All 9 entries tagged Philosophy

Ph.D. Progress Update: Philosophical Level and Ph.D. Documentation

The Philosophical Level

The key current activities are thinking about, critiquing, evaluating, explaining and exploring different middle ground Philosophies which are as mentioned before Complexity Theory, Post Positivism, Pragmatism and Critical Realism. These are identified as the most appropriate Philosophies for Mixed Methods research in the context of the phenomenon of exploration, but it is not known at this time which Philosophical perspective would be most appropriate or if the most appropriate approach would be to present a combination of some of them in some way.

I have collected and continue to collect a huge volume of existing debates and discussions about each Philosophical perspective in general, as a perspective of Social Science and Educational Research, and as a perspective of Mixed Methods research. The objectives here are to learn further what each of these perspectives bring to Educational and Mixed Methods research, select which perspective (or a combination of perspectives) are most suited to the context of my Mixed Methods research, then identify all problems with the selected perspective, identify all currently discussed and debated solutions to the selected perspective’s problems, and then present solutions to problems that have yet to be resolved. With the case of combining different perspectives, there have been, for example, attempts at combining complexity theory with critical realism with the aim of resolving some of the problems in both perspectives, but then you start thinking about what problems do they really resolve, what problems do they not resolve, what problems still exist with this combination, what new problems are introduced with the combination, and in what way could these new problems be resolved?

Once all this is thought deeply about, the Philosophical perspectives shall be briefly discussed in the Upgrade Paper, more in depth in the thesis, and it is also the aim to have a research paper published based on solutions discovered and developed that shall attempt to resolve existing problems. Getting that research paper published or be in the middle of publishing the paper before the Upgrade Presentation would be ideal as it would give more credibility to the research at this stage.

The Ph.D. documents

The Upgrade Paper, the research paper that is planned to be published along with the Thesis are all being considered. Work obviously begun on the Upgrade Paper a few weeks ago and have almost completed the literature review section, which is going to be a mini version of the thesis version given that the Upgrade Paper is only four thousand words. The rest of the paper has been structured, it’s just a matter of entering the content!

The research paper shall be based on identified problems of the Philosophical level of Mixed Methods research, and any discovered and developed solution to these problems relative to the context of Educational Research. Work has not begun on the paper yet, but the Philosophical perspectives are being explored. More on these perspectives and the research paper progress as time goes on.

Extensive notes have been written for the thesis, mostly the literature review but also the methodological chapter, but nothing in terms of formally writing the first drafts of any of the chapters of the thesis just yet as the way in which a thesis is written is determined by the overall research design. For example, a thesis written for a pure constructivist grounded theory design would be different compared to a thesis written referring a questionnaire research design. Therefore, a thesis written for a Mixed Methods research design would be different still to either a constructivist grounded theory or a questionnaire based research designs. I will consider the thesis further when I have fully decided upon the design, which includes deciding upon the Philosophical perspective that shall guide the Mixed Methods research, and also settle some debates at the method level such as whether or not to use a particular type of grounded theory coding. Therefore it was just as well that I had not begun the thesis several months ago when I was convinced that a Constructivist Grounded Theory design would be the central aspect as I would probably have had to rewrite everything given that I have selected a Mixed Methods research design!

What’s next?

With Easter coming up soon I shall be taking some time off, but in the meantime I shall be getting on with plenty of stuff. I have a trial to try to organise and carry out, I have the Upgrade paper to continue with, and I have the research paper and the Philosophical level of the Mixed Methods research to consider carefully.

Lots to do then!

Alex Darracott : 09 Mar 2016 20:00 |  Tags: Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Philosophy of Mixed Methods: Getting Clearer!

Things have progressed since the previous post!

Recently I have been exploring six different Philosophical perspectives that after an initial round of reading thought were most appropriate for my Mixed Methods research. Most of these advocate a middle ground approach to understanding reality that aligns with Mixed Methods methodology, and these have been Complexity Theory, Post Structuralism, Post Modernism, Post Positivism, Pragmatism and Critical Realism.

After the previous round of reading, I have concluded that there are four Philosophical perspectives that strongly advocate a middle ground approach, or in other words advocate a multiple reality perspective, that aligns strongly with a Mixed Methods methodology and they are Complexity Theory, Post Postivitism, Pragmatism and Critical Realism. Each of these shall be explored and discussed on here in time but it suffices to say here that they have the common characteristic of rejecting the Absolutism and Relativism paradigms, the opposite sides of the paradigm continuum. They reject the idea that reality can be understood either through Absolutism or Relativism, and therefore place emphasis on the view of reality as a mixture of observable, measurable, deterministic and controllable elements, and also elements that are dynamic, chaotic, unobservable, and cannot be reduced to variables. This leans suitably towards a Mixed Methods methodology, but the extent to which each paradigm advocates Mixed Methods differ, and the writers and practitioners within each paradigm differ further the extent to which they advocate Mixed Methods methodology. The most common paradigm used is Pragmatism but just because a paradigm is more dominant it doesn’t mean that it is most suitable for my own research.

The other two paradigms Post Structuralism and Post Modernism are not suitable as a guide of Mixed Methods inquiry but are suitable in building a platform upon which Mixed Methods can be criticised. Both paradigms reject the modernist perspectives of reality (e.g., postivism, absolutism, and so on) and strongly advocate a multiple reality perspective therefore lean fairly strongly towards relativism and constructivism paradigms. From the readings that I have carried out so far, both perspectives appear to criticise Mixed Methods on Philosophical grounds: that Mixed Methods orientate towards Positivism, that there is a series lack of Mixed Methods researchers engaging at a Philosophical level, and therefore that there are various ontological and epistemological issues that remain unresolved within a Mixed Methods context. So whilst they do not reject Mixed Methods outright as an interesting and useful methodology, Post Structuralists and Post Modernists criticise Mixed Methods methodology at the Philosophical level and therefore have been critical of the Pragmatist approach.

So there we are! Four paradigms that have shown promise as a guide of Mixed Methods inquiry, and a couple of paradigms that are not useful as a guide of Mixed Methods inquiry but useful in understanding the criticisms and critiques of Mixed Methods methodology. It’s alright in any thesis to write loads about the wonderfulness of a methodology but the criticisms need equal attention and solutions need to be developed, explained, applied, and evaluated, all of which I aim to achieve in my thesis.

Alex Darracott : 01 Mar 2016 16:55 |  Tags: Epistemology Mixedmethods Ontology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Paradigms and Philosophies of Mixed Methods research: a whistle stop tour!

Those who have been following my blog during the past few months shall have noticed that Mixed Methods has been selected as the most appropriate methodology, that the Convergent Parallel design has been selected as the most appropriate variety of Mixed Methods, and that the methods of data collection have been decided upon along with most of the data analysis methods. What hasn’t been thought about till recently is the Philosophy of Mixed Methods.

Mixed Methods methodology developed as a result of the paradigmatic wars between quantitative and qualitative approaches: authors back in the 1960s and 1970s were adamant that both entail differing Philosophical and Paradigmatic assumptions and therefore frame the research in ways that were not compatible with each other. However, reconciliation between differing paradigms began and accelerated during the 1980s where writers opposed this methodological dualism.

Paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions and perspectives are extensive and the debates of suitability have been ongoing since reconciliation attempts began, so they are complex fields (seriously I am not kidden here: I’ve been thinking about this for years and I still don’t know everything and never will) where there isn’t a right or wrong answer. All that can be achieved is a researcher understanding their own views of reality and work towards developing arguments as to why their research contains particular paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions and perspectives. Do bear with me as I continue to learn and develop paradigmatic and philosophical assumptions about my research relative to a Mixed Methods methodology and also relative to the selected methods. This has to be a careful, thoughtful process: I cannot just select things at random. These assumptions are important to consider because they provide the basis or framework for a mixed methods project, or any research project.

There are certain paradigms (frameworks of research) that I can safely discard and suggest that they are not relevant to my research. This includes the feminism paradigm, which focuses research around women’s rights and whilst I have a lot of respect for women and their rights, feminism is not a part of my research so shall no longer be considered. The other paradigm is the Transformative-Emancipatory developed by Mertens (2003), which focuses on the intersection between Mixed Methods methodology and social justice although there is an observation that this has overlapped somewhat with the feminism paradigm. When you think about what feminism really means (not the extremists who perceive feminism as a male hating agenda) and its relationship with social justice, this makes sense. However whilst I have an increasing interest in social justice and this might be considered in future research projects it is not a part of my research currently therefore shall not be considered any further.

Moving toward discussions of paradigms that are more relevant, there is a selection of paradigms in relation to Mixed Methods that are most relevant for my Ph.D. The first is the PostPositivism paradigm, developed out of criticism of Positivism and therefore views reality as probabilistically true where Positivism (the paradigm of Science) views reality as really true and fully independent of the mind. Whilst PostPositivism works with quantitative methods and methodologies it also works with qualitative approaches and many who identify themselves as PostPositivists do utilise Mixed Methods. Another paradigm that is well acquainted with Mixed Methods is Pragmatism. Key differences between this and PostPositivism can be found at the Epistemological level in that PostPositivism understands reality as a single reality that is probabilistically true and independent of the mind whilst Pragmatists view reality as containing elements that are accessible and independent of the mind as well as elements that are constructed and therefore dependent on the mind. From an epistemological perspective, Pragmatism already leans more towards Mixed Methods than PostPositivism. However, Pragmatism is not without its problems therefore the third paradigm that is being considered is Critical Realism where apparently it can reconcile Absolutism and Relativism perspectives at the ontological level, whereas Pragmatism reconciles at the epistemological level from what I can currently understand but this does not appear to be reported much in the literature from what I have read so far. According to Creswell and Clark (2011) Critical Realism adopts and supports characteristics from both quantitative and qualitative approaches, although the use of Critical Realism is not as common as Pragmatism. But it has to be remembered that just because Pragmatism might be used more than PostPositivism and Critical Realism it doesn’t mean that it’s any more relevant to my research and the context of my research.

Additionally there are Mixed Methods projects that use multiple world views or paradigms, referenced as a dialectical paradigm, instead of a single paradigm, and have been based on the way that a researcher views social reality. Further, there are approaches that involving using multiple paradigms not in relation to the way that the researcher views reality, but of the type of Mixed Methods being used. For more information on this, read Greene (2007) and Creswell and Clark (2011)

As a side note, this whole linking between Philosophy and Methodology has been experienced in my research so far. Previously I had chosen to adopt a Constructivist Grounded Theory as the methodology and this entailed Relativist ontology and a Constructivist epistemology. Switching the methodology to a Mixed Methods approach entails a Philosophical view that in some way combines or reconciles Absolutism and Relativism ontologies and therefore Positivism (or PostPositivism in Social Sciences) and Constructivism epistemologies. It would not have been acceptable to have continued with a Relativist paradigm given that my research contains methods that include the collection and analysis of quantitative data, which aligns with a different paradigm. This would have been identified and critiqued in the Upgrade Paper and especially in the thesis and the Vivo examination.

So, gosh that was a long post! In brief, the paradigms that are of most relevance to this research are: PostPositivism, Pragmatism and Critical Realism. These shall be discussed more as I explore them in relation to Mixed Methods and in the context of my own research!

References:

Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L (2011): Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2^nd Ed). SAGE: America

Greene, J.C (2007): Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Boss: San Francisco

Mertens, D.M (2009): Transformative Research And Evaluations, Guilford Press: New York

Alex Darracott : 22 Feb 2016 14:23 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Paradigm Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Thoughts On The Research Design

The previous week I had mentioned that the decisions made at a certain level of the research design can influence other decisions at other levels, so now I shall explain more about what I mean by that, with future blog posts delving into this further.

The research design is the description and documentation of the processes, and their interrelations, involved with the collection, analysis and use of data within a particular study. The design of a study is determined by the research problem that has been identified and the research questions that have been developed.

The first level that needs to be engaged with is the Philosophical level, and by this I mean the researcher, including the Ph.D. candidate, needs to establish their perspectives of reality (ontology) and the way that knowledge of this reality should be attained (epistemology). There is a large variety of different Philosophical perspectives from Absolutism to Relativist therefore it can take a while to establish understanding and even then this might actually change. As has been documented throughout previous blog posts, I had considered myself an Interpretivist and a Constructivist therefore holding a Relativist Philosophical position of reality and therefore of research. However as I further critically analysed the methodology that I had selected at the time the more I subconsciously began to align with a Pragmatist perspective of research. Subconsciously because I was developing a methodology that I thought aligned more with a Relativist position; briefly, I was trying to be a Pragmatist within a Qualitative methodology, and for this research that simply was not working. I realised that my research design was following a Pragmatist route when I discovered that a particular model of Mixed Methods methodology suited the problem and the questions. Everything then started to make more sense.

Have I always been a Pragmatist when it comes to research? Perhaps I always have and never really realised it till I had the opportunity to really think about my own views about reality, to select initially what I thought was the appropriate methodology and then to critically analyse this methodology within the context of research. What’s interesting about Pragmatism is that whilst some authors suggest that Pragmatism attempts to locate the middle ground between Absolutism and Relativism, it can be argued that being pragmatic about research can lead to a person being a relativist about research. This is because since Pragmatism allows the researcher to select the methodologies and methods that work best, those methodologies and methods would be selected relative to the research problem and research questions.

So after all that Philosophical thinking, is the rest of the research design easier? In theory yes; in practice, sort of! It is important to remember that a methodology and the subsequent methods cannot be selected without careful thought and consideration of not only the context of the research but also in the context of other methodologies and methods and their appropriateness. Remember as a Ph.D. candidate it is important to be able to learn about a variety of methodologies and methods so that it is possible to justify why certain methodological and method selections have been made, and to explain the inappropriateness of others. This is something that is ongoing with my own work, and I need to decide to what extent do I really engage with methodological debates and discussions and contribute to them.

There is a wide variety of different methodologies, methods, and approaches to using these methods, available to select and integrate into the research design but again what is selected must be the most appropriate to deal with the research problems and handle the research questions. A methodology therefore describes and analyses a variety of characteristics of the design including the general approach used to handle the problems and the questions, along with the methods used, the order in which they are used, and the importance of each method in providing the required data.

My methodology of my Ph.D. is Mixed Methods, with the specific model of the methodology being Convergent and Triangulated, referred also as the Convergent Parallel model, and the selection was determined by identifying methodological problems of existing research and the development of the research questions, along with understanding to the suitable level which methodology would best address the research problem and research questions. Briefly, the Mixed Methods methodology defines the use, ordering, importance and value of the methods in many different ways than other methodologies, such as a case study, and remember that each model of the Mixed Methods methodology differ from each other slightly in these respects.

So, when the methodology has been decided upon it’s time to choose the methods. Whatever methods are suitable for the methodology is endless as there is no right way and depending on their structure a method can be used with multiple methodologies. As an example, the case study methodology can be either quantitative based, or qualitative based. If the case study is to be quantitative then methods that generate figures and numbers would be used, such as closed questions on a questionnaire; qualitative based case study methodology would need methods that generate data that expressed the perspectives and experiences of the individual, such as an Interview technique. With Mixed Methods methodology this is even more complex, because it can’t be either quantitative or qualitative: both strands have to be used and therefore there is wide variety of methods that can be used and several ways in which these strands can be converged or combined appropriately.

Developing the research design is a complex task and goes way beyond what has been described in this blog post. I’ve simply presented a general overview of some of the ideas that I have about research design and some of the key points that need to be considered carefully when designing research. I’m still learning; I’m still learning about my own research design and still adjusting the design in accordance to what I am reading not only from research methodological textbooks but also the way that other researchers have implemented methodologies and methods and designed their research in general, particularly those relevant to the Mixed Methods designs. I have decided fully on the methodology as Mixed Methods, the model of Mixed Methods as Convergent Parallel, and decided on the data collection and most of the analysis methods that shall be used. The key areas of the design are now in place with the finer details of the design continuing to be thought about.

The sheer amount of Philosophical perspectives, methodologies and methods that can be thought about and used is diverse and complex, with much overlapping, but must be something that the new researcher including Ph.D. candidates much engage with. It simply is not the case where a Ph.D. candidate can jump into a research project with any random methodology and methods because this might go against the Philosophical stances that the researcher is claiming. Apparently in several Ph.D. theses a researcher would claim to follow a relativist position when they use methods that subscribe more to the positivist position. So this needs to be carefully thought about. Additionally therefore there is a need to be fully aware of all the methodologies and methods that can be used, select that or those which best fit, and develop argumentation as to why those methodologies and methods are most appropriate. In my opinion, the argumentation that develops to justify and defend methodological and method selections, and the overall design of the research, is just as important as the selection itself.

Till next time: keep thinking!

Alex Darracott : 29 Jan 2016 17:34 |  Tags: Design Methodology Philosophy Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Engagement at the Philosophical level

The Ph.D. is not just about generating new knowledge about a phenomenon: it is also about being engaged at the Methodological and Philosophical levels. Being engaged at the Methodological level means really thinking about the methodologies and methods that have been used to explore and develop new knowledge about the phenomenon of investigation. The uniqueness of a Ph.D. therefore lies not just in thinking about it in terms of developing new knowledge but about the way in which this new knowledge is developed and understood. Being engaged at the Philosophical level means to think about your own perspectives of reality, the way that knowledge of this reality is collected, and understanding a variety of different Philosophical perspectives of reality and their relevance towards the research project along with understanding the way in which your perspectives of reality influences research design. This post shall deal with being involved at the Philosophical level.

Previous Thinking

Previously I thought of myself as a constructivist, an interpretivist, a relativist and a contextualist. I began to reject the notion of an objective reality and therefore had the idea that we create or construct our own reality, that therefore reality is a little different for each of us and that the way we come to understand and attain knowledge within this reality is different for all and our perceptions of the usefulness of related processes also differ.

This view was initially reflected in my own research design through favouring a qualitative methodology and using qualitative based methods to explore the phenomenon of interest. As time progressed however and a more significant understanding of the research problem and research methodologies was attained, I began to grow an appreciation for quantitative methodologies and methods. Philosophical and Methodological battles therefore began to occur as I attempted to understand the way that quantitative data could be included in a qualitative methodology. These battles were a reflection of the fact that what was occurring was going against the way that I perceived the relationship between reality and research exploration with Social Science disciplines: that you cannot define behaviour and generalise behaviour of phenomena through using statistical analysis and relationship between variables. But the more I thought about this (and the more that I continue to think about this) the more that exploring particular aspects of the phenomenon using quantitative analysis made more sense. Using a methodology where quantitative and qualitative approaches complement rather than compete with each other made more sense when an aim is to attain a substantial understanding of the phenomenon.

Current Thinking

There appears to be a group of researchers who subscribe exclusively to quantitative methodologies and methods and therefore perceive reality as absolute; that reality exists independent of our thoughts and behaviour of the mind and therefore can be understood through deconstructing or reducing reality down to a series of variables and exploring relationships between them. There is another group of researchers at the other side of the Philosophical and Methodological Spectrum who are exclusively qualitative; that they perceive reality as being relative and contextual, and that therefore each person develops their own reality within the context they are within. Then there are those in the middle who believe that reality can be understood through the complementation of both perspectives. Remember however that within Mixed Methods there can be no “mixing” or combining of these perspectives, only that they are used to deal with separate but related research questions and problem areas.

So where do I stand with all of this at the moment? I still consider myself as a constructivist: I perceive reality as being subjective, that each of us develop our own realities and that this construction of reality and reality itself is relative only to the context that we are within. But, I do and am beginning to value the quantitative relative to my own research problem and research question therefore I would place my own perspectives and research itself now towards the middle.

General Thoughts

Note that I am not suggesting that all Ph.D. candidates should immediately start considering the middle as the answer to everything. Which side you place your research is influenced by your own stances and understanding of its Philosophy and Methodology, and a sound grasp, understanding, and critical analysis of the relevant, current literature. The research questions, the research problems, the research purposes, the methodology that you select, and methods that you adopt should be led not by your own agendas and Philosophical perspectives, but by the needs identified in the literature.

What are you really investigating? What do you want to investigate? What are the constructs of your research? What are your Philosophical views? What way do you perceive reality? What methodology are you adopting? What methods are you going to use?

All these questions, and more, should be led by that understanding of the literature, and your own biases and assumptions need to be placed aside as much as possible. But this is not always achieved, as even the most objective person has even the smallest amount of bias and favourability towards particular research methodologies and methods. Researcher bias therefore is a big topic of debate within academia and the way in which researcher bias influences the results and therefore questions are asked as to what influences researcher bias to occur in the first place.

It is challenging when you really start questioning your own perspectives because some can go into a complete denial about the complementary aspects of differing methodologies and methods, but this is a challenge that all Ph.D. candidates should tackle. Again, don’t feel that you should subscribe to a particular methodology or method just because it appears fashionable, but go with what is right for your own research questions and problem areas. Once you feel authentic, you begin to produce authentic work, and therefore raise the respect and authenticity levels of research work as a whole.

‘till next time: question yourself and your views of reality, and do what is right for the context you are in!

Alex Darracott : 17 Jan 2016 15:20 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Philosophy Prd |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Grounded Theory: possibly Relativist? Combination of various Philosophical perspectives?

I’ve been thinking further recently about Philosophical considerations of the Grounded Theory methodology and previously I mentioned about the possibility of combining or in some way integrating different Philosophical perspectives. Reality can be considered from a couple of main umbrella perspectives. There are perspectives that define reality as existing independent of the mind and the thoughts of the observer, and there are perspectives that define reality as dependent on the mind and the thoughts of the observer. What this means from a pure Philosophical or Ontological perspective is whether or not there really is an objective reality out there, or whether or not reality is simply something that we imagine and build for ourselves. From a methodological perspective, this has implications upon the choice of methodology and methods that are used to explore reality and to gain knowledge of that reality. Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism are Philosophical perspectives that describe reality as being dependent on the mind; of the thoughts that exist within the mind and the way in which these thoughts and other mental processes are used to develop a picture of the reality that the observer finds themselves in.

Grounded Theory enables the researcher to construct a theory or to theorise from the actual data itself and not from the data after it has been put through a level of, say, quantitative analysis. It is therefore apparent that whatever theory or theorisation occurs is dependent on the thoughts and the thinking of the researcher, and therefore it is a methodology that assumes that reality can be constructed, especially Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory, which is the flavour of Grounded Theory picked for my Ph.D. research.

What I have been thinking about is that perhaps Grounded Theory is a methodology that represents a combination of Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism. Because Grounded Theory enables each researcher to develop a theory following the development of codes and categories that explain their observations, it is an interpretivist methodology. Because it is an interpretation, each researcher would interpret the data differently and therefore develop different sets of codes and categories. The thoughts and the thinking of the researcher are therefore part of the Grounded Theory process and this is something that Positivist approaches (e.g., experimental designs) would not allow to happen.

Because the researcher is able to develop a theory or to theorise from the data they are therefore constructing a theory that explains their interpretation of that reality, and therefore Grounded Theory can be known as a Constructivist methodology. It is constructivist because reality or an aspect of reality is being constructed by the researcher through the development of that theory, through developing codes and categories as a result of data interpretation.

Relativism is something new that I have thought about. Relativism implies situational context; that the development of a theory therefore is relative only to the context within which the Grounded Theory research takes place. There are many debates about the generalisability (a characteristic that measures if whether or not a theory or findings can be generalised across multiple contexts) of the Grounded Theory methodology, so to suggest that Grounded Theory is a relative methodology might not be so clear cut as it is to suggest that Grounded Theory is both an Interpretivist and a Constructivist methodology. But it is interesting to think about it from the perspective as Grounded Theory enabling the researcher to construct a theory of some aspect of reality (hence Constructivism) through interpreting the data leading to developing codes and categories that explain what they observe in the data (hence Interpretivism) possibly because of the nature of interpretivism that this would be specific to the context of the Grounded Theory research (hence possibly Relativism). As mentioned however there are many debates surrounding the generalisability of Grounded Theory so I will not make any suggestion at this time as to whether or not Grounded Theory could be considered a Relativist methodology. But it will be interesting after the Christmas holiday to think about this more but in the meantime collect a fair amount of literature about this, and other Philosophical debates about Grounded Theory (and heck, more literature about Grounded Theory and everything else in general!)

So, lots of thinking to do next year!

‘till next time folks, remember: if Santa isn’t able to come down the chimney then use the front door!

Alex Darracott : 09 Dec 2015 16:25 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Epistemology of Grounded Theory: brief thoughts on intial readings

During the past week, I shall admit, I have found the prospect of using Grounded Theory to be a little bit daunting. Books and other literature written by Strauss and Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz are the key literature in defining different main flavours of Grounded Theory, and whilst they all share commonality on some aspects of Grounded Theory (e.g., that it leads to some sort of new theory) they differ significantly on others (e.g., placement and role of the literature, what is actually produced, and epistemological positioning). The key understanding that I currently have on Grounded Theory from the literature that I have read so far and continue to read is that the application of Grounded Theory is extremely diverse and can be suited to fit the research agenda. That’s not to say, however, that Grounded Theory can be twisted and distorted completely out of proportion and original conceptions too much, but it is to say that it appears to offer a very flexible implementation and according to some of the Ph.D. theses I have had a read through that uses Grounded Theory, not every feature and instruction of Grounded Theory needs to be implemented. It really depends on the context and direction of the research. Understandably therefore, there is a myriad of literature which argues for and against different flavours of Grounded Theory, present different versions of Grounded Theory, applies and argues for and against different features of Grounded Theory, and tackles an assortment of different characteristics of Grounded Theory such as validity, reliability, rigour and limitations. Another important aspect of Grounded Theory and something that I shall probably need to tackle first in the thesis is the Epistemological orientation of Grounded Theory.

Epistemology, which is a branch of Philosophy that tackles the understanding of what knowledge is, the way we acquire knowledge of reality and the sources used to acquire this knowledge, might appear to be completely irrelevant to a particular research project but it is very important to be able to tackle epistemological problems of Grounded Theory or any other research method that you choose to adopt. This is because Epistemology in research deals with methodological problems and considerations around the way that particular method or methodology collects data and understands the way in which knowledge of reality should be acquired. This is something that is not really tackled in Ph.D. theses according to commentary from some Professors, so this is an area that I am keen to explore to a much greater depth than I had considered during the first year.

Remember that methodology defines the overall umbrella of the research design. A research design can therefore be experimental or quasi-experimental (therefore quantitative) or either of a selection of different qualitative methodologies such as case based or phenomenology. Quantitative data is usually associated with Positivist or Post Positivists perspectives of reality (that reality is fixed and knowledge is already there therefore easily obtainable through deconstructing this reality into a series of statistically calculable variables and their relationships) whilst qualitative data is associated with Interpretivist or Constructivist perspectives of reality (where it is believed that reality is not fixed or constant and therefore people construct different realities or different perspectives of a particular phenomenon). It is quite important for me to understand and further develop my understanding of this because Grounded Theory can work with both, and this is where I have found Grounded Theory to be a little daunting (as well as its actual application but this is another matter for another blog post and the more I read the more I am understanding its application anyway but it all takes time) because for many months I have read textbooks that suggest Grounded Theory is or should be associated only with an Interpretivist or Constructivist perspective. So to read that this is actually incorrect and that the original authors of Grounded Theory, Strauss and Glaser, intended it to be used with both quantitative and qualitative data, was quite interesting indeed and again this is an area that I need to understand further. This is made all the more interesting when Grounded Theory is used as a method of analysing qualitative data within a Mixed Methods methodology. With Mixed Method methodologies, the epistemological position is Pragmatism; therefore, there comes epistemological issues with the fact that an interpretivist or constructivist epistemologically based method is being used within a design that is inherently pragmatic.

Confused yet?!

There is a plethora of literature that argues back and forth, forwards and backwards about the epistemological stance of Grounded Theory. Without a doubt, I shall have to get to grips with this literature further, and through this understanding of the literature develop a particular stance and argue this stance in the thesis. This is important as there appears to be a general consensus for all Ph.D. candidates regardless of research method and methodology to involve themselves and really explore and argue epistemological positions, the compatibility issues, and so on.

A current initial thought of mine is that Grounded Theory could be viewed as a general interpretivist methodology, as it has been suggested in some Ph.D. theses that what is actually developed is an interpretation or perspective of the data, and not actually a strict theory.

This is just the beginning.

‘tii next blog post, remember children: don’t believe everything you read in your textbooks at school, but at the same time don’t challenge your teachers about it because you’ll get detention and be accused of being disruptive and unteachable (just kidden!)

Alex Darracott : 12 Nov 2015 12:59 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Grounded Theory? Mixed Methods? Both? Current ponderings!

In a blog post yesterday I suggested that my research was going to be based on a Grounded Theory approach using Mixed Methods methodology. After spending till after midnight yesterday reading up on the subject and from what I have been reading this evening I can safely assume that I was talking complete nonsense. Well, possibly, but that's the beauty of learning: you think about things, and you develop your ideas and approaches based on your continuous learning and thinking, and the beauty of having a blog such as this is that the thinking, learning and development of ideas can be documented! So, where is my thinking at the moment? Methodologically speaking I can push the research in a couple of different ways: use a pure Grounded Theory approach, or used a Mixed Methods approach using Grounded Theory to explore qualitative data. That’s where my current thinking is: I know for sure that other types such an Ethnographic study, a Phenomenological study, an Action Research study, a Narrative Research study and so on are not appropriate for the aims of this research, and that is to develop a new theory that explains the relationship between constructs of a phenomenon of investigation.

I could use Grounded Theory and use quantitative and qualitative data to generate a new theory that explains this relationship among constructs, or I could develop a Mixed Methods study that initially uses Grounded Theory to develop a theory from qualitative data, and then collect and analyse quantitative data to experiment with this new theory. But I’m not sure at this time if I want to actually implement such a research design because the goal is to create a new theory and not to create and then experiment with the new theory: I’m not sure that there is enough time to create such a massive study and then having to write about everything that there is unless I am allowed to hand in a thesis that is a couple of hundred thousand words!

I’m quite happy that I’m really thinking about this because it shows engagement not just with the phenomenon of investigation but with the research methodology and the extent to which I can develop and push research methodologies and methods to really explore and acquire knowledge of that phenomenon. This refers to what I could class as the Philosophy of Research Methods and thinking about the research methods at this level includes the following questions in relation to my own research:

What extent could Mixed Methods methodology with Grounded Theory explore reality and the relationship between the constructs of the phenomenon that is being investigated?

What impact would the different Mixed Methods approaches have on the findings, and therefore on the development of the theory?

Comparing a pure Grounded Theory approach to a Mixed Methods approach, which method could really assist with contributing towards theoretical development?

What extent could Grounded Theory be pushed to explore the behaviour of a phenomenon of investigation?

Could Grounded Theory represent a more authentic reality and therefore provide the basis of a more convincing explanation of reality than Mixed Methods? Or vice versa?

The current contention is, I shall be using multiple methods within either methodology (Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods are known as methodologies although different authors have classed differently but they all have essentially the same meaning) so determining the answers to the questions asked might in part be answered by the way in which each methodology handles the multiple methods that I shall be using.

So, a lot of thinking to do! I shall be exploring both Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory methodologies over the next few weeks to really find out which would be most suitable for the aim of my research and the questions that I want to explore.

This shall also prove to be interesting for the Upgrade process because in the report and presentation a line of reasoning needs to be given as to why a certain methodology has been selected over other methodologies. Therefore, comparing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods methodologies in the context of my research should provide plenty of material to work with!

Alex Darracott : 11 Oct 2015 00:18 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Mixedmethods Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

What is that discipline called Philosophy?

I have been thinking about the role of Philosophy in research for many months, and continue to think and engage with lots of reading about the subject especially recently in relation to Educational research and my own Ph.D research project. When you are asked what Philosophy is, it’s a bit difficult to really describe Philosophy because it is quite an intricate and complex subject mostly because, unlike Science, there is no real general consensus on the way that the world should be perceived and interacted with. There are no agreed terms and no particular Philosophical perspective is considered more important than the other. I’ve become to realise over the many months of research and thinking about Philosophy that it’s not really a case of trying to push a particular perspective as correct, but to utalise the most appropriate perspective for the context that is being considered. Philosophy in general therefore could be regarded as a discipline or knowledge domain that defines human interaction with each other, with themselves, and with objects of reality. There are many branches of Philosophy and many contexts of which Philosophy could be applied, but for this post I’ll just focus on some of my thoughts regarding the importance of Philosophy in research

What is Philosophy? This is a question that can be answered in many ways, but for me as a person taking part in Ph.D research, it is a perspective of reality that can have major implications on personal understanding of knowledge of reality and the way in which knowledge of this reality can be explored. The construct of a Ph.D thesis and the way in which everything is approached can be solely determined by an individual’s Philosophical stance: from the approach of the literature review, to the selection of research methodologies, to the design of the research methodologies, to the exploration of data, and to the reporting of findings. Perhaps it’s really not much of a surprise to find out that there are many cases where a person is a little confused about their Philosophical stance and this is reflected in their thesis where at the beginning they suggest a particular stance then as they construct their thesis they show that they are actually supporting another stance.

Personally I’ve been thinking about my own Philosophical stance for many years: I do believe that I’m fairly clear with my own Philosophical beliefs of reality and the way in which we should interact with reality. That doesn’t mean to say that my particular Philosophical stance of reality is correct; it just means that I’m beginning to form full arguments that support my stance against other stances. It’s important as a Ph.D researcher to think about reality; to think about where your general considerations of knowledge of reality is within the context of reality, and develop appropriate arguments that supports that stance. Argumentation development is very important in an area such as Philosophy where there is essentially no common agreement with Philosophers as to which should be the most dominant and correct perspective. This is probably a major reason why some people simply do not like Philosophy as they prefer to grasp what they perceive to be “real” answers and not some set of answers that could be correct depending on context.

This is just a brief overview of my general thinking of Philosophy. My understanding of Philosophy and considerations of my own Philosophical perspectives of reality and explorations of reality are continuously developing. More postings of Philosophy in Research shall be forthcoming as I do believe that this is an important topic that learners should be getting to grips with.

Alex Darracott : 01 May 2015 22:50 |  Tags: Philosophy Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem