Tipo de datos y análisis

Research paradigms serve to guide inquiry and also act to declare the ontological, epistemological and methodological stance adopted by the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018, p. 42). An alternative phrase to research paradigms is offered by Creswell (2018) who maintains that there are four main ‘worldviews’ each with their own epistemological, ontological and methodological constructs namely, post- positivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatism . There is little agreement on the classification of research paradigms but similarities exist in each interpretation. Denzin and Lincoln (2018) report the following paradigms; positivist, post-positivist, constructivist, critical theory, interpretivist as well as heralding emerging post- interprevist and hybrid paradigms. While Francis, Chapman, and Whitehead (2016) present three paradigms: positivist, critical and interpretive.

Some authors suggest that the intentionally ‘open posture’ of qualitative research resists attempts to impose an over-arching paradigm over a research project (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Others indicate that the philosophical ‘rudder’ of research paradigms inevitably influence research praxis and should be declared (Creswell, 2018).

46

Despite the differences in classifying research paradigms, there is general consensus in the underpinning constructs. In synopsis, a positivist research paradigm is guided by a deterministic (also known as reductionist) philosophy which asserts that objective measurement of reality can result in ‘absolute’ truth by considering a cause and effect approach. Here, theory supports the formation of a hypothesis which is tested using quantitative approaches and is either refuted or supported (Francis et al., 2016). Criticism of this paradigm lie in its inability to consider the human experience within its context (Creswell, 2018; Francis et al., 2016). A critical paradigm utilises a post-

positivist philosophy adopting a postmodern stance that seeks to understand and explore social structures and phenomena with a view to enhancing agency, empowerment and generating social change (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Qualitative research methodologies such as feminist, critical ethnography and action research are employed which critique existing social contexts in partnership with research

participants and are informed by the critical paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018; Francis et al., 2016). Interpretivist paradigms are occasionally classified along with

constructivist paradigms and seek to explore and understand meaning within the context that participants find themselves. Qualitative methodologies such as phenomenology, ethnography and grounded theory are commonly framed by interpretivist or constructivist paradigms (Creswell, 2018; Francis et al., 2016).

Historically it was accepted that research was divided into two main approaches; classified as either qualitative and quantitative, however new discourses have emerged suggesting that the previously discrete divide between qualitative and quantitative research approaches are blurring (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). This development has resulted in three approaches being offered namely, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Qualitative research seeks to understand, interpret or make sense of the meanings people attribute to phenomena; whereas quantitative research seeks to test theory by determining the relationship between two or more variables which may be measured and analysed using statistical techniques (Creswell, 2018; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Mixed methods research is used to collect and analyse both qualitative and quantitative data when insight might be enhanced by integrating

47

these components “...within a single study and in such a way as to be mutually illuminating, thereby producing findings that are greater than the sum of parts” (Woolley, 2009, p. 7) .

Given the potential for the aforementioned myriad of paradigms, approaches and methodologies, there are several factors which should be considered by the researcher when considering selection, such as the research problem or question as well as

epistemological and ontological stances. If measuring the relationship between two or more study variables is desirable; or, consideration of the effect of various

interventions is warranted then a quantitative approach is recommended (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). When phenomena need to be explored or better understood because of a lack of previous research, or the concept has not been explored with a certain group of people or social context, qualitative approaches are advised. When neither the qualitative or quantitative approach on its own would be sufficient to provide an understanding then a mixed methods approach might be considered (Creswell, 2018).

Because the aim of this research was to explore midwives’ perceptions and experiences of being ‘with woman’, an important but previously unexplored

phenomenon, it was clear that a qualitative approach was warranted. The next step was to select from the variety of qualitative research methodologies available to explore the human experience. Several methodological approaches were considered; the review process and considerations are presented. Firstly, grounded theory was considered in light of its role in the development of theories of basic social process within a specific context (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Because the current knowledge of being ‘with woman’ existed almost solely in the philosophical and proposed theoretical realms, the researcher was cautious in considering the suitability of this methodology to address a gap in knowledge and arrive at a description of commonalities in the applied practices and experiences of being ‘with woman’. A qualitative descriptive approach was also considered but was not deemed a ‘best fit’ to examine the complex phenomenon of being ‘with woman’ in sufficient detail. This decision was made due to criticisms of the lack of philosophical, theoretical and methodological framework to scaffold this research approach (Whitehead, Dilworth, &

48

Higgins, 2016a). The methodology of ethnography was also considered for its focus on describing and interpreting cultural behaviour. Ultimately, this methodology was not selected because the focus of the research was exploring the phenomenon rather than the culture itself; also ethnography provides a limited role in revealing the

perceptions of a phenomenon which was a focus of this research (Polit & Beck, 2014; Whitehead et al., 2016a).

Ultimately, the research methodology of phenomenology was selected, renowned for describing perspectives, understandings and experiences of the phenomenon under study. This approach is acknowledged for the capacity to reveal the necessary and essential features of a phenomenon derived from the rich and in-depth descriptions of the ‘lived experience’ provided by study participants (Bondas, 2011; Whitehead et al., 2016a).