Evolución de los sistemas de pagos

As a starting position I considered my own background, values and educational beliefs (Cohen et al. 2007). In particular I spent time analysing my

epistemological and ontological position as this would shape the design and methods I used in the research. Punch (2009) summed up that methods of inquiry are:

“based on assumptions - assumptions about the nature of reality being studied, assumptions about what constitutes knowledge of that reality,

Social research (Key - what was the

Context?) Theory Practical considerations

Ontology Epistemology

Values

and assumptions about what therefore are appropriate ways (or methods) of building knowledge of that reality” (Punch 2009, p.15).

These assumptions concerned the very bases of my knowledge – its nature and forms, how it could be acquired, and how it was communicated to other human beings. The two assumptions that I focused on initially were positivism and interpretivism. Both positivism and interpretivism have their champions and their critics, but what was key for me in planning my research was to immerse myself in these epistemological conundrums and to determine my stance and my rationale for it. It was important to note, however that the distinctions between the paradigms were not as simple as I would have liked, as Burton et al. (2008) warned:

“Although certain research approaches and methods tend to reside in either the positivistic or the interpretive paradigm, there is overlap in the way in which methods are used within specific paradigms. Indeed, a mixed methodology is often adopted, combining qualitative or

quantitative data” (Burton et al. 2008, p.61).

Their table on developing a research stance (Burton et al. 2008, p.61) provided a helpful series of questions and an outline of competing research paradigms which allowed me to consider my own viewpoint. I used the questions as a framework to test my own views and beliefs and to challenge own perceptions of education.

After my initial readings I felt I associated more towards the constructivist, interpretivist researcher. My natural leanings were towards the richness of the interpretivist study particularly in attempting to dig deep into the thoughts and perceptions of developmental needs of the managers in the college. This impacted on the strategy and methods I used in my research. Interpretivist evidence was the key to establishing how the coaching programme was received by the participants and how they felt as the programme progressed. This type of evidence could only be gathered through looking at the in depth thoughts and feelings of participants. This would provide good evidence for the study as it would establish why participants felt as they did, and how they felt

about the programme. My research design therefore exhibited the characteristics of interpretivist/constructivist research in that it:

• Focused on natural settings recognising that social life is complex in its range and variability with many layers of meaning (Seeley 1966; Mac an Ghaill 1989; Berger 1966; Blumer 1976). Methodologically a focus on natural settings required me to keep an openness of mind, not prejudging the matter nor settling for first or even second appearances.

• Had an interest in meanings, perspectives and understandings (Wax 1971). The aims of the research were to explore the perspectives of the managers on the coaching.

• Used inductive analysis and grounded theory as an influence (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970). In my research design and methods I aimed to come to the project with an open mind rather than starting with a hypothesis.

I naturally leant towards the position that the reality of the participants was multi-dimensional and shaped by the policy context in which they were

operating. A key factor for me therefore in designing the research was my role as participant and manager then later as external researcher. The biggest challenge in the research design was how to mitigate my influence as an insider at the start of the programme then as an outsider as the programme and the research developed. The power relationship between me and the participants needed to be acknowledged and attempts made in the research design to mitigate the influence my own stance may have had over the participants’ views. Thinking in this way meant I leant towards an interpretive stance in my data collection methods seeking deeper knowledge from the participants.

Another key aspect for me was that I needed to acknowledge that, in this research, I was not seeking to prove or disprove a hypothesis or provide

extensive generalisations. Instead I was seeking to provide an insight into how one particular leadership programme shaped the views, attitudes and actions of middle managers in an FE college. In this research the knowledge was co- constructed between the researcher and the participants. In this case my

subjectivity and bias as the researcher and as a college manager needed to be acknowledged in the research. The influence of the policy context was key to the sector and the college and was therefore essential to the research. I developed a separate policy context chapter (Chapter 2) to reflect on the main policy drivers affecting the college. I also needed to acknowledge in the literature review that the theories of leadership and educational management were constructed from emergent theories and in themselves are subjective.