Search

A research paradigm represents how a researcher views the nature of reality and guides how they engage in research to generate knowledge from that reality. Power is a construct that impacts on the individual actions of the researcher and the participants, and their interactions with each other, across a range of perspectives of reality. Qualitative researchers select different paradigmatic stances to represent how they consider and work with the influences of power on these human relations. This influences their decisions about which research design and methodology they select. Drawing on my doctoral study, which explored the process by which a group of occupational therapists designed an intervention for caregivers of children on anti-retroviral treatment living in low-income conditions in South Africa, I describe my process of selecting a poststructuralist paradigm, an instrumental case study design, and a co-operative inquiry methodology to illuminate the operation of power in the research process. An overview of the potential offerings and limitations of different paradigms, research designs and methods, as applied to this research example, are presented to support my assertions. In conclusion, I argue for the more consistent consideration and description of the interplay between paradigms, research design and methodology, to ensure the selection of the best suited combination to explore and describe the influences of power in the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the authors explore and contribute to producing a performative research paradigm where post-qualitative as well as artistic research might dwell and breathe. Entering a thread of discussion that started with Haseman's A manifesto for performative research in 2006, and building on their own friction-led research processes at the edges of qualitative research, the authors plug in with performativity, non-representational theories and methodologies, post-qualitative inquiry and post approaches. A performative paradigm for post-qualitative inquiry is proposed, where knowledge is viewed as knowledge-in-becoming as the constant creation of difference through researcher entanglement with the research phenomenon and wider world. A performative paradigm produces a space for movement, (artistic) freedom, (post-qualitative) experimentation and inclusion. A performative research paradigm also offers provocations that shake long-established notions about what research is and should be. Within a performative research paradigm, learning/be(com)ing/knowing is always in-becoming – as is the performative paradigm itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mixed methods research has become an important approach to research worldwide. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods has made it possible for a deeper and broader understanding of multifaceted phenomena, thereby offering readers more confidence in research findings and conclusions. The use of mixed method designs became more established in the 1980s and early 1990s, but some controversies surrounding the approach remain. Nonetheless, experts in the field of mixed methods research have continued to work on the central premise that the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone. This concept paper discusses some of the known controversies around mixed methods with the aim of providing useful insights to emerging researchers interested in learning the methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explore what it means for a qualitative study to be trustworthy, how trustworthiness can be attained by researchers, and how lactation professionals can assess the studies they read for trustworthiness. Topics include aim of qualitative research is to understand meaning, and the data to be analyzed are words and observations.

Bridging Indigenous and Western paradigms in research can offer benefits but it can also be challenging because of the need to navigate power dynamics and differences in perspectives. Amid the Western epistemic norms that dominate most academic spaces in Canada, researchers must endeavour to bridge paradigms in such a way that Indigenous rights to self-determination are upheld, ensuring that Indigenous paradigms or worldviews are not subsumed by or tokenized within Western paradigms. Researchers must also be able to demonstrate the coherence of their project, showing how all aspects fit well together despite the involvement of different perspectives. This article shares lessons learned from a research project in which we aimed to coherently bridge Inuit worldviews and the critical paradigm in a manner that foregrounds Inuit perspectives. We present an accountability framework that supported project planning and decision-making in alignment with our core project intentions by prioritizing requirements for paradigm bridging. This framework was guided by concepts from or based on Inuit knowledge (i.e., piliriqatigiinniq and the Qaggiq Model) and qualitative research (i.e., meaningful coherence). We draw examples from our study to illustrate how we strove to achieve a balanced, dynamic relationship between Inuit and Western epistemologies, which was facilitated by shared points of common ground. Intentional focus was required to continually resist and redress power imbalances. We emphasize the importance of reflexivity and humility to the whole endeavour, highlighting the relevance of researcher positionality from the perspective of the Qallunaaq (White) lead researcher. While acknowledging that any effort to bridge paradigms must be specific to context, we propose that following an iterative, collaborative, reflexive, dynamic and responsive process can enable accountability to Indigenous communities and fidelity to researcher intentions. Such actions support the production of research that is meaningful, valued and useful to the population it intends to serve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trends toward convergence on common methodologies and standardized templates restrict the diversity of qualitative methods in organizational research. Considering that graduate education is a critical process in the socialization of researchers into the norms and dominant practices of their discipline, graduate students' socialization into research methodologies is vital for understanding methodological convergence. The purpose of our study was to understand how graduate students' socialization shapes their methodological and paradigmatic preferences. Showcasing methodological bricolage as an alternative to qualitative templates, we constructed a research design that combined thematic, discourse, and narrative analyses to investigate graduate students' reflections throughout a qualitative methods course introducing alternative research paradigms. Our findings highlight the role of institutional, disciplinary, and personal influences as well as identity work in researchers' socialization and trace alternative trajectories by which socialization and methodological identity construction processes may unfold. We offer a sketch of methodological socialization and suggest that its understanding should be central to nurturing paradigmatic and methodological plurality in qualitative research. We conclude with implications for future research and for research methods training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although mixed methods research (MMR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) have been employed to investigate complex research questions to improve the reach, rigor, and relevance of research, little is understood about the intersection of the approaches. We conducted a methodological review of studies (n = 129) using both MMR and CBPR, an advanced application we refer to as mixed methods community-based participatory research (MMCBPR). We systematically examined published MMCBPR studies to identify the methodological features and use in current research. Findings demonstrate that the components of MMR were not adequately described although some detail was provided about the use of CBPR. This study contributes to the evolution of advanced applications, and we offer recommendations for future applications of MMCBPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within this AEQ forum, the authors call for a dialogue and examination of research methods in the field of adult and continuing education. Using the article by Boeren as a starting point, the authors analyze both qualitative and quantitative research trends and advocate for more methodological diversity and plurality in current research approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An examination of articles published in leading adult education journals demonstrates that qualitative research dominates. To better understand this situation, a review of journal articles reporting on quantitative research has been undertaken by the author of this article. Differences in methodological strengths and weaknesses between quantitative and qualitative research are discussed, followed by a data mining exercise on 1,089 journal articles published in Adult Education Quarterly, Studies in Continuing Education, and International Journal of Lifelong Learning. A categorization of quantitative adult education research is presented, as well as a critical discussion on why quantitative adult education does not seem to be widespread in the key adult education journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary is derived from the five empirical articles that appeared in the April 2017 special issue on student engagement (Liem & Chong, 2017). Drawing on others’ critiques of engagement theory and research, and with full appreciation for theoretical and disciplinary diversity, I provide a high altitude, inclusive perspective of each article’s relationship to three vital types of engagement theory and research. I offer this typology in service of two purposes: (1) to assist readers’ ability to categorize, classify, synthesize, and integrate engagement research, theory, concepts, and definitions; (2) to highlight the practice implications that follow each study. I conclude the commentary by highlighting needs for engagement research to better attend to the day-to-day practice realities of school psychologists, educators, and other pupil support personnel. Improvement science is offered as a means of helping researchers and practitioners pursue this important bridge-building work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses a Kuhnian framework to explain the adoption of the transformative paradigm in pragmatically informed mixed methods research. We argue that pragmatism represents a model of “normal science” among many mixed methods researchers and that Kuhn’s concept of the scientific anomaly provides an instructive metaphor for understanding what we interpret to be a failure of pragmatic mixed methods researchers to adequately account for the axiological foundation for their work. The transformative paradigm thus can be read as providing pragmatic researchers with an axiological “fix” that sidesteps the larger question of how to establish a philosophically consistent means of specifying research value. We discuss this argument in light of pragmatist philosophy, the recent history of mixed methods research, and the future development of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS - The article discusses and compares two European studies that investigate young recipients of commercial messages on alcohol. The studies spring out of very different science philosophical paradigms, Their comparison therefore brings certain ontological, epistemological and methodological questions to a head. DATA AND METHODS - A large amount of existing research and theorizing has been reviewed in order to frame the studies concerning the following aspects: their goals (genesis. purposes etc.): their view on the nature of reality (ontology): their view on how knowledge is created and expanded (epistemology) and. their view on the role of values in research and theory building (axiology). RESULTS - It is suggested that although the studies work in separate paradigms and are concerned with different phenomena, they could gain from a consolidation for complementary purposes. CONCLUSIONS - The task of studying alcohol marketing audiences puts the alcohol research field's methodological capacities to the test. The field needs more interactive collaboration between different research traditions in order to produce credible research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article challenges the idea that mixed methods research (MMR) constitutes a coherent research paradigm and explores how different research paradigms exist within MMR. Tracing paradigmatic differences at the level of methods, ontology, and epistemology, two MMR strategies are discussed: nested analysis, recently presented by the American political scientist Evan S. Lieberman, and praxeological knowledge, inspired by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. These strategies address two different epistemological problems, namely, the problem of causal inference and the problem of double hermeneutics. Consequently, the research designs as well as the understandings of the “qualitative component” differ noticeably. Realizing such differences at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological level contributes to discussions on how to move forward MMR, embracing differences instead of imposing homogeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article takes a critical realist perspective to understand the research-practice gap in the field of business and management. To investigate issues surrounding the rigour versus relevance debate, we examine how the divergent perspectives of scholars and practitioners can be bridged by a critical realist approach in relation to: (1) the research paradigm: instead of confining their research within methodological purism, scholars may need to deploy any research paradigm to investigate a phenomenon in its context, (2) context and causality: critical realism provides an ontological grounding for interpretivist research reaffirming the importance of a focus on context, meaning and interpretation as causal influences, (3) methodological rigidity: multiple research methods will be more important when addressing research-practice gaps since they are more receptive to interdisciplinary functions and contexts in time and space than traditional methodologies, and (4) ethical aspects of business research highlighting the need to engage with the knowledge agenda of not only the university but also society overall. The critical nature of management studies we contend also helps to explain why at least certain research-practice gaps can be treated as natural because of divergent preferences of scholars and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within organizational research, the subject of insider academic research has received relatively little consideration. By insider research, we mean research by complete members of organizational systems in and on their own organizations. Insider research can be undertaken within any of the three major research paradigms—positivism, hermeneutics, and action research—selected and presented in this article. First, we revisit some of the established research paradigms to see what position they might have on insider research. Second, we explore the dynamics of insider research under the headings of access, preunderstanding, role duality, and managing organizational politics. Our conclusion is that within each of the main streams of research, there is no inherent reason why being native is an issue and that the value of insider research is worth reaffirming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article throws light on the role of Stewart Clegg, a scholar, on literature. One of the most admirable attributes of Clegg's thinking over many years now has been its suppleness, especially his ability to embrace with apparent ease emerging theoretical and philosophical developments, usually well in advance of the herd desperate to prove that they are au caurant with the latest Continental philosopher. No doubt this receptiveness to new ideas is in part due to his original schooling in the postwar European sociological tradition where there was a degree of tolerance toward intellectual dissent and apparently heretical thinking, be it of a liberal or radical ilk. To reiterate, the ability to grasp the nub of concepts developed in the rarefied atmosphere of social theory and then present them to a wider audience in a form that does not turn the concepts into blunt instruments has always been one of Clegg's most commendable qualities. With respect to the focus of this essay, however, this facility is particularly important because the author shall go on to consider what communications scholars with a more practical bent can learn from Clegg's work.