94 / DIFERENCIA / DESIGUALDAD

Epistemology is a core area of philosophy that is concerned with the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge (Creswell, 2007; Mol, 2002; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). This poses the following questions: What counts as knowledge? What is the nature of reality? How do we know what we know? What constitutes valid knowledge and how can we obtain it (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Put succinctly, Mol (2002) argues that epistemology is essentially concerned with reference, asking whether representations of reality are accurate.

Within this thesis, combined methods are used (qualitative and quantitative) so that the advantages of each compliment the other, while the insufficiencies of individual

approaches are offset (Bryman, 2008). Whilst individually, the quantitative and qualitative studies follow different epistemological approaches an overarching pragmatic approach is used to integrate them. In this section I intend to clarify the different epistemological perspectives inherent in this thesis and the overarching use of a pragmatic approach for linking them. In doing so, I intend to highlight the challenges and benefits of using different methodologies to help understand phenomena in greater depth and from different perspectives.

Pragmatism is a popular epistemology within mixed methods research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). In part this is because pragmatic approaches accommodate different perspectives recognising the different worldviews of quantitative and qualitative paradigms to address given research questions (Morgan, 2007). In effect, pragmatism views knowledge as relative, not universally valid and constantly redefined rather than absolute such that there may be singular or multiple realities (Creswell & Clark, 2011). This supports the use of different approaches and methods as a means to providing enhancement or clarification of the results from one method with the results from the other (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Hence, this approach is well suited to the combined use of divergent (qualitative and quantitative) methods to study socio-economic inequalities in participation and attainment in educational contexts.

Since quantitative approaches have an important role in measuring socio-economic differences in participation and attainment, and qualitative approaches can provide an understanding of the perspective of those individuals that experience disadvantage in these domains, the use of both of these approaches is important in providing a greater understanding into socio-economic inequalities in educational contexts. In this regard, it is clear that approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative methods are essential if researchers and practitioners are to understand the relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities in HE. Furthermore, as Mason (2006) points out, our understanding of phenomena may be inadequate if we view these along a single dimension, since social experience and lived realities are multi-dimensional.

The current thesis follows a traditional sequential mixed methods design, where a qualitative phenomenological study (Chapter Six) was carried out after a quantitative phase of analyses. (Chapters Four and Five) (Creswell et al., 2004). Underpinned by positivism, studies 1 and 2 (Chapter Four and Chapter Five) examined the associations between students' socio-demographic and educational background characteristics with subsequent degree performance attempting to make objective and unbiased assertions based on these trends. Positivism is an approach to science based on universal laws, with an emphasis on measurement with objectivity and neutrality (Creswell, 2007; 2013).

The methods followed by positivists are those of natural science, focussing on testing theories and hypotheses, and thus making explanations based on empirical evidence (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2008). Though positivist quantitative studies such as those comprised in this thesis are needed to identify factors that appear to be significantly associated with participation and attainment in education, and could be used to make predictions in future studies, they do not provide insight into the possible reasons for these differences. For example, though students from the most deprived areas have been found to enter university with lower grades in a number of studies (e.g. HEFCE, 2003; Hoare & Johnston, 2010), these studies do not capture the underlying meaning of these trends, the subjectivity of reality, and the complexity of human experience. These are some of the caveats associated with quantitative studies and the positivist epistemology underpinning these (Crotty, 1998). Conversely, one of the strengths of qualitative studies lie in the knowledge these provide of the dynamics of social processes, social context, and in their ability to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions in these domains (Mason, 2006). As such, advocates of mixed methods research cite this complementarity as one of the key motivations for mixing methods as well as: to gain a fuller picture of the phenomenon under study, and to enhance the strengths and minimize the weakness of individual methods (Bryman, 1998; 2004). However, mixed methods approaches raise challenges in reconciling different epistemologies and in integrating different forms of data and knowledge (Mason, 2006).

To a large extent, the difficulties of mixing divergent methods stem from the fact that qualitative and quantitative methods have developed from opposing paradigms that

view knowledge and reality in different ways (Creswell, 2013; Denzin, 2010). Though in theory, differences in epistemological beliefs should not prevent qualitative researchers from using data collection methods that are typically quantitative or vice versa, this is not always the case (Bryman, 2008). As such, epistemological differences between these approaches are considered by many as an important barrier to the integration of quantitative and qualitative studies. Some argue that this problem derives from the positivists "narrow" definition of the concept of science and focus on measurement with objectivity and neutrality (Bryman, 2008; Hamati –Ataya 2012). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), discuss the problems with this, indicating that fully objective and "value free research" is a myth and "positivists" disregard the fact that many human decisions (which are subjective) are made throughout the research process. Further, quantitative and qualitative approaches have also been described as antagonistic due to their differences in generalizability (Bryman, 2008).

In terms of generalizability, "positivist" studies tend to focus on assessing how generalizable the study findings are to the wider population. Conversely, with qualitative approaches, the emphasis tends to be on the individual, credibility (confidence in the truth of the findings) and confirmability (the extent to which findings are shaped by the participants) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Pragmatism is an approach to mixing methods that does not view the distinction between knowledge that is context dependent (qualitative approaches), and knowledge that is generalizable (quantitative approaches) as a valid one (Mayoh, & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). This distinction is not viewed as valid because knowledge is rarely specific to a particular context (for example one student from a socio-economically disadvantaged background) nor is it universally generalizable (representative of all universities) (Morgan, 2007). Furthermore, instead of expecting reality to find its correspondence in knowledge, pragmatism focuses on the importance of transferability in terms of how findings and their implications may vary or be similar in different contexts (Morgan 2007). In this sense, pragmatism is said to offer a middle position, both philosophically and methodologically that can help to build a bridge between different and in some ways conflicting philosophies that underpin quantitative and qualitative studies (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,2004).

The final study that is comprised in this thesis (Chapter Six) followed a qualitative method of inquiry, drawing on social constructionism to explore the subjective and complex experiences of socio-economically disadvantaged students in their trajectories from primary school to the UoL. Social constructionism is an epistemology that recognises that meanings are constructed in different ways, depending on how people engage with the world (Berger & Luckmann, 1991; Creswell, 2007; Gergen & Gergen, 2000). This epistemology is compatible with multiple theoretical perspectives including phenomenology (Haase & Myers, 1988; Koch, 1999; Racher & Robinson, 2003). Phenomenological research focuses on lived experience, and is comprised of the accounts of multiple individuals (Creswell, 2007).

Whilst phenomenological approaches focus on the social construction of meaning and subjective experience, positivism in a sense ignores subjectivity and the individual consciousness of actors within society (Bryman, 1984; Moran, 2002; Schutz, 1972). These differences are inherent in the objectives, methods, and findings of the empirical studies of this thesis, and in a sense divide these into two separate lines of investigation. However, from a pragmatist perspective, these different approaches do not contradict each other, but suit different purposes and have different goals (Mol, 2002). Additionally, previous studies highlight how the phenomenological method is malleable, and can be adapted to fit within the field of methods, such as mixed methods research (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). In particular, there is strong justification for the adoption of a quantitative phase in order to identify the most relevant phenomenological experience to be explored using phenomenological methods (Van Manen, 1990).

Mixed methods studies with a phenomenological component frequently use quantitative findings to inform the phenomenological focus within the second phase of the research. Thus, the quantitative data can provide orientation toward the phenomena that are uncovered within the preliminary quantitative phase, or alternatively help identify participants for the phenomenological phase who can provide information rich experiential accounts (Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2013).

Following a pragmatic approach, the integration of quantitative and qualitative studies in the current research occurs primarily at the stage of interpretation of findings (Chapter Seven). This involves examining the extent to which results converge, or diverge from each other and from single methods (Patton, 1985). In doing this, I intend to reconcile the two lines of investigation that are followed by showing how the combined usage of these two contrasting approaches helps to provide a more nuanced understanding of the factors that influence access and participation in HE. To assert this further, in Chapter Seven I will discuss what the mixed methods design adds to the interpretation of findings over and above that of single methods.