Vice Chancellor’s Thoughts

on Methods in Research

Saturday 24th June, 2023

Scientific Reasoning (Logic)
Quantitative?

Confirmation of a theory from your own observations

General Deductive Reasoning Specific

Theory Inductive Reasoning Observation
Formation of a theory grounded
in your own observations
Qualitative?
 Determine your worldview…

Postpositivism Constructivism
Determination Understanding
Reductionism Multiple participant meanings
Empirical observation and measurement Social and historical construction
Theory verification Theory generation

Advocacy/Participatory Pragmatism
Political Consequences of actions
Empowerment issue-oriented Problem-centered
Collaborative Pluralistic
Change-oriented Real-world practice oriented

3
 Quantitative versus Qualitative
Quantitative Research Strategy
•Investigation aims to assess a pre-
stated theory (Deductive Reasoning)
•Often involves hypothesis testing
•Attempts to minimise the influence
of the researcher on the outcome
•Quantitative data infers statistics
•Data collection therefore requires
‘closed’ responses
Qualitative Research Strategy
•Investigation aims to create a novel
theory (Inductive Reasoning)
•Researcher becomes an inherent part
of the study - ethnography
•Qualitative data infers complex
statements or opinions
•Data collection therefore permits
‘open’ responses
Choice of Research Strategy

 Based on:
 Epistemology (How should we be attempting to assess
knowledge?)
 Positivism = explain a phenomena
 Interpretivism = understand a phenomena
 Ontology (Does the data exist in a tangible or an
intangible form?)
 Objectivism = explain independent external outcomes
 Constructionism = understand how social factors interact
 Choice of Research Strategy

 Study in the natural sciences often requires a

positivistic epistemology and an objectivistic ontology
 Study in the social sciences often requires an
interpretive epistemology and a constructionist
ontology
 However, it is occasionally possible to combine these
strategies by coding qualitative data quantitatively (i.e.
Athlete = 1 ; Non-Athlete = 2)
 ONTOLOGY

RESEARCH
PHILOSOPHY

EPISTEMOLOGY
 Ontology

 What is reality?
 What shapes reality?
 What is the relationship between each component?
 Ontology Believes

1. Believe that there is only one reality (singularity)

2. Believe that there are multiple realities or truths
3. Believe that reality can be one or many
 Ontology Believes

Believe that there is only one reality (singularity)

 One universal truth

Singularity  One reality for any specific group

 Ontology Believes

Believe that there are multiple realities or truths

 Ontology Believes

Believe that reality can be one or many

One or Many
 Epistemology

 How do we know about reality or truth?

 How we receive or know knowledge?
 Epistemology

Epistemology believes
(i) Knowledge can be measured using scientific rules, using
reliable tools and designs
(ii) Knowledge is interpretive in nature, so needs to be
interpreted or explained
(iii) Knowledge should examined using tools, scientific design
or interpreted
 ONTOLOGY

RESEARCH
PHILOSOPHY

EPISTEMOLOGY
 Research
Ontology Epistomology
Philosophy

Believe that there is only Measured using reliable Positivism

one reality (singularity) tools and design

Singularity
Knowledge to be interpreted
Believe that there are
or explained Constructivism
multiple realities

Examine using scientific

Believe that there are designs or interpretation
multiple realities Pragmatism
Can be measured and
interpreted
 Conclusion
Ontological Stance Epistomological Stance Research Philosophy

Singular Reality Can be measured Positivism

Multiple Realities Can be interpreted Constructivism

Singular and Multiple Can be measured and Pragmatism

interpreted
 Conclusion

1. One reality / measurable using tools and designs. Positivism

2. Multiple realities / interpretation. Constructivism

3. One and many / examined or interpreted. Pragmatism

Key choices of research design
Researcher is Researcher is
independent involved
Large samples Small numbers
Testing theories Generating theories
Experimental design Fieldwork methods
Verification Falsification
(Easterby-Smith, 1991)
 Paradigm

“A paradigm sets the standards for legitimate work within the

science it governs. It co-ordinates and directs the ‘puzzle-solving’
activity of the groups of normal scientists that work within it. The
existence of a paradigm capable of supporting a normal science
tradition is the characteristic that distinguishes science from non-
science, according to Kuhn” (Chalmers, 1976)
“A paradigm is Kuhn’s central analytical tool”
(O’Hear, 1989)
 Two contrasting paradigms
 Positivist paradigm
 based on natural sciences
 quantitative  Counting and measuring (figures)

 Interpretative / constructivist / phenomenological

paradigm
 based on phenomenology
 qualitative  descriptive and inferential (words)
 Basic beliefs
Positivist paradigm
The world is external and
objective
Observer is independent
Science is value-free
(Easterby-Smith e.a., 1991)
Phenomenological
paradigm
The world is socially
constructed and subjective
Observer is part of what is
observed
Science is driven by human
interests
 Researcher should
Positivist paradigm
Focus on facts
Look for causality and
fundamental laws
Reduce phenomena to
simplest elements
Formulate hypotheses and
then test them (deduction)
(Easterby-Smith e.a., 1991)
Phenomenological
paradigm
Focus on meanings
Try to understand what is
happening
Look at the totality of each
situation (holism)
Develop ideas through
induction from data
 Preferred methods include
Positivist paradigm Phenomenological
paradigm
Operationalisation of Using multiple methods to
concepts so that they can establish different views of
be measured phenomena
Taking large samples Small samples investigated
in depth or over time
(Easterby-Smith e.a., 1991)
 Summary
Paradigm Ontology Epistemology Question Method
Positivism Hidden rules Focus on reliable What works? Quantitative
govern teaching and valid tools to
and learning undercover rules
process
Interpretive/ Reality is created Discover the Why do you act Qualitative
constructivist by individuals in underlying this way?
groups meaning of
events and
activities
Critical Society is rife Helping uncover How can I change Ideological
with inequalities injustice and this situation? review,
and injustice empowering Civil actions
citizens
Pragmatic Truth is what is The best method Will this Mixed Methods,
useful is one that solves intervention Design-Based
problems improve
learning?
 Epistemological assumption:
‘what is the relationship of the researcher to that researched?’

Quantitative paradigm Qualitative paradigm

Positivist paradigm Phenomenological
paradigm
Researcher is independent Researcher interacts with
from that being researched that being researched

(Creswell, 1991)
 Axiological assumption:
‘what is the role of values?’

Quantitative paradigm Qualitative paradigm

Positivist paradigm Phenomenological
paradigm
Value-free and unbiased Value-laden and biased
(Creswell, 1991)
 Rhetorical assumption:
‘what is the language of research?’

Quantitative paradigm Qualitative paradigm

Positivist paradigm Phenomenological
paradigm
Formal; Informal;
based on set definitions; evolving definitions;
impersonal voice; personal voice;
use of accepted quantitative use of accepted qualitative
words/jargon words/jargon
(Creswell, 1991)
 Methodological assumption:
‘what is the process of research?’
Quantitative paradigm
Positivist paradigm
Deductive process; cause
and effect; static design
(categories isolated before
study); context-free;
generalisations leading to
prediction, explanation and
understanding; accurate
and reliable through validity
and reliability
(Creswell, 1991)
Qualitative paradigm
Phenomenological
paradigm
Inductive process; mutual
simultaneous shaping of
factors; emerging design
(categories identified during
research process); context-
bound; patterns, theories
developed for
understanding; accurate
and reliable through
verification
Induction and deduction
Inductive: specific Laws and
Deductive:
to general theories general to specific

Induction Deduction

Facts acquired Predications and

through explanations
observation
 The Ayiro aproach to methods...... Gounded Theory

 Grounded theory is a set of principles and

practices that are widely used to systematically
approach data collection and analysis in
qualitative research. It generates theory from the
ground up.
 Cont’d

 Despite differences in opinion about some finer points of

the method, grounded theory has become a widely
accepted systematic approach to qualitative research
across social science disciplines. Many qualitative
researchers use the techniques and the terminology from
grounded theory to explain their processes of analysis.
 The Ayiro aproach to methods...... Gounded Theory

 Grounded theory emerged as an answer to critiques of

the usefulness of qualitative research. In the 1960s,
qualitative research was declining as quantitative methods
became popular in the social sciences. Yet as good as
quantitative work was at testing existing theories, its
deductive approach rarely led to new theories.
 The Ayiro aproach to methods...... Gounded Theory

 A gap began to open within the social sciences between

the philosophical work of theory building and research
focused on the concrete, the generalizable, and the
replicable. Judged through the criteria of positivism,
qualitative work was seen as unsystematic and
impressionistic with potential for bias.
 What is the reason for using mixed
methods?

 The insufficient argument – either quantitative or

qualitative may be insufficient by itself
 Multiple angles argument – quantitative and qualitative
approaches provide different “pictures”
 The more-evidence-the-better argument – combined
quantitative and qualitative provides more evidence
 Community of practice argument – mixed methods may
be the preferred approach within a scholarly community
 Eager-to-learn argument – it is the latest methodology
 “Its intuitive” argument – it mirrors “real life”
 The Ayiro Approach to...
Mixed methods

 The rift between deductive and inductive knowledge

become deeper over time, yet the bridging between the two
through abductive knowledge creates a connection that
is slowly widening. Time will tell if both domains can get
down their high horses, and value each other's strengths
while acknowledging one's own weaknesses.
 The Ayiro Approach... Mixed methods

 Mixed methods are one of the moon shots of modern

science, they are proclaimed, envisioned and
continuously highlighted, but the question is now: How
do we get to the moon of mixed methods?
 Cont’d….

 The first set of challenges when trying to bring mixed methods

into reality are epistemological problems. Among the most
profane yet widely unsolved questions is the integration of
different data formats. While we can code data into
qualitative and quantitative information into tables, this can
hardly do justice to the diversity of knowledge within science.
 The Ayiro Approach to... Mixed
methods

 There is an increasing tendency of research trying to

create connections between diverse domains of knowledge,
which is often a basis for methodological innovation. This
does not only demand more efforts from researchers attempting
this, but may also lead to researchers being rejected by both
communities, because they mingle with 'the others'.
 Cont’d

 This readily highlights the importance of a history of ideas

within which we locate our epistemological identity, and within
which we can clearly indicate and reflect about it. This further
highlights the importance of bridging divides. Otherwise, 
communication becomes more difficult if not impossible. Is the
intent of MMR therefore to enhance clarity/ communication?
Parsimonious designs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)
Concurrent Mixed Methods Designs
Triangulation Design

QUAN QUAL
Data & Data &
Results Interpretation
Results

Embedded Design

QUAN Intervention QUAN

Pre-test Post-test
Interpretation
Data & Data &
qual
Results Results
Process

41
 Sequential designs
Explanatory Design
QUAN qual
Data & Data & Interpretation
Results Following up
Results

Exploratory Design
QUAL quan
Data & Data &
Interpretation
Results Building to
Results

Sequential Embedded Design

Before-
QUAN After-
Intervention
intervention
Trial intervention
qual qual Interpretation

42
 Facilitation - the gap between the epistemological and the ontological

 In order to enable successful integration and

bridge the epistemological challenges with the
ontological problems, facilitation becomes a key
part of mixed method research. This demands
first and foremost the willingness to be critical
about one's own positionality and reflection
concerning the critical positioning in the 
history of science.
New Presentation
 Cont’d….

 Otherwise, the limitations of the knowledge in

the respective area of science is often ignored,
leading to a wrong recognition of these
limitations. Many conflicts between different
disciplines and their methodological
epistemologies are nothing but an
unreflected rejection of the unknown. 
 Cont’d….

 Consequently, it takes time and effort to not

only locate yourself within the canon of
knowledge production, but to also value and
appreciate other forms of knowledge. A
simple division into a better or worse highlights
the shortcomings of our understanding
concerning the normativity of methods.
 Systematic Literature Review
Systematic literature reviews gained a vital
tool through the work of Karl Pearson,
whose work on statistics allowed to compile
the results from several datasets into an
overview. His 1904 publication - in which he
combined 11 studies on typhoid vaccines and
highlighted irregularities in the results - can be
considered the first Meta-Analysis.
 Systematic Literature Review
After the Second World War, US social
scientists began to recognize the need to
review the rising amount of research
data while considering how to reduce 
bias and enhance reproducibility of
systematic reviews . This also led to the
increasing recognition of qualitative
elements.
 Systematic Literature Review
However, Systematic Literature Reviews
were long viewed as second-class studies
within Academia, since they did not yield
primary data. This changed during the
last decades, partly due to increasing
interest in scientific evidence on diverse
topics on the part of public policy makers,
practitioners and the general public (6).
 Systematic Literature Review
More recently, due to the emergence of
digitalisation and improvements in information
storage and retrieval, it became significantly
easier to identify, gather and analyze the
available research on a specific topic (3). Today,
Systematic Literature Reviews are most
commonly used in Medicine, in the Social
Sciences, Business and Economics, but have
found their way into several other disciplines (5).
 Systematic Literature Review

 A Systematic Literature Review can be applied as the primary

method of a scientific study,but is often also used as a first

step in a larger research projector endeavour. In both cases,

a review can help:.

Systematic Literature Review

Identify relevant Design appropriate

literature and researchers methodological
to consult, approaches,

Contextualize this
Understand important
research and show why it
concepts, theories and
would answer an open
topics and summarise this
question, often on
knowledge to the reader
integration level. 
 Quality criteria

"Quality [of the literature review] means appropriate breadth

and depth, rigour and consistency, clarity and brevity, and
effective analysis and synthesis; in other words, the use of
the ideas in the literature to justify the particular approach
to the topic, the selection of methods, and demonstration
that this research contributes something new." (Hart 2018,
p.1f). The quality criteria of objectivity, validity and reliability
apply to the Systematic Literature Review as follows:
Wisdom come with
 SCHOOL REPRESENTATION
Arts & social science
35
Communication-
112

School of Communication
School of Business & Economics
School of applied human Social Science
Applied Human School of arts and social sciences

Science 150
Business &
Economics -115
 STUDENTS PROGRESS
450
420
400

350

300

250 229

200

150

100

50 38 30 29 21 15 11 11
0 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 2
0
1 e I e l
tio
n
or
k
or
k
er fens ter
3 e
ns ter
2
ST ens e r 5 ti o n ns
e
ns
e
t io
n e
ns ter
4
o ta
c t e t c e e e
e
ll e
W
e
W
h ap D
e ap D
ef ap A CO Def ap ll e D
ef
D
ef d ua Def ap nd
T
o r s r s C l h l h l h o l l a l h
a
C
ou Cou sa C sa C /N ina C
a
C sa na r G
r
na
C ra
t C o o C F t o i F i G
a p p R a p F o
D
t ed P ro P ro ISE D
P ro f or ed f t e d
e le
pl t ed f or l ed e ar p
Co
m
pl
e
le
d
ed
u Cl om
m u h C
Co hed Sc
Sc