Introducción a los Modelos Ocultos De Markov (MOM)

Axinn and Pearce (2006) point out that making distinctions between types of research designs, data collection techniques, data coding strategies, and analytic approaches is at least as useful as considering the notion of qualitative versus quantitative approaches.

From the philosophical point of view, ontology is the science or study of being or existing (Blaikie, 1993; Corbetta, 2003; Gomm, 2004; Gray, 2004; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997). It concerns what knowledge is. According to Corbetta (2003), ontology is the question of “what’, which asks whether the world of social phenomena is a ‘hard’, ‘real’ and ‘objective’ world, as natural phenomena which autonomously exist outside the human mind and independent of the interpretation given to them by the subject; therefore, whether social phenomena are ‘things in their own right’ or ‘representations of things.’ While epistemology, in his understanding, is the relationship between ‘who’ and ‘what’, and concerns the ‘knowability of social reality’ and the ‘relationship between the observer and the reality observed’; which deals with what is understood to be knowledge and how knowledge is to be obtained or sought (Blaikie, 1993, 2000; Gomm, 2004; Heylighen, 1993; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997; M. J. Williams, 2001). The answer to epistemology depends on the answer to the ontological question. That means that the ontological assumption of understanding of the social world will influence the epistemological assumption of how to know about social phenomena.

Positivism and interpretivism are commonly considered as two opposite epistemological positions by researchers (Bryman, 2001; Hughes & Sharrock, 1997; Wellington, 2000). Maykut and Morehouse (1994) define positivism as objective inquiry based on

measurable variables and provable propositions. The positivist research orientation, in their view, holds that science is, or should be, primarily concerned with the explanation and the prediction of observable events. From the positivist position, the world is constituted with ‘facts’, ‘things’ and ‘objects’, positivist knowledge is therefore deemed to be objective, value-free, generalizable and replicable, independent of the knower (David & Sutton, 2004; Gray, 2004; Neuman, 2000; Wellington, 2000). Robson (2002) indicates that positivists seek the existence of a constant relationship between two variables. Adopted from natural science, positivism is the dominant epistemological paradigm in social science (Neuman, 2006). The canonical term ‘positivism’ has been widely accepted and used to describe quantitative research, and sometimes it is called ‘positive orthodoxy’(Hughes & Sharrock, 1997). According to Wellington (2000; p.15), positivists believe in objective knowledge of an external reality which is rational and independent of the observer. He thinks that the aim of the positivist researcher is to seek “generalizations” and “hard” quantitative data. While, for qualitative research, terms are employed by different researchers, ‘anti-positivism’, ‘interpretivism’ or ‘constructivism’ are described in different books. ‘Interpretivism’ will be used as the opposite to positivism here. In contrast to quantitative research, which is linked with objectivism, positivism, deductive reasoning, theory testing and number, qualitative research is linked with subjectivism or constructivism, interpretivism, inductive reasoning, theory building, hermeneutics or phenomenology (David & Sutton, 2004). Constructivism, being interpretive or naturalistic (Robson, 2002; p.27), considers that the ‘task of the researcher is to understand the multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge’, and thus tends to acquire multiple perspectives to view the methods of interview and observation.

The most significant distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches is how the data is analyzed and whether the data is in the form of numbers. If the data is coded into numbers and the numbers are analyzed with statistical methods, these procedures can be described as quantitative. If on the contrary the data is left in the form of text, the procedures of interpreting these texts are described as qualitative (Axinn & Pearce, 2006; Neuman, 2000; Punch, 2005). David & Sutton (2004) also argue that although quantitative research is commonly associated with the deductive approach to ‘test” a hypothesis, while qualitative research is associated with the inductive approach to explore a field, sometimes quantitative research is exploratory and qualitative research starts from the formulation of a hypothesis. Data can be analyzed into either a qualitative or quantitative format based on the needs of the research questions. Qualitative data gives richness and colour, while quantitative data provides structure (Wellington, 2000). Qualitative data can be presented in a quantitative study and quantitative data also can be used in supporting qualitative research. The decision in choosing methods and data depends on the need of answering the research question.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003b) argue against thinking about a paradigm before framing the research question; they think paradigm and methods are separable; they argue that there is no point in choosing a methodological ‘track’ (qualitative or quantitative) before initiating a research question. They believe that stressing research questions, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches can eliminate some dilemmas and confusions. Silverman (2000) also states that it is highly dangerous to divide qualitative and quantitative measures into dichotomies or polarities in social science. There is no reason to prefer any form of data, the only question which needs to be asked is whether the

Some researchers (Coyle & Williams, 2006; Fine & Elsbach, 2006; Wellington, 2000) argue that the distinction between positivist and interpretivist paradigms is based on the false assumption that quantitative methods are founded on the epistemology of positivism, while qualitative approaches share the epistemological stance of anti-positivism (interpretivism, constructivism) (Bryman, 2001). It is necessary to understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. However, it is not wise to assume quantitative and qualitative research are antithetical (Fine & Elsbach, 2006). Both quantitative and qualitative methods are tools of research; these methods are employed to present relevant data and to best answer the research questions. There is no divergence between qualitative and quantitative methods in terms of producing a piece of research. As Hamersley (1993) indicates, whatever methods are used in research, the process of inquiry is the same.

This study firstly seeks to investigate the assumption that Circle Time can develop Chinese students’ personal and social skills and create a positive teacher-pupil relationship in a Chinese secondary school. An experimental strategy was designed to transpose the western theory of Circle Time to a Chinese context for the first attempt (Bryman, 2008). As to the Class size issue, usually, there are around 50 students in each Chinese class while Circle Time was suggested for around 15 students (Mosley & Tew, 1999). The experimental school X school was willing to and able to try Circle Time as they had smaller class (26 pupils) and aimed to use new methods for students’ emotional development. Apart from comparing the experiment results between the experimental groups and other classes, English secondary school pupils’ perceptions were also taken into comparative consideration (refer to §4.2.2). Secondly, by introducing Circle Time,

the experiment is also taken as an intervention to explore Chinese affective education from individuals’ perspectives; and as a result develop new theory based on Chinese students’ and teachers’ experience and perceptions. This research borrows some elements from action research; however, it could not be defined as action research for lack of teachers’ involvement and introducing. In order to explain this kind of situation, mixed method research has been considered as a third research paradigm based on pragmatist epistemology by an increasing number of researchers (Creswell, 2003; R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Maxcy, 2003; Joseph Alex Maxwell, 2006; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003a, 2003b). Qualitative and quantitative paradigms since Kuhn (1970), focus on methods of data collection, analysis and presentation rather than on research questions. However, educational research should consider the research question in the first place and decide what methods of collecting data can best fulfil the need: qualitative, quantitative or mixed design. Both quantitative and qualitative research should be valued. The research questions of this study assume both positivist and interpretivist epistemological stances and quantitative and qualitative research strategies and data collecting methods. Mixed methods do not replace either of these approaches but rather draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across studies (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Tashakkori & Teddlie (1998) reckon that the best method (or methods) is the one that produces the most “effectiveness”. There is no best method among the others, but there is the best or most appropriate method or methods to suit a study.

As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.15) indicate, ‘taking a non-purist or mixed position allows researchers to mix and match design components that offer the best

methods have opened up the language of social science. ‘It allows a number of projects to be undertaken without the need to identify invariant prior knowledge, laws, or rules governing what is recognized as true or valid’ (Maxcy, 2003; p.85).

This study introduces a western pedagogy for Chinese students’ personal and social development. Mixed design allows both deductive theory testing and a new departure of theoretical induction (Bryman, 2008). The next section will focus on a discussion of the advantages of mixed design.