Fundamentos de mLearning

The quest for rigour in research is firmly rooted in the positivist paradigm of validity.

Searching for external, internal and construct validity; accompanied by the pursuit of reliability in research management and analysis (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Dubé & Paré, 2003). Rigid structures and set frameworks, much revered in quantitative studies, are utilised in the quest to demonstrate this research validity. These structures have since become entrenched as generally accepted standards and practices for many within, and without of, the academic domain. While this paradigmatic conformity is applauded in some quarters for the ‘benefit of providing a coherent knowledge base’, Symon and Cassell (2006) argue, that it ‘may also lead to an overly restrictive viewpoint and constrained practices’ (p. 307).

Qualitative researchers have, however, paid due regard to these generally accepted standards and have sought to offer dependability and academic rigour in their studies by providing supporting constructions more appropriate to the qualitative paradigm. Tan and Hall (2007) combine a range of studies and provide a series of factors for researchers to consider in an interpretivist research approach, these factors are shown in Table 8 below:

Table 8. Considerations for the Qualitative Researcher

Factors Main considerations / questions for the qualitative researcher Reflexivity Acknowledge the influence of the researcher on the researched.

Relationality Address the power and trust between participants and the researcher.

Reciprocity Respect the mutuality of the process of research.

Credibility Consider the research process and outcome through the eyes of the participants or subjects of the research.

Dependability Are the research findings consistent with the data collected?

Transferability Does the research have applicability to other / new contexts?

Confirmability Is the research free from bias?

Source: Adapted from Tan and Hall (2007)

Following their study Tan and Hall (2007) reflected upon the difficulty of supplying qualitative validity and looked to techniques and procedures which can facilitate the practical

application of the above factors, the procedures they identified are: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, member checks and providing thick description. The commonality in these procedures is trust-building which it is suggested will substitute for the lack of the traditional persuasiveness contained within the oft perceived concrete nature of distanced, positivist objectivity.

The challenge of paying regard to the need for research validation cannot be

underestimated; the ‘problem of corroborating abstract conceptualisations is common … the difficulty being patently prevalent in research dealing with social phenomena’ (Wright, 1968, p. 392). This is made more demanding still with the present research within its interview, incorporating the PIE method, which aims to access both social and cognitive phenomena.

Nevertheless, this acknowledged, all research is undertaken within the boundaries laid out by its context, tools and assumptions (Blaikie, 2007). Within the human behaviour field no single method can claim to comprehensively source the implicit and explicit cognitions and provide a vehicle for their exposition. As with all research methods, there are also limitations in its application. The use of non-verbal communication and its ability to convey Morgan’s (1980) ‘knowing’ message, along with debates around the ability to interpret symbols, have all been strongly contested (Barry, 1996). The study of imagery-as-conversation depends on the acceptance of the ability of images to cognitively connect as a linguistic tie between individuals’ understanding, perceptions and experiences; and also to accept the supposition of an attributable relationship between the presence of a feature within the image and the participants’ response.

The methodology in the present research, which blends a semi-structured interview with the PIE method, guides attention to the duality of layers; the discursive and the reflective, linking the contextual uniqueness to the theory of the cognitive reflection. Hockney (1993)

addresses the concerns about the ability of images and metaphors to misrepresent, he suggests distortion occurs ‘only if you think of one particular way of seeing’ (cited in Hatch &

Yanow, 2008, p. 27). In practice the use of images may be used to inform, and to challenge self and others but as a part, not as a whole (Haskell, 1991). Is it clear that the double hermeneutic issue of interpreting interpretations presents problems in applying the methodological rigour of research (Giddens, 1984). Barry (1996) recommends,

pragmatically, to classify the utility of symbols, as suggesting rather than standing for. Steger (2007) concurs, stating that ‘metaphor analysis requires some texts based on open

communication’ (p. 20); with literal meanings being solicited along with the sub-literal ones to

aid further understanding (Haskell, 1991); ensuring ‘clarity of discourse’ and avoiding

‘dubious interpretation’ (Davies, et al., 2001, p. 116). The use of the PIE method nested within a semi-structured interview affords this.

To be clear, the current interpretative semi-structured interview methodology, and PIE method specifically, is designed to explore meaning in-situ, to generate areas for exploration and develop contextual understanding; it makes no claim to test or measure. Olsen (2004) describes the method of mixing data gathering methodologies as triangulation. She argues that triangulation is not aimed merely at validation but at deepening and widening

understanding; shedding light on any chosen social research topic. The contribution of the PIE method is afforded by its qualitative richness, deepening understanding, in contrast to contentions of statistical power. The emphasis in the present research transcends the positivist pursuit of finding knowledge that exists, instead being occupied with trying to

‘catch’ the nonconscious with the mission to explore, and expose, the participants’ acts of interpretation and construction. Taking a pragmatic stance, the approach of semi-structured interview including PIE as an integral part aims to access the literal and the sub-literal; and adds an important dimension to a dialogic interview, seeking to address Williams’ (1976) allegation, discussed earlier, that the implicit is often missed in qualitative research.

The interpretive stance is characterised by subjectivity, ‘introspection, reflexivity and

sensitivity ... [whilst paying] … evenly divided attention to manifest and underlying dynamics’

(Prins, 2006, p. 342). The intricacy of providing a construction which will encase but not stifle these cognitive notions has been examined by Golden-Biddle and Locke (1993) in their study of the ability of qualitative studies to ‘convince’ the reader. With this aim they

considered three dimensions - authenticity, plausibility and criticality. Their three dimensions could similarly come under the umbrella term of trust-building but also include the critical additional feature of mirroring ‘the vitality and uniqueness of the field’ and concomitantly their dimensions depict a connection to the ‘theoretical world’ (p. 613). Their three dimensions of convincing qualitative research (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993) have been utilised to ensure and demonstrate rigour in the present research. Figure 15 below notes each feature in turn:

Figure 15. Features of Convincing Qualitative Research

Source: Adapted from Golden-Biddle and Locke (1993)

Each of these features is underpinned by the continual attention to the integrity of the research process, and in ensuring the presentation of a faithful account of the data. This attention is fundamental in maintaining the standing of academia, both in its development of the work of others and to give a solid foundation for future work, and in its application to

practice. This is secondary, however, to the consideration of participant involvement. Both of these issues come under the umbrella of ethical considerations in research, an aspect which is dealt with in the next section.