School of Education, Social Work & Community

Education
Master of Education
Assignment Front Cover
Name
Module
Matriculation Number
Date of Submission
Declared Word Length

Hina Hashmi
Research Methods for Professional
Inquiry
130021949
3rd February 2015
6571

How have you used previous feedback within this submission?

Yes I have, I emailed my tutor specifically asking if the table of contents (pertaining to
the breadth of topics being covered) was sufficient to fulfil the success criteria.
I also asked if the bibliography was comprehensive enough.
What specifically would you like feedback on for this assignment?
I would like feedback on my academic writing style and also feedback related to how
well I achieved each of the specific and general criteria.

Please tick as appropriate

Text using Arial, 12 point and 1.5 line spacing

Page numbers included as a footer
Matriculation number included as a footer
Declared word count on front cover
List of References
Numbered appendices placed after the List of References (if
relevant)
Assignment (without appendices and reference list) submitted
to Safe Assign before the submission time and date
Self assessment against the specific and general criteria

N/A

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
The quantitative method.................................................................................................................4
The qualitative method....................................................................................................................6
Advantages of the quantitative method........................................................................................9
Disadvantages of the quantitative method...................................................................................9
Postpositivism...............................................................................................................................10
Advantages of the qualitative method.........................................................................................12
Disadvantages of the qualitative method....................................................................................12
Grounded Theory...........................................................................................................................12
The mixed methods approach......................................................................................................13
Advantages of the mixed methods approach.............................................................................16
Disadvantages of the mixed methods approach........................................................................16
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................17
References......................................................................................................................................18

Matriculation number: 130021949

Introduction
The purpose of this research paper is to provide a theoretical understanding of three distinct research
methods; quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. In order to do this, we must first take time to
try and define the three key terms that will be used to build our knowledge and understanding of
these research methods and their associated paradigms. The majority of academic research studies
use the three interrelated principles of ontology, epistemology and methodology in order to construct
a research method in relation to a specific paradigm.
There are myriad explanations of these principles within social research as they are usually
dependent on the particular paradigm being pursued by the researcher at the time. Blaikies (as cited
in Grix, 2004, p. 59) defines ontology as the study of;
claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about
what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with
each other.
Therefore, if somebody investigates the ontological context of a particular situation, they are actually
trying to understand what we are referring to when acknowledging the existence of something. An
epistemologist however, is concerned with trying to decipher the meaning behind knowing something.
For the purposes of this research paper, I will use Crottys (1998, p.3) definition of epistemology,
which is defined as;
the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby in the
methodology
and can be paraphrased by asking ourselves what constitutes valid knowledge and how can we go
about obtaining it. Ontological and epistemological assumptions are put together to build the notion
of a paradigm. The term paradigm refers to an overall theoretical research framework which is neatly
defined by Bodgan & Biklens (as cited in Mackenzie and Knipe, 2001, p. 2) as;
a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient
thinking and research.
The necessity of outlining these terms in the context of educational research is paramount for the
position I will be adopting for this research paper. I believe that ones view of knowledge and social
reality are intimately entwined within the outcomes of any piece of educational research. This is
because the researchers themselves tend to relate their own intents, objectives and philosophical
assumptions with the research they carry out.
Therefore, it is vital that the researcher has a clear understanding of their own philosophical
underpinnings when choosing their research question or evaluating a previous piece of research.
Matriculation number: 130021949

This is because the way each individual constructs their social reality is unique as it is completely
defnied by their own perspective or worldview. Therefore, the knowledge they build from this social
construct will affect the method in which they relate phenomena and social behaviour.
The definition I will be using for methodology for the purposes of this research paper is from Crotty
(2003, p3) as;
the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of
particular methods and linking the choice and use of the methods to the desired
outcomes.
Methodology is often confused with method but is in fact, a completely separate entity. It is a
considered research strategy that outlines how research is to be conducted whilst taking ontological
and epistemological principles into account. (Sarantakos, 2005) whereas the method is;
the techniques or procedures used to gather and collect data related to some research
question or hypothesis. (Crotty, 2003, p3).
The purpose of discussing methodology is to ensure the researcher can justify and then evaluate the
use of the particular method he has adopted for the piece of research being undertaken. (Wellington,
2000).
Research methods in social science (including education) can be divided into two main types;
quantitative and qualitative. Before I continue to explain what this means, it is important to note that
all definitions and explanations being given are my interpretation of the information currently available
on these particular subjects. Countless elucidations seem to exist that all have a slightly different
slant depending on the researcher or the context of the writing. Therefore I have tried to distil the
extensive research in these areas down to their core values and use those as the basis of my
research paper. The definitions that follow are, in my opinion, a good summary of the various
explanations available but with the understanding that alternative theories or uses of the key terms do
exist.
The relative merits of quantitative versus qualitative research methods have been argued extensively
in the academic world (Grix, 2004; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Johnson and Christensen, 2008;
Mertens, 2009; Creswell, 2013) so before I continue with my assessment of the strengths and
limitations of qualitative research methods it is important to emphasise that the two opposing
paradigms that underpin these methods are polar opposites. Quantitative research methods aim to
investigate the breadth of a question whereas qualitative methods are more useful when looking at a
question in depth. Therefore, it is important to remember that a competent researcher will pick the
most appropriate method based on the nature of the study even taking human bias into account.
Matriculation number: 130021949

This main body of this research paper will be structured into four distinct sections. The first two
sections will discuss the definition, ontology, epistemology and methodology of quantitative and
qualitative research methods. The advantages and disadvantages of these two distinct research
methods within the context of education will be discussed in the third section supported through
literature that has been written within an educational context. The fourth section of the research
paper will deal with the mixed methods approach. I will again attempt to define this approach by
discussing the ontology, epistemology and methodology associated with it. I will also discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of this method specifically within the context of educational research.
The research paper will end with a conclusion that will attempt to establish which methods could
potentially be more effective within the framework of educational research.
The quantitative method
Quantitative research methods are usually based on empiricism, collecting data and then using
statistics in order to answer a carefully formulated hypothesis usually based on observation of the
natural world. The definition I will be drawing on for this research paper for quantitative research is
from Aliaga and Gunderson (2000, p13)
Explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using
mathematically based methods.
Quantitative research methods are normally associated with a positivist research paradigm. The
positivist paradigm is centred on using a systematic and scientific approach to research and is based
on the concept that the world is constructed around unchanging, universal laws. Hughes (2001)
explains that by investigating and understanding these objective, universal laws we can understand
the principles that have led to a specific situation or behaviour occurring. In order to truly understand
the principles that underpin quantitative research methods, we need to explore the ontology,
epistemology and methodology that define a positivist approach.
The ontology associated with quantitative research is usually labelled as objectivism. Objectivism is
characterised by the researchers belief that reality is independent of our behaviour and is not a
product of social construction (Neuman, 2003). Positivist researchers believe that reality is simply
waiting to be discovered and defined through conventional scientific methods. (Bassey, 1995).

It is

based on the assumptions that the way we categorise the social phenomena that we use to define
our existence is completely independent from the individual people that are existing within it.
Objectivists believe that there is no difference between the social world and the natural world and as
a result, everyone is prone to be affected by it. Therefore, it is important to research the nature of the
relationship amongst the principles that form the basic elements of our social and natural world. As
Matriculation number: 130021949

the principles being investigated are concrete and unchanging, numbers can be used to measure and
quantify the relationship between them with the ultimate aim of determining the most likely reality in
the most objective manner possible (David and Suton, 2004).
As stated by Johnson (1987, p. 628 cited in Davis et al.1993)
the classical objectivist view of knowledge assumes science produces successive
theories that progress ever and ever closer to the correct description of reality. And,
even though we will never achieve the final, complete account, it is believed that genuine
empirical knowledge involves universal logical structures of inferences in which results
can be tested against theory-neutral objective data.
Empiricism is epistemology derived from the ontological assumption that reality exists independently
of our knowledge or understanding of it. Empiricists believe that empirical facts exist apart from our
efforts to study them. These empirical facts can be translated into numbers which are governed by
natural laws. They also take the stance that patterns of social reality are fixed and knowledge of
them is constantly being increased linearly (Marcyzk et al., 2005). Within an empiricist epistemology,
social science is seen as a method that combines deductive logic with empirical data collection. The
resulting statistical analysis of this data is then used to confirm probabilistic causal laws are used to
predict trends in human behaviour (Neuman, 2003). Researchers that work within the positivist
paradigm are attempting to use scientific principles to develop the closest approximation of the nature
of our reality as objectively as possible (Ulin et al., 2004)
An objective and detached research methodology is normally associated with a positivist paradigm
underpinned by objectivist ontology and empirical epistemology. Causal explanations are generated
through repetitive testing of hypothesis linked to measurable variables (Sarantakos, 2005; Marczyk et
al,2005). According to Johnson and Christensen (2008), there are two distinct approaches that can
be taken within an objective research methodology.
The first approach is described as an exploratory approach and begins with a researcher searching
for a pattern within the collected data and then attempting to explain this pattern by proposing a
theory (also known as the inductive method). The second approach is more of a confirmatory
approach and is based around the principles of the scientific method. Here, the researcher is
attempting to test a hypothesis based on a theory. If the data collected supports the hypothesis then
it also supports and provides evidence for the underlying theory. The support is shown in the form of
statistical significance calculated through various tests (Mukherji and Albon, 2010). However, it is
important to note that in both approaches, the practice is very structured with all aspects of the
Matriculation number: 130021949

investigation planned in advance with little flexibility or freedom within the research framework itself.
This is a key feature of quantitative methodology. (Kumar, 2011)
The qualitative method
Qualitative research methods take a different approach to investigating the reality around us which
contrasts the quantitative methods discussed earlier. Qualitative research methods are based
around the idea that by examining the social setting and the individuals that inhabit the setting, a
researcher can better understand why people organise, relate to and interact with the world.
Qualitative research is a tool for trying to understand the hows and whys of the world without trying to
quantify them. The data collected when undertaking this type of research cannot be categorised and
attributed to a pre-existing principle that is understood to be part of the natural order of things.
Instead, the data can be used to try and derive meaning from a very specific social context. The
definition I will be using for the purposes of this research paper is from Denzin and Lincoln (2005).
Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It
consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible[..]This
means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to
make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to
them.(p3)
The research paradigm that governs qualitative research methods can be considered an interpretivist
paradigm. This seems to be an umbrella term that also has striking similarities to constructivism and
a simile for antipositivism. Interpretivism is underlined by the idea that the researcher is trying to
make meaning of the natural world through studying and explaining human behaviour and actions.
Cohen et al. (2002) advocates the use of interpretivism by using the idea that individuals are unique
and cannot therefore be generalised. Many interpretations of a single event can exist as a
consequence of analysing data collected through the perspectives of multiple participants as well as
the researcher.
Interpretivists will eschew fixed research frameworks that are typically found in positivist research in
favour of a more flexible structure. This is because the lack of rigidity in the methods of data
collection makes it easier to capture meanings found in human interactions (Black, 2006). This
ensures that the researcher is also able to assimilate new knowledge throughout the study and
develop it in tandem with the participants of the study. This approach, unlike the positivist approach,
places emphasis on the researcher being part of the research process alongside the participants and
stems from the interpretivist belief that no one can predict knowledge that is bound by the context of
social reality (Merriam, 2009).
Matriculation number: 130021949

Interpretivism is usually associated with relativist ontology. This ontological approach assumes that
people construct their own reality through the meanings and understandings developed socially and
through personal experience. As stated by Hugley and Sayward (1987);
There is no objective truth to be known.(p78)
However, this perspective proposes that multiple meanings may be derived from a single time-based
context thereby continually holding the perceived notion of reality in a state of flux throughout the
study. (Mutch, 2005). It is important to recognize that a key feature of a relativist ontological
approach is to understand the reasons why people behave a certain way within their social systems
as opposed to try and explain why they do so (Cohen et al, 2007). Interpretivism therefore is tasked
with explaining hidden social constructs by bringing them into the forefront.
By having a clearer understanding of the ontology that drives the qualitative approach, we can better
understand the epistemological view taken by researchers. Researchers adopting a qualitative
approach tend to demonstrate a transactional or subjectivist epistemology. This perspective is
underlined by the acceptance of multiple realities that are symbolically constructed and given
meaning through a relationship between the observer and the context under observation. Therefore,
a subjectivist researcher produces knowledge through observation. Consequently, the theory
generated is specific situationally and historically to the social context being investigated (Krauss,
2005). This is summarised by Charmaz (2014) as;
placing priority on the phenomena of study and seeing both data and analysis created
from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other sources (p240)
The methodology adopted for qualitative research is distinct from that that of quantitative as it is
attached to a subjectivist epistemology and interpretivist ontology. This means that the researcher
mediates the meaning of participant experiences through his own perceptions. (Merriam, 1988) As
the techniques required are defined by the inquirers and the participants, the researcher must ensure
they get as close as possible to the participants being studied. Researchers will immerse themselves
in a social grouping in order to observe the interactions as closely as possible. Researchers will
usually become part of the observations as they participate in the activities, interview members of the
group to collect life histories, use smaller scale case studies and analyse any documentation or
cultural artefacts associated with the group. They will then assimilate this information in order to
construct an understanding of their observations (Grix, 2004).
Eichelberger (1989) in Mertens (2009) describes the methodology used by a qualitative researcher
as follows:
These researchers are much clearer about the fact that they are constructing the
reality on the basis of the interpretations of data with the help of the participants who
Matriculation number: 130021949

provided the data in the study They do a great deal of observation, read documents
produced by members of the groups being studied, do extensive formal and informal
interviewing, and develop classifications and descriptions that represent the beliefs of
the various groups. (p. 9)
Advantages of the quantitative method
There are many advantages for a researcher to elect a fully quantitative approach, especially within
the sphere of education. By being deductive and particularistic, quantitative research is built around
investigating distinct variables that could potentially cause change in a situation. As this method
deals with formulating a research hypothesis and then supporting or rejecting it using a specific set of
numerical values, the method is value-free. This means that there is no opportunity for the
researcher to apply his own values, biases and subjective preferences. (Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias, 2008).
The quantitative method has many particular strengths which is why it was the mainstay of
educational research for a long time (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1996). Firstly, it is possible to collect
data that can assist in refining current theory and understanding of a question. This is because the
methods and procedures used to collect and analyse the data are not only highly controlled but also
standardised. This effect is augmented by the fact that the variables that being defined, collected
and subjected to statistical analysis are also themselves, quantifiable.
Findings from the participants in a study utilizing a wholly quantitative approach can be applied to a
wider population. This is because of the rigid control of variables required necessary for this method
(Robson, 2011). Another benefit of the quantitative approach is that it is easily replicable and
repeatable. By placing emphasis on a very strict application of the scientific method, the findings are
usually considered to be valid by the larger research community. In education, this is important as it
allows large cohort studies of pupils when possible (Mukherji and Allon, 2010).
Disadvantages of the quantitative method
However, it is important to note that educational research in general has been moving away from a
wholly quantitative approach in favour of a more qualitative or mixed methods approach. This is
reinforced by Gorar et al. (2007) in a very thorough study that highlighted the majority of research
taking place in education. The United Kingdom showed not only a decrease in quantitative studies
as a whole but also an increase in poor quality qualitative research. It is interesting to note that one
of the main concerns is a lack of higher education professionals that are well versed with the
quantitative method of research and have the ability to effectively teach it.

Matriculation number: 130021949

It is clear that disadvantages to the quantitative method of research not only exist but also remain a
continual concern for researchers. There is a concern that the information produced will only be
useful at a very superficial level due to the nature of data being collected from a highly scientific
method. A scientific, empirical approach demands that the researcher remain distanced from the
study. He cannot be subjective and instead must always strive to remain objective. However, this is
difficult when researching human behaviours in a real life context as;
one does not find out about other individuals by remaining distant
(Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. 2010, p21)
For example, if a researcher is undertaking a study looking into why children turn in homework, then
the data is limited to a set of responses that have already been determined by the researcher. It will
not take the complexity of the childs situation e.g. their home life, into account as these may not be
variables that can be quantified. If the pupils were being investigated under laboratory conditions,
this artificial setting would negate any normal behaviour as a laboratory is very different from their
naturalistic setting. Consequently, a key criticism of quantitative behaviour is that its parameters are
very narrow and the data collected will not lend itself to the researcher gaining a fuller and more
depth understanding of the issue being investigated.
As stated previously, quantitative research requires the researcher to remain objective. However,
when dealing with human behaviours in social contexts, this can become almost impossible. As
argued by interpretivists, the researchers very presence can influence and change the behaviour of
the participants which is described as the Hawthorne Effect. The Hawthorne Effect states that
individuals will modify some aspect of their behaviour if they know they are being observed
(Christensen and James, 2008). This effect is further compounded by the fact that some scientific
research entails placing the researcher in a position of dominance above the participants thereby
giving himself additional power over them. Coolican (2013) states that as a result, participant
behaviour is more likely to mirror researcher behaviour thereby influencing any data collected.
It is clear that the quantitative approach is useful due to the rigid frameworks put in place to collect
and analyse the data, which ensures the results remains objective, fair and generalizable. However,
by applying natural world research principles to the social world it is difficult for the researcher to
remain detached from the participants. The purely quantitative approach also ignores the intricate
complexities of human interactions which are essential for fully understanding behaviour.
Postpositivism
A response to these limitations of positivism that underpin quantitative research has been the rise of
post positivism. Postpositivism can be described as a form of positivism that uses a scientific method
but also recognizes the need for the researcher to interact more closely with the research participants
Matriculation number: 130021949

10

(Willis , 2007). It uses additional qualitative methods of data collection such as interviews and focus
groups in an effort to produce substantiated knowledge that can be used to support potential
correlations within predefined variables. Postpositivism is a paradigm that employs a modified
scientific method for use in social sciences, the results of which may be used to uphold natural laws.
The postpositivist paradigm has been constructed and proposed as a critical response to positivism
in an attempt to address some of the shortcomings of the latter. Postpositivism recognizes that
researchers need to carry out their research in the same world that the participants inhabit. This
approach recognises the importance of context to studying human behaviour. This paradigm also
recognizes that the researcher will ultimately influence the study therefore he should ingrain himself
into the material of the study from the beginning (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).
Another feature of research carried out within this paradigm is that scientific reasoning and common
sense are not seen to be distinctly different. They are essentially two sides of the same coin.
Postpositivism also recognizes the need for all theory to be revisable. This is due to the inherent
error caused by using humans to observe other humans when humans themselves, are complicated
and fallible (Creswell, 2013)
Advantages of the qualitative method
Qualitative research methods seem to be more popular with educational researchers (Godard et al.,
2004) due to the fact that they are more flexible and consider the human factor. This is important
when trying to determine the holistic nature of the educational phenomena under investigation.
Indeed, qualitative methods have an advantage over quantitative in this regard as it allows the
researcher to gain a more realistic worldview which cannot be adequately articulated through
numerical data and statistical analysis (Yauch and Steudal, 2003).
A qualitative researcher doesnt need a rigidly structured framework. As qualitative approaches are
usually used to investigate social interactions in an effort to describe them, the inquiry can be broad
and open-ended. This, in turn, allows the researcher more flexibility to react to issues raised by
participants and can subsequently investigate them further. Consequently, researchers can then
unpack different perspectives of a specific social context from within one diverse community. This
allows a greater yield of more subtly nuanced data than just a collection of ordinal variables due to
the descriptive nature of the data being collected. (Choy, 2014)
Disadvantages of the qualitative method
The main concern is that the data collected is not objectively quantifiable and therefore cannot be
used to address correlation and causation between different observed natural phenomena. The
Matriculation number: 130021949

11

methods of data collection and analysis associated with qualitative methods tend to be very labour
intensive and expensive as they are so time consuming. They require a high degree of competence
from the researcher in order to isolate the important information from the large volume that will be
inevitably collected (Patton, 2002).
Due to the open-ended nature of this type of research, it is easy to depart from the original objectives
of the study. The nature of the data collected will also depend greatly on the participants who may
choose not to participate fully and control what information they share. In turn, this data will be
further influenced by the researchers own particular worldview and opinions. This overall
combination of factors will result in data that lacks consistency and reliability (Mutch, 2005). It is
therefore easy for researchers to arrive at different conclusions based on individualized
interpretations of the same data. Any conclusions that are reached will be very specific to the
particular community and social context being researched. It cannot be applied as a generalization.
The abundance of qualitative research in education is tempered by the quality of the research
available. A report published by Tooley and Darby (1998) states how educational research is
cluttered with poorly executed, secondrate qualitative research. A reason for this could be because
new researchers are encouraged towards qualitative methods as they are given a false impression of
it being less rigorous than quantitative methods. It could also stem from a lack of robust teaching of
quantitative methods in higher education as mentioned before, meaning that researchers will prefer
to continue with a method they are familiar with regardless of its relevancy (Gorard et al, 2004).
Grounded theory
Grounded theory was first proposed by Glaser and Struass in 1967 (Glaser and Strauss, 2012) as a
method of generating a theory of why a particular social phenomenon occurs. What is interesting
about grounded theory is the quantitative aspects of the methods used for analysing qualitative data.
Creswell (2009) defines grounded theory as,
A qualitative strategy of inquiry in which the researcher derives a general, abstract
theory of process, action or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study.
(p13)
The process of constructing a grounded theory uses multiple stages of data collection and then
interrelating the different categories to discover patterns and trends which could then be used in
order to produce a theory (Charmaz, 2014).
Grounded theory seems to be a method for addressing some of the limitations offered by purely
qualitative methodology. The emphasis here is to compare the data collected from the social
situation under investigation and compare it with no preconceived ideas or hypotheses. Instead,
Matriculation number: 130021949

12

through constant comparison of the data being collected, a theory that is grounded in the data, so to
speak will emerge inductively (Cheesebro and Borisoff, 2007). This eliminates the issue of the
research straying from its original objectives which is an difficulty when carrying out open-ended
qualitative research. Also, by having no preconceived idea of the type of data to expect from
participants, the process of analysis is more genuine.
Grounded theory uses a very systematic approach which is more conversant with a quantitative
framework in order to make sense of the large volume of data generated from a qualitative report. It
is important to remember however, as Holton (2009) states,
This is not to suggest that classic grounded theory is free of any theoretical lens but
rather that it should not be confined to any one lens; that as a general methodology,
classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the
data and the ontological stance of the researcher(p39)
Grounded theory has progressed quickly since it was first theorized in 1967. Charmaz (2003) offered
an updated version of grounded theory as constructivist grounded theory which
takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers accessible
methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century (p. 250)
This reworked perspective takes into account some of the strengths of quantitative research
approaches and tries to imbue them into a decidedly qualitative one in an effort to improve it.
The mixed methods approach
Mixed methods research is a solution for countering the limitations of wholly quantitative or qualitative
research described in the previous section. There has a been a shift towards mixed method research
in the last in twenty five years (Bryman, 20057) in most of the social sciences although it seems that
education still needs to progress at the same rate (Gorard and Taylor, 2004). The mixed methods
approach can be defined as:
Mixed methods is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers
combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of
qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for
the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration (Johnson et al,
2007 p123)
As before, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the mixed methods approach, I will try and
determine the philosophy that underpins it. However, this is an area fraught with difficulties as the
mixed methods approach has only been seen as a third methodological alternative fairly recently
(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003, Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009) and taking into account the combined
Matriculation number: 130021949

13

nature of mixed methods, it is difficult to absolutely define the philosophical underpinnings that
support this research method.
The majority of mixed method writers have put forward the case for pragmatism as the main
philosophy to underpin this particular research approach (Rescher, 2000; Maxy, 2003; Johnson et al,
2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). A key feature of pragmatist ontology is the understanding that
the world is changed through the behaviour and actions of human beings. Therefore, to make sure
that the desired changes occur, the action must come from a place of knowledge and be guided by
purpose. For that reason, there must be an inseparable link between what a human knows and what
a human does. Cognition for conceptual development are the keys to explaining how we make
meaning in life through our actions based on the consequences of belief in a specific concept (Rallis
and Rossman, 2003).
It may be clearer if we examine the epistemology that dictates the pragmatic paradigm. The
epistemology that dictates the pragmatic paradigm puts forward the concept of knowledge as models.
These models attempt to recreate an environment or social context in order to simplify problem
solving. The assumption here is that models will always be too simplistic to capture all the
information required from the context, as there are too many variables. Therefore, it is imperative to
accept the existence of different models for the same question (even though they may seem
contradictory) as long as they are capable of producing correct predictions when tested (Feilzer,
2010).
We can therefore distinguish pragmatism from quantitative approaches based on positivism or post
positivism or qualitative approaches based on interpretivism as the assumptions required for the
knowledge and understanding are significantly different (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Maxcy,
2003. This is because pragmatism, if we regard it as a third alternative paradigm, philosophically
accepts that both singular and multiple realities are open to empirical enquiry which side-lines any
contentious issues that a researcher might hold against the nature of truth or reality (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007).
The most enduring feature of pragmatism is that it completely rejects the realism/anti-realism debates
that fuelled the paradigm wars of the 1980s between positivists and interpretivists. Pragmatists
accept the notion of reality but believe it is constantly evolving as a result of our actions. A pragmatic
approach is more concerned with ensuring that the best combination of approaches is used to tackle
the research question being posed thereby giving the researcher freedom to use any procedures or
techniques typically associated with a certain type of research method.
Matriculation number: 130021949

14

A bonus of this approach is that one can select the model that has greatest success of solving a
particular problem given the social and environmental contexts at that moment. A shortcoming of this
epistemological view is that no clear explanation for the existence of the models and the knowledge
associated with them is provided. It is usually assumed that the models are built from a mixture of
empirical data and previously proposed models with a certain amount of intuition also playing a part.
The model is continuously tested using trial and error to ensure that it provides realistic predictions
(Feilzer, 2010).
The methodology associated with pragmatism poses some issues for researchers. This is due to the
nature of the phenomena being multi-layered which makes it difficult to ascertain the best tools and
techniques for measuring them. It is clear that many researchers struggle with truly integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to view a phenomenon from different perspectives.
(Creswell and Tashakkori, 2007). The key criticism that is given to mixed methods research
methodology is that any data collected is done so side by side with the analysis taking place
separately which defeats the purpose of integrating the two approaches (Bryman, 2007).
Both qualitative and quantitative methods have a place within the pragmatic paradigm. The methods
utilised should be decided solely on the basis of the research that is required as opposed to the
researchers personal preferences (Patton, 2002). Morgan (2007) describes how the research
question itself is not necessarily the most important part of the methodology. Therefore, the methods
chosen as part of the methodology are not automatically correct. Rather, it is a choice based on the
context of the research taking place with the flexibility for chance as required.
A common method of integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods is to use triangulation.
Triangulation is one of the rationales for a mixed methods approach and comprises of using several
methods to approach investigation of a specific research question (Creswell, 2003). The definition of
triangulation could be the act of combining two or more appropriate research perspectives with their
associated methods in order to gain breadth and depth of understanding of the research phenomena
(Flick, 2002). The concept behind triangulation is that by approaching the question from several
directions, a researcher can enhance the confidence in his findings as he removes the limitations
associated with using only one method (Bryman, 2004).

Advantages of the mixed methods approach

One of the major benefits of the mixed methods approach is that it is able to offset the limitations of
both the quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative research does not demand the
Matriculation number: 130021949

15

inclusion of participant or researcher voice. Therefore the context of the research is usually
overlooked when collecting data. Furthermore, as the researcher is not an active part of the data
collection, their own personal opinions and biases can affect not only the data collection but the
analysis as well. On the other hand, qualitative research makes up for these weaknesses but
alternatively, carries its own inherent limitations.
Qualitative approaches based solely on the personal interpretations of the researcher ensures that
any data will be fundamentally biased. Unlike quantitative approaches, which usually involve large
samples of the population, qualitative research always has a limited number of participants being
studied. This means that qualitative findings will always be time and context specific and cannot be
applied to a wider community or generalised (Onwuegbuzie et al, 2009). Bearing these factors in
mind, it is easy to see the relative merits of a mixed methods approach which doubles the
advantages for the researcher whilst simultaneously dividing the limitations through triangulation of
approaches.
Using mixed methods, numerical data can be augmented with words, pictures and numbers (and vice
versa). The researcher is able to answer a wider and more complex range of research questions
because he isnt limited to one approach. Additionally, a researcher can provide stronger and more
enhanced evidence for a conclusion through using triangulation to strengthen the corroborations of
his findings. Mixed methods encourages researchers to collaborate across the schisms that exist
within the worlds of quantitative and qualitative research thereby opening up approaches to
collaboration and enquiry. Finally, mixed methods research encourages the application of a
pragmatic paradigm or a combination of positivist and interpretivist paradigms thereby removing any
typified associations with one type of worldview (Creswell, 2007).
Disadvantages of the mixed methods approach
There are multiple reasons why mixed methods research isnt as common as it could be, especially in
the sphere of educational research. The majority of educational research seems to be qualitative. In
fact, a study of the submissions of one educational journal showed that the qualitative pieces were at
a ratio of two to one when compared with the number of quantitative studies that had been submitted
for publication (Taylor, 2001). The main issue seems to be that in order to use this method
successfully, a researcher has to be highly skilled in both quantitative and qualitative methods.
However, studies seem to show that there is a large imbalance within the new researchers entering
the field with the Commission on the Social Sciences (2003) describing,
a deeply worrying lack of quantitative skills (p. 8)

Matriculation number: 130021949

16

Another important limitation of the mixed methods approach to take into consideration is the lack of
consistency defining the paradigms with the related epistemology and methodology within the
research community. Although most researchers are happy to adopt some of the pragmatic
paradigm, there still isnt consensus on the specific epistemology or methodology that underpins this
particular approach. This also means that some of the practical details still need to be worked out by
the methodologists specialising in this area For example, how can quantitative data be qualitatively
analysed? What measures should be taken to avoid conflicting results? How to integrate the
qualitative and quantitative stages of the process effectively?
Another concern is, as of yet, there are no standards for ensuring reliability and validity of the mixed
methods used and the data collected and analysed by this approach although some researchers are
making progress in this area (Burke et al, 2007).
Conclusion
To conclude this research paper, I will try and summarise which of the methods detailed by this
research paper would be the most effective within the sphere of educational research. It is clear that
both quantitative and qualitative research methods, despite their limitations, have their place in the
researchers toolbox. However, it is also clear that an approach that completely attributes its
ontology, epistemology and methodology to one method has clear shortcomings.
Even though it is not yet the au fait methodology within educational research, the literature leads me
to believe that the mixed methods approach has a lot to offer in terms of progression within the field.
Odom et al. (2005) state that;
Educational researchers have acknowledged the value of mixing methodologies to
provide a complementary set of information that would more effectively (than a single
method) inform practice (p146)
The benefits of being able to access a wide variety of approaches seems to suggest that researchers
would not be constrained by historical convention and instead could investigate issues with education
in both depth and breadth. Quantitative methodology is useful for determining particular phenomena
through the use of numerical data. Qualitative approaches would go some way to try and explain
situations or contexts within education that cannot be explained by collecting numerical data. In each
case, it is important to accept that educational researchers need to overcome the idea that each
individual must be associated with a specific style off research and rather pick the most effective tools
for the task. However, it is also worth noting that by following a mixed methods approach,
researchers need to multidisciplined or there will a risk of poor quality research being produced.

Matriculation number: 130021949

17

References
Aliaga, M., and Gunderson, B. (2000). Interactive Statistics. Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall:
Bassey, M. (1995) Creating Education through Research: A Global Perspective of Educational

Research in the 21st Century. BERA England: Moor Press.

Black, I. (2006). The presentation of interpretivist research. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal. 9(4): 319324.

Bryman, A (2004) Social Research Methods. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 8-22

CA: Jossey-Bass.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed). London: Sage Publications
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K.Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249-291). London: Sage
Publications

Chesebro, J.W. and Borisoff, D.J. (2007) What makes qualitative research qualitative?
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication. 8(1): 314

Choy, L.T., (2014) The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: comparison and
complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Organisation of
Scientific Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 19(4):3 99-104

Christensen, P. and James, A. (2008) Research with children: Perspectives and Practices (2 nd
ed.). Abingdon: Routledge

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. (5th ed). Oxford:
Routledge

Commission on the Social Sciences (2003) Great Expectations: The Social Sciences in
Britain. London: Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences.

Coolican, T. (2013) Research Methods and Statistics in Pyschology (5th ed.). Abingdon:
Routledge

Creswell, J. (2009). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method
Approaches. London: Sage Publications

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among the five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Matriculation number: 130021949

18

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage Publications.

David, M. and Sutton, C. D. (2004) Social Research: The Basics. London: Sage Publications
Davis, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K. L. and Sidani-Tabbaa, A. (1993) Transitions from
Objectivism to Constructivism in Science Education. International Journal Science Education.

15(6): 627636.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed method research pragmatically: implications for the
rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
4(6): 6-16

Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (2008) Research methods in the Social Sciences

(7th ed.). New York: Worth Press

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss A.L. (2012) The discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for
qualitative research (7th ed.). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction

Goodwin, L. D and Goodwin, W.L. (1996) Understanding Quantitative and Qualitative

Research in Early Childhood Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining methods in educational and social research.
Berkshire: Open University Press

Gorard, S., Rushforth, K. and Taylor, C. (2004). Is there a shortage of quantitative work in
education research? Oxford Review of Education. 30:3 371-395

Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. London: Palgrave Macmillan

Holton, J.A. (2009) Qualitative tussles in undertaking a grounded theory study. The Grounded
Theory Review. 8(3): 37-49

Hughes, P. (2001) Doing early childhood research: international perspectives on theory and

practice. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin

Hugly, P. and Sayward, C. (1987) Relativism and ontology. The Philosophical Quarterly.

37(148): 278-290
Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 33(7): 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,

and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 112133

Matriculation number: 130021949

19

Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative
Report. 10(4): 758-770. Retrieved 2nd January, 2015 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-

4/krauss.pdf
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods, and

methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 2(16): 93-205

Marczyk, G. , DeMatteo, D. and Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and
Methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The
search for search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed-methods

in social and behavioral research (pp. 51-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Merriam, S. (1988). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Mertens, D. (2009). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating

Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. (4 th ed). London: Sage
Publications

Mertens, D.M. and Hesse-Biber, S. (2012) Triangulation and mixed methods research:
Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2): 75-79

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications

of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1):
48-76.

Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. (2010). Research methods in early childhood: an introductory

guide. London: Sage Publications

Mutch, C. (2005) Doing Educational Research: A Practitioners Guide to Getting Started.

Wellington: NZCER Press.

Neuman, L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (5th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005).
Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional
Children 71:137-148

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., and Collins, K. M. T. (2009). A call for mixed analysis: A
philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative. International Journal of
Multiple Research Approaches 3: 114-139.

Matriculation number: 130021949

20

Patton, M.Q., (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2 nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing

Rallis, S. F. and Rossman, G. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: a pragmatic

framework. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications

Rescher, N. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Robson C. (2011). Real world research. (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Tashakkori, A., and Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in

mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3): 207-211

Taylor, E. (2001) From 1989 to 1999: a content analysis of all submissions. Adult Education
Quarterly. 51(4): 32240.

Teddlie, C. and A. Tashakkori (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Teddlie, C. and A. Tashakkori. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Tashakkori, A., & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Tooley, J and Darby, D. (1998) Educational research: a critique : A survey of published

educational research reports. Paper presented to OFSTED, Newcastle: University of
Newcastle

Ulin, P. R., Robinson, E. T. and Tolley E. E. (2004). Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A

Field Guide for Applied Research. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wellington, J. (2000) Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches .
London: Continuum

Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Yauch, C. A. and Steudel, H. J. (2003) Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative

Cultural Assessment Methods. Organizational Research Methods. 6:4 465-481.

Matriculation number: 130021949

21

Matriculation number: 130021949

22