Particularidades de las dimensiones de la calidad de vida en la muestra de estudiantes

How a particular research is shaped, depends on the inquiry paradigms held by the researcher who designs the research (Creswell 2007). A paradigm is ‗a basic set of

beliefs that guide action‘ (Guba 1990). Besides being called paradigms, they are also regarded as worldviews (Creswell 2007); philosophical assumptions, ontologies, and epistemologies (Crotty 1998).

Educational research is always grouped under the two opposition paradigms— positivism and interpretivism (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2007). Positivists believe that there can be objective knowledge, existing independently of the observer, that abides by universal laws and can be measured, quantified and predicted; while

interpretivists argue that the social world is not the same as the physical world, thus a deep understanding of the particular is needed to form multiple meanings that are subjective and experiential (Cohen et al. 2007).

However, research is not a choice of paradigm. Having recognised these paradigm assumptions, this study takes a pragmatic approach in which the research question determines the choice of methods. Pragmatism is an inquiry paradigm that claims to have no commitment to any one system of philosophy and reality (Murphy & Rorty 1990). Instead of asking about reality and the laws of nature, pragmatists believe that

78 truth is what works at the time and it is not based in the dualism between reality independent of the mind or within the mind (Cherryholmes 1992).

Like other pragmatic research, this study focuses on the outcomes—the action, situations, and consequences of inquiry, rather than antecedent conditions (Creswell 2007). The key concern is what works and problem-based solutions rather than how the method works (Patton 2002). Therefore, the problem being studied and the questions asked about this problem are the determinant factors of the choice of research methods (see Rossman & Wilson 1985). Usually, according to Creswell (2007), researchers who embrace pragmatism will:

- use multiple methods of data collection to find out answer(s) for their research question,

- collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative sources of data,

- focus on the practical implications of the research, and

- highlight the importance of conducting research which could best address the research problem.

Both quantitative and qualitative are terms which refer to data, not to methods per se. In this study, qualitative data was gathered to examine the complexity of issues related to GBL practices and collaboration in depth, and to form meanings and hypothetical propositions; while quantitative data was collected to generate numerical answers and to test hypotheses.

Data, whether they are quantitative or qualitative, are raw materials collected in a research study to be processed—normally through analysis, to become information. So information is processed data. When information is interpreted to become meaningful, knowledge is constructed. So knowledge is meaningful information, which could be used to answer research questions. Figure 4.2 shows the pragmatic view held in this research on how data analysis, information interpretation and knowledge construction relate to each other. In this sense, knowledge is regarded as justified true belief, or belief that is beyond reasonable doubt (Lagemaat 2005). In other words, knowledge requires justifications and the justifications have to be

79 acceptable—this prompts the issue of reliability which will be discussed in Section 4.7.

Figure 4.2: How knowledge could be constructed to answer research questions 4.1.1 The researcher's role in data analysis

In data analysis, one can either analyse raw data or processed data. Analysing raw data should include reflection on one‘s role played as the data collector and the investigator; while revisiting the processed data, one should involve meta-reflection, which encompasses the role played as the data processor and information interpreter in the past analysis process. Discrepancy may occur between the roles played by one researcher in two different timeframes. This discrepancy could lead to a self-

disagreement state faced by the researcher from the outcomes of reflection and meta- reflection. To generate consistent and persistent outcomes of data analysis, the outcome of analysed data should be revisited as the knowledge and experience of the researcher accumulate, using the same method of analysis. The need for revisiting analysed data is echoed by Bryman (2008, p. 682) in which, ‗social researchers

should be reflective about the implications of their methods, values, biases, and decisions for the knowledge of the social world they generate.‘ Once the analysis reaches the saturation state, third party, preferably experienced, researchers should be requested to review the final outcome, especially to challenge the fairness of data analysis.

80 4.1.2 Research diary

An online research diary was created at the early stage of this doctoral research. This diary acted as a log of research activities. The record of what has been done at different stages in the doctoral research serves four purposes:

- an aide-mémoire of short notes for later reflection (Gray 2009),

- a description of events related to doctoral research such as participation in GBL related workshops or conferences,

- a reflective account of initial impressions of collected data or tentative interpretations of analysed data, and

- a reflexive perception or reaction toward past events, such as ideas or insights that occur in mind after encountering event-related stimulation. The chronological recordings of research activities gradually project the entire study as a journey, thus leading the creation of the evolutive spiral-segregated case study research model, which will be elaborated in Section 4.9.