Aislamiento y manipulación de proteínas

developed philosophical position to support a mixed methods approach, arguing that pragmatism on the lines of classical pragmatism as advocated by John Dewey for example, can provide a way to consider the competing claims of the traditional paradigms (Howe 1988, Cherryholmes 1992, Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, Johnson et al 2007, Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009, Feilzer 2010, Creswell & Plano Clark 2011). According to this view what should be focused upon are the empirical and practical consequences of ideas in order to better understand phenomena and determine future action, rather than choosing methods of investigation made in response to paradigm constraints (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, Feilzer 2010). As a result pragmatism is considered ‘a deconstructive paradigm that debunks concepts such as truth and reality

and focuses instead on what works as the truth regarding the research questions under investigation’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009,p8). Pluralistic in approach, instead of truth

as objective (quantitative) or the relative truth of multiple realities (qualitative), pragmatists undertake both objective and subjective inquiry in an attempt to find a truth that best represents reality and has a degree of utility (Howe 1988, Feilzer 2010). Pragmatic research, supported by notions of complementarity of paradigms (the compatibility thesis), is driven by the anticipated consequences of choices made about what to research and how (Cherryholmes 1992, Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009, Creswell & Plano Clark 2011); with regard given to the ‘reality of and influence of the

inner world of human experience in action’ and knowledge considered ‘as being both constructed and based on the reality of the world we experience and live in’ (Johnson

& Onwuegbuzie 2004, p18). Suggested weaknesses of pragmatism focus on notions of utility, how this should be defined and for whom, together with how well pragmatic theories of truth can handle cases of ‘useful but non-true’ beliefs or ‘non-useful but

true’ beliefs (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004, Feilzer 2010).

This was the final piece of the methodological jigsaw that I was searching for to support the study. If I undertook a mixed methods study, guided by the paradigm of Pragmatism espoused by mixed methodologists, where qualitative (QUAL) and

quantitative (QUAN) methods are considered compatible (the compatibility thesis), and where QUAL and QUAN methods are combined in a way that may promote

90

through findings from another method’ (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009, p161), this could

provide the means and subsequent data sets to explore the link between the ‘what’ and ‘how’ elements of the PRQ. Indeed, with the way I had examined the research literature with a view to determining my approach for investigating mentor decision making , that is to say a ‘what works’ stance, and the nature of the PRQ driving the study, I had already unconsciously been working within such a pragmatic focus (Cherryholmes 1992, Brannen 2005). Returning to the research questions and

understanding gained from previous studies regarding possible approaches, I remained convinced that the main thrust of the study should be qualitative, with quantitative methods used to complement and enhance insights obtained. This would label my study as a QUALITATIVE DOMINANT piece of mixed methods research, as defined by Johnson et al (2007). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) represent the predominant focus of a study as located on a QUAL-MM-QUAN exploratory-confirmatory continuum; as a QUALITATIVE DOMINANT mixed methods study this would place it in Zone B of the continuum as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: The QUAL-MM-QUAN Continuum. (taken from Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009, Figure 2.3, p28)

91

3.3 The Study Design

Choice of methodology and research design should be led by the research question, particularly when designing a MMR study (Gelling 2014, Larkin et al 2014). The research question should be formulated with respect to identified study objectives, which are the result of intuitions based on experience, reactions to practical problems, and results from previous research. Framing of the research question may then involve an overarching mixed research question driving the study, which is broken down into sub-questions addressing the QUAL and QUAN dimensions of the study (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009). As has been shown, experience, practical concerns, personal interest and gaps in existing knowledge underpinned the development of the study. The emerging aims and questions which the study design then needed to address, along with the contribution and priority of each dimension are summarised in Table 6. The dominant dimension of research for each SRQ is designated with uppercase letters, with the less dominant conveyed in lowercase (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009).

Study aim

The aim of the study is to investigate documented decisions and the practices of mentors forming judgements and reaching decisions concerning students’ competence in practice.

Principal research question (PRQ)

What factors underpin mentor judgements of student nurse competence in practice and how do mentors reach a decision as to whether to pass or fail a student in practice?

Supplementary Research Questions (SRQs)

1. What evidence do mentors gather and use to inform their judgements about a student nurse’s practice? (QUAL /quan)

2. What effect do assessment strategies including documentation, have on mentor judgements and decisions about a student’s practice? (QUAL / quan)

3. How do mentors make judgements and reach a decision to pass or fail a student in practice? (QUAL / quan)

Table 6: Summary of study aim, principal and supplementary research questions

92