneider, B. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), Nisbet, J. (2005). What is educational research? Changing perspectives through the 20th century. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), Smith, J. K., & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Challenging neorealism: A response to Hammersley. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1),

8 Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. N. D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to multiparadigmatic. The Journal of Meaning- Centered Education, 1.