INMUNOSENESCENCIA Y CAPACIDAD FUNCIONAL EN ANCIANOS

This chapter has presented literature related to phases of the Moon and theories used to design the study and to interpret the results. I discussed the spatial ability theory, which is important because interpretation of diagrams illustrating phases of the Moon requires people to manipulate the Earth, the Sun and the Moon in space. Then I discussed the theory of models because the diagrams used in this study illustrate a model of the Earth-Moon-Sun system. I ended the chapter by discussing issues relating to diagrams, e.g. importance of diagrams, design of diagrams, and interpretation of diagrams. The next chapter presents methods used to collect data in the study.

Chapter 3

Methodology

The previous chapters have discussed literature relating to the problem which motivated the study, and the theoretical framework used to design the study and interpret results. This chapter presents literature relating to methods used in the study, and further discusses the general design of the study. Figure 3.1 summarises the design of the study, showing how the study progressed from the review of literature, to the design of data gathering tools, collection and analysis of data, and arrival of conclusions. Section 3.1 discusses the paradigm in which the study was situated. Section 3.2 discusses sampling methods used in the study. Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 discuss methods used to collect data in the study, indicating how rigour was ensured in each case. Subsequent chapters discuss data analysis, findings and conclusions made from the data.

3.1 Research Paradigm

A paradigm is defined as a network of assumptions, thoughts, beliefs and values about the nature of reality and how people get to understand reality (Chalmers, 1994; Gage, 1967; Ponterotto, 2005). Research paradigms influence methods and procedures used to design and conduct research (Gage, 1967; Punch, 2005; Usher, 1996). There exist three research paradigms: quantitative, qualitative, and pragmatic paradigms.

3.1.1 Quantitative paradigm

Proponents of this paradigm believe in one objective reality which exists separate from beliefs of individuals (Ponterotto, 2005). They believe that this reality can be identified and measured (Ponterotto, 2005). In their research, they standardise procedures to minimize impact of values, hopes, expectations, and feelings in the research process (Foddy, 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1988). This enables them to study phenomena objectively (without bias). They prefer forced-choice questions (e.g. multiple-choice and fill-in questions) which can be easily administered to large samples of participants, and whose data can be processed easily and objectively (Foddy, 1993). The large amount of data enables these researchers to generalize findings to populations from which samples were taken.

Figure 3.1 A diagram summarising design of the study

Theoretical framework Methodology Research problem

LITERATURE REVIEW

Diagnostic test Interviews

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS Construction of the

instrument

DESIGN/SELECTION OF DATA GATHERING TOOLS

Diagram analysis

Design of the

test Design of interview schedule

WR ITE -UP Spatial tests Selection of standardized tests Administration of spatial test to the 75 learners, data analysis Administration of the

diagnostic test to 75 learners, data analysis

Learners‟ interpretation of the diagrams illustrating phases of the Moon

Selection of 10 learners for interviews, i.e. to interpret the four diagrams illustrating moon phases

Selection of four diagrams for interviews

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of 28 diagrams illustrating phases of the Moon

3.1.2 Qualitative paradigm

Proponents of this paradigm believe in multiple, equally valid realities constructed in the minds of individuals (Ponterotto, 2005). According to believers of this paradigm, factors such as culture, gender, values, hopes, expectations, and feelings determine how humans get to know about reality. Thus, the values and beliefs of researchers cannot be separated from the research process. They study phenomena in their natural settings, usually spending extended periods of time with participants in order to gain holistic understanding of phenomena being studied (Anderson, 1998; Punch, 2005). They prefer open-ended questions which provide rich data that enhances understanding of the phenomena (Foddy, 1993; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990).

3.1.3 Pragmatic paradigm

Proponents of this paradigm hold no epistemological beliefs about reality and how to study reality. They design research in a way that best provides answers to research questions, and this enables them to use methods usually associated with either qualitative or quantitative paradigms, or to integrate the methods in order to answer research questions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Punch, 2005; Reeves & Hedberg, 2003).

Some researchers argue against usage of qualitative and quantitative methods in one study, claiming that the methods are based on different philosophical assumptions (e.g. Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil 2002). However, others such as Creswell (2005) argue for mixing the methods that are needed to address the problem being investigated. Punch (2005) discusses different reasons for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods.

 Qualitative research can facilitate quantitative research. This occurs when researchers need

quantitative data, but conduct qualitative research to understand characteristics of intended participants, and then use findings to design quantitative research. Results enable researchers to generalize findings to populations from which samples were taken.

 Quantitative research can facilitate qualitative research. This occurs when researchers need

qualitative data, but conduct quantitative research to understand characteristics of intended participants, and then use findings to design qualitative research. Results enable researchers to get deep understanding of phenomena being studied.

 Qualitative and quantitative methods can be integrated to understand phenomena being studied. This occurs when researchers need both qualitative and quantitative data, and design

research to get these types of data. Results enable researchers to get deeper understanding of the phenomena being studied, and to generalize findings to populations from which the samples were taken.

Several authors warn that using methods associated with both qualitative and qualitative approaches in one study causes several challenges. First, a researcher has to learn about both approaches in order to use and mix the methods appropriately (Creswell, 2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Also, the researcher has a challenge of deciding which methods to use first, and when to integrate findings obtained from using the methods (Ivankova, Creswell & Stick, 2006). Additionally, a

single researcher might encounter difficulties of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, especially if these data are collected at the same time (Creswell, 2005; Ivankova et al., 2006; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Furthermore, it might be difficult for the researcher to obtain resources needed to collect and analyse both types of data. Thus, mixing the methods might be more expensive than using methods associated with only one approach (Ivankova et al., 2006; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

3.1.4 Research Paradigm employed in the study

This study was based on no epistemological beliefs about reality and how this reality should be studied. That is, research questions determined methods and strategies used to collect data in the study. Table 3.1 illustrates data gathering tools which provided data to answer each of the research questions in the study (see the Research Questions in Section 1.5, p 6).

Table 3.1 Data gathering tools used in the study

Research question Data gathering instrument/strategy Type of data

1 Spatial ability tests Quantitative

2 Diagnostic test Quantitative

3 Diagram analysis instrument Qualitative

4 Interview Qualitative

5 Interviews Qualitative

The table shows that the tools provided both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data obtained through the use of diagnostic and spatial ability tests informed selection of learners who participated in interviews. Thus quantitative study facilitated qualitative study.

Usage of methods associated with both qualitative and quantitative approaches did not result in challenges for data collection and analysis in the current study. First, I worked hard to understand both approaches in order to use the methods appropriately. Furthermore, my research questions suggested the order in which data had to be collected. Thus, I did not collect qualitative and quantitative data at the same time, and also, I encountered no difficulties of deciding which methods to use first. Finally, I obtained materials needed to process and analyze all the data obtained in the study.