My research project is thus situated within the interpretative paradigm which
encompasses social constructivism, the participatory approach and also
educational complex theory. As Nelson and co-authors observe, this choice ‘is
pragmatic, strategic and self-reflexive’ (1992, p. 2). It lends itself, more
importantly, to ‘new forms as different tools, methods, and techniques’ which
‘are added to the puzzle’ (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1998b, p. 3).
My research design and rationale use a qualitative methodology and an
interpretative approach. In the research literature, qualitative research (QUAL)
(N.K. Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) is often seen as opposed to quantitative
research (QUANT) (Shadish, Cook, & Cmpbell, 2002) within a dualistic
framework (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1998b; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).
The major comparisons between QUAL and QUANT are that the first is
subjective and interpretative, and aims to discover what happened and what
was happening during the research process in a naturalistic social setting and
then to report findings in the form of words. In contrast, QUANT is objective and
numerical, and aims to provide proof with evidence in a controlled environment
and to report the result using numbers (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1998b;
QUAL approaches should no longer be regarded as disconnected. Instead,
there is potential to combine the two methodologies so that researchers can
extract more credible evidence and also understand more fully their research
problems (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 5; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Such is to advocate a ‘mixed methods’ approach.
The underpinning ontological and etymological views of mixed methods
accords with the ‘pragmatist paradigm’ (R. B. Johnson, Onwuebguzie, & Turner,
2007; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This claims
that research methods have to be practical and pragmatic so as to support
researchers’ needs on site to collect data (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004). The concern, nevertheless, is the risk that mixed methods may simply
be regarded as a panacea (Symonds & Gorard, 2010). Combining QUANT and
QUAL can be a necessity, but only in such projects in which both sets of data
are necessary to answer their research questions to the fullest extent (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 23; Symonds & Gorard, 2010). According to
Creswell and Tashakkori, there are four realms of mixed methods. With
subtleties they are differentiated by the design combining methods,
methodology, paradigms and practices (2007). Greene indicates four different
them (Greene, 2008). Among the four domains, the first captures my attention,
focussing as it does on ontology, which is the nature of the world, and on
epistemology, which is how we understand and research the world.
This domain of mixed methods from Greene (Greene, 2008), instead of
looking for formulae of combinations, as Creswell and Tashakkori do, places
more emphasis on searching for a converged and compatible philosophical
rationale between qualitative and quantitative research methods. This also
implies that the researcher can take an active position to find out the most
appropriate research design in order to pursue his or her own research
interests. Hammersley remarks that ‘individual researchers should be free to
identify the most productive areas of inquiry and to determine the most
effective means for investigating them’ (2005, p. 144).
The abovementioned domain inspires me to re-think the associated and
literal meanings of mixed methods, and to consider what methods can be
mixed in mainly qualitative research in order to maximise the effectiveness of
my research design. Also, could the concept of ‘mixed methods’ be borrowed,
using more than one qualitative research method? What term should be used
to refer to such qualitative mixed research so as not to confuse readers and
My methodology draws from two qualitative approaches – case study and
ethnography. This combination I regard as a creative one as it provided me
with the flexibility which I needed in the complex, multiple role of
actor-teacher-researcher.
Here I will draw on the concept ofbricolage to conceptualise the rationale
for this approach (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1998b, pp. 3-4) which is a
logical function of the human mind, as initially suggested by Lévi-Strauss
(1966). Bricolage is done by a bricoleur, who uses a box of fixed yet
heterogeneous tools to complete massively diverse tasks (Lévi-Strauss, 1966,
p. 17). In a research context, the researcher works as a bricoleur to carry out
research by using multiple methodological approaches (Norman K. Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998b, pp. 3-4). As Kincheloe states:
‘In this context, the bricolage is concerned not only with divergent methods of inquiry but with diverse theoretical and philosophical understandings of the various elements encountered in the act of research’ (2001).
Ontologically, the bricoleur is aware of the complexity of reality and its deep
social structure on a daily basis (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004, p. 4). Unlike the
positivist, thebricoleurbelieves realities are constructed not fixed. Furthermore,
abricoleurunderstands that reality is not in a single dimension and it cannot be
are constructed, they can be re-conceived and changed. Research can help us
bring about such changes but only if we can capture and understand the
diverse ways it is constructed (Law, 2004, p. 69).
Moreover, the multiplicity of realities implies that the bricoleur is actively
involved in the process of creating and recreating them (Kincheloe, 2001;
Kincheloe & Berry, 2004, p. 3; Law, 2004, p. 43). This is to say that we as
researchers ‘actively construct our research methods from the tools at hand
rather than passively receiving the ‘correct’, universally applicable
methodologies’ (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 3). This involvement is an intellectual
activity for researchers (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004, p. 3) and is necessary to
counter their taken for granted understandings shaped by their prior
experiences (Hatton, 1988) as part of research methods. They defamiliarise
the means they have known so as not only to identify subtle differences
between them, but also to learn from those differences, drawing upon ‘the
power of the confrontation (…) to expand the researcher’s interpretive
horizons’ (Kincheloe, 2001). To borrow the analogy from Law (2004) of seeing
researchers as puzzle solvers in social studies, this is to perceive that ‘the
world presents empirical and theoretical puzzles that can be solved by applying,
have to be aware of not merely accumulating ‘methodological pluralism at face
value’, as Hammersley points out (2007). Each qualitative approach has ‘its
own unique set of quality criteria’ (Hammersley, 2007), which researchers must
investigate individually to maximise the value of combining qualitative
approaches.
To conclude, bricolage is a pragmatic approach in my project. This
approach empowers me to take the initiative in my research design on sites
‘focusing on the clarification of his or her position in the web of reality (…) and
the ways they shape the production and interpretation of knowledge (Kincheloe
& Berry, 2004, p. 2). Also, bricolage is a solution which provides me with the
flexibility and adaptability to change, add, or modify accordingly on the two
sites I carried out my fieldwork.