Algunas notas sobre la democracia deliberativa

Some researchers take the view that methodological choices are not only based on the research questions, but are also influenced by the philosophical assumptions that researchers bring to their work (e.g. Crotty, 1998; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997). Different philosophical positions reflect different world views and different ways of how knowledge is created to understand the world, which will lead to different research designs and methods employed to collect and analyse information. Hence, these authors claim that researchers should be aware of the assumptions they hold prior to conducting their research (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Clark, 2011).

4.1 Ontological and Epistemological Positions

Ontology is concerned with ‘what is’ questions: what is believed to constitute reality or what is the nature of the world to be investigated (Blaikie, 2000; Crotty, 1998; Grix, 2001; Hay, 2002). In the social sciences, ontology is mainly concerned with whether the social world is independent of the individuals involved in it (Grix, 2001). Researchers hold different views on this question. A major ontological position is objectivism, which asserts the existence of facts or truths that are independent from individuals’ acknowledgements (Bryman, 2016). Hence, objectivists believe that the researcher’s job is to discover the truth. Constructivism, as an alternative ontological position, however, asserts that the social world is constructed by individuals’ social interactions and their subjective perceptions of them. This includes researchers who also bring their own meanings and understandings to their work (Matthews & Ross, 2010; Mertens, 2010). These two ontological positions reflect different views on what we can know or what exists in the social world, whilst epistemological positions are concerned with the ways we gain knowledge about the social world (Grix, 2001; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997). Epistemology refers to a justification of what can be regarded as knowledge and how we acquire it (Matthews & Ross, 2010). In the social sciences, the major epistemological issue concerns whether the social world can (and should) be studied using the same principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences (Bryman, 2016). Positivism is an epistemological position that develops from the objectivist ontological position, advocating that the approaches of the natural sciences can (and should) be adopted to study social phenomena. Research in a positivist tradition often tends to employ

quantitative methods for data collection. Although, it must be said that the use of either qualitative or quantitative information in research is not a useful differentiator for the underpinning epistemology (for instance, qualitative, e.g. interview-based data are also used in experiments, which arguably represent a research design following a positivist tradition). However, interpretivism (or constructivism) opposes the application of the approaches of the natural sciences to the social sciences because social phenomena are different from the objects of the natural sciences and may not be observable (Bryman, 2016; Grix, 2001; Matthews & Ross, 2010). Interpretivism prioritises individuals’ subjective interpretations and understandings of social phenomena, which is often associated with the use of qualitative information as data in respective research (Creswell & Clark, 2011).

4.2 Question-Led Research

However, some authors challenge the necessity of identifying ontological and epistemological positions before conducting research, arguing that decisions about research designs and methods of data collection and analysis are primarily of a technical than a philosophical nature (e.g. Bryman, 1988; Robson, 2011; Gorard & Taylor, 2004; White, 2017). They believe that research questions should always be the starting point and different questions require different approaches (i.e. research designs). As particular research designs can only answer certain types of questions, positioning oneself as either an ‘objective observer’ or a ‘subjective interpreter’ may restrict the kinds of questions one can answer or lead to an unsuitable approach to answer the questions one attempts to answer. Hence, it is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive to identify oneself with a particular philosophical position before starting research (White, 2017). In short, ruling out certain forms of research designs (or data collection methods) based on one’s ontological and epistemological position could render it impossible to answer (research)

questions that one has. Therefore, researchers are advised to think in a more pragmatic2

way rather than sticking to positivist or interpretivist epistemology (Denscombe, 2017). As criticised by White (2017), the positivism versus interpretivism division “is far from watertight” and “provides an over-simplified model” (p. 8). There are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ approaches, but approaches that are more or less suitable or appropriate for achieving

2 _{This refers to pragmatism in the philosophical tradition of William James and John Dewey (e.g. Dewey, 1957;}

particular research purposes (Denscombe, 2017). Decisions regarding research design, methods of data collection, and analysis should be determined by research questions, i.e. these decisions should be ‘question-led’ rather than ‘methods-led’ (White, 2017). When designing research, researchers need to bear their research questions in mind, and think about what type of evidence is needed to answer these questions (de Vaus, 2001). Pragmatists make use of all possible approaches they deem appropriate to answer their research questions (Creswell, 2014; Mertens, 2010). That is, for a better understanding of research problems, quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection may be combined to capitalise on the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses of either approach (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Authors such as Denscombe (2008), Gorard and Taylor (2004), and Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest moving beyond the quantitative versus qualitative research argument as both are important methods that can be combined to provide a more complete picture. However, this is not to diminish the value of ‘mono-method’ research nor to claim that every piece of research should combine quantitative and qualitative data. A justification is needed when choosing a particular methodological approach or when combining different approaches and the justification needs to be based on the kind of research questions posed (Creswell & Clark, 2011).

4.3 Types of Research Questions

Different types of research questions call for different research designs and subsequently different data collection methods, as different types of data are required to answer the questions. According to de Vaus (2001), research questions can be categorised into two fundamental types: descriptive and explanatory. Descriptive questions are concerned with ‘what is going on?’, while explanatory questions are concerned with ‘how or why is it going on?’. Answers to the latter kind of questions often involve causal explanations (Gorard & Taylor, 2004; de Vaus, 2001; White, 2017). De Vaus (2001) notes that explanatory questions build on good descriptions. In other words, research needs to aim for a proper description first to describe what is happening before venturing into attempts to explain how or why this is happening (de Vaus, 2001).

Research reported in this thesis focuses on variability in both trait and state WTC and its relationships with learning situations and language learning performance. Such research focus calls for a longitudinal design with high-density repeated measurements. Data collected across different occasions will be used to describe (and potentially explain)

fluctuations in WTC and to identify patterns of such fluctuations. By not being able to employ an experimental design, this research can only reveal co-variation rather than inferring causation. Hence, answers to explanatory questions provided by this research may be tentative. For the three research questions, the first is a descriptive question, aiming at identifying to what extent WTC varies. The other two questions are more explanatory, as they mainly aim at explaining why WTC might vary and whether WTC is a predictor of language learning performance. However, prior to this, it needs to be established whether WTC does vary and whether this variation is associated with variations in learning situations and performance. Therefore, two studies were carried out using different methods to answer the research questions step by step. In terms of data collection methods, study 1 used questionnaires to collect information to describe variations in WTC and determine the existence of relationships between WTC and related variables, followed by study 2, using semi-structured interviews to acquire rich and detailed descriptions from the participants, which form the basis for proposed explanations for how learning situations may influence a student’s WTC and how a student’s WTC may affect their language learning performance from their points of view.

4.4 Summary

This chapter has located the research within a philosophical position. The research is ‘question-led’, i.e. all methodological choices were determined by the research questions raised in section 2.7. As both descriptive and explanatory questions were asked, two studies were carried out using different methods to answer the research questions step by step. Details about the research design and methods of data collection and analysis will be presented in chapter 6 and 7.