The choice of methodology assumes underlying theoretical beliefs about the nature of knowledge. The selection of a position with a research paradigm is a complex matter, shaped by the researcher‟s own belief systems and life experience (Morgan, 2007). “Research is engendered; it is already „lived‟ by those faced with the task of learning its rituals, its language. It is also enculturated” (Giddings, 2006, p. 200).
Some difficulty arises when using the term „paradigm‟ to identify an underlying theoretical perspective because this term has been used in a number of different ways to describe these beliefs and their impact for researchers. For example, Walliman (2006) identifies two main paradigms, positivism and interpretivism. Positivists take the view that there is one real world and its tenets are contained in the tradition of scientific method. Interpretivists take the view that our world is experienced for each of us through our perceptions that, in turn, are influenced by preconceptions and beliefs. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) have a broader view and place the positivist and postpositivist paradigms as interpretive by stating that “all research is interpretive: it is guided by the researcher‟s set of beliefs and feelings
about the world and how it should be understood and studied” (p. 31). On the other hand, Creswell (2003) identifies four alternative positions with associated assumptions that underpin knowledge claims in social sciences. These are postpositivism, advocacy/participatory, constructivism, and pragmatism.
This proliferation of taxonomies may have come from different meanings associated with the term paradigm. Morgan (2007) argues that there are four different definitions of paradigm. These range from “paradigms as world views … [to] paradigms as model examples” (Morgan, 2007, p. 51). Morgan asserts that his second version of paradigm as an epistemological stance is currently the most favoured version. In contrast, a paradigm based in a pragmatic approach aims to identify which questions are worth asking in research and which methods are appropriate to use. This approach places methodology at the centre of the approach, as opposed to definitions of paradigm that place ontology, the nature of reality, as central. It allows for methods that produce seemingly incommensurate kinds of knowledge to be used. It uses intersubjectivity, relationships among knowledge sources, to strengthen claims for the transferability of findings. Although pragmatists recognise that research happens within social, historical and political contexts, they are willing to accept “truth as it works at the time” (Creswell, 2003, p. 12).
Mixed methods research is defined as “research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a programme of inquiry” (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p.4). The combining of methods within a single study has created controversy since it involves resolving tensions that arise from different world views (Barbour, 2008; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Lodico, Spaulding & Voegtle, 2006; Mertens, 2005). Continued debate is necessary to critically examine the underpinnings of mixed methods research so that emerging forms of qualitative research are not marginalised (Giddings, 2006).
Rather than focus on the incompatibility of paradigms, Johnson et al. (2007) argue that mixed methods research is located in a new world view. This pragmatic view of knowledge claims allows for the combination of qualitative and quantitative research. What works in terms of effective research is valued. The mixed method approach enables a researcher to focus on seeking solutions to problems and the use of pluralistic approaches to source knowledge that will assist in informing possible solutions to a problem (Creswell, 2003).
Two methods are used in this study. One draws on postpositivism through the use of questionnaires based on validated instruments and statistical procedures. This reflects the view that there are laws and theories that govern the world and that scientific method can investigate these but researchers can only reject hypotheses rather than prove them. Causes and effects can be associated with each other but not proved. Through the use of self-reported data in the questionnaires, the participants revealed their reality as they had constructed it. I did not make observations of behaviours or even objective measurements of achievement. Self- reported data from the questionnaire was combined with interviews using a constructivist version of grounded theory based on Chamaz (2006). Underlying constructivism is the assumption that individuals seek to develop an understanding of the world through constructing subjective meanings of a situation. Constructivism is defined as:
A social scientific perspective that addresses how realities are made. This perspective assumes that people, including researchers, construct the realities in which they participate. Constructivism inquiry starts with experience and asks how members construct it. To the best of their ability, constructivists enter the phenomenon, gain multiple views of it, and locate it in the web of connections and constraints. Constructivists acknowledge that their interpretation of the studied phenomenon is itself a construction. (Chamaz, 2006, p. 187)
Hence, the nature of reality or ontology is relativist, assuming multiple realities, and a subjectivist epistemology with understandings being co-created between the researcher and the participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003).
One view of a mixed method design is that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not polar. Instead, they rest on a continuum (Bazeley, 2009). A constructivist view accommodates both qualitative and quantitative methods if it is appropriate, although qualitative methods are preferred (Mertens, 2005). Qualitative methods require rich data to be gathered and presented. This enables researchers with a constructivist perspective to consider the interconnected nature of the data and its context and to explicitly examine their role in the interpretation of it. This mixed methods study is placed closer to the qualitative end of the continuum than the quantitative end and is influenced by constructivism. The position of my study is discussed further in this chapter when a rationale and type of a mixed methods study are provided.
No research can be independent of the values of the researcher. It is a product of the researcher‟s values (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Mertens, 2005). Behind all phases of research is the “biographically situated researcher” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p.
30). Because researchers bring their own values and perspectives to research, these should make these explicit (Mertens, 2005). I will examine my own values in this study by looking at my position as a researcher.
My position as a researcher
Reflexivity enables me to engage with my research in a way that assists in guarding against unwarranted assumptions coming from my own background (Barbour, 2008). Hesse-Biber (2007) argues that reflexivity is an essential process during all parts of the research. It involves examining one‟s own biography and its impact on the research process. Any biography is set within the social, economic and political context which contribute to the values and motives that a researcher brings to the process. Reflexivity is:
The researcher‟s scrutiny of his or her research experience, decisions, interpretations in ways that bring the researcher into the process and allow readers to access how and to what extent his or her interests, positions, and assumptions influence the research. (Chamaz, 2007, p. 609)
Cultural diversity has primary importance in this study (O‟Neil, Green, Creswell, Shope & Plano Clark, 2007). My own life experience, both personal and professional, has shaped this as my research topic. Details of my biography are given in a personal statement in Appendix A. Through the process of living in Asia and being involved in teaching and professional development courses for teachers over many years, I was able to experience culture as dynamic and with multiple layers as it is described by Salili and Hoosain (2007). These authors pointed out that although cultural identity is constantly changing, it can be passed from one generation to another. As a teacher and, later, a teacher educator in Asia and New Zealand, I observed how school experiences can influence the creation of cultural identity.
My choice of a mixed methods approach came from an interest in quantitative research from my bachelor‟s degree in agriculture and familiarity with qualitative research from my master‟s degree in applied linguistics and qualifications in education. A mixed methods study enabled me to combine approaches that I had brought with me from my previous education as I was able to see value in both quantitative and qualitative methods.
My life experience has contributed to the data analysis. Kelle (as cited by Byrant & Chamaz, 2007, p. 611) defines the role of theoretical sensitivity in grounded theory as “the ability to see relevant data and to reflect upon empirical material with the help of theoretical terms.” It provided ways of seeing the data so that codes can
emerge. During the period of this study, my research journal provided a means of reflexivity and a record of this process. At every stage, I was aware of the need to move beyond my own cultural perspective because my participants had a very different cultural background to me. Hence, I sought help from cultural advisors.
Cultural advisors
The concept of diversity has a primary place in this investigation as opposed to cultural diversity being included incidentally in a wider study (O‟Neil et al., 2007). Cultural diversity was recognisable in the topic of this study and was central to it. One cultural group of students was identified as a focus, not with the aim of comparing them to others, but rather to investigate their experiences within another culture. Chinese students in a western university are at a point where Eastern and Western values and experiences intersect for each individual. This study reflects the Chinese students‟ perceptions at this point. These perceptions are interpreted through the researcher. In order to protect against misinterpretation or misunderstanding and to increase theoretical sensitivity, two Chinese cultural advisors were part of this project.
Just as I bring my own biographical experience to the research, so do the cultural advisors. Cultural advisor A is from mainland China, holds a PhD in applied linguistics from a New Zealand university and works within the area of learning support in tertiary education. She provided feedback during the development of the research proposal and critically evaluated the instruments that were used. Cultural advisor B is a professor of comparative education in a Taiwanese university and had experience living in New Zealand as a post-doctoral scholar. She also gave feedback on the instruments. In the early stages of coding with the first and second group of participants, she discussed coding especially in terms of cultural dimensions of the data. As I wrestled with the criteria that might guide the early stages of theoretical sampling, she provided suggestions based on her knowledge of working with Chinese university students in Taiwan. She was also active as a researcher in the area of aboriginal Taiwanese peoples. Once data had been collected and analysed, she collaborated with me in re-examining some of the data to check assumptions and to critically evaluate the process in light of her own experience and knowledge. She supported the process of developing theoretical sensitivity by discussing the form and relative importance of categories. This cultural advisor also provided me with background experience with students from Taiwan, as I was less familiar with the Chinese students from this region.
Because the input from my cultural advisors came at different stages of the research processes, I was not faced with conflicting advice. Both advisors were academics and very familiar with robust discussion of research. The process of advising was through a consensual discussion, much like that of a thesis supervison meeting. In the case of A, this was done by email. During the period that I was analysing my qualitative findings, I was able to visit B in her university and discuss my findings with one of her PhD students, a Taiwanese Chinese teacher. After this, my advisor required me to defend each of my qualitative findings by linking them to the data and considering them in the cultural context. Her own academic speciality of comparative education provided a basis for critically analysing my categories and the nuances of their meaning in light of culture and language. An example of this was a discussion of cue seeking by Chinese students. By questioning the data, probing the possible meanings of words in English and Chinese, discussing the role of examinations in Chinese history and culture, we were able to agree that calculating was a better word to represent state of mind and the kind of processes that the participants were engaged in when preparing for examinations. Both advisors brought not only their cultural knowledge but also their knowledge of research to my study.
The assistance provided by my cultural advisors opened cultural insiders‟ perspectives to me through these questions, insights and suggestions. This combined with my own background as a multicultural educator contributed to my confidence in making decisions during the research process. It allowed me to appreciate the multiple views of the phenomena being studied and to deepen my understanding of the constraints and connections. Both of these processes are essential when researching within a constructivist paradigm (Chamaz, 2006).