Using AR is an approach that continually evaluates practice. It therefore has the ability to check that values such as compassion and care are incorporated into the practice of nurses. Other advantages of AR are that it is underpinned by a democratic philosophy, is cyclical in nature and contributes to the debate as to the nature of teaching and learning (Koshy et al 2010). Using a reflective approach to the practice of teaching acknowledges that teaching is largely an emotional experience (Hargreaves 1998). If that is the case then lasting change will be difficult if not impossible to achieve without the delivery of a teaching approach that validates the expression of these feelings, both on an individual and systemic level.
In contrast, concerns have been raised about the rigidity of some AR models, the prescriptive, almost evangelical zeal of some of its advocates (Gibson 1985; Hopkins 1993; McNiff 2002), issues regarding its reliability and validity, and philosophical and epistemological arguments about what constitutes ‘real action research’ (Zeichner 1993). In addition, the difficulties of gathering reliable data whilst still a practitioner has given rise
95
to concerns of the significant challenges that teachers may face when attempting to thoroughly examine their own practice (Somekh 2006).
Mixed methods research
A mixed methods approach was chosen because this was considered to be able to represent a more complete picture of the complexity of the teaching approach under scrutiny (more details below).
Mixed methods research is understood here to mean:
the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:17).
This pragmatic approach to ‘truth’ has its roots in the works of philosophers such as William James, John Dewey and more lately Richard Rorty. A pragmatic approach to research acknowledges that both qualitative and quantitative methods have much to say about the world we live in and therefore values both inductive and deductive reasoning and their different approaches to data collection and analysis (Denzin 1989). Ontological and epistemological differences are acknowledged and accepted; traditional dualisms about the above are rejected in favour of whether the approaches either help or hinder answering the research questions posed. The existence and importance of an objective world is accepted as much as the one perceived through the eyes and ears of a human being (Rocco et al 2003). A mixed methods research design does not reject conflicting theory about the nature of existence; it supports the view that knowledge is not a fixed identity but something that changes over time. It also believes truth is not absolute and is therefore susceptible
96
to and driven by change. A pragmatic approach to data gathering means philosophical stances are put to one side in order to generate solutions to problems that best mirror our own experiences (Cresswell 2013). This means that methods are adopted to collect information about the world to ascertain if they work to solve the problem encountered. If they do not work then they are discarded in favour of those that do. A practical, realistic approach to research therefore more closely matches the experience of being human (Morgan 2007; Feilzer 2010).
This approach is not however without controversy. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue that the different research traditions are just simply tools to collect data from different perspectives. Others such as Sale et al (2002) and Guba and Lincoln (1989), believe that the very different ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning both approaches makes a ‘marriage’ of these methods impossible. One approach to dealing with concepts that have seemingly irreconcilable epistemological and ontological positions is to concentrate on the object of our concerns. This means questions are focussed on a consideration of the practical advantages of combining these approaches.
A growing number of researchers have adopted mixed methods designs especially in the last 25 years or so (Cresswell 2013), arguing that many of the arguments over the superiority of one research approach over another have become somewhat sterile. Momentum has been gathering to combine different approaches based on a rationale that it will only enhance research findings that would not been achievable if only one methodology had been used. This pragmatic tactic is no panacea; critics have pointed to issues such as what is really meant when concepts such as ‘useful’ and
97
‘workable’ are applied to mixed methods research designs and who the target audience is supposed to be (Mertens 2003). Many researchers are drawn to mixed methods research as a way of avoiding the debate that has been labelled by some as the ‘paradigm wars’ (Gage 1989:4). Yet there are others who are not convinced that pragmatism offers a solid enough philosophical stance to warrant the use of methods from ‘the other side’ (Sale et al 2002:18) and that mixed methods does not disguise the fact that the dominant ideology is still positivist (Giddens 2006).
The method(s) of data collection and analysis for this research were therefore selected on the basis of their appropriateness for the research questions formulated, following the ‘real world’ approach of Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), mentioned above. A mixed methods study could also have the potential to capture a deeper understanding of the complexity of the various components of the Spirit of Motivational Interviewing (SMI), operating against a background of shifting environmental influences (Mezirow 1997; Miller and Rollnick 2013). A mixed methods approach has the advantage of providing a bridge between the two traditions (Streubert and Carpenter 2011) and has the potential to add rigour to the findings (Hammond 2005; Cresswell and Plano Clark 2007).
This research mixed different ‘types’ of participants (staff and students), and used different methods of data collection (interviews and questionnaires). This meant different methods of analysis were subsequently used (thematic analysis and statistical tests).
98