Posted: April 24th, 2025
Qualitative Prospectus Template
In RES-831 and/or RSD-851, you presented your initial draft(s) of part of your Prospectus Template. In this assignment, you will consider the feedback received on your prospectus defense submission, prior discussions, feedback from peers, and additional readings from the literature to revise/complete your Prospectus Template slides.
General Requirements
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
- Refer to the problem space and problem statement you presented in the Topic 2 and Topic 4 assignments in this course and any related instructor feedback you received. Pay close attention to whether you took a quantitative or qualitative approach to your topic. You will need to continue that approach here unless the instructor has indicated a need for you to change.
- Refer to “Prospectus Defense” assignment in RES-831 and any revisions made since that submission.
- Locate the “Prospectus Template” on the DC Network and download either the quantitative or qualitative template depending on your selected methodology. Note: A new template may be needed if changes have been made to the methodology since the last submission.
- This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
- Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association for specific guidelines related to doctoral-level writing. The manual contains essential information on manuscript structure and content, clear and concise writing, and academic grammar and usage.
- This assignment requires the inclusion of at least two scholarly research sources related to this topic and at least one in-text citation from each source.
- You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Directions
Based on the methodology of your potential dissertation topic, select the appropriate prospectus template: “Quantitative Prospectus PPT” or “Qualitative Prospectus PPT.”
Revise/complete the following template slides to describe and defend your potential study. Your choices must be defended with relevant current research.
- Proposed Dissertation Topic Title
- Alignment Table (fill in from corresponding slides below). Note: The purpose statement box is not required for this assignment.
- Literature Review: Background to the Problem
- Literature Review: Problem Space
- Literature Review: Theoretical Foundations
- Literature Review: Review of Literature
- Problem Statement
- Variables (if quantitative) or Phenomenon (if qualitative)
- Research Questions (and Hypotheses if quantitative)
- Methodology Justification. Note: Include a rationale for not choosing the other methodology.
- Design. Note: Complete the entire table per the slide requirements.
- Feasibility
Prospectus Instructions for Learners
General Instructions
Additional Information
for Completing Each Slide
Use this template only if you have a Qualitative topic.
This is a working document. You will work on and revise this PPT starting in year one of your program up through x-
9
5
5.
Instructions per Course Type:
Research (RES) Courses: Refer to your course syllabus to determine which slides you should complete or revise.
Residency (RSD) Courses & Dissertation:
RSD-
8
5
1
– complete slides in RSD1 section.
RSD-88
3
/881 & x-955 – revise/update slides from RSD1 and complete slides in RSD2 section.
Requirements, hints, and alignment notes are found in the Speaker Notes section.
To view speaker notes, click the “View” tab at the top of the application and select “notes.”
Hint: You may need to expand the notes section in order to see all of the notes contained for each slide.
To view comments/feedback from faculty, click the “review” tab at the top of the application and select “Show Comments.”
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
1
Instructions for Faculty
General Instructions
Additional Information
Written feedback is to be provided via bubble comments.
Comments can be created by holding Ctrl+M (for PC) or Command+Shift+M (Mac) on your keyboard, or via the Review tab.
To access the Comment pane, click the “review” tab and select “Show comments.”
The notes section in each slide contains the slide requirements.
Feedback
should be focused on helping the learner meet the slide requirements.
See the supplementary faculty job aid materials for grading and other resources.
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The Integration of Adaptive Learning Technologies in Traditional Classroom Environments
Guerline Pierre Joseph
Dr. Jacobs
8/
28
/
20
2
4
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
3
Alignment Table
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Problem Statement
:
It is not known how to effectively integrate adaptive learning technologies with traditional classroom instruction to optimize student learning outcomes and address diverse learner needs across various educational contexts and subject areas.
Purpose Statement
:
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to explore the processes, challenges, and strategies involved in integrating adaptive learning technologies within traditional classroom environments across K-
12
and higher education settings, in order to develop a comprehensive framework for effective implementation that optimizes student learning outcomes and addresses diverse learner needs.
The process of integrating adaptive learning technologies in traditional classroom environments, including implementation strategies, stakeholder experiences, challenges and opportunities, and impact on teaching and learning practices.
Research Question(s):
RQ1: How do educators experience the integration of adaptive learning technologies in their classroom instruction?
RQ2: What factors contribute to the successful implementation of adaptive learning technologies in diverse educational contexts?
RQ3: How do students perceive and engage with adaptive learning technologies in traditional classroom settings?
Methodology & Justification:
Qualitative methodology using a multiple case study design to explore complex processes and contexts (Creswell & Poth, 20
24
).
& Justification:
Multiple case study design to allow for in-depth examination of integration practices across diverse settings and facilitate emergence of unexpected themes and insights.
This alignment table demonstrates the coherence of my research design. The problem statement highlights the gap in our understanding of effectively integrating adaptive learning technologies in classrooms. The purpose statement outlines my intention to explore this integration process across various educational contexts. The research questions are designed to investigate the experiences of educators and students and the factors influencing successful implementation. The qualitative methodology, specifically a multiple case study design, aligns with these elements by allowing for an in-depth exploration of the complex processes and contextual factors involved in integrating adaptive learning technologies.
4
Literature Review: Background to the Problem
Evolution of adaptive learning technologies (
19
6
0s to present)
Current state: Improved outcomes but implementation challenges (Vincent-Ruz & Boase, 20
22
)
Accelerated adoption post-COVID-19 (Jing et al., 20
23
)
Need for research on long-term impacts and best practices (Harati et al., 20
21
)
Gap: Lack of understanding on effective integration in diverse contexts (Cebrián et al., 2020)
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Adaptive learning technologies have evolved significantly since their inception in the 1960s. Initially developed as basic computer-assisted instruction, these systems have grown more sophisticated with artificial intelligence and learning analytics advancements. Research has shown potential benefits, including improved learning outcomes and increased student engagement (Vincent-Ruz & Boase, 2022). However, implementation and integration challenges with existing curricula persist (Harati et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption, but questions remain about long-term impacts and best practices for classroom integration (Jing et al., 2023). This background sets the stage for understanding the current state of adaptive learning technology in education and the need for further research.
5
Literature Review:
Problem Space
State of the problem: Limited understanding of effective integration strategies
Known aspects: Potential for improved learning outcomes and personalization
Unknown aspects: Best practices for implementation across diverse contexts
Directions for future research: Long-term impacts, teacher roles, equity considerations
Synthesis: There is a need for comprehensive framework to guide effective integration
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The problem space for this study emerged from several key areas identified in recent literature. These include the need for effective integration strategies across diverse subjects and contexts (Cebrián et al., 2020), limited understanding of long-term impacts on student outcomes and self-regulated learning skills (Harati et al., 2021), and the effect of adaptive technologies on teacher roles and pedagogical practices (Toth et al., 2021; Khan & Khojah, 2021). Additionally, there’s a need for best practices in designing systems that address diverse learning needs (Gligorea et al., 2023) and ethical considerations for equitable implementation (Li et al., 2021). These areas highlight the complexity of the problem and the need for comprehensive research to guide effective implementation.
6
Literature Review:
Theoretical Foundations
Self-Directed Learning (SDL) framework (Toth et al., 2021)
Adaptive learning theory (Gligorea et al., 2023)
Cognitive load theory (Bradáč et al., 2022)
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
This study is grounded in three key theoretical frameworks. The Self-Directed Learning (SDL) framework, as employed by Toth et al. (2021), provides a structure for examining how adaptive technologies influence learner autonomy. Adaptive learning theory, discussed by Gligorea et al. (2023), offers insights into personalized instruction and its impact on learning outcomes. Cognitive load theory, explored by Bradáč et al. (2022), helps us understand how these technologies can optimize cognitive resources. Together, these theories provide a comprehensive lens through which to examine the integration of adaptive learning technologies in classroom environments, considering aspects of learner autonomy, personalization, and cognitive processing.
7
Literature Review: Review of Literature
| Major Topic/Theme (name the topic) | Topic/Theme Description (2-3 sentences with at least 3 in-text citations per topic) |
| Effectiveness of Adaptive Learning Technologies | Adaptive learning technologies have shown promise in improving student outcomes and engagement across various educational contexts (Vincent-Ruz & Boase, 2022). However, effectiveness varies depending on implementation strategies and subject areas, highlighting the need for context-specific research (Shih et al., 2023). |
| Integration Strategies in Classroom Environments | Successful integration of adaptive learning technologies requires careful planning and alignment with existing curricula and pedagogical practices (Cebrián et al., 2020). Teachers play a crucial role in the integration process, necessitating appropriate professional development and support (Toth et al., 2021). |
| Design Principles for Adaptive Learning Systems | Effective adaptive learning systems should be designed with user experience and pedagogical frameworks in mind (Gligorea et al., 2023). Key design principles include personalization, real-time feedback, and alignment with cognitive load theory (Bradáč et al., 2022). |
| Data Analytics and Personalization in Education | Data analytics in adaptive learning systems enable personalized learning experiences and inform instructional decision-making (Jing et al., 2023). However, the use of learner data raises concerns about privacy and the ethical use of predictive analytics in education (Li et al., 2021). |
| Ethical Considerations and Equity in Adaptive Learning | The implementation of adaptive learning technologies must address issues of equity, ensuring equal access and benefits for all students (Li et al., 2021). Ethical considerations include algorithmic bias, data privacy, and the potential for technology to exacerbate existing educational inequalities (Gligorea et al., 2023). |
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The literature review covers five key themes: effectiveness of adaptive learning technologies, integration in classroom environments, design principles, data analytics and personalization, and ethical considerations. Studies have shown mixed results in effectiveness across different contexts (Vincent-Ruz & Boase, 2022). Integration challenges include teacher training and curriculum alignment (Cebrián et al., 2020). Design principles focus on user experience and pedagogical frameworks (Gligorea et al., 2023). Data analytics raises questions about privacy and decision-making processes (Jing et al., 2023). Ethical considerations include equity of access and potential biases in adaptive systems (Li et al., 2021). This review highlights the multifaceted nature of the research problem and informs our study design.
8
Problem Statement
It is not known how to effectively integrate adaptive learning technologies with traditional classroom instruction to optimize student learning outcomes and address diverse learner needs across various educational contexts and subject areas.
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The problem statement encapsulates the core issue this study aims to address: “It is not known how to effectively integrate adaptive learning technologies with traditional classroom instruction to optimize student learning outcomes and address diverse learner needs across various educational contexts and subject areas.” This statement reflects the gap in current knowledge about practical implementation strategies that can maximize the benefits of adaptive learning while navigating the complexities of diverse educational settings. By focusing on the “how” of integration, this study aims to provide actionable insights for educators and policymakers to improve the implementation of adaptive learning technologies in classrooms.
9
Phenomenon
The process of integrating adaptive learning technologies in traditional classroom environments, including:
Implementation strategies
Stakeholder experiences (educators, students, administrators)
Challenges and opportunities
Impact on teaching and learning practices
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The central phenomenon under investigation is the process of integrating adaptive learning technologies in traditional classroom environments. This complex process involves multiple stakeholders, including educators, students, and administrators, and is influenced by various factors such as technological infrastructure, pedagogical approaches, and institutional policies (Toth et al., 2021). By focusing on this phenomenon, we aim to uncover the nuanced interactions between technology and pedagogy, the challenges and opportunities that arise during implementation, and the strategies that lead to successful integration across different educational contexts. This comprehensive exploration will provide a holistic understanding of the integration process
10
RQ1: How do educators experience the integration of adaptive learning technologies in their classroom instruction?
RQ2: What factors contribute to the successful implementation of adaptive learning technologies in diverse educational contexts?
RQ3: How do students perceive and engage with adaptive learning technologies in traditional classroom settings?
Research
Questions
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Our research questions are designed to explore different aspects of the central phenomenon. RQ1 focuses on educators’ experiences, aiming to uncover the challenges, strategies, and perceptions involved in integrating adaptive learning technologies. RQ2 seeks to identify the factors that contribute to successful implementation, which could include institutional support, professional development, or technological infrastructure. RQ3 examines the student perspective, exploring how learners engage with and perceive these technologies in their traditional classroom settings. Together, these questions provide a comprehensive approach to understanding the integration process from multiple angles, ensuring that we capture the phenomenon’s complexity from various stakeholder perspectives.
11
Methodology Justification
Qualitative research is characterized by its focus on in-depth exploration, collection of context-rich data, and flexible design. These attributes allow researchers to adapt their approach as new insights emerge during the study (Yin, 20
18
).
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The choice of a qualitative methodology aligns with the exploratory nature of this research. Qualitative methods are particularly suited for understanding complex phenomena in their natural settings and exploring the meanings individuals ascribe to their experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2024). This approach allows us to capture the nuanced interactions between technology, pedagogy, and learning environments that are central to our research problem. While quantitative methods offer valuable insights in many educational research contexts, they are less suitable for addressing our “how” questions and exploring the depth of understanding needed for this complex integration process (Hodge, 2020). The qualitative approach enables us to uncover unexpected themes and insights crucial for studying innovative educational practices.
12
Design
| Definition | Justification (use /not use) |
|
| Qualitative Descriptive | Descriptive design aims to provide a detailed account of a phenomenon without manipulating variables (Creswell & Poth, 2024). | While it offers rich descriptions, it may not provide the depth of analysis required for understanding the complex process of technology integration. |
| Phenomenological | Phenomenological design focuses on describing the lived experiences of individuals about a particular phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2024). | Although it could provide insights into stakeholders’ experiences, it might not capture the broader contextual factors influencing technology integration. |
| Narrative | Narrative design involves collecting and analyzing stories from individuals to understand their experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2024). | While potentially valuable for individual perspectives, it may not adequately address the systemic aspects of technology integration. |
| Case Study | Case study design involves an in-depth examination of a bounded system or multiple bounded systems over time (Yin, 2018). | This design allows for a comprehensive exploration of the adaptive learning technology integration process across various educational contexts. |
| Grounded Theory | Grounded theory design aims to generate or discover a theory from data systematically obtained and analyzed (Creswell & Poth, 2024). | While useful for theory development, our study’s focus is more on understanding existing processes rather than generating new theories. |
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
We’ve chosen a multiple case study design for this research (Hunziker & Blankenagel, 2024). Case studies allow for an in-depth examination of a bounded system over time, making them ideal for exploring the complex process of adaptive learning technology integration across various educational contexts. This design enables us to investigate multiple cases, comparing and contrasting experiences across different settings. Other qualitative designs were considered but deemed less suitable. For example, phenomenology focuses more on lived experiences than on processes, while grounded theory aims to develop a new theory, which is not our primary goal. The multiple case study design provides the flexibility and depth needed to address our research questions comprehensively.
13
Feasibility Slide 1
Resources for Study
Ethical Concerns
Access to educational institutions implementing adaptive learning technologies
Recording equipment and analysis software
CITI training completion
Minimal risk to participants
Confidentiality and data protection measures
Informed consent procedures
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Ensuring the feasibility of this study is crucial. We’ve identified key resources needed, including access to educational institutions implementing adaptive learning technologies, recording equipment for interviews and observations, and analysis software for data processing. Ethical concerns have been carefully considered. The study poses minimal risk to participants, and we’ve developed robust confidentiality and data protection measures. Informed consent procedures will be rigorously followed. We’ll complete CITI training to ensure ethical research practices. These considerations demonstrate that our study is not only feasible but also designed to protect participants and maintain high ethical standards throughout the research process.
14
Feasibility Slide 2
Study Alignment with Program
(Identify Program of Study)
Feasibility Concerns
Degree & Emphasis: Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership
Alignment: Focus on educational technology integration and leadership in implementing innovative practices
Potential challenges in accessing diverse educational settings
Backup plan: Utilize professional networks and online recruitment
Study is feasible with appropriate planning and flexibility
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
This study aligns well with my Doctor of Education program in Organizational Leadership. The focus on educational technology integration and leadership in implementing innovative practices directly relates to the program’s emphasis on organizational change and innovation. In terms of feasibility concerns, we’ve identified potential challenges in accessing diverse educational settings. To address this, we’ve developed a backup plan utilizing professional networks and online recruitment strategies. Given the importance of the topic and the careful planning we’ve done, including addressing potential obstacles, we believe this study is feasible. We’re prepared to be flexible and adapt our approach as needed to ensure successful completion of the research.
15
Defend
Questions
Feedback
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Objectives:
This slide is a placeholder for your defense of your topic to your residency instructor, peers, and/or dissertation committee.
Learners should be prepared to answer questions about their study, including the key points, alignment, and feasibility.
Slide Requirements:
This slide is for presentation purposes in RSD-851 only – no content is required.
After successful completion of RSD-851, this slide may be deleted.
16
Next Steps
Refine research design based on feedback
Begin literature review for Chapter 2
Identify potential sites and participants
Develop data collection instruments
Submit for IRB approval
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Moving forward, our next steps are crucial for the successful execution of this study. We’ll begin by refining our research design based on the feedback received today. The literature review for Chapter 2 will be expanded and updated to ensure a comprehensive foundation. We’ll then focus on identifying potential sites and participants, leveraging our professional networks and the criteria we’ve established. Concurrently, we’ll develop our data collection instruments, including interview protocols and observation guides. Finally, we’ll prepare and submit our IRB application to ensure all ethical considerations are addressed before beginning data collection. This systematic approach will set a strong foundation for our research.
17
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to explore the processes, challenges, and strategies involved in integrating adaptive learning technologies within traditional classroom environments across K-12 and higher education settings, in order to develop a comprehensive framework for effective implementation that optimizes student learning outcomes and addresses diverse learner needs.
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
The purpose statement encapsulates the core aim of our research: to explore the processes, challenges, and strategies involved in integrating adaptive learning technologies within traditional classroom environments. By focusing on both K-12 and higher education settings, we aim to develop a comprehensive framework for effective implementation that can be applied across various educational contexts. This study seeks to optimize student learning outcomes while addressing the diverse needs of learners. The multiple case study approach will allow us to gain in-depth insights into the integration process, considering the perspectives of educators, students, and administrators. This comprehensive exploration will contribute valuable knowledge to the field of educational technology and adaptive learning.
18
Population,
, &
Target Population
Sample
20-
30
participants (10-15 educators, 10-15 students) across 4-6 educational institutions
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Our study focuses on educators and students in K-12 and higher education institutions as the general population. The target population narrows to those in schools that have implemented adaptive learning technologies for at least one academic year, ensuring participants have sufficient experience with these systems. We aim for a sample of 20-30 participants, evenly split between educators and students, across 4-6 educational institutions. This sample size aligns with recommendations for qualitative case studies and should allow us to reach data saturation. The diverse range of participants across multiple institutions will provide a rich dataset for understanding the integration process in various contexts.
19
Instrumentation & Data Sources
| Data Source #1 Semi-structured interviews with educators and students |
Data Source #2 Classroom observations |
Data Source #3 Document analysis (lesson plans, technology integration plans |
| Semi-structured interviews use a flexible guide with pre-planned questions and topics, allowing for follow-up queries and discussion. An interview protocol will be developed based on the research questions, with open-ended questions to explore participants’ experiences and perspectives. Interview data will provide rich, qualitative insights into educators’ and students’ views on technology integration, addressing RQs about implementation challenges and perceived benefits. |
Classroom observations involve systematic recording of teaching practices and student behaviors during lessons. An observation protocol will be created, focusing on specific aspects of technology use, teacher-student interactions, and learning activities. Observational data will offer direct evidence of how technology is actually being implemented in classrooms, helping answer RQs about integration practices and student engagement. |
Document analysis involves systematically reviewing and interpreting written materials to gain understanding and develop empirical knowledge. Relevant documents will be collected from participating schools and educators, with a focus on technology-related content and planning. Analysis of these documents will provide insights into the intended use of technology in instruction, addressing RQs about planning processes and alignment with curriculum goals. |
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
We will use three primary data sources to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Semi-structured interviews with educators and students will provide in-depth insights into their experiences and perceptions. These interviews will allow for flexibility in exploring emerging themes while maintaining consistency across participants. Classroom observations will offer direct examination of how adaptive learning technologies are used in practice, capturing the nuances of implementation that may not be verbalized in interviews. Document analysis of lesson plans and technology integration plans will provide context on implementation strategies and institutional approaches. This triangulation of data sources will enhance the credibility and richness of our findings.
20
Data Collection Steps: Slide 1
Required Permissions
Required permissions/approvals (prior to data collection)
Site approval from participating institutions
IRB approval from Grand Canyon University
Informed consent from all participants
Permission to use and adapt interview protocols
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Before data collection begins, we must obtain several key permissions and approvals. We’ll secure site approval from each participating institution, ensuring we have official authorization to conduct our research. IRB approval from Grand Canyon University is crucial to ensure our study meets all ethical standards. We’ll obtain informed consent from all participants, clearly explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, and any potential risks or benefits. Permission to use and adapt interview protocols will be secured if we’re basing our instruments on existing tools. We’ll also complete any required administrative processes and obtain validation information on our instruments. These steps are essential for conducting ethical, authorized research.
21
Data Collection Steps: Slide 2
Sampling Strategy and Sample Selection
| Primary Sampling (Plan A) | Backup Sampling (Plan B) | |
| Steps to Access/Identify Participants for Each Data Source | Source 1:Contact school administrators to obtain permission and identify potential educator and student participants who meet criteria. Source 2: From interviewed educators, identify those willing to be observed. Source 3: Request relevant documents from interviewed educators. |
Source 1:Reach out to professional networks and education associations Source 2: Offer incentives for participation in observations. Source 3: Reach out to educational technology departments for sample plans. |
| Participation Criteria for Each Data Source | Source 1:At least one year of experience using adaptive learning technologies. Source 2: Classrooms actively using adaptive learning technologies. Source 3: Contact adaptive learning technology vendors for implementation guides. |
Source 1:Request referrals from initial participants (snowball sampling). Source 2: Consider virtual observations if in-person access is limited. Source 3: Plans should be current |
| Sampling Strategy & Description for Each Data Source | Source 1:Purposive sampling to select information-rich cases (Campbell et al., 2020) Source 2: purposive sampling Source 3: Maximum variation sampling to ensure diverse perspectives if needed |
Source 1: Convenience sampling Source 2: Convenience sampling Source 3: Convenience sampling |
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Our sampling strategy focuses on purposive sampling to select information-rich cases that can provide deep insights into our research questions. The primary criteria for selection include educators with at least one year of experience using adaptive learning technologies and students currently using these technologies in their classes. This ensures participants have sufficient exposure to reflect on their experiences. As a backup plan, we’ll employ snowball sampling through professional networks if we face challenges in recruiting participants. This approach allows us to adapt our recruitment strategy while still maintaining the focus on participants with relevant experience. The flexibility in our sampling approach increases the feasibility of our study.
22
Data Collection Steps: Slide 3
Collecting the Data
Contact potential sites and participants
Obtain informed consent
Conduct semi-structured interviews (60-90 minutes each)
Perform classroom observations (2-3 per educator)
Collect relevant documents
Maintain field notes and reflections
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Our data collection process will follow a systematic approach. We’ll begin by contacting potential sites and participants, explaining the study and its significance. Once participants are identified, we’ll obtain informed consent, ensuring they understand their rights and the study procedures. Semi-structured interviews, lasting 60-90 minutes each, will be conducted with both educators and students. We’ll perform 2-3 classroom observations per educator to capture a range of experiences with adaptive learning technologies. Relevant documents will be collected from participants and institutions to provide context. Throughout the process, we’ll maintain detailed field notes and reflections to capture additional insights and contextual information. This multifaceted approach will provide a rich dataset for analysis.
23
Data Collection Steps: Slide 4
Data Management and Storage
Where will you store the data?
Store data on password-protected, encrypted hard drive
How long will you store the data?
Keep data for 3 years post-study completion
How will you protect the data?
Use pseudonyms to protect participant identities
How will you destroy the data?
Destroy data through secure deletion and physical destruction of storage media
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Ensuring proper data management and storage is crucial for maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of our research. All collected data will be stored on a password-protected, encrypted hard drive to prevent unauthorized access. We’ll retain the data for 3 years post-study completion, in line with ethical guidelines and to allow for potential follow-up analyses. To protect participant identities, we’ll use pseudonyms in all research documents and publications. After the retention period, data will be destroyed through secure deletion methods and physical destruction of storage media. These measures demonstrate our commitment to protecting participant privacy and maintaining the ethical standards of our research.
24
Data Analysis Steps: Slide 1
Data Source #1 – Analysis Strategy
Data Source #1 – Semi-structured Interviews:
Transcribe interviews verbatim
Conduct thematic analysis (Kiger & Varpio, 2020)
Develop initial codes
Identify themes and subthemes
Review and refine themes
Define and name themes
Produce report of findings
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
For our semi-structured interviews, we’ll employ a rigorous thematic analysis approach following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step process. First, we’ll transcribe interviews verbatim to ensure accuracy. We’ll then familiarize ourselves with the data through repeated reading. Initial codes will be generated, followed by searching for themes within these codes (Kiger & Varpio, 2020). We’ll review and refine these themes, ensuring they accurately represent the data. Once themes are defined and named, we’ll produce a report of our findings. This systematic approach allows us to identify patterns and insights across our diverse set of interviews, providing a comprehensive understanding of participants’ experiences with adaptive learning technology integration.
25
Data Analysis Steps: Slide 2
Data Source #2 – Analysis Strategy
Data Source #2 – Classroom Observations and Document Analysis:
Review observation notes and documents
Conduct content analysis
Identify patterns and themes
Cross-reference with interview data
Synthesize findings across all data sources
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
For our classroom observations and document analysis, we’ll employ a content analysis approach. We’ll begin by thoroughly reviewing observation notes and collected documents. Through this process, we’ll identify patterns and themes related to the implementation and use of adaptive learning technologies. These findings will be cross-referenced with our interview data to triangulate our results and ensure consistency across data sources. This multi-method analysis approach allows us to capture both the stated experiences of participants and the observed realities of technology integration. By synthesizing findings across all data sources, we can develop a comprehensive understanding of the adaptive learning technology integration process in diverse educational settings.
26
Feasibility Slide 1
Resources for Study
Ethical Concerns
Access to educational institutions implementing adaptive learning technologies
Recording equipment (audio/video) for interviews and observations
Qualitative data analysis software (e.g., NVivo)
Secure data storage solutions
CITI training completion for ethical research conduct
Minimal risk to participants
Confidentiality and data protection measures, including use of pseudonyms and secure data storage
Informed consent procedures for all participants, including parental consent for minors if applicable
Measures to prevent disruption of regular educational activities during observations
Protocol for handling sensitive information that may arise during interviews or observations
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Ensuring the feasibility of our study is crucial for its success. We’ve identified key resources needed, including access to educational institutions, recording equipment, and analysis software. Ethical concerns have been carefully addressed to protect our participants. The study poses minimal risk, and we’ve developed robust confidentiality and data protection measures. Informed consent procedures will be rigorously followed, and we’ll complete CITI training to ensure ethical research practices. By carefully considering these aspects, we’ve demonstrated that our study is not only feasible but also designed to maintain high ethical standards throughout the research process.
27
Feasibility Slide 2
Study Alignment with Program
(Identify Program of Study)
Feasibility Concerns
Degree & Emphasis: Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership
Alignment: This study focuses on educational technology integration and leadership in implementing innovative practices, directly aligning with the program’s emphasis on organizational change and innovation in educational settings.
Potential challenges in accessing diverse educational settings across K-12 and higher education
Backup plan: Utilize professional networks, educational technology forums, and snowball sampling for recruitment
Time constraints for data collection across multiple sites
Potential for participant attrition, especially for longitudinal aspects of the study
Strategies to ensure consistent data collection across different educational contexts
The study is deemed feasible with appropriate planning, flexibility in recruitment strategies, and careful time management
Preparedness to adapt research protocols in response to unforeseen challenges or opportunities that may arise during the study
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Our study aligns closely with the Doctor of Education program in Organizational Leadership, focusing on educational technology integration and leadership in implementing innovative practices. This alignment ensures that our research contributes meaningfully to both the field and our academic development. We’ve identified potential challenges, such as accessing diverse educational settings, and developed backup plans including utilizing professional networks and online recruitment strategies. Based on our careful planning and consideration of potential obstacles, we believe this study is feasible. We’re prepared to be flexible and adapt our approach as needed to ensure successful completion of the research, demonstrating our readiness to undertake this important study.
28
Defend
Questions
Feedback
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
Objectives:
This slide is a placeholder for your defense of your topic to your residency instructor, peers, and/or dissertation committee.
Learners should be prepared to answer questions about their study, including the key points, alignment, and feasibility.
Slide Requirements:
This slide is for presentation purposes in RSD-881/883 only – no content is required.
29
Next Steps
Finalize Chapters 1-3 of the dissertation
Prepare for and submit IRB application
Develop detailed data collection protocols
Identify and contact potential study sites
Begin participant recruitment process
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
As we move forward, our next steps are crucial for the successful execution of this study. We’ll begin by finalizing Chapters 1-3 of the dissertation, incorporating feedback from this presentation. Preparing and submitting the IRB application will be a priority to ensure all ethical considerations are addressed. We’ll develop detailed data collection protocols, including interview guides and observation checklists. Identifying and contacting potential study sites will commence, leveraging our professional networks and established criteria. We’ll also initiate the participant recruitment process, ensuring a diverse and representative sample. These steps will set a solid foundation for the data collection phase of our research.
30
References
Bradáč, V., Smolka, P., Kotyrba, M., & Průdek, T. (2022). Design of an intelligent tutoring system to create a personalized study plan using expert systems. Applied Sciences, 12(12), 6236.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12126236
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Cebrián, G., Palau, R., & Mogas, J. (2020). The Smart Classroom as a Means to the Development of ESD Methodologies. Sustainability, 12(7), 3010.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073010
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (5th Ed.) Sage publications.
Fischer, H. E., Boone, W. J., & Neumann, K. (2023). Quantitative research designs and approaches. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 28-59). Routledge.
Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., Gorski, A. T., Gorski, H., & Tudorache, P. (2023). Adaptive Learning Using Artificial Intelligence in e-Learning: A Literature Review. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1216.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci1
31
21216
Harati, H., Sujo-Montes, L., Tu, C. H., Armfield, S. J., & Yen, C. J. (2021). Assessment and learning in knowledge spaces (ALEKS) adaptive system impacts students’ perception and self-regulated learning skills. Education Sciences, 11(10), 603.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100603
Hodge, S. R. (2020). Quantitative research. In Routledge Handbook of Adapted Physical Education (pp. 147-162). Routledge.
Hunziker, S., & Blankenagel, M. (2024). Multiple case research design. In Research Design in Business and Management: A Practical Guide for Students and Researchers (pp. 171-186). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_9
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
31
References Continued
Jing, Y., Zhao, L., Zhu, K., Wang, H., Wang, C., & Xia, Q. (2023). Research Landscape of Adaptive Learning in Education: A Bibliometric Study on Research Publications from 2000 to 2022. Sustainability, 15(4), 3115.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115
Khan, M. A., & Khojah, M. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Big Data: The Advent of New Pedagogy in the Adaptive E-Learning System in the Higher Educational Institutions of Saudi Arabia. Education Research International, 2022(1), 1263555.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1263555
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical teacher, 42(8), 846-854.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Li, F., He, Y., & Xue, Q. (2021). Progress, challenges, and countermeasures of adaptive learning. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 238-255. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0017
Shih, S. C., Chang, C. C., Kuo, B. C., & Huang, Y. H. (2023). Mathematics intelligent tutoring system for learning multiplication and division of fractions based on diagnostic teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 9189-9210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11553-z
Toth, J., Rosenthal, M., & Pate, K. (2021). Use of adaptive learning technology to promote self-directed learning in a pharmacists’ patient care process course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 85(1), 7971.
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7971
Vincent-Ruz, P., & Boase, N. R. (2022). Activating discipline specific thinking with adaptive learning: A digital tool to enhance learning in chemistry. Plos one, 17(11), e0276086.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276086
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications
DOCTORATES WITH PURPOSE
32
image1
TableData
Table 2.1 Overview of Main Research Methodologies, With Common Methods (used with
permission) [Acknowledgment: Deep, deep thanks to Dr. Anne MacCleave, Professor Emerita
(MSVU), for vetting and validating the core concepts contained in this table]
Research Paradigm Positivistic Postpositivistic
Research Methodology Quantitative and
Empirically
Based
Qualitative
Qualitative
Empirical
(Scientific)
Interpretive
(Humanistic)
Critical (Power)
Intent of Inquiry Explore,
describe,
predict, control,
and explain
Understand Emancipate
AXIOMS
Epistemology
(What counts as
knowledge and ways of
knowing [criteria for
evaluating knowledge]?
How should we study the
world? What is
meaningful evidence or
– The one truth
is out there
waiting to be
discovered via
the scientific
method
– Strive for
certainties, laws
of behaviors,
and principles
– Truth is
created, and there
is more than one
truth; knowledge
relies on humans’
interpretations of
their world
– Strive for
confidence
– Truth is
grounded in the
context
– Knowledge is
grounded in
social and
historical
practices
– Knowledge is
insights? How does
knowledge arise?
that provide
explanations
leading to
predictions and
control of
phenomena
– Knowledge is
objective (bias-
free)
– Knowledge is
dualistic
(fragmented and
not connected);
mind and matter
are separate
– Only
knowledge
generated using
the scientific
method is valid
– Only things
that can be seen
(observed or
experimented)
are worthy of
study
– Knowledge
comes from
using the
scientific
method
(experiments or
– Knowledge is
constructed by
people
– Agreed-upon
knowledge in one
culture may not
be valid in
another culture
– Takes into
account social
and cultural
influences on
knowledge
creation
– Knowledge is
subjective or
intersubjective
and includes
perspectives
– Research is
often
perspective-
seeking, not
truth-seeking
– There are many
ways of knowing
aside from the
scientific method
(e.g., stories,
spiritual
experiences,
religion, the
emancipatory,
created through
critically
questioning the
way things
“have always
been done”
– Knowledge is
about hidden
power structures
that permeate
society
– Knowledge is
dialectic
(transformative),
consensual, and
normative
– Knowledge is
about the world,
the way things
really are, and is
subject to
change
nonexperimental
methods)
sacred, the
mystical,
wisdom, art,
drama, dreams,
music)
– Knowledge can
be cognitive,
feelings, or
embodied
Ontology
(What should be the object
of the study? What is
human nature? What does
it mean to be human?
What counts as a
meaningful statement
about reality? How do
people make choices?
What is the nature of
reality? How can reality
be meaningfully
portrayed?)
– Reality is out
there; the world
is a universe of
facts waiting to
be discovered
– There is a
single reality
made of discrete
elements: When
we find them all
through the
scientific
method, we
have a full
picture of reality
– A single
reality exists
that people
cannot see
– A fact is a
fact; it cannot be
– Reality is in
here (in people’s
minds and/or
collectively
constructed)
– Social reality is
relative to the
observer, and
everyday
concepts need to
be understood to
appreciate this
reality
– The focus is on
the life-world
and shared
meanings and
understandings
of that world
– Reality is
socially
– Reality is here
and now (it is
material,
actually of the
world, not
imagined)
– Reality is
shaped by
ethnic, cultural,
gender, social,
and political
values, and
mediated by
power relations
– Reality is
constructed
within this
social-historical
context
– Humans are
not confined to
interpreted
– The true
nature of reality
can only be
obtained by
testing theories
– Seeing is
believing
– Laws of
nature can be
derived from
scientific data
– Human nature
is determined by
things people
are not aware of
and have no
control over
– Humans are
passive,
malleable, and
controllable
– Reality is
determined by
the
environment,
inherited
potential, or the
interaction of
the two
constructed via
the lived
experiences of
people
– Human nature
is determined by
how people see
themselves
– Humans are
active and self-
creating
– Human beings
can act
intentionally
(need capacity
and opportunity)
– Reality can be
a product of
people’s minds or
the interactions
of persons
– Reality
constitutes that
which is
constructed by
individuals in
interaction within
their contexts and
with other people
– Reality is
conditional upon
one particular
state or set of
conditions;
things can
change
– Human beings
have the
capacity to
exercise control
over social
arrangements
and institutions:
They can create
a new reality
– Humans who
are oppressed
are able to
emancipate
themselves and
challenge the
status quo
– Reality is
never fully
understood and
is deeply shaped
by power
– Seek to truly
understand the
real
circumstances
(i.e., the
political, social,
and institutional
– Reality is
external to our
consciousness
(not a product of
our minds)
human
experiences
structures) in
order to change
the power
balance
Logic
(How do people come to
their understandings?
What is acceptable as
rigor and inference in the
development of
arguments, judgments,
insights, revelations, or
social action?)
– Deductive,
rational, formal
logic
– Through
objective
observation,
experts form
research
questions and
hypotheses and
empirically test
them
– Concerned
with prediction,
control, and
explanation
– Clear
distinction
between facts
and values
– Strive to
generalize
universal laws
– The goal of
– Inductive logic,
attempting to
find various
interpretations of
reality and
recognize
patterns that
govern and guide
human behavior
– Assumes
researchers can
help people
become aware of
their unconscious
thoughts
– Concerned with
meanings and
understandings
so people can
live together;
how people make
sense of their
world
– Meaningful
findings are more
valuable than
– Inductive
logic, aimed at
emancipation
– Attempt to
reveal
ideologies and
power
relationships,
leading to self-
empowerment
and
emancipation
– Concerned
with the
relationship
between
meanings and
autonomy and
with
responsibility as
citizens
– Concerned
with critiquing
and changing
society
research is
replication and
theory testing,
leading to
control,
predictions, and
explanations
generalizations
– The goal is to
understand lived
experiences from
the point of view
of those living
them
– The goal of
research is a
credible
representation of
the
interpretations of
those
experiencing the
phenomenon
under study
– The intent is
to create
contextualized
findings
– The goal of
research is to
reveal power
relationships
leading to
changes in the
status quo and
more autonomy,
inclusion, and
justice
– Determine
sources of
oppression
(whether
internal or
external)
– Focus on
complex
generative
mechanisms that
are not readily
observable (e.g.,
it is hard to
observe
consciousness
raising)
Axiology – Values-neutral – Values-laden – Values-
(What is the role of values
and perceptions? The role
of researchers and
participants? How is what
is studied influenced by
the researcher and the
participants? What is the
relationship between the
researcher and the
participants?)
(often ignored)
– Moral issues
are beyond
empirical
investigation
– No place for
bias, values,
feelings,
perceptions,
hopes, or
expectations of
either researcher
or participant
– Researcher
tries to control
for anything that
can contaminate
the study
– The
relationship
between
researcher and
participant is
objective and
dualistic
(separate with
no interchange)
– The intent is to
uncover the
beliefs, customs,
and so forth that
shape human
behavior
– Bias, feelings,
hopes,
expectations,
perceptions, and
values are central
to the research
process
– Participants
play a central
role in the
research, even
instigating it
– The perspective
of the “insiders”
supercedes that
of the researcher
– The role of the
researcher is to
uncover
conscious and
unconscious
explanations
people have for
their life through
dialogue with
and among
participants
oriented and
values-driven
– Researchers’
proactive values
concerning
social justice are
central to the
research
– The intent is
to critically
examine
unquestioned
values, beliefs,
and norms to
reveal power
– The researcher
works in
collaboration
with citizen
interlocutors as
conversational
partners in
dialogue
– The researcher
seeks to
understand the
effects of power
so as to help
people empower
themselves
– The very
participatory
– The
relationship
between the
researcher and
participants is
intense,
prolonged, and
dialogic (deep
insights through
interaction)
research process
is grounded in
terms of the
insiders’
perspective,
respecting that
researchers have
contributing
expertise
(balance both)
– The role of the
researcher is to
challenge
insiders with
expert research
findings leading
to self-reflection
and
emancipation
– The intent is
to create change
in society by
emancipating
citizens to take
action
– The
relationship
between
researcher and
participants is
dialogic,
transactional,
and dialectic
(transformative)
Methods Common to Each
Methodology
(Appreciating the mixed
methods methodology,
which employs
quantitative and
qualitative approaches in
the same study)
Seeking
causality, laws,
and relations
via:
Quantitative:
Experiments
Quasi-
experiments
Field
experiments
Surveys
Seeking
relations and
regularities via:
Qualitative:
Quasi-
experiments
Field
experiments
Surveys
Ethnoscience
(new
ethnography)
Ethnography
Seeking theory,
meanings, and
patterns via:
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Grounded theory
Natural/
interpretive
inquiry
Discourse
analysis
Thematic
analysis
Document
analysis
Seeking
meanings and
interpretations
via:
Case studies
Discourse
analysis
Ethical inquiry
Seeking
reflection,
emancipation,
and problem
solving via:
Action research
Discourse
analysis
Participatory
research
Critical analysis
Feminist inquiry
Reflective
phenomenology
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Life history study
Narrative
research
Hermeneutic
inquiry
Heuristic inquiry
Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical
Guide
For the most optimal reading experience we recommend using our website.
A free-to-view version of this content is available by clicking on this link, which
includes an easy-to-navigate-and-search-entry, and may also include videos,
embedded datasets, downloadable datasets, interactive questions, audio
content, and downloadable tables and resources.
Author: Sue L. T. McGregor
Pub. Date: 2019
Product: Sage Research Methods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Methods: Theory, Research questions, Mixed
methods
Keywords: knowledge
Disciplines: Sociology, Education, Psychology, Health, Anthropology, Social Policy and Public Policy, Social
Work, Political Science and International Relations, Geography
Access Date: October 15, 2024
Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
City: Thousand Oaks
Online ISBN: 9781071802656
© 2019 SAGE Publications, Inc All Rights Reserved.
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i1494.xml?token=961a8002-2000-4b3a-acb5-85edefd0ebfa8987eb8bc10a3cc7ab0b9e11f09c189ecb8680067261b07e08d44eeb8283539c
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Research Methodolo
gies
Learning Objectives
• Appreciate the history of key methodological terms
• Recognize the necessity of being able to defend any methodological choices made at the interface
between philosophy and methods (methodologically responsible)
• Distinguish clearly between methodology and methods (as used in this book)
• Become familiar with the conceptual confusion, slippage, and clarity needed around three common
terms: research paradigm, research methodology, and research tradi
tion
• Appreciate the methodological approach used in this book (see Table 2.1)
• Explain the construct of philosophical axioms (epistemology, ontology, logic, and axiology)
• Distinguish between positivistic and postpositivistic research paradigms
• Compare and contrast empirical, interpretive, and critical research methodologies
• Compare and contrast quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods methodologies
• Explain why it is necessary to match research methodology with the research question
• Understand the conventions for writing the research methodology section of a paper
Introduction
Research and inquiry are about creating new knowledge (Habermas, 1984). Philosophy is the study of the
fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence—its truths, principles, and assumptions (Anderson,
2014). This book is premised on the assumption that everything in research hinges on philosophical underpin-
nings. But making this point is challenging because of the proliferation of methodology-related terms arising
in the late 1970s and peaking in the early 1990s. Egon Guba is credited with initiating the paradigm dialogue
about quantitative and qualitative research (Donmoyer, 2008). Since then, researchers have witnessed the
emergence of a dizzying array of jargon used by scholars trying to address this thorny but imperative aspect
of research. This scenario is exacerbated by the fact that “many researchers lack experience [or expertise]
in deliberating about methodological issues, and the esoteric and unfamiliar language of philosophy can be
intimidating” (MacCleave, 2006, p. 9).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 2 of 41
This array of methodology-related terms includes research paradigms, methodologies, methods, philosoph-
ical axioms, quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, positivism, postpositivism, empirical, interpretive, and
critical (and one can add postmodernism, poststructuralism, constructivism, naturalistic inquiry, critical real-
ism, and so on). Inconsistency in what these terms mean, alone and in relation to each other, is evident
across all disciplinary literature (Cameron, 2011). Acknowledging this state of affairs, Locke, Silverman, and
Spirduso (2010) sardonically noted that “the first tour through the research literature in your own area of in-
terest is likely to reveal more variety than you would expect” (p. 80). They even coined the term paradigmatic
subspecies (p. 80) to accommodate this diverse philosophical situation.
The result of such philosophical diversity is terminological soup or, as Buchanan and Bryman (2007, p. 486)
called it, “paradigm soup.” Actually, some of these terms have been in use for more than 400 years, adding
to this linguistic and philosophical conundrum (see Figure 2.1) (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010; Denzin & Lin-
coln, 2011; Fox, 2008; Guba, 1990; Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Lockyer, 2008; Niglas, 1999; Paley, 2008;
Smith, 1983). Nonetheless, researchers have the responsibility of explicitly identifying the methodological and
paradigmatic underpinnings of their scholarship (Maxwell, 2013).
To address this conceptual slippage, this chapter explains and justifies the approach used in this book (see
Table 2.1), knowing that not everyone will agree with it. Regardless, researchers and authors have to “ac-
knowledge the paradigm debate” and rigorously defend any methodological choices “made at the interface
between philosophy and methods” (Cameron, 2011, p. 101). This due diligence is necessary because, to
academics, these words can mean different things. Without conceptual clarity, the integrity of any academic
conversation about the interface between philosophy, methodology, and methods is compromised.
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 3 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Figure 2.1 History of Methodologically Oriented Terms
Table 2.1 Overview of Main Research Methodologies, With Common Methods (used with permission) [Ac-
knowledgment: Deep, deep thanks to Dr. Anne MacCleave, Professor Emerita (MSVU), for vetting and vali-
dating the core concepts contained in this table]
Research Paradigm Positivistic Postpositivistic
Research Method
ology
Quantitative and Em-
pirically Based Quali-
tative
Qualitative
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 4 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Empirical (Scientific) Interpretive (Humanistic) Critical (Power)
Intent of Inquiry
Explore, describe, pre-
dict, control, and ex-
plain
Understand Emancipate
AXIOMS
Epistemology
(What counts as knowledge and ways of know-
ing [criteria for evaluating knowledge]? How
should we study the world? What is meaningful
evidence or insights? How does knowledge
arise?
– The one truth is out
there waiting to be dis-
covered via the scien-
tific
method
– Strive for certainties,
laws of behaviors, and
principles that provide
explanations leading to
predictions
and control
of phenomena
– Knowledge is objec-
tive (bias-free)
– Knowledge is dualis-
tic (fragmented and not
connected); mind and
matter are separate
– Only knowledge gen-
erated using the scien-
tific method is valid
– Only things that can
be seen (observed or
experimented) are wor-
thy of
study
– Knowledge comes
from using the scientif-
ic method (experiments
or nonexperimental
methods)
– Truth is created, and there is
more than one truth; knowl-
edge relies on humans’ inter-
pretations of their world
– Strive for confidence
– Knowledge is constructed by
people
– Agreed-upon knowledge in
one culture may not be valid in
another culture
– Takes into account social
and cultural influences on
knowledge creation
– Knowledge is subjective or
intersubjective and includes
perspectives
– Research is often perspec-
tive-seeking, not truth-seeking
– There are many ways of
knowing aside from the scien-
tific method (e.g., stories, spiri-
tual experiences, religion, the
sacred, the mystical, wisdom,
art, drama, dreams, music)
– Knowledge can be cognitive,
feelings, or embodied
– Truth is grounded in the
context
– Knowledge is grounded in
social and historical prac-
tices
– Knowledge is emancipato-
ry, created through critically
questioning the way things
“have always been done”
– Knowledge is about hid-
den power structures that
permeate society
– Knowledge is dialectic
(transformative), consensu-
al, and normative
– Knowledge is about the
world, the way things really
are, and is subject to
change
Ontology
(What should be the object of the study? What
– Reality is out there;
the world is a universe
of facts waiting to be
– Reality is in here (in people’s
minds and/or collectively con-
structed)
– Reality is here and now (it
is material, actually of the
world, not imagined)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 5 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
is human nature? What does it mean to be hu-
man? What counts as a meaningful statement
about reality? How do people make choices?
What is the nature of reality? How can reality be
meaningfully portrayed?)
discovered
– There is a single re-
ality made of discrete
elements: When we
find them all through
the scientific method,
we have a full picture
of reality
– A single reality exists
that people cannot see
– A fact is a fact; it can-
not be interpreted
– The true nature of re-
ality can only be ob-
tained by testing theo-
ries
– Seeing is believing
– Laws of nature can
be derived from scien-
tific data
– Human nature is de-
termined by things
people are not aware
of and have no control
over
– Humans are passive,
malleable, and control-
lable
– Reality is de
termined
by the environment, in-
herited potential, or the
interaction of the two
– Reality is external to
our consciousness (not
a product of our minds)
– Social reality is relative to
the observer, and everyday
concepts need to be under-
stood to appreciate this reality
– The focus is on the life-world
and shared meanings and un-
derstandings of that world
– Reality is socially construct-
ed via the lived experiences of
people
– Human nature is determined
by how people see them-
selves
– Humans are active and self-
creating
– Human beings can act inten-
tionally (need capacity and op-
portunity)
– Reality can be a product of
people’s minds or the interac-
tions of persons
– Reality constitutes that
which is constructed by indi-
viduals in interaction within
their contexts and with other
people
– Reality is conditional upon
human experiences
– Reality is shaped by eth-
nic, cultural, gender, social,
and political values, and
mediated by power rela
tions
– Reality is constructed
within this social-historical
context
– Humans are not confined
to one particular state or set
of conditions; things can
change
– Human beings have the
capacity to exercise control
over social arrangements
and institutions: They can
create a new reality
– Humans who are op-
pressed are able to emanci-
pate themselves and chal-
lenge the status quo
– Reality is never fully un-
derstood and is deeply
shaped by power
– Seek to truly understand
the real circumstances (i.e.,
the political, social, and in-
stitutional structures) in or-
der to change the power
balance
Logic – Deductive, rational, – Inductive logic, attempting to – Inductive logic, aimed at
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 6 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
(How do people come to their understandings?
What is acceptable as rigor and inference in the
development of arguments, judgments, insights,
revelations, or social action?)
formal logic
– Through objective
observation, experts
form research ques-
tions and hypotheses
and empirically test
them
– Concerned with pre-
diction, control, and ex-
planation
– Clear distinction be-
tween facts and values
– Strive to generalize
universal laws
– The goal of re
search
is replication and theo-
ry testing, leading to
control, predictions,
and explanations
find various interpretations of
reality and recognize patterns
that govern and guide human
behavior
– Assumes researchers can
help people become aware of
their unconscious thoughts
– Concerned with meanings
and understandings so people
can live together; how people
make sense of their world
– Meaningful findings are
more valuable than general-
izations
– The goal is to understand
lived experiences from the
point of view of those living
them
– The goal of research is a
credible representation of the
interpretations of those experi-
encing the phenomenon under
study
emancipation
– Attempt to reveal ideolo-
gies and power relation-
ships, leading to self-em-
powerment and emancipa-
tion
– Concerned with the rela-
tionship between meanings
and autonomy and with re-
sponsibility as citizens
– Concerned with critiquing
and changing society
– The intent is to create
contextualized findings
– The goal of research is to
reveal power relationships
leading to changes in the
status quo and more auton-
omy, inclusion, and justice
– Determine sources of op-
pression (whether internal
or external)
– Focus on complex gener-
ative mechanisms that are
not readily observable (e.g.,
it is hard to observe con-
sciousness raising)
Axiology
(What is the role of values and perceptions?
The role of researchers and participants? How
is what is studied influenced by the
researcher
and the participants? What is the relationship
between the researcher and the participants?)
– Values-neutral (often
ignored)
– Moral issues are be-
yond empirical investi-
gation
– No place for bias,
values, feelings, per-
ceptions, hopes, or ex-
pectations of either re-
searcher or participant
– Values-laden
– The intent is to uncover the
beliefs, customs, and so forth
that shape human behavior
– Bias, feelings, hopes, expec-
tations, perceptions, and val-
ues are central to the research
process
– Participants play a central
– Values-oriented and val-
ues-driven
– Researchers’ proactive
values concerning social
justice are central to the re-
search
– The intent is to critically
examine unquestioned val-
ues, beliefs, and norms to
reveal power
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 7 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
– Researcher tries to
control for anything
that can contaminate
the study
– The relationship be-
tween researcher and
participant is objective
and dualistic (separate
with no interchange)
role in the research, even in-
stigating it
– The perspective of the “in-
siders” supercedes that of the
researcher
– The role of the researcher is
to uncover conscious and un-
conscious explanations people
have for their life through dia-
logue with and among partici-
pants
– The relationship between
the researcher and partici-
pants is intense, prolonged,
and dialogic (deep insights
through interaction)
– The researcher works in
collaboration with citizen in-
terlocutors as conversation-
al partners in dialogue
– The researcher seeks to
understand the effects of
power so as to help people
empower themselves
– The very participatory re-
search process is grounded
in terms of the insiders’ per-
spective, respecting that re-
searchers have contributing
expertise (balance both)
– The role of the researcher
is to challenge insiders with
expert research findings
leading to self-reflection and
emancipation
– The intent is to create
change in society by eman-
cipating citizens to take ac-
tion
– The relationship between
researcher and participants
is dialogic, transactional,
and dialectic (transforma-
tive)
Methods Common to Each Methodology
(Appreciating the mixed methods methodolo-
gy, which employs quantitative and qualitative
approaches in the same study)
Seeking causality,
laws, and relations
via:
Quantitative:
Experiments
Quasi-experiments
Field experiments
Surveys
Seeking relations and
Seeking theory, meanings,
and patterns via:
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Grounded theory
Natural/interpretive inquiry
Discourse analysis
Seeking reflection, emanci-
pation, and problem solving
via:
Action research
Discourse analysis
Participatory research
Critical analysis
Feminist inquiry
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 8 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Sources: From McGregor & Murnane (2010) with permission from John Wiley & Sons. Sources used by the
authors to develop the appendix included: Howe, 1992; Lather, 1994; Niglas, 2001; MacDonald et al., 2002;
Khazanchi and Munkvold, 2003; Guba and Lincoln, 2005; Ponterotto, 2005; Salmani and Akbari, 2008). Ac-
knowledgment and deep thanks to Dr.Anne MacCleave, Professor Emerita Mount Saint Vincent University
(MSVU), for vetting and validating the core concepts contained in this table.
Conceptual Confusion, Slippage, and Clarity
This section attempts the near impossible, to distinguish between the terms research paradigm, research
methodology (compared to methods), and research traditions. All three terms are used in the academic world,
leading to confusion because paradigm means thought patterns, methodology is linked with philosophy, and
tradition refers to long-standing customs (see Figure 2.2). In truth, they all have some merit when trying to
distinguish between (a) collecting new information (data) to answer a research question and (b) knowledge
creation using interpretations of those data. On the other hand, the diverse language used to refer to this as-
pect of research has created a quagmire. This complex and difficult situation makes it hard for one scholar
to talk to and understand another. But talk to each other they must, so this section briefly explains how the
literature understands these concepts, settling on research paradigm and research methodology for this book
(they mean different things).
regularities via:
Qualitative:
Quasi-experiments
Field experiments
Surveys
Ethnoscience (new
ethnography)
Ethnography
Phenomenology
Case studies
Content analysis
Thematic analysis
Document analysis
Seeking meanings and inter-
pretations via:
Case studies
Discourse analysis
Ethical inquiry
Life history study
Narrative research
Hermeneutic inquiry
Heuristic inquiry
Reflective phenomenology
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 9 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Research Paradigm
Paradigm is Latin paradigma, “patterns” (Harper, 2016). A paradigm is “a generally accepted explanation of
things,” with the dominant paradigm providing “the focal point and measuring stick” for inquiry (Rohmann,
1999, p. 296). Paradigms are thought patterns that help people make sense of their world, regardless of
whether they are engaged in research or not. Paradigms are habits of thinking in a particular way or of making
certain assumptions about the world (others call this worldview or mind-set) (Donovan, 2010) (see Chapter 1
for a discussion of paradigms and ideologies).
The term research paradigm, coined by Kuhn (1962), is understood to mean “patterns of beliefs and practices
that regulate inquiry within a discipline, doing so by providing the lenses, frames and processes through which
investigation is accomplished” (Weaver & Olson, 2006, p. 460). Johnson and Christensen (2012) defined a
research paradigm as a “perspective about research held by a community of researchers that is based on a
set of shared assumptions, concepts, values, and practices” (p. 31).
These definitions make sense. After all, disciplines are groups or communities of people, and paradigms re-
flect a group’s commitment to a constellation of beliefs about viewing the world. They are a group-licensed
way of seeing reality (Botha, 1989). Normally, the philosophical notion of axioms is reserved for the term re-
search methodology, as is the case in this book. Some scholars, however, characterize research paradigms
by distinctive axioms, namely ontology, axiology, epistemology, rhetoric, causality and logic, and methodol-
ogy (by which is meant the identification, study, and justification of research methods) (Guba, 1990; Pruyt,
2006).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 10 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i1401.xml
Figure 2.2 Research Paradigm, Methodology, and Tradition
Research Methodology
In many disciplines, the term methodology is used to refer to the methods used to collect, analyze, and report
data (see Schneider, 2014; Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). This usage eschews the real meaning of methodolo-
gy. Ology is Greek for a branch of knowledge or science. Method is Greek methodos, “the pursuit of knowl-
edge” (Anderson, 2014; Harper, 2016). Taken together, methodology means a branch of science that studies
the pursuit of knowledge. “The misuse of methodology obscures an important conceptual distinction between
the tools of scientific investigation (properly methods) and the principles that determine how such tools are
deployed and interpreted (methodology)” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).
This chapter views methodology as the philosophical underpinnings of research intended to generate new
knowledge and methods as tools and techniques to collect and analyze data (Lather, 1994; MacCleave, 2006)
(see Figure 2.3). To that end, this chapter focuses on methodologies, and Chapter 8 focuses on methods (and
research design). In particular, methodology refers to knowledge creation, including what counts as knowl-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 11 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
edge and knowing, reality, logic, and the role of values in knowledge creation (i.e., four axioms, to be dis-
cussed shortly). Two common approaches to describing research methodologies are (a) quantitative, qual-
itative, and mixed methods and (b) empirical, interpretive, and critical. These are discussed in more detail
further on in the chapter. This book uses the former as its organizational framework.
Research Traditions
Actually, some academics skirt the contentious issue of whether to use the term research paradigm or re-
search methodology and instead use the term research traditions (Jacob, 1987; Schneider, 2014). A tradition
is an inherited pattern of thought and a specific practice of long standing (Anderson, 2014). Kuhn (1970) said
any research tradition differs along three dimensions: (a) its assumptions about nature and reality, (b) the fo-
ci of studies and major issues of interest about the phenomenon, and (c) methodology (by which he meant
methods). He also noted that a tradition can occur either as an entire discipline or as a school within a disci-
pline (e.g., subdisciplines and disciplinary specializations). For example, Jacob (1987) applied this approach
to profile three subdisciplines within the discipline of education.
The term tradition is the least commonly used in the literature, but it was important to acknowledge it in this
chapter because authors may choose to use it when reporting their study, or they might encounter it when
reading literature. Patton (2002) identified 10 qualitative research traditions including constructivism, symbol-
ic interaction, semiotics, hermeneutics, systems, and chaos (nonlinear dynamics). This book views these as
falling within qualitative and interpretive research methodologies (see Table 2.1).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 12 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Figure 2.3 Methodology Compared to Method
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 13 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Confusion Ensues
Despite this attempt to clarify how these three constructs differ, confusion ensues. Dash (2005) said there
are two main research paradigms, positivism and postpositivism (to be discussed shortly). Others claim that
quantitative and qualitative are the main research paradigms, with some calling them methodologies or world-
views (Creswell, 2009; Shank & Brown, 2007). Still others claim that quantitative and positivism are the same
thing and that qualitative and postpositivism are the same thing (Lin, 1998; Williams, 1998). Some scholars
believe it is possible to have “positivistic qualitative” research (Paley,
2008).
Some scholars use the terms quantitative and qualitative to refer to methodologies, while others use them to
refer to methods (Creswell, 2009; Shah & Corley, 2006). Some assume that there is a diversity of research
traditions within qualitative research. Others, like this book (see Table 2.1), present qualitative as a unified
approach that spans several research traditions (e.g., narrative, phenomenology) (Jacob, 1987). Shank and
Brown (2007) called the quantitative and qualitative approaches worldviews (while most scholars associate
the term worldview with paradigms). There is simply no agreement in the literature about this fundamental
aspect of academic scholarship (Cameron, 2011).
The
ory and method choices
This issue becomes even more convoluted when trying to figure out how methodology is related to both theory
and method choices. Schneider (2014) acknowledged that it is very easy for authors to get it wrong when it
comes to finding balance and to discerning the conceptual distinctions among methodology (philosophical),
theory, and method. Creswell (1994) said the choice of theory determines whether the research is qualitative
or quantitative. This book assumes the opposite, that the qualitative or quantitative nature of the research
determines the relevant theory. Creswell further said that theory is independent of, or separate from, the re-
searchers’ worldview. This may be true, but theory is not necessarily independent of the methodology; that
is, the assumptions of a theory should reflect the basic assumptions of reality as understood by the different
research methodologies.
Example 2.1 Methodology and theory choice A qualitative researcher, interested in the emancipa-
tion of oppressed peoples, is more likely to use critical theory than economic theory. The former as-
sumes people are oppressed by dominant, hegemonic ideologies and need their consciences raised
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 14 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
so they can free themselves and change the system. Economic theory, premised on scarcity, compe-
tition, a win–lose mentality, and wealth accumulation, is better suited to explain how the hegemony
arose in the first place, rather than how to climb out from under it.
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Determine if the authors actually included a separate section or subheading called Methodology
(with another section or subsection called Methods)
□ Determine if they appreciated the distinction between method (sampling, data collection, and
data analysis) and methodology, likely referring to qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods (see
Figures 2.2 and 2.3)
□ If they did not clearly articulate the research methodology underpinning their study, determine if
they provided enough information for you to deduce it
□ Determine if the authors referred to research paradigms or research traditions (see Figure 2.2),
and judge if this was clear or caused confusion
□ Ascertain if they explained how their theory choice was affected by their research methodology
□ Check to see if they explained how their methods were affected by their research methodology
Methodological Approach Used in This Book
Respecting the long-standing conundrum of how all of these terms are separate or related, an approach had
to be developed as the anchor for this book. That approach is set out in Table 2.1 (adapted from McGregor
and Murnane, 2010, used with permission). Several sources were used to compile Table 2.1 (Guba & Lin-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 15 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
coln, 2005; Howe, 1992; Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2003; Lather, 1994; MacDonald et al., 2002; Niglas, 2001;
Ponterotto, 2005; Salmani & Akbari, 2008). In a nutshell, the rest of the book is organized using qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies, assuming that qualitative is postpositivistic (and includes in-
terpretive and critical) and that quantitative is positivistic (and includes empirical).
This book further assumes that positivism and postpositivism research paradigms are a different construct
than quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research methodologies or empirical, interpretive, and crit-
ical methodologies (which differ on axioms). Overall, unlike paradigms, methodologies differ according to as-
sumptions, basic tenets, and axioms (Kuhn, 1970; Weaver & Olson, 2006). The axioms were used to compare
and contrast each methodology in Table 2.1 (see the left column), and the assumptions are used in Chapter
8 to contrast quantitative methods, qualitative methods, and mixed methods (see Table 8.2). Table 2.1 also
includes positivistic qualitative research, when numbers are used, such as with a content analysis (Paley,
2008).
As a further caveat, some researchers view other “methodological” approaches as research traditions, includ-
ing poststructuralism, postmodernism, constructivism (naturalistic), hermeneutics, and critical realism or criti-
cal theory (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Neuman, 2000; Niglas, 2001; Paley, 2008). For the purposes of this book,
these are construed as aspects of “qualitative postpositivism,” especially interpretivism, which assumes there
are many truths and many realities. Finally, in no way does Table 2.1 “imply a certain rigidity” (Paley, 2008,
p. 649) in the idea of a paradigm or a methodology, giving a nod to the lack of disciplinary agreement on this
idea. And, although the result of preparing and using Table 2.1 was an “oversimplification of the philosophical
issues” (Paley, 2008, p. 649), it seemed justified in that this colossal topic could not be covered in sufficient
detail in one chapter.
Methodological Responsibility in an Ideal World
Before explaining the components of Table 2.1, consider that, in an ideal world, researchers would live an
examined life wherein they are aware of the paradigms shaping their life. They would also be aware of the dif-
ferent research methodologies and how they affect the entire research enterprise. With this paradigmatic and
methodological awareness, researchers would consciously choose a research question while fully cognizant
of which methodology is most appropriate to generate the information required to address it, leading to new
knowledge. They would be able to reconcile any disconnect between personal worldviews and their assump-
tions about research (see Neuman, 2000; Schneider, 2014). For example, they might personally eschew the
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 16 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml#i2372
scientific worldview, favoring a life-oriented paradigm; yet, they would choose to conduct an empirical experi-
ment because it was the best approach to answer their research question.
In particular, with methodological awareness, they would be able to consciously shift their point of view and
see the world from a variety of paradigmatic stances (Donmoyer, 2008), choosing the approach that best an-
swers their research question (Ary et al., 2010). On the whole, however, personal paradigms and research
methodologies are usually unexamined, subliminal aspects of scholarship (Neuman, 2000; Tashakkori & Ted-
dlie, 1998). For that reason, this book is focused on the deep importance of understanding how the philosoph-
ical underpinnings of research profoundly shape the choice of research question, research design, theory,
methods, reporting of results or findings, and discussion and conclusions.
Each of the key building blocks of Table 2.1 is now addressed, starting with (a) the philosophical axioms (the
left column) and moving to (b) research paradigms (positivism and postpositivism), followed with (c) each of
two approaches to methodologies: (i) empirical, interpretive, and critical methodologies and (ii) qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies. As a caveat, recognizing the confusion caused by the in-
terchangeability of all of these terms, the rest of the book consistently uses these terms as clarified in the
following text.
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Confirm if the authors convinced you that they are reflexive about their research and are philo-
sophically aware—hence, methodologically responsible
□ Ascertain if the methodology they chose for their study best reflects their research questions
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 17 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Philosophical Axioms
All research entails knowledge creation, generation, or production (depending on the methodology), meaning
authors need to address issues of methodology (the study of knowledge creation) and relevant philosophical
underpinnings (Dudovskiy, 2016). Methodology is a branch of philosophy that analyzes the principles and pro-
cedures of inquiry in disciplinary studies (Anderson, 2014). Philosophy has several fields of inquiry (Rohmann,
1999), with four branches of philosophy pertaining to the notion of research methodology (see Figure 2.4):
(a) Metaphysics (ontology) studies the nature of reality and of being and becoming, (b) epistemology is con-
cerned with the nature and the scope of knowledge, (c) logic involves the study of valid argument forms and
truth claims, and (d) axiology studies values, especially the role of the researchers’ values in research (Ryan
& Cooper, 2007). These philosophical foundations are the crux of all research, whether or not authors ac-
knowledge them in their paper (Neuman, 2000).
Paley (2008) defined the various approaches to research as an “encapsulated and rather rigid set of ontolog-
ical, epistemological . . . beliefs” (p. 650). He was referring to the axioms of research methodologies. Axiom,
a philosophical concept, is Latin axioma, “that which commends itself as evident” (Harper, 2016). In philoso-
phy, an axiom is an authoritative statement about reality, knowledge, logic, or values. An axiom is regarded
as established, accepted, or self-evidently true (Cicovacki, 2009; Oxford American College Dictionary, 2002).
These four axioms were used to help profile the paradigmatic and methodological approaches used in this
book (see Table 2.1).
As a caveat, most academics link the notion of philosophical axioms to the empirical–interpretive–critical
model of research methodologies (Kim, 2003), rather than the qualitative–quantitative–mixed methods model,
which is differentiated by assumptions (see Chapter 8, Table 8.2). These two ideas are quite different. An
axiom is a self-evident truth that requires no proof (never needs to be questioned). An assumption is a sup-
position that is taken for granted without questioning or proof, when it probably should have been questioned
(Anglika, 2008).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 18 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml#i2372
Figure 2.4 Four Methodological Axioms
Example 2.2 Axiomatic statement A researcher could say, “I hold as axiomatic that reality is out
there waiting to be discovered. With enough value-neutral and objective studies using the scientific
method, the truth about reality can be found using deductive logic.” Such an authoritative statement
reflects the positivistic, empirical research methodology. Despite that others (i.e., those who assume
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 19 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
other things about knowledge creation) may not agree with this statement, this researcher assumes
this authoritative statement cannot be challenged because it is true.
By acknowledging the axiomatic underpinnings of their research, authors tell readers that they are reflexive
and philosophically aware. They are able to link the abstract ideas of philosophy to the concrete practices of
research. By not questioning assumptions, researchers may not be able to justify or defend their research
design to more discerning parties (Neuman, 2000).
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Determine if the authors referred to one or more philosophical axioms (see Figure 2.4 and Table
2.3), ideally in concert with mention of empirical, interpretive, and/or critical methodologies
□ Judge if the scope and depth of their discussion of philosophical axioms affected your critical
assessment of the quality of their paper
Positivism and Postpositivism
As noted, this book uses positivism and postpositivism as the two overarching research paradigms under
which research methodologies can be categorized (Alaranta, 2006; Creswell, 1994; Gephart, 1999; Kim,
2003). Table 2.2 profiles their main assumptive differences (Lin, 1998; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Not every
one
agrees with this stance of using these two labels for overarching paradigmatic constructs. For instance, Pon-
terotto (2005) proposed three key research paradigms, positioning (a) postpositivism as a strand of positivism
but identifying (b) constructivism/interpretivism and (c) critical/ideological as the other two dominant para-
digms (rather than methodologies). In a strange twist, Creswell (2009) used the term postpositivism to refer
to what others call positivism (i.e., reductionism, determinism, empirical observation, and theory verification).
Historically, in the early 1800s, social scholars assumed they could study human behavior by copying or
adapting the assumptions and methods used to study natural phenomena (i.e., positivism). Eventually, so-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 20 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
cial scientists began to question the correctness of this assumption. They had discovered that positivistic as-
sumptions do not hold when examining human behavior because humans are “qualitatively different” from
nature. Humans can think, learn, and reflect, and they possess motives and reasons for their actions. Not so
for stars, chemical compounds, objects, or other species. Eventually, qualitative research emerged because
enough people accepted that “adjustments to the natural science approach” were not enough. Instead, “an
entirely separate, special kind of science” was needed, which became known as postpositivistic (and qualita-
tive) (Neuman, 2000, p. 96).
Positivistic Research Paradigm
The term positivism was coined 200 years ago by Auguste Comte (early to middle 1800s). Positivism is a
strand of philosophy that recognizes only that which can be scientifically verified or logically proved (Ander-
son, 2014). The term stems from Comte’s assertion that academic disciplines and the human mind progress
through three stages: (a) theological preoccupations, (b) metaphysical speculations, and (c) their full and per-
fect development marked by the positive state. The latter stage confines itself to the study of experimental
facts and their relations, representing perfect human knowledge. He felt that in the positive stage, people
would “work for the progress of humanity by studying it (science and education), loving it (religion), beauti-
fying it (fine arts), and enriching it (industry)” (Sauvage, 1913, p. 2). This would all be achieved by reducing
human knowledge to “sense experiences [experiments] and empirical associations” (p. 2) (i.e., positivism).
Table 2.2 Comparison of Assumptions of the Positivistic and Postpositivistic Research Paradigms
Positivistic Paradigm Assumptions Postpositivistic Paradigm Assumptions
• The only way people can be positive that the knowledge is true is if it
was discovered using the scientific method
• Denies positivism, assuming there are many ways of knowing aside
from using the scientific method
• Empirical data derived from experiments and observations are inter-
preted using deductive reasoning
• Rather than testing hypotheses, the intent is to generate hypotheses
through inductive reasoning
• Human knowledge is based on unchallengeable, rock-solid founda-
tions
• Human knowledge is based on human conjecture (opinion based on
incomplete evidence)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 21 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
In the 1920s and 1930s, logical positivism emerged as a philosophical movement (also known as logical
empiricism). It is associated with the Vienna Circle, comprising a group of mathematicians, scientists, and
philosophers who banded together after the First World War. Intent on reducing human knowledge to logical
and scientific foundations, they posited there are only two sources of knowledge, (a) logical reasoning and
logical analysis and (b) empirical experience (experiments and observations). Logical knowledge includes
mathematics, and empirical knowledge includes the natural sciences (e.g., physics, biology, and psycholo-
gy). The main tenets of logical positivism are (a) the verifiability principle, (b) the logical structure of scientific
theories (formal, deductive logic), and (c) probability (Folse, 2000; Paley, 2008). Eventually, Karl Popper es-
chewed the quest for verification, advocating instead the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses rather than their
confirmation (Kemerling, 2011). If something is falsifiable, it can be proven false.
Although it began in Europe, logical positivism especially flourished in the United States, in the climate of the
philosophy of American pragmatism. This strand of philosophy evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the
• The only authentic knowledge is that based on senses, experiences,
and positive verification
• Authentic knowledge arises from the search for meaning, under-
standings, and power relations
• The intent is to discover general laws applicable to everyone (gener-
alizability)
• The intent is to help people in specific cultural and social contexts
better understand and/or change their world
• Individual theories must shift in the face of new evidence • Worldviews must shift in the face of new insights
• Seeks to identify details with hypotheses that can be tested or identi-
fied in other cases
• Seeks to combine details into belief systems whose manifestations
are specific to a case
• Does so by identifying general abstract patterns
• Does so by showing how the general patterns look in real life (in
practice)
• Identifies the existence of causal relationships • Produces detailed explanations of causal mechanisms
• Cannot explain how the causal mechanism works, only that there is
one
• Explains how the causal mechanism works (how particular variables
interact)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 22 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
success of their practical application (Anderson, 2014; Folse, 2000; Paley, 2008). This philosophy holds that
most philosophical topics are best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes (e.g., the nature of
knowledge, meaning, belief, and science) (Gutek, 2014). And, although the movement eventually broke down,
five very strong ideas persist to this day: “first, that there are logical relations between theory and observation
and second, that explanations consist of law-like generalizations from which the occurrence of specific events
can be deduced” (Paley, 2008, p. 647). An enthusiasm for statistics is a third hangover of positivism (Paley,
2008). Fourth is the tendency for objective, value- and bias-free research and jargon (vocabulary), and fifth is
the idea that humans are objects to be observed by detached scientists (Smith, 1983).
In contemporary times, the positivistic research paradigm assumes that the only way people can be positive
that the knowledge is true is if it was created using the scientific method (see Chapter 9), which consists of
generating hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and then designing experiments to test these hypothe-
ses. This encompasses the empirical methodology, meaning numerical data are derived from experiments
and observations (Rohmann, 1999). Science strives to discover universal laws for society (akin to universal
laws for nature). And philosophical problems and paradoxes are assumed to be resolved using logical analy-
sis, leading to more clear scientific theories.
As previously noted, positivism is best known for the principle of verifiability and its resultant penchant for
quantifiability, especially using numbers and statistics (Paley, 2008). Not surprisingly, then, a wide range of
statistical measures has been developed as a means of measuring reliability and validity, the two criteria tak-
en as evidence of intellectual rigor (logically valid) in the positivistic paradigm (see Chapter 10). If all of the
rules of the scientific method are followed, people should feel comfortable with their judgments, their conclu-
sions, and any actions based on their interpretation of the results (Nahrin, 2015).
In this whole process, it is imperative that the entire exercise is objective (value free) so as to reduce re-
searchers’ biased interpretations of the results. Also, value neutral means the researchers’ choice of what to
study should be influenced not by their values, beliefs, or interests but by objective criteria. For example, they
can study about values, but their values cannot influence the study. Also, science is viewed as isolated from
human beings, who are seen as objects to be studied and controlled. Most empirical research is contrived,
happening in a laboratory or a controlled setting. And reductionism is an important tenet of positivism, involv-
ing understanding problems by reducing them to their simplest elements, thereby negating any appreciation
for life’s complexities (Nahrin, 2015; Salmani & Akbari, 2008). By the 1970s, scholars were beginning to de-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 23 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2431.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2560.xml
bate the merit and legitimacy of using positivism in social research (Neuman, 2000; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003),
leading to a research paradigm that is now called postpositivism.
Postpositivistic Research Paradigm
Post is Latin, “afterwards” (Harper, 2016). Some scholars disagree with the term postpositivism because they
think it incorrectly implies positivism is over. They advocate instead the term nonpositivism (Dash, 2005; Hunt,
1991). That being said, this chapter uses the well-accepted label of postpositivism as the overarching term for
a research paradigm that denies positivism (Neuman, 2000; Niglas, 2001; Zammito, 2004), with justification.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Max Weber developed the concept of Verstehen (understanding); thus
began the early stages of the postpositivistic movement. Weber believed that social realities need to be un-
derstood from the perspective of the person living them (the subject) rather than the person observing them
(the object) (Fox, 2008; Smith, 1983). The actual term postpositivistic research paradigm was coined in the
mid 1960s and assumes there are many ways of knowing aside from using the scientific method. There is a
place for the voice and role of the researcher and of the study participants. Humans are seen as central to
the research process, rather than isolated from it. This notion emerged when Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn
popularized the idea of thinking about science in ways other than positivism (Zammito, 2004).
The postpositivistic research paradigm generates hypotheses (for future studies) through inductive reasoning,
striving to (a) understand why something or someone operates in the manner that it does (interpretation) or
(b) reveal power relationships and structures (critical). It assumes that research is value laden, subjective
(within a person’s mind), and intersubjective (shared by more than one conscious mind), even value driven
within the critical stance. Postpositivistic research usually happens in natural settings (i.e., communities and
daily lives). The intent of the research varies, but it can include (a) seeking patterns and commonalities; (b)
discovering underlying meanings and structures; (c) revealing beliefs, kinships, and ways of living; (d) placing
experiences into words and narratives; and (e) uncovering ideologies and power relationships (Lather, 1994;
Thorne, 2000).
Postpositivistic researchers strive for trustworthiness criteria by endeavoring to achieve rigor through credibil-
ity, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Authenticity criteria (i.e., fairness, ontological, educative,
catalytic, and tactical) become paramount when participants are involved in the research design (Guba & Lin-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 24 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
coln, 2005; Koch, 1996; Shah & Corley, 2006) (see Chapter 8, Table 8.5).
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Check to see if the authors knowledgeably used the term positivistic or postpositivistic (see Ta-
bles 2.1 and 2.2)
□ Determine, if they did use these terms, if they used them correctly (given their historical and cur-
rent meanings)
Empirical, Interpretive, and Critical Methodologies
In addition to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods methodologies (to be discussed shortly), this book
embraced another approach to methodologies: (a) empirical (positivistic, scientific), (b) interpretive, and (c)
critical, the latter two falling under the postpositivistic paradigm umbrella (Kim, 2003, Neuman, 2000; Weaver
& Olson, 2006). Each of these three approaches to knowledge creation differs along the four axioms outlined
earlier (see Figure 2.4 and Table 2.3). Much more detail is provided in Table 2.1. In essence, the interpretive
and critical methodologies provide “nonpositivistic alternatives” to the long-standing positivistic (empirical) ap-
proach to knowledge creation (Neuman, 2000, p. 96).
Table 2.3 Philosophical Assumptions (Axioms) of Empirical, Interpretive, and Critical Research Methodolo-
gies
Empirical Methodology Interpretive Methodology
Critical Methodology
Ontology (re-
ality)
Assumes reality is out there in the
universe waiting to be discovered.
Assumes reality is in here (in people’s
minds, and collectively construed via
Assumes reality is material, here and
now, shaped by ethnic, cultural, gender,
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 25 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml#i2400
Habermas’s Theory of Communication
Habermas (1984), a contemporary German philosopher, also addressed knowledge creation from these three
approaches. His theory of communication posited three domains of human knowledge: (a) empirical-analytic
(technical), (b) cultural-hermeneutical interpretive (practical), and (c) critical (emancipatory). These domains
of human interest determine what people will accept as knowledge—respectively, (a) technical actions related
to work, (b) social interactions related to intersubjective communications, and (c) critical self-knowledge and
system knowledge related to emancipation (see also Brown & Paolucci, 1979).
First, the empirical-analytic approach to knowledge creation assumes that nature and society are possible
objects of inquiry and new knowledge, based on prediction and control of natural and social environments.
Second, the interpretive approach to knowledge creation assumes that features of everyday life and human
interactions are possible objects of inquiry and new knowledge. Human societies depend on (a) action-orient-
ed (inter)personal understandings that operate within cultural life and (b) the interpretive competencies that
translate these understandings into the practical conduct of life (Habermas, 1984).
Do enough studies and collect
enough data, and eventually a full
picture of reality will emerge
lived experiences of a phenomenon);
there are multiple realities
social, and political values. It is mediated
by power relations. Reality is constructed
within this historical-social context
Epistemology
(knowledge
and knowing)
The one truth is out there waiting
to be discovered, and knowledge
is created using the scientific
method
There is more than one truth because
there are multiple realties; knowledge
is constructed or created by people.
Truth is based on people’s interpreta-
tions and meanings of their world
Knowledge and truths are grounded in
context; knowledge is dialectic; truth is lib-
erating and in flux
Logic (argu-
ments and
claims)
Deductive logic (rational, formal,
objective)
Inductive logic (patterns, meanings,
multiple interpretations)
Inductive logic in hopes of revealing pow-
er and influence, leading to personal au-
tonomy and empowerment
Axiology (val-
ues)
Values neutral; there is no place
for the researcher’s feelings, opin-
ions, values, perceptions, or ex-
pectations
Values laden; bias, hopes, feelings, ex-
pectations, and perceptions of partici-
pants and researcher play a central
role
Values driven and values oriented; the re-
searcher’s proactive values concerning
social justice are key to the research
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 26 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Third, the critical (emancipatory) domain assumes that social criticism, sociopolitical ideologies and power
structures, and personal self-delusions (plus consciousness awareness) are possible objects of inquiry and
new knowledge. Human emancipation involves critical self-reflection so as to overcome dogmatism, compul-
sion, and domination. Knowledge is emancipatory and transformative, created through critically questioning
the way things are and have always been (i.e., power). Emancipatory knowledge deals with the power re-
lationships between marginalized voices and mainstream hegemonic power brokers (i.e., the dominance of
one group over others) (Habermas, 1984).
In short, empirical knowledge is objective, not influenced by the personal feelings or opinions of the re-
searcher. This knowledge (gleaned from one study) is assumed to reflect other populations not included in
the study (generalizable). Interpretive knowledge is subjective, gained by the researcher while interpreting the
meanings and understandings expressed by participants in a study. That knowledge is context specific and
likely intersubjectively shared by other individuals or the culture under study. Critical knowledge is normative.
Its creation frees people from inner compulsions and unnecessary social control by those in power, wield-
ing hegemonic influence over society. This knowledge arises from discourse among people experiencing this
control. Through this discourse, they are humanized, gain emancipation, and are empowered to change the
situation (Brown & Paolucci, 1979; Habermas, 1984).
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Determine if the authors referred to one or more philosophical axioms (see Figure 2.4 and Table
2.3), ideally in concert with mention of empirical, interpretive, and/or critical methodologies
□ Ascertain if they referred to knowledge creation as a reason for their research and if, by chance,
they mentioned empirical, interpretive, or critical knowledge
□ Comment on whether the authors linked their research question with their research methodology
(see Table 2.4)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 27 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Matching Methodology With Research Intent
Each of these three research methodologies (empirical, interpretive, and critical) answers basic questions
about research quite differently. Authors can “study the same topic from any of these approaches, but each
approach implies going about it differently” (Neuman, 2000, p. 120). Table 2.4 provides an illustration of this
idea, using consumer debt as an example. What researchers try to accomplish (their intent) will vary with the
methodological approach chosen to underpin their study. Their ultimate research design is based on the ax-
ioms from each particular approach, and if done responsibly, their research report will share “the back-ground
reasoning on which [the study] was originally based” (Neuman, 2000, p. 123).
Table 2.4 Examples of Research Intent Within the Empirical, Interpretive, and Critical Research Methodolo-
gies
Positivism Paradigm
Quantitative Methodology
Postpositivism Paradigm
Qualitative Methodology
Empirical Methodology
Intent is prediction, explanation,
and control
Interpretive Methodology
Intent is understandings
Critical Methodology
Intent is power and liberation
Methodological Framings of Research Problem
Consumer Debt as Example
The intent is to explain or predict
why people get in debt so the re-
sults of the study can be used to
control human behavior, leading
to less debt. The researcher will
use the scientific method to de-
sign the research project (likely
including a survey instrument), fo-
cusing on facts and/or objective
assessment of attitudes. Seen as
an expert, the researcher’s re-
The intent is to understand what is happening (in-
debtedness), how people who are in debt feel about
it, how these conscious and unconscious feelings
came to be, and how these new, shared meanings
affect their lives. The researcher designs the study
in such a way that dialogue ensues with and among
those in debt to identify patterns of behavior that
lead to indebtedness, as explained by those experi-
encing this event. Methods could include case stud-
ies, storytelling, or content or thematic analysis of
interview transcripts. Findings are used to help the
The intent is to reveal power relationships in soci-
ety that are embedded in existing societal institu-
tions (e.g., consumer society, marketplaces, lend-
ing practices, government policies). This is
achieved by facilitating participation and transac-
tions with and amongst citizens in such a way that
their consciousness is raised about the fact that
they are oppressed (they also may know this but
feel incapable of taking action). This emancipato-
ry process leads to personal self-empowerment to
take steps toward changing their own circum-
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 28 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Methodolo-
gies
The other popular approach to labeling research methodologies emerged during the 1970s and early 1990s
and is used to structure the rest of this book. It is the “quantitative–qualitative–mixed methods” approach, so
named by Guba (1990). Ary et al. (2010) explained that first came quantitative, then qualitative (see Figure
2.1). The emergence of qualitative led to “the paradigm wars” (p. 559), with people in agreement that these
approaches to knowledge creation are distinct due to their philosophical underpinnings but in disagreement
about whether they should (or could) both be used in the same study (see Donmoyer, 2008). Purists said no,
and pragmatists said yes, leading to mixed methods, the third methodological approach in this triad (Guba,
1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies
Quantitative and qualitative methodologies differ on their assumptions about how to approach research. Fun-
damentally, the quantitative methodology originated in positivism, with qualitative arising as a push back to
positivism (Ary et al., 2010; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). This approach to distinguishing between the two method-
ologies is different from the axiom approach previously discussed (see Figure 2.4). Table 2.5 profiles the main
assumptive differences between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, with more detail avail-
able in Chapter 8, Table 8.2 (Johnson & Christensen, 2012; Shank & Brown, 2007; Suter, 2012; Weaver &
Olson, 2006; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009).
sults can be used to legitimize
prescriptive policy or design con-
sumer education curricula so as
to control people’s financial be-
havior, leading to less indebted-
ness, more solvency, and more
credit savviness.
indebted person gain a better understanding of his
or her lived experiences with being in debt. With
these new insights, humans are capable of inten-
tionally changing their behavior, given the right cir-
cumstances, but behavior change is not the intent
of the research.
stances and the entire consumerism system. Re-
search methods focus on social justice, inclusion,
and liberation and can include action research,
critical analysis, and reflective phenomenology.
The intent is to give voice to the participants,
leading to social change.
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 29 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml#i2372
Compared to quantitative researchers, qualitative researchers are “more concerned about uncovering knowl-
edge about how people feel and think in the circumstances in which they find themselves, than making judge-
ments about whether those thoughts and feelings are valid” (Cole, 2006, p. 26). Qualitative research is about
meanings and understandings, as perceived and expressed by those living the phenomenon (Shank & Brown,
2007; Smith, 1983). Meaning is Old English mænan, “intent, a sense of, import” (Harper, 2016). Meaning is
defined as an explanation of what the words were intended to express when someone used them (Anderson,
2014).
Qualitative meaning differs from quantitative meaning (Locke et al., 2010; Shank & Brown, 2007; Smith,
1983), as shown in Table 2.6. In qualitative research, meaning is key to understandings, with researchers
Table 2.5 Assumptions Underpinning Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies
Qualitative Methodological Assumptions Quantitative Methodological Assumptions
• Research is best conducted in the natural setting (uninterrupted)
• A social phenomenon needs to be understood from the perspective of
those living it
• Meanings derived from data are context specific (one setting)
• Data are words (nonnumerical); phenomena are too complex to reduce
to numbers
• Researchers can be observers or participants and are the key data col-
lection instrument
• Theory can emerge from the data (and research can be atheoretical)
• Hypotheses must emerge from the data
• Reality can be studied using exploration, observation, and interaction
• Conclusions can be drawn using inductive logic (specific to general)
• Findings can be presented using narrative
• Research is best conducted in a controlled environment (scientific
method)
• Relationships and causal mechanisms (objectively) need to be de-
termined
• Meanings derived from data should apply to other settings (con-
text free)
• Data are numbers; phenomena can be reduced to simplest parts
(using numbers)
• Researchers can and should distance themselves from the study
• The study can be theory based from the onset
• The study can start with hypotheses that are tested to find the
truth
• Reality can be studied using experimental and nonexperimental
methods
• Conclusions can be drawn using deductive logic (general to spe-
cific)
• Results can be presented statistically
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 30 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
looking for patterns in the data in search of meaning (Shank & Brown, 2007). Truth also has different conno-
tations in qualitative and quantitative work. Succinctly, quantitative scholars assume truth is out there waiting
to be discovered while qualitative researchers assume truth is internal to people, either created or agreed to
(Smith, 1983) (see also Table 2.1).
Mixed Methods Methodology (Mixing Assumptions)
Mixed methods is the term commonly used to refer to a study that combines assumptions and methods from
both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Although a better term for this enterprise is mixed paradigms
(Caracelli & Greene, 1997, p. 19), this chapter uses the term mixed methods (with hesitation). Indeed, peo-
ple’s definitions of what constitute mixed methods are “diverse and differentiated in terms of what was being
mixed, the stage in the research process were [sic] the mixing occurred, the extend [sic] of the mixing, the
purpose of the mixing and the drive behind the research” (Cameron, 2011, p. 96). In this book, Chapter 10
discusses what is involved in conducting a study using both types of methods (techniques and procedures to
sample, collect, and analyze data). To complement this discussion, this chapter focuses on mixing assump-
tions and whether or not this is possible or desirable.
Table 2.6 Meaning and Truth in the Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies
Qualitative Methodology Quantitative Methodology
Meaning
• Meaning is the person
• People hold meaning
• People make meaning out of their own experiences or take meaning from
others
• The whole point of research is to examine the processes and types of mean-
ing people might create in, or take from, their world (operationalized during re-
search)
• Observations are internal
• People are an integral part of reality (and there are multiple realities that differ
across time and space for a phenomenon)
• Meaning is the world
• Things hold meaning
• Meaning comes from abstract laws of nature
or the operations of things in the world
• Issues of meaning must be settled before test-
ing hypotheses and theories (operationalized
before)
• Observations are external
• Things are separate from reality (there is one
reality for a phenomenon)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 31 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2560.xml
For the remainder of this section, the term mixed methods is hereby viewed as mixed methodology, defined
as “the broad inquiry logic that guides the selection of specific methods [and research questions]” (Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2010, p. 5). The term inquiry logic refers to the problems and interests of those engaged in
learning about and inquiring into phenomena (Mosier, 1968). Regarding this logic, the “thoughtful mixing of
assumptions . . . can be very helpful” (Johnson & Christensen, 2012, p. 31). But not everyone agrees that
mixing them is a good idea or even possible (see Figure 2.5).
Kim (2003) believed that empirical, interpretive, and critical can all be used to study a phenomenon but not
in the same study because their axioms are at odds with each other. Platt (1986) used this logic: (a) Pos-
itivism and postpositivism are not compatible because they hold different assumptions; (b) quantitative and
qualitative correspond to them respectively; thus, (c) the latter two cannot be used in one study because their
fundamental assumptions differ too much. Shah and Corley (2006) and Niglas (2001) concurred that qualita-
tive and quantitative cannot be mixed because they have mutually exclusive epistemological positions (i.e.,
what counts as knowledge and knowing).
Truth
• Reality is created by people, meaning what is claimed as true about that reali-
ty is purely internal to people
• Ontological truth: what is agreed to at any particular point and place in time
• Coherent truth: because reality is created, truth has to be constructed
• Reality is out there waiting to be discovered
• Truth exists independently of what is in our
minds
• Something is true if it corresponds with exist-
ing reality and false if it does not
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 32 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Figure 2.5 Disagreement on Mixing Assumptions (Methodologies)
From a more liberal and progressive stance, Lin (1998) believed that combining positivistic and postpositivistic
paradigmatic approaches in one study is possible as long as researchers remember that they are combining
two different logics of inference. This term refers to the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 33 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
premises known and presumed to be true (i.e., assumptions). To reach their conclusions, quantitative (em-
pirical) researchers would use reconstructed logic while quantitative researchers would use logic-in-use
(Maxwell, 2008) (see Chapter 8). Lin (1998) argued that it is “precisely because the logics of inference are dif-
ferent, and suited for answering different questions, that research combining both logics is effective” (p. 163)
(see also Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Lin (1998) explained that positivistic work can find causal mecha-
nisms, and postpositivistic research can help explain how the mechanism works.
In attempts to mediate this situation, Kim (2003) maintained that not all disciplines view research method-
ologies as incompatible; rather, some disciplines prefer or advocate for one over the other (see also Botha,
1989). Kim tempered this thought by cautioning authors to not favor the positivistic paradigm and associated
methodologies to the exclusion of postpositivism. Niglas (2001) and Trochim and Donnelly (2007) advocated
for pragmatism, meaning researchers can use whichever approach they want as long as they are accountable
for any assumptions they bring to their work. At a minimum, authors reporting mixed methods studies must
justify mixing assumptions and logics of inference and clearly articulate their philosophical positions on this
still unsettled aspect of scholarship. This especially involves matching the research question with the method-
ology (see Table 2.4), as discussed in the next section.
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Determine if the authors provided some level of discussion of the assumptions behind the
methodology they chose for their research design (see Tables 2.3 and 2.5): qualitative, quantita-
tive, or mixed methods
□ Ascertain if they addressed the topics of meaning and truth and how they are understood within
the methodology used in their study (see Table 2.6)
□ Check to see if they justified using a mixed methods (mixed assumptions) methodology, provid-
ing a cogent discussion, ideally with some mention of logics of inference
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 34 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
□ Ascertain if their research questions correlated with their research methodology (qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed methods)
Research Methodology and Research Question Alignment
Research paradigms and research methodologies can become so ingrained that they influence the very
choices of the questions deemed worthy of study, the methods used to conduct the study, and the theoretical
lens for interpreting the results and findings (Rohmann, 1999), knowingly or not. When the researcher should
pose a research question is still under dispute, relative to the research methodology (see Figure 2.6).
First, Wiersma and Jurs (2009) suggested that researchers tend to pose their research question first. Only
then do they identify the pertinent research methodology (philosophical assumptions) from the words they
chose in their question and proceed to develop their research design using the appropriate methods. Similar-
ly, Dudovskiy (2016) claimed that the underlying philosophy of a study will reflect the researcher’s assump-
tions (and worldviews), intimating that the latter come first, followed with clarification of pertinent research
methodology. In plain language, researchers will pick a research problem of interest to them and then align it
with the appropriate research methodology. Only then do they create their research design logic and logistics
(see Chapter 8).
Second, some scholars believe that researchers consciously choose a research methodology, from which the
research questions will naturally flow (Ary et al., 2010). These scholars would know that the research method-
ology exists regardless of their own worldviews. Sometimes they align, and sometimes they do not. What
matters is that the research question and the research methodology align (see Table 2.4). For example, if a
scholar is concerned with power relations in society, it is a natural progression to the critical (emancipatory)
research methodology. In another instance, a scholar may personally prefer empirical research but appreci-
ate that she or he cannot answer a research question focused on what a phenomenon means to the people
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 35 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/understanding-and-evaluating-research/i2332.xml
living it unless an interpretive (qualitative) research methodology is used to create the research design. The
scholar’s personal worldview would not get in the way of her or his research methodology.
Figure 2.6 Aligning Research Question With Research Methodology
Third, in other cases, researchers never question their research methodology or worry about the genesis of
their research questions because they have been socialized into disciplinary blinders, with many disciplines
adhering to specific methodologies, especially the empirical, quantitative, positivistic methodology (Weaver &
Olson, 2006). In light of this, Weaver and Olson (2006) urged disciplines to avoid uncritically prescribing one
mode of inquiry and knowledge creation. This would remove the paradigmatic blinders.
Regardless, the research methodology and the research question must be consistent (Wiersma & Jurs,
2009). Ary et al. (2010) concurred, advising that the research methodology must be suitable for what is being
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 36 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
studied and what one wants to find out—that is, suitable for the research question (see Table 2.4).
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Determine if the authors ensured that their research methodology and research questions were
consistent—in other words, that the research methods (determined by the methodology) were ap-
propriate to answer the research question (see Table 2.4)
□ Ascertain if they explained how the research question was affected by their research methodol-
ogy (see Table 2.4)
□ Check to see if they commented on when they posed their research question (see Figure 2.6)
Writing the Research Methodology Section of a Paper
When writing their papers, authors rarely explicitly indicate which research paradigm or methodological ap-
proach(es) shaped their study. Nonetheless, this key aspect of research should be “candidly expressed [and]
made explicit and shared” (Neuman, 2000, p. 122). It will likely comprise one paragraph (longer for a thesis or
dissertation), which should include (a) identification of the specific research methodology used in the study;
(b) the reasons for choosing this particular methodology; and (c) a discussion of how it informed the [research
question], the research strategy in general, and the choice of methods in particular (Dudovskiy, 2016).
Because it usually prefaces the Methods section, which reports what was done to sample, collect, and ana-
lyze data, any discussion of methodological decisions should be written in past tense unless it is a research
proposal (future tense), where the researcher is seeking approval of his or her research design, meaning the
research has not yet happened.
Example 2.3 Reporting a qualitative research methodology (adapted from Murnane’s 2008 doc-
toral dissertation, pp. 42–43, references in the original)
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 37 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
This research will be conducted through the interpretive paradigm, which views research as a way
of better understanding reality, as well as the researcher him- or herself, within a given context (Koet-
ting, 1984). Because of the contextual nature of interpretive research, it is imperative to better
understand a particular setting and activities that are specific to the organization in addition to just
gathering data. For that reason, appropriate ontological, epistemological, axiological, and rhetorical
components were observed to achieve this understanding. Ontologically, there are many realities
based on the researcher’s interaction with the participants as well as the researcher’s and partic-
ipants’ experiences occurring naturally (Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2003; Ponterotto, 2005). The re-
search subjects develop the interpretive researcher’s view of their reality, and the nature of the
knowledge attained is conceptual with regard to the participants’ meanings (Baranov, 2004; Berrell
& MacPherson, 1995; Gephart, 1999). Epistemologically, the researcher and the study participants
are completely dependent on one another as they work together to create knowledge throughout the
study; therefore, objectivity is not a goal for this work (Khazanchi & Munkvold, 2003; Ponterotto,
2005). Axiologically, the researcher’s and participants’ values are integral to the research process
and are incorporated into the study (Ponterotto, 2005). Lincoln and Guba (1985) define “values” as
judges of preference or choice and include preferences grounded in assumptions, theories, perspec-
tives, and social norms. The researcher’s biases are also acknowledged as part of the axiology.
From a rhetorical perspective, the narrative is personal and involved and written from the viewpoint
of the researcher (Ponterotto, 2005), the desired reporting structure for a narrative presentation of
the research findings. The case study method will be used because it is consistent with the narra-
tive presentation of findings, where the description of a real situation and context is required (Stake,
1978; Yin, 2003).
Compared to the thoroughness of Example 2.3, in reality, what usually appears in a paper is a very truncated
statement, something like “This qualitative study employed the case study method to address the research
question.” Although authors seldom use axiomatic terms (e.g., epistemology and ontology), the words inter-
pretive and critical appear quite often, as do qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (less so positivistic
and postpositivistic). Authors of empirical studies hardly ever self-identify as using a “positivistic, quantitative
research methodology.” They believe (subliminally, perhaps) that this clarification is unnecessary because all
empirical studies follow the same research protocol (i.e., the scientific method), which is self-evident, need-
ing no explanation or justification. The information in this chapter strived to foster responsible methodological
decisions and reporting, as a precursor to the actual Methods section.
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 38 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Review and Engagement
When critically reading a research report, you would
□ Confirm that the authors clearly explained which methodology they used, linking it with their the-
ory and method choices
□ Ascertain if they at least provided enough information for you to deduce their research method-
ology
Final Judgment on the Methodology Element of a Research Paper
Taking all of the Review and Engagement criteria into account, what is your final judgment of the
methodology element of the paper that you are critically reading?
Chapter Summary
This chapter tackled the very challenging task of distinguishing between an array of methodology-re-
lated terms and how each relates to research questions, research design, and methods. After briefly
describing the provenance of the most common terms (see Figure 2.1), the discussion turned to three
overarching terms: research paradigm, methodology, and tradition (see Figure 2.2). This section ac-
knowledged that there is simply no agreement in the academy about what these terms mean and how
they should be used. What is agreed to is that they impact the research question, methods, and theory
choices (see Table 2.4). This book, and this chapter in particular, also clearly distinguished between
methodology and method (see Figure 2.3).
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 39 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
After clarifying the approach used in this book (see Table 2.1), all four key aspects of this approach
were then discussed: (a) philosophical axioms (see Figure 2.4); (b) positivistic and postpositivistic re-
search paradigms (see Table 2.2); and (c) empirical, interpretive, and critical research methodologies
(see Table 2.3) (along with Habermas’s three approaches to knowledge creation). After clarifying that
the book uses (d) the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods methodology approach, each of
these methodologies is described (see Tables 2.5 and 2.6 and Figure 2.5). The chapter concluded with
a discussion of the importance of aligning research methodology and research question (see Table
2.4 and Figure 2.6) and some basic conventions for writing the research methodology section of a re-
search report.
Review and Discussion Questions
1. Had you ever heard of the idea of methodology before reading this chapter? Explain your reaction to
this key research convention.
2. What are your thoughts about the very idea of “a methodology”? Does the idea make sense? What is
your knee-jerk reaction to the concept? After reading this chapter, what is your mental image of the
concept (how do you picture it in your mind)?
3. What is the difference between methodology and method, as explained in this chapter (see Figure
2.3)? What is the connection between methodology and methods in a research design?
4. After reading this chapter, find someone who might be interested and explain to him or her the ap-
proach to methodology that is used in this book (see Table 2.1).
5. One approach to methodology is based on philosophy, including four axioms dealing with what counts
as knowledge, reality, logic, and the role of values (see Figure 2.4). How comfortable are you with this
philosophical idea? How easy (ease of effort/no worries) or hard (anxiety and/or difficulty) was it to
intellectually grasp this philosophical aspect of research? Explain your answer.
6. Explain in plain language the main differences between the empirical, interpretive, and critical re-
search methodologies (see Table 2.3).
7. How new to you were the ideas of positivism and postpositivism? Are you more comfortable with
these concepts after reading this chapter? Why or why not? (See Table 2.2.)
8. Another approach to methodology is quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. How do these three
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 40 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
approaches differ on their assumptions about research? In particular, how comfortable are you with
mixing assumptions in a research design (mixed methods)? (See Table 2.5 and Figure 2.5.)
9. How are positivism/postpositivism and qualitative/quantitative connected?
10. Methodologies are supposed to come first (be the axis of everything), then be followed by the re-
search question, the logic used for research design, the theory, and finally the method(s) (data col-
lection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting). Do you agree with the role that methodologies are
supposed to play in research? Explain your answer.
11. What is your opinion about the many ways of categorizing, labeling, and conceiving methodologies
(there is no one, agreed-to approach)? Explain your thoughts on this topic and provide justifications
for your arguments.
12. What impact do you think this range of approaches has on being able to understand and use the idea
when critiquing research? Are there too many or too few? Is it too confusing or too obscure, or is
there too much uncertainty? Is it very clear, straightforward, or clear as mud? Explain your thoughts
on this topic, and provide justifications for your arguments.
13. Explain the intended relationship between the research question and the research methodology.
Which do you think should come first? Justify your answer (see Figure 2.6).
• knowledge
• Critical realism
• Methodology
• Scientific method
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Sage
© 2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sage Research Methods
Page 41 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
-
Sage Research Methods
Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide
Research Methodologies
Learning Objectives
Introduction
Figure 2.1 History of Methodologically Oriented Terms
Conceptual Confusion, Slippage, and Clarity
Research Paradigm
Figure 2.2 Research Paradigm, Methodology, and Tradition
Research Methodology
Research Traditions
Figure 2.3 Methodology Compared to Method
Confusion Ensues
Theory and method choices
Review and Engagement
Methodological Approach Used in This Book
Methodological Responsibility in an Ideal World
Review and Engagement
Philosophical Axioms
Figure 2.4 Four Methodological Axioms
Review and Engagement
Positivism and Postpositivism
Positivistic Research Paradigm
Postpositivistic Research Paradigm
Review and Engagement
Empirical, Interpretive, and Critical Methodologies
Habermas’s Theory of Communication
Review and Engagement
Matching Methodology With Research Intent
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Methodologies
Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies
Mixed Methods Methodology (Mixing Assumptions)
Figure 2.5 Disagreement on Mixing Assumptions (Methodologies)
Review and Engagement
Research Methodology and Research Question Alignment
Figure 2.6 Aligning Research Question With Research Methodology
Review and Engagement
Writing the Research Methodology Section of a Paper
Review and Engagement
Final Judgment on the Methodology Element of a Research Paper
Chapter Summary
Review and Discussion Questions
2
Refining Adaptive Learning Technologies in Classroom Environments: A Methodological Approach
Guerline Pierre Joseph
Dr. Jacobs
GCU/Education
RES-831
8/14/2024
Refining Adaptive Learning Technologies in Classroom Environments: A Methodological Approach
In the course of my doctoral program, combined with the valuable comments from my peers, I have fine-tuned my dissertation focus to consider the integration of adaptive learning technologies in traditional classrooms. My initial focus was generally on educational technology. As I dug further into the literature and participated in scholarly debates, I realized the critical need to know how adaptive learning systems might be successfully applied to improve student outcomes while addressing the complexity of various learning needs. This process of improvement has guided me to a more focused investigation of the possibilities and difficulties adaptive learning technology available in K–12 and higher education environments offer. Discussions with my peers also underlined the need to address problems of equity and accessibility while using these technologies.
Refined Problem Statement
Based on this refined focus and the problem space identified in my previous work, I have formulated the following problem statement: “Currently, there is a lack of information on how effective use of the adaptive learning technologies can be integrated with face-to-face teaching to enhance student learning achievements and to meet individual learning needs in different contexts and subjects.” This problem statement embodies the broad area of concepts that I want to address in my study regarding the implementation of adaptive learning technologies for learners and instructors.
Potential Methodology
I have decided to adopt a qualitative research approach in my proposed dissertation study. This choice is based on the nature of the study and the type of data that needs to be accumulated and used while solving the research problem.
Justification for Qualitative Methodology
To this end, the choice of a qualitative research method approach for this study is anchored on several considerations fundamental to the characteristics, the rigor of the research problem under investigation, and the depth of understanding needed to address it appropriately.
Firstly, the problem statement focuses more on the ‘how’ aspect of adopting adaptive learning technologies in classrooms. In this regard, the emphasized focus on processes, experiences, and contextual factors is consonant with the qualitative methods of research. According to Creswell and Poth (2024), qualitative research is especially appropriate when capturing phenomena in their natural contexts and understanding how the various individuals or groups construct the different phenomena.
Adaptive learning technologies, when implemented in classroom settings, engage different stakeholders (the students, instructors, and school leaders) and are affected by several factors (including school climate, technology support, and expectations of curricula). Therefore, there is a need for a qualitative approach that will enable the exploration of these various viewpoints and the manner in which technology intertwines with pedagogy. Kabudi et al. (2021) argue that qualitative research can generate in-depth contextual information that is particularly useful when exploring the paradigm of technology-enhanced learning.
Furthermore, the problem statement stresses the requirement to respond to ‘diverse learner needs in different contexts of education.’ Essentially, the choice of qualitative approach is justified by its focus on description and context, which would enable capturing the specificity of educational contexts and the experiences of learners and teachers. This is consistent with Harati et al.’s (2021) survey on students’ experience and perception of adaptive learning systems, where the authors used the qualitative approach to identify significant factors that the quantitative view might not expose.
The use of qualitative methodology also fits the nature of the research problem as exploratory in nature. Since the extent to which adaptive learning technologies can be integrated into traditional classrooms is a relatively new research topic, qualitative research helps identify the primary themes and discuss the findings that might not have been anticipated in advance. Such flexibility is important, especially when analyzing modern learning technologies, as Gligorea et al. (2023) mentioned in their adaptive learning overview.
Justification for Not Selecting Quantitative Methodology
Adopting a quantitative methodology has its benefits, particularly in finding relationships and quantifying the results and trends, yet it is not fit for the current research problem. The main reason for not adopting a quantitative approach is that the problem has not been defined in terms of establishing the extent or degree of integration and the related factors but rather the identification of the process and the factors affecting it. According to Yin (2018), when the research questions involve the use of “how” and “why,” qualitative methods of data collection are relevant in most cases.
Quantitative methods, on the other hand, are very good at identifying statistical correlations and hypothesis testing. However, they may not give a sufficient discussion of the issues surrounding the implementation of adaptive learning technologies in different classrooms. Since the relationships between technology, pedagogy, and learning contexts underpinning this research problem are complex, approaches grounded in qualitative research are more appropriate. Moreover, in many learning environments, the application of adaptive learning technologies is still in its infancy, which means there may not be enough metrics or large-scale examples to be used for quantitative analysis. In the review of adaptive learning progress and challenges identified by Li et al. (2021), the authors pointed out that many aspects of adaptive learning implementation are still in the exploratory phases so that qualitative approaches remain more appropriate for early investigations.
Quantitative research paradigms could conceivably be applied to assess the consequences of implementing adaptive learning technologies (e. g., tests, participation rates) but are not well-suited to examine the processes, issues, and conditions that define the integration of such technologies – an area of concern based on the problem statement.
Conclusion
Thus, the use of qualitative research methodology in the context of the current research problem is based on the need to study the processes under study and their contexts in detail, emphasizing multiple viewpoints on the subject. This approach is consistent with the exploratory character of the study and the requirement of obtaining data that would capture the contexts for which adaptive learning technologies are expected to be integrated into classroom settings. Although information obtained through quantitative methods is useful in many contexts of educational research, the current focus on how these technologies are best employed makes a qualitative method more appropriate for addressing the posed problem and providing meaningful knowledge to the field of educational technology and adaptive learning.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024).
Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (5th Ed.) Sage publications.
Gligorea, I., Cioca, M., Oancea, R., Gorski, A. T., Gorski, H., & Tudorache, P. (2023). Adaptive Learning Using Artificial Intelligence in e-Learning: A Literature Review.
Education Sciences, 13(12), 1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121216
Harati, H., Sujo-Montes, L., Tu, C. H., Armfield, S. J., & Yen, C. J. (2021). Assessment and learning in knowledge spaces (ALEKS) adaptive system impacts students’ perception and self-regulated learning skills.
Education Sciences, 11(10), 603.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100603
Kabudi, T., Pappas, I., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence,
2, 100017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017
Li, F., He, Y., & Xue, Q. (2021). Progress, challenges, and countermeasures of adaptive learning.
Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 238-255. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202107_24(3).0017
Yin, R. K. (2018).
Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.