LOS ANIMALES INVERTEBRADOS

Pragmatism is a working point of view or a perspective that reality exists in external world as well as in the mind (Creswell 2007, Badley 2003).

83 Pragmatism maintains that truth can be discovered through interpretations and meanings individuals give to their contexts (idiographic). Individuals construct realities. Data on interpretations and meanings individuals give to their contexts is collected through the qualitative method. Pragmatism also upholds that truth can be discovered “independently of culture and the social context” of individual and that such knowledge can be value-free (nomothetic). Data on such value-free study is collected through the quantitative method.

Figure 2: Pragmatic approach

Pragmatic paradigm is philosophically and methodologically the middle position between idiographic (constructivism) and nomothetic (positivism) research paradigms (Figure 2 above). Thus, it adapts the tenets of both but not confined to any of the paradigms as shown below. Pragmatic paradigm maintains that researchers could understand the phenomenon of study better by using both objectivist and subjectivist methods. Idiographic research aims

84 to explore the ‘uniqueness’ of the case. It is often used in studying only one or a few cases and the researcher aims for depth of study (Hayes 2000). My study adopted the idiographic approach but is not limited by it. My

respondents have their own subjective points of view (Rocco et al, 2003) on examination and student voice because reality is ‘consciously and actively created’ (Hayes 2000).

Students may experience malpractice in similar ways but not necessarily have the same experience (Bassey 1999). These respondents interpret and try to make sense of their experiences. The study of these experiences must include the views, meanings and interpretations of these respondents in their natural setting (Mason 2002, Cohen et al, 2000, Hayes 2000, Hitchcock et al, 1989, Lincoln et al, 1985).

My respondents have feelings and a consciousness of their experiences of examination malpractice and student voice. Often they reflect on situations in school and act on their reflection (Hitchcock et al, 1989). Students and

teachers develop subjective definitions on examination malpractice and student voice from their experiences in their schools. They develop subjective meanings on their experiences through their interaction with others and

through the norms operating in their schools (Creswell 2007, Lincoln et al, 2000). From interactions between the students and their teachers and between students and their environment, students and teachers have

developed some experiences, some realities (truths) they can share with me. Thus, I can discover some truths about examination malpractice and student voice from the students and teachers by studying their perspectives (Creswell 2007).

85 My purpose is therefore, to grasp the views of these respondents on

examination malpractice and student voice in their situations (Creswell 2007) through mixed methods (Johnson et al, 2004). I am determined to discover objective views of my respondents on examination malpractice and student voice by standing apart from them while using a questionnaire and also discover their subjective views by interacting with them through interviews (Tashakkori et al, 1998).

Idiographic researchers do not doubt the possibility of identifying ‘general principles’ but they maintain that such principles are arrived at through understanding one or a few cases that will lead to general understanding of similar cases (Hayes 2000). Idiographic researchers argue inductively by first collecting data through methods like interviews, observations and documents and engage in interpreting the data. I am not limited by the

idiographic/interpretative view that only qualitative and inductive logic must be used to discover truth because I aim to see how some aspects of my study can be situated in previous studies through use of the quantitative method (nomothetic paradigm).

Nomothetic research is aimed at identifying ‘general laws’ about the case in order to predict future behaviour. What counts as knowledge is what can be observed and measured. It is statistical in its approach and studies group differences rather than individual characteristics, distinctiveness and uniqueness. The research often tends towards a cause-and-effect (Hayes 2000). I share in the nomothetic view that external reality exists but I am not confined to the belief that there is only one reality and that this reality must be objective. To make sense of this truth, only quantitative methods and

86 deductive logic can be used (Surridge 2007). The researcher must be

emotionally ‘detached and uninvolved’ with the phenomenon and this knowledge should be value-free (Johnson et al, 2004, Hayes 2000).

Pragmatism advocates for the practical value of research. Pragmatism sees the outcome of research as possibilities for action (Badley 2003). A pragmatic researcher adopts any research design that works to achieve the practical value of research (Creswell 2007, Tashakkori et al, 1998). I see my study as a work that will improve the process of preventing examination malpractice in Nigeria. I have also adopted the pragmatic paradigm because it will answer my research question, and it is in line with the focus and purpose of this research. This belief not only influences how I conduct the research but also how I interpret the research (Tashakkori et al, 1998). My conviction of the need to adopt a pragmatic paradigm means that I am free to use any

methodological approach to answer the research question (Tashakkori et al, 1998). My approach to this study is one that is of interest and value to me, to study in ways that can help me to achieve the research purpose and use the outcome of this study to bring some positive consequences by preventing examination malpractice in secondary schools (Tashakkori et al, 1998). Arguably, a pragmatic paradigm is fit for this study because it offers me the opportunity to use some aspects of idiographic and nomothetic paradigms in the study whilst minimizing the weaknesses of both (Johnson et al, 2004). By using pragmatic approach in this study, I aim to provide multiple perspectives on preventing examination malpractice through student voice by collecting quantitative and qualitative data. Research aligns the pragmatic paradigm with mixed methods (Creswell et al, 2007, Creswell 2007, Johnson et al,

87 2007a, 2004, Tashakkori et al, 1998). Thus, I adopted qualitative and

quantitative (mixed methods) methods in collecting and analyzing data in order to answer the research question (Armitage 2007, Tashakkori et al, 1998).