Caracterización morfológica de la capa búfer de YSZ sobre los diferentes sustratos

Whilst ‘Objective reality can never be captured, we only know a thing through its representations’ (Denzin, 2012, p.82). The objective reality in the messy social and educational world is even more complicated to obtain due to its complexity, connectedness and contradictions (Cohen et al., 2011). It is multi-layered, constructed and holistic. For social research, one needs to examine the objective reality and situations as a whole rather than in fragments in order to reach a true understanding. Quantitative research often sets out to establish strength relationships or causal relationships among general variables and emphasize that neutral researchers generate reliable and valid data by using rigorous methods during research (Ellingson, 2011; Denzin, 2012). Quantitative methods help researchers understand a situation in general and help them discover trends, but they are unlikely to allow researchers to understand a phenomenon or a behavior in-depth, or to allow researchers to explore the reason behind a phenomenon or behavior (Esther, 2014). Qualitative research, on

the other hand, can be more interpretative and exploratory, eliciting more openly subjective and humanistic knowledge via the use of social tools such as photos, stories, videos and texts, emphasizing the examination of complex relationships among factors to understand truth (Ellingson, 2011; Denzin, 2012; Duff, 2007b; Esther, 2014). The combination of multiple methodological practice in a single research is regarded as a strategy to better understand the phenomenon and inquiry from a variety of perspectives (Denscombe, 2014; Denzin, 2012). Mixed-methods reflects an attempt to gain an entire and in-depth understanding of the phenomenon relating to a series of research questions.

However, there is considerable debate and criticism aimed at mixed-methods from different perspectives. Creswell (2011) classified these debate and criticism into following categories: (a) disagreements regarding definitions, (b) the kind of study that can be identified as adopting mixed methods, (c) the extent to which they are incommensurable and incompatible differences between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, and (d) the value mixed methods can add to the research. Others have argued that since quantitative and qualitative methods depend on different paradigms- each of which has a complex disciplinary history and might be appropriate for different epistemological assumptions, it may not be easy - or perhaps impossible – to combine these paradigms within a study in terms of ‘incompatibility’ and ‘incommensurability’ issues (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003, pp.14-15). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) argued that mixed methods may confuse and blur the boundaries between quantitative and qualitative methods from a methodological perspective. Others state that the design of mixed-methods financially cost more than adopting a single qualitative or quantitative method and concerned about the analysis strategies on both qualitative and quantitative data (Maxcy, 2003).

To these criticisms and debates discussed above, others have provided possible responses to the question of compatibility and commensurability. With regards to the former, proponents of the mixed methods approach assert that there is no conflict between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, and no incompatibility between them at both the practical and epistemological levels, and combining these two methods is a valid approach (Denzin, 2012). Combining these two approaches contributes to the accuracy of the research findings in a way that provides an opportunity for the researcher to compare, build and develop findings - from different methods of data collection in answering the same question (Denscombe, 2014). Whilst support for the mixed methods approach is mixed, the general consensus is that it adds breadth complexity and richness to any inquiry (Flick, 2007; Denzin, 2012; Denscombe, 2014).

According to Cohen et al. (2011) there is no single methodological blueprint for any given research enquiry because there is no single picture of the world, and there are many ways of investigating any question. However, the adopted methods should fit the purpose of the research and the kinds of research question to be answered. As Denscombe (2014) states a particular method is never good or bad intrinsically; it can only be viewed as useful or not to the specific issue that is being investigated. Research has demonstrated the appropriateness of using mixed methods to study a cultural context of complex scope and multi ethnic groups. A mixed methods approach was chosen for the present study with the intention of facilitating the capture of a broader perspective in order to provide a more grounded understanding. The purpose of the present research was to develop insights into the cultural and educational phenomena under investigation, explore the problems, and seek possible ways to improve the current practice. Thus, mixed methods was considered to be appropriate for this study, as it is one of the research methodologies used by researchers to study similar cultural and social contexts in education settings. (Meng and Ao, 2012; Yin, 2009; Li, 2012; Esther, 2014; Long and Duo, 2014). The study is intended to gain an in-depth, detailed understanding of the status quo including both quantifiable and naturalistic situations, intentions, attitudes and behaviors. It also attempts to provide a voice to the people (students, teachers etc.) who are involved in the trilingual teacher training programs and probes issues that lie beneath the surface of social and cultural actions and behaviors, all of which are well served by this approach to research.