Posted: April 24th, 2025

Methodology

Briefly restate your problem space, methodology, and research questions as you posted and refined them from the previous discussion question in this topic. Considering these components, what is your proposed core design (Note: Focus on the design not the methodology in your response.)? Why have you chosen this particular design? How does the design align with your problem space, methodology, and research questions? What are some advantages and limitations of this design? What other considerations do you have for defending your choice of design for your proposed dissertation topic? Including References.

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.

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

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

Sage Research Methods

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

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

Sage Research Methods

Page 2 of 41

Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide

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

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

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

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

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

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-

– The intent is to critically

examine unquestioned val-

ues, beliefs, and norms to

reveal power

Sage

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

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

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

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

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

Sage Research Methods

Page 12 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide

Figure 2.3 Methodology Compared to Method

Sage

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

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

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

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#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sage Research Methods

Page 41 of 41 Understanding and Evaluating Research: A Critical Guide

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656

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

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00